got to give hil due, i dont think shes a great speach maker, but i do think she is doing great in this debate. showing a ton of conviction.

one other thing i noticed, these two seem to like each other when discussing republicans. i dont think both on the ticket is that unthinkable.

thats if hilary wins. vp seat is the perfect platform to the whitehouse. but hilary isnt winning in 8 years... plus she'd probably be too bitter anyway.

best looking girl in the crowd applauded barrack. if they doesnt win your vote, you might be gay.

I haven't seen much but Hill seems to have cooled the attacks on BO quite a bit. A shift in strategy?

It looks like CNN puts both on the screen when BO is answering and just Hill when the question is to Hill.

Hillary sucks balls. I admit it. I hate her. Lots of peeps hate Bush, I hate her.

seems that way.

hilary looked alot better when they were discussing health care.

probably a draw on immigration.

now she looks pretty bad on the war.

And BO looks good on the war. Very clear and draws the distinction between the two without it being an attack. He has political talent beyond his years.

That cackle of laughter she has on most every question. STFU!

my favorite is the joke i've heard a million times about "that 5 minutes you thought chelsea clinton was hot". i had mine like 10 years ago, and another 5 just went by. she looked H O T T tonight.

And like most prognosticators said, Bill will be in Vermont or something, meaning as far away from the debate as possible. He's been too much of lightning rod lately.

Obama won in the end, AFAICT -- Hillary's Iraq problem is pretty severe. But I was watching the Pistons-Lakers more than this debate, mostly listening, so I didn't see the body language as much.

Obama's no-mandate health care coverage answer plays a lot better with Independents and young people. And I agree with the sentiment... don't force it down people's throats. Build it right and they will come, especially if it's a continuation of the coverage they've received all their lives with SCHIP. Then you can worry about how to make it universal, how to get the health care and drug industry in a sensible place, etc.

I don't understand how people think this line was her best line of the night:


"It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush," she said, "and it might take a Clinton to clean up after the second Bush."

The question asked to her was about how she's preaching change and yet it's been Clinton and Bush for decades. She started off talking about how she's not her husband and that she's a different candidate. She closed with the comment above. Those two things are totally contradictory. Are Clinton voters getting change, or her husband's terms? She wants to have her cake and eat it too, and I'm not buying it.

I want someone that does stand for change. Not someone that preaches it, and then falls back on her experience (lack of change) when convenient.

Obama won that debate in my mind (being right and not just experienced was a huge comment IMO). The polls agree he won (on CNN %45 of people said Obama won, %34 said Clinton and %21 said it was a tie.

yea, that line was crap and obviously pre-written. it may have sounded good, but it was typical political speak, not answering the question, or as you pointed out, contradicting the question. i hated it too.

but i dont know how anyone could say one candidate "won". i thought hilary had more conviction, which plays well in a debate, but other than that they were cordial and pretty much in lockstep. i did notice barrack would say something good and then hilary would completely copy it. funny, but not a big deal.

Either canidate could have won that based on how you feel about health care. I could see that swinging your vote last night. Obama won the Iraq portion. I also think he made his case as the best to fight McCain. This isn't just about beating each other, but whoever comes out of the GOP side as well.

I just thought she was a little too rah rah and didn't have anything to say on the issues themselves (apart from the health care part I mentioned). I thought they both explored that issue well and each person will have their preference on the method there.

Note that this is about health care coverage, not the actual care.

I am unpersuaded that the right first step should be a mandate for working adults. That's a great way to get "nanny state" pushback.

These candidates might all have plans for health care but does anyone believe that their plan would make it through our Gov't without some pretty serious changes?

I really don't bother getting caught up in the details of their plans.

That's the thing. There is no way universal health care will happen anytime soon.

Obama's coverage plan is pretty simple. Basically, you as an adult individual can buy into the same health care plan(s) that Congress has, at rates that reflect a huge collective bargaining with the insurers. The poor are subsidized to make a healthcare purchase, like how an employer would match a 401k contribution. But no one has to buy. If the uninsured get sick and needs emergency treatment and coverage, they'll only be liable for past premiums. Most employers would be required to contribute to the plan in one way or another, but out of pocket expenses will be less overall. The coverage won't be tied to employers, so you can more from one employer to another and have the same coverage.

Clinton's current Edwards-inspired plan (not to be confused with Hillarycare of old) is fairly similar, except everyone would be required to pay for a health insurance plan, like a tax. And, the credits to the poor are in the form of tax credits. (Everyone has to file taxes theoretically, so you collect as part of the tax system.) This has the pro of getting every last person in the nation as part of the collective bargaining with the insurers. The drawback is that some folks just don't want to buy healthcare coverage at all. And of course, the insurance lobbyists are up Hillary's butt more than they are Obama's, so the devil isn't just in the details.