. . . or some of the comments here may have soured what for me was a wonderful and ejoyable debate, all that the democratic party should be about. Substance, issues, intelligence and unity.

Hillary was at her best and it was a joy to see her, especially while mentally contrasting her with the freak show with which the republicans tortured the audience the night before. She looked presidential, in real command of the issues and her stand on them, ready and very comfortable in her own skin. I love this woman!

Obama was great too. He went up about a million notches in my scale. You could almost touch is passion and his eagerness to do good. I must admit that I had judged the guy by his campaign and talking heads, my mistake not his. I will certainly be happy to support him 100% without hesitation if it is him the one chosen to be the nominee.

I still like Hillary much better, she just is more prepared she knows what to do. The idea of the dream ticket Clinton-Obama which sounded preposterous until just yesterday came so clear last night that I am sure that we will hear about it, over and over again until a VP candidate is chosen by the nominee.

I feel lucky having to chose between these two. Well actually I already did, and she won my state (but no delegates).

Even though John Edwards wasn't there in de podium, his spirit was, in full force and louder than ever.

In the grand scheme of things is to be expected from the NYT to play with semantics. But a blog is by definition a discussion tool in a very micro level, and this kind of game don't play that well.

"A front-page article yesterday about the Clinton administration's policy on Iraq misstated the circumstances under which international weapons inspectors left that country before American and British air strikes in December 1998. While Iraq had ceased cooperating with the inspectors, it did not expel them. The United Nations withdrew them before the air strikes began."

NYT

If the government of Saddam wasn't cooperating with the inspectors anymore, what were these inspectors supposed to be doing there. Sip margaritas by the swimming pool at the Marriot Bagdad? Give us a brake, Alex. The bombing was to force Bagdad into resuming the inspections. How is inconsistent with what Hillary said?

Last night the candidates gave us all a demonstration of what a constructive debate is all about. To bad it got lost on you Pubic Maximus.

Calling Hillary a Cheney is a pant suit is not only very insulting and petty but unfair and frankly doesn't speak to highly about the lousy joker.

But if one is so passionate about Obama, or "naive" enough to buy your premise, one must also reject the endorsement of John Kerry who also voted to authorize the use of force against Irak (or Iraq), and must also see John Edwards, Joseph Biden and many other democrats that voted the same way Hillary did, as Cheney clones.

Is not like when the war started didn't have an overwhelming popular and legislative support in both sides of the isle. Luckily for Barack, he wasn't in the senate.

What Alex is talking about here is the bombings in 1998, while Clinton was president. The Bush-inspectors interaction was a very different thing.

I am glad that you sent Kerry messages urging him to vote against the resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq. Did you write to all the senators or your magic ball told you before 10/11/2002 that Kerry was going to be the nominee the next year?

. . . campaign the one that sent the email, so the syntax in perfect and logic.

To all Obamites: Super Bowl was very premonitory, and tomorrow just like (Hillary's) New York did with (Ted Kennedy's) New England, Hillary will win this thing. Seat tight, tomorrow you will see what the "false hopes" were all about. At lest you can't say You weren't warned.

So, now she deserves to lose the nomination for one single idea? Her Universal Medical Coverage Plan, her approach to the mortgage crisis, her plan to bring the troops back home and many other issues that she has been addressing since day one of this campaign, mean squat. She deserves to lose the nomination because of Bill Clinton's comment on governmental blogs. Give me a break lady.

As if your posture (which I am sure is shared by the majority of your colleagues in the Obama camp) wasn't ridiculous enough, it gets even funnier when contrasted with the empty postures of Obama. Oh, yeah but he is so inspirational . . . go figure!

When the entire battalion of losers headed by Kennedy and Kerry, which has lead the democratic party to defeat after defeat, rallies against the only team that has won an election and a reelection for the democratic party since FDR, you have to wonder if we shouldn't be getting ready for at least 4 more years of Republican rule if they succeed in their frenetic efforts to derail Hillary's bid for the White House.

It was very sad to hear Michelle Obama yesterday saying that she would have to think twice before voting for Hillary if the senator gets the nomination, but at least she is consistence with the blackmail of division that her husband has been spewing throughout his campaign ornamented by a beautiful but empty, Yes We Can. Indeed.