WP named Clinton one of the losers of the debate, but Clinton camp spins it as a positive review

[TeamJordan23]

Under Hillary's Campaign blog, they say "The Reviews Are In: Hillary 'Very Strong Performance,' 'Tour De Force,' 'Very Effective'"

As one of their reviews, they use:

Washington Post's Chris Cillizza -- Hillary showed 'she was willing to fight for it' and that could 'resound with New Hampshire voters.' "Clinton seemed to show tonight that she was willing to fight for it and that could potentially resound with New Hampshire voters who, unlike their compatriots in Iowa, tend to like a bit of combativeness in their politicians."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=20660

But if you look at Wash. Post's The Fix, they named Hillary Clinton as one of the losers of the debate while naming Barack Obama as one of the winners of the debate.

Winners:
Barack Obama: Judging from the dynamics of last night's debate, there seems little question that the mantle of frontrunner has passed from Clinton to Obama over the last week. In the face of a far more aggressive Clinton, Obama generally took the high road, preferring to look magnanimous and presidential rather than debate the New York senator on the finer points of her attacks. Obama also avoided being distracted from his core message of "change" and "moment" that, at least in Iowa, proved so powerful. "It's easy to be cynical," said Obama at one point near the end of the debate. "But there have been periods of times in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better." Obama looked like a president last night.

Losers
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Clinton came into last night's debate with an almost impossible task: Find ways to take the shine off of Obama without reinforcing the perception that she is too negative and too partisan. She came darn close to pulling it off, but not close enough with just two days left before the New Hampshire primary. Clinton, to our mind, effectively raised questions about whether Obama's rhetoric had anything behind it. "Words are not action, and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action," Clinton said in one of her most effective lines of the night. She also was able to defend her campaign's argument that she is a legitimate change agent by declaring: "I think having the first woman president is a HUGE change." Where Clinton seemed to fall short, however, was in her delivery where -- to our eye -- she came across more often as angry rather than purely passionate. Clinton also got no help from Edwards, who rather than seeking to take down Obama seemed content to turn his significant oratorical gifts against Clinton. The results of Iowa showed that Clinton had much work to do and not much time do it in. She made a valiant effort last night but came up short.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

[ButterflyBlood]

1. L-O-L! FUCKING DESPERATE!

n/t

[gaiilonfong]

2. Ill make sure this gets around another Hillary LIE

doesn't suprise me

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. This one is easy

They gave her debate performance a very positive review, but they also said that she had to much more than hold her own or merely out debate her opponents. Actually they said she did a great job in the debate but not quite good enough to reverse the momentum of the race, which is what they felt she needed to achieve in that debate. Hence she "lost" because she wasn't able to get the results she needs, in their opinion, not because she was out debated by her opponents.

There were two sets of criteria. Putting in the best debate performance is one (if viewed with an artificially leveled playing field as if each candidate were "tied"), and emerging from the debate positoned to realize the political goal of the campaign is another.