I think this one was superior for four reasons:
- The quality of the questions
- The moderator’s success at keeping the candidates on track and on time
- The substantive nature of the debate itself
- The pace. It never slowed down. That alone made it compelling.
Most of all though, this debate was a success for the first reason. And that must be credited to Crowley; she chose the questions. Every single one was relevant, direct and well stated, and the balance of subject matter was meticulous.
The Benghazi ‘terror/act of terror’ kerfuffle aside (and that of course is taking up a lot of oxygen), this was a good debate and the moderator deserves a lot of credit for that.
(Or did it just seem that way to me because my popcorn was especially tasty? )