I found Sunday's debate was rather blah. Nobody really stood out. Hillary came in as a frontrunne and came out unscathed.

It's laughable to just cherry pick one pundit's commentary to declare a 'winner'. I can give you lots of different opinions of punditry...

Chuck Dodd First Read:

Overall, this is a debate that had "August" written all over it, meaning the candidates decided not to take advantage of opportunities to engage. Instead, at almost every opportunity, the frontrunners took pains to NOT engage even when questions from the moderator tried to create spats.  So in the absence of a "moment," it's hard not to declare Clinton the winner of this debate because, like boxing, if the champ doesn't get knocked out, then the champ is still the champ.

This is not to say Obama and Edwards did poorly in this debate. To the contrary, both seemed more presidential than in previous debates but neither seemed comfortable trying to take down the frontrunner. Edwards and Obama took veiled shots at Clinton but in a way that was, well, "Iowa nice."

One glaring missed opportunity for Obama to show contrast with Clinton came, not from a moderator question, but from a voter question who asked about a time when the candidate didn't say everything they thought.  Remember, Clinton critiqued Obama for saying everything he thought. If the places were reversed, Clinton would not have missed an opportunity like that. This is where Obama's inexperience as a politician shows. He's just not very tactical, which to some may seem like a refreshing change but in primary politics, isn't a recipe for success. Frankly, it was a moment of political campaign inexperience. Tactically, these debates do show that Obama hasn't had many tough campaigns, which may explain why he misses opportunities like this one.

Overall, Biden seemed to have helped himself the most, followed, surprisingly, by Richardson. Of course, Richardson had a VERY low bar to surpass since he's been anywhere from bad to disastrous; Richardson was neither bad nor disastrous today.

All of the candidates seemed well aware that the main audience for this debate was Iowa Democrats and recent history has shown Iowa Democrats don't like sharp elbows so that may explain some of the cautiousness that gripped the entire Democratic field.

See the next post for more detailed "tape delayed live-blogging" thoughts as I was watching the debate.

Drew:Some final thoughts: Hillary Clinton continues to look strong. Her final comment about her mother being her role model after talking about the women's movement was a nice conclusion. Obama turned in a better performance than usual, but he's not hitting any home runs. Edwards continues to connect with voters. He looked stronger and more definitive today on national security, and started weaving in his history, particularly in his final answer about his father trying to better himself by learning through watching public television. Richardson, like Hillary Clinton, seems authoritative, but uninspiring. He sounds too much like the laundry list of issues that Democrats traditionally run on and lose. Biden was strong today, as he's been through much of the debates: smart, thoughtful, and emotionally available. Dodd continues to seem very presidential and thoughtful. He's just not hitting anything out of the park that would put him in the top tier. Kucinich enunciates clearly many of the positions of the left and many things that are true that other candidates don't want to say. He just comes off as goofy, and he's too far left for much of the country, whether or not he's right. Gravel, well, he's a hoot. He, too, sometimes tells it like it is. Sometimes he tells something, but who knows what it is.

First off polling has shown over and over that Democratic Primary voters view Clinton as an agent for change.  So while he may pick up a few votes here and there splitting hairs over who will bring more change, he isn't going to score major points  - not enough to wipe out Hillary's lead.

Add to that the fact that "change" is an overused word in politics come this time in a cycle.  Almost every single candidate out there, and certainly all the tops Dems throw it around to the point that it goes right over voters heads.  

For activists paying attention, and really focusing in on all the various aspects of change (as they themselves see it) you have multiple candidates all playing for their vote.

So it takes more than just a promise of change.

That is why Hillary Clinton is winning, in my view.   She is offering something to go with change.  She is offering both experience and toughnesss.   That is beating Obama's offer of change and hope.

That shouldn't be surprising given that when voters are polled about what is important in a candidate hope isn't at the top.  

as petty arogant Senators who the heck is biden to tell the public Obama isn't ready.

Richardson comes across as a standup comedian who's a car salesman during the day....

    Dem voters are starting to realize nominating a candidate that half the country can't stand is similar to cutting your nose off to spite your face. Sure it feels good for dems to see Hillary get back at the vast right wing forces that we all despise but then reality sets in. First win-ing a general with half the country pre-desposed to oppose you is a huge taks in itself then even if she won she would have to govern with a GOP looking for revenge in this seemingly never ending cycle. The debate FOCUS GROUPS really higlighted these facts. Karl Rove's plan to have democrats throw away all thier edges coming into the 2008 cycle by becoming the Hillary party doesn't have to work, the focus groups in Iowa show it might not work afterall.

Roger Simon also picked up on that Obama was turning the experience question on it's head.

Obama rises above sea level

But while the debate pretty much stayed at sea level for all 90 minutes, there was a high point or two and I thought Barack Obama did the best in advancing his message.

His campaign accurately has identified his greatest weakness -- lack of national experience -- and has devised a strategy to turn it into a strong point.

Obama's debate theme that when people say they want experience what they really mean is "good judgement" is being echoed in the press.

Here is a AP article covering the debate from that angle. Obama seeks to quiet questions about experence

During a morning exchange on ABC, Obama, only three years out of the Illinois Legislature, cast himself as a force for change who would overcome the nation's broken political system. He sought to make his rivals' experience a cause for concern, not credit.

"With that kind of experience, I don't want it if experience leads you to stop asking questions, if experience leads you to be hesitant about telling the truth to the American people about the challenges that we face," Obama told voters later Sunday at an invitation-only crowd of about 100 people in New Hampshire.

The reality is that Obama ain't gonna win anything if his ONLY compelling reason for being chosen is that he was against the war as an Illinois state senator whilst the other senators voted for it.  That's too hard and too long to explain to voters, anyway.

This country is all about forgiveness and judges people not on things that happened FIVE years ago.  It's silly when you think about it.  People are looking for a more well-rounded president, not just some one-issue pony.

Look, contrary to what some may think, many voters in the country are voting on other issues as well as the war.  If Obama continues his tack of being a one-trick pony, he won't be taken as seriously as he needs to be to be nominated.

To paraphrase Matt Cooper from yesterday's Meet The Press, Clinton has more credibility on change than Obama does on experience..................

Matt Cooper had to state his wife works for Hillary and then went on to recite Hillary talking points ......and pro-inevitabilty spin!

I am not surprised you thought Obama did well.  You support Obama.  The real question is how others think.  One can always pick out quotes to support one's biases.

By the way, once again, Obama was given the most time.  Hillary second most.

Rather than speculate as to who won a debate (it's subjective) and what Karl Rove really means (who knows) one of the biggest arguments for Hillary is the MyDD diary which shows that of the entire Democratic field, Hillary beats the GOP by the largest margin:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/18/1953 54/266

In the progressive universe we tend not to emphasize how important it is for people to feel secure with their government. Many voted for W because they were deceived into thinking big daddy would bring security to the nation. Instead by invading Iraq, bringing incompetence to government (i.e. Katrina, food safety, worker safety) by his malpractice with the economy and the financial markets, by his attempt to destroy social security, he has made people feel very insecure. The argument can be made that the change people really want is government that is effective and competent both in foreign and domestic policy. They remember Bill Clinton and the 90s as a time of competence and relative security in domestic and foreign affairs. Hillary represents the possibility of a return to competence and a secure and effective government. That is her appeal in my view, whether people like her or not, she brings an appeal of stability and security in governance. Something we have not had for 7 years. That may be the reason that Obama's appeal as a "change agent" falls flat. I have been pro-Obama because of his potential to heal the nation. But maybe Hillary's promise is more potent to the electorate.

Will everyone supporting Clinton, Edwards or Obama on this site take the solemn pledge to actively support the Democratic nominee for President in 2008?

Everything else is just so much hooey.

Talking up David Yepsen is like mentioning how important it is to win the support of Charles Krauthammer or George Will.  I know you people don't understand Iowa very well, but the guy is a conservative schmuck and liberals should point that out (and only that out) whenever discussing him.

I thought Mondays were Hillary day, Tuesdays were Edwards day, etc.

Or am I confused about the candidate frontpage diary days? TIA!

She is fatally flawed and has alot of baggage and everyone knows it.

TV debates are there to give pundits something more to talk about. they are less than helpful to the voter trying to find out something about the candidates and what's their take on America these days.

Not helpful. Not informatiive. Not supportive of democracy. Worse than useless.