Supporters are complaining that Barack Obama did poorly at the debate only because the moderators asked non-substantive, ad hominem questions. But Obama didn’t do so well on policy, either. On Israel he sputtered. Here’s the exchange:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

SENATOR OBAMA: As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

He sounded, frankly, like he had no clue what our current policy is. He also wound up sounding weak, agreeing only to “appropriate action.”

Then he got caught implying he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 while saying that that he would raise the payroll tax cap:

MR. GIBSON: Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200 and $250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes, that’s going to raise taxes on them.

SENATOR OBAMA: And that’s — and that’s — and that’s why I’ve said, Charlie, that I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.

But the point is, we’re going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can’t — you can’t get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it’s going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system. And I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to do that and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.

I think that means he really is going to raise taxes on those making under six figures because we really need the money for social security. That’s fine. But it’s not a “no taxes on less than $200K” pledge.

Then we had a question on the D.C. gun ban, where he, as a constitutional law professor, should have shone:

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

He goes on and on without answering the questions raised by the case: does the Second Amendment confer an individual right to own a handgun and does an absolute ban violate that right? It seems fairly obvious that Obama doesn’t want to tell voters what he thinks. Which is odd: he refused to sign the Congressional brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the ban, so I think his opinion is clear.

In short, character and policy are both valid subjects at a debate. And Obama didn’t do well on either.