Clinton came with a quiver full of strong lines. Was she really a moderate or a liberal? “I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.” When O’Malley assailed her, she smiled and said, “I was very pleased when Governor O’Malley endorsed me in 2008. I consider him a friend.” Did she want to respond to an attack from Chafee: Another smile. “No.” How would she represent something different than Barack Obama’s third term? Another smile, then a reminder that she’d be the first woman president.

But while Clinton’s experience may be her calling card, it’s also her greatest weakness. Her lengthy career offers her opponents many opportunities to show the ways that Democratic orthodoxy has changed since Bill Clinton was elected in 1992—and how she has tended to change with it. Her opponents assailed her repeatedly for her vote in favor of the Iraq War; in fact, Chafee and Webb both owe their national profiles in large part to their taking the opposite stance. They protested her vote for the Patriot Act. They criticized her handling of Russia and the Syrian Civil War while she was secretary of state.

Some of the strongest blows landed on Clinton came from Clinton herself. Discussing questions about her private email account, she avowed, “I have been as transparent as I know how to be”—a line that seems destined to be repeated in attack ads by opponents who will connect it to other lawyerly statements by both Hillary and Bill Clinton. Challenged on her refusal to take a stance on the Keystone XL pipeline, she said, “I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.” That’s true, but it only highlights how long she avoided taking any position at all.

Clinton landed a few good punches on her opponents, too, despite predictions that she might try to remain above the fray. In addition to reminding O’Malley of his past support for her, she went after Sanders twice in the early minutes, calling for reform of capitalism rather than revolution and assailing him for being too soft on guns.

Guns turned out to be one of the few areas of serious disagreement among the candidates. O’Malley and Clinton favor a stricter set of gun regulations, while Sanders—who represents the rural state of Vermont in the Senate—has long been more equivocal, voting against the Brady Bill in 1993, for example. A curious alliance emerged between Sanders, the most liberal candidate on stage, and Webb, the most conservative: In addition to being to the right of their party on firearms, the two men both have strong ties to rural areas, and they both have strong ties to white working-class voters, and strained relations with minorities.

Overall, the Democratic candidates simply don’t have the same divisions that the Republicans one do, and that showed through on Tuesday night. The candidates have differences about how to achieve their goals, but they agree on a broad set of principles: They want to raise taxes on the wealthy, expand the social-safety net, regulate guns, reduce mass incarceration, and, for the most part, avoid foreign entanglements. They all want to fight climate change and expand access to higher education. There are gradations, of course—Sanders and O’Malley have far more sweeping plans for Wall Street reform than Clinton—but the gulf is more over degree than type.