Well, I thought somebody else would have started one on the debate by now. But it seems worthwhile to compare notes.

I was impressed by how close they really are in most issues. There were however enough differences to make the choice clear.

Clinton had a golden opportunity to finally admit she was wrong to authorize Bush to use force in invading Iraq, as Edwards has done long ago. Had she done so, it would have brought the house down--and probably won quite a few votes.

But obviously she makes no mistakes--certainly can't bring herself to admit any. We've had that for 7 years already. It doesn't really work out--and it says something about the person which doesn't speak well, to say the least, as we've seen with Mr. Bush.

As I recall she took Obama to task for being willing to negotiate with any regime without preconditions in the first year of the new administration. But later, it certainly sounded like she contradicted herself when she urgently advocated negotiations with Iran as part of aiding the Iraq situation. Evidently it's not necessary to help the Iraq situation in the first year--it's not all that urgent.

She also refused to set a timetable for withdrawal. Obama said all combat troops out within 18 months.

So it seems clear which of the two somebody who's strongly against the war in Iraq would want.

Reading between the lines, it seems evident she's paranoid at the possibility of being thought weak. Sounds like she'd be likely to overreact militarily. We don't really need that.

She also definitely came out against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Obama pointed out that makes no sense from a public safety perspective. It is absurd to think illegal immigrants will not drive. It would actually be nice if they were encouraged--strongly--to get insurance.

Any other perspectives from anybody who saw the debate?