CNN real-time:

All undecided going in.

60/40 for Clinton after the debate.

Obama won on Iraq.

I thought Obama won decisively on Immigration.  Hillary agreeing with the scapegoating of the questioner was surprising.  

Mark Penn is on MSNBC. He looks awful on TV

I concur with the CNN poll, and as such, if Clinton was ahead going in, she remains ahead going out.  She will win decisively on Super Tuesday.

Getting close on the Mydd poll. I have never seen HRC win any blog's poll.

As an Edwards supporter, I favor Clinton on health care and Obama on other issues. I've been critical of Obama in the past specifically for his use of Republican talking points at times.

Tonight I actually saw Clinton using Republican points like when she said (paraphrasing) "We need to have a strong Democrat to go against Republicans on national security." I think she kind of embraced that meme, which just isn't true and we shouldn't ackowledge it.

Ugh Mark Penn arguing why Edwards should go to them. How funny is that?

He and Axelrod would do their candidates justice by finding some "softer" faces to spin.

Hillary Clinton was at her best tonight. Her command of policy, especially on health care and the economy, really shone through. She makes her strongest impressions when she's able to talk at length about her policies.

There's no way Clinton is the VP nominee. You only want to be VP as a stepping stone to the presidency, or if the presidential nominee is a clueless fool who's allowed you to pick the VP, and who will also allow you to essentially be the president. Clinton would be much more effective as a senator.

Generally, I think Clinton had the stronger performance, as would be expected.  Obama is less effective in debate than  in public address, hesitant and choppy.  

Each had some good lines, but since those the media chooses to highlight get attention I don't think that my assessment (Clinton had the best lines) will necessarily become the Revealed Truth.  

I haven't seen numbers, but my impression is that Clinton spoke considerably more than Obama time-wise.

Obama didn't know what to do with the "media & morality" question and his response was fairly lame.

Clinton laughed, smiled, was cordial, pleasant and not the Iron Bitch Goddess of the Western World.  She didn't let Wolf screw with her.  Strong and competent.

Nod to Clinton.

probably staunched the bleeding.

I agree - no clear winner.  I think both candidates basically did what they wanted to do.  HRC is a better debater than Obama, but this was probably Obama's best debate from top to bottom.

The question is... has Hillary bled too much?  

She's put on the brakes, but we still have a de factor incumbent and undecided don't generally break for the incumbent.

i went to my first debate watch party, and it was quite cordial. there were some Obama supporters there, but in general, everyone was happy.

This was Clinton's debate, all the way. A dazzling performance, very careful and methodical in her responses. Supremely detailed and controlled. She has been the absolute winner--not even close. The best line EVER--"It took a Clinton to clean up after the FIRST Bush, and it just might take another Clinton to clean up after the SECOND Bush." THE DEMOCRATIC LINE OF THE YEAR AND THE CAMPAIGN. Say hello, America, to the first woman president. She's going to clean up next Tuesday!

Yeah, about a Clinton/Obama ticket, I speak to supporters of both candidate and their faces light up when such a ticket is mentioned. How that plays out remains to be seen.

Can anyone read lips? I wonder what the exchange was between Clinton and Obama at the end.

I agree with those who say that Obama would never pick Clinton as veep, nor do I know that that would make sense for her.

But, while Obama is not my favorite choice (Wesley Clark, Jim Webb, or maybe Ted Strickland), it might be a ruthlessly pragmatic choice and tonight's debate made be think it would be workable if it came to pass.   It's funny, but I was thinking along these lines when Wolf Blitzer popped the question.

How does a Clinton/Obama help in OH or FL or western state- don't we need to think of that rather than the feelings of the moment in a Democratic Primary?

I believe that she would have to pick Obama so shore up his support. If I have to say it, his African-American support. She can't risk that they would stay home in the general.

Even though I support HRC, I don't know what she does for him given that he has already proven that he can attract women's votes.

Inigo, strategically is the only way to look at it

Bruh: Kerry picking Edwards was the feeling of the moment. Clinton picking Obama (imagine the turnout in La. Va. Tn. Ga. Fl. among African Americans and women)would be pure strategy.

The Dem's would win a few 52-48 Bush states with that ticket, IMO.

My friend: Winning one of those states gains us the White House you realize? The Dem's don't need them all if you remember the 2000 and 2004 elections. We don't need Fl (although we will win it this year) and we will win Colorado and New Mexico and possibly Nevada. Explanation enough?

The turnout in the early states have been so far beyond 2004 and it is because of these two people. Combining them would strategic, not some feel-good measure.

Picking Ted Strickland, Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson would be delusional.

The real time reaction to the first Bush Gore debate was pretty nearly unanimous. Gore mopped the floor with Bush. Bush supporters were musing out loud that they had just witnessed their guy losing the election.

By the next day, the media pack was in full cry, incense over Gore's rudeness, his loud sighs, rolling his eyes, blah, blah, blah. Bush, on the other hand, had exceeded expectations by not tripping over his own feet and cracking his skull on the podium. A clear win for Bush.

I have great respect for (most of) the posters here, be the supporting Obama / Clinton/ Edwards / whoever. But the question is not how MyDDers see the debate, it's how Chris Matthews, et al are planning to spin it, and whether he gets away with it.

C'mon, let's get a clip of "The Chair Pulls" going.  It'll go cultural in a flash, like "The Snub."

= 1000 words.

I think Hillary was the winner. Obama predictably won the Iraq war point. However, Hillary did a damn good job speaking very eloquently about the other topics. All Obama did was match her at best when he needed to beat her on a few issues.

While I thought were about the same overall in terms of scoring points, I think I will give Hillary the edge for two reasons

1. Obama is the underdog and so a tie would not help him.
   
2. Hillary's body language seemed superior to Obama's even if you factor in the little awkward staring she did when Obama would respond to a question. Thankfully she toned down the staring later in the debate.

If you are a Democratic candidate, I think both candidates can kill either Repiblican candidate in a debate though I would be curious to see how Hillary would find a way to put McCain on the defensive on Iraq. Would she go less aggressive on McCain's stupidity on that issue because of her past?

Democrats don't need "help" on Iraq. The republicans are running pro Iraq and dems are running withdraw. It's pretty black and white. No one who wants troops out of Iraq is going to vote McCain because Clinton isn't anti war enough. I mean McCain just said she wants to "surrender"

Bruh: Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot, my fault.  I honestly don't know what we are even debating at this point. My only point is that Obama would be a wise VP choice because he would gain votes for the ticket, as opposed to Lieberman and Edwards.  I do think it is naive to think that without Obama, Clinton would lose some African-American support in the general. maybe they would vote for McCain but they surly won't turn out (record breaking in South Carolina) like they have in the primary.

They both looked good in this head-to-head debate. Civility reigned.

Hillary was on her game. Obama did well to force her to try to defend her Iraq war authorization, but failed to confront her about her failure to read the NIE report.

Obama had a great point in noting that the renowned businessman, Romney, had not obtained much return on his campaign investment. Hillary had a nifty line that a Clinton had cleaned up after a Bush presidency and that a Clinton would now do the same.

Both won. Hillary showed her excellent skills in outlining policy positions. Obama did OK and certainly did benefit a lot just from the additional exposure this debate.gave him.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

I thought Clinton aced most of the debate & simply outflanked Obama on nearly every issue. Her command & expertise was definitely on display.

Obama sometimes likes to joke & quip his way out of serious issues & make light out of things he should not, to cloak discomfort at handling certain issues. It's understandable to want to laugh at Romney, but the idea of a talented rookie captaining the economy totally cold is a prospect I find unappealing.

The one issue where I agree Obama has an advantage is the IWR. However, that does not extend to what do we do NOW. I'm never going to be happy with Clinton's IWR vote, but I can be at peace with her answer & accept it.

I have two seriously war mangled veteran uncles (Vietnam era), one a triple amputee, so I do take this issue of Iraq seriously, and I take it personally. I also have a very clear picture of the atmosphere in the country at the time.  

But when people conclude it is advantage Obama on Iraq, it is only the IWR vote that is in play there, to me. She seems better equipped for this moment, at this time, as far as getting us out of the mud.

And I certainly like the fact that Wes Clark & Joe Wilson have endorsed her.

She is comfortable in her own skin on health care, and also seems to comprehend this comprehensively, multi-dimensionaly, realistically. Obama's idealism, while touching, comes across as extremely naive at times. There is a place where theory & practice have to meet- and I think Clinton has a much deeper, stronger grasp of how to do what is possible to do, if that makes sense.

I like Obama, I like the excitement, I hope he develops his talents & learns to listen. His professorial bearing is best suited to lecturing, not listening, and not discussion & at this time, we desperately need hands on, detail oriented people who have a deep appreciation for the complex inner workings of our very broken government, how all the wheels & cogs should fit together.

Clinton gives us this in spades. I have a high degree of confidence in her. She can set the stage for a more progressive wave to succeed in the following dem administrations. Right now we need to slow down the Shock Doctrine we've been living under, and accepting as normal. We need to move very, very, very, very carefully with our next moves.