WaPo: Obama Pulls Punches
New Republic: Edwards More Agressive
Time (Halperin): Win Goes to Edwards
Yepsen (Des Moines Register) : Not Hillary's Best Debate
Perhaps the silliest commentary of the debate came from preeminent Iowa political pundit and noted Clinton critic David Yepsen, linked above. The key quote of the Yepsen piece:
While the evening couldn't have been pleasant for Clinton, it opened a necessary
discussion Democrats must have: If they don't probe her weaknesses, the
What a rediculous statement. Of course Democrats, being in the middle of a primary battle, are considering the relative weakenesses and strengths of all candidates. This assumes that frontrunner Clinton has more weaknesses than the other candidates (patently false). David Yepsen aside, Democrats and the broader spectrum of Americans seem to be concluding that she is a better potential President than not only her rivals in the Democratic party, but also better than leading Republicans. Note her margin in polling averages over leading GOP candidates, which has been increasing in recent months.
Hillary did fine. She had the memorable moment of the evening (she'll "talk to [President Clinton] later..."), and the instapolls after the debate, whatever they're worth, indicated that she won. Everyone did basically well. The loser of the debate was probably Obama, because he basically conceded the ground of challenging Hillary Clinton to John Edwards. Obama can have all the money in the world, but if he doesn't make a move soon (probably no later than Halloween) he will be the best funded also-ran in American history. Which is fine with me.