Fair enough.  But I'm pleased with the debate, since the two front-runners have managed to return to a tone of civility, which was mainly what I was hoping for.

And, after the break, it's gotten more substantive.

Does anyone think it's relevant that, when each candidate was asked to identify his or her major weakness, neither Clinton nor Edwards was able to identify an unfavorable trait?  Wasn't Bush strongly criticized for that inability?

Yes, the beginning was terrible. But the rest has been very interesting.

Thank you, Michiganderites, for keeping Mitt Romney alive. Bad news for McCain is great news for the Democrats.

Hillary says race and gender shouldn't be factors in the campaign - then every chance she gets she talks about race.  Third time tonight she has called this debate a "Black-Brown" debate.  I am starting to really dislike this woman.  

Neil

Out of Iraq in a year -- the position of all three candidates.  That is clear now -- and Edwards is the guy who made it happen.  As in the case of universal health care, Edwards has been the leader in this trio.  He may not win, but we should all be grateful to him for keeping Obama and Hillary from running to the right.

I agree that the opening segment could not have been less substantive or useful. But these debates are really running out of steam and, frankly, purpose.

I don't think Clinton has done anything more to show that she can appeal to independents and Republicans, so in my mind, it's her loss. She still has something like 47% of the country that won't consider voting for her, so even if Democrats buy what she's selling, it's hard to see how she puts together a winning majority she can govern with effectively.

All candidates looked tired - Edwards looked like he was old enough to drive a car for once!  But Obama was funny and smart; Hillary was back to Roboticism.

BHLnyc,

You're absolutely right. As Hillary calls the president pathetic and proudly proclaims the superiority of the democratic candidates, she turns people away from the party.

Dpinkert,

On the strengths/weaknesses question, not only did Hillary fail to name a weakness. She didn't actually name a strength, either. She answered by describing why she wanted to run, not what her greatest strength is. She mentioned "the children" and dropped the word "church" in, basically at random, but never actually named a strength.

A total BS question that doesn't belong in an interview for an entry-level office position, much less in a presidential debate, but Hillary couldn't even abandon her script long enough to name her own greatest strength? Yikes.

i find it interesting that neither obama nor edwards challenged clinton's comparison of herself to gordon brown, british pm. how she can get away w/equating being 1st lady followed by being the jr. senator from ny to a man who served a long time as a financial minister in the british gov't (gb was the longest serving chancellor of the exchequer) followed by election as pm strains credulity.she anoints herself w/all manner of gravitas simply because her husband was 1st a govenor & then president. i hope the electorate is smarter than this and that the obama campaign in particular keeps driving home the point that her "experience" is as ephemoral and gossamer as george bush's command of the english language.

jpinmd were you by any chance watching A Daily Show tonight?

"When history was written, the final page will say America has achieved victory"

-President George W. Bush

I thought that H's answers on Bob Johnson were illuminating - "we're taking him at his word [that he meant community organizing and not drugs]" and yes, he was out of bounds, and he has said so too. Out of bounds by referring to Obama's community organizing?

I agree w/jpinmd that Clinton's Gordon Brown remark is weirdly presumptuous - in fact that's the facet of the MLK/LBJ quote that wasn't mentioned much at all - when she says "it took a president" why does that president need to be her? What's the point she's making as relates to her? Same thing with Gordon Brown. If she's NOT saying that she's the only one who would be able to respond to an attack, then why is she babbling about it? Someone should just hand her a Burger King crown.

Once again I disagree with my fellow Chitowner Adam -- I'd rather have John McCain win the GOP nomination even though he'd be harder for the Dems to defeat, simply because it guarantees a sane person will be in the white house.  Unless you can be 100% positive the Dem nominee would beat Romney, his ascension is bad news, not good.  

Also, if I were a staunch Obama backer, I don't want a GOP race to interfere with Obama's support among independents, like what happened in New Hampshire.  

The debate itself stunk, as evidenced by these comments: nothing but fodder for a discussion of everything EXCEPT policy.

Thought: maybe the debate questions were ordered this way to keep the viewing audience up?  If channel-flippers stop by at the start of the debate and are greeted by a bunch of dry "how do we clean up the lending industry?" questions, odds are many of them keep on flipping.  But if they find a bunch of "Did you hear what he said about your mother?" stuff designed to get sparks flying, maybe they stick around long enough to get to the real stuff.

I missed about the first third of the debate, so I was pleased with how cordial, issues-focused and substantive it was.

lymon1. amen to that.