Hillary was extremely evasive when asked about the records of her communications with Bill while he was president. Why wouldn't she want these records available unless there was something to hide? Maybe everything is just fine but it appears that she's hiding something.

Barack's comments about the secrecy of the current administration, the need for more openess in the future and the need for members of all parties to work together were right on the mark. Given the hatred of the right for Bill Clinton, Hillary will be a polarizing figure if elected and we need the nation to come together.

I am guessing that the main reason she doesn't want the records available is because it would open a torrent of Lewinsky scandle era memos and such. Republicans can't really bring the Lewinsky scandle up legitimately, but if it were out in the open and people were discussing it again, it would certainly be in the Republicans favor.

She said the right thing about the records of her communications with Bill. They are called "Presidential records" for a reason. They are WJC's records,not hers. What to do with them is his decision and he is the one that requested that they not be released until 2012. The moderators last night gave the impression that it was her decision to make, They were wrong.

yeah, I mean its easy for Obama to say. His wife wasn't president, and certainly doesn't have the reputation Bill does. To be honest, I'm not even sure what exactly would even be in those records, so it could be completely irrelevant to her. I definitely could be wrong about that though

He nailed nothing. He mostly put me to sleep.

Say what you want about Sen. Clinton, she's had 20+ years of working the ropes and public speaking, often under great duress. By comparison, Sen. Obama is used to people deferring to his vision, passion, and narrative, and letting these things count for content and the ability to articulate an idea to voters.

I am NOT saying Sen. Obama is not articulate. He can be. But he needs to learn to run for office, and not hold forth like a high school student. This means knowing the answer to a question before it's asked. This means having full command of the details and histories of legislation and issues.

Sen. Clinton can do this while fending off attacks and, for all I know, filing her nails, reading a magazine, and talking on the phone to Chelsea. She's an awesome campaigner and performer.

Last night, Sen. Obama reminded me of no one so much as George W. Bush. The deer in the headlights look. The rambling, stumbling answers. The retreat to feeling and talk about change whenever he didn't know what else to say. The dependence on others, e.g., John Edwards, to do his work for him.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more like George W. Bush Sen. Obama is: the sense of entitlement. The sense of self-righteousness. The incredulity that he may have to work for something, get his hands dirty, prove to us he's worth the job.

If I were an Obama supporter, I'd be very depressed right now. We know what Sen. Clinton's problems are. They're old news, and they're not going to stop her now. Sen. Obama was merely pointing out the obvious last night. But every time he appears on a stage with her, he looks teeny by comparison.

(And what's with his scary hands? Can't he afford a jacket whose sleeves go past his wrists? Every time he moves his arms, he looks like Frankenstein.)

Richmond:

Last night, Sen. Obama reminded me of no one so much as George W. Bush. The deer in the headlights look. The rambling, stumbling answers. The retreat to feeling and talk about change whenever he didn't know what else to say. The dependence on others, e.g., John Edwards, to do his work for him.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more like George W. Bush Sen. Obama is: the sense of entitlement. The sense of self-righteousness. The incredulity that he may have to work for something, get his hands dirty, prove to us he's worth the job.

If I were an Obama supporter, I'd be very depressed right now. We know what Sen. Clinton's problems are. They're old news, and they're not going to stop her now. Sen. Obama was merely pointing out the obvious last night. But every time he appears on a stage with her, he looks teeny by comparison.

(And what's with his scary hands? Can't he afford a jacket whose sleeves go past his wrists? Every time he moves his arms, he looks like Frankenstein.)

It is Hillary, not Obama, who seems to feel that she has a "sense of entitlement." She seems to think that she deserves the nomination and that the other candidates are mere annoyances that should step out of the way. She is running as if she already has the nomination. She does have a commanding lead right now but remember Howard Dean in '04? We haven't even had one real primary yet.

I'll grant you that Hillary is very smart and is an excellent politician in that she can talk and talk around an issue without really ansering the question. I prefer a candidate I can trust and I don't trust her.

I am that depressed Obama supporter. Actually, I wouldn't call myself an Obama supporter after last night. Dammit, you're right, he is getting a GWB attitude.

As for Hillary's entitlement, yes, she is acting as if she already has the nomination. But that's not really "bad" entitlement caused by her own megalomiania... its actual entitlement, thanks to her poll numbers and the fact that she can say she's good at what she does.

As I wrote elsewhere, trust in politicians is not like trusting your neighbors. Regarding the Clinton Archives comment (which was a huge verbal slip-up for her), you're right, she does have something to hide. But I for one don't think its something we need to know about. Why? Because we would already be marginally aware of it, if it were something that could be bad enough for me to care about.

Take for example this administration. They're not going to release their archives, probably ever. But they're freakin' extraditing and torturing people, overpoliticizing each branch of government, and have gone to war for dubious reasons. Yeah, I haven't read the documents, but I'm marginally aware of all of that. Thats when someone has something relevant to hide. I don't want to hear any more about Lewinsky or whitewater. They have nothing to do with Hillary's ability to run the country.

I don't want to hear any more about the Lewinsky scandal or Whitewater either but sealed documents do give at least the appearance of having something to hide. I just feel that Hillary is just too much of a politician by which I mean she is so careful to couch her language to not offend that it's hard to know what (if anything) she truly believes in. Finally if she does win will have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the white house since the late '80s. Wouldn't it be better to get soeone different?

I thought Obama's point that Hillary is running on her experience made the point about the records. They might demonstrate what her actual experience is since it is largely premised on her advice and consultation during Bill's terms in the White House. She was asked if she would ask her husband to release them and refused to answer saying something about the National Archives being slow in responding.

Everyone hold on just a minute. Just think about the question here for a moment. It was an unfair trap, and I honestly don't know why she was asked it.

The moderators posed a question to Clinton, a question that was not a basis for substantive discussion by other candidates (as the licenses-for-illegals question was), but could only have been designed to open her up to criticism. No other candidate (save the irrelevant Kucinich and his UFO's) was asked a question like this, which basically asked, "Candidate, are you going to come clean on this dubious issue?"

My mind is made up - this is a media-created strawman example of being "untrustworthy." The moderators - not the other candidates - cornered her, to the detriment of the real debate they should have been continuing with.

Excellent point jw.

Agreed that the moderators set her up but wasn't it a question that should be asked? If her experience is a qualification, then the nature of that experience becomes important.

JackD:

Agreed that the moderators set her up but wasn't it a question that should be asked? If her experience is a qualification, then the nature of that experience becomes important.

Indeed. If any of the other candidates had been first lady then I'd want to see their records too.

I'm not so sure about it being so "in the Republicans favor" if this was all brought out again. I wouldn't vote for anyone other than Barack Obama but I still have massive respect for the lady for staying with Bill through the whole mess he created. I really doubt people see her as the one at fault for that ordeal, and if anything, besides gaining other people's respect, she likely would get support from those people who root for the underdogs and victims.