Yes, it was very frustrating to watch as she passed on a whole range of open goals.  The format didn't allow an open debate as even the moderator wasn't allowed to ask follow-up question or insist that her questions be answered.

Pence is a master at not answering the question and defending the indefensible, and even had the chutzpah to say (twice) that she was entitled to her own opinions but not to her own facts. This from a regime which invented "alternative facts" to allow themselves live in an alternate reality.

But I don't think you were the target audience for her: it was the low information, independent, uncommitted and swing voters she was trying to woo - basically by demonstrating she was a dignified and and caring person.

You may have missed out on an opportunity to see Pence lambasted, but you will have to bottle your frustration and vent it at the ballot box instead. All she had to do was not interfere with the current trajectory of the race.

Index of Frank's Diaries

There's your problem.  It's not a debate in any reasonable definition.  It's a mutual press conference.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

She even lost her own state, California. So when she was picked as a veep candidate, she didn't actually bring anything to Biden's campaign. No new policies (she has none) and no new supporters (she has none).

Only thing she has going for her is ticking proper idpol boxes and thus being good at fundraising from the wealthy liberals. Her task in the "debate" was to convince the DNC donors that "nothing will change" - rich will still get richer during Har...Biden administration.

Kamala did bring up the totally bogus Russia bounty issue, so we know one thing will change: the administration's commitment to go to war.