I think one reason that she took more punches tonight is because she's the one who throws more. They have footage of her mocking and scolding Obama, but he doesn't do that. He criticized respectfully.

And, yes, she came off as whiny. And a bit shallow. She's touting her experience (which we're supposed to translate as maturity and wisdom) then she used SNL as a source to legitimize her peevishness at the way the press is treating her. She cries foul because her opponent highlights the differences in their health care policy philosphies in a mailer. And she scolds him about not using strong enough language when the language he was using is actually far stronger.

Then she asks us to choose her because she's more experienced but says that we shouldn't base our vote on her past actions, we should project how she will act in the future. First, you can't have it both ways. Second, we can only base our predictions of how you'll act in the future by looking at what you've done in the past. That Iraq vote and that approach to health care reform aren't signaling wisdom and problem solving.

It all felt very disconnected.

Then there's this idea that we're supposed to put a "fighter" in the White House. Isn't that what we have now? I don't want a fighter. I want someone who inspires people to figure out how to work together to resolve things well enough that we can all peacefully co-exist.

I'm a bit surprised by this.  I'm an Obama supporter, but I thought Hillary won the debate.  (Well, the part I saw.  I fell asleep watching.)

But I think whichever one of you said that voters don't wanna see Hillary win, but they don't wanna see her lose is correct.  I got really sad reading that "fare thee well" post.  Hillary obviously wants to be president very badly, and based simply on policy acumen, she would be a very good president.  I think she's also an excellent senator whose obit in 2050 should lead with "the first female Senate Majority leader and the greatest senator of the 21st century" instead of "a failed presidential aspirant."

That having been said, there's no one I would rather see as veep right now than Hillary.  She knows her stuff and could help run a White House effectively.  (Hasn't she campaigned by claiming this is what she did for eight years?)

Of course, then I read Sean Wilentz's piece and I just want the Clintons to go far away.  Boy, I've never seen a campaign with worse hacks as supporters.  Every time a Clinton supporter tries to say anything in her defense, it just pushes people further away.

I missed the debate but I've now read four accounts that said they went harder on Clinton than Obama.  I've also seen some Obama supporters carping on the Wilentz article which I thought could have made a stronger case that Obama played the race card as well as Clinton (I'd argue he played it first, but Clinton played it in a more destructive and less forgiveable way).  

20 debates or so and it seems nobody asked the most meaningful questions.  All three candidates energy plans are bs and nothing is more critical to our foreign or environmental policy.  Their budget numbers simply don't add up even after reversing the Bush tax cuts and winding-down Iraq.  There's an officially declared genocide and they refuse to speak of it and when forced to make cowardly punts to a U.N. system they know will never act forcefully.  And not once was one of the academic studies showing the effect of illegal immigration on the working poor pushed in their faces and asked how much worse those numbers would be if their immigration proposals went through.  There is no Paul Tsongas, or even Ross Perot, in this race to keep the candidates honest.  And so America will get a Chicago Machine loyalist whose chief claim to the Presidency is an opposition to the Iraq War compelled by his state senate district as much his judgment, and a misguided if mostly honest conservative whose free market approach to the economy and immigration will just deepen the crisis.  (If Hillary had a chance I'd slam her too, but given that she doesn't and she's had so much double-standard abuse from the media, I'll leave her alone).

I'm reprinting this second hand, but these were reportedly comments from National Review's "The Corner"

Is this a debate or a roast? [Andy McCarthy]

If Fox did this to Hil, the Left would go ballistic. But this is their hometown channel.

The Questions Obama Gets [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a friend: “Russert’s question to him aren’t gotcha, but, ‘Hey, the witch said your mother wears combat boots. What say you?’

I Never Thought I’d Say This, But … [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

… I may be angry on behalf of Hillary Clinton. This debate is starting out with Clinton on the defense. Obama bettter get treated like she is.

Anyone have the Wilentz link?

Why is it that black candidates are always required to denounce Farrakhan? Should we now require white candidates to denounce David Duke?

Duh. Didn't realize it was TNR. Sorry.

Scrubby: If the situations were comparable, yes.  Imagine if Hillary's personal church had named Duke "Man of the  Year" and her pastor said the most glowing things about him -- do you really think she wouldn't be asked about it?

Someone with authority should come up with an objective, standard definition of what it means to play "the race card" or "the gender card."  Here's mine:  It means that, when you are being criticized you accuse your critics of being racist or sexist.  It does not mean that you invoke your race or gender as part of a story of overcoming obstacles in society.   Nor does it mean that you appeal to those in your racial or gender group to show solidarity.  Overcoming-obstacles stories and solidarity appeals may be offensive to some, or perhaps inoffensive but cheesy, but they should and must be distinguished from using your race or gender to try to change the subject of criticism from you to the supposed biases of your critic.  

I have never seen Obama or his campaign staff play the race card in the sense I have just discussed.  Hillary's campaign -- through her official spokespeople -- has played the gender card in that precise sense many times.  Hillary herself never does it, though; she sticks strictly to gender-solidarity appeals, which I think underscores that deep down she knows the difference and knows that the true "race/gender card" gambit is far more offensive than solidarity appeals.

Lymon1--How would the public react if Catholic candidates were grilled on what the Pope said about one or the other political or social issue.

Back in 1960 was Kennedy required to write to the Pope to demand the Vatican apologize for facilitating the holocaust?

i do not feel sorry for clinton... she's run a terrible, mean-spirited campaign and she will have a long (and i hope rejuvinating and distinguished) career in american politics.  i think last night obama continued to demonstrate the unflappable, presidential, and deep-thinking qualities that he showed in the last debate.   i keep wanting him to come back at her harder and more directly, and he keeps showing that he can make his points without disparaging her and sinking down to her level.   this is the final inning and clinton needs a massive jolt of energy to come through tuesday (not to mention engage in the battle for pennsylvannia)...  instead, her attack lines seem to be getting more petty and canned...  we are watching her shrink by the day...  it would be a wonderful irony if clinton, who is popularly seen as one of the most ambitious politicians in america, was to step down gracefully for the sake of the country and the party...  but her big donors have paid to watch a fight and it looks like she'll go out swinging...  

The questions that were posed in this debate were among the worst asked in the entire debate series.  Throwing up Clinton attacks and asking the candidates to respond is cable news at its worst.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but has a single question regarding executive authority been asked in any of these debates?

Russert's question regarding the reinvasion of Iraq was absolutely horrendous.   If the Iraqi government told us to leave, would you reinvade if necessary?  Maybe Russert knows something that I don't, but I would say that the chances of Iraq asking us to leave are approximately 0%.  I'm glad that Hillary called him on it.  His emotion while asking the question was comical, as if this were a gravely serious possibility.

achester99:  "Of course, then I read Sean Wilentz's piece and I just want the Clintons to go far away.  Boy, I've never seen a campaign with worse hacks as supporters.  Every time a Clinton supporter tries to say anything in her defense, it just pushes people further away."

I was floored by the tone and direction of Wilentz's piece.  It lacks even an iota of detachment and objectivity.  I posted a reply to Talkback last night but as of this morning (9:45 ET) it still isn't up.  Talkback does take ages, but still . . .

I think this is a pretty accurate representation of the evening. I agree that Hillary had to field a few more "gotcha" questions than did Obama, but then again, she provided a much bigger target, having indulged in so much rhetorical excess in recent days (with somewhat irritating video to reinforce it). But this could actually wind up helping her, as the only appeal she has left to voters is to try and gin up as much sympathy as possible. And if past performance is any indicator of future results, it could at least keep her from losing the older female vote, which tends to rally to her when she seems vulnerable.

Still, it must be pretty obvious to everyone by now that she failed to knock Obama off his pedestal and that was her only hope of dramatically changing the narrative of the race. Failing that, she lost, and it's hard to see how she overcomes her growing deficit in votes, delegates, fund raising, positive headlines and momentum.

Watching the twentieth Democratic debate last night was kind of like watching a rerun of Seinfeld for the twentieth time: There were some entertaining moments, but for the most part, you knew exactly what to expect. Moderator Tim Russert gave us a couple

jeidel1906: While I am no fan of Russert ( I think he brings a degree of sanctimony unwarranted) I think this question was a fair one. It is entirely possible that upon withdrawal some very unsavory will be competing for power. Likely with the authority of violence and justification of reclaiming identity at the expense of the invaders. A baby and bath water scenario. It is well to prepare for the worst and this question entertained as much. I also thought Obama answered as well as one might.

LD:  Tell you what, if the Pope ever calls the Jews "wicked" and that the Holocaust was a punishment for their "wickeness" and called Hitler great and all the rest, uh, yeah, John Kerry might have been asked about it.  

The bubble burst for this Obamacan.

I thought Barak Obama was smart and honest.   Those qualities allow me to forgive some policy disagreements. But then he blamed NAFTA for closing factories in Ohio,  and prior to the debate said NAFTA cost 1 million jobs.  

I was wrong about at least thing.    Either he is not smart or he is not honest.   Every study of NAFTA not done by an advocacy group group shows a small net positive.    And Ohio steel mills closed due to high-tech mills requiring fewer workers that opened elsewhere, not NAFTA.    

irony, I read your post there, it was great, but there is now like 150 posts there, which makes threads for the regular articles unreadable.

I agree that these debates look like re-runs.  Same questions, same answers, over and over.  We know all about their health care differences, their Iraq positions, and how much they love America and our men and women in uniform.

boxofrox:  I agree that should we leave precipitously there is a likely chance that Iraq will descend into even greater chaos.  But the question wasn't what will happen when we leave voluntarily,  the question was what will you do if the Iraqi government asks us to leave.  I have seen no indications that the Iraqi government is considering doing anything of the sort.  A fair question would have been, "Both of you have indicated that you would like to withdraw troops from Iraq as quickly as possible.  If after withdrawal, Iraq descends into total chaos and becomes a haven for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, would you reserve the right to reinvade Iraq?"  In his hypothetical scenario, Russert inexplicably throws in the wrinkle that the Iraqi government has thrown us out.

That being said, I don't think that either candidate would actually pull our troops out as quickly as many would like for precisly that reason.  I would think that there would be a phased withdrawal per the original Petraeus surge plan minus the "pause" he is currently advocating.

novaman2000, do you remember what happened to McCain in Michigan when he told the truth?

You are wrong about the steel mills. Most steel jobs were lost to Baosteel, the Shanghai based Chinese steel giant, they pay their workers $1.00 an hour, and it is also state run which keeps the cost down even more. NAFTA is shorthand for WTO for most people. Now is Obama supposed to give an educatory speech or just go with what is understood.

WTO is great for the world, but is terrible for places like Ohio, that is just the way it is. To pretend otherwise is silly. I am from Bethlehem Pa. home to what was once but no more Bethlehem steel.

But Blackie, steel mills have been closing in OH, PA, etc., since the 70s, well before the WTO or NAFTA.  Neither caused the US maunfacturing sector to shrink as much as fat union contracts and ridiculous work rules did.

But what I really like is the Dems' insistence on "enforeceable labor and environmental standards." Enforceable by whom?  How?  And isn't that a case of us telling other (mostly 3rd World) countries how they should order their societies?  And that would different than that nasty G.W. Bush how, exactly?

lymon1...you're comments about the non-debate on the energy issues facing America and the issues of environment: global warming, carbon emissions, industrial farming practices, water issues in the West and Southeast, domestic energy production beyond coal, oil and natural gas, sustainable energy production, research and promotion have been nil. I've read BHO's policy positions on his site about the environment and energy policies but like all politicians they're very nebulous. I've yet to see anyone present a holistic response or policy proposal about energy and the environment.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

As I've said , I thought Hillary generally failed to connect on the jabs she threw at Obama. She

butchie...blaming fat union contracts and worker safety regulations on steel folding the in 80s is a gross misrepresentation of the realities. The U.S. like all industrialized nations, have higher labor costs than 2nd-tier industrialized nations like India and China.

The steel factories were closed not as a direct result of union contracts but because of increased production efficiencies, a shrinking U.S. steel market abroad, especially with cheap eastern block steel coming on to the market in the 80s and 90s and corporate board decisions to pursue short-term profit margins for long-term industry stability. Nothing says I've made huge profits by shutting a factory down. Hell...that was a tactic used by Carnegie in the old days to crush unions and demonstrations for worker safety and 8 hour work days and then reopening it with less workers and longer production hours to "make up for labor losses" at increased profitability.

Regardless, getting rid of NAFTA isn't going to suddenly bring back manufacturing jobs unless the US starts to focus on specialized sectors - renewable technologies that can't be sourced to China, domestic construction material production that fosters domestic and local manufacturing, more stringent environmental QC, and as an indirect result....reduces our dependence on foreign materials, chemicals and oil supplies. What is amazing is that people can justify having something made in China because it's cheap (per unit cost) but they don't factor in the actual labor costs, environmental degradation costs, fuel costs and carbon emissions to ship cargo across the ocean, and feeding the Chinese Communist economy instead of buying locally and domestically produced materials.

A good example is the notion that by putting Chinese-grown bamboo flooring in your house is more sustainable than domestically grown hardwood flooring. One - the Chinese clear cut native forests (and all the problems with doing that) to plant mono-crop forests of bamboo, the fabrication process is not all that sustainable, then shipping it over to the U.S. and the fuel used to do that. Instead, we can easily manage our forests here with proper sustainable management practices, facilitate growth in a shrinking labor sector, the hardwoods are locally grown, processed and shipped and you're buying a product of quality that will last, is very sustainable, and is made in the U.S. with U.S. labor.

Other nations aren't afraid of promoting domestic markets like this but here in America it's considered to be "anti-Capitalist, anti-free market." Bullshit,  That line of thinking that selling off America for short-term market profit is nothing but greed for greeds sake and an unhealthy worship of free-markets at the expense of one's country and long-term market sustainability.

thanks blackton -- there's around 265 posts now (2 p.m. ET), running at a rough guess about 70-30 against Wilentz.

Obviously, I was being too flip above.  But as you note, NAFTA and other trade agreements did not lose manufacturing jobs, nor will their abrogation bring those jobs back.  Steel has focused on specialized markets in the US, as I understand the current steel business.  Yes, the headlong rush to China is disappointing in precisely the ways you point out, but the ancillary costs you note are transparent to Americans.  All they care about is low cost uber alles.

The issue is not manufacturing jobs per se.  The issue is the jobs lost to the huge and persistent imbalance in the current trade account and the depressing effect on wages of forcing American workers to compete head to head with offshore workers who make 10% or less of what they do.  The theory of comparative advantage invoked endlessly by free-traders speaks only in terms of the aggregate wealth of the country.  Even assuming it applies under conditions of open world trade (not at all clear as there is no reason to believe in any consistent comparative cost advantages except in unusual cases), the theory says nothing about the distribution of wealth within the economy as between workers who individually enjoy a comparative advantage on world markets and those who don't.  Even The Apostel, Tom Friedman, has lately had to acknowledge that maybe high value-added, high-paying jobs are not going to be the peculiar preserve the US while everyone else carries water for us.

Butchie, of course individuals look for the best price.  It is our failure to manage our relationship with the world economy at a national level in favor of unadulterated market economics (at least where workers are concerned -- businesses, like sugar, still get protected) that leads to this situation.

In the fourth paragraph, Obama is quoted as saying, "we haven't whiled about it because I understand

that's the nature of this campaign ...". It might be of interest to notice that the NYT transcript

has him saying "these campaigns", not "this campaign", and that is more consistent with Obama's

style. I suspect that's what he actually said.

It didn't seem like Hillary knew much either, though admittedly on national television I would have frozen up trying to pronounce that name too. Put that one in the endearing column.