I thought they both did really well last night, but that's probably better for Clinton than Obama. If you saw last night's debate you couldn't help but be struck by how genial it was. I watched it with my nine-year-old who said to me, precociously: "No one is technically going to win this debate. They're agreeing on everything." I worry I'm raising another Mark Halperin.

On policy, the debate was a reminder that the differences that separate Clinton and Obama are pretty small. They both want to allow the Bush tax cuts on "wealthy" earners--those making more than $250,000--and use the money to expand health care to the uninsured. They're plans are quite a bit alike except Clinton has a mandate and Obama doesn't. Either way, if Clinton or Obama were to become president who knows what their health care plans would look like when Congress gets done with it? In any event, when the focus is on policy and the differences are small, I think that's better for Clinton. The talk was not past-future--despite Obama's best efforts but the prosaic work of government and that's a forum where she looks pretty good. (My spouse, as I always note, works for Clinton.)

Obama wasn't able to crush her on her war vote although I find her explanation still inexplicable. Maybe I'm misremembering but I remember the war vote as a vote for, well, war and not merely to give Bush authority that he could use as diplomatic leverage. I assumed at the time that Bush would go to war once he got the authorization. She sounds like a naif when she claims to be shocked, shocked that Bush actually used the congressional authority to go to war. She also sounds a bit naive when she keeps bringing up her quite legitimate question of the Pentagon last year about their plans for withdrawal. Recall that the Pentagon offered a churlish response before Secretary Gates stepped in and soothed tempers. She was right to ask the question then but by continually bringing it up in a way that makes her sound surprised by the administration's response she sounds naive. That said, Clinton made a good point that while Obama may have said he was against the war in 2002 as a state senator, once he got to the U.S. Senate, their voting records are basically the same. Neither, it seems to me, has shown the consistency of a Lieberman or a Kucinich. Both have equivocated. And if that's the case, one of his better rationales gets nuked.

I thought Obama got the better on instigating negotiations with bad actors around the globe. At this point, it's hard to see how we're in danger of too much talking with Iran or Syria.

So all said, I think she came out ahead last night and probably stopped the free fall of the last week. Going into the weekend, I'd expect Obama to take GA, MA, CT, IL, MN and CO next week and Hillary to run the rest. But who knows where we'll be in terms of delegates and popular votes.