If Americans tuned in to Monday night's first presidential debate to learn more about the policies Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump might push for in office, they were mostly out of luck.
But if the most crucial thing on the minds of voters was the current president's birthplace or a lawsuit Trump was involved in 40 years ago, they were golden.
The debate was to be divided into three segments, "Achieving Prosperity," America's Direction" and "Securing America." Fair enough. But we learned very little that was substantive about their plans for any of the three.
Chalk that up to both the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC News, and the candidates themselves.
Holt clearly favored the Democrat, never asking her controversial questions about the likes of the unsecured email server she used as secretary of state (except when Trump brought it up), the pay-for-play allegations against the Clinton Foundation, the failing Affordable Care Act, her obfuscations about the reasons behind the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, her lack of accomplishments in the Senate, her vote for the Iraq war and the various scandals in which she was involved when her husband, Bill, was president. Further, Holt failed to challenge any of her answers while challenging Trump on six.
Clinton, meanwhile, was on the offensive from the outset, perhaps so she wouldn't have to answer questions about any of those liabilities. Her plan, evidently, was to remain calm in the face of anything Trump said and to make Trump, his previous pronouncements and his readiness for the office the subject for the evening.
On that, if people were on the fence about him, she, in so many words, called him a crook, a racist and a misogynist.
What policy Clinton deigned to speak about involved more of the same big-government ideas the country has endured - and disliked - over the past seven and a half years: green energy, free college, paid family leave, a larger minimum wage and increased taxes.
Despite Holt's partiality and in the wake of his opponent's attack mode, Trump had plenty of opportunities and openings. That he failed to take advantage of them made whatever difference there was in who "won" or "lost" the debate.
* When Clinton gave her laundry list of what her administration might do, the Republican candidate could have reminded voters about the cost of those plans, the size of the debt, the forecasted return to rising deficits, the weakness of the recovery from the Great Recession because of President Barack Obama's stimulus plan and the cost of Obamacare.
* When Clinton talked about the Great Recession and what policies led to it, Trump could have corrected her about how the housing policies her husband began in the 1990s were at the root of the problem that erupted under President George W. Bush in 2007.
* When Clinton brought up trade deals, he could have hit her harder on her flip-flop on the Trans Pacific Partnership and why she's against it when Obama is for it.
* When Clinton made inferences about why Trump hadn't released his income tax returns (though no law compels it), he could have used the opening to talk about her paydays for Wall Street speeches and the still-under-investigation Clinton Foundation.
* When Clinton brought up the complaints some Trump employees have about him, he could have raised Benghazi and what families of the victims as well as other administration officials have said about her lack of leadership.
* When Clinton talked about cyber security and threats from Russia, he could have brought up the suspected hacks by foreign countries into her unsecured email server. He also could have extended his argument about what computer hacks into the Democratic National Committee revealed about her campaign.
* When Clinton argued about whether Trump had supported the Iraq war, he could have pointed out that he was a private citizen and that she was the only one of the two on the stage with a vote - and that she had voted for it.
* When Clinton made the argument that the U.S. would have left troops in Iraq but didn't because the Iraqis wouldn't give us an agreement, he could have correctly pointed out that the agreement hinged on the number of troops that would be left. The Obama administration wanted very few, and the Iraqis wanted more.
* When Clinton defended the Obama administration's nuclear agreement that she helped set up, Trump could have pointed out the "red lines" the U.S. said it would never cross in the negotiation but did, and in the violations of the agreement that have been ignored.
Trump can cash in those missed opportunities at the next presidential debate on Oct. 9, but the big loser from the first debate was the American people. We missed out on hearing how the candidates for the highest office in the land can help us achieve prosperity, how they will plot the country's direction and what they can do to secure the safety of its citizens. We deserve better.