and let Bush and his kind use "Democrat".

To me it was pretty much a draw, maybe a bit of an advantage Obama.

The Agonista crowd are probably either one-lining at Kos, TVO'ing what they didn't watch if they watched the debate, or waiting until tomorrow to prepare their answer with careful consideraion.:-)

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

On health care Clinton either displayed or purported greater inner conviction. (I think she was sincere.) As an European, I can’t figure out what a non-universal system, as opposed to a purely private one may really be. Perhaps in America the public is less sensitive about differences between systems they are discussing in theory.

On immigration Obama succeeded in showing his proposal to be more ‘humane’ than Clinton’s. Seemengly, both are very, very close to each other, so one has to evaluate differences in the edge. That’s the issue about a driver’s license. Obama was ready to grant it to illegal immigrants on the grounds that it promotes safety, while Clinton couldn’t conceal her inclination to strict law observance: non-documented immigrants are illegal, and they are not to get legal documentation through the tangent.

I don’t think either one offered a clear insight on mortages. Foreclosures is a very difficult issue to deal with. I am afraid Clinton is utopian in her proposal to support families liable to eviction, yet she looked very committed to find a solution while Obama looked much less so.

On Iraq as well as on character and experience Obama’s principled profile clashed with Clinton’s pragmatic one. I think neither won. It depends on each one’s own stance. Who will attract more voters? I would like Obama, probably Clinton will do.

Clinton could have cropped votes from low-income families scared by the economic prospects, while so could Obama from the youth and immigrant voters desiring to have their illegal relatives become fully legal and their children back from Iraq at any cost.

All in all, I really don't know the effects on Super Tuesday. What I guess is the direr the economy, the greater support will eventually fall with Clinton.

Clinton and Obama made peace and put divisiveness to rest.

Obama lost me in this debate. Clinton won me over.

As an Edwards supporter, I was torn by the negatives of the two remaining candidates. The debate reminded me how much of the negatives attributed to Clinton were the manufacture of Repugs and the press. She was clear, consistent and largely without rancor towards Obama and was largely honest in representing her own positions and Obama's. In every case she was further "left" than Obama. I think I understand the reasons for her original Iraq votes and though I disagree now and disagreed then with that vote, I understand that as a Senator trying to forge coalitions (and she had a lot of heavy lifting to do in that regard after the rancorous Clinton presidency) it was a reasonable vote. I agree that it was not meant to authorize the war that eventually happened. I wouldn't have trusted Bush but again given her particular position I understand.

Which brings me to Obama's negatives. The press calls the debate civil and friendly and it did in fact have lots of smiling faces and talk of unity. Clinton walked the walk in this regard - Obama most definitely did not. He repeatedly demagogued it up misrepresenting Clinton's positions and using Conservative talking points and tactics in doing so.

For example, he invoked the specter of evil government enforcers bearing down on those poor innocent folks who chose not to respect a health insurance mandate. He made it seem that it would be poor folk who decided that they just couldn't afford that insurance who would take the risk of not buying it. The fact is that under any progressive plan (Clinton's and to a limited extent Obama's) the point of the progressivity is to make sure that the poor can afford to pay. It will be the rich who are protected by their wealth and and relatively good health who will burden the system by attempting to drop out.

I also didn't appreciate his demagogueing it on Clinton's Iraq vote. The fact of the matter is that both of them now have a somewhat less than satisfactory position on withdrawal with little to distinguish them. Obama knows full well the very particular politics that led to Clinton's vote and knows full well that, as she said, there is no way that had she been president would we have been in Iraq.

Look, this is coming down to personality, and frankly Obama, in his style and tactics, reminds me of Bush. Clinton reminds me of Clinton. I prefer the one dynasty to the other.

On the other hand, once the dust settles I will happily support whichever candidate wins, though I would still love to see a dead lock going into the convention.

The issues and policies of both candidates were on display for edwards supporters. If Healthcare is important to Dems then Hillary is the one passionately committed to that issue, and it would be her signature issue for her candidacy. Obama's signature issue will be providing some kind of closure between Dems and Repubs, and I just am not 100% sure I want that. I feel Repubs have been disgraced by their behavior of the past 15 years, they are cruel and inhumane, do not care about those in need, race bait, their policy is leading to one of the greatest real estate grabs by the rich in history as their policies first indebted and then confiscated through foreclosure middle class homes. They have laid waste to public infrastructure and even have destroyed the military and our position in the world. Eight more years and we won't even be having elections anymore, I kid you not. Think Abu Graib will exist only outside the US if we get more Repubs in office. Not interested in playing nice with evil.

At the same time though, as Obama moves into a power position with the potential of a massive Dem majority, why wouldn't a national healthcare policy emerge out the wreckage healthcare has become in the US.

I am back to these are two great candidates. And the focus has to be on clearing out the disgraced repubs wherever they are left. Don't forget that focus. Here in Minnesota we have a veto proof majority of dems now in our Statehouses, first time in something like thirty years. We still have a brain dead governor which is very sad, but hey our bridges are falling down and our libraries are closing and crime is going through the roof under eight years of his 'leadership.' So lets boot his ass out the door next. Get my drift here.

Unfortuantely, he delivered his solutions on a street corner somewhere after being disinvited to the main event.

I did inhale.

Corporate media won.
America lost.