redblueamerica.com

This is where Ben and I will be blogging the debate. I'm already watching online at CNN.com. I love the Internet.

Please add your comments below. Let's have a conversation.

Ben 9:07 p.m.: Too bad Obama didn't have the last word. But it's over. So, what did everyone think?

Joel 9:06 p.m.: I don't know that I can call a winner. Each candidate had a moment or two, but I thought that Obama actually came up the worst for it.

Ben 9:05 p.m.: "I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us." Score another one for Obama. I think he wins the night. As a debater, the guy is heads and tails above Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. But it should go without saying that his policy prescriptions would be a disaster.

Joel 9:03 p.m.: Obama: "I don't believe Dr. King would endorse any of us. What he would do is urge people to hold us accountable." Brilliant, brilliant answer.

Ben 9:03 p.m.: Yes, Giuliani. Really.

Ben 9:02 p.m.: Last question. So stupid, I want to cry.

WWMLKE? Who would Martin Luther King endorse? What a waste.

Joel 9:01 p.m.: Really? Giuliani? He's good at talking tough, but he seems pretty shallow on the issue.

Ben 9:01 p.m.: I look forward to the debate between McCain, Romney or Giuliani and Obama. I think any one of those guys would crush him on national security.

Ben 8:58 p.m.: Public financing and getting money out of politics is not a winning issue and it's not good for the country. Sorry, it just isn't.

Ben 8:56 p.m.: First, let's kill all the lobbyists!

Joel 8:55 p.m.: Does Edwards really think that campaign finance reform is central to McCain's appeal?

Ben 8:55 p.m.: Sen. Clinton is right that the election is likely to be about national security, but I don't think it matters whom the GOP nominates.

"They've been after me for 16 years." Ah, the old embattled Clintonian manner.

Ben 8:54 p.m.: Another good line from Obama... reaching out to Christians, talking to churchfolk. Could Obama revive and invogorate the religious left?

Ben 8:52 p.m.: Home stretch. Hey... did we miss a question?

Ben 8:49 p.m.: Edwards singles out McCain! The strategists' heads are swimming!

Joel 8:46 p.m.: McCain is the frontrunner on the GOP side? If he's right, that makes the electability issue much more central to the Democratic campaign -- because no matter how much movement conservatives hate McCain (and they do) -- he will make the most formidable general election candidate for the GOP.

Ben 8:46 p.m.: No, politics is not a game. It's war by other means. And the Clintons are some of the fiercest warriors in American politics today.

Joel 8:44 p.m.: Obama talks about "redrawing the map." Hillary talks about facing down the Republicans. I think his vision is more appealing, but hers may be more realistic.

Joel 8:41 p.m.: Apparently this is the "dumb question" section of the debate. If Hillary had been asked about Bill's influence in her administration, then maybe that's fair game. Instead, she's asked about his campaigning style. Pfffft.

Still: As Ben said, a much better debate than MSNBC's.

Take that, Russert!

Ben 8:40 p.m.: How do we pursue racial justice? "The pursuit of racial equality, the perfection of this union, is not just a particular special interest issue of the African-American community. That is how all of us are going to move forward." Line of the night?

Ben 8:37 p.m.: I liked it better when they were fighting. "I would be upset if there was too much civility in this debate," Obama says. Ditto.

Joel 8:35 p.m.: That was a nice line from Obama. And the second half of this debate is very chill and very gracious -- maybe too much so.

Ben 8:33 p.m.: Obama is answering a stupid question seriously.

The correct answer to the question, "Was Bill Clinton our first black president" is NO.

Joel 8:32 p.m.: Agreed. But let's be clear. It's a stupid question,period, that's about race.

Ben 8:31 p.m.: Oh, no. I thought we were going to avoid the stupid racial questions.

Ben 8:31 p.m.: John Edwards' statistics need scrutiny.

Joel 8:24 p.m.: Oh yeah. We're supposed to be watching the debate, not debating each other.

Ben 8:24 p.m.: This is so much better than the MSNBC debate. This could have been a shameless panderfest. As it happens, it's only been a garden-variety pander fest. With in-fighting! I'm enjoying it on many different levels.

Joel 8:22 p.m.: No, but I do think the original point still stands: We're spending a lot of money -- mostly borrowed -- on the war. It's going to lessen the burden on the wallet if it ends. Should that be the determining factor? No, but it is a determining factor: All the more so because Iraq was a war of choice.

Ben 8:21 p.m.: Well, the point is, there isn't going to be a pothole-repair dividend from precipitously withdrawing from Iraq.

Joel 8:17 p.m.: I'm not going to defend the street signs. I'm just saying that some of that money DOES trickle down to the local level.

Ben 8:16 p.m.: I'm sure paying for street signs with community development grants was most gratifying, since the city probably was looking for any funding it could get its hands on. It's like that everywhere. But how stupid is that? Why not just eliminate the middleman, cut federal income taxes, and let that money stay at the state and local level?

Joel 8:13 p.m.: Time for a scotch break.

Oh: Wolf has acquitted himself much better than Russert and Brian Williams did last week. It's been a little more of a high-wire act for Wolf -- no time limits -- but he's handled it reasonably well, and I have a much better sense of the substance than I did after the first hour of the MSNBC debate.

Ben 8:12 p.m.: No rules? Oh, what fun!

Joel 8:11 p.m.: That's strictly true, Ben, but not in a broad sense. The feds give money to the states, and states turn around and make some of that money available for this kind of stuff. We've got street signs in Lawrence that were paid, in part, by CDBG grants. That's kind of infrastructure.

Ben 8:10 p.m.: The federal government does not build local roads, schools, or hospitals. Saying the money spent on the war would be money spent on local infrastructure is a fallacy.

Joel 8:08 p.m.: What's losing, exactly? If it's simply "bringing the troops home," then sure, I guess. But I don't think anybody really knows what would happen in Iraq following a U.S. pullout. Let's define "victory" and "success" in real terms, then we can discuss what, exactly, is the nature of "losing."

Ben 8:07 p.m.: Is Hillary looking to end this war or to win it? By pledging to withdraw within 60 days of taking office, she's looking to end it... and thus lose it.

But she is right that the prospects of a change in policy in the United States is a powerful motivator to the Iraqi government.

Joel 8:04 p.m.: Hillary: "There is no military solution" in Iraq. That's exactly what Gen. Petraeus says.

Joel 8:03 p.m.: Obama: Please stop complaining about how you're characterized. Take your stand. Explain why the other person is wrong. Hey: Explain why the other person is wrong about your stand. But stop complaining about it.

Joel 8:02 p.m.: That is a fight worth having. You and I can have it later.

Ben 8:02 p.m.: Universal health care is a core Democratic principle worth fighting for? Good. That's a fight well worth having!

Ben 8:00 p.m.: It is an axiom older than Milton Friedman. When government subsidizes, prices go up. And, please, do not forget that HMOs were the government's solution to the health care crisis 35 years ago.

Joel 7:58 p.m.: Health care is a weak issue for Obama, I think. I think most Democratic voters want some kind of universal health care plan; and when Obama says it's right that some people could game the system under his plan -- well, he's right! You end up with sick people paying for sick people and dragging the whole system into the ground.

Joel 7:55 p.m.: I don't think anybody is going to try and run on a platform of giving healthcare to illegal immigrants. I won't argue for it. But I think Edwards is right to talk about creating a public health safety net -- unless you deport all 12 million illegal immigrants, you have to deal with the fact that they're here.

Ben 7:54 p.m.: As tax increases were to "investing in the country," strong-arming the drug companies is to "bargaining" with them.

Or is it the other way around?

Joel 7:52 p.m.: Debates aren't Obama's best forum. He's better with a written speech. Make of that what you will.

Ben 7:51 p.m.: Obama might not be the frontrunner in the polls, but his opponents sure think he is. And Obama is defending himself as well as he can. But his explanations are strained. Of course he's made political calculations on his votes. What politician has not?

Joel 7:48 p.m.: And here's why it is hard for somebody to get elected president from a legislative branch. Obama's right: 4,000 votes and only 100-some-odd times voted "present." But it's easy to paint a candidate in a bad light because of all those votes, regardless of what a candidate has actually worked for. Thus the "I voted against it before I voted against it" syndrome.

Ben 7:47 p.m.: Jim writes: Oh, and Edwards takes Hillary's side. Perhaps he's looking for another veep slot after all. Funny. And, given Edwards' position in the polls, quite possibly true.

Ben 7:45 p.m.: Listening to Hillary Clinton, I believe she's read Ken Silverstein.

Joel 7:45 p.m.: Obama is trying to rely a little bit too much on style. Hillary seems to have a greater grasp of the substance, and seems more willing to fight on that ground. Obama is looking a little more like the weak Democratic candidates of yore -- people who complained about the attacks rather than fought them well on substantive grounds. He's losing ground here, I think.

Ben 7:40 p.m.: No, an interest rate freeze is not merited. Wage and price controls don't work. Why would anyone think that artificially propping up borrowers would be any different?

Joel 7:39 p.m.: But Hillary makes a good point: The banks can go get money, while the people on bottom are stuck with the problems. I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I think letting the market work itself out might do too much harm to too much people.

Ben 7:37 p.m.: From predatory mortgage lenders to predatory payday lenders. We have a lot of predators in this country. Maybe we should track them all with GPS devices, like we do with sex offenders.

Greenspan is right.

Ben 7:34 p.m.: I gotta say, this is a much better debate. More substantive and more spirited.

Ben 7:32 p.m.: "I didn't say they were good ones." And here I thought Obama wanted to unite the country.

Uh oh, Hillary just unloaded slumlord charge.

John Edwards looks like a statesman after all this. (No, not really.)

Joel 7:31 p.m.: Edwards: "This is not about us personally." Wow. He's right. If people are watching this debate, his speech just then should relaunch him into their consideration; it's not too late.

Ben 7:30 p.m.: Now, this is interesting. Obama is clarifying his position on Reagan, taking the Thomas Frank line. And he can play the class-warfare game as well as anyone. Wow, what a scrum!

Joel 7:28 p.m.: Edwards: "There is a third person in this debate." The original question was about the economy. Now it's about who loves Reagan the most. To his credit: Wolf is trying to keep it on economy, but they want to talk about side issues. This ISN'T about who will be a good president.

Ben 7:26 p.m.: There is a specter haunting the Democrats. It is the specter of Ronald Reagan. And the long shadow of the Reagan boom.

Ben 7:25 p.m.: Go, Obama, go! Senator Clinton and President Clinton are the same people? Brilliant. And then after all that, "This isn't the kind of campaign people want." I love it.

Joel 7:23 p.m.: Obama asked: How're you going to pay for this? His answer -- I will, but gosh, Bill Clinton's mean. Now that may be true, but nobody wants to hear a presidential candidate whining about it.

"The viewers aren't concerned about this kind of back-and-forth," Obama says. But he just spent his time on it.

Ben 7:19 p.m.: The free-trade bashing is easy, but it's a mistake. These guys need to read Don Boudreaux.

Joel 7:17 p.m.: Obama beats Edwards to the mill worker reference. Poor guy can't catch a break.

Wolf talks about the stock markets falling tomorrow. I know the markets are deeply intertwined with the economy, but they aren't the economy.

Ben 7:16 p.m.: I'm glad they started with the economy. First question, how would you bribe the American people? Hillary Clinton opens the bidding low with a $110 billion package, and promises to undercut what's left of the mortgage industry with a freeze on foreclosures and interest rates. Also: the feds will pay your heating bill!

Note, too, the criticism of the Bush stimulus. No tax rebates for people who don't pay taxes? Unfair.

Sen. Obama raises and lowers the bidding by a vague and undisclosed figure, but promises to fund it by ending the war in Iraq. Is $650 a good number? No, $500 for starters, plus other goodies. I'm not sure what Obama wants to do, actually.

Sen. Edwards beats around the Bush, so to speak. Sounds like he's calling for a Green New Deal, but no tax rebates. He also ties free trade to the question. Edwards is at least half-right that a short-term stimulus probably won't work. But he's going whole hog with government spending to bolster the economy. Very old school.

Joel 7:15 p.m.: Edwards says he's got a difference between his economic plan and others: Green jobs. But didn't Hillary just say she's on board with that? What's the difference.

Joel 7:14 p.m.: We are now in a contest to see who can fight to get rebates to the most folks the fastest. At least these candidates are talking about targeting it to people who need it. Edwards isn't on the rebate train, though.

Joel 7:08 p.m.: Wolf: "Tonight's debate, I want to remind everybody is about the issues ... We want to find out what kind of president this person would be." Take that Russert!

And then Joe Johns starts off with the economy! Substance! Take that, Russert!

Ben 7:07 p.m.: Religion tinged with race? How about the economy? We need to hear some of that old-time populism from John Edwards!

Ben 7:05 p.m.: I hope this photo opp doesn't cut into the question time.

Joel 7:05 p.m.: Sounds like it might be a debate about religion, at least according to Joe Johns.

Ben 7:03 p.m.: This isn't going to be another debate about race is it? Sounds like it is. Thanks, Wolf. Just what the country needs on a holiday honoring a man who extolled Americans to judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. But who knows? Maybe I shouldn't get ahead of myself.

Joel 7 p.m.: And it begins.

Joel 6:54 p.m.: Wolf Blitzer: "We're going to ask some good, serious, substantive questions." A dig at MSNBC's frivolousness, perhaps? Or maybe I just really hated Tim Russert's moderation so much that it colors my entire world.

Joel 6:52 p.m.: I'm not going to lie: I've already cracked open the scotch. It's a debate tradition.

Joel 6:45 p.m.: CNN guy says debate is broken into two halves: First half will be behind the lecterns; the second half will be seated -- and there will be no rules. No time limits, nothing.

The first rule of debate club is: Don't talk about debate club.