If you want to use a boxing metaphor, then Clinton was definitely knocked down in the first round when she was confronted with her flip-flop on using nukes.  Her inane attempt to say the situations were different may make her seem sophisticated, but the video doesn't lie.  While it is true that there were some flurries against Obama, no clean shots landed and he never got cornered so, on balance, he came out on top and won on points, as they say.

By the way, I also wish someone would call attention to the fact that the entire process of the campaign for president is a hypothetical exercise, i.e. what will your presidency look like?  How will you do the job if elected?  The voters deserve to know what policies the president wants implemented so Clinton and Edwards are just ridiculous for trying to say hypotheticals should be off the table.

Chuck if you read these posts at all MSNBC opinion journalists, such as yourself, need to cover the democratic debates more objectively. The network has shown a heavy tilt towards Hillary and has seemed to be lazy when it comes elaborating on candidates issues. The media in general is looking for a "fight" rather than valid substance. I know politics have changed ever since the GOP decided to attack a person's character during the Clinton era but that doesn't mean the media cannot reverse that trend.

BIDEN, BIDEN, BIDEN, BIDEN!!!!!  He is clearly the most presidential, the most knowledgable on foreign relations, he has a workable plan for beginning health care coverage for all, he is not an elitist, he is just a regular guy who is not pretentious.
THIS IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST!  IT IS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.  Barak Obama may be the nicest guy in the world; he may be funny; he may have the quickest wit; he may be just the greatest guy; BUT HE DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO RUN THIS COUNTRY; at least not yet.  If he gets the nomination, the Democrats will lose.  George Bush may be a nice, great, funny, guy, husband, and father.  I think one of the questions going around during his elections was, "Who would you rather go out and have a beer with?  Al Gore?  John Kerry? or W?  Well, maybe W would be the most comfortable down at the local watering hole, BUT HE CERTAINLY HAS NOT BEEN ANYWHERE CLOSE TO AN ADEQUATE PRESIDENT.  I am not putting Obama and Bush in the same apple cart; but I am trying to get across that you shouldn't base your choice of who to put in the White House, who will send our children into war, who will have the greatest credibility with foreign leaders, on the answers to the following questions: "who do I like the best? who is the nicest, the funniest, who scored a hit on the other candidates in the last debate," etc. . . .    Sit down and think about all of the different things that a president of the US has to do, be familiar with, know how to handle; and then honestly ask yourself if Obama, a first time Senator with less than six years of experience in the national arena, is equipped for the job.  
In regard to Sen. Clinton:  I think she is a brilliant, extremely capable, tough but diplomatic, person; I think she is equipped with what is necessary to be president; BUT SHE CAN'T WIN EITHER!  If Clinton gets the nomination, then that will incite every Bill and/or Hilary Clinton hater to get thier butts to the polls and vote against her.  Plus you will have the Republican faithful who will be at the polls already.  More people will come out to vote against her than will come for her.   And the Dems that aren't comfortable with her, won't come to the polls to vote for her either.  Again, if Clinton gets the nomination, the Democrats will lose!
Let's be realistic about a few of the other candidates:  Gravel and Kucinich aren't going to get the nod.  I appreciate hearing their views; I think that each has something to offer, but they aren't electable.  That leaves Edwards, Richardson, and Biden.  I like Edwards, but he gives off the perception of being a relatively weak, pretty boy. Richardson fumbles his ideas and his speeches; his ideas aren't unique or original; but I think he is an honorable man; but he is not presidential.  
BIDEN IS PRESIDENTIAL; BIDEN IS ELECTABLE; BIDEN HAS CREDIBILITY WITH WORLD LEADERS; BIDEN CAN CROSS THE AISLE AND WORK WITH REPUBLICANS TO CRAFT LEGISLATION AND GET IT PASSED; BIDEN HAS EXTENSIVE, DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THE GLOBAL THEATRE AND THE UNITED STATES's PLACE IN IT; HE HAS WORKED IN PUBLIC SERVICE OR FOR THE DISADVANTAGED ALL OF HIS LIFE; HE DOESN'T BULLSH#%!  HE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS WHETHER YOU WANT TO HEAR IT OR NOT.
Come on, America.  If you want a Democrat who can beat whoever wins the Republican nomination, that person is Sen. Joe Biden.  Please consider voting for him.  Your vote won't be wasted.

Wow...In all due respect, I expect this sort of biased reporting from Fox News.  But don't take my word for it read the comments from your audience.

President Obama....I like the way that sounds. GO OBAMA!!!!!!! You have my vote.

If Hillary had slept through the entire debate you would have said she won.

Hillary has been caught on tape contradicting herself two times that I know of:  1) on diplomacy, and 2) on the use of nukes.  What does the media have to say about that?  Not much.

Hillary is the first democratic presidential candidate ever to endorse lobbyists.  What does the media have to say about that?  Not much.

Hillary is the first democratic presidential candidate to be under a felony cloud in the Peter Paul v. Clinton lawsuit regarding election fraud.  What does the media have to say about that?  Not much.

Hillary recently paid off $90,000 in debt for Gov. Vilsack after he endorsed her.  What does the media say about that?  Not much.

I could go on but what's the point.  The media knows only two words: Hillary won.

I agree with the clear message by almost everyone who posted here - Obama is the best choice, not just relative to the others, but indeed a visionary, one who is insightful and speaks with a veracity that I find refreshing and restorative. Finally, here is a would-be president that we can be proud of again, who will represent America well! On the domestic front, his desire to unite the country, not as consituents seen on one side of the political aisle over another, but as Americans who all need a better healthcare plan, a more efficient energy plan that will benefit future generations of our planet, an educational plan that seeks to not speak for Teachers, but to speak with Teachers in crafting a system that will deliver better outcomes for our children - every policy and platform item he addresses is well-thought through, and at the same time, he has shown that when someone misrepresents him, he is not afraid to defend himself if it is untrue - if that is not presidential then what is. I, too, like most others here, am disappointed with the media for constantly hailing Hillary as the relentless winner - i am confounded as to how you reach that conclusion, but again, like what has been said by others here, the ONLY that matters will be our votes starting Feb 5th, 2008 - not your assessments nor focus groups nor polls. In the end, only votes matter! Go Obama! You've got my vote 110%.

Biden/Obama 08
Today, Tomorrow, Together

It's amazing to me how many of the voters for Obama have not seen past his male chauvinistic attitude (which really was best seen on David Letterman when asked if he would be 2nd to Clinton). He was emphatic in his declaration that he would never run second to a woman. To me, that's not very presidential at all. In fact, it might as well set us back to the times when women could not vote! Shame on him and others who are following this belief. Being a minority, making those type fo statements; shame, shame, shame!

Adrian, Dallas, TX

Your statement makes as much sense as using the race card.  You are using the sexist card.  

Hey msh:

Barack says alot but what has he done?  Seriously, being charming and persuasive is great but with NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE AT ALL it is hard to consider him for president.

NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE ... ZERO ... NONE.

I doubt world leaders will be so smitten they will simply give him what he wants.  However, I am not sure they will work with him because he speaks "with a veracity"  that some describe as "refreshing and restorative."  

Don't get me wrong, I dig Barack.  I would dig him much more as Biden's VP and then as President.  He just isn't ready.    

Your arguments don't hold water.  If anything, this debate format makes it difficult to respond with any kind of definition, and Hilary was allowed to go on longer than most of the other candidates and actually more questions were directed towards her.  Obama was succinct and too the point and making it current by referencing other's remarks.  As bright as he is, he doesn't need to do that for facts, they are in a catalogue in his head pretty much.  Hilary looked tired and was only warm and inviting in her opening remark, the rest of the time she was a modified pitbull.

Chuck, I've been reading your article for quite some time now and I know that you are aware of what's going on in this country. Don't sell out your journalistic integrity. You have a following you don't need to.

Obama 08!

Mr. Todd,
I have followed your career on CSpan and now on MSNBC and usually find your commentary to borderline correct. Today,however, I am amazed that you could "miss" the mark so thoroughly regarding the Iowa Debate winner. Frankly, you might consult Time mag and the Luntz Focus Group for some guidance. I am clear that Hill did not even come close to winning this one nor the others. Sen Obama is a stunning, once-in-a-lifetime occurence and you are missing the boat. It would help your career to be one of the few prognostigators who actually "got" the Sen. Obama campaign. In the meantime,give it a rest.

It is very sad Todd that you have chosen to be one of Queen Hillary lap dog. You are suppose to be FAIR AND BALANCED. Mr. Obama won the debate and EVERYONE KNOWS THAT....
Jerry

Daniel from Arizona is hilarious! Being critical of Todd for stating obvious facts about the debate is something only a fantatic would do. Obama has been in the United States senate for TWO years! Just because he was right about the Iraq war- that means he's the best candidate? His entire campaign has revolved around that theme, yet his inexperience doesn't equate to any winners of past Presidential campaigns! Hoover was Secretary of Commerce- then got the nomination- that is about a close as you can come to lack of experience compaing him to Obama. Obama has been US a senator for two years and running on charisma-he won't win the nomination.

Todd and Chuck you must be missing the LOVE! Wow the Obama people are on high critical alert! I bet if you do a Clinton low poll or smash and bash they will all love you guys so much.
I say you are doing your usual great job.
I imagine it is only a case of shooting the messengers.

Would someone tell me something OBAMA has done.  Point to anything concrete.  Any legislation, any program, anything at all.  Don't tell me what he says, show me what he has done.  I mean that sincerely - show me something concrete that he has accomplished so that I can understand his experience.  With NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER he will really need to have extensive experience in other arenas of governance.  So, by all means, enlighten me as to his many accomplishments.

Note:  OBAMA was against the war, yes, but he did not have to cast a vote.  When he did have to cast a vote on war funding he played a little delay game with CLINTON so as to be able to vote NO after it was already decided.  That way he got credit for voting against funding without funding being affected.  

Jim I tend to dis agree. Clintons war vote is over. Obama sounds like a little kid saying she done this. If he is going to run for President he needs to stop saying she did. and start focusing on what he has done and will do. I havn't made up my mined on canadates yet Rep. or Dem., but I know Obama needs to come off with more then I will change America. Show me some Illinios Change. He has come up short. Ill. people are not out there for him. If he doesn't do it at home then how can he do it as president. One does  not receive a magic wand like he seems to think. As for senate votes. He has voted exactly like Clinton except for one missed vote. and he voted in support of one of Bush's war Generals. as Clinton voted against. Obama showing Bush support for his war. Common Jim. This boy is not ready.

Debate co-host David Yepsen wrote a column this morning in the Des Moines Register saying that Hillary did nothing to address her electability problem and did not do well.  He pretty much gave the debate to Obama.  I live in Iowa and know only two people who are supporting Hillary.  If she's nominated, the Democrats will lose.  Obama gets stronger with each debate.

First, full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter.

Secondly...I am incredulous that Chuck Todd, who usually seems to be fair in his political analyses, claims Hillary came out the winner in the debate. I mean...I'm dumbfounded. Chuck, whatever happened to you? I enjoyed you when you covered politics for The Hotline and when you appeared on CSPAN almost every morning....but since you joined NBC, you just fell off....so sad.

Jimmy and Elizabeth Sullivan:

Stop being lazy. If you want to know what Barack Obama accomplished as a state senator in Illinois, or his accomplishments as a US Senator, just visit his website (www.barackobama.com), or just do a wikipedia search on his political career (go to wikipedia.com and in the "search" box type in "Barack Obama career"). See...I've made it easy for you. I hope you check it out and get the answers you seek.

Now...this is for Elizabeth: You just shouted to (more like AT)us that Obama has zero foreign policy experience (which is false because for over 2 years he has sat on the Foreign Relations Committee chaired by Joe Biden), but can you tell us what foreign policy experience Hillary Clinton has?
My study of her short political career of 6 years shows nothing in terms of foreign policy experience, so maybe you know something we do not, so please enlighten us all.

Lastly, to those persons who say Obama has no experience: All the most experience democratic candidates on the stage yesterdayt voted FOR the war, so spare me the bullsh*t about experience.
Let me also just point out the FACT that Obama has been an elected official longer than Hillary Clinton has been, so who exactly is more experienced?

In response to Jimmy:

We who watch all these debates and speeches have heard Obama say this a lot.  But most people aren't us.  If he thinks her support for the war is a point he needs to bring up, he will have to continue making the point because in a debate or something this fall, a large percentage of the viewers will not have heard him say it.

The point though is not just who voted which way, or didn't vote.  It's which candidate thought what about the war.

The message by the final weeks before the primary will be along the lines of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

The core issue is trust.  Who can you trust, who is more trustworthy.

Juanito. Can you not respond without name calling. Your right your an Osama supporter. I have looked up Obama,s vote where do you think I got it that it was exactly like Clintons, except for is war general vote with Bush and tha vote he missed. As for going to his site Why would I do that. I think he is not talking facts so why would I believe his web site. As for being lazy I don't think you know me to make that assumption. have you lokked at my web site? New Yorkers are standing behind Clinton so are people from Arkansas. In  fact that state has turned fromres to blue. Along with upper New York where Clinton won among Dems, Rep. and Independents. The thought is I along with alot of other Americans 73% agreed with the Senate vote That Barrack keeps convienuantly refering to. Brack is to inexperiencd. And his state isn't there for him. Thats all I need Not to Support the BOY. By the way I am a college graduate who is now supporting Senator Clinton.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):