Whether or not we need a third party is one of those questions that shows up every election cycle. The general perception is that, if neither the Dems or Repubs are offering intelligent policies, then a third party could. Unfortunately, a third party would still be a party – meaning even if it’s more “centrist” than the current parties, it’ll quickly succumb to the same internal power games and distasteful compromises that afflict our blue and red friends.

What we need, I think, is not a new party but a revitalized commitment to independence within the two major parties.

Progressives have worked so hard to elect Democrats to represent our demands for ethics reform -- this is a slap in the face to everyone that has contributed money to the party in the hopes that they would represent our values on this matter.

Progressives that champion transparency, ethics, and accountability in government should feel betrayed. New York Democrats will have a lot of work to do to regain the trust, not just of average New York voters, but also of core constituents.

Perhaps, some strategists suggest, this gender gap is more about women’s loyalty to Mrs. Clinton than about men’s reluctance to vote for a woman. By this argument, men are responding in droves to the broad appeal of Mr. Obama — the promise of change over experience — while women are hanging back in gender solidarity.

But Kathleen Dolan, a professor of political science and an expert on women in politics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, argues that the visceral reaction of many men to Mrs. Clinton suggests that something more is at work. “You could say men are just really captivated by Obama,” Ms. Dolan said. “But I’m not willing to say that’s what it is.”

For the past few years, progressives have been saying that one of the most important things Democrats needed to do was to get tough. Republicans had been kicking sand in their faces too long, and the time had come to hit back just as hard.

But now the candidate who should be as familiar as anyone with "the Chicago way" -- given that he's actually from Chicago -- is on the receiving end of some less than polite politics, and more than a few progressives don't like what they're seeing. Barack Obama and his advisors did a lot of careful planning for this campaign, but there's one thing it doesn't seem they prepared for: Their main opponent, Hillary Clinton, is running like a Republican. And it appears to be working.

One thing I do like about this debate is that its freewheeling, hot emotion better reveals the candidates' various poles, rather than allowing them to stay relentlessly on message and project uncomplicated selves. Take Obama -- the last hour and a half has captured for me both why I find him frustrating and why I admire him.

Early in the debate, he sounded like it was Hillary's world and he just lives in it. Too many of his responses began with "Hillary, that's not what I said," which is both huffy in style and bereft in substance, since it turns the argument to semantics and quibbles over quotations that can't be fact-checked up on the stage, rather than what everybody actually meant.