I was right - last night was Obama’s Bastogne. He was surrounded by Stephanopoulos and Gibson, raked by venomous and relentless fusillades of rumor, scandal and insubstantial sleaze. He was hammered by incoming images of Hillary’s supporters in the audience, including no less than eight lingering close-ups of Chelsea. And he was charged, again and again, by Clinton, who came armed with the “moderators” complimentary list of Obama’s most tabloid negatives, digging away and ducking without recourse.

And he came through beautifully. Like Bastogne, he deflected every assault with a combination of intelligence, grit and skill. And like Bastogne, the fame of his performance has turned a defense into a inspired counteroffensive.

That performance was seen by over 10 million viewers at one point, and has kept the wonks and wire services, political sites and pundits chattering since. The buzz is not only that Obama did well. Even more importantly, it is that the people who ran the debate were his opponents, and that his opponents should be ashamed for it.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. …

To this observer, ABC’s coverage seemed slanted against Obama. …

To say the least. Of the “first 52″ the author, Shales, refers to above, only one negative of Clinton’s was brought up: Her Bosnia “misstatement.” They let her babble about how even Wesley Clark said Bosnia was a dangerous situation at the time - cue shot to Wesley Clark in audience, nodding, by ABC - as if that had any relevance to her lying, and then they let it set at that. It was more an opportunity for her to re-write history for the viewers than a challenge.

Fortunately, practically everyone is calling it like it was. Cameron Fredman’s excellent assessment of it is indicative of the droves of coverage, from the LA Times to the Huffington Post, that is criticizing Clinton and her feckless tools, Steph’ and Gibson.

Even Obama pointed out that it was an ambush, in his usual graceful way.

Practically everyone is picking up the story the way it should be told: A victory by a higher level of politics over the petty, pathetic tabloid-babble of the past. It was doomed to be a beating when Obama went in there, but he went all the same.

And there we find a rare and critical aspect to how heroism is born of politics and warfare - why events like Antony’s eulogy of Caesar and the defense of Bastogne resonate:

There is a fine line between them being catastrophes and legends. Rolling into Bastogne with lesser men than fought there could have made the story one of foolhardy suicide: “Disaster As 101st Division Lost Due To Arrogant Command” rather than the proudest stand of the Screaming Eagles. It is the character of the person that saves boldness from becoming brainlessness - it is the intelligence, the grit, the skill.

Obama walked into the O.K. Corral outnumbered and outgunned, but not overmatched. He came out looking like a greater among craven lessers. He came out with a heroic moment.

We are all improved for knowing it. It is a sign of hope that the tide at last may be turning against the politics of the past.