Please Lord, make last night's debate from Cleveland the final Democratic debate of this election cycle! After having watched all 20 debates, and seen countless iterations of the "my health care plan is better than your health care plan" argument, I'm here to say that there is very little meat left on the bone. When two candidates have virtually the same policy prescriptions across the board, and still must distinguish themselves, it leads to minute, Jesuitical distinctions on health care and foreign policy that matter far more in the realm of political point scoring, than they do in the realm of real people.

To my great relief, last night's debate almost certainly signaled the end of this interminable campaign. If Hillary needed something dramatic to happen to change the dynamics of the race, she was sorely disappointed. Not only did Obama not make any major mistakes, it became clear last night that they could hold 15 more debates, and Obama would still not make a fatal gaffe. He is simply too smart, too poised, too disciplined, and too intellectually agile to make the kind of mistake that she so desperately needed. Indeed, during this "trial by ordeal" known as the Democratic primary season, Obama may have set a record for the fewest errors ever. The only significant mistake I've observed in the entire campaign was his unattributed use of Governor Deval Patrick's "words don't matter" language. And that issue was completely blunted by the fact that Hillary has borrowed language rather liberally herself. Otherwise, Obama has been an astonishingly consistent performer.

So who actually won the Cleveland debate? Obama did, not because his answers were better than Hillary's, but for another reason: Over the last two weeks as the race has intensified, major differences in temperament have emerged between the two candidates. I never thought I would say this, but as Hillary's position has gotten more dire, a note of hysteria has crept into her campaign as she lurches from persona to persona. It began when she tried to achieve a soft, warm moment at the close of the Austin debate by telling Obama what "an honor" it had been to campaign against him. The problem with her effort was that it worked too well. Many in the audience believed that it was a quasi acknowledgement that Obama would be the nominee. When the debate was over, and she huddled with her consultants, they almost certainly said to her, "What did you do!? You gave people the impression that we're giving up the race. You demoralized our supporters and contributors. Go say something to show that you're still in the fight!" What resulted was Hillary's unfortunate "Shame on you Barack Obama....meet me in Ohio!" speech. Watching the clip of Hillary scolding Obama like he was a seven year old child makes one cringe, and suggests a candidate who is not only losing her grip on the race, but on her emotions as well.

While Hillary has flailed around looking for a persona that can connect with the American people, Obama's unflappability has emerged as one of his biggest assets. His calm during the storm has served to completely frustrate her, as she searches in vain for a point of attack. This frustration has reached a point where she is now reduced to playing a victim role, blaming the press for her misfortunes. Hillary's latest theme is that press bias against her is the cause of her political failings. She knows this is true, because they said so on Saturday Night Live!

This notion of press bias, which has been accepted by some in the media, needs to be debunked immediately: To simply tally up the number of positive and negative press filings about each candidate to determine press fairness, is a misguided form of analysis. Instead of simply counting the number of up and down stories, one first has to determine whether those stories accurately reflect reality. For example, Hillary has gone from being the "candidate of inevitability" to the presumptive loser. As such, the press has had the role of explaining her decline. That means discussing issues like financial mismanagement, giving up on caucus states, not strategizing beyond Super Tuesday, not filing a complete slate of delegates in Pennsylvania, the misadventures of Bill Clinton, the inability to find a consistent message, the replacement of top staffers, and the loss of eleven straight contests. In explaining such campaign shortcomings, one has to talk in the negative. Obama has simply run a better, more organized, more farsighted campaign than has Clinton. Further, his trajectory during the campaign has been consistenty upward. Because of this, it is fitting and appropriate that more positive stories have been written about Obama.

As lengthy and exhausting as the primary season has been, it has accomplished its mission: that of revealing both issues and character. It is a sad irony that at its close, Hillary has transitioned from the strong, competent, "inevitable" nominee, to that of the self-pitying, victimized female from whom the mean media have stolen the nomination. I expect in upcoming polls we'll see more Clinton slippage. I further expect that Obama will win either Texas, Ohio, or both, and that this historic chapter of American politics will come to a close.