Spin Cycle

CNN ran this debate. The questions were softer, for Clinton and everyone, compared to NBC's Philadelphia debate. And it was more a TV show than a debate: Clinton and Obama spoke more than 17 minutes each, Dodd barely 6 minutes. Yet its not particularly obvious from anything that happens at these debates that Clinton or Obama is a better candidate than Dodd.

CNN's political team -- David Gergen, JC Watts, James Carville -- agrees that Clinton stabilized her problems from the last debate, showed strength in hitting back at Edwards for "mud" early in the debate, and benefited from a real favorable crowd reaction. Expect stories about how tickets were handed out. Debate was very hot for the first ten minutes, then.... dull.

Elsewhere, around the web:

The Times ledes with Hillary "notably more aggressive" and "challenging...on health care" and "warning" Edwards against throwing mud.

But the WashPost takes the opposite tack, leading with Obama "accusing" Clinton of being "duplicitous" and conceding only that Clinton "made a noticeable effort to sound definitive and concise."

Cilizza at the Fix has the best actual description of the heated opening back and forth, in which Obama accuses Hillary of equivocation on licenses, Social Security. Clinton says Obama's health plan doesn't provide universal coverage (Obama says it does). Edwards attacks Clinton for double talk on Iraq, Social Security, corruption. Clinton attacks him for personal attacks. Then: "And, as quickly as the heated exchanges had started, they ended."

Ambinder at the Atlantic: "Tonight’s debate will probably stop the talk of a huge momentum swing away from Hillary Clinton." He does wonder at how Clinton "was given a pass for her sudden discovery of a position" on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.

Chuck Todd at FirstRead thought it wasn't so much a Clinton comeback as good for her and Obama: "This debate was about Clinton effectively fighting back, Obama sticking to his guns and separation between those two and everyone else." But: Obama missed opportunities as a debater (s/a to hit Hillary on her failure at health care reform in 1993) that she would never have missed.

Mark Halperin, avatar of conventional wisdom at Time's Page, gives Clinton a B+, Obama B- and Edwards C+, and says the "tussle" over health care was the biggest moment: "Clinton throws tough counterpunches against Obama, Edwards." Hillary "doesn’t quite have her game back, but doesn’t have to deal with a new round of debate stories about how she blew it.”

Josh Marshall at TPM: Says Hillary "came to fight." And, "Not that she flattened them, but she was more aggressive than I think either of them were quite ready for." Overall, "Basically a wash and therefore a plus for Hillary."

Seelye at the NYT is amused by how much these debates seem to be only for those who cover debates: "Is anyone besides us more confused than ever? Universal health care, driver’s licenses for undocumented residents, merit pay for teachers … the answers are so swathed in verbiage that it’s hard to say what some of these candidates would actually do."

Andrew Sullivan, who rarely likes Clinton, didn't like her evocation of grandmothers while denying she was using gender: "By saying she wasn't playing the gender card, she played it. And so on. She grates on me more with every minute I have to listen to her."

We'll endit with a post -- thine enemies know thee best? -- from the American Spectator:

"In this debate, nobody seemed particularly strong. Hillary Clinton continued to look vulnerable in a general (positioning herself to the left of Obama on healthcare, completing her flip flop on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, keeping up this I-am-not-playing-the-gender -card farce while playing the gender card, and being shrill, programmed and unlikable). However, she has a substantial lead over other Democrats, and Edwards or Obama need to do something major to be able to overtake her, and neither were able to do that tonight."