Great post, especially the final paragraph. Maybe this is what Eve has in mind as well. If so, I agree with both of you.

The ultimate question you raise is a great one. I think that the first half of the debate will dominate the media coverage (although it doesn't necessarily hurt Obama if the headlines suggest an evenly-match cage fight, since I'm sure some voters assumed that once the gloves came off Hillary would eat him alive). But which will stand out to your average viewer? If primary voters are looking above all for the most vicious dog fighter to stand up against the Republicans, then I think Hillary won. She was the more fluent attacker of the two, and she put Obama on the defensive a few times that first half. And I agree with Noam, she won the health care segment and, to a lesser extent, the economic segment at the beginning. If, however, what was holding them back from fully embracing Obama was some evidence that he had fire in the belly, then I think he won the night easily, precisely because, as Noam said, he pivoted so easily from awkward-but-competent pitbull to grandiose elocutionist.

Even though I think Hillary does better in the ring, I don't think the insta-bloggers have given enough credit to the strategic wisdom of Obama's attacks. He pre-empted just about all of the Clinton attacks that, unprovoked, probably would have been mentioned by Hillary gradually (and effectively) throughout the debate. Instead, we got all the Obama negatives out of the way (Reagan, "present", etc.) in the first 10 minutes, and most of those negatives came out on his terms with solid responses. He also drove the narrative of the attacks, framing them as his responses to the ex-President lying about his record. I don't think that the contra-Hillary salvos -- Wal-Mart boards and the like -- did too much damage, but maybe it's more important that he responded at all.

Agreed with ralphnelle.  And TNR too, from the start, has been after this kind of performance at least once during the primaries from Obama.

I don't see what else he can do. She and Bill are lying about him - he has to fight back. And it's not tit-for-tat, it's they lie, he defends, they lie, he defends. No wonder she looks like the fighter - she's doing the attacking. Is it sticking? I only hope he's rubber and she's glue. And her willingness to attack people - this is what Dems want because they think they win this way? Even if they do win the election [and if Hillary wins it will now be despite my two votes], will she able to heal the wounds she inflicted so we all unite for a common purpose and actually win some progress? I can't see that at all. She'd be "with us or against us" part 2, or "Some of us are right and some of us are wrong." And all of us will get nothing done.

It's the battle axe versus the teflon don.

In the world of ideas, in the world of pundits, in academia, and in hip-hop, the battle axe usually wins.

Among politicians, the teflon don always wins. Think Kennedy and Reagan. They may have been clueless and out-of-their-league, but they've morphed into visionary historical figures in the public imagination.

Psantillana is entirely right. To have let the Clintons continue to Swiftboat him on Iraq, Reagan and his legislative votes without a vigorous response would have made Obama look like a Kerry-esque victim. Even though his supporters don't want to see him get drawn down into the mud with the Clintons, to have avoided the fight would have drawn criticisms that he was too weak to get the nomination. So for him to demonstrate his ability to take a knife in the back and walk out standing, he came out a winner.

I agree with BHLnyc, but it seemed to me that Obama defended himself quite poorly. He kept repeating the Clinton attacks to negate them -- "I didn't say X" -- which studies have shown to be counterproductive and which to me projected weakness. You don't repeat the attack, you counter it with a positive statement. You don't say, "I didn't say Reagan had a better economic policy," you say, "I said that Reagan built a working majority to transform America. That's the kind of inclusive leadership Democrats need to offer the country today, and Hillary, you don't build public trust by lying about your opponents." That sort of thing. Not, "I'm not a Muslim and I didn't attend terrorist school in Indonesia," but, "I belong to the United Church of Christ and I grew up in Hawaii."

I've seen Obama stop himself in interviews in mid-thought to turn denials into positive counter statements; it's been a strength of his. (It's a huge strength of Hillary's, too, in that she doesn't deny, she counters attacks with new attacks, so she doesn't reinforce the original attack against her through restatement.) Disappointing to see Obama thrown off his rhetorical game by the Clinton attacks.

If you decided to watch the Democratic presidential debate last night instead of American Gladiators , you made the right choice. The brutal (and hilarious) squabbling between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was just as entertaining, if not more, as

Did I care for the sparring between the two?  No, I didn't.  But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Obama's rhetoric about "raising the tone" will save him when (if) the GOP comes after him.  Whatever oppo research they've done will come blazing out, and he's got to prove that he can respond.  Contrary to what many people have said, I found his debate performance somewhat haltiing, and he got the nastiness going when he went after HIllary's Wal-mart board membership.  

On policy matters, I also thought that Hillary sounded better.  I thought her description of her stimulus package and her approach to healthcare were both more cogent that Obama's.  

I would love, love, love to believe that Obama can raise the tone of DC.  But first he's got to win, and I don't think anything that Hillary said was unfair.  He has to be able to explain those "present" votes to the general public in a convincing way (and yes, I understand his explanation, but will that work in the general?).  That Rezko land deal isn't going to go away simply by being self-deprecating.  And let's hope there isn't more out there.  He may not like it.  I may not like it.  But I don't think the attacks are out of bounds, given the stakes.

Politically I think Mandates are a bad idea, try telling Americans they have to said money to insurance companies who only look for a way to deny care, and then fine them if they don't and tell me that is a good political idea. I wish Obama had said something to the effect that America appreciated how well she fought for Health care back in 93 but having a take no prisoner approach is likely to be as effective as it was in 93. I guarantee you that Hillary will not pass a UHC plan as President, the economy is going to the toilet and the money won't be there. She is far more likely to pass an Obama incrementalist approach in such a situation.

As to Walmart and Rezko, Hillary was a board member, Obama was a junior associate working 5 hours. His is a parking ticket, hers was a hit and run.

Barack Obama last night brought to mind the 1996 Bob Dole; Sen. Obama seemed ready to blurt out "Tell Bill Clinton to stop lying about my record".

Only I don't think the Clintons are lying about his record. True-believer Obama supporters just don't want to hear it.

Obama turned over $40,000 of Rezko money to charity last week (he's gotten rid of about $90,000 of Rezko money now, I think), yet he got through the rough spot in last night's debate without having to say a word about the Rezko-influenced real estate deal for his (Obama's) personal residence. Hillary failed to pin him down on that.

blackton, with regard to Rezko, there's still that land deal.  May not be a big deal, but it's certainly fodder for attack.

And I support mandates, simply because I don't think opting out should be an option.  (I actually support single payer, but we'll see when THAT happens.)

if obama does not respond in kind to the attacks coming out of the hillary camp then she wins by default, which is what we have been seeing in all of the past debates.  the task then is to keep the tone of his responses as high-minded as possible so that he does not undermine his own definition of himself.  it's a tough balancing act, but i think he did fairly well last night.  the fact is that since he has been on the public stage for a relatively brief period, his performance in the primaries becomes doubly imortant.  his lack of "experience" can only be mitigated by showing us how he handles hillary and the entire nomination process.  

and as for the question of bill clinton being a "black president"...  does anyone really doubt who will be remembered as the first black president if obama is elected?

allante:

And only Clinton hacks have ever heard of Rezco.

Yeah, but in 1992 only Jerry Brown's hacks had ever heard of the Whitewater land deal.

I have seen neither of them in person, but have seen at least 8 debates so far. In each debate I see the same things. Hillary comes off as a great speaker, in command of the facts, in command of the dicussions. She seems the most presidential. Obama has lots of ahhs that make it seem like he doesn't have an agruement ready, and is not in command of the facts. Almost in every debate he will come up with some proposal that just desn't make sense. I remeber the one where he said he'd meet with any world leader, when Hillary had to remind him he could be used as a propagander tool. From watching the debates,  I feel she's ready and he is not.

As an aside, I am impressed with the amount of debates in this cycle. I remeber in pre-cable tv elections, we were lucky if there would be three debates at a half hour each.

"Even if they do win the election [and if Hillary wins it will now be despite my two votes], will she able to heal the wounds she inflicted so we all unite for a common purpose and actually win some progress? "

This is what is going to be happening on a large scale basis.

SuperTuesday is the make or break day. If either of them wns 50% of the delegates at stake, the campaign will be over. But, if neither does, that means this vitriol continues up to the convention.

Will either, at that point, be able to heal the division? Will Hillary supporters be able to vote for Obama if he is the nominee? She is likely to have most of the conservative dems on her side...are they not likely to vote for McCain or Romney if either are nominated?

The trouble is that the dislike is rapidly approaching the personal and not the substantive. Can the party really come together after another 5 months of Rezco or Walmart?

Supporters of Hillary and Obama have to ask themselves whether it's worth create so much illwill in the party that it goes into the election dispirited and disunitied. If it does, then especially given how the electoral vote falls out, Democrats stand a real chance of seeing an easy victory turn to ashes.

If even ten percent of Obama's supporters are alienated enough to sit on their hands, or vote third party because they dislike Hillary so much, doesn't that tilt the election in critical states where the margin of victory is one or two percent?

If even ten percent of Hillary supporters choose to support McCain, because they are older, have a bit of the Bradley effect in them, then doesn't that tilt those same states? Especially critical are latinos--can Obama carry their vote against a McCain who is known, as one of TNR's own writers noted, to have a "decency towards illegal immigrants", and given what is well known to be a bias against blacks in hispanic voting patterns?

Meanwhile, John Edwards remains the Democrats best bet. He alienates very few people in either of the main camps. He's pretty much everyone's second choice.He also provides a reason for progressives to vote Democratic. Blather all you want about Florida: had Gore won New Hampshire, where progressives voting for Nader really did make the difference, he would have been President. Progressives aren't much interested in HIllary, and while we like Obama's "Joshua generation" metaphor, he seems rather empty of real policy prescriptions.

Edwards isn't perfect for us, either--we'd far prefer Dennis Kucinich. But we have to be realistic.

And we'd ask the same of Hillary and Obama supporters. At some point you have to ask yourselves how much longterm (general election) damage you're willing to do the party for your candidate's sake.

Edwards/Obama '08

The critical states are the purple states.

allante, as I recall, some Chinese dude who had given Hillary's campaign millions, just went to jail a few weeks back for financial crimes.

So, is Hillary really clean while Obama is dirty with this "slumlord" money?

by the way, and nobody seems to have commented on this:  One of the advantages Republicans have had over Democrats historically is Reagan's "11th Commandment":  Thou shalt say no bad about a Republican.

In other words, the GOPers usually compete in the primaries without eviscerating each other, while the Dems leave a lot of blood on the floor.  And those wounds do not necessarily heal in time to have enthusiastic allies for the general election.

Not only has this cat fight between the Clintons and Obama been nasty, but it's been stinky, too with the racial overtones that keep rising.  It's hard to see how the revelation of racial malice from the Clintons is going to help the Democrats or the Clintons in the future.

Meanwhile, Obama's statement that "I'm not always sure which Clinton I'm running against" is a strong hint that he may start running against and attacking both.  That may or not be wise.  But, it can't be good for the Democrats.

Once again, as well, Bill Clinton is showing how poor is his judgement and how nasty he is when cornered.

not long ago Mike Huckabee called John McCain his hero, not just a hero but his hero, this from a guy who was leading the polls nationally and one of his biggest threats was John McCain. With the exception of Romney, whom they all seem to hate, their debates have been far and away more civil and respectful so Channy is dead on. Expect to see Huckabee, thompson, guiliani, all lined up behind McCain enthusiastically.

I thought Obama looked startled during a lot of the debate, as though being sharply criticized was a surprise. Some of the charges thrown at him stuck. The sweetheart land deal he took from Rezko while Rezko was under active investigation didn't get mentioned last night, but it will turn up in discussions of Rezko that get stimulated by what was said. And he wasn't clear on the issues. To the extent that he did better in the second half, it was becasuse no one was criticizing him. I think it is a shame that he didn't wait 8 years to run. It is too early for him. He may yet be America's first African-American president, if he doesn't destroy himself now. His presumptuousness showed up in his wanting to talk about the unfairness of what other people were saying about him, as though that were a central concern of voters, instead of the issues that do affect people, like health care and the economy.

We haven't seen Obama doing this defensive thing much. I find myself wondering if he needed to show that he can "stand up to the man" as they face the first primary with a truly significant number of black voters.

My hope is that he got this level of vitriol out of the way, will let surrogates do the counter-attacking going forward and will return the more inspiring statesman that he can be.

As for the specifics of their attacks on each other: no one is perfect. And no one can operate cleanly in such a messed up system. Obama alluded to that last night. I think that if he can switch the attack focus on to the idea of who has done the best job of maintaining integrity and who gives you a sense that they will really lift us to higher place, he could let others keep pointing out all the muck we went through with the Clintons and let people decide whether they really want to go through any more with them. He may have a few spots on his shirt, but their wardrobe is made of mud.

Happy to see the two frontrunners going at it.  From this side of the aisle, if HRC is nominated, I have heard many Dems say they simply won't vote for her.  Can't imagine indies will feel any differently, especially if we have the wit to nominate McCain.

The future role of her husband is a very serious issue that only now is starting to receive the attention it deserves.  it may not be enough to say, oh, he'll be a roving ambassador.  Will he get the PDB?  Attend NSC meetings? Cabinet meetings?  All this 2 for the price of 1 talk is great, until people really focus on what it may mean.

BTW, if she can't control her husband, how will she control the government?

virginiacentrist commented: "only Clinton hacks have ever heard of Rezco."

Before any of the candidates even announced their intentions, I'd decided to support Obama - and I knew all about Rezko way back then (having done a little research).

However, Hillary has earned my current support and primary vote the old-fashioned way: Through her debate performances.

Should Obama ultimately be the nominee, I'll be one of his strongest supporters (along with Bill Clinton, most likely). But until then, I've got to give Hillary her due. She's simply out-debated Sen. Obama, with her clear, concise, no-nonsense style and presentation.

People are so prissy about the democratic candidates criticizing each in this election. The republicans have been much worse to each other, but no one treats that as a moral issue.

Americans don't know how to talk comfortably about race, and this is especially true of media commentators and internet journalists who head for the platitudes at the first sign of skin color.. Everyone's brain gets frozen. Hillary showed a great deal of moral clarity in her willingness to so sharlply attack Obama in front of an audience that is appropriately sympathetic to him and whose support she will ultimately need. By doing so, she enlarges our capacity for genuinely open debate and discussion. It doesn't matter wheteher her criticisms were entirely accurate or disinterested. This is, after all, a political campaign. What matters is that she had the moral strength to make them in this forum.  Americans would never vote for a candidate whom they can't criticize freely and energetically. Why should they? By unapologeticlly attacking Obama in front of a distinguished African-Amercian audience, Hillary offers Obama a way out of becoming only the black candidate. She makes our capacity to talk about race, which we very much need to do, much greater.

Edwards attacked Obama in the debate last night, and has attacked him for months (as well as Hillary) but it has never gotten anywhere this personal. It was telling that at the end of the debate Obama shook Edwards hand and put his hand on his shoulder, Edwards reciprocated by putting his hand on Obamas elbow. There is no real rancor there.

4 years ago Kerry and Edwards also went at it, but never with such vitriol as this year, and as well are all aware Edwards ended up on the ticket, and but for Ohio (which was very close) they might have won. I supported Edwards 4 years ago, but held no grudge against Kerry. He won fair and square. Hillary seems to have no understanding how to win well. I have grown to detest her because she is entirely without scruples. She is the female Mitt Romney with the Nixon paranoia thrown in. No thanks, I will vote for McCain. Hardcore Hillary supporters might well remember there are still a lot of Reagan Democrats out there.

Re Rezko, someone above referred to a "sweetheart land deal."  That's a lie.  Obama paid market price for a strip of land to make his back yard bigger, and nobody disputes that.  His purchase of property was no more of a "sweetheart deal" than what any of you paid for your homes, if you own property.  That's it.  That's that whole scandal.  Obama had a supporter and acquiaintance -- a developer -- from whom he bought a little piece of land at an undisputedly fair price -- for whom he has never even arguably done *any* political favors (sometimes plainly going against Rezko's interests in Springfield) -- who later turned out to be a shady character.  There's no hint of corruption, legal or illegal or improper.

Maybe an effective response for Obama would be, I saw what happened in the '90s, with the Republicans bringing up every bogus charge against you and Bill at every turn -- Whitewater, the travel office, etc. -- and that was wrong.  Why?  Because it was dirty politics.  Because it prevented us from doing what was important.  And so I'm disappointed that you or your campaign or your husband the former president -- who was the most scandal-plagued and unfairly attacked in recent memory -- would turn around and tell the same sort of lies about me, play the same sort of politics that defeated affordable health care for everyone when you proposed it; the same sort of politics that ended up painting a war hero as a traitor in 2004 and painted one of the most honest and passionate leaders in the country as a fibber and exaggerator and ethically shady in 2000.

Let's make a deal right here and now:  truth and reconcilliation time; I won't twist your words, your record, or your past to score cheap political points, and you and your campaign won't twist mine.  Let's nip this in the bud.  Because this kind of politics is bad for the Democratic party, bad for the voters, and bad for the country, and everyone in this room, everyone watching at home, and everyone else in this country -- those who've kept some faith with our democracy and kept alive the hope of what it can achieve and those who've become so frustrated that they've dropped out, abandoned hope -- we're all tired of it.  We're bored with it.  It doesn't achieve anything.

So, there's a choice to be made.  We can have a Washington campaign -- light on ideas, heavy on petty attacks -- or we can have a real campaign about how we propose to lead this great country to greater things.  How we propose to repair this great country after eight years of irrepsonsible, reckless, and damaging leadership.  How we propose to bring the American people -- Republican, Democrat, Independent, black, white, brown -- along with us.  That's what Reagan did -- he brought the country with him, for better or worse.  People were tired of the old answers, and they were ready to hear something new.  They're ready for something new again, but this time, we're not going to bring people along with an economic ideology that looks after the wealthy and hopes for the best for everyone else or that appeals to people's fears of our fellow citizens who have fallen on tough times.  We're going to appeal to that Christian value, that Democratic value, that American value, and that common sense moral value, that our freedom and liberty and opportunity is only as good as our fellow citizens' willingness to fight for it.  That we're in this together, and, when we put our minds to it, we can show the world how it's done.

We agree on a lot, but we have different ideas, different styles, and different approaches to these challenges, and that's what I want to talk about.  But know this:  I won't be bullied, and I won't be quiet if someone tells stories about me.  So we have a choice to make.  You can tell stories about me, and I can respond, you can tell more stories about me, and I can respond again, and we'll go on that way for weeks or months, and the voters will get left behind.  Or we can get back to business.

Fact check on Rezko: mydd.com/.../2664

Rezko bought that land, through his wife, so that Obama would have an enlarged back yard. Rezko otherwise had no use for the property. That's not a sweetheart land deal? Maybe you would be willing to buy some proerty next to my house, that you would not otherwise use, so I can have the sense that the property is mine.

pccostello:  No, that's not a sweetheart deal.  Land isn't worthless, even a piece of land you're not using.  And I don't know what "using" means here anyway.  Do you use your back yard?  Would you charge your neighbor for a piece of it, or would you give it away?  It's undisputed that Obama paid a fair price for what he bought.  There's no suggestion that he didn't.

allante:  I don't have time to get into all the bullshit in that link, but, when you actually get into it, it's all smoke -- a trickle of steam, really.  The most they can come up with as a supposed favor Obama did for Rezko was a letter he wrote in favor of approval of one real estate development in which Rezko had an interest.  Obama's record in Springfield is not pro-Rezko.  Oh, wait.  I forgot the internship!  Rezko recommended an intern which he hired!  Stop the presses!  This is really small bore stuff.  Your firm represented a church that was starting a co-venture with a Rezko company!  Did you work 5 hours as a junior lawyer on that project, or more?  (He never said that he worked more.)  He never represented Tony Rezko.  He never represented any of his companies.  When Hillary said that he did, she was wrong.

pccostello:  I misread your post, but you're still wrong.  The parcels were being sold at the same time by the same seller.  Obama didn't want both.  Obama approached Rezko when he was considering buying in the neighborhood for advice about the market.  Rezko said he was interersted in the adjoining parcel and intended to build on it.  Later, Obama was interested in getting a piece of the adjoining parcel for his own backyard, and paid one sixth the price paid for the parcel for one sixth of the land.  Obama has said that an appraisal put the real market value of the strip he bought much lower.  Rezko, I do not believe ever built on the land, but soon after, he got indicted, so that's understandable.  However, the property was fenced in, and Obama doesn't use it.

hildner for president. or chief speechwriter. great thread, all.

While Rezko was under active investigation and Obama was an influential Cicago politician, Obama and Rezko bought adjoining plots of land on the same day. There was a large mansion on Obama's land, into which he moved. The Rezko land was unused by Rezko. There was a subsequent private land transfer, hidden under the name of Rezko's wife, whcih moved part of that land to Obama so that he would have an enlarged backyard and the value of his property would be substantially increased.

Needless to say, if this private transfer had really been done at market prices, Obama could simply have bought the adjoining plot himself in the first place. This is a sweetheart land deal, not an arms length transaction.

Obama later claimed that he had not known Rezko was under investigation at the time of the land purchases. However, the investigation of Rezko had been widely reported in newspaper headlines prior to the time of the land purchases, and the men were close associates.

The Chicago Tribune has covered this extensively, and it is from their reporting that the above account comes. Obama has not undone the land deal and continues to profit from it personally and financially.

Obama now says that what he did was "boneheaded." A better word might be venal. Or dishonest.

Well, I'm surprised with your take if you've been following the local coverage.  I like how you refer to the sale as "a private transfer," as though that's somehow shady.  I also like how Obama's house has become a "mansion" all of a sudden.  (It's a large house in an urban neighborhood -- not an estate in Lake Forest.)

Look, pc, he paid 1/6th the price of the adjoining parcel for 1/6th of the land.  He has said that an appraisal put the market value of that strip of land much lower, but he wanted to err on the safe side.  Nobody has challenged that.  Nobody has credibly raised the possibility that he didn't pay a more than fair price for what he bought.  Your repeated implications that he did not is just perpetuating a lie.  Your suggestion that he has profited from this purchase is also a lie.  He paid for something -- more than it was worth -- and has retained it.  Where's the profit?  Stick with the facts.

Why didn't he buy the adoining plot to start with?  Because he couldn't afford it, probably, and/or didn't want the whole thing.  Why didn't the seller just sell him 1/6th?  Because, I'm speculating, the seller didn't want to diminish the remaining, unsold parcel.  Why did they close on the same day?  Because they were being sold by the same seller.  Why was the property in Rezko's wife's name?  I don't know, who cares?  Some type of shelter, no doubt, which might be innocent or might not.  Nobody's disputing that he's a shady guy.  I don't *think* the federal investigation was reported at the time of the first purchase.  I *think* it had been reported -- though I don't know about widely -- at the time of the second purchase.

Rezko was a real estate developer and told Obama that he was interested in building on the other parcel.  I see no reason to doubt that.

Obama said it was boneheaded, because while entirely legal, ethical, and by the book, with no hint of quid pro quo, and with no hint that the transaction itself was a "sweetheart deal" as you keep insisting, the wiser course would have been not to enter into any transactions with Rezko, no matter how fair.  You have zero grounds to call it "venal" or "dishonest."  What was dishonest?  This "private transfer" wasn't kept secret or lied about.  What was "venal"?  Show me favors to Rezko by Obama.  Scratch that.  Show me one favor.  (And hiring an intern or sending one routine letter approving of a real estate development in his district don't count, sorry.)

aw c'mon. you protest too much. do you know or have you ever heard of anything similar happening in an arms length transaction? give me a break. somebody buying a plot of land next to an influential politician, and choosing to see him a juicy one-sixth?

and it is the chicago tribune who described the house on the lot obama bought as a "big mansion."

what obama did is at best venal and shady. why would a prominent real estate developer who was under active investigation give an influential politician like obama such a sweet deal on land? and sell it to him under his wife's name?