I’d like to start off by saying that the moderators did a fantastic job.  They asked serious, pointed questions and did not allow either of the candidates to get around them by having some great follow ups. 

In fact, you can tell how good of a job they’ve done on being neutral and yet incisive by the way the Kos Kids are reacting:

When a corporate behemoth like Disney decides it can control its News Division to filter, select and distort what the American population will or will not see in order to make decisions about its leaders, whatever murky motivations may underly that decision, there is a fundamental imbalance that needs to be addressed if this country is to remain a Democracy. What we saw tonight was neither Democratic nor Republican--it was corporate and it was disgusting--disgusting beyond my capacity to imagine just a few short years ago.

So let our response begin here, tonight.

Here’s a tough question, if you’re Barack Obama:





Another thing worth mentioning is Hillary’s performance, which was by far her best to date.  This matches up quite well, as I see this as Obama’s worst.  John Podhoretz at Contentions agrees. 

Clinton good. Frighteningly good. Obama bad. Very bad. Any audacious hoper who presumes Obama will unquestionably best McCain in debate should watch this one and worry.

Where was Hillary frighteningly good?

Here:





And here:





Some thoughts I’d like to leave off with:

1 - Obama mentions near the end of the debate that he believes economic progress comes from the bottom up.  Really?  Well that’s interesting, because if that thought process applies, why doesn’t the political progress in Iraq (which has been phenomenal from the ground up) mean anything? 

2 - How can he try and play off that he didn’t sign this memo? 

3 - I’ve had just about enough of this populist nonsense that declares tax breaks for the rich to be such a travesty.  Read this and try and convince me why we shouldn’t give the rich the biggest tax breaks. 

Using recent data, in other words, it would appear on its face that the Democratic proposal to raise taxes on the upper-income earners, and lower taxes on the middle- and lower- income earners, will result in huge revenue losses on both accounts. But some academic advisers to Democratic candidates have a hard time understanding the obvious, devising outlandish theories as to why things are different now. Well they aren’t!

In the 1920s, the highest federal marginal income tax rate fell to 24% from 78%. Those people who earned over $100,000 had their share of total taxes paid rise—from 29.9% in 1920 to 48.8% in 1925, and then to 62.2% in 1929. There was no inflation over this period.

With the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, when the highest tax rate fell from to 70% from 91%, the story was the same. When you cut the highest tax rates on the highest-income earners, government gets more money from them, and when you cut tax rates on the middle and lower income earners, the government gets less money from them.

I’m still a little confused as to how Obama supporters firmly believe he’s a better match up against McCain.  But, then again, they’ve drank the Hope Kool Aid…