ramboorider--I thought he did a good job of setting up the debate with McCain over what constitutes "victory" in Iraq. Good lead in to the general election. McCain is always loose with the phrase - Obama's gonna define it for him and expose the insanity of shooting for some perfect situation there before we can get out. Hillary, on the other hand, did a good job of protecting the Senate's prerogative for advice and consent on the agreement Bush is trying to forge before he leaves office. Which the Iraqi parliament gets to pass judgment on but the US Congress doesn't? So they're getting ready for their coming roles - he as a general election candidate and her as a fine senator.Howie P.S. The instant analysis (above) comes from commenters.
Eve--More interesting and a little more aggressive (and awake!) than Hillary's this morning. Perhaps in response to his reviews last time, Obama started right in with a series of short questions. His main thrust was to ask whether Petraeus and Ryan Crocker would be content with current conditions in Iraq if it they could be maintained with a much smaller force of around 30,000 troops. They didn't answer his question (Crocker said he couldn't imagine such a condition). I'm wondering whether that 30,000 is a hint at the size of the residual force Obama has been contemplating.