Chris Wallace ran a tight ship and asked great questions.
Squirrel-Hair certainly wasn't what we'd called substantive if employing conventional standards, but he was downright incisive when the subject of Mosul came up. That city will be liberated from ISIS eventually, but what of the vacuum when that occurs, when the peshmerga and Iraqi forces are staring at each other? And Iran and Russia, having reclaimed Aleppo in neighboring Syria basically by reducing it to rubble, will be a factor.
Of course, when the subject turned to the Supreme Court, Madame BleachBit seized the opportunity to burnish her identity-politics and pro-fetal-murder bona fides, getting right into "marriage equality" and "LGBT rights" and Roe v. Wade. Mention of the Constitution? Nah.
I got to thinking after the debate, reflecting upon BB's insistence that "entitlements" not be modified in the least about how the "third rail" perspective on them is going to be the nail in post-America's coffin. Think of it this way: A radio host such as Dave Ramsey, who helps individual people with their personal lives, generates enthusiasm for his show and work by delivering bracing truths about money, and so on the infrequent occasions where he remarks on public policy, he can deliver a blunt assessment such as "Social Security is a ponzi scheme based on a socialist premise and no one should make it the centerpiece of his or her retirement plan." But if a candidate for, say, Congress or the presidency says anything so candid in a speech or debate, it's the kiss of death for his campaign. (As we know, S-H certainly did not do this. It's not because startling utterances don't spew forth from his mouth - we know they do - but because he lacks the coherence to say something of that clarity.)
Squirrel-Hair's worst moment? When, in response to Wallace's question about accepting the election results, he said, "I'd have to look at it," and added, "I'll keep you in suspense, okay?" A reversion to full brat mode.
It is very late in the day.