So is attacking plagiarism a "potent putdown" or "the overhyped plagiarism issue is officially dead"?

Seems like when Hillary does it its a zinger that didn't quite hit the mark because of those unrealistic dreamers who support Obama for no good reason. But when Obama hits her for the same thing, suddenly its a non-issue raised by a craven politician. And this in only 10 short paragraphs!

...that Obama and Clinton actually like and respect eachother enormously, and it makes me like and respect both of them even more. The standard media campaign narrative necessarily focuses on them as bitter adversaries and death match rivals, but to me that's simply the way more obvious, much less interesting story. Throughout the campaign both have constantly (and I believe) sincerely praised the other with a frequency and fervour that considerably transcends any mere co-partisan politeness. The body language between the two consistently suggests a genuine respect and affection for eachother. The more I see it the more I like it and I believe it's the key to the powerful, progressive unity needed to achieve a Democratic presidency with a workable bicameral majority in November.

As for the debate, to me it showcased both candidates considerable strengths. Obama looked and sounded genuinely inspirational, while Clinton just dazzled with her encyclopedic grasp of policy. As a technocrat I can't help being swayed by Clinton's hard-core, scary-smart wonkery. As an electoral pragmatist I also can't overlook the massive enthusiasm generated by the most charismatic politician in a generation. The fact that Obama also has a brilliant mind, and that Clinton can soar with oratory & turn on the charm, makes choosing between them doubly, delightfully hard. Either will make a great president.

I just scanned this, but has anyone brought up the venue problems they had in staging this debate?

The DNC ticked a LOT of people in Austin off on this one, and as a whole, proved that the DNC cares considerably about people with large pocketbooks and very little about their grassroots supporters, conciliatory gestures aside.

The more I hear and see Hillary, the more armd she appears with canned ideas. Saying how the voters have suffered far more than she...hey we all suffer. Once again, she's elevated herself above the masses. Hillary claims to be about new ideas, but she is part and parcel of the old empire.

Obama...pretty face, great speaking ability, somewhat plausible, but really worrisome because of his ability to keep his voting record so twisted.

...and then there is McCain. What we've got is a (to plagiarize a phrase from Lewis Black) "a trifecta from hell."

What we need is a candidate to pop up from the woodwork that no one knows who can articulate solutions without a single intent to pacify the parties.

Where is the next real American statesman/woman?

Answer: Very, very few, if any.

Obama's head cold was a factor early on in the debate. Part of winning a debate is the total presentation, argument, appearance, voice, etc.

But as the debate wore on, the arguments presented by Hillary energized Barack. On the key issue facing this country, Iraq and its aftermath, he made the better argument. He and many of us on this thread know that in the debate to come with John McCain we must have our Top Gun, quick-draw and straight shooter Barack Obama.

In November we will have a 45 state victory and will bring to power a new Congress with many more Independents and Democrats. Only Barack Obama can do this for the country.

On Day 1, Inauguration Day, Hillary and Bill can be ready with us to cheer our new and capable President Obama.

When will you Obamatons be ordering your "O" The President bumper stickers?

Goodbye, Good Riddance & Please Don't Come Back Again to the Clintons. If you weasel into the nomination, I'll vote Republican for the first time ever. There is no difference between you and McCain except he's more competent.

It's pretty well established she "borrowed" the second half from John Edwards. But TalkingPointsMemo.com points out the other half was "borrowed," too:

"[Bill] Clinton, 92: 'The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.'

"Hillary Clinton, tonight: 'You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.'"

I can't believe nobody else caught this yet.

And I also can't figure out why almost all the Hillary supporter comments are anonymous. I really liked her and could have supported her in the general election up until the South Carolina primary. Now, I just can't bring myself to. If she's the nominee, I'll sit the general out.

But whatever. It's silliness all the way around.

I understand this is an emotional topic for many of us. I would like to direct your attention to a post on DailyKos where a woman used the library of congress website (among other sources) to research the records of the 2 candidates. What she found may surprise you...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

This is just another example of the media concentrating on style and not substance of candidates and their approach to issues. No wonder we have to look back on eight years of Bush, eight years of Clinton, and eight years of Reagan. I can't wait for the general election, when the talk in the media will be about which candidate you would rather have a beer with.

Clinton has twice (that I heard; probably much more often) said If your campaign is all about words they should at least be your own.

Obama should really explain to her that her premise is wrong: his campaign isn't about words. It's about ideas and realities, which words can communicate, when they are used well and expressively.

Clinton wields memorized words as a blunt instrument to hit people with.

Her "touching" final speech was a transparent attempt to reprise her New Hampshire moment, which though awkward and self-pitying was at least genuine. This time around it was just shameless.