I watched the debate at South Carolina State in Orangeburg on MSNBC. It was good to see they are still on the air - shouldn't they "divest" themselves of the "MS" part, though? Or was that part of the deal, "intellectual property" of NBC like the character of Larry "Bud" Melman?

For the most part, it was an uneventful event. No striking blows, no crippling gaffes, no screaming headlines for tomorrow's papers. My general impressions follow. Of course, regular readers understand I come at this from the perspective of someone who would rather eat worms than vote for any of the Democratic candidates.

Hillary held her own. She didn't make any new friends, but didn't lose any old ones either. From her frontrunner status, if that's not a win, it's still good enough.

I found Edwards, Obama, and Richardson quite disappointing. I don't see any of them helping their campaigns with this performance. That's not good news for any of them: Obama was riding serious momentum putting him close to Hillary in the polls; this debate underlined the shallowness of his candidacy - although he did slap down Kucinich and Gravel on the "nuke Iran" nonsense, even engaging them (when he hadn't so challenged any of his main rivals) diminishes his stature. Edwards needed a starring turn to keep his campaign energized, and he didn't bring it. Not very good at all for one of the most skilled trial lawyers in the country - if he hasn't got "presentation," just what does he bring to the table?

Like Edwards, Richardson needed a convincing showing and didn't give it. He has the most impressive resume - on paper, at least - of any candidate in either party, but failed to show leadership or his presumed superior command of issues. He remains the Democrat with the strongest appeal to Republicans, and second to Obama in his appeal to independents, but he will need to show some strength very soon or his fundraising will fade quickly.

Of the "second-tier" candidates, both Biden and Dodd were fairly impressive, but neither scored the sort of zinger they would need to gain some traction in the race. Kucinich, I thought, presented his fringe views very well. I hear he is drawing respectable crowds at events in New Hampshire and Iowa, too . . . he obviously speaks for a significant minority of today's Democratic Party, and the expectations for his campaign are so low that he might easily exceed them and at least pass a falling Richardson for fourth place.

Gravel is establishing himself as the Al Sharpton of this cycle. He funny, absurd, and doesn't care what anyone thinks. Of course, he's also an idiot, so expect the Democrats to include him in most of the debates.

The "winner" of the debate, IMO, has to be Hillary Clinton. Without a spectacular performance, she still provided a favorable contrast to her closest rivals. She remains the presumptive nominee, in my opinion; someone else must take it from her, she won't give it away. She wasn't even as impressive as Biden or Dodd, but she didn't need to compete for their vanity points. Obama and Edwards turned in tepid performances, at best.

UPDATED TO ADD: All of the candidates endorsed a swift withdrawal from Iraq, including all four Senators, who voted, before heading to the debate, for the defeatist bill Bush has vowed to veto. Greg Giroux of Congressional Quarterly has the details.

Also, don't think I am giving Kucinich any new respect. He's clearly a moonbat, and the likelihood you would vote for him is directly tied to the number of rainbow mobiles, crystals, and unicorn figurines you display in your home. It's just that he represents that constituency rather better than expected. They are the true dregs of society - not the "deserving poor," who would have nothing to do with the like, but, rather, those who enjoy the benefits of capitalism while whining incessantly about its perceived shortcomings. Who could better speak for the dregs? Hard to go any lower than Dennis the Menace, eh?