Obama dominated the Iraq discussion, Hillary Clinton dominated the health care discussion. These opinions appear to be widely held among other people who watched the debate, and I think they're evidence that when you have the better policy, it's easier to defend it. I was struck, though, by how much I prefer Hillary Clinton to the Hillary Clinton Campaign, or the Hillary Clinton Campaign as represented by Bill Clinton. Also, this debate was shockingly substantive. To that end, I'm glad most of the questions that Marc Ambinder proposed were not asked. It turns out that when you don't force the candidates into corners and ask a lot of questions aiming for a "gotcha," you get fascinating, serious answers on important policy topics. Most of us in DC, to be sure, have heard these positions 62 times now, and have read not only the underlying white papers, but the coverage of those white papers, too. But my fellow Californians, who are about to have a meaningful primary vote for the first time in memory, probably haven't seen Obama and Clinton discuss Iraq at length and with nuance, and I'm glad they got that opportunity, rather than having to sit through a snipe fest. Ending his post, Ambinder wrote, "Watching the debate from the perspective of a Democrat, it’s easy to see why the party is so enthusiastic about its two candidate finalists." I agree with that sentiment, and it's part testament to their talents and knowledge, and part testament to the moderators, who really allowed for a high-level discussion. Good on ya, Wolf Blitzer.
