I kept the television on while I fitted, framed and hammered two art prints onto my living room wall; first, the Fox Report. Promptly at eight o'clock, Brit Hume popped onto the screen and began introducing Democratic presidential candidates - I'd forgotten about the debate. With the prints framed but a bit of work left to do before I went outside for my stroll, I kept the volume up and listened from all corners of the apartment.

The most popular description for any one of the handful of Democratic debates has been "No one criticized each other and instead saved their worst for President Bush." It happened again last night. No, I'm not one to vote for any of the candidates, but I was struck by what and how much each man did that would likely haunt him in a general election.

John Kerry responded enthusiastically to Peter Jennings' scenario of Bush excoriating him on taxes; no matter that the names "Walter Mondale" and "Michael Dukakis" were deliberately dropped. Peter gave Kerry the Indiana Jones "Breath of God" of American politics, and Kerry was eager to face the rotating knives. His offered defense was pure rhetoric, much of it unfactual. New Republic's analogy between John Kerry and Michael Dukakis seemed all the more apt.

Wesley Clark dispelled any doubts that he's taking advice from the Clinton camp: asked about his unsubstantiated promise of no terrorist attacks under his watch, Clark simply denied and obfuscated. What else does he do, nowadays? Here is part of his statement from two weeks ago:

Nothing is going to hurt this country - not bioweapons, not a nuclear weapon, not a terrorist strike - there is nothing that can hurt us if we stay united and move together and have a vision for moving to the future the right way.

And then when confronted last night:

CLARK: I never used the word "guarantee." I never said that, John.

DISTASO: What did you say?

It all depends on the meaning of "guarantee," John. Wesley Clark's evasion is compulsive, and beginning to sound more and more like what one hears from the parade of petty crooks in local court.

Joe Lieberman started off warmly, making a light-hearted joke of his ability to challenge the president on national security. But before long the senator was showing off his left-wing credentials at the expense of fact with an aside about "gifts to Halliburton," repeating the dumb canard that's long since been retracted by the newspaper that printed it in the first place. His position in unwavering support for the war - one he bears alone, absent Gephardt - is his only saving grace. And main turn-off for Democrats. Go figure.

John Edwards made the most reasonable explanation for his vote against the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for the war. As with any debate, he believed his opposition could drive the majority into offering concessions. Edwards should have stopped there, looking collected, sagacious and statesmanlike. But he kept going, began boasting, and revealed a disturbing ruthlessness:

EDWARDS: It was not a protest vote. I voted exactly the way I thought I should have voted.

And not only that, had I been the deciding vote, I would have voted exactly the same way. Because what would have happened, had that occurred, is the president would have immediately come back to the Congress with a plan, changing course, so that he could get the approval he needed.

And I thought it was critically important for us to say to this president, "What you're doing is wrong. You have to change course."

It's all well and good to criticize him. That's just words. We came to the point where we had to stand up and take responsibility. I took responsibility.

HUME: Just to follow up quickly there, how do you know the president would have come back? And how do you know that whatever he asked for would've passed had you voted no when your vote was decisive?

EDWARDS: Because I know - Brit, because I know that the president, nor us, would have ever left the troops over there without the support that they needed. None of us would have allowed that to happen.

Of all his talents, Brit Hume's ability to subtly tease something out of a guest is unparalleled. Look at what Edwards said: confident that Washington wouldn't leave reconstruction in Iraq (the military, CPA, CERP), Afghanistan, and troops in the wider war hanging, he was free to press his concerns. What were they? United Nations control of a reconstruction from which it recused itself and later fled (after refusing protection from the Allies); and the suggestion of NATO troops on the border - utterly meaningless, as most NATO countries are already represented in Iraq. Taking pride in deciding the failure of vital monetary provisions over peanuts isn't leadership: it's brinksmanship. I hope I'm not the only one to have noticed how illustrative that brief exchange was.

Howard Dean was tempered. I don't think he was dull, though: he returned to what put me at such odds with him, namely his meme-filled accusations against President Bush. Dean's not crazy. He's just objectionable. All the same, he's admitted to the leftist modus operandi of feeling over reason - something we don't often hear from that side of the aisle, something that is in fact hidden or explained away at every opportunity.

Kucinich will be in for the fight of his life for the 10th District this November. No additional comment.

Al Sharpton's an entertaining man, but behind his statesman's poise is a long history as race-baiter and character assassin. For the seven thousandth time, he is not a serious candidate. I happened to finish my work and set out for my walk just as the Reverend was introduced as a "civil rights activist" and proceeded to chide Dean on his post-caucus performance.

Television off. Who wins New Hampshire? Difficult to say, since Iowa was a shocker and all the candidates appear willing to coast, riding voter whims rather than publicly jockeying for position. Considering both that short-term strategy and last night's tranquil debate, the Democrats may succeed in stunting their momentum - one candidate wins for no apparent reason - just as Bush begins his campaign.