I bit my tongue when Obama said he was not politics as usual.  Waited for Kroft to say something, but he didn't.  I guess it would've opened a can of worms and these certainly were not hard-hitting interviews.  Couric tossed some heavier questions to Clinton at the end, but it was mostly soft stuff.  Obama keeps talking about that poll where he "beats" McCain in the ge, but there was a new CNN poll today showing Hillary "beats" McCain.  Doubt that will change the narrative.

I mentioned this on the other thread, but when Clinton started talking about how she mentored Obama when he first got into office, all I could think about was what Teresa said about her male subordinates asking her to make copies.  I am firmly in the Hillary camp, as y'all know, but that one part just made me think, "Jeesh, he stabbed you in the back big time."

I really did not hear anything I had not heard before from Kroft and Obama. It was interesting to hear Hillary talk about eating peppers and drinking tea, and how she quit drinking diet soda. At least it was new info for me. Oh, and she did point out that Obama had not been the subject of negative ads; I wonder if she'll introduce him, or spare him and let McCain take it to him if he makes it to the GE.

Hillary really does so much better in those one-on-one settings. She and Obama have separate skill sets; he's so strong on stage in front of 10,000 people. She's really warm sitting across from a single individual. Good piece for her. He should have addressed more of the substantive questions.

CBS's last poll on their website, taken Jan. 30 to Feb. 2, shows Hillary with a 65% approval rating while Obama's was 63%.

I thought Hillary did fine, but the interview itself probably didnt serve her well. I tried to view it as an average voter rather than a political junkie, and it seemed nice and pleasant, but what sticks in my mind is the talk of taking vitamins, drinking tea, (i.e fluffy stuff) and generally facing a challanger that is much stronger than she expected. So, to tack onto the end of it a comment about a campaign shakeup (ususally taken as a sign of dissary) gave an overall impression that was not very dynamic or forward leaning.

Obama did fine too, but I didnt find much of it memorable either way.

BY MARK BROWN markbrown@suntimes.com wrote this............

...Here's the thing: A lot of people want to believe in Barack Obama. Heck, I want to believe in him, and to an extent, I do.

Obama is different. He does have that quality to inspire.

But he's not so very different. He plays the political game. He does what he has to do to raise money, without being particularly careful about who is donating it. He makes nice with fellow officeholders when maybe a braver, less ambitious politician would have taken them to task for their failings.

In short, he's a politician, not a messiah.

It doesn't strike me as incompatible for a person to believe that -- based on what they know so far -- Obama is their preferred candidate for president, but still admit to themselves that his experience is thin, that this Tony Rezko business needs further investigation, and that if he can't stand the Clinton heat he doesn't belong in the White House kitchen.

I watched and thought she came across as pleasant, informed and rather Presidential in demeanor. (Although I've never quite understood exactly who would find that enough to get their vote. Anyone can look presidential for 20 minutes.)

I didn't watch much of the Obama interview because quite frankly I don't like him, won't vote for him and his very voice has begun to grate on me like nails on a blackboard.