The CNN Los Angeles debate was a complicated affair -- Hillary was focused on seeming friendly which is her weak spot, Obama concentrated on policy details and presidentiality, which is his. One point of pundit consensus: They decided to ratchet down the tempers in public and be cordial, because it makes sense for both.
CNN's Toobin: Hillary thinks she's ahead, Obama thinks he has momentum, so neither wanted to upset the apple cart by moving into attack mode: "They both didn't take any risks." Likewise, Cillizza at the Fix: "The comity of the event at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood was a sign that both Obama and Clinton feel comfortable with where they stand heading into Super Tuesday next week when 22 states are set to cast ballots."
Who won? On CNN, Bill Bennett thought Obama lost because he needed to score big before Super Tuesday and didn't. Gloria Borger thought he won because he made a good electability argument, based on having been right on Iraq, bringing in young voters and being a unifier, and focusing on McCain. And Gergen thought it was a tie: "On substance she was slightly better but he held his own. And on likeability, he has the edge."
On the blogs, there was a consensus that Hillary suffered from getting stuck trying to re-explain her Iraq war vote, playing to Obama's strongest argument. Ambinder at the Atlantic:: "Twenty minutes of Iraq happened. And so I’ll give Obama the edge. Clinton was forced, for about 20 minutes, to recapitulate her vote on Iraq, over and over again. It was tough for her. She seemed to mire herself in the details of history."
Likewise, The New Republic: I thought the debate had been pretty even...prior to the Iraq discussion. But Hillary had to do much too much explaining about her vote.... It wasn't a disaster, but at times it felt like she was on the verge of drowning. Too much lingo, too much jargon, too much rationalizing. Is this the moment when her refusal to call her vote a mistake finally comes back to haunt her?"
And TPM: "Even though it was gently, he kept hitting on this point of the authorization of the war. And it was very effective....In the context of the race, I think this helped Obama because it put the two of them on the same level, the same stature level."
The question: Do voters (as opposed to pundits) still care about her vote for the war? If they do, why has she been ahead for the entire last year?
Halperin at The Page gives both candidates an A-, without mentioning Iraq: Hillary "may have won over some undecideds with her unfalteringly upbeat attitude and air of maturity,” but ......
.....Obama “tenaciously drove his four core issues (change, unity, inspiration, problem solving), and incorporated them into almost every answer.”
One change: With only two candidates, the CNN format tonight allowed longer answers. Obama has struggled with tight limits -- he's more a speechifier -- and the longer answers helped him get rolling.
MSNBC First Read: "Overall, this was a strong night for Obama as he proved that he belonged on the same stage as Hillary Clinton. And that's an important accomplishment for Obama. Because, I keep wondering, are undecided voters waiting to see if Obama can prove his mettle for the presidency?"
Sullivan: "The one-on-one format elevated him instantly and he commanded the stage and the occasion."
But conservatives, interestingly, tend to agree with Bennett: Obama needed to do more. At the American Spectator: "She still has the edge in the polls, and the friendly and cheerful tone of the debate, as well as the policy focus, helped cover her rough edges that were apparent in recent weeks. I think that a lot of Democrats will conclude that they like Obama, they want him to be president some day, but that day hasn't arrived yet. I just didn't get a changing of the guard vibe."
And, Jonah Goldberg at National Review's Corner: "I think Obama played it too safe. At the end of the day, he's still the guy who needs to go for the knockout, while Hillary benefits from clinching and hiding on the ropes until the final round is over."