If you were plugged in over the weekend, you've probably already read the reviews of the Democrats' appearance at the YearlyKos presidential forum in Chicago. The big story was Hillary Clinton taking body blows from Edwards and Obama for defending lobbyists and for refusing to disavow their contributions. It certainly was the signature exchange of the event, primarily because it played so perfectly to the strengths of Edwards (who is a favorite of the Kos community) and Obama (also a crowd favorite and Hillary's most threatening competitor).

In the grand scheme of things, however, it's doubtful that Saturday's mini-spat on stage is likely to change the contours of the race in any significant way. More interesting and telling, perhaps, was watching the candidates address YearlyKos attendees in their individual break out sessions. Clinton's session was originally scheduled to take place after the forum along with all the others, but was moved ahead of the forum due to a scheduling conflict. In addition to a large gathering of press, the room was packed conference attendees who seemed surprisingly enthusiastic and supportive of Mrs. Clinton.

As you might expect, Hillary is exceedingly well prepared on the stump. She's shown it in the debates, and it's even more evident when she's in a room fielding questions across a broad array of issues. Her knowledge of certain topics is so detailed, in fact, that her wonkishness often crosses the line from being impressive to mind-numbingly boring.

In her break out session, for example, Clinton took the first question on No Child Left Behind and gave a 15-minute disquisition on the merits of the educational growth model which, while it may have left NEA members in a state of sheer ecstasy, would leave most voters contemplating the relative merits of spending time in a dentist's chair.

But while Hillary does not leave the room filled with warmth, she does leave a favorable impression as someone who is smart, disciplined, has a three-point plan for everything and generally knows what the heck she is talking about.

Obama is equally impressive, though in a distinctly different way. Whereas Hillary responds by ticking off details with the authority of a schoolmarm, Obama comes across as thoughtful - often conspicuously so, pausing even in the middle of an answer to gather his thoughts or offer some aside. This too has been evident in the debates, usually to Obama's detriment. He is much more well equipped, both as a matter of style and substance, to speak in longer form before live crowds.

And though Obama is nearly as adept at talking policy as Clinton, it's not his strength. He's at his best when he talks in the abstract about the theme of his campaign, when he moves beyond policy to weave together a narrative of "hope" and "change." This is precisely where Clinton's campaign comes up short.

The best way I could sum up the difference between the two is this: Clinton inspires confidence, while Obama just flat out inspires - and there is a discernable difference between the two.