I liked the format. The Republicans were more respectful to each other and more boring. The Democrats went after each other and were more interesting. Guess they see more to gain or lose.

I missed most of the Repubublican portion watching football or having dinner, but saw the entire Democrat portion and found it more useful than any debate I've seen between presidential candidates.

I thought Hillary was the most prepared and aggressive and made very good points, especially on Obama's vagueness. Richardson stumbled badly at the start but also made good points especially on foreign policy and the need for diplomacy, even in the face of a hypothetical nuclear attack.

Barack Obama was weakest and least prepared in my opinion. This could hurt him if people really think experience in debating is equivalent to the ability to govern. I don't.

John Edwards passion and focus on the wealth disparity problem is dead on. But his attempts to demonize all large companies is facetious. We need to have a governing executive that can serve as a counterpoint to the power of industrial oligarchs but we should not assume that they are bad because they are rich. Many wealthy people agree with a sharply progressive tax system as the only truly fair one. Only a strong executive can enforce that. On the whole I am convinced that John Edwards is the only person running for president this year who would make an attempt to create a system that allows ethical entrepreneurs success.

Since you missed the GOP portion, you missed how McCain dumped hard on Mittster, who looked like a total fool, and how Huckabilly just spooned out his really wacko perspectives with charm and probably won over more New Hampshire Republican voters. All in all, the GOP candidates are a strange and sorry lot, and it's clearer than ever why Huckabilly could end up with the nomination.

When dogs attack!!! I loved Edwards' comment about how Hillary surely wasn't going after Obama when she was ahead in Iowa. But, she has a point. Sure, its nice to like someone but we're trying to decide a President here. What I don't get is why Obama doesn't talk more about what he sees as policies he'd like to implement. They are laid out on a website so I don't know why his speeches are all about changing politics in DC and not talking more about his vision and plans for that vision.

I watched tonight and was fully prepared to change my vote from Hillary to Barack. After hearing his Iowa speech, I was inspired. But geez... I am just not at all impressed with Obama in that format. I felt he was merely trying not to make a giant slip-up to protect his standing in the polls right now. He seems a bit unprepared or shaky on some issues and I fear the Republicans will have a field day with him if he's the eventual nominee. And Hillary just comes across as very intelligent, solid on virtually every issue, and authentic and real to me. Edwards... I like him personally, but find him kind of blah and mundane.

I got my Super Tuesday sample ballot in the mail today and it's the first time in the last 3 elections that the county registrar didn't screw up. They had my address wrong before (and admitted it was their mistake), they had my wrong precinct listed once (again, their mistake), and in the most recent election, they had me listed as a permanent absentee voter (which I'm not) and then sent an absentee ballot to my old address and refused to send one to my new address so I had to vote on a supplemental ballot at the polls (and it was probably never even counted anyway). Ugh. I swear if I was a registered Republican, there would've never been a problem at all.

Obama's main goals tonight were not to do anything stupid and simply ride the wave. He has shown over the last couple months that he can go on the attack -- or in the new terminology, 'provide contrast' or 'make distinctions' between his views and the views of an opponent. At times, he does tend to drift into platitudes and seem bored on the trail, but when something extra is needed he can switch it on. Check redstate.com for Republicans wringing their hands over beating the guy and openly wishing for a Hillary candidacy.

Hillary's only goal was to knock Obama down a peg, which I don't think she did, but she did get in some good licks and fended off both him and Edwards admirably. (Much the same as Romney showed his first-ever trace of emotion after serving as a punching bag for more than an hour.) Writing her off in NH would not be smart. If I were a betting man, I'd put the chances at 69% Obama, 30% Clinton, 1% Edwards.

I agree that the "big MO" may carry Obama through the New Hampshire campaign since the Iowa win has given traditional voters a certain kind of "permission" to vote for him that they may not have felt before. He looks more than ever like he could beat the Republican candidate no matter who it is, especially if it is Huckabee, though I have serious doubts that it will be him he would face.

McCain would be the most likely at this point if the immigration issue doesn't stick to him. And he will have the best arguement against Obama since McCain is the most consistent on foreign policy on Iraq. But his eggs are all in that basket and if it goes bad, he goes south, literally and figuritavely in a presidential contest with Obama. McCain will have to hope that Iran and the terrorists are not following the race - and I think they are - because his fate will be in their hands and not his own.

I'm hoping Edwards sticks it out no matter what happens in New Hampshire. He is talking seriously about some serious issues and some special interests are quacking (or worse) in their pants. Nothing frightens them more than a letter from a trial lawyer that one of their products has caused assignable harm to a buyer. With one in the presidency they would be on their toes - assuming they don't find a way to neutralize him politically.

I think the days of a Robert Kennedy style solution may be over. There are just too many electronic trails now. Cover-up is nearly impossible once honest investigators have the tools of power, and they might.

Loved watching the morning political shows this morning, and the talk was pretty much all the same regarding last night's debate. The big question was if the debate helped Hillary, and the answer was not really. The pundits said that Obama didn't screw up and provide an opportunity for Clinton to go after him. That whole little trade on Clinton's likability was interesting. Clinton said it hurt her feelings that people don't "like" her. I still don't get that but its one of those personality things that voters like. I mean the whole Clinton scandal with Monica Lewinsky. I personally wouldn't have cared if Al Gore was under the desk rapping on Clinton's mic. That kind of thing doesn't phase me as long as you are doing a good job as President. But, ya know...I'm not all "holy" and I'm gay so...whatever.

Anyway...back to the debate topic, all the pundits of the political talk shows this morning said that this whole Obama momentum outweighs how well Hillary did in the debate last night. I forget which political show I was watching that said how much Obama does not like debates. Obama has said before that he doesn't like the format, and doesn't think you can answer questions in 30 seconds. John Edwards was smart in aligning himself with Barack Obama last night. Before I was talking about an Obama/Clinton ticket, but now that there is this distinct difference regarding change vs the status quo, I think we can forget about a Clinton/Obama ticket. We may be looking at an Obama/Edwards ticket since the voters seem to want change. I don't know though...I think enough people who are democrats like Obama for change and like Clinton for experience. But, since the fundamental difference right now is change vs the status quo, it doesn't seem like an Obama/Clinton ticket makes sense at this point. The voters want change. George Stephanopolus (sp?) this morning said that he talked with a New Hampshire voter talking about needing to take a chance with Obama. He said the guy said he's not saying its ok to take a chance with him, but thinks that we need to take a chance with him. Everyone pretty much agreed that that kind of rhetoric could really be a wave that carries Obama to the nomination.

But, its early. Obama could screw up somewhere and then Hillary is right back in it. But, if he wins New Hampshire, then Nevada, and then South Carolina, Hillary has big trouble going into Super Tuesday. South Carolina will be interesting. Another point made this morning was how Hillary still has a lot of African American support in South Carolina, but that many African Americans were possibly looking for a sign that Obama could win. Much of the support for Hillary was because Bill was seen as the first black president, and they believed Hillary was the more electable. However, if they see Obama winning in predominantly white Iowa and New Hampshire, that could be the sign African Americans were waiting for and they would look at the Clinton's and say thanks but we want a real black president in the White House for the first time, and this is our time now. Very interesting how it could play out. Half of South Carolina's electorate is African American and if Obama continues to win, Hillary's African American support in South Carolina is going to fade. This is just such a fascinating election to me. I've never been so engaged. This is the first time that I've ever donated to a candidate's campaign and the first time that I have been interested in volunteering for a candidates campaign. As much as experience is important to me, I can't help but be swept up in the Obama phenomenon. I think that Hillary would make a great President, and ya know...I don't even "like" her that much, but thats not a factor in terms of how I think she'll perform as President. That said, I can see how people are getting swept up in Obama-mania! It will be interesting to see how this continues to play out, and if Hillary loses New Hampshire what she will do different tactic wise to show that she's the best candidate. Its clear right now that all her talk is not resonating with the voters so far.

I love Meet the Press and they all made some good points this morning regarding Obama and Clinton. First of all, Obama did get the Iowa bounce. He's currently leading in all new New Hampshire polls I've seen. There are two polls that have him up by about 10 but most polls have him just a hair ahead of Hillary. I think that if Hillary loses New Hampshire, she's really in trouble. LOL..they are still putting up that picture of Hillary on stage after losing Iowa and commenting on the old and tired looking people on stage (i.e. Wesley Clark, Madeline Albright, Hillary and Bill) and how it looked like a wax museum. With Obama engaging young voters and him being successful with voters under 50, Hillary has her work cut out for her. Still the early days though. Obama is all the rave right now but as the field narrows down and the campaign continues, Hillary has proven that she has substance in her speeches. Obama is going to have to match that eventually. If Hillary wins New Hampshire, she's right back in it. Iowa's main newspaper endorsement didn't help Hillary. New Hampshire's main paper backed Obama. At this point, maybe newspaper endorsements don't even matter at this point. It doesn't hurt him at this point though that he got it. Momentum and energy is carrying him right now and thats hard to stop. Get your popcorn ready.

I didn't see the deabte last night, just snippets from the talk shows this morning. I don't think Obama is anywhere near as effective in the debate format as he is when he is talking to a group winging it. He is getting better, but it seems like he is being a bit too constrained, which I understand...but compare his oratories to the two electrifying speeches he gave in Iowa and you will see what I mean...and yeah Hillary had better figure out a way soon or I just don't think she can survive...........to much longer...