Debate sharpened contrast between Hillary and Obama, separated them from the rest of the field...

[jefferson_dem]

Interesting analysis...From NBC's Chuck Todd

If the last debate was the moment where Democrats realized that the Clinton coronation was, at least, postponed, this one will be known as the debate that seemed to sharpen the contrast between Clinton and Obama and create a gap between the big two and everyone else. The sparring between Clinton and Obama on a number of issues is likely to set the tone for some time. Edwards was hurt, partially, by the fact that Clinton and Obama were next to each other, while Edwards was off to the side.

This debate was about Clinton effectively fighting back, Obama sticking to his guns and separation between those two and everyone else.

As for Edwards, he just wasn't at his best tonight. His attempts at hitting Clinton early on fell flat. That little "planted question" line was out of place. What's interesting is that Edwards seemed to get it and went back to his comfort zone and ended the debate a lot stronger than he started. Of course, first impressions are everything and Edwards didn't make a strong first impression at this debate.

As for Obama, he did fine but, early on, missed a major opportunity. Obama showed his inexperience at debating. When Clinton hit him early on health care, Obama simply defended himself from the attack, rather than deflect the attack and hit back at her over the '93 health care reform failure. It was an easy hit for him, and he missed; he didn't even swing; got caught looking. Clinton is winning on "experience," not because of the practical experience she has as a former chief executive (she's never been one) but the experience she has as a politician, as a debater. Clinton would not have missed a similar opening.

Clinton ducked the immigration controversy that dogged her at the last debate because she only had to utter one simple word on the driver's license issue: "No." She didn't have to answer for the fact that she waited a few weeks to give a definitive answer. Meanwhile, the theatrics between the moderator and Obama over whether he was answering "yes or no" on the issue gave Clinton the moment on immigration THEY were looking for. Will this be the Clinton YouTube moment they push around? We'll see. (BTW, Clinton better be careful on NAFTA; her about face on the issue from what she said about the trade deal just one year ago is striking. No one tagged her on it tonight but don't be surprised if reporters pounce.)

Obama got his YouTube moment when he got to challenge the moderator on the issue of being a pessimist. Look for THAT in an email box near you VERY soon.

One final Clinton v. Obama point. Clinton really benefitted from the audience responses; I'd love to know who got tickets for this debate, whether one campaign was allowed to get more tix than another. Because the booing by the Clinton supporters when Edwards or Obama confronted Clinton were distracting to the candidates and did throw them off every now and then.

As for the rest of the field, Biden, again, had a good night. He keeps doing well at these debates; we'll see if he can use this to propel himself in Iowa. Richardson, btw, had one of his better performances, possibly his best. Dodd didn't get a lot of time but when he did speak, he seemed to be on message. Still, I bet the Dodd folks are lighting up CNN over the lack of face time.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/469442.aspx#comments

[jenmito]

1. I pretty much agree with this summary. n/t

[blm]

2. Biden and Obama performed well.

I give Kucinich and Edwards props for connecting on some well-deserved punches.

[AtomicKitten]

3. I thought Obama did a great job differentiating himself from Hillary.

He punctuated several bullet points outlining their differences. He did exactly what he needed to do.

[ellisonz]

4. Yup.

Poor DK, he can't get any MSM attention.

[earthlover]

5. Pretty good analysis....

What bothered me most about the debate was the crowd. I don't think the audience should be allowed to interrupt a candidate before he makes his/her point. This happened several times, and the OP rightly observed that it affected the answers of some of the candidates.

The debate should be about the candidates, not the audience.

The debate reminded me of a world series game where someone in the crowd prevented someone from catching a foul ball.

[Cameron27]

6. I agree with Todd

They both did what they had to do. Obama established himself as Clinton's main rival, which was what Edwards was trying to do with all his attacks, and Clinton came back from the last debate. In that respect I think they were both the winners tonight.

[emilyg]

7. K

[calteacherguy]

8. I do think this removes Edwards from the top contenders, and moves Biden up

to the top of that "second tier."

[BeyondGeography]

9. "I'd love to know who got tickets for this debate, whether one campaign was allowed to get more tix

got more tix than the other."

This is worthy of some scrutiny. I'm stuck in Vegas on business this week and actually looked into going to the debate. There were, however, only 500 tickets and these were distributed via a lottery system. That would make it, on the face of things, exceedingly difficult for Clinton to stack the room. On the other hand, the IS Vegas, and wouldn't it be naive (if not irresponsible) to assume that a UNLV debate lottery lacked integrity?

Even if there's no there there (and I suspect there isn't) the crowd was a major distraction in this debate. I have a newfound respect for the mainstream model, where people are essentially told to keep quiet and, as a result, the candidate's words stand on their own merits.

[JTFrog]

13. The only thing that stood out to me was this:

A handpicked pool of about 100 undecided Nevada Democrats will occupy a special section of the audience, where CNN's Suzanne Malveaux will call on them to put their concerns directly to the candidates.

Who "handpicked" these folks?

http://www.lvrj.com/news/11339341.html

[sandnsea]

10. Obama didn't dwell on the same old attacks

I think he's got the message that hammering the same attack gets tiresome. I think that's why he didn't hit Hillary on the '93 health care issue again, it's old and tired. He hit her on her stupid mandated program which is now and which people are still going to hate. I wish he'd hit on the stupid tax credit too.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Kick-er-ooooooooo

:kick:

[JTFrog]

12. self delete

delete, replied wrong spot.