Second Thoughts On The Debate

Who won last night? In the sense that there's an election a-brewin', someone obvious did. But the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to make a call. For the first solid hour of the debate, Barack Obama was kept on the defensive by Hillary Clinton; she demonstrated her mastery of health care policy and immigration policy. For the final third of the debate, Hillary Clinton was forced to review, over and over and over, her 2002 vote on the use of force resolution.

CNN estimates that between 5 and 6 million people watched the debate, many of them new to the presidential race. Probably 40 million other voters will get their debate impressions via television and radio. And one storyline along predominates: two candidates, about whom the party is pretty darn enthusiastic, being nice to each other and challenging the Republicans. The biggest applause line of last night came after Wolf Blitzer seemed to encourage the crowd to cheer for the prospect of an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.

Comments

I watched the debate and quite frankly I'm not sure where you (and others) get the idea that Clinton dominated on immigration. It seems to me that she certainly tried to filibuster the conversation, but her veiled endorsment of African-Americans scapegoating immigrants was a gaffe and her new explanation on drivers license (it would put the IMMIGRANTS at risk of being caught) was just odd.

I'll give her health care, but immigration and Iraq were clear wins for Obama.

Posted by Keith | February 1, 2008 9:16 AM

"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this filibuster"

Posted by Big Hill | February 1, 2008 9:19 AM

This fantasy of both candidates being on the same ticket is just that: a fantasy. Both are too strong of personalities to accept the no.2 slot with the other. Plus, whoever wins the nomination will not want the other on the ticket.

Obama would not want to be veep to Hillary; working with Hillary and Bill would be a soap opera; a psychodrama. And the Clintons have a way of bringing people who work with them down and actually stalling their careers; ask Al Gore who only rejuvenated his career after distancing himself from the Clintons. Veeps also do not historically go on to become president, although there are a few exceptions. Also, would Hillary want to add Obama, who would totally overshadow her on the campaign trail?

And Hillary would not want to be veep to Obama because she wants to only be no. 1. Obama would not want Hillary, for that would be bringing in the Billary psychodrama into his campaign, not to mention someone so polarizing that it would cost the ticket votes.

Obama is clearly better off if he chooses someone else to be his veep, and should he not win the nomination, to develop his career in other ways. Personally, I hope Obama does win and puts an end to this Bush/Clinton dynasty.

Posted by cm | February 1, 2008 9:21 AM

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with the first commenter. I thought Obama was much clearer on his Immigration plan and Hilldog screwed the pooch on that accountability answer. I think that answer could come back to haunt her.

Posted by bdevil02 | February 1, 2008 9:27 AM

Hmm...you say Obama was kept on the defensive for the first hour, yet the previous post says he was "commanding" for the first 45 minutes. Which is it?
Three of us watched the debate last night at a friend's house and thought it was excellent. It had plenty of substance, and no sniping or stupid "diamonds or pearls" questions. Who "won" would have to be determined by what you were looking for, but we felt Obama prevailed by blending humor, strength and grace under pressure. He was substantive without being boring. Hillary came across pretty well, but bored at times and is never inspiring. I guess that's why she keeps mentioning the "first woman" thing.

Posted by southernoregon | February 1, 2008 9:34 AM

I think that for those who watched the whole debate: Obama won. He stayed substantive and provided a great electibility message on Iraq and the need to contrast with McCain. I think Clinton's muddy response basically reinforced Obama's talking point: she can't declare herself cleanly different from McCain because she held his positions not long ago.

On Immigration: I think Clinton is banking on a substantive lead and hurt herself. I think given Kennedy's outreach and Obama's too to that community and his warm answer on immigration last night he definitly helped himself to some voters there while ALSO not alienating to many.

And on healthcare I think he hammered home the fact that mandates are their difference. And while the pundits and media score that for Clinton, I think it's also important to note mandates don't poll well. Healthcare was HRCs strong suite and it showed; but in going toe to toe with her and then creating such a strong divide on Iraq I think Obama helped himself among a lot of different demographics who ALSO were reminded of McCain and the Republicans coming down the path.

I think the only thing that hurt him was the VP question which will give women the option of saing; he'll be on the ticket. As well as others who are torn but decide to go with the Clinton brand.

I think overall, I came with the impression that Obama directly destroyed the gravitas issue HRC has worked on against him w/the Iraq portion when it came up directly. He looked good and comforatable and they were spectacularly frinedly which helps him more since it dials down the sexist meme that was out there too.

I think if Richardson endorses him today and Edwards also; he has an opportunity to lock down Feb. 5th were he is WAY behind and come close enough to live to fight Feb. 9th and 11th.

Posted by Rhoda | February 1, 2008 9:35 AM

Hillary is going to have a real problem getting a quality vice president. The problem is named Bill. Given BC's intellect, energy, and lack of self-discipline, it's hard to see how he stays in the background in a way that allows the vice president to have the large role now considered customary. Any veep is automatically number three.

Posted by Matt | February 1, 2008 9:47 AM

Obama scored a home run on immigration. Calling out the scapegoating of immigrants, Obama probably secured many Hispanic votes. While Hillary said that undocumented workers should not get drivers licences.

Remember this is the Dem primary and not the general election, the Hispanic voter will make a big difference on Tuesday.

Posted by TDE | February 1, 2008 9:56 AM

What debate were you watching, Marc? Obama kept on the defensive by Hillary for the first hour? Neither candidate was really going after the other, and Hillary seemed to be more on the defensive, particularly with regard to the question of drivers licenses (not sure if this was in the first hour). The only part where he was potentially on the defensive was on the health care differences, but that was not at the doing of Hillary but upon Wolf trying to clarify the differences.

Also, I love how talking incessantly about an issue,whether relevant to the question or not, exhibits "mastery" of an issue.

Posted by Joe Wheaton | February 1, 2008 10:02 AM

Hillary had a slightly better debate. Obama did well. But both candidates based their strategies on the presumption that remaining on their current trajectories would yield victory on February 5 - and about that, they can't both be right.

It works like this. Hillary thinks that her leads are too large, her support among Mexican-Americans too solid, her establishment backing too formidable, for Obama to make up the requisite ground in just a few days. So she played it safe, unwilling to risk another backlash by attacking him. Obama's watching his surge in the national polls, the impact of his major endorsements, and the cash flooding in to his campaign, and he likes what he sees. So he played it safe, unwilling to risk a repeat of voter sympathy for a woman under attack, a la Lazio and New Hampshire.

Who won, then, depends on whose read is more accurate. Personally, I think Obama comes out ahead, on balance. Gallup and Rasmussen show a rapidly tightening national race. I think post-Nevada, there was a public perception of the Clintons as a joint ticket, desperately clinging to power. That's a bad narrative for Hillary, and she needed to do something dramatic to recapture her earlier momentum. She's hoping that muzzling Bill and putting herself front and center will be enough to return the focus to her own experience and policies. I suspect it's too late - voters aren't likely to forget, in the span of a week, Bill's recent antics. But who knows? We'll see.

Posted by FlyOnTheWall | February 1, 2008 10:12 AM

As an Obama voter, I was thrilled with his performance. He showed real mastery of the details, although Hillary definitely got the better on health care. Still, his call for putting the negotiations on C-SPAN is the kind of move that might seem trivial while watching the debate, but actually could move voters. His target wasn't Hillary so much as Cheney, and what made it a great move was how it differentiates him from both. On Iraq, he not only dominated, but managed to deflate GOP b.s. on the success of the surge in one sentence. That being said, Hillary showed why she's so formidable. She reminded me why I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination. Odd that in order to do so she needed to push Bill out of the room. He needs to go on an extended vacation, one ending in mid-Jan. 2009. So who won? Hard to say, really. They both did. But it's clear who lost: the GOP.

Posted by NHCt | February 1, 2008 10:20 AM

The Iraq segment was a slo-mo car crash from Hillary who up to that point in the debate had been even, with Obama. In addition, this concensus that she won the Health Care segment simply isn't true. They have different plans, and each would surely do well in the general making the case for their own plans. I will say that Obama finally broke through the membrane on his own health plan, and what the audience came away with was two smart people having thought about the health care problem, came up with two different plans that are anything but radically different from each other.

However, the Iraq segment triggered a discursive and meandering vomitorial from Hillary. Clearly getting hit twice, from both the panel and an e-mailer on Iraq, rattled her, and triggered her reaction. Again, and this is crucial, people must begin to understand that HRC's record on the war is not merely a story of political opportunism, in which she joined the crowd in the drumbeat for war, and now joins the crowd on the matter of withdrawal. It's something much more serious than that. It's an actual inability, intellectually, to play the game of Uncertaintly. And, a propensity for social herding. Hillary Clinton is one tough and smart individual but she is NOT a leader who loves to get out in front of issues, and stand alone, against the madness of crowds who are always mad, and always wrong.

The crowd is ALWAYS wrong. To be a leader you have to face that crowd and persuade the. She'll never be able to do that because she has no stomach nor the instinct for that. Bill did. He loved, and still loves to get out there. She can't. In fact, this is the inter-lock of their marriage. His strengths and weaknesses are the opposite of hers.

Hillary supporters: HRC cannot win Ohio, and she is very unlikely to win an election against McCain because she cannot go beyond the Gore/Kerry map. In addition, while it's a positive that she is NOT Bill, it's a negative that she lacks the crucial leadership instinct.

Hillary Clinton is a Senator to her core, and a good one. Obama is a Governor or President who frankly doesn't belong in the Senate. He needs to get out of there fast before the sands through the hourglass turn him from a visionary into a walking dead person.

Posted by Gregor | February 1, 2008 10:37 AM

Marc,

The problem that you and so many junkies have when interpresting this is that you are not able to step into the showes of the casual feb 5th voter who has been marginally paying attention but is just starting to focus.

These voters have been generally dependent on the media for their impressions and over the last few weeks, Hillary and the media have made a caricature of Obama as a) a racially divisive "black candidate." b) someone who is rude to (female) Hillary and c) someone who just talks the talk but does not have enough substance for prime time and to entrust to beat the republicans and govern.

On all three areas, Obama strongly dispelled the negative Hillary/media narratives imposed upon him.

a) As much as Bill Clinton tried to make him jesse jackson or Al Sharpton, casual viewers saw a candidate who happens to be black, not a black candidate. As much as Hillary has tried to drive a wedge between latinos against blacks. But it was Obama who said we should not scapegoat any group, while Hillary oddly tried to take the black position against latinos. That is not going to win Hillary black votes - those are sewn up for Obama - but it may well cost her latino voters, who are just tuning in and juts heard ted kennedy tell them that Obama was right on this issue.

b) AS much as Hillary and the media were hoping for a Hillary-as-victim of male boorishness moment, it never came. Obama was hoilding chairs, hugging, touching her arm, etc. The primary tool that Hillary has to get female voters to ignore her shortcomings is to provoke a triabalistic backlash against men in general. This denbate, unlike that before NH, gave hillary no chance to play her gender trump card

c) If ny casual voter was worries that Obama was not ready for prime time, this debate absolved him of that concern. Experience is a threshold question. Even if Hillary narrowly edged out Obama on this, they both looked like credibly competant presidents. Since this is already assumed about Hillary, but not Obama, this dynamic was to Obama's benefit.

Now, I have heard some commenters say that Hillary also got to dispell misconceptions that she is too polarizing and divisive by being so nice and charming. That may be true to an extent, but I doubt she gets much of a bump from that. people already now Hillary. Their opinions on her are much ess fluid than for Obama. She has little capacity to change peoiple's minds about her.

Basically, this debate did a lot to address people's concerns about Obama, someone they want to be able to support given his inspirational quality but they need to be reassured that he can win and he can do the job. On the other hand, one debate is not going to erase the grave concerns many have about a Billary resoration. There is just too much history there.

I think Obama gets a bigger boost out of this debate. i think his momentum continues.

Posted by RKA | February 1, 2008 10:46 AM

First half: tie, by virtue of Obama holding his own in Hillary's best format, debating, and on some of her supposedly strongest issues, health care, economy, etc. He amply demonstrated the wonkishness necessary to convince fence sitters, who have so often wondered if he's an empty suit. He clobbered her on immigration, which is much clearer in retrospect after a night's sleep. He was straightforward, honest, and made the overarching point that those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, i.e, poor blacks, latinos and whites, are so often pitted against each other to their own detriment. This should be very appealing to Edwards voters. Hillary was alternately muddled and pandering, and seemed willing to throw Latinos under the bus in order to win back some black votes.

But the real story was the war. He killed. She made an epic blunder by not continuing her mendacity and obfuscation about her vote, which had served her so well until now. What the hell can she say to McCain in the fall, when every argument she makes can be thrown back at her, with McCain getting to appear principled and consistent? Ready on day one? I thought Obama's "Mindset" formulation was the best line of the night, by far. It will destroy her and will be what works most effectively against McCain in the fall.

Remember this: the War in Iraq had receded in importance in the campaign all the way from NH through SC. It has come roaring back, front and center, with the emergence of McCain as the inevitable opponent. That rules Hillary out as the nominee, particularly after last night's epic fumbling. Obama was on a roll anyway, and this is what puts him over the top. It no longer matters whether it happens before Feb. 5th or not, he's now inevitable.

Posted by TrueBlue | February 1, 2008 10:49 AM

the surprise to me was that as strong a debater as Hillary usually is - she made the Iraq issue worse for herself by getting deeper and deeper into it
And there is no good way for her to explain her vote -- the bote was a "resolution to use force" not a resolution for inspections

the unfortunate NON surprise to me was when Hillary again pitted black against brown in response to the question from the Atlanta woman about african americans losing their jobs to immigrants

This is why I will vote for Obama
Obama answered that question that using immigrants asn an excuse for not working was "scapegoating" and Hillary said yes african americans are losing their jobs to immigrants and they should be upset

That's it is a nutshell
Obama wants people to take responsibility for their actions and lift themselves up and Hillary wants everyone at each other's throats so only she (and Bill) can/know how to save them

Obama '08
for everyone's future

Posted by alison weil | February 1, 2008 10:57 AM

Look Hillary has had two huge opportunities in her
35 years of experience" to get a major issue right - health care and the Iraq War - she has blown them both. She screwed up health care - tried to steamroll it through and got herself a reputation for being secretive and manipulative. She voted FOR a war that was steamrolled through Congress and showed no reluctance for voting for it at the time.

How many big bites of the apple is she supposed to get before her abilities as a REAL leader come into question. Sure she can wonk her way through health care now, and sure she wants to end the war now but where was she when her actions could have changed the course of events? She was part of the problem - not the solution and we want to give her the nod for eight more years????

Posted by C.B. | February 1, 2008 11:05 AM

the theme song for both candidates last night: "don't rock the boat".

Posted by Ryan | February 1, 2008 11:13 AM

Obama did damage control all night. Being nice to her because he had been an ass at state of the union with uncle ted. He drank water everytime Hillary stung him good and he drank a lot of water.
He damaged himself so badly last week being arrogant he was reduced to holding her chair at the end of debate, and thus gets caught playing catch up.
By saying all those nice things about her he was reversing himself and letting his argument against her slip away. if they are friends then she isn't the enemy. If they agree on most things his campaign loses much of its reasoning.
He seemed back on his heels all night afraid to say what his hard core supporters wanted him to say because he was afraid of what she would say back.
He's wicked smart and she is wicked smart.
he got caught out a few times especially on her co sponsering health care in 2004 before he even came to town.

He says things in his ads about her that he did not say close up.they agreed with each other over and over: she won.

Posted by Michael C. | February 1, 2008 11:56 AM

Michael C. - Frank Luntz's undecided democratic voters poll says Obama won overwhelmingly. See ya' Tuesday Night!

Posted by C.B. | February 1, 2008 11:59 AM

This Republican was very impressed with Obama. The contrast between the Republican's debate and the Democrat's debate was stark. The Republican candidates continued their shallow discussion of the issues and the pandering to the so-called base (which excludes some of us Republicans). How magnanimous of Romney to say that he would wait until the end of the school year to send illegals with children home.

Afghanistan was ignored during the Republican debate because it detracts from the head in the sand approach that we were right to invade Iraq and are "winning" with the surge. Obama told it like it is about Afghanistan.

I could vote for Obama but not Senator Clinton.

Posted by C.J | February 1, 2008 12:10 PM

He damaged himself so badly last week being arrogant he was reduced to holding her chair at the end of debate, and thus gets caught playing catch up.

I'm assuming you don't have a very fast internet connection. Obama has been absolutely surging this past week, narrowing Clinton's lead and extending his own in every state and national poll. Obama showed that he is not an empty suit, that he has poise, intelligence, confidence, and a deep knowledge of issues. The myth that he was too green to be President was his weakness and he dispelled it last night. They both did well but Obama is riding a wave and was smart enough to do nothing to stop it, instead showing grace, civility, and authority. He looked and sounded presidential, which may not seem like something profound, but it was exactly what he needed to do. I'd say the momentum will keep moving in his direction.

Posted by Craig Harman | February 1, 2008 12:14 PM

Could a Hillary supporter please outline their candidate's "35 years of experience"? Please be sure to include the many years riding Bill's coattails as First Lady of Arkansas and the US as well as her stint on the Wal_Mart board. Thanks.

Posted by The Decider | February 1, 2008 12:14 PM

Michael C: based on your post you're wicked stupid.

Posted by Lars | February 1, 2008 12:16 PM

Still rather stunned from *listening* to Clinton's voice last night. No tonal range, no sonority, no varying pitch, just a flat, midwestern monotone that likes to hear its own utterances.

That grating monotone is mixed with a mind that cannot think succinctly, come to a point, or build a case that is reasonably logical in its scope. Clinton is quite simply all over the map when she presents -- wayward, spacey, continuously self-referential, always plugging the banal and personal over real ideas. Her thought processes, if one can call them that, muddied the debate. Does she ever unequivacally state the genesis and development of her position on an issue? No. She wanders, taking detour after meandering detour, offering tepid, meaningless bromides until she is cut off.

Unfortunately, she never tires of her grating monotone. She never doubts the brilliance of her arguments, if they could be called that. In short, she's an awful bore. She may be able to thrill an Eagles hall, titillate a retirement home, or enliven a pancake breakfast, but she lacks real breadth of vision and the ability to express that vision in a sharp and focused manner.

Posted by Trilby | February 1, 2008 12:46 PM

If the commenters to this post are to be believed, Obama will handily win on Feb 5th. I'm constantly amazed at how many political junkies gush over Obama. The fact is, in an uneventful debate, the front runner benefits. Hillary is still the front runner. I was undecided now leaning strongly for Hillary.

Obama just doesn't seem to be ready to lead the U.S. government and armed forces. Frankly, he gets TOO MUCH credit for a speech he gave in 2002 opposing the war. By 2004, he was waffling. In the senate, he has voted EXACTLY like Hillary -- he is no Feingold on this issue.

If he had TRUE political courage, why was he not vehemently anti-war in 2004 or in the Senate? Why does he oppose the politically unpopular mandates to achieve universal health care?

As usual, the chattering class live in an echo chamber.

Posted by rashad davis | February 1, 2008 1:02 PM

Trilby,

Well done! You hit every word on the hit parade. You're going to rock the verbal portion.

Posted by Trilby's SAT Tutor | February 1, 2008 1:07 PM

Obama has been absolutely surging this past week, narrowing Clinton's lead and extending his own in every state and national poll.

Just like he was surging between Iowa and New Hampshire? We know he has the ability to raise money, draw huge crowds, and get people to tell pollsters they'll vote for him. What he hasn't shown very convincingly is that his supporters get to the polls in the same numbers that Hillary's do.

The fact is, in an uneventful debate, the front runner benefits. Hillary is still the front runner. I was undecided now leaning strongly for Hillary.

Yup. Thing is, all the commentary on how Obama "killed" on the Iraq issue is missing a very basic point: Democratic voters for whom Iraq is the salient issue are already in Obama's camp. He doesn't need to "kill" on the Iraq issue. He needs to start "killing" on the economy. And soon. Think about it, how many die-hard anti war voters have you run into who are favoring Hillary Clinton? I haven't run into a single one. Obama needs to pick up economic insecurity voters and downscale Democrats. Those voters -- who will surely outnumber upscale process liberals in next Tuesday's contests -- will close for Hillary just like they did in New Hampshire. I know Obama has some thoughtful policy positions on the economy as evidenced by his website, but why does he hardly ever focus on the issue? I'm beginning to think he's just not that well-versed on the wonky domestic policy stuff, and he's perhaps afraid he'll stumble. But this winter of economic discontent is not the time to shy away from talking about the economy. A lot of Democrats are scared by what's going on. They want solid economic policy expertise -- not kumbayas.

Posted by Jasper | February 1, 2008 1:44 PM

Rashad: uneventful? If you don't realize that electability is key for the fall election, you're not paying attention. Hillary absolutely made a mess out of her weakest of all weak points, her cynically political vote for Iraq authorization. After the 2006 elections, do you think the country needs an election in the fall between two Senators who voted for the war, consistently and unapologetically? Have you read Obama's 2002 speech? If you would please examine it, you'll see that he was able to look at the issues involved with clarity and intelligence. Go back and read her rambling, muddled and contradictory responses on the war from last night's debate. She sounded positively Bush-like in her twisted and circular logic. He has demonstrated better judgment than Hillary on every issue of foreign policy that's come up in the campaign.

Posted by TrueBlue | February 1, 2008 1:47 PM

Hillary absolutely made a mess out of her weakest of all weak points, her cynically political vote for Iraq authorization.

This is hardly her "weak point". So far, she has received more votes than Obama, so it doesn't appear to be hurting her much among Democrats. And in the general election against McCain, she's perfectly positioned: she advocates commencing a responsible draw down of US forces within sixty days of the inauguration (which should be popular with voters) but will be less vulnerable than Obama to GOP charges she's soft on defense.

Posted by Jasper | February 1, 2008 1:55 PM

Speaking of hit parade, here are some "hits" from Hillary last night:

"There are people who have been pushed out of jobs and factories and meat processing plants, and all kinds of settings. And I meet them."

. . .

"And representing New York, the homeland with the Statue of Liberty, bringing all of our immigrants to our shores, has been not only an extraordinary privilege, but given me the opportunity to speak out on these issues."

. . .

"Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment."

. . .

Here is Obama's best hit:

"It is true we've got a policy difference, because my view is that the reason people don't have health care, and I meet them all the time, in South Carolina, a mother whose child has cerebral palsy and could not get insurance for and [she] started crying during a town hall meeting, and Hillary, I'm sure, has had the same experiences."

Does she ever!

Posted by Trilby | February 1, 2008 2:00 PM

All of you who think that Hillary "lost" the poriton of the debate on Iraq are overlooking one fundamental thing. Over half the people polled in the most recent study done on the war in Iraq said that they thought America was "winning" the war. That is all it takes for voters to come to the conclusion that the war was ultimately worthwhile.

Admittedly far more Republicans than Democrats are likely to think that America is "winning" and therefore find the war acceptable, but still it is far less of an issue than it was 4 years ago among Dems, and even in that race the war "hawk" John Kerry won the primaries.

Posted by robert ethan | February 1, 2008 4:03 PM

Trilby - Now that we know what your criteria for supporting your candidate is (and most of your fellow Omama supporters), it is just too bad that

a) Luciano Pavoratti is no longer with us, and

b) Even if he was, he wouldn't be eligible to run for President in the U.S.

So, I guess you'll just have to settle for Reverand Barack Obama Jr.

Halleleujah, Amen, Get Down brothers and sisters!

Posted by robert ethan | February 1, 2008 4:09 PM

Voters FOR each candidate were not swayed last night.

Voters interested enough to tune in last night saw two candidates that could run the country.

In that, Obama won because he's still introducing himself, showed himself at least as capable as Clinton. Clinton lost because she had to defend why HER and not Bill, also her Iraq war vote.

The Clintons needed some reason to dismiss Obama. They didn't get it.

Obama and his groundswell needed to show him as capable and not just fluff. He did get that.

Obama won.

Posted by G Davis | February 1, 2008 6:24 PM

would love to see an Obama-Biden ticket ...

Posted by Tom Alongi | February 1, 2008 6:51 PM

There are more undecided voters who were waiting to see Barack Obama show he was Hillary's equal, and far fewer undecideds simply looking to see if Hillary was likable. People know what they are getting with the Clintons, so they are looking for a reason not to vote for them. Obama won because he showed he belonged on the stage with Hillary. He was sufficiently "wonkish." And, I think the discussion of Hillary's closed door effort to reform health care 15 years ago sounded eerily like Dick Cheney's secret energy meetings.

As for running mates, there is no way Obama wants to be third fiddle to Bill Clinton. I have heard speculation of Virgina Senator Jim Webb, former Secretary of the Navy, as Obama's running mate. He's a great debater and a powerful image campaigning in his son's military boots.

Posted by F Cadmus | February 1, 2008 7:21 PM

C.B.
CNN had undecided voters turning dials during the debate too:
they went 60% for Hillary and 40% for Barack. And we'll see them on Tuesday.

In what numbers will women go and vote for a woman candidate just because for once they can?
No one can get this number until tuesday's exit polls.
Obama is outspending Hillary and it may work for his campaign: he may be ahead wednesday morning and he may be even.
ANd he may not.

Posted by Michael C. | February 1, 2008 8:05 PM

Rashad Davis-

Get a hearing aid...

Posted by blue98 | February 2, 2008 5:29 AM

"Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment."

This is exactly why she will not make a good president. She based her vote on what he "might" do. This is very important. There was no indication that he "would" do it. There were no alkita (sp) in Irag. He hated them and would not allow them into his country. If she knew he was a megalomaniac, then she should have known that he would not allow them into Iraq.

Posted by Ann, MO | February 2, 2008 12:16 PM

Obama was such a graceful and intelligent debater here and still showed respect for Hillary who I think kept trying to keep the camera on herself a while beefing herself up and not fully answering the questions asked. She does have great experience politically but I don't know if she will present the real change we need in this country. She handles herself great and clearly has great intellect and could do some great things re: healthcare and other, but Obama I think is the freshness and change the country really needs. He's very personable and likeable and intellectual at the same time. With our place as a country in the world these days Obama could be a great advantage for us...because it appears he ACTUALLY LISTENS...and understands the needs of the country and the hopes and dreams of where we need to go as a country in the world.

Posted by Camille | February 2, 2008 4:11 PM

So, I guess you'll just have to settle for Reverand Barack Obama Jr.

Halleleujah, Amen, Get Down brothers and sisters!

Well Robert, I guess we all know where you're coming from... Huh

Posted by Bev F. | February 2, 2008 8:06 PM

Although she did not wipe out (so to speak) Obama in Thursday's debate, Hillary Clinton was the clear winner in Thursday's Democratic debate, but not by much.

Obama's position on illegal immigration - I emphasize illegal - shows a problematic disconnect with the African-American/black community. Calling legitimate concerns about job displacement "scapegoating" is shortsighted and is a testament to Obama's inexperience.

While race baiting has been a handicap for both candidates, African-Americans/blacks should be very leery of Barack Obama.

Check out: Clinton vs. Obama On (Illegal) Immigration

Posted by Terrence | February 2, 2008 8:48 PM

If the link above doesn't work, try this one.

http://terrencesays.blogspot.com/2008/02/clinton-vs-obama-on-illegal-immigration.html

Posted by Terrence | February 2, 2008 8:52 PM

I think Hillary Clinton's best moment was when she acknowledged that undocumented workers are displacing American workers (black and white) because unscrupulous employers are exploiting them. If you think that isn't true it's because you want to close your eyes to the truth instead of facing the problem. Hillary had nothing to gain in playing to the black voters - Obama will get them anyway. On the other hand she has angered some latino voters because, unfortunately, people don't want to admit what's true, even when no one is blaming them for the situation. Hillary's solution is to help all workers by getting a comprehensive plan on immigration and crack down on employers who use immigrants to lower the standard of living in this country. Hillary sees the problem in total - not in politically correct cliches. Before you can solve a problem you have to identify a problem. That's why I support Hillary Clinton.

Posted by myskylark | February 2, 2008 10:00 PM

I did not watch the debate, but I approve none of those candidacies. It would be fine for a woman or a negro to become President, but a presidential election is no child's game. The U.S.have been led by two families in the last 20 years (Bush and Clinton). It is now the time to put an end to that situation, unless Americans want to have their own version of India's Nehru-Gandhi dynasty or Argentina's Kirchner dynasty (I am Argentine). Besides, neither Mr.Obama nor Mrs.Clinton have occupied executive positions. A President should first rule a State; otherwise, his presidential way might result a catastrophe.

Posted by Ernesto Sebastián Vázquez | February 3, 2008 8:32 AM

YES WE CAN
end Clintonian corruption

YES WE CAN
end Clintonian racism

YES WE CAN
end Clintonian lies

The Clinton era is over
It's time for new leadership

We love OBAMA in NYC!

Posted by Alex K | February 3, 2008 12:31 PM

"A president should first rule a state, otherwise his presidential way might result in a catastrophe."

In fact, for whatever reason, former state govs are a mixed presidential bag. Foreign policy is lacking, but Jimmy Carters' failures are considered domestic. Former govs, Bill Clinton and Reagan, proved very effective on the international stage, owing in part to their conflict-adverse personalities, which we devalue at our peril As for catastrophic, the POTUS judged to be exactly that is, of course, former gov Bush. Being a guy some imagined they'd like to have a beer with ought to have disqualified him, imo. Ought we not to feel a little more awed than that?

Posted by jhbyer | February 3, 2008 10:16 PM