And then there were two

In L.A. terms, last night's debate was a buddy picture.

It didn't live up to the media's breathless billing as a sure bloodbath, a nasty cage match to the death, that the media hyped it as, and the fact that it was anything but was particularly satisfying.

Both candidates seemed to have come to an agreement beforehand that they'd stick to the theme of party unity and mutual respect. The debate looked to be a holding action by both candidates, perhaps an indication that they were both pretty satisfied with where they currently stood, Hillary ahead in the polls, Obama closing the gap and gaining momentum, with neither wanting to risk anything that might shake things up.

It was also one of the best of the 18, (18??!!) debates that the Dems have participated in. Having only two candidates on stage allowed the debate to be more long-form and allowed for more relaxed, detailed, and complete answers. There wasn't the frantic clawing to interrupt and fight for air-time, and the pressure to shoehorn talking points into the conversation by any means necessary wasn't quite as evident.

Both candidates were able to speak without fear of interruption and had the opportunity to actually marshal their thoughts and, for the first time, actually explain their policies at the length they demand. They were able to actually articulate their views and policy goals in a way that viewers could actually understand.

In that respect, it was also the most informative and helpful debate of the series.

Though it was one of the most constructive and helpful debates in which to try to make a choice, I found that it almost made it even tougher.... they're both so substantive, so able, their goals and ideas so attractive and necessary, that at least to my mind, the choice between Obama and Clinton was if anything, even more difficult than before.

This is a deliciously horrible problem, being beset by two candidates whose strengths and drawbacks nearly make them identical. It's tough to base a choice on some minor distinction, yet on balance, that's all that really separates the two.

The more numerous, relatively minor flaws of Clinton's past, her voting record on the war, and so on are nearly perfectly balanced by questions of Obama's experience, ability to handle the job, and ability to "operate the levers of power", as the phrase goes.

Until now, the average voter could be excused for not really understanding how either candidate differed from the other. (Maybe that's the reason for the truly strange obsession with race by the media until this point)

In that respect, this was a fantastic event, as it allowed the candidates to explain the differences in their policy proposals, and the differences are important, but only in the process they prefer to achieve the same goals, particularly on health care.

Both were effusive in their praise for John Edwards who'd just dropped out from the race without offering any endorsement. The very first words out of Obama's mouth were in praise of Edwards and both candidates thanked him for highlighting the plight of "forgotten Americans", the poor, and the underclass, and pledged that they'd do all they could to make Edward's fight for the powerless a priority for them.

Though speculation ran rampant, none of the pundits would dare venture a guess as to where Edwards supporters might go now that their guy was out of the race. Many broached the idea of Edwards as Secretary of Labor (Matthews) or Attorney General (other pundits) and I'd love to see him in either post, as I'm sure he'd be bloody hell for those who've been able to game and abuse the system without consequence under Republican rule.

Rather than beat on each other, each made very strong cases against the current disaster in the White House and their Republican rivals, particularly John "Captain Queeg" McCain. Particularly when panelists asked how they'd counter the charge that Dems represent "tax and spend" policies, Obama hit that softball out of the park, noting that with their all-time high rampant out-of-control spending, the Republicans aren't exactly in a good position to make that argument, saying he'd love to have a debate on that issue.

A few other possible lines of attack by Republicans were trotted out, and each time it was obvious that both Dems were ready, willing, and able to take on the debate, and that they'd obviously win. It brought to focus just how incredibly weak the Republicans are. They've got precious little to stand on, and even what they are deciding to champion, such as endless war and permanent tax cuts for the very wealthy, are incredibly unpopular among the country at large.

Obama revealed a couple positions which might be dynamite to Republican opposition, such as his being in favor of driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. His reasoning was sound, but of course, that means little when it comes to opponents being able to bludgeon and distort an issue.

When Obama suggested that the notion of some blacks that illegal immigrants are taking their jobs amounts to unjustified scapegoating, Hillary took a bit tougher stand on immigration, appearing to say that Latin immigrants are indeed taking jobs from blacks and their resentment is justified. At least one pundit noted this was an attempt to drive a wedge between blacks and Latinos and were a bit shocked.

Both candidates came across very well, with Hillary getting off perhaps the line of the night. In response to the complaint that if she should win the presidency, the office will have been held by members of only two families for at least 30 straight years, Hillary deftly dispatched it by quipping, "Well, it took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, maybe it takes another to clean up after the second."

Perhaps Obama's line of the night was in his response to Clinton's catch phrase, "Ready on day one." He noted in questioning Clinton's judgment on her votes to give Bush authority to go to war and other votes construed as pro-war, "You not only have to be ready on day one, you have to be right on day one."

Clinton gave a lengthy and necessarily convoluted attempt to explain why she voted to authorize Bush to go to war, saying as usual that she didn't think Bush would actually go to war, that she'd been lead to believe that Bush would allow the weapons inspectors more time. This of course is rather incredible, as pointed out by Obama when he noted the obvious - the title of the bill plainly indicated it was an authorization to go to war, and noting the obvious - that everyone else in the world realized that Bush was going to launch a war.

This is clearly one of Clinton's biggest weaknesses. She simply doesn't have the facts to explain this away. And when Obama is standing on the fact that he has always opposed the invasion, it's one of the biggest distinctions between the two.

But in a hopeful sign, moderator Wolf Blitzer was roundly booed by the audience when he injecting himself into the debate, asking Clinton after her response, "So what you're saying is that you were naive by believing Bush?" That may have been a legitimate follow-up, but the audience, perhaps anxious to keep things civil between the candidates, was clearly not going to have a talking head try to stir things up as they seemed determined to do.

To digress a moment, I think the press far too often confuses making a candidate uncomfortable or simply throwing them off stride with actually holding them to account or forcing them to reveal something they are with-holding, in other words, journalism. This sometimes requires a bit of belligerence and tenacity, but belligerence by itself, or simply taking swipes at politicians to try to conform to their agreed upon story line, shouldn't be confused with good journalism.

Their job is to get information, number one, and to get to the truth. But for too long, they've somehow devolved into thinking that a good journalist simply provokes good theatre, never mind if it sheds any light on the subject or helps provide more information to the public. That's the problem. But increasingly there are tiny signs that the public is finally sick of it.

Post-debate , my close, personal friend David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager/spokesman, (and by close, personal friend, I of course mean that I spoke briefly with him a couple times), was interviewed in the raucous spin room and performed admirably. Like Obama, he seems to be learning as he goes, and improving with each performance. Of course, it doesn't hurt when your guy is riding the crest of a wave.

Clinton's front man, Pollster/PR guru Mark Penn also was interviewed and was notable for his sweating profusely, initially showing some sweat on his lip and by the end of the interview, the sweat was practically dripping off his chin. Could this be any indication of the mood of Camp Clinton, or simply that Penn is an obviously well-fed guy that might be expected to break a sweat while ice fishing?

What were your impressions of the debate?