I didn't watch the debate, but have caught snippets of it in the news. The parts highlighted of course are the points of strong personal disagreement between Obama and Clinton. I'm sure that viewers came away thinking nicer things about John Edwards, who seems to have had both a difficult time getting a word in and when he did tried to play the more mature partner in the "conversation."
I'm sure that supporters of both Obama and Clinton (and I'm supporting the former) look at this differently. Hillary says that Obama is speaking out of frustration because he's losing (you can see that she's back as the "establishment" pick -- which is probably good for Obama). But the reason he's frustrated is that he has the former President constantly attacking him. Hillary's comments about Michelle and Elizabeth also participating in this misses the point. Neither of them are the former President of the United States. But the real issue here is the Clinton campaign's continued efforts to distort and sling mud at Obama. And you know if you throw enough of it some sticks -- even if you're the Teflon President.
From the looks of things -- Hillary was the aggressor and Obama parrying her blows (well enough I think). If the voters begin to connect the dots and realize that Obama is really truly fighting a "couple," which I think he is, they'll have to decide whether or not a dynasty is a good thing. Personally, I don't think it is. In another time and place Hillary might be an excellent candidate, but this is not that time. It's time to move on. Enough of the Bushes and the Clintons!