Snarbagel

I thought the questions were good ones and gave each candidate a chance to speak directly to their negatives--Senator Clinton about honesty and Senator Obama about "cling." Each had more than sound bite time to speak to it as they saw fit before this crucial primary. The rule of no audience clapping helped the debate to stay serious, and not feel like entertainment.

The story of your mayor in the Post was fascinating. But comparing him to Brittney was low.

There are substantial differences between Clinton and Obama on a policy level, it's just hard to get those differences to be a topic of discussion. Biggest difference is foreign policy. We need deeper media analysis on their approaches. The debate format is too clipped for voters to see the difference.

Chris, your thoughts on how the Wright news effects Pennsylvania voters?

To poropatichb Does the sentiment in your post reflect the politics of unity that Obama describes? Or is his unity message not something that resonates with you?

"But somehow, Florida and Michigan are dominating the political discussion anyway. Doesn't seem fair, does it?" It does seem fair to me. I'm not from either state, but disenfranchising those states wasn't the right solution when the rule was made and that's why we are where we are now. Regardless, I'm focused on what's happening in Pennsylvania!

"I guess this is the inevitable result of being in a state whose primary actually matters." Good comments about the process, but now it's your state's turn to have a say. HRC has campaigned all over, but your state tugs at her in ways different than most others. Maybe that will have an impact on communication there. The whole world watches.