Yes, yes, it was a historic event. Thank you Wolf Blitzer for reminding us a few dozen times. The thing is, as debates go, this evening's Clinton-Obama showdown was something of a disappointment. Even the CNN producers got bored with the love-fest unfolding at the Kodak Theatre, deciding by hour two that it was more interesting to pan the audience for Hollywood stars (look, it's Pierce Brosnan!).

Maybe we're overly cynical because not one of the moderators deemed energy and environmental issues important enough to merit a single question during the 110-minute debate. Questioners didn't exactly go outside the box with their subject matter, covering -- in rough order -- healthcare, immigration, experience and Iraq.

Luckily, viewers watching the debate on television did get their fill of energy talk during the commercial breaks, thanks to Americans For Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). Every set of ads included at least one for this group, which promotes the virtues of coal power. This isn't the first CNN debate that they've sponsored, and while EnviroWonk isn't one to scream about conspiracy theories, it's odd that the debate didn't include one question about fossil fuels or climate change.

[Does anyone else find it odd that ABEC uses a 10-year-old girl to sell the public on why coal is the answer to our 21st century energy problems ... their Web site kind of freaked us out]

We're guessing the real reason the environment didn't come up this evening is that there wasn't much to debate. As Grist proves, Obama and Clinton hold nearly identical positions on climate and energy issues. Bringing it up tonight would have made for boring television, and that's a major no-no when you're in Hollywood.