Madame President?

But Nation Editor Katrina van den Heuvel challenges the mainstream media narrative:

"From a foreign policy point of view was Obama's response so wrong and Clinton's so right? Her husband's administration generally followed Hillary's approach; during his two terms President Clinton did not meet with Fidel Castro or with Hugo Chavez or with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea --while generally pursuing a policy of trying to isolate these countries. But what did the Clinton approach actually accomplish? The respective regimes of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela have only grown stronger, and more influential in Latin America. Although Syria was forced to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon last year, the regime of Bashar Assad is as firmly entrenched in power as was his father's. And in spite of the odious politics and qualities of Ahmadinejad, Iran carries more weight in the Middle East than it did doing the early 1990s while American power and standing has declined considerably."

Hillary's trying to make hay, reports Mike Allen:

"The Clinton campaign -- hoping to nurture the notion of a gaffe, and reminding everyone that its arsenal has many classes of weapons -- rolled out former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for a conference call where she said the debate "showed that Senator Clinton, when all is said and done . . . knows that being president is about protecting the country and advancing national security interests."

I wonder how much of Bill's Cabinet will eventually be tapped on her behalf.

At the New Republic, Katherine Marsh says Hillary won the exchange--but not her heart:

"Hillary, once again, was impressive whereas Obama's lack of experience still peeks through--his plan for a diplomatic surge in Iraq was nearly "Department of Peace"-like in its pie-in-the-sky idealism--and his remark about talking to Cuba was a teachable moment on how to lose the Miami vote in one fell swoop. But, that said, there's something about Hillary's pitch perfect answers that unnerved me . . .

"I can't shake the sense that she enjoys giving the teacher-approved right answer more than giving an unpopular answer she believes to be right. And when she makes a rare fumble, it's not--unlike Obama--because of a lack of experience but because of a lack of honesty. Consider the question about whether the candidates sent/ send their children to public or private schools: Hillary reiterated an old Clinton line: that the reason Chelsea went to Sidwell was to protect her privacy--otherwise she would happily have sent her to Ballou right?"

Fred Barnes consistently manages to find bright spots for the GOP, and he doesn't disappoint:

"The biggest surprise in Washington in 2007 is who's turned out to be the strongest force in town. It's not Democrats, though they control the House and the Senate. It's not a bipartisan alliance of moderates, who often imagine themselves as pivotal but never are. And it's certainly not a conservative coalition, if only because there aren't enough conservative Democrats in Congress to fill a closet at the Heritage Foundation. The most powerful group is President Bush and congressional Republicans . . .

"True, Bush and the Republicans aren't dominant. They're a minority, but an unusually effective one. One measure of this: At the end of 2007, there will be more American troops in Iraq than when Democrats took over Congress in January. Another: Democrats have momentum on no domestic issue, not even health care. A third: Senate Republicans last week defeated an amendment urging Bush not to pardon former White House aide Scooter Libby and won overwhelming passage of another that says terrorists jailed at Guantánamo shouldn't be transferred to U.S. soil."

You can't dispute Fred's math on one point: Only one of the Dems' Six for '06 pledges--the minimum wage boost--has become law.