Democratic debate -- what a contrast ! ! !

The winner?    The Democratic Party and its entire field of smart, fact-oriented adults who could debate policy differences without insulting each other, without pandering, and without saying anything outrageous or offensive.

My rating:   The five of them wind up in the same order they've been in in the polls for months.

#1.   Hillary Clinton.   She was sharp but not too wonky or distant.   She challenged Sanders on gun control and a couple of other small issues.   She handled the question about her email very well.   She was policy-oriented and showed compassion.    She quietly and effectively drew the line between her and Sanders by declaring that she is "a progressive who gets things done" -- i.e. progressive and pragmatic, suggesting that his ideals sound great but can't get implemented.   And she laughed a couple of times and seemed human.  She needed a good solid hit, and I'd say this was a triple.

#2.  Bernie Sanders.   This was his first national debate, and he didn't seem quite as relaxed and self-assured as he does in campaign rallies.   He had some vulnerability on how far he would go on gun control.   He was a little johnny-one-note on his economic message, and his admiration for the far more progressive Denmark, Norway, and Sweden left him open -- and Hillary zoomed right in -- to the charge that you can't really compare what works in a small, homogenous country like those and our vast, diverse, complex country.   I still like Bernie and his democratic socialism, but he didn't really shine the way he needed to on the debate stage.   No gaffes, nothing bad -- just not quite convincing enough to take the chance on losing the White House.  But . . . the election is still more than a year away.

Two moments where he did shine:  Great line:  "Congress doesn't control Wall Street.   Wall Street controls Congress."    And his stepping in to defend Hillary by criticizing the media's obsession with her email problem:  "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about emails.  Enough about your damn emails;   let's talk about the real issues."

#3.  Martin O'Malley.  A very distant third place in the polls, but I though he helped himself a little.   His best hope is to be on the short list for a VP running mate.   He was well versed in the policies he focuses on -- especially climate change, gun control, immigration -- but he's not quite ready for the top spot.

#4.  Jim Webb.   Almost unnoticed by the media thus far, I even wondered last week if he was still in the race.    He defended -- without seeming defensive -- his more conservative views, and had some good answers.   Chris Matthews said he seemed like a very smart, moderate Republican.   I wouldn't go quite that far, but the others are all trending left;  and that seems the mood of the Democratic electorate this year.

#5.  Lincoln Chaffee.   Might appeal to the old George McGovern voters, but in this field he just seemed a little weak and out of his league.   Probably the only embarrassing moment of the debate was his explanation of his 1999 vote to overturn the Glass-Steagall Act when he was in the senate, which he would now oppose.   He said that it was his first vote as a senator, a position he had just been elected to to replace his father who died.   Essentially he admitted that he didn't know what he was voting for but went along with his party (which at the time was Republican).

My guess:    Hillary's poll numbers will go up 5 points or more;   Sanders will stay about the same.   O'Malley will go up a couple of points, but not nearly enough.   Webb might inch up a point or two, now that the small group of conservative Democrats know who he is.  But Chaffee might as well drop out now.

Probably the most significant outcome:   Hillary's solid performance really leaves no justification for Joe Biden to jump into the race.   If she handles her testimony before the Benghazi committee as well as she did the debate tonight, she has it sewed up.

But here's the thing:   Compare this debate tonight with what passes for a Republican debate.   The analogy that comes to mind is that one is a graduate school seminar in policy and philosophy of government;   the other is a middle school food fight.    I would vote for any one of these five over any one of the fifteen on the other side.


Ralph