If you missed Tuesday’s Democratic debate in Ohio and then looked at a collection of headlines, you would think it had been an all out catfight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. (Excuse the expression— I don’t want to be accused of sexism, maybe I should call it a decidedly manly term like a “battle” or a “war.”)

The Huffington Post screams at the top of its homepage: “Gloves Off…Fists Up.” MSNBC: “Political Slugfest in Ohio.” New York Times: “Democrats Clash on Health, Trade and Rival Tactics.”

I am sorry, but wasn’t this a debate? These are two competent, brilliant, opportunistic individuals sparring off on national television for the role of most powerful person in the world. Political analysts and Bill Clinton himself have suggested that if Clinton does not win in the upcoming Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, her campaign is dead. She needs this debate and the next primaries to stay alive. As for Obama, if he performs well he could sweep up Ohio and Texas and become the first African-American nominee of a major party.

Shouldn’t they be using everything they got?

Reading the headlines, you would think they were tearing into each other. They weren’t. Okay, they bickered for almost 20 minutes on health care (As if we really needed another debate on health care. Not to be rude, but if you don’t know the difference between Obama and Clinton plans by now, go look it up. ) But even when they discussed health care or the war in Iraq, their argument was more civilized than most spouses or even friends who sit around arguing politics.

When they weren’t having serious debates, they were actually praising each other. Whether it was Clinton’s stand on how to renegotiate NAFTA or Putin’s successor, Obama continued to mention that he agrees with Clinton’s position. And then, just in case you missed how unifying Obama can be, he summed up by saying Clinton would make a great president. It was a similar line to what Clinton said at the last debate. Both feel honored to be running against the other.

Is that really a “political slugfest”?

I prefer the Wall Street Journal’s version: “Tensions Simmer in Ohio Debate.” Because it is accurate. Because it does not blow completely out of proportion how both candidates performed in the debate merely to attract readers or viewers. It was not a catfight or a battle. It was exactly what it should have been: a tense debate.