Tonight was a mixed performance. Her weakest moment: explaining how vacating Iraq would not create the perception of U.S. weakness among Al Qaeda and Iran. She essentially fell back on the “Iraq is a distraction from Afghanistan” argument. That said, her view that there is “no military solution” in Iraq will be an easier sell than John McCain’s “no alternative but victory.”

On torture and waterboarding, she fenced with O’Reilly but craftily reminded him that none of the remaining candidates “think torture works.” Still, she seemed ill-equipped to combat the views of high-level officials that in three instances waterboarding did in fact “work.”

Her best moments came on illegal immigration, when she sounded both tough on enforcement (she says she favors border controls and employer sanctions) but reasonable. She was perhaps less in command and less amusing than in Part 1 of the interview. Still, my take is essentially the same: she is a capable, impressive candidate who has gotten better with time and will come across as eminently reasonable to many less ideologically-motivated voters. What’s more, she’s smart enough to go on Fox, tangle with O’Reilly, and look like she’s enjoying it. (Better than a dreary, disengaged performance on a fluff morning show.)