Our recap of last night's Dino Rossi/Patty Murray debate documented Rossi in attack mode. It was a way of filing a straight-ish report with out editorializing, but strongly hinting, at what we really thought: Rossi won.

Rossi just had the zingers lined up.

Moreover, Murray blew a grand opportunity for a rejoinder-zinger of her own that would have pointed out the most troubling thing about Rossi's campaign, the secret money that's funding anti-Murray attack ads on his behalf.

Circumventing a question about gays in the military—does he approve or not—Rossi found his footing by lashing out at "activist" judges, saying that judges—like the judge in San Diego who issued an injunction against "Don't Ask Don't Tell" last week—shouldn't decide the issue.

Murray should have pounced. What does Rossi think of the activist judges—the Supreme Court, specifically—that took it into their own hands in the controversial Citizens United ruling to grant first amendment rights to corporations, paving the way for this year's secret money spending bonanza on political ads.

Why does Rossi support first amendment rights for corporations, but not people?