The 20th and perhaps final Democratic primary debate tonight didn’t produce any shocks — no surprise there — but it was revealing on a number of fronts and provided some interesting moments.

Early on, Hillary Rodham Clinton made an odd objection to being asked the first question, and made it even odder by referring to a “Saturday Night Live” skit. Her objection began with a protest to always being asked the first question in debates (which MSNBC later reported isn’t true). But at the same time, she insisted that she doesn’t mind it, and that she just found it curious (which clearly wasn’t the case, or she wouldn’t have made such a big deal out of it).

But then she detoured into a reference to the SNL spoof this past weekend, which had riffed on the idea that the media is soft on Barack Obama and hard on her. “If anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,’ maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow,” Clinton said, mimicking the SNL skit.

On SNL, it was funny. On stage at Cleveland State University, it was an awkward attempt at humor — at best.

A revealing moment came when Obama was asked about National of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of him. Obama was unequivocal in denouncing Farrakhan and his anti-Semetic remarks, but he also clearly showed a reluctance to reject the endorsement when Tim Russert asked him if he would do so.

Clinton then jumped in and said she publicly rejected the endorsement of a party in New York during her Senate campaign under similar conditions, and chided Obama by saying “there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting.”

Realizing that Clinton was getting the better of him, he retreated with some fancy footwork, saying that he didn’t see a difference between the two words, but “I happily concede the point and I would reject and denounce.”

Yet another curious moment was when Russert pulled a pop quiz on the candidates, asking them, “What can you tell me about [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s successor?” They both passed, even if Clinton needed a little coaching on the pronunciation of Dmitry Medvedev’s name.

Another thing to take away from the debate was Obama’s demeanor. There were plenty of times he could have flashed annoyance or anger at Clinton, but he kept cool and retained his balance even when she was getting the best of him or needling him.

What was your reaction?

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Rodham Clinton turned emotional when she was asked a question about how she was holding up. Her response may have been a big factor in her victory in that state.

Afterwards, she said that the people of New Hampshire helped her find her voice.

She found it again in the final minutes of Thursday night’s debate with Barack Obama, when they were asked to describe a time when they were personally tested.

While Obama said it was the whole trajectory of his life, Clinton answered first with humor — “I think everyone here knows I’ve lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life” — and then with passion.

Here’s the video of both of their responses.

Will this be another turning point for Clinton as she faces critical primaries on March 4?

Ironically, Clinton now is being accused of plagiarising part of her comments from John Edwards.

And here’s a moment that didn’t work so well for Clinton, when she and Obama were asked about Clinton’s assertion that Obama plagiarised a speech of a supporter. Listen to the boos and catcalls at the end.

There was lot to chew on from tonight’s GOP debate, but let’s focus on the main point of disagreement between Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Who do you agree with on the question of whether Romney favored a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq?

This question surfaced days before Florida voted, and it flared up in the debate. McCain argues that Romney supported timetables when, in April, as President Bush was about to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Malaki, Romney said Bush and Iraqi leaders “have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about” in private.

The comment came during an interview on Good Morning America by Robin Roberts.

Here’s the conversation.

ROBERTS: “Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?”
ROMNEY: “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement. You don’t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.”
ROBERTS: “So, private. You wouldn’t do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?”
ROMNEY: “Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven’t reached the Rhine by this date, why, we’ll go home, or if we haven’t gotten this accomplished we’ll pull up and leave? You don’t publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don’t do that with the opposition.”

Romney says now that he was referring to benchmarks that would need to be met before troops are withdrawn, and that McCain is twisting his words.

In the debate, Romney said McCain raised the allegation only days before Florida’s vote, deliberately leaving him no time to respond and correct the misinformation. McCain’s action “sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible,” Romney said tonight.

McCain insisted that his interpretation was correct. He also criticized Romney for declining to take a stand on the timetable question when he was asked about it in December 2006 — taking a pass on the grounds that he was just a governor.

McMain reminded everyone that this happened right after Democrats won sweeping victories in the 2006 election, and timetable was the Democratic buzzword.

McMain said that he put his political career on the line by rejecting timetables, pushing for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s removal and advocating the troop-level surge, because he was certain those steps were the right things to do.

McCain’s point is that he proved his courage, leadership and acumen on Iraq while Romney at best dodged the issue and, according to McCain, actually endorsed setting timetables. (Here’s McCain’s press release supporting his argument.)

This is a classic case of the facts not being in dispute. Romney is correct that he never talked about a date or a specific timeframe for withdrawal, like many Democrats were. But McCain is also correct in saying that he has been clear and unwavering on the topic, and that Romney has been less so.

So how would you referee this dispute? Who’s telling the truth, or is at least closest to it?

Here are some of the sharpest exchanges between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton at last night’s debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Here’s Clinton and Obama arguing over Obama’s remarks about Ronald Reagan and Republican ideas, and Clinton raising Obama’s support from a landlord who has since been charged with fraud and other alleged crimes…

Here’s Clinton hitting Obama for voting “present” so often as an Illinois legislator.

And here, for a little comic relief, is Obama responding to the question of whether Bill Clinton was “the first black president.”

What do you think of their clash?

The GOP debate this week produced lots of fireworks, so here’s a look at follow-up stories and websites that try to sort out the facts behind the charges.

At PolitiFact.com, the Truth-O-Meter and the Attack File concludes:
Rudy Giuliani’s claim that Mitt Romney failed to take action against sanctuary cities: Mostly true.
Mitt Romney’s claim that Giuliani welcomed illegal immigrants: True.
Mike Huckabee’s explanation about school benefits for children of illegal immigants: Barely true.
Mitt Romney (aka Bill Buckner) muffed an easy grounder: He got a key Red Sox stat wrong.
Mitt Romney’s stat on out-of-wedlock African-American births: True.
Ron Paul’s claim on receiving campaign donations from military members: True.
John McCain’s claim on saving taxpayers $2 billion: True.

Here’s an AP story that examines whether New York was a sanctuary city under Guiliani. It makes a compelling case that NYC followed the same policies toward illegal immigrants as do cities that proudly proclaim themselves as sanctuary cities. In NYC, the policy was put in place long before Giuliani became mayor, but he vigorously protected the policy.

Giuliani took a swipe at Romney, saying he had a “sanctuary mansion” because illegal immigrants worked at the former governor’s home in Massachusetts. Here’s the original Boston Globe story, which was published nearly a year ago.

This first AP story and this second AP story explore whether Rudy Giuliani hid the costs of police protection for him while he had extramarital trysts with his now-wife, Judity Nathan.

Here’s the original Politico.com report, and here’s Politico’s next-day follow-up.

Here’s Guiliani explaining away the charge, on CBS news. (Be warned: 30-second ad precedes the report.)

Who do you think was “more truthful” and who was “less truthful” in the debate?

Just a few months ago, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee shared the anonymity of the handful of other back-of-the-pack Republican presidential candidates. In recent weeks, he’s registered a stunning climb in the polls.

Mike Huckabee

And after Wednesday night’s You Tube/CNN debate, he’s bound to get another huge boost — perhaps enough to propel him to victory in Iowa.

He had what appears, at least in the immediate aftermath, to have been a breakthrough performance. He was articulate, funny, homespun and perhaps more than any other candidate he exuded a confidence and sense of comfort in who he is and what he believes. (John McCain and Fred Thompson came close behind.)

Perhaps Huckabee struggled a bit to explain his support for scholarships for children of illegal aliens. But after that he scored on virtually every question. He was direct and unapologetic and registered high on the likeability scale.

Mitt Romney may have fared the worst. He’s already suspect among many Republicans for his evolution on key issues. And his performance could not have helped any in allaying those concerns. He stumbled, stammered and didn’t seem to know what he believed on some key issues, and at times his first instinct seemed to be to duck and weave.

Some other observations:

I’ll take the citizen-submitted video format and Anderson Cooper over Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert any day.

Even so, while the questions were generally good, this batch of videos wasn’t as creative or surprising as the batch used in the Democratic debate.

I was surprised they didn’t use Minnesota’s Billiam the Snowman, given that this debate almost didn’t happen because of opposition to Billiam.

I was disappointed that they didn’t use a Red State Update video question, as they did in the Democratic debate. Those guys are hilarious. To see their work, go to their website here.

But this video, I thought, did stand out.

So what did you think of the debate? Do you think Huckabee will get the biggest bounce? And what did you think of Thompson submitting an attack ad for his own video? What else caught your attention?

Mark your 2008 calendars for Sept. 26, Oct. 7 and Oct. 15.

Those are the dates the Commission on Presidential Debates has selected for next year’s presidential debates. Among the new rules: the candidates will engage in direct exchanges with each other.

Here are the details:

First presidential debate:
Friday, September 26
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS
Debate focus: Domestic issues

Second presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 7
Belmont University, Nashville, TN
Debate focus: Town hall style, with issues raised by members of the audience and via the Internet.

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 15
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Debate focus: Foreign issues

In addition the vice presidential debate will be:
Thursday, October 2
Washington University in St. Louis, MO

All debates will be 90 minutes long, beginning at 8 p.m. (Central), and each will have a single moderator.

The first and third presidential debates and the veep debate “will be divided into 8 ten-minute issue segments; the moderator will introduce each segment with an issue on which each candidate will comment, after which the moderator will facilitate further discussion of the issue, including direct exchange between the candidates, for the balance of that segment,” the commission said.

You can read the commission’s full announcement here.

The consensus analysis of last night’s Democratic debate was that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton regained her balance and appeared forceful, confident and energized.

But an interesting, and less explored, twist was the audience. It sounded awfully partisan for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and perhaps affected the countours of the debate.

Here’s what Slate’s John Dickerson wrote: “When Obama and Edwards tried to force Clinton into a stumble, they were booed by the occasionally raucous audience. That seemed to make them back off.

“Who knows what motivated the booing. It could have been Hillary partisans. It could have been that the audience didn’t like to hear the attacks. Clinton, for her part, only counter-punched, which may be why when she got pointed the crowd tolerated it. Or it could be that the people in the room, like most Democratic voters, wanted to hear the candidates on the issues.”

Debate organizers typically try to ensure an evenly-balanced audience — giving an equal number of tickets to each campaign, for example. Of course, an evenly-divided crowd doesn’t ensure that all the factions will behave the same way in the hall.

When Sen. Barack Obama spoke sometimes, you could hear some in the audience calling out and interrupting him. It sounded like heckling. And when he stumbled through his answer on driver’s licenses for illegal immigration, and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer called him on it, the crowd laughed heartily.

When Clinton slapped Edwards with the charge that he was engaged in “mud-slinging,” there was no disapproval from the audience.

An energized audience, with its applause and hollering, no doubt enlivens the debate from a viewer’s perspective. But at what price?

Were Obama and Edwards done a disservice by having a live audience that was more on Clinton’s side than on theirs?