Wow that must have been quite the speech. Ever since "read my lips, no new taxes" I don't believe anything a politician says during a campaign. I feel like the candidate's mind-set tends to be whatever it takes to get elected.

Of course, last night there was a Clinton/Obama exchange of "It's not about words, it's about experience"/"Words do matter -- people need to be inspired."

That wasn't the only time she hit on the theme of "speeches don't matter." Incidentally the debate is going on behind me, since Bob is watching CNN.

"We are not Red States! We are not Blue States! We are the United States!" and saying he was going to do whatever possible to get Obama elected.

That's exactly how I felt after his speech at the 2004 convention.

I think she's right, though -- especially if we're headed into a recession, and someone's still got to deal with Iraq, etc., I think at this point I'd rather see Hillary in there. At least she's used to being unpopular!

I thought it was kinda sweet when someone asked her how she felt about the fact that everyone likes Obama and she said, "that hurts my feelings." Still... don't trust her. Don't trust any of them.

I wondered how many times she rehearsed that response. I still liked it.

I don't trust any of them and hate the length of the process. The news stations were discussing Iowa in unreal detail All Day Long like there was no other news. This after weeks of discussing it. Blah blah blah on all the news channels and reporters interviewing reporters.

I've watched some of the debates and speeches, not all, but quite a lot. Obama is better than Clinton on the prepared speech, while Clinton is better at the debate.

Although Florida apparently won't count, I am still for Clinton so far. There are a number of factors at play here. 1. There is a very long list of things that need fixing in my country and I feel she has the best shot of actually accomplishing something. 2. I think she has a better shot of winning the general election than Obama. Both of these are gut reactions from the accumulated years of watching them both. If my experience has taught me anything in politics it seems I am always wrong.

I loved the debates. Edwards is still my guy-Obama even had to use a variation on Edwards's slogan "America can do better."

I thought they were each arguing what they could bring to the table very well. What bugged was the after-debate analysis, and I honestly think that's why people don't like politics. The debate itself was interesting and engaging, if sometimes tense.

The analysis was, "He looked tired," "You could tell he was thinking he'd rather be somewhere else," "Nice smile from Chelsea." Guys? How about, "Interesting what Obama said with regards to Richardson asserting that caps wouldn't be passed on to the consumer. What in his plan covers that contingency?"

Horse race insider bullshit blows.

What bugged was the after-debate analysis

And the before-debate conjecture. This one needs to do this, that one must do that. The interviewing of political analysts that are no more than other reporters particularly makes me nuts. And it won't be over until November, when they will start analyzing where the losing party went wrong. looks for rock

What bugged was the after-debate analysis, and I honestly think that's why people don't like politics.

I know that's the case with me. I tried to tune into the debates after reading some of the earlier time zone reactions here, but I happened to come in while it was all talking heads saying "And the big question; who was going to kiss Hillary?" in between debates and I just could not take it.

Eta: or, what Laura said.