roo_P,
There are lies, d**n lies and statistics. I don't doubt your list. But i will repeat what I stated earlier. Where I live, 97.5k is living comfortably, not wealthy. It is true that I won't have to worry about being able to pay the heating bill this winter. That said, I have a family of 5 in Northern Virginia and a wife that works very part time. That household income does not make you rich in this area (at least for a family of 5). If I was single earning that, that would be a different story.

My disdain for Hellary has nothing to do with her supposedly being a woman! I love women and would vote for one for president readily. But, let's not vote for Klinton just because of gender: think back to that administration, all of the spies, lies, corruption, deaths, smears, immorality, backstabbing, laws broken, drugs, bribes, Chinese spies, payoffs, character assinations, assasinations, investigations, using dead people, theft, obfescations, stealing china, destruction of public property, threats to bimbos, assaults, rape accusations, sex not sex, asprin factory murders, tyrant coddling, Whtewatering, Rose law firming, missing files, DNA disapearance, Foster bodies, Lies in diaries, lawyers commiting suicide, hidden agendas, payoffs, Luewinskiing, coverups, mismanagements, bodies in the parks, bodies in the cell, bodies in the water, nuclear secrets being sold, FBI files stolen, blackmailings, ..... all with Hellary right smack dab in the middle either orchestrating or covering up!
Use your memories people!

Other than that I have nothing against her.
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

Socialmedic,

Gore's going to wait until 1-term-Hillary is a complete and total disaster (Carter-style).

Then 2 "white knights" will appear on the scene.

2012: Gore vs. Newt

Al Gore should be running. He wouldn't even have to spend a dime. Just put his name on the ballot so that people wouldn't think a write-in vote would be taking a vote away from a candidate in the running. Al Gore should have been president and America should be ashamed of what has traspired since the Florida fiasco. America needs to right a wrong. I am not OK with, oh what the hell, just find another democrat to vote for. The whole business seriously offends my sense of justice. Al Gore should be a player; he is the best qualified player with the most experience and integrity. I move the nation write-in Al Gore, that the national conscience should not settle for less and should not rest until Al Gore sees the day that is rightfully his.

Al Gore should be running. He wouldn't even have to spend a dime. Just put his name on the ballot so that people wouldn't think a write-in vote would be taking a vote away from a candidate in the running. Al Gore should have been president and America should be ashamed of what has traspired since the Florida fiasco. America needs to right a wrong. I am not OK with, oh what the hell, just find another democrat to vote for. The whole business seriously offends my sense of justice. Al Gore should be a player; he is the best qualified player with the most experience and integrity. I move the nation write-in Al Gore, that the national conscience should not settle for less and should not rest until Al Gore sees the day that is rightfully his.

Al Gore should be running. He wouldn't even have to spend a dime. Just put his name on the ballot so that people wouldn't think a write-in vote would be taking a vote away from a candidate in the running. Al Gore should have been president and America should be ashamed of what has traspired since the Florida fiasco. America needs to right a wrong. I am not OK with, oh what the hell, just find another democrat to vote for. The whole business seriously offends my sense of justice. Al Gore should be a player; he is the best qualified player with the most experience and integrity. I move the nation write-in Al Gore, that the national conscience should not settle for less and should not rest until Al Gore sees the day that is rightfully his.

There's no way I'm voting Republican, but I truly have big reservations about all of the Democratic candidates.
- Hillary--I see her as being liberal version of Bush/Cheney. Ram through her agenda without listening to anyone else. As much as I loved Bill Clinton, I have a fundamental aversion to seeing a quarter century of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
- Obama--Not ready for prime time. Surprisingly little substance.
- Edwards--never liked him even if his heart is in the right place

The only Democrat I actually like and get excited by is Joe Biden. I came to that conclusion several months ago. I made the same judgment on Kerry when he was in the doldrums and Dean and Gephardt were out ahead. I do think Biden has a much bigger hill to climb than Kerry did though with the money of Hillary and Obama in the way.

Biden-Clinton COULD work.

I'd love to see Biden--Clark (Gen. Wesley, that is)

bryant_flier2006 et al., 97,5k+/year puts you squarely in the top 6% earners. If you earn that, I am glad for you, but you are NOT "middle class," not even if you live in an expensive city. This is 97,5k INDIVIDUAL income.

LA median *household* income: ~$47,000
SF median *family* income: ~$73,000
Seattle median *family* income: ~$63,000
Manhattan median *family* income: ~$189,000
NYC combined median *family* income: ~$46,000
Miami median *household* income: ~$43,000

States, highest median HOUSEHOLD:
Colorado, ~$52,000.
New Jersey, ~$57,000
Maryland, ~$57,000
New Hampshire, ~$57,000
Alaska, ~$57,000
Connecticut, ~$57,000
Minnesota, ~$56,000
Virginia, ~$54,000
Massachusetts, ~$54,000
Delaware, ~$54,000

Should I go on?

$97K is "upper class". Haha, what a joke. Obama is really leaning off the edge of the leftward cliff. However, he does have that cliff to stand on and a great number of liberal activists within the D party stand with him. In my view, to stop Clinton means beating her in Iowa. That whole $97K comment was brilliant and it was designed especially for Iowa democratic voters. It could also bode well for him in SC. Most of them likely don't make $97K per year and see that as upper class. Obama has been attacking Clinton in Iowa on trade policy. This could be a popular issue with Iowa Democrats. Obama is trying to win the D primary, not the general election. Based on that fact, the $97 K comment could be pretty smart.

Edwards is fading. I'm glad to see that miserable sue-happy liberal get his just desserts. The only sad thing about that is that when he loses the nomination, he will come back to home state and head back to Chapel Hill.

Everyone else is just there.

$97K is middle class in many states. We are definately not "upper class". I am a nurse and my husband climbs poles for a local utility company.We are a "blue collar family and it has taken us 30 years to readch this level of income. I believe the scale differs from state to state. We pay big to live in southern Ca.

claudialong,
"Precisely. The republicans have a mindless, kneejerk obssesive hatred of the Clintons." It's not just Republicans, it's many people. I have numerous liberal and independent co-workers and a number of them state categorically that they will not vote for HRC. Please drop the idiotic VRWC theory and realize that the Clinton's get their scorn the old fashioned way - they earned it.

Your review doesn't even mention RICHARDSON...how come? The man stands out as the best prepared to lead the nation out of the Bush nightmare. Where every other candidate has good intentions, Richardson has Excellent EXPERIENCE AND SUCCESS. All the great challenges - Energy, Peace, International relations - are exactily what he has excelled at.

I must congratulate the Democrats for having a great selection of candidates to choose from. I'm sure Obama would make a great President also. But still, Richardson's commanding and respect-inspiring presence is urgently needed right now. Perhaps we could have them both on the ticket --- and really make history!!

Don't know if anyone will read this so late, but felt it was the best place to post it. No one from mainstream media, not CNN, WaPo, Times, Post, Fox, MSNBC, etc covered the Dem forum today in LA. Topic was global climate change (just a minor topic, I can see why it was glossed over). I understand that the party sponsored debates get priority, but at least the one in LA should have been mentioned by someone because Sen Clinton was there, along with Edwards and Rep Kucinich. No zingers, no "yes or no" questions. 10 minute speech at the start by each, followed by about 20 minutes of questions from a panel.

I get it, forums are much less telegenic than debates, don't have the fireworks. They are short on style, long on substance. God forbid we prefer substance over style.

JimD, welcome back from what I assume was a great trip to Europe.

What hasn't been brought out in the debates so far is that Senator Biden is a constitutional expert. This is not a man that would abuse the constitution as the current administration has done so far. I also believe that this would continue if the neocons continue to rule. When the repubs were running roughshod over the Senate and giving Senate powers to the executive branch with a bow and genuflections, Joe Biden stood in the Senate chamber and gave an impassioned speech for the Senate to abide by the Constitution, and fulfill their obligations as an elective body of the people, and prevent excessive powers being granted to the executive branch. He is a man that stands by his convictions, believes in his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. If anyone other than Biden is elected President, we all will be the worse off for it. I might also add, that unless the voters vote in a cloture proof congress, then the same tactics the minority is using now will hamstring any efforts of a dem president to effect change, and the politics of divisiveness will continue unabated.

Does ANYONE pick up on the fact that so many people like what Biden has to say, and they feel like he's the most qualified, yet they're not giving him any consideration?

Please don't assume anything because of the poll numbers. That's really just playing into the hands of the media and how they portray both the presidential race and the candidates themselves.

This past Thursday's event in Las Vegas was not a debate. It was CNN viving for higher rates. This was proven with the first question which ignited the childish bantering.

At the least a Presidential debate should only ask questions about issues and policies the American CITIZENS consider important. It also should ask each question to each canidate giving them equal time to respond.

Joe Biden once again proved to be a mature, actions/results, reponsible leader who has more experience and results than any of the canidates. He answers the questions asked him. He does very well at staying within the time limits given him. This proves to me that the man listens and is respectful. He has the courage to correct canidates and members of the audience with the facts. He is not playing the immature, stupid, unproductive game that Clinton, Obama and Edwards keep igniting and proliferating.

I am praying the voters in IOWA do not vote for the most popular canidate. I hope they DO NOT pay attention to the polls. I pray they use their intelligence and good sense to look at each canidate's records. I pray this will convince them that Senator Joe Biden deserves to be the President of the United States of America.

Watch the video at "The Trail" ["Joe is right"].

The democrats are no longer able to represent the people of America! We need a NEW POLITICAL PARTY that can become the new political center for our nation! The Democrats have been taken over by the BlueDog conservatives! These republican like conservatives had moved the Democratic party to the political right, and so the Democrats are no longer relevant and have forfeited their role as a party in opposition to the Republican Party!
Without a relevant political center that can bring the political extremes together by compromising their differences, we can expect a clash between the opposite political extremes, that will bring about a violent revolutionary change and a new revolutionary political center!
This violent clash can be avoided if we peacefully bring into existence a relevant political center that is not tied to the global corporate oligarchy that controls our economic life!
The only way that this can be done is to dump the democratic party that is is in hock to the economic interests that own them, and replace the democratic party with a new economically independent progressive party!

crtharaway--"I am a african american male who is voting for Hillary not Obama. He has not only been nasty but rude and had he been a senator at the time of 911 he to would have voted for the war. We as a nation were all emotionally upset at the time and had any of us been the senator of the state that was attacked we would have voted the way Hillary did."

Obama famously decried this "stupid war" right before the votes were cast. I can dig up a link for you, if you like. All the evidence points to him voting AGAINST the war and I have frankly no idea why you would think otherwise unless it is expedient for cognitive dissonance.

It is a bit far-fetched to call Obama "rude," since even the MSM continually harps him for being too subtle and not confrontational enough.

One can only present the facts but it does seem that almost everyone here is just as bone-headed in their support of whichever candidate as the Bushies are in theirs.

Winners and Losers? You mean there was a winner in that "debate"? I Don't think so.

As a Democrat, I cannot vote for anyone who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.It's seems like everyone is forgetting Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton,and Chris Dodd voted for this war.The one most foreign policy experts describe as the greatest foreign policy blunder in a generation.
When Joe Biden says that the war in Iraq is destablizing Pakistan and Afganistan, he must be reminded that he share responsibility for what's happening in those countries.
Finally, anyone viewing these debates to select a candidate must be discourage from voting.

I want to vote for the candidate that is the best person for the job!...The proven record that is a perfect record and is attested to by all of the other candidates, because they now talk the talk of this particular candidate but unfortunately when push comes to shove they run away from their words and back track and become embarrassingly apologetic of their formerly held position because they don't have the courage of their convictions! They attempt to demean the only candidate that had the foresight to be correct and consistent throughout his political career, and has proven that he has the courage to stand up for what he knows is right! ..This particular candidate because of his presence is a reminder to the other candidates how wrong they had been in the past and how gutless they are in the present. Perhaps that is why they ignore him during the presidential debates!
Dennis Kusinich is the only candidate that deserves to be president!

As a Democrat, I cannot vote for anyone who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.It's seems like everyone is forgetting Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton,and Chris Dodd voted for this war.The one most foreign policy experts describe as the greatest foreign policy blunder in a generation.
When Joe Biden says that the war in Iraq is destablizing Pakistan and Afganistan, he must be reminded that he share responsibility for what's happening in those countries.
Finally, anyone viewing these debates to select a candidate must be discourage from voting.

As a Democrat, I cannot vote for anyone who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.It's seems like everyone is forgetting Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton,and Chris Dodd voted for this war.The one most foreign policy experts describe as the greatest foreign policy blunder in a generation.
When Joe Biden says that the war in Iraq is destablizing Pakistan and Afganistan, he must be reminded that he share responsibility for what's happening in those countries.
Finally, anyone viewing these debates to select a candidate must be discourage from voting.

lylepink writes
"I think you support Obama and I have posted several times about how repubs are funding his campaign and even changing their registration in an attempt to stop Hillary. I have also stated, IMHO, Obama has ZERO chance of winning the General in 2008. Out of all the dems except Dennis, Obama is by far the weakest candidate the dems have in the General."


I know you think that - you've posted it several times before. While I have said many nice things about Senator Obama, my support for him thus far has been limited to such comments. I'm not a Dem and thus don't get a vote in the primary, so you could say I support Obama to the same degree that I support Biden or McCain. Regarding the rest of your post, it seems to add up to little more than a conspiracy theory - the fears that a nefarious, Rovian plan is afoot to disrupt the Dem primary process by sending agents in to upset the pre-anointed (HRC) by giving money & support to the rival (Obama). Such a premise is preposterous. Though I suppose if you believe in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, there is nothing I could post here that would change your mind.

If I had to rank the candidates, I'd say that Biden won the debate followed by Clinton. Edwards and Dodd were the clear losers here. Richardson got lost in the shuffle, and Obama had a mixed performance. Kucinich was marginalized, as usual.

Smart Democrats would be wise to take Biden seriously. He offers more experience than Clinton without the baggage. And he offers the same idea of unity as Obama without the greenhorn label.

CNN's handling of the debate left a lot to be desired.

Here is my overall debate analysis:

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/11/nevada-debate-analysis-d.html

And here is my critique of CNN:

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/11/nevada-debate-analysis-cnn-critique.html

I am a african american male who is voting for Hillary not Obama. He has not only been nasty but rude and had he been a senator at the time of 911 he to would have voted for the war. We as a nation were all emotionally upset at the time and had any of us been the senator of the state that was attacked we would have voted the way Hillary did.

to kennyjazz:
re Obama supporting Lieberman

(AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a vocal defender of Sen. Joe Lieberman earlier this year, is urging Connecticut voters to rally behind his rival, Ned Lamont.

The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message Thursday praising Lamont.

"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass-roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

It seems Barack Obama and John Edwards and their strategists were not expecting Hillary to defend herself in this debate, after what happened in the last debate in PA?

How stupid are these guys? John Edwards needs to give up his quest to be President. He's a shrewish bitter man and he comes across as nothing more than a slick used-car salesman. Really, he is no credit to the Democrats.

Obama has his good moments. But mostly, he has vague, detached moments. I haven't a clue what his "platform" is other than let's all play nice.

We have two true Democratic leaders running for the nomination - Hillary and Biden - and one who has a chance of making it (Hillary).

A Clinton/Biden ticket would be great. Or Biden would be a highly effective and most impressive Secretary of State.

After watching Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer and their guests, it seems that Matthews has a real Hillary hatred to the point of self-blindness to what is going on out in the hinterlands. The egos of these media types clouds their judgment to reality. I'm out here in the wilds of Western Pa and Eastern Ohio and only two candidates seem to be on the minds of these people. Hillary and Ron Paul who's signs are everywhere and no one else. The only other political signs are the SUPPORT THE TROOPS BRING THEM HOME which are popping up everywhere. You can't win without two things Name recognition EARNED BY BEING IN TUNE WITH THE ISSUES and organizational strengh to put those across. The main issues in this campaign are in order 1. Endless war. 2. the immense transfer of wealth as a result of this war. 3. The intentional devaluation of the U.S. dollar 4. The eventual subjugation of this country to those who hold our monumental debt. 5. Failure of the Bush administration to control illegal immigration. The candidate who presents the best answers to these problems will get my vote and that of many others.

I completely agree that both Clinton and Biden came out as winners in this debate.

Clinton did a great job at countering the accusations thrown at her by Obama and Edwards. She seemed to express her ideas clearly, strike back with valid arguments, and came out looking like the good guy.

Biden was, to me, the surprise winner. He seemed to have strong ideas and followed to rules when Wolf said "Yes or No?" for the driver's license question while most of the other candidates talked around the topic. (I know "that's politics, but it is nice to know that he understands American frustration, or at least mine) His comical side comments were also nice.

However, Obama seemed not to do as well last night. He struggled at the driver license question, he looked like the bad guy when he and Edwards were hurling accusations at Clinton, and I felt the opposite way about his "We can do better" speech. I don't want to hear a candidate talking about the fact that America wants change or that America can do better, I already know we can. He should have focused more on what his policies were and explaining them to the American people. The other thing that bothered me about Obama was that he continuously told the audience about how bad the Bush Administration did this or did that - We know he hasn't done a great job. We can see the ratings that come out. This is the reason for the importance of this election. Everyone knows that America needs a president that can unite us; we don't need to be told that.

As for the losers, I agree with both. Edwards just seems like he likes to accuse everyone of wrong-doing and then say that what he does is correct. And I know "that's politics", but does it really have to be to the extent that he did it. The rest of the candidates, with the exception of Obama, hardly threw any accusations at anybody else. When he was asked if it was fair for him to accuse Clinton of "flip-flopping" when he did it, he didn't really give a very good explanation either.

The other candidates just didn't stand out enough to really be noticed. And they should be doing that, if they want to get elected or even convince someone of their ideas. Richardson seemed to not do enough to be considered a winner, but on the other hand nothing so bad that I would consider him a loser. Kucinich ... I don't really know enough about him to say anything. But he did seem to have some strong opinions on certain topics when he spoke, but I think he just didn't do enough to stand out.

CNN has lost all credibility !
Wolf ? what a joke ! He's nothing more than a heal licking billary sympathizer and not much of a wolf ! more like a mut ! CNN with two clinton unofficial campaign advisers from bill's campaign not only shows how bias they are , but orchestrated this whole debate with soft questions for billary and planted audience that stole from bush's speeches !
She finally answered the question about illegals and licences ! Which is no now ! she should tell her campaign manager ! last week he said yes ! after she said no - yes ? da ? So this is typical billary politics yes - no ? you only get the real answer after you vote for her and then you are stuck with her force feeding you with b-s that you had from bill's nafta night mare ! no thanks ! bioch !

But it's your response to anyone who offers rational criticism of your idol.

radicalpatroit: I don't have to accuse you of being a "Hillary Hater", You freely admit it in your post.

Congratulations to those of you who made thoughtful, analytical, fair comments, regardless of the candidate. Stinkweeds to those who use this space to spew unfounded, prejudiced hatred for specific candidates.

The network "spinners" have their job; our job is to find facts, search for truth, then choose the candidate we believe to be the most likely to restore trustworthiness (and truthiness) to the office of president and who will deal diplomatically in the world arena.

I agree that Biden is probably the best qualified. His remarks last night were right on the money, and that's my point.....why isn't he in the top three, and why was he one of those almost ignored by Wolf Blitzer?....It's the money.....he doesn't begin to have the money or the organization that the "top three" have. If he can't run for president, I'd like to see him for Veep.

I wasn't crazy about the applause and booing format. I preferred NBC's debate with no applause. I also preferrred Tim Russert and Brian Williams to Blitzer.

I am black international student here in the US. I always believed Clinton and Obama were the top contenders...After watching the Democratic debate of last night, i could not but stand for Joe Biden.
The American citizenry has to realize that the greatest option to the Republicans is a democratic President well grounded in foreign policy.
Why do we always neglect the best candidates. Why does the media all seem to have prefered candidates. The media needs to listen to what Joe has to offer. He is the man that can correct the American image problem going by his experience.
Although, he might be low in the polls i sincerely think this is the man America needs at this point in time.

lylepink, in his/her/its blind Hillaridolatry, represents the view of many anti-Bush voters [and I am one of the fiercest anti-Bushers] in that all pink-types want is for a Democrat to win, and all pink-types consider is who is most electable against the Republicans. Not who is the best candidate to be POTUS of our great country, desperate for a best candidate, but merely who they guess would win who is not Republican.

At least, that is the feeble excuse they always seem to use for backing Team HillBilly [Hillary couldn't even come close to winning the Dem. nomination without clinging to the skirts of her sham husband, if you'll excuse the reverse metaphor].

You may have reasons for believing that such-and-such a candidate will win the nomination/election, but the silly sweeping certainty of some writers here--and at many other blogs sites--for their candidate ["can't be beat" "will win in a landslide" "will wipe the floor with ____" etc. etc.] is, well, very foolish! You don't need but a little knowledge of electoral history to know how very uncertain "certainties" and "inevitables" can be.

I am against Clinton because 15 years of observing her character, in what she says and what she does and what she makes clear in other ways, convinces me that she the worst candidate for the current POTUS opening. Giuliani holds second place by himself. That's not a partisan judgment, and it's not a judgment by playing Nostradamus for who will win. It's a judgment of the quality, or lack of it, of the actual person. Of course, lylepink will say I'm a "Clinton-haters". That's the name-calling they like to hide behind.

That's fine by me--just make it all clear. I'm a Bush-Cheney hater, and a Giuliani-hater, and a Clinton-hater. I've got plenty of political hate to go around, because I love my country and hate her enemies.

The whole thing is truly depressing. I don't care how big a political junkie you are, there are nothing but negatives to take away from this. Blitzer and Cooper are pathetic. And yes, Blitzer did seem to spin (or completely derail) audience questions in the interest of squeezing some sparks out of the stiffs on stage. I cannot believe that Democrats even need to be concerned by a Giuliani or Romney nomination. Sadly, it now appears they do.

One more comment. I certainly hope the press will ask Senator Clinton if she thinks it was ok for the audience to have interferred with this debate. As a voter I was particularly disturbed by this and I want to hear what she has to say about this.

Chris Cilliaza tell me it isn't so...tell me you haven't gone beltway on us. This column is certainly not one of your finer moments.

The CNN debate was the absolute worst presidental debate I've ever seen. It was stage managed, disorganized and the only control Wolf took in this debate was when he consistently limited Biden, Dodd, Kucinich & Edwards from answering.

Senator Clinton is given credit for going after Obama & Edwards yet when she accused Edwards of mudslinging Blitzer never asked her for specifics and he did not allow Edwards to respond to her attack. It strikes me as odd that the media would reward Senator Clinton with points for her attack when the person she attacked was not given the opportunity to answer that attack. What's more, using an audience to attack Obama & Edwards when they tried to get their own licks in was absolutely stunning. Anyone with any sense of fair play would have cautioned the audience about interferring in the debate.

It was sickening to see that this debate's location turned out to be one of Hilliary's fake town hall meetings complete with softball questions to her, moderators that ran interference for her and an audience that prevented an honest exchange. Shame on you Chris for allowing them to get away with it.

"I disagree with all your losers and offer my own list: Wolf Blitzer, John Roberts and especially CNN. Are they trying to rival Fox as the most biased name in news?"

Posted by: havok26 | November 16, 2007 08:25 AM

You have hit the nail on the head. These people are truly living off injuring someone else. If those 3 are actually that worked up maybe they could go and give our troops a helping hand. Kind of like finding mines with a toothpick.

Let's see. CNN and other media are obsessed with hearing questions from what they call "ordinary citizens" during these debates.

When an "ordinary citizen" asks his or her question, the CNN moderator spins the question to something not even similar to what was being asked.

This makes a mockery of the debate process and the participation of our citizens.

It also makes it seem that the citizens have been "planted" rather than randomly selected.

charlesf: You, and folks like you, are exactly what the repubs are hoping for. Hillary is the only one they know they cannot beat. bsimon is a good example when he/she states they would never vote for Hillary. I wonder who they will vote for or just do as the repubs want, stay at home.

"BUT OBAMA (CONVENIENTLY) WAS TOO BUSY TOO VOTE!!! HOW CAN OBAMA CRITICIZE?"
Absolutely, I idealogically agree with Barack, but he has missed what 30% of votes this session. He has absolutely no credibility..."

Obama has missed 80% of the votes this session (his third session on the national stage). And speaking of credibility, Obama was chastising Pakistan for not allowing an outlet for the electorate to have a voice, his supporters knocked Colbert off the Ballot in SC and he knocked off all his opponents in his first political race for the IL State Senate. No Credibility - little experience - and putting his own political ambitions ahead of serving his constituents. Obama is the biggest loser of the campaign. He will never live up to the promise of one great speech at the Dem National Convention.

CNN did a poor job of posing substantive questions. They played gotcha. Example: Candidiate X, should national security take precidence over personal privacy - yes or no? How can any candidate answer that without being slammed for whatever they rank as second.

Ask them how they define "terrorism". Hillary said Iran's sending of agents into Iraq with weapons and tactics to use against U.S. military was terrorism. Were we terrorists when we sent the CIA into Afganistan in 1980 to teach the Mujahaden how to shoot down Soviet fighter planes and gave them Stinger missiles?

My ideal 2008 ticket is Bloomberg/Biden.

Only with a mixed ticket, could we hope to achieve moderate consensus on the major issues of the day.

Oh please, lylepink. Everyone knows that the Republicans would LOVE to run against Hillary Clinton. I think it's the only race they could feasibly win. It mobilizes their support base and her high negatives mean she'll not be making inroads in any red states.

I'm not saying she couldn't win. Any Democrat ought to carry the 08 election. But she would be fighting for Kerry's states plus one or two others. With Obama and Edwards, many other states the Democrats haven't won since '96 or even long before that are back in play.

I trust many Democrats realise that and that's why Clinton still hasn't decided this race despite her daunting establishment advantages.

I hope the Democrats are smart enough to not nominate Clinton. That said, they made the mistake in 04 of nominating Kerry over Edwards, who then managed to run an amazingly ineffective campaign in a year the Democrats ought to have won.

I can easily see an affable and populist Huckabee (pretty much the only Republican I see as capable of making inroads into the Democratic support base) beating Clinton.

bsimon: I think you support Obama and I have posted several times about how repubs are funding his campaign and even changing their registration in an attempt to stop Hillary. I have also stated, IMHO, Obama has ZERO chance of winning the General in 2008. Out of all the dems except Dennis, Obama is by far the weakest candidate the dems have in the General. I have thought this from the start and nothing has come close to changing my mind. The "Fear Factor" I mention so often is well known in political circles, and it is known that anyone running for anything wants to run against the weakest opponent. That is the "FACTS".

first i would say i have always been inclined to vote republican, and last nite was the first of any of the debates of either party i bothered to watch, mainly because i would rather read my news and analysis than be 'talked down' to by the talking heads of the mainstream media. that being said , i only have two words to say about this debate, and they seem to echo the sentiment of a LOT of the posters here: Joe Biden!....the only democrat in the race i could live with.....God save us from HillaryInc. and the extremists who have made BDS a way of life, as well as the new psychological disorder of the times.....

Well, if the only way she can get back on up is to have a "staged" debate with Carvell to critique -- it's not what the people see --- too many puppets
Obama had some good moments, but Biden by far was GREAT -- he always educates me and I like that --
Hillary said it best in the end -- she wants it both!! all that glitters!! nough said!!

'HRC on the other hand, despite her moderate positions on many things, would not get the same treatment simply because of the C in HRC.'

Precisely. The republicans have a mindless, kneejerk obssesive hatred of the Clintons. You are only pointing out the irrationality of your party.

lylepink writes
"I honestly believe most repubs know in their heart of hearts they cannot beat Hillary in the General. Any of the others would have a difficult time and most, if not all, of them would lose to anyone the repubs nominate. I just cannot see how any dem other than Hillary having a better than 50/50 chance of winning."

That's the odd thing. I think the exact opposite. I don't think Sen Clinton 'can't' win, but I do think she'll have a tough time, depending on whom the Repubs nominate. The reason I think this is simple: because HRC is not someone for whom I will vote, ever. I could vote for Biden, Obama or McCain. I absolutely will not vote for Clinton or Giuliani. Romney, Richardson, Dodd and Edwards maybe. The rest have zero chance of winning, so are irrelevant.

Personal anecdotes aside, don't the polls show others with equal or better chances at winning than Clinton, depending on the Repub nominee? More impotantly, I don't see how another Clinton presidency would be good for the country; better than Bush, sure. But the bar should be set higher.

bsimon: Thanks for an easy question. There is very little difference in our objectives, only a slight difference on how to get them accomplished. "rslip" has it pretty well on target for what I refer to as "The Fear Factor" in that I honestly believe most repubs know in their heart of hearts they cannot beat Hillary in the General. Any of the others would have a difficult time and most, if not all, of them would lose to anyone the repubs nominate. I just cannot see how any dem other than Hillary having a better than 50/50 chance of winning.

"People are not attacking me because I am a woman, they are attacking me because I am ahead."

Not only was this "best line" scripted, it was scripted not by the clinton machine but by a Chris Matthews, who was contemptuously throwing the pitiful, perpetual victim a lifeline.

THREE-CARD MONTE AT VEGAS DEBATE CANNOT STOP HILLARY'S FREE FALL

The CNN post-Vegas-debate analysis was as simplistic and insulting as was the underlying clinton-machine scheme.

Missus clinton was exposed as unprincipled and dumb in the previous debate in Philadelphia. Scripted answers, a stacked audience, setup questions, clinton shills posing as pundits, Spitzer muzzled, and an empty "no" do not put "unprincipled" and "dumb" back in the box. To the contrary.

Just as she flunked the DC Bar exam, flunked the only managerial job she every had (heading health care reform), missus clinton flunked her only real vetting in the campaign to date: the Philly debate. An empty pantsuit but for the arrogance and hate.

The clintons will try to quash the Tim Russerts (and they probably will), but no matter. The clinton jackboot is irrelevant here. Her opponents and the new media AND THE PEOPLE will ask her the hard questions. Russert opened the door.

It's already starting. No doubt pressured by the clintons, old media are trying to reverse the momentum, trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. (CNN's original headline "CLINTON'S POLL SUPPORT SLIPS AFTER WEEK OF ATTACKS" quickly became: "A YEAR FROM ELECTION DAY, CLINTON REMAINS PERSON TO BEAT")

What old media are missing is that the last debate was no aberration.

Missus clinton is not capable of straight answers. It's not simply that she's 'a congenital liar,' to quote Bill Safire. It's that the truth will bury her.

Moreover, she is not capable of thinking off-script, on her feet, out-of-the-box.

As Carl Bernstein said the other day, "I think if there is a watershed moment... in the campaign that has interrupted this notion of inevitibility, that debate was probably it.... Hillary Rodham Clinton has had a difficult relationship to the truth."

He says her campaign has been designed to partly to help her avoid such questions, "and now they will have been unsuccessful at avoiding it. And that's what the campaign represents -- a failure to keep that question from coming front and center."

LOOK FOR HILLARY CLINTON'S FASCISTIC MOVES TO INTENSIFY.

Could not have been more obvious that Hillary Clinton and her campaign arranged to have a mob of supporters there with instructions to boo her two closest opponents. How discusting!!

Winners: CLINTON and BIDEN for their one-word response to the questions about driver's licenses for illegals.
Losers: OBAMA for crashing the plane totally by equivocating on the same driver's license for illegals question he was accusing Hillary of equivocating on.
WOLF BLITZER for not pinning the candidates down on the issues. (Tim Russert was better on this). THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for having to choose from the lists of candidates being offered by the Republicans and the Democrats.

I mostly agree, except for this:

"She was clearly aided by a sympathetic crowd who decided early on that they weren't interested in watching the candidates fight."

Sympathetic? Is that what it's called when a candidate packs the house with their own and then preps them on what to do?

Yeah, I know, each campaign got twenty tickets. But the campaign that is so organized it makes the Borg look like a bunch of Democrats is not going to leave this to chance. I am confident that they had their on-campus people getting students who support Hillary to ask for seats early and often.

The booing erupted immediately, during the statements of Obama and Edwards. Booing has never occurred at a Democratic debate, yet so many people decided to boo together all at the same time just by chance? I think not. Maybe someone could do a little reporting on it.

If I hear/read one more comment about Joe Biden being a plagerizer I am going to SCREAM! Get your facts straight instead of simply repeating what some other nincompoop wrote or said. In Sen. Biden's first attempt at running for president he quoted Neil Kinnock (spelling?) in several of his speeches. But, as he is human, on one of the occasions he used Mr. Kinnock's words he failed to give him credit for them. I do it all the time whenever I say "READ MY LIPS", or other things. Everyone does it all the time. When Biden did it the ONE time he simply forgot to say "As Neil Kinnock has said/written . . . ". SO GET OVER THE PLAGERIZING THING! If that is the only thing that keeps you from voting for Joe Biden, I can't wait to see who you are going to vote for.

As for "stockelh's" comments about Biden ushering Clarence Thomas through to the Supreme Court, pardon my french but, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!!!! I was working for the house of representatives at the time and watched those confirmation hearings every day. While Sen. Biden may have been the Judiciary Committee Chair, he did not smooth the way for Clarence Thomas in any way, shape, or form. It was Danforth from Missouri who helped Thomas get through those hearings and obtain the support from the majority of the Senate.

PLEASE, FOR ALL OF YOU WHO ARE THINKING YOU WON'T VOTE FOR BIDEN SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE PLAGERIZING CRAP, I WANT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE WAITING FOR TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT? NOBODY'S PERFECT.

AND, I AM THRILLED TO READ ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE FINALLY REALIZING THAT BIDEN IS THE BEST CANDIDATE IN THE FIELD. IF ALL OF YOU WHO THINK HE IS THE BEST BUT THAT HE CAN'T WIN WOULD JUST VOTE FOR HIM, HE WILL WIN!!!!!!!!! Stop contributing to the highjacking of the democratic nomination by the main stream media. Stop buying in to the thought this is a 2 or 3 person race. It's not!!! When it comes your time to vote in your primary or caucus, vote for the best person in the field: Joe Biden, and we'll really give the MSM something to talk about!!

lylepink writes
"Those opposed to her will, and have tried to distort just about everything she says and stands for."

Guilty. Well, I try not to distort, given that the facts are damning enough. Last night, on NY Gov Spitzer's (former) proposal regarding driver's licenses, she plainly said she's against the plan. At the last debate, she couldn't make up her mind. Ten days ago, she was getting 'piled on' by the mean boys club. Now she's merely being challenged on the issues because she's 'ahead'.

So, lyle, if she actually - and consistently - stood for something, she wouldn't subject herself to as much criticism.

Here's my new question for all the candidates:

"The nature of our two party system creates 'strange bedfellows' of supporters who often don't see eye-to-eye, even though they naturally fall into supporting one party. Which of your party's 'natural' supporters are you willing to risk alienating because your principles differ from theirs?"

JOE BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT. (Thanks, Chris, for the shout-out to the best candidate.) He's going to surprise people on Caucus night. www.JoeBiden.com

claudialong,
"And in any case, whatever happened to 'give me liberty or give me death' and 'he who values security over liberty deserves neither'?"

Fascinating. You complain the question should not have been asked in an either/or manner and then give two quotes that are either/or in nature. Patrick Henry's quote came in a call for war to give us freedom from the British. An either/or question was exactly how Henry saw it and he knew what the correct answer was also.

And I do think that if, say Biden, were to be elected, Republicans would be willing to work with him on many issues, especially the war. HRC on the other hand, despite her moderate positions on many things, would not get the same treatment simply because of the C in HRC.

"No matter which Democrat wins, they will begin immediately trying to find a way to bring them down." You think if Guiliani won, there wouldn't be a large contingent of the left looking to do the same?

Three little letters - PBS.

I am really liking Biden recently. Obama/Biden would be a pretty nice ticket for me.

I watched last nights debate and it has to be said that all the candidates missed a good opportunity to beat up on those losers on the Republican side like Mitt(the Kama Sutra candidate with more positions on EVERY issue than one can dicipher)Romney, Rudy G with more blunders and questionable episodes in his past than Al Ca****, and Sen McCain who never saw a Bush war strategy he didn't like, and LAZY Fred who sounds and acts like Pa Kettle . I like the possibility of a Biden-Webb ticket or any ticket with Clinton on top. I am a jeweler who makes and sells "HILLARY FOR PREZ" necklaces and I am selling them like hotcakes to YOUNG women. These are women who never had a political thought in their heads before this election. Believe me they are a new dynamic that the conventional wisdom guys have not considered properly. Hillary is very "electable" and the Republicans know it, why do you think the right-wing radio pundits daily PILLORY HILLARY as viciously as they can. They know none of their candidates can beat her. robert_lipka@yahoo.com

I have only two changes to your thoughts, Bidden was the most Presidential guy or girl since Martin Sheen.
Hillary did well enough to maintain her lead and regain her step. I disagree with you in that I think Obama was a looser.
I enjoyed the debate even during the slow part. Crazy Kucci showed why he is not even a viable candidate. What a hoot!

mcmahon10,
Missing key votes regardless of the outcome is never a good thing, especially when that key vote is on a foreign policy issue that is a distinguishing characteristic of your run for the presidency. Saying how you would vote is NEVER as good as actually voting and putting it on the record. Your arguement that it was already decided so not really important would mean that he technically does not really have to vote on any measure unless he would be the deciding vote. Last I checked, a large part of a senators job was to cast votes on legislation. This action gave the appearance of business as usual for a politician, not a good thing when you are the "candidate of change".

Well, what can I say, "They all look like losers to me." Par to expectations Wolf Blitzer took the easy road and didn't ask the tough questions or pin them down on issues. Ho hum more politics as usual.

I thought the questions were simplistic and trivial, flawed in their assumptions and offering false dichotomies,like the question of bonuses for teachers. Are we campaigning for President of the U.S. or President of the School Board? (2) Why doesn't the press ask Sen. Clinton about the benefits of an oligarchy? I don't think the sequence of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is a good model for our democracy, and the Athenians didn't like it either.(3)I like Biden and wish he were doing better in the polls: how can you not like a guy who can quote W.B. Yeats?

sarasalvania: I think I was the first and only Hillary supporter on "The Fix" for a long time, and now it seems a few more are posting. Those opposed to her will, and have tried to distort just about everything she says and stands for. Make no mistake about the repubs wanting to run against someone else, they know Hillary is a winner and they cannot beat her in the General. That is a plain and simple reason for their opposition.

The 'national security vs. rights' question was the dumbest of all. As if there were no other choices but a straight yes or no. We can have both -- this is an idiotic straw man.

And in any case, whatever happened to 'give me liberty or give me death' and 'he who values security over liberty deserves neither'?

Have we become a nation of whimpering cowards?

And i have to agree with Loudon -- no matter who is elected, it ain't gonna 'unite' us. The two party's positions on everything are galaxies apart. And do you really think that Republicans are going to try to work with ANY Democratic president?

No matter which Democrat wins, they will begin immediately trying to find a way to bring them down.

To all the people who believe Hillary will lose in the general election, give me a break?! Have you forgotten how, just a few months ago, everyone thought that she was a long shot in securing the Dem. nomination? Well, she's definitely no longer a long shot now. We're all so willing to undermine her candidacy because that's what we've been hearing for so long from the media, without stopping to realize how well her campaign has exceeded all of our expectations. Support does not come from thin air and she definitely has plenty of supporters who are not just the party faithful. She won over the Republicans in upstate NY, why not elsewhere?

And to those who claim that the audience in last night's debate were picked by the HRC campaign, I'm sorry, but your conspiracy theories have got to stop, you give Hillary's campaign staff too much power in your minds.

I think they all did a fine job. Even Mr. Kucinich had some good eye openers.

Bill Richardson seems to me to be always graded unfairly at each debate. Since he is the only guy to have actually administered anything and has any real foreign policy experience he is expected to knock every question out of the park. The others including the so-called big three are not expected to be as presidential because because they've never done anything but run for President. Bill has so much more experience and it shows altho the talking heads are crushing on the three headed poll leaders. Give Bill his due.

What a bevy of cleverness in the comments! All the slicing and dicing to determine if Hillary, the media's and corporate darling, regained from her "goof" on illegals getting licenses--as if this were any measure for evaluating her as a candidate. What stuck me is that Kucinich said more in the millisecond he was allowed to speak than all of the ramblings of the other candidates.The voters have been lied to for so long and have had so much equivocating from democrats that they are ready for a big change, not mere tinkering with a broken, unfair system.

While Edwards has sniffed this, he is criticized for criticising. Let's all be nice and vague [slice and dice]and we'll win because all want to be rid of the republicans.

In my view Kucinich has won all the debates, hands down. By the way, I noticed he's taller than Hillary! Why? because he has a clear vision for America based on principle and purpose. We haven't has this since Roosevelt, with the possible exception of Kennedy. Kucinich offers a program comparable to Roosevelt's, with a small dash of Truman. Remember it was Truman who propose universal health care in 1948.

Joe Biden is also a winner, and what a good running mate for Kucinich! Those two could light the proper flame.

Richardson is beginning to sound like a secretary of state.

Don't count Edwards out; he's evolving in a very progressive direction.

Hillary and Obama are corporate darlings and wouldn't be where they are if we required public financing of campaigns.

The big change we need is represented by Kucinich, and the big boys are striving to keep the damper on him. Maybe the voters will see through their tactics. I hope so for all our sakes.

Yes, candidates sometime go on and should shut up and lord knows they too often SPIN.
But I could not disagree with the idea it's OK for the moderator to cut off a sincere explanation. More importantly, some questions cannot be answered by "Yes" or "No" without leaving an incorrect impression of the candidate's true, even honest position. I'm reminded of the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?". It can't be answered correctly if you have never beaten your wife. Same with Yes/No; the moderator knows that and, as last night, formulates a question which is "Gotcha", which Blitzer did. That's not good journalism and it harms the democratic process because the damn debate becomes a game show instead of a teaching/learning experience. Otherwise, it's thinking and speaking like a simpleton, such as George W. Bush.
I want the candidates to sit in a circle and go at each other. When one SPINS, the others can pick it apart, including when one of them tries to SPIN one of the other's answer, etc. If they don't perform that function, then the moderator can step in, as long as it's not a "Gotcha".
If you ever watch Meet The Press, the highly touted moderator, Tim Russert, is infamous for running a "Gotcha" show. How often have I heard him drag up a quote or clip from 40 years earlier (perhaps I exaggerate) to confront the guest and in so doing creates a false conflict. I would MUCH rather have Charlie Rose moderating these things. We might actually hear an intelligent, even a relevant question asked.
This is not to say that when the candidate goes off the deep end the moderator shouldn't bring a little order to the proceedings. However, what they really want to do is control everything and get a good headline. Screw 'em.
As for the Drivers License issue... if the Feds don't enforce immigration laws, I think it is absurd for the citizenship to have a hissy-fit when the local/state governments try to bring some sort of out-of-the-shadows ID plan to the table. The "local" ID given an illegal alien would not be a "legal" ID. It would be, in effect, a THIS-GUY-PASSED-THE-DRIVING-LICENSE-TEST card and it would REGISTER THEM in the system for all sorts of other police purposes. The idea that people would cross the border to get a DL, as argued by, was it Chris Dodd, is moronic. Nor is such a card acknowledgement of any legal rights on their part. And there is nothing liberal/conservative about it. For instance, the most right-wing state in the Union, Utah, already has such a program and it's working well. It's a good idea in lieu of the Feds (say "George Bush") failing to enforce the borders. But, people so prefer the hysterical over the rational. The moderators know that and they want that "Gotcha" answer because they want to force the candidates into saying something that will cause a clamor. Thus, we have the Yes/No "Gotcha" question posted by Mr. Blitzer. It's disgusting. You see, the debates are opportunities to learn WHY a candidate holds a certain view. Such a teaching experience is why these debates could be useful. Now, the audience (home or auditorium) may or may not agree with the candidate, but they still might learn how the candidate thinks. Everything is not black and white and I'd prefer a candidate who THINKS than one I always agree with.

Yes, candidates sometime go on and should shut up and lord knows they too often SPIN.
But I could not disagree with the idea it's OK for the moderator to cut off a sincere explanation. More importantly, some questions cannot be answered by "Yes" or "No" without leaving an incorrect impression of the candidate's true, even honest position. I'm reminded of the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?". It can't be answered correctly if you have never beaten your wife. Same with Yes/No; the moderator knows that and, as last night, formulates a question which is "Gotcha", which Blitzer did. That's not good journalism and it harms the democratic process because the damn debate becomes a game show instead of a teaching/learning experience. Otherwise, it's thinking and speaking like a simpleton, such as George W. Bush.
I want the candidates to sit in a circle and go at each other. When one SPINS, the others can pick it apart, including when one of them tries to SPIN one of the other's answer, etc. If they don't perform that function, then the moderator can step in, as long as it's not a "Gotcha".
If you ever watch Meet The Press, the highly touted moderator, Tim Russert, is infamous for running a "Gotcha" show. How often have I heard him drag up a quote or clip from 40 years earlier (perhaps I exaggerate) to confront the guest and in so doing creates a false conflict. I would MUCH rather have Charlie Rose moderating these things. We might actually hear an intelligent, even a relevant question asked.
This is not to say that when the candidate goes off the deep end the moderator shouldn't bring a little order to the proceedings. However, what they really want to do is control everything and get a good headline. Screw 'em.
As for the Drivers License issue... if the Feds don't enforce immigration laws, I think it is absurd for the citizenship to have a hissy-fit when the local/state governments try to bring some sort of out-of-the-shadows ID plan to the table. The "local" ID given an illegal alien would not be a "legal" ID. It would be, in effect, a THIS-GUY-PASSED-THE-DRIVING-LICENSE-TEST card and it would REGISTER THEM in the system for all sorts of other police purposes. The idea that people would cross the border to get a DL, as argued by, was it Chris Dodd, is moronic. Nor is such a card acknowledgement of any legal rights on their part. And there is nothing liberal/conservative about it. For instance, the most right-wing state in the Union, Utah, already has such a program and it's working well. It's a good idea in lieu of the Feds (say "George Bush") failing to enforce the borders. But, people so prefer the hysterical over the rational. The moderators know that and they want that "Gotcha" answer because they want to force the candidates into saying something that will cause a clamor. Thus, we have the Yes/No "Gotcha" question posted by Mr. Blitzer. It's disgusting. You see, the debates are opportunities to learn WHY a candidate holds a certain view. Such a teaching experience is why these debates could be useful. Now, the audience (home or auditorium) may or may not agree with the candidate, but they still might learn how the candidate thinks. Everything is not black and white and I'd prefer a candidate who THINKS than one I always agree with.

Some musings after last night's debate:
Biden-President
Obama-VP
Clinton-Senate Majority Leader

Treasury-Bloomberg
State-Lugar
Defense-Hagel

The current debate format is a farce, which is why I don't watch any of them. Why line up all the candidates on a stage and then ask only two or three of them 95% of the insipid questions. I already know how Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are going to respond to questions because I read the news everyday and see their names splashed across the headlines. I want to to be able to hear the views of the other candidates as well. How can a listener make an informed decision on a candidate they may decide to vote for if the debate format is biased towards only two or three candidates. And don't even get me started on the asking of insipid questions. The debates will serve no real purpose until EVERY candidate gets a chance to respond to the questions asked. As a thinking member of the voting electorate I am sick and tired of commercial broadcasters deciding which candidate is "worthy" of being asked questions. Don't think for me, I can think for myself! GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY to make up my own mind after hearing the responses from ALL of them. I better quit now before I really start getting mad!

Blitzer obviously favored Clinton & Obama! He gave them chances to rebut others' comments about them, but failed to give Edwards the chance to rebut Clinton's "mudslinging" comment and the question that went to Dodd for his "angry" comment earlier in the week.

Clinton & Obama got nearly DOUBLE the time the others got. Blitzer, contrary to his word, failed to cut them off, especially Hillary, while cutting off others in the middle of their answers.

Horrible debate, the worst to date. While I like not having bells & timers, every candidate should have the chance to be heard, not just the media darlings.

If it was ever doubted, CNN planted the 'pearls/diamonds' question...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/16/diamond-or-pearls-cnn-made-her-do-it/

If you haven't seen the "Joe is Right" video on his website, take a look. If you've watched one or more of the Dem debates, the fact is that every candidate points to Joe being right on foreign policy issues.

Take a look at the video at http://www.joebiden.com/home. Video title is "Joe is Right."

With Edwards and Obama either stumbling or making no noise at all, Hillary is the winner by default. Which isn't a bad thing when you're the frontrunner.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

dave,
how did he fail? because he didn't show up for a vote that was already decided? which is worse, voting for the iran resolution, or not showing up to a vote when it is already decided. i would take someone who came out against it and missed the vote (where it would not have made a difference), than one who was for it. I guess I think the judgment is more important than showing up for posterity's sake.

You missed a winner:

Richardson sitting at 12% in Iowa with Edwards not performing is not a bad thing for him. He got great exposure time on a broad array of issues and my wife a teacher was looking for Teachers for Richardson bumper stickers after his education talk. 15% is the caucus magic number and this performance absolutely helps him towards that goal.

Placing Human Rights might be argued to hurt one but it's very easy to fall back on Jefferson and others that placed the inalienable rights of man above all others. Likewise being pro second amendment he can always pull a one liner out of the hat.

Something like,

You know republicans want us to believe that al quaeda threatens our National Security and we should sacrifice our most basic human rights our civil liberties to protect it that we should sacrifice our moral standing in the world to oppose them. Al quaeda does not threaten our national security, they are no sviet union. I assure you should an al quaida army ever land on US shores I and every other second amendment loving american would kill them all quickly.

They can hurt americans and I as president will end the distraction of iraq and refocus our military and dimplomatic might on afgansistan and the taliban strongholds of pakistan. I will treat the vast majority of moderate pakistani's as human beings with inalienable rights providing aid and assistance to ensure that in embracing democracy they need not fight tyranny from their military, that they need not turn to the taliban in the northeast to attempt some semblance of freedom.

It's answerable we just haven't had anyone with the courage to do it recently. remember even bush turned to human rights issues to justify iraq you just have to show strength as well as respect for democratic principles. There is significant sympathy for human rights or we wouldn't care about darfur a region with no National Security implications for us.

Lets all try and use a little common sense and logic about these so called "Debates". There is very little difference on issues that effect most of us in our everyday lives. I think one issue that has been ignored is the soaring debt. The borrow and spend policy has caught most folks unaware of what this will do to our economy in the near future. Many current, worthwhile programs will have to be eliminated, along with tax hikes on SS and all income, primaraly on the top earners. The tax on folks that can afford them must be done, and IMHO, I don't think many of them will resist very much.

Just a comment on the audience being stacked with Clinton supporters -- I was at the debate and can tell you that it wasn't a matter of CNN or Clinton stacking the deck, but a function of the reality that Clinton has effectively scooped up nearly all of the party loyalists (who made up most of the crowd) in Nevada. I'm an Obama supporter myself, but, like it or not, Clinton's Nevada team has done everything right since day one.

As for who won the debate from a "live" audience member -- Joe Biden hands down.

Best part of the debate -- meeting "Mike" from Desperate Housewives at the VIP afterparty.

"Joe Biden embarrassed himself and the Democratic party by being rightfully targetted as a plagiarizer in the '88 campaign..."

2229, Joe Biden did not plagiarize. What he failed to do during the incident that painted him a plagiarizer was forget to credit the person as he had done for the same person all other times prior. The media reported the incident as a case of plagiarism, and it stuck.

If George W. Bush could be elected after getting preferential treatment to avoid going to Vietnam, being arrested for drunk driving, and for being completely ignorant of the world -- then why not Biden for one gaffe and for which his campaign was actually at fault?

And for all those who point to Hillary's divisiveness -- the fact is that any one of the Dems will be vilified by the Rs, and vice versa. It is the country that's divided, with no one willing to budge an inch to find common ground. Remember, it's why Joe Biden encouraged John Kerry to ask McCain to be his veep, but McCain just wasn't interested.

The only way to end the divisiveness is for the person who wins to put members of the other party in their cabinet - something, btw, which Biden mentioned he would do last night.

I don't understand how the Fix can get away with being so blatantly pro-Hillary. Perhaps she deserves to be in the winners column, but in the last debate (where she clearly lost) she was put in the "Tweeners" column!! Why had there never been a "Tweener" column before the debate and why isn't there one now?

This entire "inevitable nominee" attitude is ruining the race.

dn1021,
"Sorry, people, if you make over $97,000, you ARE upper class." It depend where you live. If you live in Manhattan, you probably will not live in an upper class sort of way. I can tell you if you live in Northern Va, that makes you comfortable, not upper class.

mcmahon10,
Some votes are more important than others and some are more important to some people than others. This vote was important to Obama and he skipped it in order to campaign. You can blame that on Harry Reid if you want but the fact remains that it's Obama's responsibility to balance his senate work and campaigning. In this instance, he failed.

"Anyone who reads the Fix regularly (Fixistas unite!) knows which part of the debate we liked better"

Sadly, we do.

This is the first debate that I watched in its entirety. I was impressed at how much substance was provided by the candidates and how little commentary there was on the substance. All in all, I was impressed with the candidates in general and did not see the "losers" that were noted. I have not decided who to vote for yet, and continue to find the coverage shallow. For example, just because Clinton supporters were rude enough to boo Edwards when their candidate was being challenged doesn't mean that Edwards was not on point and does not make him a loser. I believe that it makes the rude audience loosers. This is not an NFL game! It is a venue where some decorum is expected. Moreover, Clinton's mudslinging comment was over the top. I did not see any mudslinging form anyone. The attacks were relatively mild and appeared to be based on policy disagreements or style disagreements. I saw no swiftboating or other Rovian tactics of the type that have turned our stomachs for the past 7 years. Disagreement is a good thing!

I have to agree, the insistence on yes or no answers is frustrating.
For more than 6 years, on major issues ranging from Iraq to Katrina the only insights given the American people have been it's "Hard Work"
Personally I would like to know
Who is doing the hard work
What is the hard work accomplishing
Where is the hard work being done
Why is the work so hard
When will we see results from all the hard work
How will this hard work benefit the American people.

Those in Washington may not think the American people are smart enough to understand answers utilizing words that involve more than one syllable. I believe they are wrong.

While the "boys club" all had clear responses, and articulately expressed the concerns of the American people, Senator Clinton's answers were vague and rhetorical. It appears that Edwards, Obama, Biden, and Dodd all have an accurate grasp of, and appreciation for, our country's needs, and how to repair the United States' international relations. With Senator Clinton being the only candidate whose comments failed to reflect concrete, intelligent solutions to the issues raised by the American population, how can she be leading in the polls?? It appears to me that journalists are not providing Senators Biden and Dodd the equal air time that their grasp of the United States' internal and international issues very much deserves. Spare me Senator Clinton's rhetoric (and attacks to and from Edwards and Obama) - I would like more of the real meat and potatoes dished up by Joe Biden and Chris Dodd!

I have to agree, the insistence on yes or no answers is frustrating.
For more than 6 years, on major issues ranging from Iraq to Katrina the only insights given the American people are it's "Hard Work"
Personally I would like to know
Who is doing the hard work
What is the hard work accomplishing
Where is the hard work being done
Why is the work so hard
When will we see results from all the hard work
How will this hard work benefit the American people.

Those in Washington may not think the American people are smart enough to understand answers wiht words that involve more than one syllable. I think they are wrong.

Blitzer had no control. Only those that he thought might please the attendance got most of the questions. Mrs. Clinton gave the most + answers. If Blitzer did not want to hear more responce other that a yes or no answer he would interrupt, however, those that he favored he would let those continue to talk. Like Clinton said the attacks towards her was because she is the front runner.

We need, as president, someone with an exceptional foreign policy background. Of those Democrats running, only Joe Biden meets that criterion. The next president, Republican or Democrat will need the diplomatic skills so woefully lacking in the current president. Unfortunately, it's money which will determine the outcome. Most Americans have little patience for diplomacy, viewing it as being outside their scope of things which affect them personally.

I wish Biden had run in 2004. He is so much more eloquent than Kerry. He would have blown away all the other Democratic candidates and defeated Bush. Here in 2007, he can't beat the star power of Clinton and Obama. But at least I can hope that he becomes Secretary of State.

I though the best moment of the night was when Biden insisted on answering the audience member's original question, instead of the revised version offered by the moderators.

LOSERS: people who need to inflate their sagging self images by rudely criticizing one of Chris's rare grammatical mistakes.

Who among us can write a fraction of what Chris writes on a daily basis without making a single grammatical mistake? That's what I thought...

I try to accept people with flaws...grammatical or otherwise.

Keep up the great work, Chris.

I think you should have included CNN as a loser. Wolf Blitzer was terrible. The way he was interrupting candidates made me miss those debates with hokey lights and buzzers. And how could he not challenge Clinton on her "no" to the immigration question? That was embarrassing journalism. I also thought CNN could have done more to quiet the crowd. It became a pep rally with Clinton supporters basically booing anyone who criticized her. CNN needed to control the crowd- instead, they seemed to be encouraging it. The Democrats should just give in and debate on Fox. At least Fox knows how to run a debate.

If you think this debate was worth watching or hearing your IQ has to be below 70.

Canned answers to canned questions. The biggest losers are the American people.

Anyone who thinks an American president can accomplish the inane promises made is a fool of the first order.

"I am a Hillary Clinton fan for a number of reasons, but I am no less a Joe Biden fan. And during every debate, I wonder why it is that Dems don't embrace him more than they do --"

Joe Biden embarrassed himself and the Democratic party by being rightfully targetted as a plagiarizer in the '88 campaign.

I'm surprised he's running, tho he's a good man otherwise.

"OBAMA DIDN'T SHOW UP FOR THE VOTE"

DO YOU GUYS REALIZE HOW THE VOTES WORK? It was not supposed to be up for the vote the day that it was. Obama was already out of DC when it happened. Whenever there is going to be a close vote, the leader will hold up the vote so that they can get all of their people there. The leader didn't call Obama because it wasn't necessary. He put out a statement THE VERY SAME DAY when the vote was stating that he was against it.
Why isn't anyone complaining that none of the senators were there for the Mukasey vote?
Also, when you look at the number of votes missed by the four senators, they are all very similar. And if I remember correctly, Edwards vote percentage wasn't also about the same. This is such a non issue.

Wolf Blitzer did not give Kucinich the opportunity to make his point about Impeachment of President Bush. Mistake to cut him off. I think he would have handled this differently had it been one of the top candidates.

Would you support Impeachment the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney over the Iraq War?

-----------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1002

.

I watched the debate last night, have read Chris' column and all of your comments. I thought that some of the candidates gave some thoughtful and thought-provoking answers. I am surprised, however, that after reading the complaints about the lameness of CNN's questions and the "jaw-dropping dumbing-down of America" in general, no one has commented on last night's discussion of the state of American education. I believe it was Senator Dodd who stated that it is the single most important issue facing the nation and, after reading the comments and analysis of the "debate", can anyone question the veracity of that statement? There is no question that our whole political system has been "dumbed-down" and, until we significantly improve our approach to teaching our children, we will be condemned to repeat scenes like last night's ad infinitum.

"I watched the first 20 minutes before falling asleep (this debate could put ambein out of business) The biggest loser was CNN as they were totally lame."

You didn't watch ANY of the debate. Russert was tougher than I'd ever seen him. Both Clinton and Obama acquitted themselves quite well.

I think this debate just may turn this into a two-headed race. Edwards, with all of his great ideas, doesn't know how to act in public, much like his running John "Yes, I'd vote for the war resolution again" Kerry.

Why does everyone give HRC a free pass on "35 years of experience?" What experience? Until running for NYS Senate, she held no elective post. She ran no corporation.

Listening to her husband discuss his job doesn't really count either as governor or president.

Does she count the time Bill was out of office in her "35 years?"

Joe Biden's 35 years are real!

I totally disagree with your analysis. Hillary did nothing exceptional and is now calling criticism of her taking corporate lobbyist money and double-speaking as personal attacks. These are facts. She defends a system that is corrupt and broken and is counting on it to get her elected. Also, she voted for the Iran Resolution which gives Bush the opportunity, if he wants to take it, to attack Iran because she (they disclared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terriorist organization and most importantly a profilerator of WMD. She still is talking out of both sides of her mouth and I don't trust her. Watch her actions (her voting record) not what she is saying now. I also believe that a real professional jounalist should investigate the audience. It was too pro-Hillary. Just a thought that maybe these people were planted to boo Edwards and Obama. Edwards and Obama did a fine job and reiterated the differences between them and her. But for some curious reason the audience wasn't having any of it. I believe this audience was hand picked to be Hillary supporters intentionally so that they would discourage Edwards and Obama from nailing her. I am not going to let the media discourage me by giving the nomination to her. Not one vote has been cast yet they proclaim that she is winning. I don't believe it. Go Edwards! Don't Back Down That's What They Are Counting On.

Mark in Austin summed up what I thought pretty well, with his group that were introduced to the debates for the first time. He made me think that maybe in America there are some real people who think for themselves and hopefully will be informed enough to go into the voting booths in the primaries and make some independenty arrived-at and thoughtful choices. He also encourages me that there is a whole silent majority out t