New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama seemingly buried the hatchet tonight - and this not time in each other’s heads — in a mostly conciliatory debate in Las Vegas four days before the Nevada caucuses.

Both warring candidates seemed to try to short-circuit the ugly race controversy that seemed to be sawing a split in the Democratic ranks. (Ms. Clinton apparently received a warning sign in the Michigan primary today that her campaign may be alienating African American voters in droves). But, in the end, it was seemingly Clinton’s night as she downplayed conflict, subtly (or not too subtly) hurled verbal daggers at Obama, and framed many of her comments as if she was already the 2008 Democratic party nominee, blasting President George Bush’s record and the Republicans.

Was it a new strategy — or is the Clinton camp sure now that it will be able to win the nomination? The Washington Post:

After a week of bitter intraparty disputes over the issue of race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) extended an olive branch to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Tuesday night and declared that she and the other Democratic candidates are “all family” in a nationally televised debate.

Obama returned the gesture, acknowledging that both Clinton and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) were committed to racial equality. Yet despite striking a charitable tone during an appearance on Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, the top three contenders continued to challenge each other over substantive issues, especially energy and the economy, salient issues in this state where caucuses will be held on Saturday.

Obama and Clinton, in one of their sharpest distinctions of the night, offered starkly different visions of the presidency. Obama said he believed the job is about “having a vision for where the country needs to go” rather than ensuring the “paperwork is being shuffled effectively,” while Clinton emphasized the need for understanding how the system works.

“I do think that being president is the chief executive officer. I respect what Barack said about setting the vision, setting the tone, bringing people together,” Clinton said. “But I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy.”

The New York Times also noted the (relatively) mellow tone:

In a two-hour session, which also included an opportunity for candidates to question one another, there was far more collegiality than in almost any of the dozens of debates and joint appearances in the past year. The rivals praised one another with phrases like “Hillary’s exactly right” and, “What Barack said is what John and I also meant” — a sharp break from the invective that had dominated the campaign in recent days.

When it became time for Mrs. Clinton to pose a question to Mr. Obama, she instead offered a long statement inviting him to join with her in sponsoring legislation to require Mr. Bush to come before Congress to get approval for any agreement he might make with the Iraqi government to continue the American presence in Iraq.

“We can work on this, Hillary,” Mr. Obama said, flashing a wide, sweet smile.

The debate, sponsored by MSNBC, came four days before the voters of Nevada take their turn in the Democratic presidential nominating contest. While Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are fighting to win the Nevada caucuses, they also are looking ahead to the South Carolina primary next week and nearly two dozen contests in the next three weeks.

Many of the states include a large share of black voters — as much as 50 percent of the Democratic primary electorate in South Carolina — and all the candidates distanced themselves from comments about race made by their aides or supporters in recent days.

Here are some impressions from this independent voter (who lives in San Diego and who WILL vote in the Democratic primary):

(1) Hillary Clinton has improved but she is still on the attack against Obama, can’t admit a mistake or weakness. At times she sounded almost like Vice President Dick Cheney when the Veep suggested that if the Democrats come to power American would not be safe during a terrorist attack. Clinton’s overall digs at Obama — certainly fair game in politics — were a bit more subtle this time. When asked about her weakness, she avoided the question and turned it into talking about her strong points and a dig at Obama’s answer. Her WORST moment came when she clearly was suggesting if Obama was President America would not be as safe if the terrorists attack than if she was President. Democrats (including Clinton) have decried this tactic for years. She was in command most of the debate.

(2) This was one of Obama’s best debates. But his problem is that he is inspiring on the stump, inspring in speeches, but debates are not his best venue. His answers were generally good and highly thoughtful. In fact, Obama came across as the candidate who has a passion for eschewing polarization and restoring consensus to America and who could remain most flexible to new ideas. Additionally, he actually gave a HUMAN AND CANDID answer when asked about his weakness.

(3) Senator John Edwards so far seems fated to the “also-ran.” While often talking with passion, many of his answers seemed like medley of his campaign stump speeches. He also curtailed some of the sharp attacks he had made in previous debates. It could be that as a candidate Edwards simply does not wear well.

So, in the end, Hillary Clinton played the nominee, while undercutting Obama…Obama played the thoughtful candidate truly thirsting for government by consensus…and Edwards played verbal tapes of his past speeches. Clinton improves on TV each time she’s on. Edwards and Obama still look about the same in this format. Edwards and Obama clearly didn’t want a repeat of the debate before the New Hampshire primary, when the lets-all-pile-on-Hillary and her energetic reaction to it could created backlash and generated votes for Clinton.

Andrew Sullivan “live blogged” the debate and reached some of the conclusions, but was a bit more critical of Ms. Clinton. Key highlights:

9.30 pm: Just like Bush, she cannot talk about her own weaknesses. In her eyes, her weakness is being too aggressive for change! And then she pivots to exploit Obama’s own confession of his personal disorganization. The more you see her, the more calculating she is.

Indeed, this was definitely a low point of Clinton’s performance. My foster son’s wife, who has been sympathetic to Clinton, was sitting next to me and when she heard the answer said: “She failed! She didn’t answer that question!” If you gave her a mark on giving an actual answer on that one it would have been D-. Edwards didn’t do much better.

10.54 pm. She’s so good at this. She’s playing the Rove card, implying that electing someone else would mean that we’d be vulnerable to al Qaeda if one of her opponents wins. Because she’s allegedly “ready on day one.” In the end, you just drop your jaw at the shamelessness of the Clintons. But they get away with it and grind on. I think Clinton won this debate by utilizing classic old-political tactics. Every answer was filtered through an exacting political filter. No answer provided any potential vulnerability. She is ready on Day One to play the classic political game. That’s all. That’s her real experience: sliming opponents, rewarding allies, listening to pollsters, tending to her machine.

10.57 pm. Clinton says she decided to run for president a year ago on New Years. She says this with a perfectly straight face. You have to understand that she can tell lies almost as well as her husband. And if you don’t know or cannot know the actual truth, there’s no way to tell. She’s that good.

But, in reality, if you were a fly on the wall you’d probably have a tidbit of information: each of the three probably decided to run long before the dates they gave during the debate.