The exchange made me laugh and I thought what Obama said was brilliant. You had to know it was funny when it made the moderator laugh..come on guys..lighten up. This debate was much better than the Republican one. Maybe that's why they are hinting around at a do-over?!

See this is what Obama means by..."The Audacity of Hope"

She brought it on herself. If she had not interrupted would he have had the chance to blast her?

She opened herself up and he took the opportunity. I don't buy the whole he was mean and it hurt her feelings, isn't she the one running around talking about how tough she is? If she were so tough she should have had a comeback or a better response than standing there like she had been put in her place. (Or better yet better sense than to open herself up to a response like that in a competition.)

His motives, are his motives and her reaction is her reaction.

Conventional wisdom says don't put your hand in the fire if you do not want to get burned.

"What's disrespectful about Obama saying he is too? I thought it was funny, a nod to Hillary's experience, and (although I just heard it on the radio and didn't see facial expressions) I thought both candidates handled it well and with humor. It was one of the rare exchanges between the two where I thought they both came off relatively well."

On first blush, persia, I would have agreed. But I have replayed the scene in my mind a few times and it just hit me: she experienced it as an attack. (I am talking in human terms.) Then I thought about it, and realized no matter how funny it was, or appeared to be, it was still an attack but delivered in a mellow, humorous way. Sort of passive agressive. And, it was a deflection. She laughed (and the media called it a "cackle") and said something in the background like, I can't wait to hear this (ovederlapping not interrupting) and he could have just laughed and moved on to the question. It's like he couldn't resist the attack and it is somewhere in there that I find myself feeling uncomfortable. It was, at least when watching it, a subtle thing. I may be wrong about his intent. I may be wrong about the media's focus on this as an important moment in the debate as being dicey, but I saw her body flinch or freeze a little. Who cares about politics, or at least forget politics for a moment. It was hurtful taken in the context of what I suspect she was experiencing as a funny moment.

If I am right, that it hurt, why is it considered such an important, triumphal moment by the talking heads?

BUT if I were Obama, I'd rethink this one! I wouldn't want this woman working for ME...particularly if I whipped her butt in the Presidential campaign. She doesn't strike me as the forgive and forget type.

Besides, from what I heard, she throws a MEAN ashtray!

What's disrespectful about Obama saying he is too? I thought it was funny, a nod to Hillary's experience, and (although I just heard it on the radio and didn't see facial expressions) I thought both candidates handled it well and with humor. It was one of the rare exchanges between the two where I thought they both came off relatively well.

I found the remark quick, agile, witty, and actually not funny. It felt like a patronizing put-down and rather disrespectful, given the context. He could have just answered the question, which was a legitimate one, and not turned it into one of his now signature ripostes. I know the main stream press, and for that matter Salon, loves his quips, but do the voters?

These kind of remarks feel mean to me. I believe however they get a "pass" because they are delivered in Obama's also signature soft-spoken and self-deprecating manner. Then as reported, the big media moment becomes a subtle stab, described however as though a brilliant debate point, instead of substance. (Imagine the uproar if it had come from Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.)

which no one's exactly stated yet, is that the Clinton 90s were by and large good times in foreign policy -- cashing in the peace dividend to balance the budget, brokering a road map to peace and Palestinian statehood, international coalition intervening in the Balkans (too bad about Africa). Obama is right to tap the (Bill) Clinton team.

Meanwhile, Hilary has been not much better than a co-conspirator in the Bush-Cheney f*4kups, Iraq, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Lebanon, the whole frikin sh*tstorm.

where my money?

So what?

It shows that Obama (at least) can spot a winning team.

But, it doesn't prove that the (first president) Clinton-era people prefer Barack to Hillary. It does show that Hillary is savvy enough to not have too many of the Big Dawg's advisors on-board during her campaign. If she had them on-board, she'd be accused of running on her husband's legacy.

She can make it on her own.

A good topic for an entire debate, in each party: If elected do you plan to reinstate the Constitution of the United States of America as the law of the land - or will you continue the Bush Administration's policies of appeasing the terrorists by removing those freedoms for which "they hate us"?

Yes, that is a great question. I've already heard Hillary's answer: she says she will roll back many of Bush's abuses, and return the country to the rule of law.

That's what she said.

The question is, will she? For the past 7 years, and well before that, we've seen plenty of examples of politicians that talk a mean game while doing the exact opposite. Hillary says that, if she becomes president, she'll convert the job role from monarch/dictator back to elected servant of the people. Now, I ask you, how many supreme leaders have been known to do that?