Amy Klobuchar got another shot at making a mark on a national audience Tuesday. As Patrick Condon writes in today's Star Tribune, the Minnesota senator entered the second Democratic debate "needing more than ever to make the kind of big impression that would help build momentum for her candidacy." So how did she do? Here's a sampling of what people across the political spectrum are saying about her performance:
The Washington Post said Klobuchar "stood out" by "[positioning] herself as a moderate" and emphasizing her electability in areas Trump won:
"The Minnesota senator leans on her Midwestern values and ability to win over voters in Trump districts and collaborate with Republicans in Congress. She has positioned herself as a moderate by questioning the viability and practicality of Medicare-for-all, free college and other policies advocated by more liberal candidates. On Tuesday, she cast herself as the candidate willing to stand up to the National Rifle Association."
Those comments on gun control also caught the attention of some advocates and observers on Twitter:
Some pundits and talking heads thought she made the case that she'd make a strong general election candidate against President Trump:
But The Washington Post's Ed Rogers ranked her performance "no better than fourth" among the rivals on stage.
"She was consistently in the weeds. She doesn't do anything very well, but she doesn't stumble. That said, she never made a clear point. She needed to say something big, but she did not. She is so boring that she is credible. But she is also so boring that she does not have any adhesiveness. She has no emotional appeal. Klobuchar's rehearsed spiel on gun control was effective, but she talked like a senator, not a president. The window for her to establish herself is closing."
CNN's Chris Cillizza also put Klobuchar in the "losers" category: