One of the measures of the ham-handedness of Democratic National Chairman Debbie Wasserman Shultz is that she didn’t want to schedule a presidential debate just before the New Hampshire primary for fear that it would hurt Hillary Clinton—and that a debate was scheduled nonetheless, and that Clinton did pretty well. She radiated self-confidence, aplomb and energy after her far from impressive—and perhaps dubious—narrow victory in the Iowa caucuses and in the face of poll numbers showing her trailing far behind challenger Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire.

Clinton may have been performing better on style than substance, however. She skated over a late-in-the-debate, soft-ball-worded question on the top secret material transmitted on her home-brew hackable email system with assertions incapable of standing up under even the most modest sort of scrutiny. She avoided the cluelessness shown when she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that she accepted $675,000 in speech fees from Goldman Sachs because that was what they offered her. But Sanders still got in some nicks on how she supposedly did the bidding of Wall Street. What neither of them addressed, nor was asked to address, is why the Dodd-Frank legislation that they supported conferred too-big-to-fail stautus on financial institutions which, as Sanders noted, have increased their share of the financial services sector since the president they professed they support took office in 2009 and signed Dodd-Frank in 2010.