Throughout the debate Obama looked presidential, and as a very convincing Commander in Chief; Hillary looked pretty good too, but not as good. At times, she seemed upset when Obama attacked her judgment on the "Irak war vote", her "failures in bring people together to get things done", and her "approach to keeping business as usual in Washington". She got agitated over Obama’s "plagiarism incidents". Obama rose above her in his response to the issue. He ignored her "silly" comments, and redirected the conversation to the issues that "we should be debating here." Her face reflected some anger, or perhaps frustration.
It was obvious to me that she is contemplating the idea that she may not be the party's nominee. Perhaps, this is the reason why she chose not to be too negative on Obama -in the past that has backfired on her. For instance, at the end of the debate she reminded us of the Hillary Clinton that we admire most: classy, smart and eloquent; she praised Obama, spoke of an unified democratic party, and placed the country at the center of the election stage -not her, nor Obama, but the country. Her body language and a few of her lines suggested to me, that she is acknowledging that Ohio and Texas may not be hers after all -at least not the way she thought they would be. She was very articulate in her closing statement, and it came across very well. The audience loved it, and gave her a standing ovation. However, I find it very ironic that in doing so, she may "have lifted a whole passage from someone else's speeches." In other words, she may have committed the same crime for which she had blasted Obama for the last week, o so. Isn't that funny?
But, I must say that, unlike Hillary, I do not think that using others' people lines -probably unintentionally- in a political speech is such a big deal -it was not a doctoral dissertation on a major scientific breakthrough, in which case, not giving credit to the source would be a terrible "crime". Oh, politicians, you just got to love their strange ways!