For all of the differences brought to last night's debate by the YouTube format, it was still primarily a match between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the topic of foreign policy.

Obama "came close to directly criticizing Clinton's support for the Iraq war in 2002, and Clinton contradicted Obama on a question about whether, as president, they would meet with leaders of foreign governments hostile to the United States," the Washington Post's Anne Kornblut and Dan Balz write. Clinton said she asked the Pentagon to prepare withdrawal plans after being asked about leaving Iraq. Obama countered softly.

"I think it's terrific that she's asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous," Obama said. "But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in. And that is something too many of us failed to do."

Later Clinton played off Obama's enthusiasm for leader-on-leader meetings with the heads of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. Clinton was more hesitant to meet, saying "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse."

NBC News' Chuck Todd writes, "The contrast between Obama's answer and Clinton's answer was the difference between someone running for the Dem nomination and someone running for Commander in Chief. She got the better of him on that one." However, Obama "got stronger as the debate wore on. She was simply better on that one question and it was important because it exemplified her experience argument."

When Obama was good, he was "very, very good," writes Time's Mark Halperin. In regards to Iraq, Obama "took occasional soft shots at Clinton...and her questionable ability to fight for change (his main theme), but never made a decisive impact." Nonetheless, Obama got an A- for his performance and Clinton a B+ for "sitting on her lead," which failed to make her the clear winner as she was in previous debates.

Marc Ambinder was less impressed with Obama: "Debates are not his format, although he threw some good sound bites tonight and generally comported himself well." The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes agrees: "Obama, exciting on the stump, was dull in the debate."

The Politico's Roger Simon stood apart, writing that John Edwards won the debate for the theme that "he is angry and he is on your side. He is bold and he will use his boldness for you." Edwards' key response was saying that "compromise, triangulation" won't bring change (read: Clinton) and that he will take away the power of "big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies."

Jeff Jarvis, who had been optimistic about the YouTube format, wasn't happy at all. "CNN selected too many obvious, dutiful, silly questions. ... I have no doubt -- no doubt -- that we, the people, would have done a better job picking the questions than CNN did. ... A terribly wasted opportunity, this was."

In other Democratic news, it doesn't look like a single presidential candidate will attend this weekend's annual Democratic Leadership Convention, writes the Los Angeles Times' Don Frederick.

The Miami Herald's Yamiche Alcindor reports that Hispanic voters across the U.S. consider education a more important issue than Iraq or health care according to a poll conducted by Democratic pollster Sergio Bendixen.

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani blasted Democrats as a "bunch of pessimists and defeatists" who "do not understand a capitalist economy," reports the San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci.

John McCain seemed to court private equity firms and hedge funds during an economic speech in Michigan yesterday, writes the Wall Street Journal's Mary Lu Carnevale. McCain said Democrats want to raise taxes on these capital industries.

Fred Thompson signed up the former director of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign's "72-hour effort" in Florida, reports The Politico's Jonathan Martin.

Get these and today's other election stories at RCP's Politics and Elections page.