I've watched at least the last 4 or 5 Democratic debates (losing count already), but from a policy standpoint, didn't learn anything earth shatteringly new from either candidate.

I will say that I was struck by the contrast in their manner towards each other. Obama repeatedly praised Clinton, saying he "applauded" her work, that hers was a "fine record" etc. He differed with her only on points of policy, defended himself well, and was gracious throughout, resisting some really good "gotcha" moments he could have taken advantage of (as others have elaborately pointed out before me in these letters)

Clinton on the other hand, completely squandered any positive feeling she had built up, with the cheap shot about xeroxing. For me it was downhill from there. She tried to redeem herself at the end, but I personally had a hard time reconciling that with the last 2 weeks of petty attacks. At least, I was glad to see that she had the grace to return the compliment he made to her at the beginning of the debate (about being honored to share the stage)

We already know that regardless of whether or not Hillary's words were a magic bullet, Walter Shapiro sure won't think so and he will spare no effort telling you about it.

Good questions rufus123. Salon has disappointed me many times over the course of this campaign. Hell, just look at the first of four messages they gave editor's stars to in this comments thread. That's not a worthy message for a star! What, did the editor just want to award somebody who agreed with him?

I was actually very surprised that Walter Shapiro turned the debate into an exercise in sports-like reporting. Somebody here pointed out that at one point in his writing he actually attempted to describe what was going on in Hillary Clinton's mind. Shapiro's description of Clinton's final statement was like a sports reporter describing a long pass for a touchdown. Except that Shapiro's fawning was unearned. All Hillary Clinton did was to recycle some tropes, bring up an anecdote about meeting with some wounded war veterans without really signifying its point, and then close with the verbal equivalent of a bear hug. What medication is Shapiro taking, and did he mix it with alcohol last night? It wouldn't be the first time a Salon staffer with a Clinton bias got caught drinking too much.

Other disappointments from Salon have included Rebecca Traister's "John Edwards is an orc" tirade (in response to Edwards' sin of not responding sympathetically to reports of Clinton's crying), Joan Walsh's unprincipled attempt to defend Hillary's attack ads which took Obama's "Reagan" comments out of context, Walsh's self-oblivious attack on Chelsea "pimping out" references that failed to acknowledge Walsh's own use of "media fluffers" in reference to Obama's campaign, and the veritable arm-twisting it's taken to get Salon to moderate message boards that were taken over by multiple abusive Clinton supporters. I think there's been a general loss of reality among Salon writer/editors, a sort of election-cycle fever.

The main problem with this article is that it's so far out of the reality of every other report. Was Shapiro sitting in on a debate party with the Hillary Clinton campaigners? He seems to have been caught up in some sort of uncritical euphoria. Shapiro both plays up Hillary's closing lines and plays down the failure of her "Xerox" joke.

Then again, I haven't trusted Walter Shapiro to say anything insightful since he jumped on the "let's mock John Edwards' $400 haircut" bandwagon several months ago.

He talks about change but all of his policy positions are full of 10 point lists and flat partisan position statements that are no different from any other candidate. It just amazes me this cult of personality thing he's cultivated, where people from the Kennedys to cable hotheads, jump on the bandwagon just so they can be associated, for their own selfish reasons, with a "winner." (Teddy wants young people, lest they not be indoctrinated already, to be drawn into the glory of his better brothers...how dare Hillary for forgetting to lionize JFK for sheperding civil rights policy.) As others have pointed out elsewhere, what Axelrod has crafted is absolutely brilliant: someone in whom people can see whatever they want. That he has no real substance, that he awkwardly stammers through a debate, is actually ideal. I can't wait for the bubble to burst.

I find it amazing that people actually believe that candidates with multi-million dollar campaigns and in front of 20 million people, uttered either off the cuff or honest remarks. The truth is, that both candidates were coached and rehearsed to talk about any point that might come up. If something did come up that was unusual, they responded it seems, by pivoting towards something they were more familiar with. Anything that was "new" or "Fresh" was simply a response they hadn't managed to tee up yet. But if you think Clinton's closing response, or even Obama's rant about people calling his supporters delusional, wasn't rehearsed before, I have a bridge in Chicago and a piece of land in Arkansas to sell you.

Hillary has had two gerat opportunities to ptove her worth in the last 15 years. She was appointed by her president husband to head a task force charged with reforminmg the US healtcate system. She failed badly on that front, she was arrogant, refused to allow input from Democrats who had different ideas from her and relied too much on the HMOs and drug companies, who part of the problem, to be part of the solution. her second opportunity came when Bush demanded the Congress authorize him to invade Iraq. She voted for it, because she believed it would help her when she ran for president. He "experience" is a perfect example why it's crcucial that the next president has as little washingtomn "expeience" as possible. He "experience" is a perfect proof of why she's totally unqualified.

Why is it assumed they did so in support of Clinton's candidacy. I could read it as "Yeah! She's finally throwing in the towel!"