All Smiles

"It is a disheartening spectacle, similar in its own way to President Bush's inability to admit his mistakes in Iraq."

Marc Ambinder: "I was tempted to call this encounter a draw but I am mindful that there are no zero sum debates in presidential politics.

"And 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."

Josh Marshall: "Obama in general has not been a good debater. But this was a good one for him. Clinton on the other hand I think helped herself by getting the focus back on her, as opposed to her husband. Not that there's anything wrong with Bill. But this is her election. I guess on points I'd give this to Obama because of the exchanges on Iraq, but it was a very close call."

Obama, having raised a staggering $32 million in January, is outspending Hillary on the Super Tuesday advertising front.

No wonder Obama is feeling good: Gallup has him trailing nationally by only 43-39. (McCain leads Romney, 37-22.) Of course, all that matters for the moment is the district-by-district breakdown in the Super Tuesday states.

Will the lefty blogosphere break for Obama? HuffPost's Bob Cesca says his fellow libs should take a stand:

"It . . . hasn't hurt Senator Clinton's chances that, somewhere along the line, it became de rigueur among some of the top-shelf progressive bloggers to remain neutral.

"I understand exactly why they did, but now that it's a two person race, there's no reason why the progressive blogosphere shouldn't get down to endorsing a candidate. And while the endorsements could easily be for either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, they ought to be, by-in-large, endorsements that are consistent with the blogosphere's past activism against Democrats like Joe Lieberman, party machines like the DLC, and political stunts that reek of the current Bush Republican regime . . .

"Even if we were to strike the war from the syllabus, we'd still be left with a choice between a once-in-a-generation, transformational candidate who's running parallel to our collective desire to remake the party, and, on the other side, a candidate who represents a species of Democrat that we've traditionally rejected. If the blogs choose to step out of the way on this one, they're forfeiting an historic role in the most historic presidential election of our time while the antiquated, embarrassing politics of DLC triangulation sneaks on by without a fight."

I'm sure we're going to hear a lot more about this National Journal ranking that finds Obama the most liberal senator of 2007, with Hillary merely No. 16. Here's RedState:

"He talks about bringing together Rs, Is, and Ds to do what? Enact the same things that Clinton, Edwards, Kennedy and Kerry want to do. I'll believe the unifier rhetoric when he endorses School Choice and abandons the destructive teachers unions grip on educational opportunity or decides that entitlements need original reforms that include ideas like personal retirement accounts. But as long as his idea of unifying the country is socialized medical care, bloated government, growing entitlements, denial of progress in Iraq, an embrace of partial birth abortion and a disdain for working across partisan lines, he's a poser, not a unifier."