Because the media says so. "The debate was about Clinton fighting back," said NBC's Chuck Todd; "She arguably gave her most commanding performance to date," added Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic. This isn't evidence of bias, as the Web's energetic anti-MSM element is already alleging--even if CNN did pack its post-debate panel with former Clintonites James Carville and David Gergen. But it is lazy storytelling. The press billed tonight's Sin City skirmish primarily as a test of Clinton's resilience. As Patrick Healy wrote in this morning's New York Times, "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton heads into tonight’s Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas with an opportunity: to try to erase the unflattering image that her chief rivals, and her own mistakes, have helped create." That expectation admits only two possible outcomes: either she messes up or she doesn't.

She didn't. Clinton was clear, calm and prepared--which means she's magically 'back-on-track." (Assuming you don't follow Iowa and New Hampshire polling and actually believe she was knocked off-balance to begin with. I don't.) For the 15 non-Beltway types who tune in to Chris Matthews & Co., expect a few days of 1) Clinton's health care "attacks" on Edwards and Obama. Not that they were particularly damaging. But strategy matters more than substance on CNN and MSNBC, and Clinton's well-prepped potshots offer easy evidence of a new "game plan." 2) Licenses for illegal immigrants. Obama equivocated and took issue with Wolf Blitzer's "yes or no" framework; Clinton just said "No." Ignore the context--it took until yesterday, when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's killed his plan, for her to decide to oppose it--and you, like the pundits, can applaud her candor. And 2) the "gender card" response. “Clinton hits this one out of the proverbial park," wrote the Hotline's Jennifer Skalka. "No doubt." Of course, Clinton's been delivering the same lines--"They're attacking me because I'm ahead"; "I'm comfortable in the kitchen"; fathers, daughters, 90-year-old women--for weeks. The only difference now is that her canned "gender card" comeback fits the chic, complacent storyline: "She's staunched the bleeding." So the chattering classes chatter.

What, you ask, did Stumper think? Richardson was better than he's been. Biden was loose and likable. Edwards hammered too hard and got booed. And Clinton and Obama were utterly unsurprising (which, of course, helps her, the frontrunner, more than it helps him). One Q-&-A struck me as particularly revealing. When Blitzer asked, in reference to Pakistan's current instability, "Is human rights more important than American national security?," Obama replied, "The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf." His first instinct was go "meta"--that is, to address the framework rather than the actual issue at hand. Yes, it was a ridiculous question; yes, Obama was right. But when Clinton's turn came, she actually, you know, answered it. "I agree with that [i.e., national security is more important than human rights] completely," she said. "I think the first obligation of the president is to protect and defend the United States of America." (Note to Obama: reread the Oath of Office.)* She quickly pivoted to "the failed policies of the Bush administration" and reminded viewers that she called on Bush to change course after meeting with Musharraf earlier this year.

On substance, Obama and Clinton were the same; they both said, as Clinton put it, that "there's a connection between a democratic regime and tightened security for the United States." But where he offered thoughtful abstractions about the process, she offered partisanship and pertinent experience.

Seems to me the choice for Democrats at this point is a choice between precisely those two approaches.

*UPDATE 11.16.07: Big thanks to commenter Steve2008, who points out that, according to the Oath of Office, "the President has two obligations. The first is to faithfully execute the office; the second is to defend the CONSTITUTION." He's right. The oath reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In (snarkily) reminding Obama to reread the Oath, I was pivoting off something Chris Dodd said immediately before Clinton in response to the same question:  "When you take the oath of office on January 20, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. The security of the country is number one, obviously."  Clearly, Dodd was wrong, and he and I (not Obama) are the ones who needed to reread the Oath. In all fairness, Dodd is referring, I think, to the U.S. military enlistment oath, which calls on service members to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." But while some might say the spirit of that oath applies to the Commander-in-Chief, it's still a promise to defend the Constitution--not, strictly speaking, "our country." 

Apologies for the confusion, everyone. 

TRANSCRIPT

BLIZTER: Is human rights more important than American national security?

OBAMA: The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf.

Sometimes they clash.

They are complimentary. And I think Pakistan is a great example. Look, we payed $10 billion over the last seven years, and we had two goals--deal with terrorism and restore democracy. And we've gotten neither... Pakistan's democracy would strengthen our battle against extremists. The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse we're going to be, the more anti-American sentiment there's going to be in the Middle East. We keep making this mistake. As president, I will do everything that's required to make sure nuclear weapons don't fall into the hands of extremists, especially going after Al Qaeda in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But we've got to understand that if we simply prop up anti-democratic practices, that that feeds the sense that America is only concerned about us, and that our fates are not tied to these other folks. That's something that makes us less safe and that's something I intend to change as president.

[Snip] 

[Senator Dodd], you say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely. I think the first obligation of the president is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it's to the exclusion of other interests. And there's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and tightened security for the United States. That's what's so tragic about the situation. After 9/11, President Bush had a chance to chart another course, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, and could've been very clear about what our expectations were. We are now in a bind. And it's partly--not completely, but party--a result of the failed policies of the Bush administration. So where we are today means we have to say to President Musharraf, "Look, this is not in your interests. It's not in the interests of the United States. It's not in your interests to either stay in power or stay alive... When I was meeting with him earlier this year, I asked him if he would accept a high-level presidential envoy to begin to negotiate some of these issues. He said yes. I got back. I called the White House. I asked them to send a high-level envoy. They did not do it. They're going to do it now. So you've got to stay on top of this. That requires presidential attention. We haven't had that.