So, another debate happened

I feel obligated to write something about Thursday night's Democratic candidates' debate on PBS, with Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff moderating.    Here's a thing:   As Hillary Clinton pointed out, this was the first time in the history of the debates that the majority of those on stage were women:   One candidate and two moderators made it three out of four.

Well, that's correct.   And it's a testament to how much less the gender divide seems to matter these days that it had not occurred to me or anyone else to comment about it.   Even the moderators seemed a bit surprised to have it mentioned.

So . . . what else?  Frankly I found the debate a bit boring and slightly unpleasant -- and I think that mostly had to do with Clinton.   As she's more threatened by Sanders' success, she goes into her defensive, hard-edged attack mode.   She was either on the attack, trying to exaggerate differences, or else she was proving her superior wonkishness (which is formidable, I'll grant her that) and thereby emphasizing Sanders' vagueness about details.

Unfortunately for Hillary, the more she appeals to your head, the less attractive she becomes to your heart.  Or so my reaction is.   She should let her resume speak for itself and try to show her softer side, which she does have.   We know she is highly experienced and knowledgeable.  What is less clear to voters is that warm, human side of her.

The fact is, in the scheme of this 2016 race, these two Democrats have so few real differences between them -- when compared to any of the Republican candidates -- that it seems like a waste of time to even be debating at this point, except to keep their shared message in front of voters, who are inundated by Republican rhetoric.

They share most of the same goals on domestic policies;  their differences are about how to achieve those goals.   Their differences as commander-in-chief, in what role the United States should play in the world, are more different;   but, again, so much closer than what separates them from the Republicans.

It comes down to the basic difference between idealism and pragmatism, between sweeping radical change vs incrementalism.   Another way to put that:   Sanders believes we can change the political process with a people's revolution;   Clinton believes you have to work within the system and that she can do that better.   And that IS a big difference.

Ralph