Well, it's fitting that my first blog would be after missing much of the Dems debate tonight.  But, having witnessed what I witnessed, I was prompted to share (in no particular order):

Hillary came off as a professional politician:  polished, balanced, wrong, dispassionate, and given the least air-time in the second-half (very dangerous references to Bill's tenure for future general election); too quiet to "win."
Edwards:  Knew he had to score on Hillary; did his best, came off "strong"; nice hair.
Obama:  Very good stage presence; seems to discomfit his opponents since he seems so "statesman" like; vacuous.
Kucinich:  By far the most consistent and the most sincere; doomed, irrelevant.
Dodd:  passionate, informed, sincere, unelectable, also nice hair.
Richardson:  very tan Pillsbury Dough Boy; seems a tad angry.
Guy from Alaska:  "Who Am I; Why Am I Here?"
Joe Biden:  Clearly the strongest tonight (which should worry Democrats for good reason).

CNN's Wolf Blitzer:  Raise your hand if you think Wolf did a good job tonight . . .

Main Issue:  The Global War on Terror (at least in the second half)--

Crux:  Dems need to seem strong and weak at the same time.  Need to "run against Bush" on War and yet cannot rest on votes (where actual record exists).  Edwards scores moral points for admitting "mistake"--but ends up on wrong side of "mistake."  Hillary falters since she cannot really defend her husband's record on terror (and largely avoids "going there"); wants to have it both ways--to be for war and against it at the same time; claims that by bringing home troops as soon as she takes office will make things better. Wants to convince the Left that she's against the war while convincing the Right that she's strong on security. Obama's statements mean nothing.  Also-rans make some points (esp. Biden) but are irrelevant.

The Democratic field is weak.  Whatever passion the Left can muster for this crowd, there's much work to be done to convince the American public on the twin questions of terrorism and security.  Those Democratic nominees who have voting records to defend will find, I think, that they need to spend a lot of time suppressing them, since defending them will become impossible.  No matter how many times any of them "raise their hands," they will not be able to reconcile irreconcilables--as John Kerry discovered in his failed attempt at the highest office in the land.

Their biggest collective problem is reality:  Republicans were running the show on 9/11.  Giuliani was Mayor of New York City and Bush was President.  Like it or not, the Right has not merely votes to run on, but (in the case of Giuliani and Bush) actions.  As much as the net-roots would like to say that the reason for 9/11 was that the Right was running things, the Left has nothing by way of action to convince the American public regarding American security in a post 9/11 world.  All the Left has is 20/20 Monday morning quarterbacking and much of that is given to insane ruminations about the temperature at which steel can melt.  The American public needs something more substantial for the election of a President.

Republicans are weak on precisely those issues on which Democrats are strong--and these are the wrong issues, with the exception of immigration reform (and only because it is now strongly tied to terrorism). And on immigration, the only issue they can agree with the President on, they are also wrong.  In short, the Dems, so far, have nothing to run on.  Their platform?  "We'll do something different."