I wish Molly Ivins were still here to give the whole thing her spin. I'd like to think that, though she'd have reservations about one thing or another, she'd finally have reason to be pleased and proud of her party.

The standing ovations scattered throughout the evening were nice.

Obama looked lethargic; like he'd rather be having a rectal exam than another debate with that woman.

According to several reports, Hillary cribbed much of her last answer from John Edwards. But - whatever. Nothing sounds genuine coming out of her mouth anyway.

And the way her demeanor swings to such wide degrees is off-putting. In 90 minutes, we saw about 5 different Hillarys. Instability is not a quality one wants attributed to one's president.

I was appalled by Clinton's closing statement, which was deeply cynical on several levels:

1) She voted to send those maimed vets to war. Using their suffering, while still refusing to apologize for her vote, is disgraceful.

2) She clearly was attempting to gin up a lot of emotion and rhetorical force with these remarks. Having spent the past month blasting her opponent for his effective rhetoric and lecturing about actions, not words, this was rather hypocritical.

3) She cribbed extensively for the closing line about "being okay" from John Edwards' speeches. Having blasted her opponent lately with tenuous accusations of plagiarism, this third hypocrisy really left a bad taste.

Obama has my vote.

Note also that Molly Ivins wrote a column before her death saying she would not support Clinton for President. It began: "I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president."

According to several reports, Hillary cribbed much of her last answer from John Edwards. But - whatever. Nothing sounds genuine coming out of her mouth anyway.

Here's the proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo

When juxtaposed with Edwards' delivery, her version seems all the more contrived.

Oh, and she also "channeled" her husband:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U

What a foolish move on her part. Whenever you make the supposed "plagiarism" of your opponent an issue in the campaign--which, in the case of Obama was a weak claim at best and a petty, desperate move by Clinton at worst--you should be aware that your statements will be subject to heightened scrutiny. Everyone loves to expose a hypocrite. This time, Hillary made it easy.

I thought both candidates showed class and composure in this footage. I could support either candidate for President.

Using Molly Ivins to beat-up Hillary at this moment is shameless; the last thing Molly would want would be to play into McCain's hand.

And I want to thank Norm for posting this video with what have become his trademark timeliness and quality (Yay H.264!)

Hudson, it hadn't occurred to me the hypocrisy of Hillary playing upon the pathos of the wounded soldiers she helped send off to this misbegotten war. Thanks for the reminder. It illustrates how we can so easily be lost in the moment.

By the same token, Josh Marshall points out that a key line of Hillary's closing comment was cribbed from her husband's campaign.

Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Bill Clinton, '92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

I was moved by Hillary's closing statement, but in light of Josh's history lesson, combined with her trumped up charges of plagiarism, I revoke any credit I extended to her at that moment.

Hudson, here are the quotes you refer to, side by side:

Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about."

John Edwards, Dem debate 12/13/07: "What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine."

After waching the debate clips posted here tonight I just need to say I'm even more depressed that these two are our choices. Like that Molly Irvins quote above I long have felt I'd love to have a woman president as long as it wasn't Hillary... and Even my white guilt can't get me excited about a black president in the form of a centrist afraid of causing too many ripples.

At least the crazies on the right have Huckabee still to vote for. Why can't us crazies on the left have Kucinich or someone who actually seems to truly care about our interests?

I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep. Wake me when the primaries are over.

And the way her demeanor swings to such wide degrees is off-putting. In 90 minutes, we saw about 5 different Hillarys. Instability is not a quality one wants attributed to one's president.

You know, that is the exact same thing the Republicans said about Al Gore in 2000.

I don't mind Obama winning, really. Good for him, he beat Hillary fair and square. But the readiness of his supporters to come up with right-wing talking-points about Democrats in general and Hillary in particular is just stunning. But, I know, in truth it's Hillary making racist remarks about Obama, isn't she..?

"Instabilitiy"..! You should hear yourself. Boy, will I be glad the primaries are over.

But the readiness of his supporters to come up with right-wing talking-points about Democrats in general and Hillary in particular is just stunning. But, I know, in truth it's Hillary making racist remarks about Obama, isn't she..?

uuuhhhh, Clintons attacks throughout the campaign have been Rovian. They continuously have looked to have third party's attack obama on his strengths. This latest Plagerism lie is case in point. Only problem is that it is so lame that the press hasn't run with it, so the Clinton campaign has had to say,"this is the press raising concerns" even though that isn't true.

Now, I think calling Clinton unstable is off the mark, although I found it putoffing that she gets a huge shit eating grin everytime Obama says anything she disagrees with.

As for racism, I am not about to lob that accusation although a few have.

I think there is a compelling arguement to be made that many of the attacks on obama could be interpreted as racsist.

I would be happy to make that arguement even if I don't really buy it.

I'm sorry, Red, but all I can say right now is: yeah, whatever. I've really had it with these hyperbolical charges like "Clinton's attacks have been Rovian" and stuff.

This thing is almost over. Obama won. Let's just leave it at that. I know, many Obama supporters think that beating Hillary is almost like beating Cheney. Well, as I said: whatever. If they only could keep this for themselves from now on - and direct that fervor to the aim which is really important: the November election.

Hillary has made some mistakes, alright. Her campaign lost track, she and Bill said some stupid things. Losing elections seldom brings the best out in you. I bet, Obama would said some stupid things, too, if he'd lost in Iowa and then some. Being the one nagging at the benevolent front-runner is never attractive.

But at least we could admit now that Hillary made a decent effort at the debate. And paved the way for a decent ending of the primaries.

I don't mind Obama winning, really. Good for him, he beat Hillary fair and square. But the readiness of his supporters to come up with right-wing talking-points about Democrats in general and Hillary in particular is just stunning

To be fair, a whole hell of a lot of right-wing talking points and hyperbole have been used against Obama.

I just wish that Democrats would stop bickering and I cannot wait for this primary season to be over and done with.

Anyway, I thought that they both did a good job in the debates and listening to both of them made me proud to be a Democrat.

As for racism, I am not about to lob that accusation although a few have. I think there is a compelling arguement to be made that many of the attacks on obama could be interpreted as racsist. I would be happy to make that arguement even if I don't really buy it.

You just did.

No, I just said there is an argument that the attacks can be interpreted as racist.

My personal belief is that the Clinton's arguments are not motivated by racism but by arrogance.

But at least we could admit now that Hillary made a decent effort at the debate. And paved the way for a decent ending of the primaries.

Agreed, I thought she was very thoughtful and sharp during the debate.

I made the argument about rovian attacks a few days ago in a bit more detail. I would rather not rehash it, but I think its true. I only bring it up to respond to the labeling of Obama supporters as ready to go for Clinton's jugular.

Some Obama supporters clearly are, but they have been subjected to some rather systematic nastiness in the last few months.

I bet, Obama would said some stupid things, too, if he'd lost in Iowa and then some.

He lost NH and gave a speech that made Chris Mathews Cry.

But you are right. losing sucks and nobody runs for president without an ego the size of a house.

My personal belief is that the Clinton's arguments are not motivated by racism but by arrogance.

now that's ad homimem. it's also MY personal belief.

to be fair, however, arrogance is a major prerequisite for running for high office. if you think any of these motherfuckers is less than arrogant you're just wrong.

and more power to them cuz, like, what can you do? arrogance is a form of power. the question is what does the candidate do with it?

I sure hominumed that ad.

When I see two Senators with limited legislative records campaigning against each other and the corporate lawyer says to the constitutional law professor that her experience is evidence that she can start on day one and he lacks the experience to do the same, it makes me think I can only swallow so much tripe in one campaign.

I sure hominumed that ad.

When I see two Senators with limited legislative records campaigning against each other and the corporate lawyer says to the constitutional law professor that her experience is evidence that she can start on day one and he lacks the experience to do the same, it makes me think I can only swallow so much tripe in one campaign.

One of my favorite bloggers who started out as an Edwards' supporter, then moved towards Hillary Clinton, but is now in a mode to unite gave this well-balanced review of the debate.

This video sounds a lot like the healthcare debate video. Two sets of bullshit, and Hillary's came across as more convincing when taken at face value.

Obama hardly even answered the question. And for all his skills as an orator, Obama tends to stammer a little bit: "Well ee ah I oh I would'nt point to a single moment..."

And I get scared when US Presidents stammer.

Now Hillary, on the other hand, sounds more sure of herself, but apparently a lot of voters are taking that to mean she is more arrogant and calculating, and despite the content and intended effect of her speeches, cold and insincere. Also, invoking the hardships of veterans, stuff like that, tends to backfire. I wonder if Obama would have been able to get away with doing that.

Anyways, both candidates are very sharp little politician whores, but they're also quite different in their weasely styles and techniques, their strengths and weaknesses.

They're also both kind of disappointments, but that's politics for you. If Obama gets elected, I hope I'm not disappointed in terms of his stated policies.

one of the things that i don't like about debates: they know what they are going to say in their answers regardless of what the question was.

neither one of them answered the question. they both reposed the question in a way that they could say what they had already decided would be their closing statements.

If Obama had the same nasty cold that is going around out here. He did well, most of the people I know that had it could not get out of bed.

A bit worrisome also are the reports the Secret Service ordered the Texas police to stop screening people at Obama events. This is just wrong. I want everyone screened, as I am when I get on an airplane.

One 'meme' that rings inauthentic coming from Clinton is trying to frame Obama as having little legislative experience. She is there, and she sees and knows he is working on legislation! So a bit disingenuous.

He worked on legislation that would restrict nuclear proliferation. Clinton worked on the flag burning amendment. See how easy that is? Get real, indeed.

Thanks for the link, JoAnn! It's a good read.

Thanks for the link, JoAnn! It's a good read.

You're welcome Frenetic, you "anti-american"! LOL!

Just for the record, I think it is excellent that "Rovian" has become a valid adjective.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rovian

Great links Ian. Better still, this is only news because Hillary herself decided to make "plagiarism" an issue. I must admit, I enjoy watching her destroy herself. She reminds me a lot of Nixon, circa 1960.

Good riddance to the Bush / Clinton dynasty. THAT will prove the most significant "change" of all.

Anyway, I thought that they both did a good job in the debates and listening to both of them made me proud to be a Democrat.

Me too. I don't understand complaints that we've got a couple of middle of the road lefties: I think both are articulate and exciting candidates. I'm grateful we have them both running, and I think both have run, on the whole, a remarkably focused, civil, and grown-up contest, whatever their respective individual lapses (and I don't mean to deny there have been lapses on both sides: this is politics, after all).

What I found pitiful was the press' reaction, either complaints of being 'bored' (because there were extended, detailed discussions of policy), or outright hyperbole, characterizing the debate as full of "sharp disagreement" or "bitter contestation". This article neatly summaries these absurdities: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/what-didnt-happen-at-the-debate/?hp

Although I'm an Obama supporter, and I do feel Clinton has made some unfair attacks on him (re: kindergarten papers, "plagerism," "just rhetoric"), I do think much of this was determined, as was suggested by Frenchfries, by her no longer being the frontrunner. When she was, she acted like Obama does now--gracious, and much focused on policy (rather, than, oh, say, rhetoric about how we should focus on policy and "get real"), because she could afford to be.

FrenchFries: But the readiness of his supporters to come up with right-wing talking-points about Democrats in general and Hillary in particular is just stunning.

You're clearly angry, so I'm going to let the matter drop and just say that Hillary did a good job in Austin. She was strong, focused, and was smart about attacking George Bush more than she attacked Obama.

However, you wanna talk stunning - let's talk about this:

But, I know, in truth it's Hillary making racist remarks about Obama, isn't she..?

Where in the hell did that come from? You can't seriously be suggesting... Because, if you are, then I suggest you need to take yourself a li'l breather. I criticized a presidential candidate. You're being downright poisonous.

Jon Stewert's interview with Larry King the other night made me realize something I never had before.

People on TV: Anchormen, pundits, commentators, on-the-scene special report reporters... all, and I mean ALL are tasked with a single job: get Ratings. They attempt to Gather a large audience and get them to keep comming back

So, this means that most people on TV will naturally view candidates from that perspective. "Which demographic needs which message to achieve maximum voters?" They think of the advertising more than the product.

Screw that shit.

What matters is who can do what, for the most people. What is the MEAT of the policies. What is the RECORD of a candidate, not "how do they play the game of getting elected".

Our president is not light beer.

Sigh...

"But, I know, in truth it's Hillary making racist remarks about Obama, isn't she..? (frenchfries)"

Where in the hell did that come from? You can't seriously be suggesting...

No, Mickey, obviously I wasn't suggesting. I was just paraphrasing some of the hyperbole I've read on even more Obama-friendly turf like Dailykos. But since we're returning to a more civil tone on this blog, I've no intention to rehash that.

So, to be clear: No, I don't think, Hillary and Bill Clinton are racists. And never have been. And never will be. This was a statement of sarcasm.

You happy?

• the poisonous one

Frenchfries,

The level of debate as pertains to the comments on DailyKos and Crooks and Liars and HuffPost is so pathetic that I cannot bear to read any of the comments.

This was a statement of sarcasm.

Oh, okay. I think being attacked so much for supporting Obama has made me twitchy. So...that's good. And sorry for calling you, y'know, poisonous.

Sigh... <--That's kinda mean, though. And it makes me suspect that you don't really mean it when you asked if I was happy.

Regardless, I, unlike you, have not given up on Clinton. At all. She's rather like a cockroach (to borrow a line from Yeats) in her approach to life. You've got to stomp on her very hard to kill her.

Hm. Perhaps she really is finished after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CRgFO2mnM

She's rather like a cockroach (to borrow a line from Yeats) in her approach to life. You've got to stomp on her very hard to kill her.

You actually realize how offensive and inhumane this statement is? Or is this supposed to be humorous? Because it's not, you know. It'r rather like something you could read on freerepublic.

Talking about graciousness in victory..