If you're a Barack Obama supporter, chances are you woke up this morning feeling, well, bitter--and chances are you hold the moderators of last night's Democratic debate in Philadelphia, ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos*, responsible for your mood. "I hope you will cover the real story coming out of the debate--the CROWD BOOED the moderators!" read one of the many outraged, pro-Obama emails to flood my inbox overnight. "Were the moderators tired? Bribed? Stupid? Ill-prepared? Let your readers know the truth."

It's a tale as old as time: blame the media. Often, the backlash is justified--and last night's debate was no exception. But I think tarring and feathering Gibson and Stephanopoulos is a little misgui tded. Instead, I'd direct my fury at the fact that these debates have continued long after they've outlived their utility--and at the armada of Beltway bloggers and bloviators still itching to interpret every pause, every expression, every reply and every deviation from the script as somehow indicative of the candidates' ability to occupy the Oval Office.

I suspect that, if asked, Gibson and Stephanopoulos would say that they were simply doing their job--and I'd tend to agree. It's just that at this point, their job--i.e. moderating "debates"--has become sort of pointless. Were too many of last night's questions focused on gaffes, gossip and the politics thereof? Sure. But frankly, there's not a lot of difference between Obama and Clinton on policy--and we've already had 20 Democratic debates to explore what little there is, ad nauseum. What's more, 50 days had passed since the last Democratic match-up, by far the most of the cycle, and the vast majority of that time was spent obsessing over gaffes--Rev. Wright, Tuzla, Bittergate. So it's no shock that the moderators seized upon their first opportunity to raise these controversial subjects on the debate stage. Were Gibson and Stephanopoulos harsher on Obama than Clinton? Again, absolutely. But he is, after all, the de-facto Democratic nominee--and a potential leader of the free world. As Marc Ambinder wrote last night, "this ain't Pop Warner; the artificial distinction between politics, personality and policy doesn't exist in this league, and if you're uncomfortable with it, then change the rules or don't run for office."

The result, of course, was a weird public reenactment of the case against Obama's electability, and I can understand why Obamaniacs are cursing ABC. The network essentially fulfilled Clinton's most fervent wishes, and ensured that Wright, "bitter," the flag pin and William Ayers would crop up, either for the first time or the thousandth, on local newscasts across Pennsylvania. But the fact is, with Obama almost certain to win the majority of pledged delegates and popular votes--making a superdelegate coup Clinton's last best hope--"electability" is the only real battleground remaining in the race. It's illogical for Dems to claim that simply because Republicans are likely to raise certain issues and associations in certain ways, the press should be prohibited from raising them as well. In other words, Gibson and Stephanopoulos reacted to the current conditions of the campaign just as any MSMers would. Whether or not you object, that shouldn't be surprising.

The real problem was that debate didn’t actually reveal anything—and yet the commentariat, which is paid to comment regardless of whether there’s anything worth commenting on, is acting as if Obama’s “performance” was a revelation. Take Chuck Todd of NBC. A mere eight minutes after the show had ended, Todd had already posted his “final thoughts” online. “In the first 40 minutes,” he wrote, “most of the questioning was on Obama's negatives (except for a lone Bosnia-sniper question to Clinton) and that's what helped create what was a near disastrous performance by Obama… He was weak in a lot of his answers on his personal negatives.” Was Obama shaky? Yes. Did he seem uncomfortable? Yes. Should he have delivered a stronger performance? Absolutely. But the thing is, none of Obama’s “negatives”—Wright, “bitter,” the flag pin, etc.—were new, and neither were Obama’s responses.  He’s already disavowed his pastor’s controversial ravings; he’s already explained what he meant by “bitter"; he’s already addressed the flag pin; and the press has already hashed and rehashed and accepted or rejected his remarks. “Charlie, I’ve discussed this,” Obama said at one point, exasperated. To treat his new answers as more revealing, or more important, or more newsworthy simply because they were given during a debate and not at a town hall in, say, Terre Haute is silly—but that’s exactly what Todd and Co. are doing.

“OBAMA PRESSED IN PA. DEBATE” read this morning’s Washington Post; “OBAMA KEPT ON DEFENSIVE” read the Politico. Both headlines were accurate enough. But Obama was kept on the defensive because the moderators asked a bunch of questions he'd already answered, and they asked those questions because, after 15 months and 20 debates, there was little left to ask. The newsniks aren't saying that Obama is actually unelectable--only that he inartfully handled their demands to analyze his own electability. Their conclusion? That his sloppy performance might, in fact, harm his electability.

That strikes me as something of a vicious circle. And if the press isn't interested in asking about anything else next time around--don't hold your breath--we might as well skip the whole charade.