If Giuliani's goal was to define himself in contrast to the Democratic field, he largely accomplished his purpose (although he appeared weary at times and could easily be accused of uncomfortably parsing previous statements).  At virtually every turn he took the opportunity to define Democrats by characterizing them as politically correct, socialist, defeatist, and inexperienced.  However, if he sought to establish himself as a candidate of substance, it is hard to see how he did that outside of his mayoral refractive lens.

If Romney sought to portray himself as the prototypical Republican (summarized by his closing boiler plate rendition of families, economy, and military and invocation of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan) its unclear that he accomplished his goal, especially after the searing exchange with Brownback on abortion which started the debate and left him more than a little flustered (and that was before the FACT CHECK).  Calling fellow candidates (and prospective voters) "holier than thou" hardly seems like a smart tack.  He was, however, able to put a notch in his belt for the best line of the debate with his criticism of Obama.  Ironically, for someone who has expressed disdain for the YouTubeification of the race, his campaign was quite adept at using the medium to put up practically real time sound bites from Des Moines.

Finally, if McCain was trying to restart his campaign, he failed.  At least for now.  Throughout the morning, McCain appeared stiff and uncomfortable, while his delivery was choppy and unnecessarily repetitive.  More importantly, he was reluctant to make explicit his differences with either Giuliani or Romney, something he will need to do if he is going to gain ground.  Although McCain was smart to say that "I'm going to be judged by history, not public opinion polls" he offered little evidentiary support for his major claims on Iraq.  He certainly had the opportunity to inform the viewing audience about the recent progress in Iraq (for example, the recent NYT op-ed from Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution), but he failed (outside of an obscure soccer reference). Giuliani and Romney, in contrast, were practically tripping over themselves to appear wonkish after McCain took a pass on the Brookings report.  If McCain is going to say "we are winning" he needs to be "Johnny on the spot" with the evidence. September may be the real make or break time for the McCain campaign and he seemed to acknowledge that today:

There will be a big debate coming up in September on the floor of the Senate.  We will win that debate because the American people understand the consequences of failure.

To be sure, IF he wins THAT debate, he's back in it.    

Stephanopoulos and "real debate"

After the first exchange between Brownback and Romney on Brownback's abortion ad, it doesn't appear that Stephanopoulos was able to really pit the candidates against each other.  Why?  Part of the reason is that there is considerable unity among the top three candidates on a wide variety of issues (in contrast to the Democratic field).  And, if there are differences, Giuliani, McCain and Romney seem genuinely unwilling to point them out.  Perhaps Stephanopoulos will have greater success getting his version of a "real debate" in two weeks when "This Week" returns to Des Moines.  

The real loser (and/or winner)?  

Barack Obama.  It has been a blistering week for the Obama campaign and the GOP candidates were all too happy to point that out (which should say something about who they feel more comfortable running against in the general election).  Clearly, Romney's wordsmith's are feeling pretty good about themselves after he got in the first jab at Obama:

At the same time, you look at that Democratic debate, I had to laugh at what I saw Barack Obama do.  I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.

A short time later, Stephanopoulos got in on the act in an effort to try to provoke a dispute between Romney and Giuliani regarding unilateral action against terrorists in Pakistan.  After playing a clip of Obama saying that the U.S. should act if Musharraf will not, Stephanopoulos serves up this invitation:

Governor Romney, you said you didn't agree with Obama's plan and you called it "ill-timed and ill-considered." Mayor Giuliani, on "Charlie Rose" the other night, you said, "I would take that option."  Why don't you guys take two minutes and debate this issue out?

Giuliani filibustered and parsed his words despite Stephanopoulos' efforts to stick him with what appeared to be agreement with Obama's position.  The confusion created by Giuliani meant that Romney didn't need to disagree with his Republican rival and could instead continue his attack on Obama:

Yes, I think Barack Obama is confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies.  In his first year, he wants to meet with Castro and Chavez and Assad, Ahmadinejad.  Those are our enemies.  Those are the world's worst tyrants.  And then he says he wants to unilaterally go in and potentially bomb a nation which is our friend.

After arriving at the conclusion that Giuliani and Romney agree (keep the option of unilateral action, but don't talk about it) Stephanopoulos asked if anyone disagreed.  Hunter said he did, but doesn't disagree in principle with anything Giuliani or Romney said.  Instead, he used it as an opportunity to continue the anti-Obama stretch by pointing out that Obama was unaware of the assistance (100,000 Pakistani troops that are cooperating against Al Qaida).  

Moments later, McCain returns the focus to Obama when it is his turn to speak (on the issue of democracy promotion):

It's naive to say that we will never use nuclear weapons.  It's naive to say we're going to attack Pakistan without thinking it through.  What if Musharraf were removed from power?  What if a radical Islamic government were to take place because we triggered it
with an attack?

Although Giuliani's obfuscation makes it unclear where he stands with respect to Obama's apparent call for unilateralism, Romney, Hunter, and McCain have hit him with a 1-2-3 punch (that is, ironically, entirely consistent with the charges coming from the Clinton camp).  When rivals (from both parties) can easily seize on something as seemingly straightforward as hitting bin Ladin if there were "actionable intelligence" (Obama's words) its not hard to see how Obama is the real loser coming out of this debate.  

Or, is he?

The first response from the Obama campaign came via email release from campaign spokesman Bill Burton:

The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn't agree that we should take out Osama bin Ladin if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy.

After you've been labeled "Jane Fonda," "Dr. Strangelove," "confused," "unaware," and "naïve," in a span of 10 minutes, perhaps that is the best and only answer.  That said, from Obama's perspective, it can't be all bad that the Republican field is spending a lot of time talking about him as opposed to giving a straightforward answer on whether or not to "take out Osama bin Ladin."

Even so, it is hard to see how the frame of "naivety" doesn't settle around Obama's candidacy. We'll have to find out what happens next this coming Tuesday at Soldier Field.

But for today, we were left with a policy debate about U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan that was unclear (at best).