It was really magical, and totally out of the blue. She was, as usual, extremely sharp before that.  But the way in which she put together an answer and a narrative pretty much on the spot into such a coherent and compelling speech was just remarkable. I suspect that even she was surprised; the audience was clearly stunned by it; I've never seen a more spontaneous standing ovation.

He's just another one of Axelrod's prepackaged candidates.  There have even been news reports in which the campaign refers to Obama as "the talent."

Americans may like a "once in a lifetime canididate," but they don't like a prepackaged one.

Even Obama doesn't as evidenced by this quote:

A government that truly represents these Americans-that truly serves these Americans-will require a different kind of politics. That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived. It won't be pre-packaged, ready to pull off the shelf.

Thursday's Washington Post ran a front-page story about Clinton, Obama, McCain and their earmarks. The story noted that Obama "since last year" does disclose his earmark requests "but has not released those submitted to the [Appropriations] committee in 2005 and 2006."

Her opening was far superior to Obama's and she won handily the first half of the debate.

A little rockier in the second half/last third for her but she also got the final word and was sent off with a standing ovation.

I think Barack was startled that it was over...no wrap up and he looked pretty annoyed...at himself for missing the opportunity she took at the last question.

On balance, she won on both style and substance.  She's a fighter...and it showed.

She was concise and to the point, and made sure her point about health care was made even though they cut her off.

By R.G. RATCLIFFE and PEGGY FIKAC
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN -- The Democratic presidential debate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama offered few surprises Thursday as they tangled over universal health care and who would be best able to serve as president on the first day in office.

Clinton tried to portray Obama as a candidate lacking in experience to handle the office, but he described her as a candidate embedded in a type of politics that has resulted in gridlock in Washington.

She really blew the CiC question - supposedly a major theme of hers these days. They even directly asked her to explain how she would be a better CiC than him, and she ended up giving a long answer that never even touched on any issue having to do with the CiC duy - ie commanding the military. I found that stunning. His answer was on point and substantive.

I really got angry at her mindless Xerox comment - I still shake my head at the sight of all these Clinton supporters, who want us all to believe what a substantive person she is, supporting her use of this. Silly indeed. And dumb to boot, given all the hypocrisy charges that will grow out of it.

The closing was fine from her, but it really did strike me as almost concessionary.

His mission was to demonstrate substance, and he did that in a big way - even handling the "delusional followers" question just right. If there were people who went in attracted to this guy, liking him, but having reservations about whether he could really do the job, I imagine they were well satisfied.

She did perfectly fine herself, except for the plagiarism stuff, but not quite as well as him. But she really needed to either knock him down, or put herself on a much higher level than him, in order to change the mo, and that she did not do.

Overall, I thought she had the best performance. She definitely had the best opening and closing speeches. And she is clearly knowledgeable about the issues. I didn't mind the Xerox comment, and from what I am reading here, it may have more benefits than drawbacks. She could have been stronger when talking about Iraq. She let Barack define her position and she should have clarified it as well as his non-vote.

In fairness to Obama, I thought he performed well, much stronger than in the past, despite his cold, and the audience really seemed to like him. He needs to embrace brevity in some cases...

Anyway, if I can say anything encouraging about the debate (and not a specific debater) is that because I was downtown tonight, I was able to see in bar after bar and restaurant after restaurant, packed houses of patrons tuned into the debate. So there was great interest, maybe not enough to keep people away from their favorite watering holes, but enough to keep them tuned in.

Oh and in a side note/anecdote, I have already voiced my frustration about our open primary/caucus system here in TX, but I heard a new one. At the dinner table, my friend's 68-yr-old mother slapped the table and declared "I voted for Hillary!" I was ready to respond how great that was when she continued...

Friend's Mom: Do you know why?
Me (thought, not said): No, I have never met you before
Friend's Mom: 'Cause I HATE Hillary!!!

Her ending was superb, as many have noted. The post-debate plagiarism rebuttal from the Obama campaign was ill-advised.  No need to keep the stupid thing going, unless the idea was to reduce it all to a muddled silliness. It came across as Ye Politics of Olde that his campaign was supposedly above.  The one niggling feeling you get from Hill's "home run" finish, though, was the fact that the wounded soldiers she referenced got their injuries in Iraq...