Let's face it, unless a candidate has a really major blunder, debates don't mean much.

[Drunken Irishman]

Kerry creamed Bush in all 3 debates in '04 and still lost the election. Huckabee is probably the best debater of the three major Republican candidates, with McCain being the worse, and he's not going to come close to winning the nomination. However, McCain, a bad debater who stumbles a lot and isn't very articulate in these debates, looks well on his way to the Republican nomination.

When a candidate suffers a major blunder, like Poppy Bush did while glancing at his watch in 1992, things can change. But generally, most debates are so calculated that there really isn't a defining moment where the press pounces on a candidate. So I ask you all, was there a moment in this debate that the media will continually discuss over the next two days? I'm not so sure, but the closest I can see is Hillary's statement on Iraq. No one knows RIGHT NOW if this will become a major issue in the next 24 to 48 hours, but I do believe it has the legs to become at least somewhat of an issue. Do I think it will be the downfall of Clinton's campaign? No, but it could be perceived as a blunder and in a debate where there were little flaws, the media may just focus in on that. If they do, fairly or not, Clinton lost. If they don't, it was a draw and Obama's momentum isn't halted and Clinton's lead is still there. Or basically, nothing changes from where we were 24 hours ago.

[DJ13]

1. Normally I would agree (I dont like the formats used nowadays)

But when one of the two candidates touts "35 years experience" over her opponent and he matches her performance in a debate, that shows there really WAS a winner this time.