That was great stuff. Any time two Democratic candidates are trading punches about being on the board of Wal-Mart and representing a slum-lord, it’s bound to be compelling viewing if nothing else. Remember that Philadelphia debate when Hillary was on the defensive the entire time? That seems a loooong time ago. I’m not sure she landed many telling punches. She gave the sense of repeating oppo without much detailed familiarity with it (and even got booed a couple of times for going too far). Obama parried pretty effectively, but he was parrying instead of staying above it all and it didn’t help him that occasionally Edwards piled on. I thought Hillary was strongest when describing her own positions (especially on health care), when she came across as substantive, committed, and tough. Obama was cool and likable, as usual, and displayed a depth most politicians lack. On the question at the end about why MLK would endorse his campaign, he didn’t take the obvious route of touting some quality of his campaign (as Edwards did), but made a deeper point about how King effected change from the bottom-up. But there’s something that feels a little light about Obama–whether it’s his politeness, the slight halting aspect to his speech, or his youthfulness. Edwards made the most of the opportunities he had as the third guy in the debate, and matters at these forums as a swing player who can make things more uncomfortable for Clinton or Obama, depending on which of them he decides to help gang up on.