Marc Ambinder's (interestingly contrarian) Debate Analysis:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I agree with his overall sense of the thing, but I saw several incidents differently. (Everyone brings their own perspective to these things. I saw the Farakhan business as a net positive for Obama, but Ambinder saw it through different eyes.)

Vantage Point
26 Feb 2008 10:55 pm

On substance: Clinton. On style: Obama.

You cannot, said Chesterton, love a thing without wanting to fight for it. If Clinton was the underdog tonight, she kept the upper dog on the defensive for most of the night. Near the end, for example, when Clinton interrupted and badgered him into denouncing the Nation of Islam leader even more fulsomely.

Toward the end, Obama made three fairly significant hedges, the first of which being about the Russian President to be, Dimitry Medvevev. Although Clinton had trouble pronouncing his name -- Medvevev, it was clear that she knew it, and that she was at least cursorily familiar with the details of the election and the challenge it poses for the U.S. As NBC News’s hounds noted, Obama appeared to defer to her. If you were watching closely, you might have wondered whether Obama had received a briefing recently on Russia, rather than a recitation of the case against George W. Bush’s relationship with Putin.

Before that there were was his weird language about the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan. There are some things you just don’t do in American politics: calling Farrakhan “minister Farrakhan” is one of them. He’s been declared persona non grata by everyone in the mainstream of our politics. His endorsement isn’t desired and should be rejected; it took Hillary Clinton’s badgering for Obama to reject it.

And before that there was Obama’s hedging on public financing in the general election.

I suspect, though, that Clinton’s intemperate complaint about the NBC’s debate reflecting the Saturday Night Live parody will be what the morning shows dissect and dissect, and beyond that, there was really nothing else to commend to the new viewer. Ohioans concerned about NAFTA learned that Clinton changed her mind about the efficacy of the trade agreement and about her promise to threaten to pull out of the treaty unless Canada and Mexico renegotiate its terms; me too, said Obama. The two candidates fought to a draw over mandates; there doesn’t seem to be a truth there one can actually find. Obama had some strong moments, particularly, as usual, on Iraq.

I hesitate to point out her body language, if only because I can easily read too much into it. But she seemed tense, remorseful, sad, at times… her neck seemed leaden; her voice had an edge that all to often crossed the boundary between assertive and plaintive.

Obama seemed more solicitous and upbeat. Even as he was defensive, he was passive-defensive; he was oh-so-cool; one e-mailer, recalling Twain, called him a Christian with four aces. He seemed to be listening to Hillary Stagg with one ear and to Hillary Clinton with the other.

Bottom line: did this, the 20th debate, change much? Probably not.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/vantage_point.php

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. ,,,

[ruggerson]

2. I thought she won the idiotic Farrakhan exchange hands down

He rejected him, but only after she pushed him into it.

The people who really care about this are the Jews and it's pretty clear who was stronger on that particular point. (this will undoubtedly be responded to here on DU with a few "I'm Jewish and I thought Obama handled it perfectly" Obama supporter posts.

Having said that, Ambinder is right. This doesn't really change anything.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. I never would have flashed on the word "minister" like that

But I'm not somebody attuned to Farrakhan issues... he's always struck me as such a clown that I forget he really upsets some people.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Actually, the entire story of the Black Muslims is much more complex

than simply demonizing Farrakhan. And although, he is often compared to the KKK, it is not Farrakhan who lynched anybody ever.

But it is very easy for White America to put away whomever they want.....including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc....while Bill Kristol and John Goldberg can say whatever, whenever via American Newspapers everywhere.....

[ruggerson]

5. Well he's not about to defend black Muslims on national television

because the media sees the issue as the anti semites vs the Jews. As does most of America. Our country has never been great at understanding complexities.

[FrenchieCat]

6. True......

which is part of our weakness.

But still, it appears that Jonah Goldberg still writes for the L.A. Times.....

[jackson_dem]

7. It isn't about black Muslims but about one known bigot: Farrakhan

It isn't surprising that we have an Obamite defending Farrakhan here. He hasn't lynched anyone so he is okay in Obamanation. Neither has Donne McClurkin. :eyes:

[grantcart]

8. but what is realy kind of racist is how white reporters always run

around trying to get every African American to comment on him. They end up building him larger than he is. Its true that he endorsed Obama but there were other more important issues to address.

[sandnsea]

9. Seems rather petty points

I think most people thought she was nuts on Farrakhan, stumbled on Medvevev, and couldn't care less on the campaign financing. I also notice Hillary gets substance points a lot, because Democrats buy into her mandate nonsense and fear the right will ridicule Obama on national security issues. Just like in Wisconsin, I think the debate will keep the tide turning and she'll regret she ever gave Obama the air time to take his message to local voters.

[anamandujano]

10. Wrong on mandates. Wrong on renegotiating with Mexico and Canada.

Her mandates will only inconvenience 15-20 million that won't opt into the plan, and it will probably only inconvenience them for awhile. It's necessary to work toward universal.

Obama's plan has a mandate for 150 million parents to cover their children, and the parents can still get sick and bring ruin upon the family. He has no intention of working toward universal. Things will remain status quo, with a few measly band aids.

So what this guy calls a draw on mandates is really the difference between the first step toward universal and the status quo.

She did not back out of the Mexico and Canada thing. She is obviously very confident that they will renegotiate. She does her homework.

She was tired. Obama looked semi-comatose, not cool.