This debate was unbelievably boring and anyone who says different don't believe them. The two were intolerably civil to each other, and neither said anything that struck me as remotely controversial. In fact, with each debate the orthodoxy of Obama's positions becomes more pronounced.

We spent the first 40 minutes on health care, and I thought Hillary clearly won that portion of the debate. She understands how difficult any change will be, and more important she understands that not everyone wants change--that those with health care may actually fear it. If Obama holds a similar position, I could not discern it from what he said.

On the war, they are both terrible. Hillary says, "we will end the war in Iraq and we will resolve the war in Afghanistan." The only rule for this debate seemed to be that neither candidate would dare use the word 'victory.' We know they want out of Iraq, but have we now conceded defeat in Afghanistan as well? Our conflict with the Taliban and al Qaeda is to be 'resolved'? When Tony Soprano says he's going to resolve a problem, we know what that means, but what on earth does it mean when Hillary says it?

The low point for Obama came when he said that the NIE on Iran had shown that engagement and talking could lead to the Iranians changing their behavior. This is as spurious a connection as his earlier claim that the 2006 elections led to the reductions in violence in Iraq. Even if one takes the estimate's conclusions at face value, the credible threat of the use of force is the only explanation for why the Iranians suspended their program. But once again, like his health care fix involving nothing so much as his presence and a few cameras from C-SPAN, the solution he offers to this country's decades long confrontation with Iran is all jaw jaw.

I'm not impervious to Obama's charm--he makes me feel all warm and fuzzy--but he lives in a fantasy world. Clinton refused to provide a date certain for withdrawal, making clear that there were scenarios that would demand the continued presence of U.S. troops and outcomes far worse that the status quo. This is the fundamental difference between the two--an acknowledgment of reality.

So while Clinton would be a far easier mark for Republicans in the general election, that doesn't change the fact that she appears more competent than Obama to confront the threats this country now faces. I'm inclined to say Republicans should prefer her because it is in their self-interest, their party's interest, and ultimately--if the worst happens and she actually wins--the national interest.