The comments that stood out to me on a very campaign-heavy Meet the Press this Sunday:

MR. RUSSERT: Then why pile on with those, with those words? MS. MITCHELL: Because they were—they are an aggressive, tough, fighting campaign. There is no machine like the Clinton war machine. MR. BALZ: I, I think that was not planned. I am not convinced that they had a plan that she would go out and say—and, and accuse Obama of being irresponsible and naive in a newspaper interview. I think she freelanced that. MR. RUSSERT: Which is interesting, because other times we have seen Hillary Clinton saying, “I didn’t stay home and bake cookies,” “I’m no Tammy Wynette,” “This is a right-wing conspiracy.” Sometimes, when she’s freelancing, words come out that really do draw a firm line…

I would note Russert’s examples are from the Hillary of the early 1990s and 1998. This is a much more disciplined candidate. I suspect that if Hillary calls Obama “naive,” Mark Penn has already run a poll or at least a focus group on it.

Also, I find it somewhat satisfying that even Mrs. Greenspan – er, Andrea Mitchell — refers to her campaign as “the Clinton War Machine.” Later on…

MR. BALZ: I was going to say, on, on our most recent poll we asked, “Are you looking for a candidate who is more likely to deliver change or a candidate who has strength and experience?” Among Democratic voters they prefer change by a margin of about 10 points over strength and experience. What’s interesting is that, as John said, Senator Clinton is way ahead on the experience quotient. On the change quotient, she and Obama are running almost even at this point.

We’re going to hear a lot about “real change” in the coming months…

The roundtable agreed that both Obama and Edwards get under Hillary’s skin:

MR. BALZ: I think there is something there. We’ve seen some evidence of that from time to time. The Clinton campaign has been—obsessed is too strong a word, but, but obsessed is not far off—with Obama and the Obama campaign from the very start of this.MR. RUSSERT: Is it because he’s an upstart who’s in her way?MR. BALZ: I think that’s part of it.MS. MITCHELL: And a successful part.MR. BALZ: And, and a very bright new-age person who, who has made clear that he wants to, you know, close the book on not just the Bush era but the Clinton era as well, that, that he thinks…MR. RUSSERT: So turning the page is a double turn.MR. BALZ: …he thinks—he thinks—he thinks this, this period that we have been through for the last 12 or 15 years has been bad in terms of what it’s done to American politics. He wants to change that. She’s certainly part of that, so there’s a personal element there.

This point was speculative, but interesting – Hillary helping Edwards in Iowa to deny Obama the victory?

MR. TODD: First of all, don’t forget, Iowa’s a three-dimensional chess. If one of them—if Clinton knows she could finish third, then don’t be surprised if they start figuring out a way to make sure Edwards—and I agree with Ron on that point, he’s very disagreeable this morning, but I agree with Ron on the fact that an Edwards victory in Iowa is, is the second-best result for Clinton. You know, because this calendar sets up really well for Obama if… The Clintons have to deny Obama victory in Iowa, because this thing—you pointed out the independents—this thing sets up well for Obama going in through the first three states.

I would also note how quickly and casually Hillary’s campaign is referred to as “the Clintons.”