Senator Clinton cleverly implied what would have been blatant lies if she had come out and said them ... that raising the FICA payroll tax is a tax increase on the middle class and retirees.

And indeed, the second would not only be a lie, but an absurd lie.

And got away with it safe in the knowledge that there were partisans in the crowd ready to disrupt Senator Obama if he called her on it.

And the critical part of that is that she stood firm and resolute, when the deck was stacked in her favor.

And not her response to a couple of weeks when she was catching flack for double-talk and staging false spontaneous questions ... that she decided to dance with what brung her this far.

I'm glad Obama called Clinton out on the "tax raise" issue, though I certainly wish Obama had pushed the point further after Clinton's rebuttal.
But, alas, the format and time restrictions didn't really allow for it.

Clinton's mendacity on payroll tax adjustment becomes even more alarming when she's suggesting another "bi-partisan" social security reform commission in the Greenspan-Reagan mould.

Personally, I think that the Greenspan Commission pushed through a raw deal for all but the wealthiest Americans, allowing the Reagan Admin. to continue its policy of lowering taxes on the rich and raising them on middle- and low-income Americans.

My interpretation of that confrontation was entirely different.

Obama scored one of few solid hits of the night noting that "6% of Americans make more than 96K / yr, that's not middle class, that's upper class."

I thought HRC looked preposterous up there defending tax breaks for the "middle class." Obama, rightly, pointed out that the whole thing reeked of her Goldwater days.

"I barely heard what she said, so mesmerized was I by Clinton's physical attitude, which really was strong; firm stance and hands moving in unison."

This is your analysis of the debate? What happened to holding politicians accountable for their positions, which in this case, as Obama pointed out, is ridiculous?