Yes. Grace. A word she would do well to look up.

She didn't come close to doing what she needed to do tonight. If anything, Obama won on points.

He has made similar remarks about Hillery in previous debates. This is not something new from him.

In fact, Hillary also stated in another debate, before the one in Texas, that she was honored to be on the same stage as Senator Obama.

You can read too much into these statements, if you do not keep track of have they said them before or not.

I thought he was trying to outdo the ending speech she gave last time, but he didnt quite nail it. It was a bit funny to hear.

Anybody think Clinton will also claim media bias again since she's also routinely the last one to get to speak at the end?

I know I shouldn't put any stock into this, but MSNBC's main political guy, Chuck Todd, thinks that Clinton performed better and that Obama was shaky. WTF?! I doubt even a hardcore Clinton supporter could really believe that.

I think Obama clearly won, but it had more to do with Hillary constantly interrupting and acting petty more than anything Obama did to distinguish himself. He sort of just sat back and let Hillary self-destruct. And with the momentum in his favor, that's all he needed to do.

Obama is *DEFINITELY* getting better at debates, and was very strong on foriegn policy, and in replying to several attacks by Hillary Clinton that were frankly, unncessarily divisive and harmful for the future of the Democratic Party.

It takes a fighter to destroy a village.

Here is how what I feel happened in this debate;

Senator Obama said nothing that would cause voterers to have second thoughts about is he capable of doing the job.

Senator Clinton did not say anything that would cause the voters to have second thoughts about Senator Obama, and she needed to do that tonight.

His detailed segue into Russian political history was a little more Presidential than Hillary's "whathisname".

Lord I think Pat Buchanan has been moved by tonight's debate and Barack Obmama.

The man had been so critical against him for the past few weeks.

"Senator Clinton did not say anything that would cause the voters to have second thoughts about Senator Obama, and she needed to do that tonight."

She has seem to drawn a line at declaring him incapable or inexperienced. That's true.

She may have even helped him, since her attacks have probably hardened him for the coming fight. Even the "muslim" and racial things have defused those issues somewhat. Not much for the Republicans to use in an October Surprise.

Carol Soprano and I both commented on this in other threads. There was a point in the debate when Clinton seemed to shut off. It was right after they played the Obama clip where he says that Hillary can't take credit for Bill Clinton administration's achievements without taking responsibility for the failures. Obama had a long speech where he reiterated this point and also, I seem to recall, criticized Hillary's failure on health care, or maybe it was her taking money from lobbyists. I wish that I had the transcript to be specific.

In any case, Clinton just sat blankly through the entire speech. She didn't smile or shake her head or take notes. She didn't try to interrupt him or rebut his points, and then they just moved on to another question. I've never seen her do that in a debate.

Did anyone else have the same impression?

That was a major arse kicking. I thought the last debate was relatively one-sided for Obama. This one wasn't even close. His answers were precise, well-delivered, and right on target time and time again. I can't wait to see him square off against McCain, provided his ticker doesn't give out in the next few months.

Nixon-Kennedy will be when Obama is on the stage with McCain. That will be a contrast.

I think tonight, early on, she was scoring on the wonkish health care points. But, such responses can get technical and end up more interesting to those following the campaigns closely. But, I think the folks sitting on the fence who will decide which way Ohio cuts, and how big Obama's TX win will be, might not get as in to that stuff (not to disparage fence-sitters). And, if you are looking at tone, I thought he did a much better job of staying even keel and looking as cool as the other side of the pillow. Her desparation is palpable. That doesn't inspire confidence in those still trying to figure out which way to go on President of the US. That's why I give him the W in this one.

I'm sure that Mark Penn would agree with me that this race is all stitched up after the debate.

Sure, Texas and Ohio are going to vote for Obama, but Puerto Rico is the new roadblock!

I have thought that Hillary has done a good job of portraying herself as passionate about healthcare--"now this is really important," she keeps repeating, and insists on continuing to talk about it. And I think that that really worked, until tonight--she just railroaded over Brian Williams one too many times. It also seemed a tactical error to say, "It takes a fighter, and when I tried to get Universal Health Care in 1993..." because, well--obviously she didn't fight hard enough. It was a disaster, and is that what she wants to remind people of? But I'd be curious what other people thought.

And did Hillary really negotiate a Northern Ireland peace agreement? I could have sworn that was Bill.

I agree with everything clearthinker said above. Obama's "I was campaigning" line was weak, but her tax record thing was weaker, and inviting people to donate was probably not a mark of strength....

Agreed.
"Yadda yadda yadda GO TO HILLARYCLINTON.COM yadda yadda yadda."

I thought Clinton fell apart. She really looked like her confidence evaporated when she was answering the income tax issue. By the time she hit the Farrakahn BS I thought she was trying to pick up some bonus attack points, although at first it seemed like she was going to be classy.

I have been pretty anti-Clinton since Bill was in office and I learned about all the ways our government doesn't live up to what it says it is about, that being said, I really hope Hillary sees the writing on the wall and conjures up all the grace and wisdom she can manage and concedes. The debates were the one area she could always draw on as her area of superiority and Obama took that from her tonight.

I am not fond of many things Hillary has done but I have to respect how strong a candidate she is. I think just how staggeringly great Obama has become is less obvious because of how strong Hillary is. Who could have known Obama would rewrite grass campaigning and fundraising then top it off with being so powerful a speaker? Now he is growing in his debate skills. Maybe confidence has rid him of the "umm uhmm" stuff.

I think the Hillary attacks will seriously wind down now. It is over. One thing that could seriously repair her reputation is if she hit the campaign trail hard for Obama in November.

O is for Over

Obama made me swoon when he said he was for corporate tax breaks for investments in US but not for foreign ones.

So cool. Way to go, Barry O!

Perhaps Hillery went into the debate already aware of this:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three national polls of Democrats show Sen. Barack Obama is the front-runner for the nomination. But what's behind this latest momentum?
art.mccain.obama.gi.jpg

New national polls show Sen. Barack Obama, right, trumping Sen. John McCain in November.

There's growing evidence that Obama is seen as more electable than Sen. Hillary Clinton.

If you average the "poll of polls" -- AP-IPSOS, USA Today/Gallup and CBS/New York Times -- Obama leads Clinton 50 percent to 40 percent, with 10 percent unsure.

Here's something Democrats agree on even more: In two different polls, around 70 percent of Democrats polled believe Obama will get their party's nomination.

When Democrats were asked about the general election, the New York Times-CBS News poll showed Obama had the best chance of beating Sen. John McCain -- 59 percent to Clinton's 28 percent.

And it's not just Democrats.

The USA Today-Gallup poll asked Republicans which Democrat would McCain have a better chance of beating.
Don't Miss

* Election Center 2008
* Poll: It's all tied up in Texas
* Blitzer: Clinton has a fine line to walk

The answer: Clinton 66 percent, Obama 18 percent.

Republicans are just itching to run against her. Her response? She's heard it all before.

"I hear all these folks talking about who is or isn't electable. Well, they said the same thing about me when I started running in New York. ... You know, nobody would vote for me, good grief. I was wasting my time and my money," Clinton recently said. "But I trust the voters, and frankly that's who matters."

All three national polls asked voters the electability question in a general election matchup.

They show Clinton in a dead heat with McCain -- both coming in with 46 percent.

Obama, meanwhile, leads McCain by seven points -- 49 to 42 percent.

So why does Obama do better? Here's his answer:

"It's a choice between going into the general election with Republicans and independents already united against us, or running with a campaign that has already united Americans of all parties around the agenda for change. Now that's the choice," Obama has said.

Independents are crucial swing voters. They give McCain a solid lead over Clinton, according to the New York Times-CBS News poll. But independents abandon McCain for Obama.

If Obama's the alternative, McCain's support among independents drops from 52 percent to 36 percent.

The difference in electability looks small, and neither Democrat looks like a sure winner or a sure loser.

But the belief that Obama is more electable is taking hold.

The national "poll of polls" consists of three surveys: AP-IPSOS (February 22-24), USA Today/Gallup (February 21-24), and CBS/NYTimes (February 20-24).

I gotta steal this one again. Sorry Billysumday, who deserves the credit.

SHAME ON YOU BARAK OBAMA FOR BEING SO PRESIDENTIAL!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!!

I thought Obama missed a chance to correct the record on the campaign finance "pledge" he supposedly "signed." Obama never agreed to limit himself to public financing in the general election. He should have told Russert plainly that he didn't have his facts straight, and was simply repeating a right-wing talking point. Instead, Obama simply defended the idea of pursuing an agreement with McCain, and left himself open to the McCain campaign's continuing baseless attacks.

Obama also fumbled in describing McCain's current FEC woes, missing an opportunity to point out that McCain seems to be having a big problem with both the letter and spirit of McCain-Feingold.

Obama will also be hitting 1 million on wed, to add gravy on the debate win. Then in the next few days he will drop the money bomb. Either way though the point is that Hillary had to have Obama to mistake big time on this debate for her to have a chance to stay in the race post March 4th. The debate is most likely his best out of all the 20 so their goes that chance.

So only 1 more week, then Obama can focus on crushing McCain.

Speaking of McCain, Obama didn't take a hard stance on the pledge thing i think because the chips are not all laid down yet in regards to that. First of all his stance was always to make a agreement with the republican so making a pledge with out spelling out the details isn't wise. Second with McCain most likely going over his spending limit, before Obama gets the nomination he can use that in his favor, since McCain would be breaking the law.

Its going to be pretty hard for McCain to be complaining to Obama about public financing when McCain is breaking the law. My guess would be that Obama either uses that against him and doesn't go into public financing.

why didn't she have an answer on the income tax thing? i always thought they practice for the obvious questions so that they aren't caught looking.

but she was not prepared.

another example of being ill-served by her campaign.

I honestly think all of us in the blogosphere should do something to keep Russert and other corporate whores in check.

They've got too much power- giving Nader a show and grilling Democrats while kissing republican ass in debates. It Stinks.

Really, I feel democracy is slipping away.

I wonder who are the Washington bedfellows for Russert and Mathews?

Greg: Can you tell us who they sleep with in D.C.?

It Stinks!!!!

furion3 said:

Man, she interrupted SEVERAL times, and each time it garnered a look between Obama and the moderators.

Yeah, I thought that look will lose Obama some points with women voters. Bad move. He needed to resist that boys-club look.

It just became kind of pathetic when she wouldn't let the health care issue go so they could debate other topics - she held a bit too tightly and it made her look desperate.

Clinton was speaking to OH voters on this, who had just received Obama's direct mail criticizing her healthcare plan. I liked that she kept holding her ground until she'd said everything she needed to say to her audience, even though Williams and Russert were itching to move on to shallower, sleazier, gotcha topics.

By insisting she be allowed to speak, Hillary was the one who controlled the debate instead of the debate controlling her. In the end, it gave the debate some depth and substance, which it clearly never would have had if she'd left it up to Williams and Russert.

clearthinker said:

We haven't seen a politician this shrewd since Ronald Reagan.

Wow. You just tipped your hand.

They both know it is over. There was no real animosity between them at the debates last night...just two lawyers trying their best:

Clinton took potshots at Obama and then looked almost proud of him for deflecting them. She said once about Bill that he sucks all the air out of a room. Can't tell me she doesn't recognize the same ability in Obama.

Obama graciously said it isn't over yet so Clinton could collect enough donations to pay off campaign debt.

I think these two candidates have enormous respect for each other.

I am hugely unsympathetic to the bogus claims of misogyny that are thrown around in a facile way. But I'm surprised not to have seen evidence of others feeling something I felt last night. I thought that it was a real handicap for Obama that both of the questioners were men. When he and they legitimately (and inevitably) gave each other those subtle looks that built common cause against the odd person out in the conversation -- the one who complained about its conduct and rebelled in minor but pronounced ways against its rules -- it was hard to escape a certain air of boys-against-girls. And I'm not a woman, much less a woman who, like many I know, tuned in largely to watch for, detect, and denounce (reject?) that very dynamic.

A female questioner added to the mix, who would doubtless have had the same reaction to Hillary's noncollegial behavior that the men did, would have defused an ever-present danger in this campaign. And it would have deprived those women who will fight for the female candidate, irrespective of her positions, or behavior of an effective, if tiresome, weapon.

I agree. The "whining" soundbite was already being replayed on the morning talk shows and NPR.

I thought it was a nice, subtle shot by Obama.

clearthinker:

You don't have to like someone to recognize a fact.

Who said anything about liking or disliking someone?

I didn't.

Facts are based in objective reality; opinions are subjective. It's my opinion that your blurry facts are, in fact, opinions.