Matt Taibbi didn't like Hillary Clinton's answers Tuesday night about controlling "too big to fail" financial institutions and preventing another Wall Street crisis.
Speaking of Tuesday night: People keep writing me to see if I agree with them that Bernie Sanders really won the debate. I thought Sanders and Clinton both did well and I've never really been comfy with the idea that that kind of debate is "won." It certainly isn't in the sense that a baseball game or a chess match is won. Baseball games and chess matches have rules and point systems and there's a firm definition of what constitutes winning. Like in baseball, it involves counting the number of players on each team who make it around the bases and get to home plate.
In a debate, it's all subjective, which is why more than one side can claim victory…and usually does. To the extent there is scoring, it can probably be found in the post-debate polling, not about who most people thought won but the polls that show how the candidates now stand. If one gained support and the other lost support, the gainer probably won, regardless of what the boosters for each might argue.