http://wonkette.com/359517/hillary-plagiarizes-john-edwards-bill-clinton

Her lack of authenticity is matched only by her opportunism. I wasn't a big Obama supporter until last night. After seeing Hillary accuse Obama of being a xeroxer and then doing her own copycatting, I'm going to call a spade a spade. Very disappointing, Mrs. Clinton.

Clinton's remarks that drew the standing ovation was truly the highlight of the evening, even if it continues to be grudgingly admitted by most of the media. But no, her detractors just couldn't leave it at that, could they? With Clinton, any win is still a no-win for her. Guess that's just part of the 'Clinton rules' that Paul Krugman discussed in the New York Times not too long ago.

I think her final statement was the comment of a unifying diplomat, and was not a bad way to close the debate.

And do you and the rest of the punditocracy have some crystal ball before you already telling you all with exactitude, less than a day after the event, the effect the debate will have on the electorate, i.e., nothing that will boost Clinton's chances in the upcoming primaries? I'm not saying it will, and not saying it won't, but can't you all wait till the votes are actually cast? Really, that long-held eagerness and alacrity from Clinton's non-fans in crowning and anointing the other candidate continues to show itself sans any prudence or grace.

I wish she would drop out of the race so that Obama could start concentrating on McCain...

Last night's debate was a relief for me as a Hillary supporter. She signaled to us that she was not going to hurt the party.Of course she won the debate on the merits as she has done her entire life. And she told the nation again why she is in it to begin with; a sincere desire to use her gifts to help the country and a sincere belief in herself as the agent of change.I believe that desire..to change things for people is at her core. Despite years of being;judged,ridiculed,demonized,mischaracterized in the most misyognistic terms imaginable,sabatoged by the press,and sometimes by her own husband she keeps going .That combination of intellect and guts does not come along very often and sadly the Democrats are going to take a pass.

I will stick with her until she says it is over. I will make phone calls to Texas and Ohio and hope against hope that the Democrats will stop and consider a few things like; which one is truely ready to take on the problems left by Bush and protect our country at the same time.

If Obama wins the nomination I will vote for him because I am a Democrat but I will let his followers do the work for him and pray that a man who has made it all about himself and encouraged his followers to make it all about themselves will remember at some point that there are many people hurting out in the country who truely do need solutions more than they need a guy who gives a really great speech.

Basically: A person who voted to invade Iraq can't be trusted to be commander in chief. Works against McCain as well.

Hillary's finally question, while effective, had a few problems.

The first is that she has so rarely shown any humanity in this campaign that the few times she does seem calculated and rehearsed in retrospect. I half expect her to start interjecting the "How do you do it line" into her stump speech, complete with a slight quiver in her voice.

The second is the Edward's line. It had a very specific cadence and a unique sentiment that put it on the level of the "just words?" line. I wouldn't have a problem with it if lifting lines from other politicans was her campaign's big bugaboo against Obama.

Finally, her vote to invade Iraq is part of the reason those soldiers were at the hospital.

Like most democrats I will vote for either one.

...aka HRC-campaign bubble.

While there are fewer and fewer reasons to be concerned regarding Obama's chances in the primary or general, I think we've all begun to realize a few things that run counter to the conventional wisdom thusfar. The Clinton campaign has been a bumbling goof all the way back to Iowa, each mistep frittering away every institutional advantage she once had, along with that once "insurmountable" lead, and the result is that Obama hasn't yet had to face a suitable challenge in preparation for the general.

On the other hand, Obama's campaign has been letter-perfect, even in the absense of strong opposition. We all know Obama has run circles around Clinton when it comes to the "vision thing", but surprise of surprises, he's got a stronger groundgame, a better fundraising machine, and a far more successful longterm strategy. By contrast, the Clinton campaign was caught flatfooted after Super Tuesday when it became clear that there was no strategy through November beyond "inevitability", has brought in no new voters, has misspent her camparatively small war-chest, and inexplicably failed to campaign in key states. There is apparently no point to her campaign other than to provide a feeding trough for her overpaid and inept operatives and hangers-on. If "35 years of experience in politics" can produce this level of ineptitude, what are we to take away from this? That she's an exceptionally slow-learner easily outpaced by a supposed neophyte?

The problem, to the extent we have one, is that Obama simply hasn't had the benefit of a strong opponent and one must assume that even John McCain could do better than the Clintons. Perhaps Obama should simply acknowledge all those years of Clintonian (and McCainian) experience along with his much briefer sojourn into national politics, and slam the point home that he has the intellectual and political acumen to easily outdo the old-hands and even teach those doddering dogs a few new tricks.

This should have been the emerging meme out of super tuesday. That it was not speaks only to the persistence of false impressions and the emptiness of conventional political wisdom in 2008.