So, there was another debate...

...and I bet you can guess who I think won it.

Or, probably more accurately, didn't lose it. Kerry's performance was solid, but really, each of the candidates did fine in their own way. In the end, though, Walter Shapiro, writing for USA Today, summed it up best, saying that "Not a syllable that was uttered during the penultimate candidate meeting before Democrats in 10 states vote Tuesday appeared to change the contours of the race."

Since I've been generally very happy with the contours of the race so far, I'm generally very happy with the outcome of last night's debate.

I'm somewhat less happy with the reaction of the punditocracy. Two questions seem to prevail. First, why didn't John Edwards try to beat up on John Kerry, and second, why are Kucinich and Sharpton still invited to these things?

Well, on the Edwards v. Kerry question, it seems pretty obvious to me. There's just not all that much difference to highlight, and what there is doesn't really offer much help to Edwards. Sure, they have different biographies, but the strength of Edwards' is based on the circumstances of his birth, which he really can't take much credit for, and the strength of Kerry's is based on things like personal heroism and decades of committed public service, which can't really be attacked for much gain.

What differences there are between the two on issues are mainly in the margins, and where they're not (for instance, the death penalty), Edwards' position may in some cases have more appeal to the general electorate, but aren't really an advantage within the Democratic primary electorate. Besides, the more Edwards turns to issues, the easier the tables are turned, since Kerry is generally better informed, primarily as a result of his long tenure in the Senate, on a broad range of issues.

Beyond that, the differences come on style points, and you really can't get away with saying "Hey, I'm a real friendly guy and a lot cuter than my opponent" in a Presidential debate.

In essence, John Edwards doesn't beat up on John Kerry because John Edwards can't beat John Kerry. He won't say so out loud, but I give Edwards credit for enough intelligence to realize it. He's not going to be the nominee, and he won't reduce himself to a bombthrowing buffoon to delight the pundits.

Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton won't be the nominee either, but it's not the role of the debate sponsors to winnow the field. Like Edwards, Kucinich and Sharpton are running active campaigns, will be represented at the Convention by elected delegates and are on the primary ballot in California (and in New York, where Sunday's debate will be held). Unlike Edwards, they have genuine differences with Kerry (and Edwards) on key issues, and represent distinctive constituencies in the Democratic Party. I'm glad that the words "single payer Health care" are part of the debate. I'm glad Rev. Al put Haiti on the table before any of the questioners did. They belong in the conversation as long as they stay in the race.

And, as I'm always happy to repeat, Dennis Kucinich has finished ahead of John Edwards in more states than Edwards has finished ahead of John Kerry.