I just watched the Obama/Clinton debate and came away wondering if there was anything said worth hearing. I must admit, Hillary wins as a stand-up comedienne, with a few good quips. And the “how would you use George W. Bush as a statesman” question was an open door that neither took.

Yet, I was hoping for more, waiting for something that said hands down, one is a winner- and it wasn’t there.

I’m sure when it’s either one of them facing McCain the answer will be clear, but, in choosing between these two, it’s easy to understand that people have their own quirks which favor one or the other which is fine and dandy.

I thought both of them failed miserably on the early question of taking each other as running mates (to which I’m absolutely opposed to).

If there was one time when I really wanted to jump through the set and go for the jugular- it was when Clinton blamed her faulty memory of gunfire in Bosnia as she got off the plane on “lack of sleep”- I was waiting for Obama to say- well, I guess when you get the call at 3am your judgment might not be so hot, eh?

For me, it’s still clearly Obama, just because of the wider support base, the swearing off of the PAC money and the move away from dynasty politics.

An astute politico that I know, thought this would be the debate where the gloves came off. It obviously wasn’t.

I’m thinking the problem lies in the structure of these “debates” which are more like interviews than true debate. Needless to say, if you are in Pennsylvania right now, it must suck watching TV with the constant barrage of political spots- and robo-calls ringing off the hook.

If America really wants change- it’s time to really consider changing this process altogether. Let’s take the money out of it, limit the length of the campaigns, make sure the popular vote matters and maybe even start throwing the bastards out when they get caught lying to us.

Thoughts from you?