Although you appear fairly even-handed in this debate on the debate, Mr. Conason, I think you might favor Clinton a bit more, just from the language you use, even though there's a sly wink or two Obama's way.

You talked of the "frenzied" efforts of the participants to score debating points -- but as I see it, the frenzy has come entirely from the Clinton side as they've tried to come out from under a mischaracterization of Obama that made them look bad, and a response that made them look foolish.

After the debate, in reaction to Clinton's slam, Obama, to his credit, gave a personal, clear, and concise explanation of his views that further illuminated his position -- and most importantly, he didn't back down. That left the Clinton cadres of PR people sputtering, and having to do several re-interpretations of Clinton's original remarks in hurried updates to NBC.

I really think Obama won the point on that one -- especially because he spoke his points himself.

Clinton had handlers speak for her, Madeleine "If we have to use force, it is because we are America" Albright, and Richard Holbrooke speak for her. Clinton had various swells speak for her, and Obama just went out and clarified his points himself. That says a lot.

let's sweep aside the cheap rhetoric. Sen. Obama isn't "naive" or "irresponsible," and Sen. Clinton isn't "Bush-Cheney lite."

While Obama definitely is not naive or irresponsible, both in terms of Clinton's cheap rhetoric aimed at Obama, and also her "have these others speak for me" approach to defending her views (to say nothing of her bellicose "We won't talk to Cuba" nonsense in the first place) Clinton definitely came off as Bush-Cheney Lite.

Then, in 2016, after Mr. Obama has had eight years to "season" as Vice-President, he will make a formidable candidate to become President.

Look how well that worked out with Al Gore. Too much seasoning? Or maybe the wrong kind of seasoning was used on Gore, eh?

I know the Clintonians would love for Obama to take a back seat for Clinton, but the fact is that this would do everything to serve their interests, and none to serve his, and wouldn't help the country or the Democratic Party. What's more, Obama would be saddled with all the Republicaneering the Clintons would do in the White House if they have another turn there.

Obama should stay on the path he's taken. If Democratic primary voters get it, they'll vote for Obama; if they don't, they'll vote Clinton -- there's a reason why Obama's got the support of higher-earning, better-educated women voters, and why the worse-educated, lower-earning women are all for Clinton. Clearly, the Clintons have won the reflexive women's vote, whereas Obama's got a more savvy constituency among women voters, who seem to be paying attention to what he's saying, versus focusing on that he's a man.

I'm more than a little dismayed at the institutional power Clinton brings to the mix, these Clinton Cadre people they trot out as needed, and their disdainful attitude they take to the grassroots of the party they want to hijack once again. The Democratic Party, to survive, must not be a grasstops enterprise, sorry.

Bill Clinton had the luxury of pretending to be a Democrat in the 90s, when things were a lot easier, before the gloves really came off; Hillary Clinton pretends to be a Democrat in the 21st Century at her own risk -- the GOP has definitely drawn lines in the sand, and hewing close to their lines isn't what a Democrat needs to do.

If Obama loses in the primary, I don't know what he'll do, but I think it's telling that if he loses, people will expect him to consider a VP spot on a Clinton ticket, whereas if Clinton loses out, I think nobody thinks she'd be content with that, or would expect that to happen.

AnaHadWolves and Juliebird, thanks for the laughs this morning! Both of your comments cracked me up...

I'm pretty sure Dick drinks unicorn blood.

Hey, why not Mr. Cheney for Prez? In 2008, we'll have had eight years of a nasty Bush; why not eight more years of a limp Dick?

I'm sure the Dicktator worked to have unicorns taken off the Endangered Species list just for that purpose. Unicorns, they're not just for breakfast, anymore!

I think it's cool that Ron Paul is going for it; McCain's just desperate to do anything to get his name out there. As for the rest, yeah, even scripted questions are too close to the rascal multitude. Or else they're worried that the questions will be stuff like "Nuke'em!! Nuke'em all! With us or against us?" and "Was Christ a Republican? Was He American?"

Hopefully CNN won't wuss out and cancel them, because it's a chance for Ron Paul to raise his profile relative to the other teabags in the Republican lineup.

People should dog Romney with the snowmen comment. That'd be pretty funny, like Snowmen Against Romney, that kind of thing, like maybe how his pro-greenhouse gas policies are wiping out snowpeople everywhere. Frosty Hates Romney!

Americans know that Israelis aren't the only Semites, right? I know the Israel lobby's debate-halting "anti-Semite" slur has been used as if Israel owned a trademark on Semitism, but Arabs are Semites, too.

Hell, most of Southwestern Asia is culturally and racially Semitic -- many millions of Semites there, not just the Israelis. Seems like it's been trotted out to simply and swiftly derail any discussion of politics in the region, and it's been done for many decades.

Perhaps the Israelis' long-term security would be better served finding common cause with their Semitic Muslim cousins than allying itself militarily and diplomatically with a gentile nation from across the sea.

Just crazy talk, I know, I know.