Similar Plotlines In Dem Debate Sequel

This analysis was written by Vaughn Ververs, senior political editor for CBSNews.com.

This is the summer of sequels at the box office and Sunday's Democratic presidential debate fit right in. The scenery and local audience in New Hampshire was far different than these candidates addressed in South Carolina last month and the dramatic tension reached a slightly higher level. But the basic plotlines remained unchanged.

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards cast himself once again in the role of the aggressive progressive, determined to claim the party's anti-war, anti-Bush mantle, mostly at the expense of front-runner Hillary Clinton. The senator from New York stuck to her script, refusing to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq and parting ways with Edwards on the war on terrorism. And Barack Obama stayed true to his practical idealism, with a twist of added policy heft and quick wit thrown in.

Just minutes into the debate, the three found themselves in a sharp exchange over the war in Iraq and terrorism when Clinton pointedly disagreed with Edwards' characterization of the war on terror as a "bumper sticker" and a mere "political slogan." Clinton not only refused to endorse that view, she came dangerously close -- for a Democratic candidate -- to complimenting the Bush administration. "I believe we are safer than we were" before 9/11, she said before adding: "we are not yet safe enough."

As it has been for nearly the past four years though, it was the war which provided most of the spark and starkly demonstrated one of the major fault lines in the Democratic race.

While Clinton and Obama sought to explain their recent votes against the Iraq funding bill, Edwards struck hard, criticizing both of the senators for "quietly" opposing the administration's policy on timelines for withdrawal, insisting: "it's the difference between leading and following."

For her part, Clinton sought to cast the war as a unifying issue where Democrats have the upper hand, despite nuances in their approach. Noting that nearly all the Republican presidential candidates support the war, Clinton said, "the differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major."

But it was Obama who took offense at Edwards' line, refusing to cede any ground in the staunch anti-war camp. Alluding to Edwards' original vote for the war, the senator from Illinois told Edwards: "The fact is that I opposed this war from the start, so you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue."

Edwards returned to the original authorization for the war when he and Clinton were both asked to explain how they felt comfortable enough to vote for it when they did not read the entire National Intelligence Estimate first. Clinton tried to brush past the issue, saying she had enough information while Edwards explained in more detail, adding: "one difference we do have is I think I was wrong."

Again, it was Obama with the last word when he pointed out that former Intelligence Committee Chair Bob Graham voted against the war specifically because of information in the NIE. "Obviously there was some pertinent information there," he said.

It was a microcosm of the debate which has been a part of the Democratic campaign since the first fund-raising calls were made. But while Edwards has effectively kept Clinton on the hot seat for refusing to apologize for her 2002 vote -- as he does every chance he gets -- Obama's presence helped to relieve that pressure by reminding voters that he alone of the major candidates opposed the war from the very beginning.

Obama and Edwards also squared off over the particulars of their health care proposals, debating what constitutes universal coverage and whether mandatory participation is a workable model. Taxes, energy policy, immigration, and the ongoing genocide in Darfur were among other topics which came up, both from the journalistic moderators and members of the audience, but Iraq and terrorism are likely to continue dominating the race for the foreseeable future.

Like the previous debate, the five other Democrats mostly played the supporting cast, unable to break into the top tier. Delaware Senator Joe Biden was passionate and pragmatic, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd once again demonstrated that he has the policy chops on a range of issues and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson displayed his executive and foreign policy experience. Representative Dennis Kucinich continued making his case as the peace candidate and former senator Mike Gravel was on hand once again to chastise the rest.

Next to Iraq, Darfur brought out some of the most passionate discussion, with Richardson advocating a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics if China fails to step in and cooperate in stopping the war in Sudan. Raising his voice, Biden said there is little time for U.N. discussions, warning: "by the time all these guys talk, 50,000 more people are going to be dead."

As was the case in South Carolina, nothing happened on stage last night to transform the race in any meaningful way. Obama improved on his earlier performance, making no big mistakes and coming through with some of the most memorable lines.

Last time, Obama struggled with a question about a tough response to terrorism, leading some to question his toughness. But when Kucinich said he would not "take out" Osama bin Laden if he had the opportunity, Obama wasn't about to repeat that mistake. "When you've got a military target like bin Laden, you take him out," he said.

Clinton again turned in a solid performance, unwilling to bend too far to the left in her positions. It's a trait that could prove helpful in the New Hampshire primary, where independents are allowed to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary and constitute a large segment of the electorate. And her approach would certainly be beneficial should she make it to the general election.

Edwards, who leads in Iowa - where liberal activists are more influential in the process - continued aggressively pushing the other frontrunners on everything from the war to taxes to health care. His direct attacks are aimed as much at Obama as Clinton, as Edwards is seeking to become the "not-Hillary" candidate in the field. That's one reason why much of the back-and-forth came between those two and not the front-runner.

Like any sequel, this one left a clear path for part three – and five, and seven and however many we will end up with. There could yet be some twists and turns in the plotlines of those debates to come, and the rhetoric is certain to become more heated. But those Academy Award-winning performances are best saved for the fall. Summer is the time for predictable entertainment. Sunday night's affair had far more of the former than the latter.