I think that if Clinton loses either state, it is probably over for her.

If Clinton loses both states, it is certainly over.

I hope that we will see a difference on economic issues tonight.  Most specifically trade.  People are tired of empty promises on fair trade.  We need fair trade now.

Or maybe three.  He'll win Vermont and Texas.  Rhode Island if some great miracle occurs.

I know what you meant, I'm just tired of the world ignoring New England.

So I emphathize with New England.  Our votes probably won't matter all that much in this primary.  At least their votes will count.  That can't be said for Florida (unless Hillary is able to cheat).

Like the scene in Titanic, Just after the iceberg, when the designer said it was certain to sink, and everybody just kept on playing cards.

this is the one I'm definitely most excited to see.  I wonder how long it will take Hillary to go negative.

The negative crap that she tried to pull neutralized some of the positives she had in the last debate.  And Obama had a better-than-usual performance.  That combination appears to have, at least in the minds of viewers, given Obama even more momentum (an exit poll in Texas showed people who watched the debate leaning heavily Obama afterwards).  That "Xerox" line stuck in everybody's head, and pissed people off.  Hillary would be better suited to spend her time attacking John McCain.  THAT might help her more.  It would actually be her playing to her own argument: that it is virtually a tie.  Every attack on Obama makes it quite clear that she isn't the frontrunner.

the "positiveness" of this campaign has been good for the Democratic party as a whole, she may view going negative as her only hope of winning at this point.  They're too close on several key issues...

I can't stomach it.  Finally got my appetite back.  My white blood count is back as of yesterdday, after my being hammered into dangerous territory by a vicious stomach virus.  And, frankly, I can't handle it.  (You may have noted I haven't been up to speed of late.)  The whole tenor and stridency of Hillary's desperate attempts to ridicule both us Obama supporters and Obama himself are getting increasingly hard to watch.  And I say this as a former debater who usually gets into real debates, of which none of the foregoing are (real).

Will check back on the liveblog.  

take care of yourself and I hope you feel better soon.

So you think you know how things will turn out, tonight?  If so, the new satirical blog, Political Insultant, asks you to Pick Your Metaphor:

See the post, here.

I pick "C. Tony Montana: 'Say Hello to My Little Friend!'" because I think Hillary is going to unload on Obama, but make a fool of herself in the process.

I'm going with B.  "Shiny, Happy People"

Hillary gets carried away and starts the nastiness when she is unscripted in front of a supportive audience.  She'll make nice in front of a mixed crowd and a primetime TV audience.

Remember, Hillary got soundly booed in Austin when she pulled out that "change you can Xerox" line.  She's a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.

There's a new sheriff in town....and his name is Barack Obama!

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett

I keep seeing Bill and Hillary as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, with Obama's supporters as the Pinkertons...

"Who are these guys?"

time limits on answers.  Should be fun!  

This is a candidates' forum, not a debate.

Clinton: This is a contested campaign, has respect for Obama but "we have differences."  Choices Sen. Obama's campaign has made...flyers, mailers...very disturbing to me. Important that you stand up for yourself so voters have information they need to make a decision. Unfortunate that Obama has said I'd force people to have health insurance.  Health care something I believe in with all my heart.  It's a debate we should have that's based in fact; my plan will cover everyone and be affordable.  Sen. Obama's plan does not cover everyone. We should have a good debate that uses accurate information not false, misleading, discredited information on something so important.

Ouch.

I pay directly for health insurance - since I am an employer and small business.  I have high deductable insurance - insurance much better than that is out of reach.

The bottom line is that private companies CAN'T BE TRUSTED with our nation's health insurance program.  Their motives are profit.  That motive requires them to deny as many claims as they possibly can.

The former CEO of my insurance company - United Healthcare - was forced to leave his post because of a mistake.  He got a golden parachute - the largest in the history of our nation - of $1,000,000,000.  Yes, one billion dollars.  It pays to be bad.

I am strongly opposed to Clinton being the nominee, but I don't believe that Obama has a strong enough plan.  What Obama will be doing is subsidizing the healthcare industry - inadvertantly.  If people are FORCED to buy insurace from these companies, what will prevent them from raising their rates?

If your employer pays for your insurance and you have never self-covered, you can't possibly understand.  I make an above average income.  I simply can't imaging people who don't make alot of money affording this if I am feeling the pinch.

HRC: As far as I know it didn't come from her campaign.  Not the kind of behavior I condone. No evidence where it came from. I'd ask person to leave my campaign.

Obama: I take Sen. Clinton at her word on the photos.  I want to focus on the issue of health care.  I've consistently said Sen. Clinton has a good health care plan, I think mine's better.  Repeated negative mailings from Sen. Clinton's campaign suggesting I want to leave 15 million people out. I dispute that.  Her plan has a mandate that every individual purchase health care.  Our mailing accurately indicates that she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase health care even if it's not affordable.  In Mass. 20% of uninsured left out. Sen. Clinton hasn't said how she'd enforce the mandate.  Context -- Sen. Clinton and her campaign has constantly sent out negative attacks on us, we haven't whined about it because it's the nature of campaigns.

HRC: This is not just any issue, this is an issue that goes to the heart of doing what's right.  Sen. Obama has a mandate in his plan on parents to provide health care for their children.  Difference between Sen. Obama and myself is that I know if everyone's not in the system, we'll allow insurance companies to cherry pick.  The kind of attack on my health care plan goes right to the heart of whether or not we'll be able to achieve universal health care.  This is a core Democratic Party value, ever since Harry Truman.  In Sen. Obama's mailing, it's almost as if Republicans and health care industry wrote it.  In my plan, there are subsidies so everyone can afford it.  

Obama: I believe in universal health care as does Sen. Clinton. She repeatedly claims that I don't stand for universal health care. Every expert has said that anyone who wants health care under my plan will be able to get it. President Clinton's own Secretary of Labor has said my plan will work/reduce costs.  We still don't know how Sen. Clinton will enforce a mandate.  We don't know how big the subsidies will be.  We could have a situation like in Massachusetts where people are worse off - no health care and paying a fine.  Insurance companies actually happy to have a mandate.  The question is whether we make it affordable.

HRC: Sen. Obama has mandates. If you have a mandate, it has to be enforced.  There's no difference here.  It would be like if FDR said let's make Soc. Security voluntary. Under my plan it's affordable.  Would cover nearly everybody at much lower cost than Sen. Obama's plan. Would limit amount of money anyone ever has to pay for a premium.

Obama: It is just not accurate to say that Sen. Clinton's plan does more to control costs than my plan.  Don't want to force people to purchase insurance without making it affordable. There's no real substantial difference between our plans.  It's how we go about achieving the same goal.  Make it affordable.  People will purchase it because it's a good deal.

16-minute discussion on health care.

She got defensive on getting the first question....referencing the SNL skit..said to offer Barack a pillow!!!
Dang....She's got gloves off!

I wonder if she also agrees with these SNL spoofs:

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

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

motivate Dems for November.  Not!

And states that aren't "significant," states with caucuses, "red states," etc., etc.

She looked horrible whining about first questions...horrible moment for her.

This will go down at the worst zinger ever.

"I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

After referring to SNL, and asking if Barack wants a pillow.

This is Hillary Clinton's best Dolores Umbrage imitation.

"I was against the war from the beginning." I heard it myself last summer coming from Hillary in a live interview.

When Hillary is done complaining about getting the first question (Edwards would have loved that problem), when will EITHER of these candidates admit that NAFTA is a job killer?

Nobody has benefited Hillary.  Unless they are super rich - NOBODY!

Clinton would never have a trade timeout despite what she says.  That is just as stupid as continuing NAFTA in current form - it would shake global markets.

What must be done is immediate renegotiation of our trade negotiations.  We must get serious with countries that manipulate their currencies, have weak labor or environmental standards.

I was just in St Marys Georgia visiting my grandfather dying of lung cancer.  The paper mill he worked at all his life was in ruin.  The knocked everything down, but the rubble remains.  I am just amazed - this plant that I grew up with is gone.  NAFTA AND UNFAIR TRADE DID THIS!  It has destroyed everything my grandfather worked all his life for.  

HRC: I seem to get the first question all the time, I do find it curious.  Saturday Night Live. I'm happy to answer it. I've been a critic of NAFTA since the beginning, didn't have a public position because I was part of the administration. Some parts of our country have benefited.  Upstate New York, had to negotiate to keep factories open.  We need to have a plan to fix NAFTA.  Trade time out. Core labor and environmental standards in agreements. Make it enforceable.  This is rightly a big issue in Ohio. I have laid out my plan to fix NAFTA.  I have received a lot of incoming criticism from Sen. Obama.  I have a record for standing up for manufacturing, will take tough position on trade agreements.

Obama: NAFTA didn't have labor, environmental standards to be good for Main Street not just Wall Street.  Entire cities that have been devastated.  Sen. Clinton has shifted positions on this.  Net costs of these trade agreements can be devastating.  Labor, enviro, safety standards.  Stop providing tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas.  

Clinton:  I would renegotiate NAFTA.  We will opt out unless we renegotiate.  There are lots of parts of New York and Texas that have benefited. If you look at what I've been saying it's been consistent. I've voted to toughen trade agreements.  Criticism of me on this has been erroneous.  I have a very specific plan. It's worked in some parts of America, not in Ohio.

Obama: I will make sure we renegotiate in same way Sen. Clinton has talked about.  Labor and environmental standards that are enforceable.  Chicago Tribune endorsed me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA.  We can compete with anybody.  We can't shy away from globalization. Have to look at what's good for communities not just multinationals.

And Hillary's dissembling on NAFTA is really absurd and getting old.  The evidence is clear, but she keeps trying to distance herself from the facts, what she herself has said.  

Obama: Trade can't be only part of economic agenda.  Bush has looked out for the well heeled not ordinary workers.  We need to invest in infrastructure, science, technology, education, energy.  Green jobs that can save on energy costs, create jobs, put communities back on their feet.

Clinton:  Pledged jobs for upstate New York, assumed that Al Gore would be president.  Millions of jobs created under Clinton administration.  We can create jobs here with tax incentives, training, commitment to following through. Can produce 5 million jobs in next 10 years.

Because our dollar went down.  Since everything we buy in this country is made in China and other countries that exploit labor and the environment, our purchasing power goes down.  This means that the poor feel the greatest pinch.

The bottom line is that our trade deficit is as high as it has ever been.  You can put lipstick on this pig if you want, but this economy is in trouble.

Home values declined 10% over the past year!  Our economy is in trouble and free trade is part of the problem.  The other part of the problem is wreckless spending and endless war.

Ok, I agree with almost everything you said, but if you want to use economics to do it please stick with real economic theory. If you put in place tariffs and shut out those Chinese products you would hurt the poor the most. The only people who are helped are the owners of the factories and the small percentage who work there. You tell me, is it better for the poor in this country to be able to afford a $12,000 car (which is about what a Toyota Corolla would be without ANY tariffs or subsidies) or to protect a couple of auto workers in Detroit and the South? Yeah, I don't like when blue collar workers lose their jobs too, but don't state that the poor are ALWAYS hurt if free trade is instituted. Maybe the government should strive to assist these people or educate them instead of pouring money into protecting jobs that the US just isn't competitive at anymore.

Also, if you've ever taken an Int'l Finance course it would tell you that a country can maintain its purchasing power (or even increase it) as long as its capital account is in surplus (which it is in the US). Just because the US's current account (trade balance, etc.) is in deficit does not mean its the end of the world.  

The reason it doesn't work is because there are inequalities between countries.  Someone will ALWAYS be hurt as a result of free trade.  

The people that benefit the most from NAFTA are in Mexico.  Unfortunately Mexico is corrupt so the average person in Mexico don't seem to benefit from their imbalanced trade with us.

Your view on free trade is seen through a small window.  Your comments regarding the south and the average union worker indicates that you don't understand the real economic problems with free trade.

Do the math.  The trade deficit is over $700 billion each year.  We have a $400 billion budget deficit.  We are borrowing massive amounts of money to support this - so your unborn children's children are already in debt.  

If you want to do the math, that means we accumulate debt at 1.3 trillion each year.  Given that we have 350 million citizens, that is $3142 per person this year.  Sorry, the stimulus won't cover that.  In fact, the stimulus is really just adding to the deficit.  Given that we have over 20 years of deficits, the total individual debt is WAY higher than $3142.  It is closer to $70k.  

Yes, your kids are born into a world of debt.  And it will only get worse with the baby boomers retiring.

If you are reading twice as much Friedman than you are Roberts, you need to ask your university for a refund.  And I meant Milton, not Thomas.  If you are reading Thomas Friedman, you should sue your college for passing fiction as economics.

but that still doesn't address how "purchasing parity" is never reduced as a result of trade deficits as long as capital accounts are in surplus. Nice try though... and I really doubt Georgetown's economics program needs to be sued. Also, maybe YOU'RE the one with the narrow lens. Free trade really sucks sometimes, but why are poor consumers forced to bear so much of the brunt of protectionist policies? Why should they pay more in food/consumer goods just to protect a minority of workers and companies? What about the lower class workers who don't work in manufacturing jobs whose costs are so much more because of tariffs?? It works both ways. If you really care about the poor you'd let them have access to cheaper goods. Sometimes environmental regulations in some foreign country are not your primary concern when you have trouble getting food to your children.

Your comments are based on your very short term view of trade and as a consumer.

If you had more time on this Earth you would realize that free trade did very little to drive down the cost of goods.  Manufacturers didn't lower the price of textiles and sneakers or toys.  They simply pocketed more money.  

The reason Wal Mart is able to deliver lower prices is really because of their ability to put their vendors in a headlock AND their incredibly efficient supply chain.  

I'll repeat myself.  Manufacturers don't lower their prices when they move offshore.  Why should they?  If the factories stayed here, the poor would not notice a declining dollar as much.

"If you really care about the poor you'd let them have access to cheaper goods."

So, you will be voting for McCain then?  If you really cared about the poor you would fight to protect their jobs.  The poor are the ones being shut out because of free trade.  I am will survive and be able to live either way.  Those who aren't educated and provide unskilled labor are the ones seeing their opportunities vanish.

What part of 800 billion dollar deficit don't you free traders get?

is that it's not really "free."  To the contrary, the international trading system is skewed in a myriad of ways by subsidies, taxes, various barriers, differing labor and environmental standards, etc., etc.  In other words, there's no "level playing field."  Also, externalities like pollution are not taken properly into account.  Those are fundamental failings of the international trading system, and we haven't even touched on the political and social repercussions of "The Lexus vs. the Olive Tree."

We people asking for fair trade are frequently called protectionists by the "free" traders and they unfairly present fair trade as a solution that will close down global markets.

Fair trade will simply adjust for inequalities and reward countries with less restrictive trade when they address those inequalities.

You can't jawbone your way into fair trade.  You must have a tangible remedy to inequality.  The Bush trade solution has been to ask China to kindly stop dumping goods and manipulating their currency.  When they say "no", the Bush trade reps threaten the Chinese that they will come back next year and ask them to kindly do the same thing.  Watch out China - we may start adding "pretty" to our "please".

The Chinese and Mexican trade reps know how this game is played.  There is rarely a penalty for breaking the rules.  Just nod your head and smile to our trade reps.

You know when a country manipulates its currency to make its goods cheaper it improves the other country's purchasing power? Therefore, the US consumer can actually buy more goods because of China's currency manipulations (the US' IS curve shifts right, increasing Y... if you're so much more knowledgeable about economics than I am). Also, I agree with what Lowell said too. If these externalities are incorporated into the cost of something (I fully agree with environmental standards. It would be so dumb to get cheap goods just because rainforests are being chopped down) and then the markets are actually opened then the benefits will be so much more. All I'm saying is you can't bash something that doesn't even exist in the first place. There is no fully free trade in America and NAFTA was basically a joke which never let Mexican goods into the US in the first place (you know there's parts of it that set tariffs and quotas for BROOMS!?) and never really gave the US that much of an advantage in exporting its goods to Mexico.  

The true economic rival is China. Mexico got the losing end of the treaty. Had Mexico negotiated well, why would they agree to allow for the importation of subsidized corn?

Corn is not only the staple food of Mexico, but also the main crop of millions of peasants and farmers.

Once the importation of subsidize American corn starts, get ready to see a big wave of immigration coming from there.

No, I won't be voting for McCain. I will be voting for the Democratic nominee (because believe it or not the trade thing isn't that important to me in the first place, I just really like econ). You know why prices for textiles and sneakers and toys are still so high? Maybe because the United States still has quotas and huge tariffs for these items. Our deficit is so high because the US' economy is in transition, once we specialize fully in what we have a comparative advantage in it won't be that high. You can put in thousands of dollars of tariffs and the smallest of quotas on cars but eventually it will just hurt the average American who needs to buy one at the expense of a couple of American manufacturers. Seriously, if you're going to make dramatic statements, base them on fact and proven theories, not false rhetoric. You keep on mentioning jobs, but manufacturing jobs are NOT the only jobs that poor people in this country have. Yeah, you can make money but when you can't really spend it on anything it really isn't worth that much (which comes back to the 'purchasing power' thing you were SO concerned with in the first place.)

"once we specialize fully in what we have a comparative advantage in it won't be that high. "

What is it exactly that we will have an advantage in?

Bangalore is now bigger than Silicon Valley.  China has a lock on manufacturing.  The domestic car industry is in decline.  Sure we have the drug industry - but we can't afford their drugs.  And half of the drugs do more harm than good.  Half of our government spending is on defense - if that dries up we won't even be able to kill people for profit.  Wal Mart is actually going to see a decline in jobs because of the economy.

Offshoring is impacting more than just low skilled, low wage jobs.  Professional services and technology can now be done offshore because of the Internet.  The tech companies are spending their R&D money in China and India, not the US.  

So you tell me - where do you see our competitive advantage?  It had better be more than one industry if we are going to have an economy that sustains 350 million people with a diverse set of skills.  Otherwise, poverty is going to get much worse.

Ten years ago it was technology. But our business leaders figured out a way to send that out of the country as well. :)

Financial edge? I am pretty sure that London can take over those functions pretty quickly too.

Today they talk about green jobs. See the industry grow, our engineers figure it out, and then have the production and further development shipped away.

What is our advantage then?

And another economic lesson for you: manufacturing and agriculture is the basis of real economic strength. You may have noticed that as the U.S. becomes weaker in manufacturing, China was become stronger and a world power.

The U.S. won WWII with its manufacturing sector--and other nice advantages such as geography. :) But manufacturing was key in the victory.

Hi, Georgetown Student,

Neoliberalism, or free trade, is a failed economic policy. All what it is good for is to create great inequality of wealth. Mexico should be a thriving country is the policy worked since it has been aggressively implemented them for the last 25 years. It ain't.

Let me illustrate how the lower prices don't really help the poor. It actually hurts them. And my main exhibit is Walmart.

Walmart gets to a community, brings lower prices on everything, and this should be great for the poor in the community, right? Well, wrong. It happens that Walmart destroys all of the local retail economy to the point where the only local employer is Walmart. And then prices go up again and the working conditions get worse.

The initial lower prices is a lure for consolidating the economy. The working class and the poor are actually better off paying higher prices with a competitive labor market rather than have a single one. Then they are in deep trouble.

But don't believe me. Ask people who lived as adults during the boom from 1945 to 1970, and ask them when did they feel more economically secure: back then, when the prices of consumer goods were higher, but salaries and unions were stronger, or today with our flood of cheap junk from China?

if the goods are such junk. Why are consumers buying them in the first place? Are you stating that Americans are so dumb that they will buy an extremely lower quality product again and again just because its cheaper? Well even if they are...why not give them the freedom to do so? PS I was in Arkansas for two months during the summer in a town where WalMart was the only supermarket. As boring as it was, it was so much more convenient and cheaper than my local supermarket (haven't you always wanted to buy toilet paper and a lawn mower in the same store? haha). Also, the store has expanded so many times (It's in Paragould, AR) that its created more than the amount of jobs than in the stores it put out of business. Salaries were in fact comparable to those given in the old stores.

Does it take that much imagination to figure out why a poor person buy cheap goods? If you don't have money because jobs are lousy, you tend to buy the cheapest item that you can find, even if it hurts you in the long run. If you don't have the money to pay for the better quality item, you buy the cheap one.

It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the buyer, but a lot to do with the amount of money in their pocket.

As for the great jobs in Walmart, I recommend you to read "Nickle and Dimed" and watch the Walmart documentary.

Let me give you a little preview about how bad Walmart is. When they hire you in certain states, they give you documents to apply for public assistance since you will qualify for them based on the paying rate that they give you.

but there's more to it. Seriously, go live somewhere like that for like a year and then come and tell me how "bad" it actually is. Sometimes its the only store that's willing to provide consumers with an array of goods. For example, Trumann, Arkansas got a WalMart a couple years ago (It was near Paragould where I was) but before that it basically had nowhere with good prices that consumers could go to. The supermarkets had nothing to compete with and were expensive and poorly stocked.

Considering this free trade thing isn't that important to me and I'm too stuck up to go to WalMart myself (I like Target better) I guess I'll stop. I think Obama did really well in the debate tonight. As much as I still like Hill, I really don't mind if he became the nominee and I would enthusiastically vote for him over McCain :-)

It was called Mexico :)

The trade agreement actually strongly favors the U.S. The Mexican president who wanted it, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, was a neoliberal economist trained in the U.S., and he wanted to implement "free"-markets to Mexico fast, so he pretty much gave away the store.

As I understand it, most of the jobs that NAFTA took away never made it to Mexico. They went to China, where labor conditions and salaries are even worse than in Mexico.

Some of the assembly jobs did get to Mexico. But according to friend that I have that have worked in the maquila industry, these are short-term contracts.

I can't deny that Mexico is not filled with corruption, but this has little to do with why salaries are so low. :)

You see, low salaries is what makes Mexico "competitive." And these are kept low through two mechanisms: the consolidation of economic sectors in the hands of a few companies into oligopolies and, this is my favorite periodic legal agreements with labor that set minimum wages. Yes, since the magic invisible hand is not good enough to keep salaries down by itself, it has a little help from the government's hands.

So little employment together with laws to keep salaries low help keep Mexico "competitive."

I fail to see how this helps Mexicans or American workers, since it is a race to the bottom. And let's face it: no one can compete with the Chinese when it comes to low wages. They have a lot more people than the rest of the world.

Obama: Sen. Clinton equates experience with longevity in Washington.  That's not an accurate measure. On most important foreign policy decision, Iraq, I was clear about why we should not. We are bogged down in a war that John McCain suggests could go on for another 100 years.  We have to get more serious about hunting down terrorists in northwestern Pakistan.  Should have pursued policy of democratic reforms in Pakistan.  My judgment has been sound.

Clinton: I've put forth my extensive experience in foreign policy, Northern Ireland, Beijing standing up for women's rights, etc. Obama didn't have responsibility to vote in 2002 on Iraq.  Once he came to Senate, we've voted exactly the same. Obama threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a wise position to take.  I've served on Senate Armed Services Committee for 5 years. I can hold my own with Sen. McCain.

Obama: I had very specific objections to war in Iraq, not simply to say "I told you so."  Big strategic blunder. Who made decision initially to drive bus into the ditch.  She says she's ready on day #1, but she facilitated and enabled Bush to make decision that was damaging to America. I never said I'd bomb Pakistan, I said that if we had actionable intelligence...this Administration did that several days ago and took out 3rd-ranking Al Qaeda official.  Clean break against Bush and Cheney, that's how to debate John McCain.  If your positions were similar until you began running for President, that's not a strong position to debate.

Obama: Iraqi government is a sovereign government.  We have to send a clear signal to Iraqi government that we won't be there permanently.  Arrive at political accommodations needed, don't be held hostage by Iraqi government.  Amount of money we're spending is unsustainable.

Clinton: Yes, absolutely. There is no military solution in absence of full cooperation from Iraqi government.  Begin to withdraw within 60 days, 1-2 brigades a month.  NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan, how can we stabilize Afghanistan. Criticizes Obama's role on subcommittee.

Obama: Became chairman of committee at beginning of 2007.  Have to be committed to Afghanistan. No permanent bases in Iraq. Allies think we blundered in Iraq, that's causing resistance on Afghanistan.  I will always reserve the right to look out for American interests, if Al Qaeda's forming a base in Iraq or any other places.  Cooperate with allies.  Make sure we hunt down terrorists planning to attack us.

Obama:  "That was good."  Sen. Clinton showed some good humor there, I'd give her points for delivery.  I understand the broader point she's trying to make.  Worked for years for families. Brought Democrats and Republicans together. Provided tax breaks to people who really need them. Proud of my track record.  If she thinks it's all talk, tell it to wounded warriors who I helped.  Passed ethics reform.  Solutions not just talk.

Clinton:  Was having a little fun.  Trying to get health insurance for all Americans will not be easy. It takes a fighter, someone who will go toe to toe with special interests. I've put forth specific ideas.  People working harder than ever...feel like they're invisible to their government. I voted no to Dick Cheney's energy bill, Sen. Obama voted yes.  Have to fight special interests.

Obama: She's including 8 years as first lady as part of her experience. That's fine.  Can't take credit for all the good things but not responsibility for other things. I objected to entire credit card bill.  I don't doubt that Sen. Clinton wants to provide health care to all Americans, when she approached it in 1993/94, she didn't involve people even from her own party.

[NOTE:  I'm watching this online and MSNBC's obviously overloaded.  The buffering's been horrible all night and may be about to completely die.  If so, I'm bagging this and will check the transcript tomorrow.]

the MSNBC stream sucks ass

Obama has fought Hillary into silence.

It's that old laugh line of his about voting against bills if you want them not to pass.  After that, she didn't have anything; not a smile, not a gasp, not a word, just silence.

Just terrible.

Obama: Average donation to campaign is $109. Funded by American people.  At the point I'm the nominee, will sit down with John McCain.

Clinton: The American people who support me are bankrolling my campaign. Can't get tax returns together before primary next Tuesday.  I will work towards releasing that information.  "As soon as we can."

Obama: Have denounced Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. Did not solicit this support.  I have consistently denounced Farrakhan. What he has said is reprehensible.  I have very strong support from Jewish community.  I'm a stalwart friend of Israel.  I wouldn't tolerate anti-Semitism in any form. Want to rebuild historic relationship between Jewish community and African American community.  Important Jewish role in civil rights movement.  I've specifically spoken out against anti-Semitism.

Clinton:  Faced similar situation. Made it clear I didn't want their support, I rejected it.  Stood on principle.  We've got to be even stronger, can't allow anyone say these things.

Obama: I don't see the difference between denouncing and rejecting.

than Ted Kennedy's.

Obama: Sen. Clinton and I had differences on 2 votes. One was on guest workers, I thought it was bad policy.  Ethics package...that's not a liberal position, lots of Republicans and independents would want that too.  The categories don't make sense.  I'm attracting more independent and Republican votes.  People don't want to go back to those all categories of what's liberal and what's conservative, but who's fighting for them.  The proof is in the pudding, we've been attracting more independent and Republican support, polls show I beat John McCain in general election.

HRC: Handpicked successor.  Very little independence.  Clever but transparent way for Putin to hold onto power, raises serious questions about how we'll deal with Russia going forward.  I've been critical of Bush policy towards Russia. Need more realistic and effective strategy towards Russia.

Obama: Hand picked by Putin. Putin's been very clear he'll have the strongest hand in Russia.  Think back to beginning of Bush Administration, Bush looked into Putin's eyes and said he saw his soul.  Putin strangled opposition, consolidated power, rattled sabers, we didn't send a signal that we were going to be serious about human rights, international cooperation, that is something we have to change.  We have a strong international structure anchored in NATO to deal with possible Russian intervention in Kosovo.  Gives credit to Clinton administration for former Yugoslavia.  We've recognized the country of Kosovo as has Great Britain and other countries in the region.

It is Dmitry Medvedev - For the record.  

The fact that Hillary can't pronounce his name is not a good reflection about her ability to engage in foreign policy.  She can't pronounce the name of the man next in line to lead Russia!  This is her first Bushism.

and 'helped her out' with the name.

especially on stage under TV lights with That Idiot Tim Russert babbling away. I have a feeling that you could play gotcha with each of the candidates on this subject. Russia's a major power, yes, but she did show she knew who he was, even though she got tongue-tied for a second.

It does bring up the more interesting point of the candidates' own foreign language fluency. According to a December 2007 Time article, Obama is reasonably fluent in Bahasa, the Indonesian native tongue, and is sought out by Indonesian and Malay diplomats new to Washington because of that. Clinton, in the Austin debate, wished that other Americans could do "what I have never been able to do, and that is learn another language and try to be bilingual because that connects us to the rest of the world."

for her.  I mean, what % of Americans know the name of Russia's new figurehead president?  Also, why should we care very much since Putin's obviously still in charge?  Anyway, I couldn't think of Medvedev right when the question came, could you?

We need to be paying attention to that country.

Clinton:  Iraq vote. Would never have taken us to war in Iraq.  This election has to be about the future, what we will do now, what we will inherit.  We talked about Russia, could have gone around the world to Latin America, Middle East, could have done entire program on what we'll inherit from George Bush.  My experience equips me to handle these situations and make tough decisions.  I'd like to have my vote back.

Obama: Would take back vote on Terry Schiavo - should have stood on the floor and stopped that.  Inaction can be as costly as action. We have gone through 20 debates now.  There's still a lot of fight going on in this contest.  Sen. Clinton has campaigned magnificently, she is an outstanding public servant, I'm proud to have been campaigning with her.  We're both interested in actually delivering for the American people.  There's an ambition aspect to politics.  People are not looking for government to solve all their problems, just want a little bit of a hand up, it is absolutely critical that we change how business is done in Washington. The Democratic standard bearer will try to restore sense of public service to our government.  

Obama: She would be worthy as a nominee, I think I'd be better that's why I'm running.  No doubt Hillary would be better president than John McCain, who I respect but who has tethered himself to failed policies of George Bush.  I don't think Sen. Clinton has to answer question about whether she's capable.  The reason I think I'm better is that I can bring this country together in a unique way across divisions of race, region.  I also think I have a track record from the days I started as community organizer, on through work in state government and in the US Senate.  Make government more accountable, make sure American peoples' voices are heard.

Clinton: There is no doubt that both of us feel strongly about our country, bring enormous energy and commitment to this race and would bring it to White House.  It's been an honor to campaign, I still plan to do everything I can to win. Thrilled to be running to be first woman president.  Would be an enormous sea change.  Either one of us will make history. Who can actually change the country.  I do believe that my experience over 35 years gives me an understanding/insight into how best to make changes we all know we have to see.  Didn't give up on health care.  I want to help people of this country get chances they deserve to have.  We need a fighter back in the White House for the middle class and working people.

Say what you will about her and as an Edwards absentee voter I say if she is the nominee, McCain wins and that is a no-no of the nth degree given the Supremes on the Court.

I thank her because she did not "NADERIZE" the debate.  (We have being "Borked" , I'd like to add being "Nadered" as a verb signifying a really old saying of "cutting your nose off to spite your face.")

Do I think Obama did better?  Sure, he did, and what I want to thank Hillary for is not going dangerously negative and splitting the party for the general election.  With the Spiegleman thing on 60 minutes as evidence, the Republicans will give Obama enough negatives.

Now I'm an old Intelligence type and not a political expert as many here on RK are, but I think Hillary "reigned-in" Mark Penn and the other assholes running her campaign and finished this debate as a "class-act" and a true democrat, more interested in the "Anti-Bush, and Anti-McCain" than Ralph Nader who is (Pro-Nader, and Pro-Nader, and Bush wasn't his creation and neither will McCain be his President if the Democratic Party would campaign on "Nader Values,"  sort of like the Republican "Family Values.")

I think Hillary laid the carpet for her graceful withdrawal should Obama win both Texas and Ohio (I think he will, though I'd still prefer Edwards)FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY!!

All of you Hillary supporters should be proud of her doing, without conceding that she may not be the nominee, a debate that in my less than humble opinion, WILL NOT provide sound bites to hurt Obama should he be the nominee.

In my opinion, and even though I think that if she wins I think we lose, I think that is one hell of a class act, and that's all I have to say!

Clear Obama Victory in MSNBC text op-in poll on who won tonight's debate ... over 90,000 votes

Still, an interesting thing to note.

As much as I wanted Kerry to win back in 2004, I thought it was so cheesy when he would e-mail people asking to vote in online polls following the debates. It's not like they're scientific or mean anything. Haha its not American Idol, its a Presidential election!

Most people won't know any better.  But they'll show the poll, exclaiming how Obama won the debate, etc.  People want to vote for the winner, which (in my opinion) is the major reason Obama is gaining on Hillary in Texas and Ohio so quick.  Notice that after those little debates, Kerry gained each time (not enough to make up for the defecit that Swift Boat had made by that time).

from Time's "The Page":

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Obama strategist David Axelrod said Obama did well on ecnomic issues, foreign policy in debate, criticized Clinton for her Saturday Night Live media comment. Questioned Clinton camp on Somali picture, her mocking him. Obama supporter Sen. Claire McCaskill said Clinton is a great debater, praised Obama's performance. Defended her candidate on experience, leadership.

On NBC's "Today," Andrea Mitchell, Matt Lauer, and Tim Russert all suggested that Clinton didn't do enough to change the race's dynamic. Mitchell called Clinton's SNL invocation "one of the debate's stranger moments." Russert seemed to strenuously criticize Clinton for expressing her view of the press coverage of the campaign. He panned her "scripted" line about unfair treatment and said she "shouldn't complain" about debate questions if she wants to be president.

On ABC's "Good Morning America," George Stephanopoulos said Clinton needed "to strike a knock out blow" and didn't. Said she was "forceful" and pressed Obama well, but viewers came away from debate thinking they were the same on key issues. Agreed that media is going harder on Clinton. Kate Snow piece celebrated Chelsea Clinton's 28th birthday, covered her transition from "shy girl with the frizzy hair" to a surrogate.

On CBS' "Early Show," Bob Schieffer called Clinton "mad as the dickens" with "steam coming out of her ears." Also suggested she didn't accomplish her goal of the night, even though she "threw the kitchen sink" at Obama. Permalink

weighs in:

All in all, it was a rather ignominious, belittling way to almost certainly close out the Clinton Era...

...with her national poll numbers now slipping into a double digit lag behind Obama, with her last-ditch firewalls in Ohio and Texas rapidly crumbling, her political future quickly eroding, it was the Bad Hillary who dominated in what could very well be the final presidential debate of the season.

Thirty-five years of selfless public service, if we are to believe her campaign rhetoric, deserved more than this tin-pan finale. Clinton, in her best moments, is certainly capable of something more than a torrent of peevish, petty, picayune, and intellectually dishonest bickering and parsing.

Instead, Senator Clinton chose to remind us why she is losing the nomination that she was once so very sure would inevitably be hers. The smell of a loser permeated the entire low-energy event as Clinton tried to pick apart this or that phrase uttered one time or another by her rival.

Ouch.

weighs in as well:

I've got to say, even though it was defused a bit towards the end of this second segment, that Hillary Clinton would stoop to making insinuations about Barack Obama being anti-Semitic or not sufficiently denouncing anti-Semites is really beyond the pale to me, just totally unacceptable. There can be attacks in this primary, and the candidates can disagree on issues. But I am just shocked that Clinton would stoop so low to make such insinuations. I am somewhat appalled, both as a Democrat and a Jewish American.

has this to say about he bizarre Farrakhan discussion:

10:10 PM ... I guess it's good in some way that this sludge gets thrown around now in advance of the general. But Russert is well beyond the normal bounds of disgusting on this front. As a separate matter, the covert campaign to smear Obama with the Jewish community is a topic of great importance that I've been meaning to hit on and haven't done enough on it yet. At least we know now that Russert's enlisted with the cause.

10:13 PM ... I thought for a moment there that Hillary was going to say something classy. Guess I was wrong.

10:22 PM ... Having thought over that whole Obama/Russert exchange on Farrakhan, that was really ... well, bringing up Farrakhan was one thing, borderline, but maybe fair. But trying to read into the record some of the guy's most toxic statement, it really takes Russert into a whole new level of awfulness. It was disgusting.

says "Clinton squanders support with inept, unseemly campaign."

has some tough words for the Clinton campaign:

In an interview with The Observer, Mr. Panetta compared Mrs. Clinton's top strategist Mark Penn to Karl Rove, suggested that the Clinton campaign had totally underestimated Barack Obama's appeal, and complained about the overall lack of planning that he said had characterized the former First Lady's bid to return to the White House.

Mr. Panetta, who served as chief of staff in the White House from July 1994 to January 1997, and who has contributed $2000 to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, complained that Mr. Penn "is a political pollster from the past."

"I never considered him someone who would run a national campaign for the presidency," he said.

He asserted that Mr. Penn "comes from an old school, like Karl Rove-it's all about dividing people into smaller groups rather than taking the broader approach that was needed."

says, "Obama, taking advantage of his frontrunner status, played good, error-free baseball as Clinton tried to score on him from every imaginable direction."

I was falling asleep at around that point, but I did think the entire exchange was asinine, except that Obama handled it better than anyone on the stage.

As I have been noting, even as I defend Clinton against what I think are unwarranted allegations, Hillary's campaign is in desperation mode. There is little she can do to affect the outcome at this point.

Taking stock of the polling trends, the general feel of the race and the public postures of the campaigns, I expect  that there will be a few more days of Clinton throwing s*it against the wall to see if anything sticks, and if nothing does (which is likely) as we head into the weekend, she will begin to face reality and head into Tuesday on a positive note, signaling that it is all over.

As I have also been saying, the events of the last two months must be a huge disappointment for her. She needs to get comfortable with the idea that she is not going to be president and figure out what the next several years of her life are going to be like.

Barring some unforeseen event, she has lost. She is a human being, so have a heart folks. If Obama's message really means something to you, show a little grace in victory.  

Amen to you!

Perhaps Joseph Lieberman best encapsulates the political sea change that has taken place these last seven years among portions of the Jewish-American community.  There has been significant support for Bush and his violent Mideast moves that many among them see as net positive for Israel.

Though Jewish-Americans are most certainly not a monolithic group, it appears that an ideological spectrum that traditionally ranged from far left to solidly centrist has, since 9/11, expanded past the midpoint and well into the right -- especially so when it comes to foreign policy.

Speaking only anecdotally and in no way scientifically, Senator Clinton's support has been particularly strong among middle-aged Jewish-American women.  My interlocutors are particularly incensed about Senator Obama's black empowering United Church of Christ, Reverend Wright's pro-Arab inclinations and the church magazine honoring Louis Farrakhan.  

Per my interlocutors, denunciation and rejection are not enough.  As they see it, Senator Obama should long since have left the church.