On one hand, I can see why some Democrats -particularly Obama supporters - are riled up about the way Wednesday night's debate went. Stephanopolous and Gibson did lay it on pretty thick at the top of the show, and they might have been better served to sprinkle some policy-oriented questions in the first hour of the program.

On the other hand, the questions they asked were all well within bounds and, whether Obama supporters like it or not, relevant to issues of character (except perhaps the "Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you do" one from George) that help inform voters decisions about who they'd like to see running the country.

But I have to say some of the reaction from Obama's supporters has that arrogant, cult of personality quality to it, as if questioning Obama on these matters is simply beyond the bounds of decency. Take the Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell today, for example, on Obama's bitter cling remarks:

"Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?" Gibson asked.

Obama has already apologized for his poor choice of words. There is no reason for journalists to keep bringing this subject up except to generate more negative sound bites.

This is the height of arrogance. Obama has apologized, so there is no reason to keep bringing it up, understand? Except that he apologized for "mangling" his syntax, but not for the argument itself - which is that economic issues are what drive working class white voters to turn to and/or rely on cultural issues like God and guns. In fact, Obama went out and reiterated his point, defiantly pronouncing it as something "everyone knows is true."

But Obama's "What's the Matter With Kansas" argument is not only fundamentally condescending toward voters but also, as Paul Krugman points out today, just flat wrong.

And the fact that Obama "mangled" the argument by using the derogatory verb "cling" while at the same time lumping together religion, guns, and anti-immigrant bigotry, is all the more reason that Obama has been forced to continue to try and explain what he meant.

Even more to the point, I don't remember Mary Mitchell pitching a fit when Hillary Clinton was forced to answer repeated questions about her Bosnia episode. Nor do I remember her writing a column lamenting Obama's willfully misleading attacks on John McCain over his 100 year in Iraq comment - attacks both Obama and David Axelrod went on national television and denied ever making.

So all of the indignant outrage over the questioning at the debate seems a little overblown to me. Like it or not, some voters believe you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep, or by how they speak in private, etc. Just because Obama's supporters are willing to give him a pass on those things doesn't mean the rest of the country has to too.