First, a point of personal privilege. Who is this First, a point of personal privilege. Who is this Howard Meyerson from Pasadena and why is he asking pro-Mitt Romney questions? When Jeanne Cummings of Politico read his question during the debate, I was compelled to yell to my assembled colleagues in the press room, already tittering, "That's not me!" Jeesh. That disposed of, the debate broke down into two major parts: Into The Weeds on Healthcare, and How Obfuscating Can Hillary Get on Iraq, Anyway? Hillary was plainly better during the first half (she excels at the oral exam format), and Obama was clearly better in the second. I have little to say about the first half, other than that around the point where Hillary was explaining what could be done with electronic medical records, I suspect millions of American eyes glazed over. Drowsing Americans may have awakened when Obama referred to the cost of foot amputations, a topic I don't think has ever come up in a presidential debate before. Or not. But the during the Iraqi discussion, the fact that the candidates had far more time than they had in the earlier, multi-candidate debates began to work to Hillary's disadvantage. The more she argued that she had interpreted the October 2002 vote to authorize the war as a vote to authorize inspections, the more deeply ridiculous she became. At the time, the common understanding of the vote was that it authorized war. That is why 126 House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, opposed it. That is why there were major demonstrations in the streets across the country. That is why, here at The American Prospect, Bob Kuttner, Paul Starr and I co-authored an editorial then -- in October, as the vote approached -- warning against going to war and urging Democrats to oppose the resolution. If Hillary Clinton really thought that the vote was about sending inspectors into Iraq, even though, as she said during the debate, that she "did enormous investigation and due diligence," she was having a delusional moment. And I don't think she was. As the discussion of Iraq continued, Clinton adopted a We're-Just-All-Antiwar-Folks-Here strategy. Once Obama got to the Senate, she said, the two had the same policy. She tried at times to characterize her withdrawal position as essentially indistinguishable from his. But Obama was at his sharpest during this part of the debate, insisting that setting a real deadline for withdrawal would concentrate the mind of the various Iraqi factions ("It can't be muddy; it can't be fuzzy," he said in perfect Ol' Man River cadence) and using his new rather gentle zinger line, that it's important not just to be ready but to be right from day one. Precisely because of the terrifyingly high stakes of this debate, both candidates strove for a level of amity -- and got there. Did Obama need to be more aggressive? I don't think he could have, not when the two were sitting next to each other with millions of Americans watching just five days before they go to vote. The debate format doesn't permit Obama to soar as he does during his speeches, and policy details are Hillary's natural habitat. But if Obama wanted to convey the impression that he'd be a sober national leader of sound judgment, and able as the nominee to take on the Republicans -- and those were his goals going in -- then he succeeded. Did he make enough progress to win? We'll know soon enough. --Harold Meyerson
