I watched the debate with extreme interest and found myself more hopeful of the chances for a Democratic presidency in 2009. Although I am supporting Obama, I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination and last night's debate solidified my intentions to do so. Compared to the, "my daddy can beat up your daddy", whining of the Republican debate on Wednesday night, I found both candidates to be bright and articulate, both possessing solid plans to deal with the myriad of issues that are truly important to this country. Republicans have narrow minded belief systems that are mixed with fear, intolerance and hatred. Democrats have inclusive ideas about moving the country forward, repairing our international status as a respected and fair nation, while healing the divisiveness of the last seven years of Neocon rule.

And of course there are legit criticisms of Obama. (I prefer Edwards' health plan, but he's no longer an option.)

But I don't hear a lot of legit criticism of Obama other than the differences on health plans. Practically speaking, the policy differences between these two are miniscule.

There are really only two issues here:

One is the war, which Hillary supporters, quite naturally, would rather not discuss, because your candidate's judgment was wrong.

The other is experience vs. inspiration. I think the experience difference is not as great as Hillary insists. She's got just a couple years on Obama in the Senate. As for the White House years, she's trying to have it both ways. She says she wants to be judged on her own merits, but she's running on Bill's record.

You say the Obama people refuse to understand those who "haven't seen the light." I think the Clinton supporters willfully disregard her high negatives with a big chunk of the country. There are a lot of folks who don't want to be ruled by the same two families for decades. There just are. Sorry.

How do you respond to the anti-dynasty crowd? A one-liner about cleaning up after Bush is not going to persuade those people.

How do you justify her vote for the war? Don't try to dismiss it by saying, well, Obama was only in the state leg, he might have voted for it, too. He came out and took a stand when he didn't have to. And he was right. Hillary was wrong. Where was her allegedly superior experience and judgment then?

As for the folks (not you) who argue that Obama is just a pretty-talking lightweight: when you're reduced to arguing that a former editor of the Harvard Law Review just isn't very bright, it's time to go home.

I have always hated aquamarine, but lavender is a color us white guys can't wear, and it looks great on black guys, so I think I have no choice but to vote for Obama.

Ms. Clinton appears to be wearing a turquoise necklace and matching earrings, definitely not aquamarine. She was correct not to wear sparkling stones under television lights. And of course that was good for the Southwestern audience.

"I would write in Ron Paul."

That's great. Racist misogynists need fanboys, too.

Every time the Republicans screw up, the Democrats pay for it. This axiom is undeniable (more on that later). First, I have a special plea related to a particularly nonsensical Republican talking point.

Can we please get rid of the most dumb-assed talking point of all time? The (il)logic goes something like this. We have had two Bush family members serve as President, and it has been a disaster for the country. Therefore, we must completely reject another Clinton in the White House, because two Clintons as President too close together would also be a disaster (reason number 1). Or – reason number 2 – electing a second Clinton so soon after the last (who was pretty damn successful) would represent a monarchy or other non-democratic aspect to our country?

The first reason makes no sense, because as Hillary Clinton put it last night: "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another to clean up after the second Bush." The second reason is equally ridiculous, because the only way that Hillary Clinton gets elected is through the democratic process, not because of family ties to the Bushes. The Clintons have never been royalty, and they certainly are not treated like royalty now.

Back to my general axiom, and it is part of the reason that I see no advantage to Barack Obama’s relative newness on the national political scene. One big reason why nobody wants to impeach George W. Bush is because the impeachment of Bill Clinton was so ridiculous and an obvious waste of time for the country (Remember - the Republicans screw up, the Democrats pay for it).

Likewise, the Republicans have been ridiculously partisan in the way that they govern. Most people are aware of how bad the Republican brand of partisanship was for the country. So now we are told that the country would like no more partisanship. This is another trap (see Glenn Greenwald), because if the Democrats cannot be partisan, we are stuck with the failed policies of the Republicans.

Another example - Just a short time ago, filibusters were considered the work of Satan, because if there were no filibusters, the Republicans could force everything they wanted down our throats. Now the Republicans are in the minority, so they use filibusters with impunity and no one complains too much.

The Republicans abused earmarks beyond belief. Now, we should get rid of all earmarks, and on and on it goes.

Barack Obama talks about putting aside partisanship, and how much he admires Ronald Reagan and the Republicans because they had so many ideas. Mr. Obama will either be forced to drop the fantasy of extreme bipartisanship, or he will fail to succeed with a Democratic agenda. When it comes down to it, we need a fighter who scares the hell out of the Republicans, not someone who the Republicans pretend like they could vote for, but who they will smear in the general election and beyond. Hillary Clinton has been through that and she has shown that she has the knowledge, the passion and the fortitude to win the struggle for a better America.