It seems that there are two camps regarding last night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire. One camp says Hillary Clinton emerged more or less unscathed. The other camp thinks Clinton's rivals, John Edwards in particular, did a serviceable job exposing Clinton's weaknesses. David Yepsen, the Des Moines Register's legendary political reporter, sides with the latter camp in this post. Yepsen writes:
While the evening couldn't have been pleasant for Clinton, it opened a necessary discussion Democrats must have: If they don't probe her weaknesses, the Republicans will. Democrats may well want to nominate her but they should first get to see how she defends herself.
I agree! It's worth noting, however, that what Democrats perceive to be Clinton's weaknesses in a primary context--her October 2002 vote to authorize war against Saddam, her vote this week on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment regarding Iranian intervention in Iraq--actually may turn out to be strengths in a general-election context. Question is, when will her fellow Democrats test Clinton on her liabilities in a general election? Things like her husband's counterterrorism record and her own unpopularity among Republicans and some independents? They haven't yet.