Barack Obama had his share of gutters and strikes at Soldier Field, but came out with a vastly better score than his opposition. I say “opposition” because it not only addresses the opportunistic venom directed at Obama by the others on the stage, but also neatly removes Joe Biden, who I thought did swell. Joe stood up for Obama, taking time out of a response to make the point that what Obama had said about striking al-Qaeda in Pakistan if Musharraf refused to was not only good sense but American policy.

So now that we’re no longer measuring Obama against the man who stood beside him, we can get to the ways in which he loomed over most of the others cluttering the stage - loomed but, sadly, a few times, got lost in.

The first impression one got from Obama was a problem that would plague him intermittently the rest of the debate: He was a bit halting, stumbling over words. When this happens to any candidate, it makes them look out of their depth. For a candidate like Obama that relies on energy and confidence to balance out inexperience, it’s doubly lethal.

This difficulty was readily dislodged the moment he got slapped across the face by first Chris Dodd and then the woman operating Dodd’s remote control - Hillary Clinton - about the Pakistan comments. Dodd literally accused Obama of threatening to invade Pakistan - and, okay, he kind of did, but note my earlier article that points out we technically “invade” a lot of countries and no one seems to mind - which led Clinton to play the one and only tune she knows lately, “Obama is just so irresponsible.”

Obama then rather responsibly eviscerated them. First with a rhetorical flourish that, with its elan and success, reminded me of the old Errol Flynn technique of slashing the rope tied to a chandelier and bringing it down on a mob of advancing enemies:

In response, Obama said it was “amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism.”

He then laid into one after the other, implying Dodd was either stupid or lying for continuing to act like he’d said something offensive. Hillary got another knock for the same, and for actively getting on the Iraq War bandwagon back in 2002. When she responded by blathering something about how people running for President shouldn’t “deal in hypotheticals” - an utterly assinine comment intended to mask ignorance by sounding smart - and how it’s just irresponsible for such a candidate to make comments that could have negative consequences somewhere in the world - like, realistically, just about every GOP candidate has to in order to get elected - she was booed.

This brought me great joy, I must tell you. One of the advantages of being the kind of commentator that attempts to discern the virtue in the words and deeds of all, is being sure when someone has none. And the mendacious, sneering manipulator that Hillary is as a politician has no virtue.

After trouncing Tweedle-Dum and the Red Queen, Obama got his groove back. He responded with balanced and articulate offerings on all major issues he was asked about:

On outsourcing of jobs and, in particular, NAFTA, he said he would negotiate with the American worker as a priority. This is about as good as we can hope for, though he didn’t say that. Whenever we beam at the high marks of the Dow Jones and the availability of luxury goods - and, yes, just about everything from a blender to a 19″ TV qualifies - we need to realize that, as it stands, they depend on cheap foreign labor. Obama’s comments that he would prioritize workers, take China to the mat on its trade policy and currency manipulation, and be fiscally responsible while boosting public works are good solutions to that balancing act.

On Iraq, where his opinion differs most from mine, he again urged removing our forces from the middle of the sectarian violence and keeping a ready presence in the region to prevent Iraq’s collapse, while resting - at last - and redeploying the military to focus on annihilating al-Qaeda once and for all in Afghanistan. This is not an awful plan by any means, nor does it dismiss our moral and strategic responsibilities - it is far, far better than “just stay the course” or “bring them all home now.” It’s laid out, it makes priorities of important objectives, and he sticks by it. Until I hear better from a more viable candidate, he gets a point for that.

On immigration, he also scored points. Usually Democrats sop to the immigrant vote, because liberal sympathies and minorities tend to lean towards being more lenient to undocumented workers. Obama spoke to three aspects of his immigration policy that instead were more in tune with the spirit of most Americans: The first thing he mentioned was increasing border security. After emphasizing that point, he moved on to saying he would go after the employers of illegal workers with resolve. Emphasizing that, he only then talked of a clear path to citizenship for those illegally in the US, saying they would “have to go to the back of the line” and pay a fine.

All in all, I found Obama to be realistic, moderate where it counted and forceful where it was needed. That made him a fine candidate. Considering that he is also the only top-tier candidate not using spin, negativity, evasion or other empty tactics as the majority of their political effort, this makes him the best in the field.