Bailing on Bush

In saying we-Dems-are-all-against-the-war, writes Dickerson, "Clinton, like Giuliani, wasn't just switching the subject but trying to behave like the leader of the party as if the general election were already under way. Good thing for her she was able to pull it off. She made almost no mistakes and looked in command. She rebutted John Edwards' claim that the 'war on terror' is just a bumper sticker, making a forceful case for why jihadists must be confronted. She didn't exactly risk anything, but then she doesn't have to. She was the front-runner coming in, and she still is.

"Obama and Edwards fought but Hillary stayed above the fray. Afterward her aides said this was proof of her presidential temperament. Those lesser candidates had to squabble because they were scraping for second place--the one slot to be the Hillary alternative."

Walter Shapiro uses the P-word, as I did, in characterizing the action:

"Make no mistake, this was still a mostly polite debate, not a political blood bath designed to prime voters for the next-to-the-last episode of 'The Sopranos.' Nothing that occurred on the stage at Saint Anselm College on this late spring night is apt to be specifically remembered when New Hampshire voters go to the polls in the dead of winter. There were no devastating one-liners, no breakthrough emotional moments nor candidate meltdowns.

"But what the debate did underscore was the unfair nature of the 2008 Democratic contest. From the not-so-random positioning of Edwards, Clinton and Obama at the center of the stage to the flexible time clock when any of the trio were speaking, this debate highlighted the reality that while all candidates are equal, three of them are more equal than the others.

"CNN, which hosted the debate with local TV station WMUR, clearly made a decision that the emphasis of the debate should reflect the pre-primary polls and fundraising numbers. This decision may not have been equitable, but it is journalistically defensible, unless you happen to believe that former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel (who has not held office since the Reagan administration) has as good a chance of being the Democratic nominee as Hillary Clinton."

National Review's Jim Geraghty is lukewarm on Hillary:

"Well, that was abysmal.

"You need a microscope to measure the policy differences with this crowd, so it may turn out that the most important measuring sticks are presence, charisma and personality.

"Obama remains likeable (not quite as good as his usual speech-mode). I'd crown him the winner, or at least the one who I think the Democrats watching liked the most.

"I thought it was a not-that-great performance by Hillary tonight. She sounded like a whiner complaining about the hypothetical questions. She certainly seemed on top of the issues, and interestingly, she was left on the sidelines when Edwards and Obama went at it on Iraq early on. She seemed eager to turn the guns on Republicans, and while the audience seemed okay with it, it seems a bit early. She's acting like she's closed the deal, and while she's the frontrunner, I'm not sure if she's not moving a little early on Republican-bashing."

The Nation's David Corn deconstructs the HRC strategy: