But Did It Stop The Train?

I'm going to make this real easy for you if you missed last night's debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Austin, Texas. Hillary had the best opening, the best close and the best canned line--but she didn't make the slightest dent in Obama's quest for the Democratic Presidential nomination. And that can't be considered a successful night for her candidacy. Obama continued to battle the myth that he has no substance. He was armed with specifics, made no gaffes and easily parried the charges of plagiarism in his usual way: by elevating the discourse. The anticipation of Hillary going 'nuclear' proved unfounded. Even the moments where a true debate actually broke out, it never seemed personal. So, on the positive side for Hillary supporters, they could be proud of another solid showing. For Obama supporters, his performance kept the train a' rollin'.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/21/us/politics/20080221_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#video

One interesting note: in persistent questioning by the Univision commentator on immigration, both candidates were forced into base-appeasing statements that could haunt them in the general. This year, immigration is a loser for standard liberal orthodoxy. The public is fed-up with the appearence of a free-ride ethic, much as they were with welfare. And just as Bill Clinton had to buck the Party line on that issue, I believe the Democratic nominee is going to be faced with a come-over-to the-other-side moment to gain support with those crucial indies and Reagan Dems. The good news for them is that John McCain is the one opponent who can't take huge advantage of the issue--or he'll look like a Romney-esque flip-flopper. Something to monitor in the Fall. I wish I was inspired to go into further analysis, but it is the 19th debate we've heard.

Conversation for the past few days has centered on the journalistic standards of the New York Times viv a vis the McCain-Iseman story. Conservatives have long held that the Times is a left-wing house organ. I dispute that, but I do see how their reportage can create an editorial-like impression. A prime example is a new front page story on Hillary Clinton's campaign finances. The first part of the story directly implies that she has been profligate in her spending and that her donors are worried. Fine, but then the story continues to make the case that her spending was not that out-of-the ordinary and that this is merely the type of scrutiny a losing campaign always endures. The problem, as Mike Barnacle pointed out on MSNBC yesterday, is that hundreds of papers syndicate Times' articles, and edit them to fit the actual space they have to run them. Thus, the first part of this campaign funds story is the one people around the country will read; they probably won't see the rest of it. The problem is it could seriously impact Hillary's ability to raise money. Now, I'm not sticking up for Hillary's campaign; I happen to think they have prosecuted a problematic strategy. But this type of journalism can influence events that are better off playing out on their own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22clinton.html?hp

So, who won the debate? Click on'comments', bypass the Google sign-up, hit the nickname or anonymous button and let's hear from you.