There were times it looked more like an interrogation than a debate. The seething, hostile tone, especially from the female moderator, was plainly evident. At one point, late in the evening, all three -- including Coons -- were questioning O'Donnell simultaneously. That, plus the fact the probing questions were posed to O'Donnell first, allowing Coons time to gather himself, told me that event was meticulously arranged to ensure her as a failure. Aside from the unfortunate vapor-lock on the SCOTUS question, I thought COD acquitted herself well.
Overall I thought O’Donnell did very well, too. But my own opinion is biased.
I am not too down on her SC answer. Personally I think people expecting an almost-LAWYER-like answer were getting exactly the kind of Congress we had (close to 50% of them are lawyers), way too lopsided representation if you ask me.
The theory is that Lawyers are the ‘logical’ choice to write/propose legislations that eventually become laws. Yet that is not what a law degree from law school should be about, law professors and law school should not ‘train’ future politicians. Either that, or we get somebody so bland (no opinions traceable) to go to SCOTUS itself.
We need to dilute the Congress pool with true representation of the people.