NO MORE DEBATES!!!! I am tired of them. How many times do they have to say and do the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again.

I'm so sick of debates. I mean c'mon, how many times can they tell us where they stand on each issue, seriously, there is no point. I know exactly where Obama stands, I know exactly where Hillary stands, if you don't know who you are voting for by now you are a goddamn idiot. That's that.

She'll ruin herself with too many

This is good news, presuming Obama doesn't concede the race after today's results. The more opportunities for the Democrats to debate, the more people across the country get to know them and keep interested. The free publicity is invaluable. By comparison, McCain's going to be kind of forgotten between now and the Republican convention.

I'm sure Obama will continue to improve and will have good moments but he is no match to Clinton. He lacks experience, he lacks indepth knowledge and interest on topics (opting too often for broad ideas instead of specifics), he is not good at thinking and, especially, at speaking on his feet (instead of with a prepared text), and he has rude streak and temper that is easily drawn out by Clinton.

On the other hand, these debates serve as great platforms for Clinton to show her experience, her tremendous knowledge on topics, her control, her readiness, and her consident 'looking and acting' presidental. How better to confirm herself to Democrats and to sell herself to the country at large?

Yes, debate weekly!

This is a transparent attempt by Hillary to undercut Obama's advantage by preventing him from actually campaigning. Why am I not surprised that Matthew Weaver already has the HRC talking points memorized? It's called thinking for yourself, Matthew. Look into it.

This is a transparent attempt by Hillary to undercut Obama's advantage by preventing him from actually campaigning. Why am I not surprised that Matthew Weaver already has the HRC talking points memorized? It's called thinking for yourself, Matthew. Look into it.

She desperately needs to break up the string of victories and momentum he will build between now and March 4th (her next firewall). That and she's probably out of money at this point and could use the free publicity.

Hey Michael A, and I was just going to say something nice about Sen. Boxer who I was also just listening to on MSNBC.

Okay, maybe a bit rough on Obama, but you've surely got to admit that each of the points are essentially true.

1. He lacks experience. I sorry but community organizing, 20-years of friendship and patronage to a slumlord, time as a state senator with lots of present votes, claim to not be organized, not a COO-type person, and so forth.

2. He lacks indepth knowledge and interest on topics (opting too often for broad ideas instead of specifics). Talking about Hope and Change is fine but how about some specifics. Consider that Clinton can and does talk easily at any level of depth on just about any topic. She's a policy wonk with the grace of delivery.

3. He is not good at thinking and, especially, at speaking on his feet (instead of with a prepared text). He fumbles answers, often talk too long and without getting to direct, clear, and simple points. I do not support him, true, but there are numerous times I've heard him formulating answers that just don't get to the point and I'm finding myself wanting to yell out the answer. He misses opportunties.

4. He has rude streak and temper that is easily drawn out by Clinton. Shall we list some examples? The debate before New Hampshire, the debate in South Carolina, the State of the Union, and dissing Florida voters. Okay, some of this is perception but in listening to him, hearing him interact, and these specific instances, he clearly has a rude streak and temper.

Your thoughts? And by the way, I do not know what this hillary site is that you keep hawking and I haven't been there. I'm going to be offline for a while--5 month old twins to help with and got to go vote in New York's primary...

I don't mind more debates, although once a week is absolute overkill. The two schedule seem okay for the next series of elections; more may be needed later in the schedule.

And, of course, Hillary wants more so she can have free publicity and use her debate skills (although I think Obama does better when there are only the two of them). There's no reason for Obama to grant Hillary's wish list.

After watching several of these I can see why camp Clinton wants still more. She is probably the best debater I have ever seen. She has owned the debates so far with very few exceptions.

I don't think that she necessarily makes better points or recites the facts any better but she wins because she has mastered the art displaying dominant gestures and thus looking more presidential. For instance when Barak is talking she looks directly at him the entire time (a dominate trait) but when she talks he tends to look down (a submissive trait). She always makes a statement of inclusion early in the debate such as "We all agree that..." this puts her in the position of speaking for the group (dominate trait). She does a wonderful job of moving the topic to a framing of her choosing so that weather she wins the argument or not you get the sense that it was fought on her turf.

The net effect is that each time I watch a debate she comes across as the leader of the group and Barak comes across as the intellectual. The Clinton camp knows that America wants a leader for president not just a thinker. I think the Repubs understand this better than the Dems do.

Every time I watch a debate I come away thinking that Hillary will win the election but then I hear an Obama speech a few days later and I feel so proud to be an American that I wonder how anyone could ever vote against him.

Obama would do well to either limit the number of debates from here out or start working on improving his mannerisms. He has an inherit advantage of being taller but he tends to slump a bit, especially when seated, which is another submissive trait.

The consensus on Ben Smith's blog commentary is that Hillary's campaign is running short of cash and is doing this as a way to have free publicity. For what it's worth.

Also, on the one hand, they feel like debates are her strength, on the other, it elevates his stature to hers. As an Obama supporter, I would like to see him focus more on rallies that expose him to more people first hand.

I'm going to have to agree that pretty much everything that Weaver said was delusional, but hey, why bother arguing facts with braindead Hillbots who get all of their thoughts straight from Hillary, Bill and Mark Penn. Obviously they don't spend much time researching, so why even try to enlighten them. I've learned that Hillbots are barely any better than hardcore Republicans, it is nearly impossible to talk any sense into either of them. Ignorance is a bitch.

I don't know much about nothing, but couldn't this be part of the expectations spin, too.

if Clinton's internal polling is showing some decisive wins for Obama, wouldn't this help establish a "next phase" narrative for the media to grab hold of.

i'm partial of course, but, and this is what I want, but it makes a little sense, right?

I would think one or two more debates would be fine if they were space out a bit. Weekly debates is silly -- seeing as we know just about everything we possibly can from these candidates and the bajillion debates we've had so far.

Hillary is going to need occasional positive stories, hence her need for the debates. If she falls short of expectations today and then again next week in dc/va/md, she'll need SOME sort of firewall to try to push off of and get a good news cycle...cable network debates are really the only way to do that for her.

If I'm Obama, I don't say anything until I see where I stand tonight and how we look going forward. I would accept one more debate after next Tuesday.

Greg DeLassus, this is in response to you:

I have no problem with another debate, or two, or even three. But once per week until the nominee is decided is ludicrous.

And it has nothing to do with her perceived strength debates, or free media. It has to do with her seeking to remove Obama from the campaign trail as often as possible by forcing him to waste at least two days per week in debate prep and actual debates. That's 28 percent of the week that Obama can't spend reaching people on the stump, which is his obvious strength, and her obvious weakness. So why should he capitulate?

If Hillary wins big tonight, will she still agree to all those weekly debates that she is now demanding?

Want to bet that she will actually do so?