Obama and Romney "completely (avoided or remained) dishonest about (key) economic issues." The bizarre was also evident. A Republican attacked a Democrat on unemployment. He, in turn, said give us more time. We'll fix things.
Obama's first term was spent wrecking them. Neither candidate plans undoing decades of damage.
Both know the score but won't say so. They also claim they'll "reform Washington." Neither means it.
They avoided serious issues begging for discussion. They include "causes of the financial crisis; the lack of prosecution of banks and bankers; sharply rising inequality in educational opportunity, income and wealth (disparity)".the impact of industrialized food on" health and skyrocketing food and healthcare costs; budget deficits and national debt; disappearing jobs not being replaced, and war and peace.
How can what's most important be omitted? How can either candidate claim he debated? Politics and honesty are mirror opposites. Both candidates ignore what most needs addressing.
Obama "can win because he's somewhat less bad, somewhat less utterly bankrupt, than the other guy. Welcome to America's new and improved two-party system." It's the same one, just more corrupt.
Salon editor at large Joan Walsh said Obama was "subdued, deferential, (and) over-prepared." Romney shook his "(E)tch-a-Sketch and lied his way through the entire debate with no challenge from moderator Jim Lehrer" or Obama.
The New York Times headlined "An Unhelpful Debate," saying:
Wednesday night "sunk into an unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity." Voters perhaps walked away saying a pox on both candidates.