Searching for Friends

They all want health care reform. Edwards says Obama's plan will leave 15 million folks uncovered. Hillary is "thrilled" that universal health care is back on the agenda.

Hillary rejected Bill's don't-ask-don't-tell. (She's probably rejected it as a marriage philosophy as well.)

So: How did they do? No one hit a home run. Nobody struck out. Most did reasonably well. But they avoided taking each other on, yielding no rhetorical slapdowns of the sort that make the evening news.

I take that back. Obama went after Blitzer when he asked for a show of hands on whether English should be America's official language.

"This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us," the Illinois senator declared. I wonder if he gets the anti-Blitzer vote.

"Eight Democratic presidential hopefuls differed sharply over Iraq and terrorism Sunday night in a largely polite debate that highlighted their contrasting histories on the war," says the L.A. Times. The paper is right. It was polite. "In one of the most barbed exchanges of the evening, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama snapped at former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards for suggesting that Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had failed to show leadership in withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Obama, who opposed the war before he was elected to the Senate, noted that Edwards had voted in 2002 to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq."

Says the NYT: "The three leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination attacked each other overtly and subtly Sunday over Iraq and their judgment, honesty and leadership in handling that war."

Attacks? They were more like gibes.

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the front-runner in national polls, both drew fire and calmly returned it in the second nationally televised Democratic debate, arguing that the differences among the Democrats were minor compared with their differences with President Bush.

"But former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina repeatedly went after Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, accusing them of being followers in Congress -- not leaders -- in the effort to bring an end to the war."

Boston Globe: "Senator Hillary Clinton last night took a page from her husband's 1992 primary campaign and tried to emphasize the broad points of agreement among Democrats against Republicans. But several of the Democratic candidates on stage with her were not listening . . .

"Bill Clinton successfully used the we-agree-and-they-don't tactic to smooth over some of his differences with Democratic activists -- subtly reminding them that victory was more important than perfection. But his favorite tactic didn't work for Hillary.

"The Iraq war is simply too pressing a concern for most Democrats."

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register goes out on a limb:

"The three frontrunners in the Democratic race for president - John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - emerged as the winners of Sunday night's debate in New Hampshire.

"Edwards probably did himself the most good.

"He looked tanned and confident during the session. He argued forcefully for quickly ending the war in Iraq and for his national health care plan. He tweaked Clinton and Obama for not speaking more forcefully against the war."

He looked tanned? Will they all now be spending more time in salons?

Let's look at some of the live-blogging from last night:

Kos:

"Shorter Hillary Clinton: 'I trusted Bush on Iraq.' That, alone, should be enough to disqualify her. 'Good judgment' is a must-have trait for our next president.

"I don't know why she just can't say about her war authorization vote: 'I regret that vote. It was a mistake.' Edwards did so and it hasn't hurt him. In fact, given our current president's inability to admit a mistake, being honest about the biggest whiffs is kind of refreshing. But Hillary is learning the worst lessons from Bush. And thus, rather than admit she screwed up, she's reduced to arguing that she placed all her trust on Bush."

National Review's Jim Geraghty, at the halftime break:

"Larry King says it's been a very lively 60 minutes that 'moved very quickly.' Is he insane? I've seen one interesting exchange between Obama and Edwards. Biden is entertaining to watch. Hillary strikes me as deliberately boring."

Andrew Sullivan likes Hill:

"She did well, it seems to me. There were times when her robo-lecture act began to wear down my ear-drums, but, in general, Senator Clinton bestrode the debate as an authoritative figure. In fact, I've never witnessed a U.S. political debate in which a woman clearly dominated as she did tonight. She was hawkish . . .

"Clinton cannot concede anything critical about someone she called at one point 'my dear husband.' Yes, I gagged on that one. What a total phony. But an effective, shameless one."

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle:

"Maybe it's my Obama-tinted glasses, but I thought he did very well, particularly early in the debate when he sparred a bit with Edwards. Hillary was bland, cautious, and tried to hold herself above the fray--just about what you'd expect. Edwards, to me at least, was very grating--particularly with his whole 'legislating versus leading' meme. He didn't do much of either when he was in the Senate.

"As for the second tier, I thought both Biden and Dodd did very well--Biden for telling his 'hard truths' . . . and Dodd for his final answer about making the restoration of civil liberties his top priority. They probaby didn't do well enough to move out of the second tier, but I do think they distinguished themselves from Gravel and Kucinich.

"Which brings me to Bill Richardson. Is there any reason at this point that we should take his candidacy any more seriously than we do Gravel's and Kucinich's? If there is, I certainly didn't see it in this debate."

And how's this for mid-debate spin, as noted by my colleague Chris Cillizza?

"With less than a half hour left in the debate, Sen. Chris Dodd's campaign issued a press release insisting he is getting a raw deal.

"The release notes that Dodd has only been asked to answer four questions and has spent less than four minutes total talking. 'Really nothing about the debate was equitable, from the unprecedented assignment of podiums to the allotment of time. We'll count on the DNC at future events to mandate some even-handedness,' said Dodd spokeswoman Christy Setzer."

Dodd must have been even more steamed when Wolf gave him 5 seconds for his debate-closing answer.

And the CNN debate lost one viewer, Ann Althouse

"Confession: I'm in a bit of a TiVo lag, and 'The Sopranos' is about to start. So... I'm bailing!"

A case of bloggus interruptus.