Hillary Clinton, after what came across more like a valedictory statement than a rallying cry, turned to the man who so soundly defeated her in this week's Wisconsin primary and said, "No matter what happens… I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored."

The statement, with which she closed Thursday night's 19th Democratic presidential debate, was so heartfelt, so sincere, that Obama put one arm around his opponent's shoulder and reached a hand across the table to warmly shake her hand.

It was an oddly disarming moment that belonged to the New York senator but not in the way that she or her supporters could have wanted.

Clinton seemed to surrender, graciously.

One of the crucial differences between the two parties this year is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both revived the idea of a national industrial strategy -- better late than never -- while John McCain still acts as if banks and corporations, left to their own devices, would revive our economy through their investments. Problem is, we've left banks and corporations to their own devices for decades, and they've funded the rise of low-wage, high-profit East Asia.

The Democrats' incomes-and-industrial policy won't bring back, say, Big Steel, but it will raise wages and put more Americans to work actually making things. As a national economic strategy, that sure beats shopping.

If the New York Times has evidence that John McCain conducted an affair with a lobbyist, then they should come out and say so. To try and imply it primarily by reporting the concerns of members of McCain's staff and halfhearted denials from his allies is confusing for the reader and bad for the paper. They don't get to create plausible deniability by hiding the charges in a much longer exploration of McCain's reputation for honesty and his history with lobbyists and special interests -- the substance of the story is whether McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, and whether he then advocated for her clients improperly. Those two things either happened or they didn't, and the paper should just tell us which it is.

Here are some of the advantages Mr. Shepard possessed: His race, his gender, his English-speaking abilities, cultural capital and class privilege, a sense of security, literacy, U.S. citizenship, physical and mental health, a clean credit history, no criminal record, no children or partner to support, no domestic violence situation and no threat of violence for his sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

In the article, he never acknowledges the extent to which any of these advantages may have affected his situation, and brushes off suggestions that his situation might not be representative of most homeless individuals.