Getty Images

Boxer and Fiorina at St. Mary's Sept. 1

MORAGA — Against the backdrop of a state and nation mired in economic stagnation, Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina tussled over jobs, environmental policy, immigration and abortion in a lively debate Wednesday that pitted a vulnerable three-term senator against a political newcomer who is threatening to claim one of the biggest Democratic scalps in the midterm elections.

For months, unemployment — still hovering at over 12 percent in California — has loomed over this race, and that issue again dominated on Wednesday night as the two candidates immediately attacked each other’s jobs record and offered contrasting views on how to spur growth.

The debate, which was the first and possibly only encounter between the two candidates, took place on the Saint Mary's College campus in Moraga.

Fiorina, the Republican nominee, appeared tightly wound as she stood behind a lectern several feet away from Boxer. But the former Hewlett Packard executive was polished and intensely focused, using nearly every opportunity to go on the offensive against the veteran legislator, who seemed more at ease and spontaneous but was pressed to defend a record that was naturally long after nearly three decades in Washington.

Fiorina reverted occasionally to well-rehearsed talking points while straying from direct questions. Yet she maintained a steady pressure on Boxer by portraying the senator as a “bitterly partisan” liberal espousing anti-business policies, and by associating her with the Democratic majority’s economic recovery efforts, which Fiorina said have failed.

“We can turn our nation around,” Fiorina said in a closing statement near the end of the hour-long debate. “We can get our state on the right track. We can control government spending. But to do all these things we must start by changing the people we send to Washington.”

In an acknowledgement of the public's waning confidence in a recovery that has yet to yield many jobs, Boxer said that Democrats "are taking responsibility and we're taking action." She argued that Democratic policies will spur job growth in industries like green technology, so that competition from China and Germany do not further eliminate American jobs.

She hit back at Fiorina — hard — and repeatedly hammered at the layoffs at HP that Fiorina oversaw during her tenure at the company. Boxer also sought to link Fiorina's corporate background and high compensation with the unpopular culture of excess seen on Wall Street.

“This is between someone who is fighting for jobs day in and day out, jobs here in America,” Boxer said, “versus someone who, when she had the chance, laid off 30,000 workers and shipped them off to China.”

Boxer also mentioned that Fiorina’s high-profile stewardship of HP had a unsuccessful ending.

Fiorina appeared slightly irritated as she addressed her corporate history. Calling HP one of California’s “treasures,” Fiorina said: “It’s a shame that she would use that company as a political football.”

But she nimbly pivoted around Boxer's attack by saying that her “difficult decision” to lay off workers at HP, like at many other U.S. businesses, was the result of excessive regulation and taxes that stifled California’s competitiveness. Jobs could created and saved by lowering business taxes, argued Fiorina, who also favors extending the 2001 Bush tax cuts for individuals.

“This is the 21^st Century. Any job can go anywhere,” Fiorina said. “I know precisely why those jobs go. Because China — like Texas, like Brazil—gives companies huge tax credits. They help them cut through regulation. They reward R&D. They provide access to credit.”

Fiorina said she supported low cost-of-business special economic zones modeled after the Chinese to stimulate growth in California.

Fiorina reiterated her belief that AB 32, California’s landmark greenhouse gas emissions law, is one of the measures that hinder the state’s economy and “kills jobs.”

Yet when asked by the moderator—and later, repeatedly by reporters— to specify her position on Proposition 23, which would roll back AB 32, she refused to give an answer.

“I’m not trying to be evasive here,” Fiorina told reporters in a press conference after the debate. “There are loads of voters out there who haven’t probably decided how they will vote on an issue.”

The two candidates also staked opposing positions on social policy. Fiorina, who has taken a tough stance on illegal immigration, said she supports the controversial bill in Arizona. Boxer “vilified the people of Arizona even though the federal government isn’t doing its job,” she said.

She called Boxer hypocritical for calling immigrants “a cheap source of labor that threatens the American worker.”

And on abortion, Fiorina said that she would look to overturn Roe v. Wade given the opportunity, but that it is not an issue does not plan to run on. Polls show that California remains firmly pro-choice.

Boxer, meanwhile, has repeatedly attempted to highlight Fiorina’s position on abortion, which the Republican said is based on “personal experience”—her mother-in-law almost chose to abort her future husband, she said.

“Women would die like they did before Roe v. Wade,” Boxer warned. "If my opponent's views prevailed, women and doctors would be criminals, they would go to jail."

Fiorina also sharply criticized Boxer for voting against military spending on body armor and mine-resistant vehicles, but did not offer any concrete foreign policy proposals.

Boxer countered that she has in fact voted in favor of 85 percent of military appropriations "even though I had disagreements on that war," she said.

She called for a time-table for the draw down of American troops from Afghanistan. "I support beginning the withdrawal by 2011," she said.

The pair, who are locked in a virtual dead heat after months of intense campaigning, exchanged an awkward and brief handshake after the debate.

More debates have been discussed but not yet confirmed, the campaigns said Wednesday.