Pseudo-Hillary vs. Pseudo-Barack, Part One of Kajillion

Prepare yourselves, American public, you are going to see a lot of these two people for the next few months, which will soon begin to feel like the rest of your life.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing in this debate is the tacit agreement on both sides that comparing Hillary to Bush/Cheney is new lowest of the low. I think Republican candidates would agree as well.

Also, free advice to Obama: You're losing this round. Stand down.

UPDATE: Also, Bill Richardson? More free advice to you. The correct strategy when elephants (or large donkeys) fight is to "get out of the way," not to brag about meeting with Castro.

UPDATE: There is something even more amazing about this argument other than the "lowest of the low" standard that Bush has become, and that's something I talked a lot about right after the debate: Functionally, there is very little difference in how an Obama administration and how a Clinton administration would likely deal with the "rogues' gallery" of unpleasant foreign leaders. The stark difference between the two lies almost exclusively in how they answered the question and, obviously, in how they've conducted themselves in the aftermath. Obama's team has tried a variety of spins in the last week, ranging from "she actually agrees with me" to the tragically hyperbolic "Bush/Cheney light." The Clinton team has been forceful but consistent in simply pointing out how Obama's answer betrays a lack of experience -- as does his "evolving" spin.

I can almost already read the comments this will provoke, namely, that it's the policy and not the publicity that should matter. But at some point, you have to judge the potential president he/she might be with the candidate he/she currently is. Barack may make a fine president. What about his candidacy tells us that?