Your commentary, in my opinon, is off. Unnecessarily cynical. I say that on account of, I will be caucusing this Saturday & am enthusiastic about all of the Democratic points of view. What other viewpoint might I crave, Romney's? lol

You say they played it safe; I say the questions esp. at the beginning were over the top stupid. Designed to divide.

I loved the way they all joined forces and shifted the spotlight on where it deserves to be focused: "This administration..."

It is neither timid betting nor overblown statements winning this day for me. What I heard during the Nevada debates?

There is such a thing as unity in the Democratic party.

but I am terribly happy to see Kucinich bumped out of the debate. He's been nothing but an embarrassment lately, even by Kucinich standards, what with demanding a recount in New Hampshire and now this. I'm pulling for an Edwards rebound, but I will be watching Nevada, South Carolina, and the polls before I decide who to vote for on Super Tuesday.

In the end, I'd welcome anyone at that table with open arms over the man we've had in the Oval Office for the past seven-odd years.

Mr. Shapiro is a buffoon and an embarrassment to political journalism.

Why not write off John Edwards' campaign for the Democratic nomination because it's already suffering for under-exposure?

OF COURSE, his having received roughly one-fifth as much media coverage as Obama and Clinton in the past week invariably reduces the Democratic race to a tightly fought contest between Clinton and Obama.

Yes, of course it does!

Why bother to caucus or vote when ABCMSNBCFOX, Inc. can do it for us?

If the Democratic race hasn’t turned into a referendum on race and gender, what were some of these questions from NBC? If it’s possible to be too gracious, Obama sidestepped the Clinton machine’s manipulation of the media to get votes in New Hampshire, and inferred some of his overzealous supporters were partly responsible for the recent Clinton sown friction between they and his camp. Not about sex and gender, what the hell was the wan Natalie Morales’ question all about to John Edwards? It would be like asking a Masai male in Nairobi what are you doing running for president, regardless of the recent post election tribal conflict there. Morales’ gender is obvious, what special and subsequently entitled race does she think she belongs to? The Clintons are great at exploiting racial bigotry in the Democratic party to the benefit of their personal agendas, witness Bob Johnson and Morales. Obama is the last person who’d have to apologize to a Clinton about anything, he’s really an authentic pearl before political swine.

Let's hope he's as hard as a pearl as he'll need to be to make it to November in front of the Clinton machine.

Mr Oliphant is usually right. In this case, I think that John Edwards is spoiling Obama's chances and Hillary will lose to the Elephant Party. I plan to vote Democratic unless Hillary is the nominee. I'm sure that there are millions who are like me.

The Clinton/Obama squabble over race is over for now. I imagine both candidates received a flurry of angry phone calls from party stalwarts imploring them to cease the destructive behavior and both soon saw the imperative need to get off that track.

The question now becomes, what will the consequences be for both candidates now that the dust is settling?

I believe that ultimately this episode will work to Clinton's disadvantage and Obama's advantage for a few reasons.

First, though both camps engaged in this debacle, there's no getting around that Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and their surrogate fired the first shots in this exchange and fired the most shots in this exchange.

And lets be honest, some of the statements made against Obama, particularly by Bob Johnson and Representative Charlie Rangel, were vicious and unpalatable.

Second, Obama was the first to signal the truce. But what is more important is that he did so in a manner that was truly genuine in its approach. There was not a touch of sarcasm nor a hidden barb in Obama's tone or words as he praised the Clinton's records on civil rights. Clinton's follow-up was equally sincere in tone and message, but what choice did she have when so gracious an olive branch was extended?

So, why do I think that Obama comes out on top? To begin, I think the Clinton's attacks on Obama will alienate a lot of black voters. I am not black, but I can only imagine how uncomfortable it must be to see one of the most positive and powerful black politicians in American history cruelly denigrated by black supporters of his white opponent.

But I also think Obama comes out on top because the Clintons failed to achieve their primary goal from this whole tussle about race. It has been speculated by many pundits and political observers that Hillary Clinton was pushing the race issue as a way of scaring white voters away from Obama by forcing him to focus on his race and his relationship with black America.

I don't think Hillary succeeded in part because Barrack deftly ended the feud so early. For all this talk about race, the focus of the arguments were always on the Clinton's commitment to civil rights and Obama's perceived smearing of that commitment. By affirming the Clinton's civil rights record and simultaneously ordering his campaign to stop commenting on this issue, Obama stopped the process before it could redefine the racial image he portrays to America.

During last night's debate, Obama worked hard to regain his former image, an image of a politician who believes his approach is fundamentally different and can bring about fundamentally different results. It is an image that is not hampered by his black skin.

Over the next few weeks, Obama is certainly not going to reignite the civil rights issue again. And I can't see how Clinton or her supporters can either. So, Clinton goes into Nevada and South Carolina with diminished support from African Americans while Obama gains African Americans supporters while retaining his initial base.