For all of you folks who really believe that Edwards is the best debater, has the most coherent plans for the future of this country, and would do best in the general election, please make your voice heard to the media. We are not getting even coverage of the candidates and that is a real shame.

I am personally sick of the all Hillary/Obama Show all the time. This is not a personality contest; this is the future of our crippled country that is decided. It is -again -being reduced to sound-bites. The Republican operatives are are rubbing their hands in glee over how easy it will be to divide the country using race and gender as weapons. Hillary and Obama both have heavy baggage in this race (past votes, non votes, drugs, lobbyists - to name a few). Please, give the Democratic party a clean candidate who can really stand up to the Republican attack that will be in full force this summer.

John Edwards was sharp and focused in the SC debate, staying on message as he has in all the debates I've seen. He has earned my vote for that and even more significant reasons. His policy proposals were the first and most substantive in this campaign; his refusal to take contributions from entities who would block the critically-needed changes for our country (which, alone, would be reason enough!), his environmental proposals and the fact that he's the only one of the 3 front runners who strongly opposes building more nuclear power plants; his determination to stay focused on his goals for our country and our place in the world rather than becoming distracted by the fact that his candidacy has been trivialized or marginalized by most of the MSM (who, I'm convinced, are afraid of Edwards' commitment to doing something about irresponsible corporations driven by greed).

Finally, John Edwards is the worst nightmare of business-as-usual in DC and of Republicans because he can win! I encourage all who want real change to take a second look at Edwards; read his proposals; check everyone's contributors' lists. Go deeper than the media hype, and you might agree with me that John Edwards would be a fine president and world leader.

The debate highlighted the weaknesses of both Hilary and obama. The two of them are raising their own negatives. It is time for Democrats to seriously look at John Edwards as the BEST candidate to defeat McCain or any Republican. Not only is he solid in his views and very articulate, the only negatives they can throw at him are that he is a trial lawyer--which he can certainly turn to his advantage, and the fact that he indulged himself in one haircut! When you think of the Hilary haters just itching to destroy her and Bill again, and the fact that Obama's positions are not yet well defined and he can be attacked as inexperienced, if the Democrats really want to win they MUST look at the advantages of choosing Edwards. Otherwise the media will make this campaign into a circus ("The Bill and Hilary Show" or more irrelevant junk about race and politics) and prevent voters from facing the serious issues confronting our country...

I thought the questions were quite stupid: How would a candidate hypothetically fix the PRESENT crisis? Well, the new President won't take office for another year, but the stimulus must take effect NOW, no later than March, or else it would be useless. Why waste time asking these candidates that are not in office for their opinion?

Harridan's a good, adult word. How about "drama queen"? As in, "Bill is such a drama queen!"

Enough already. They're embarassing.
ABC

After watching this debate, I am once again impressed with John Edwards. He won again -- hands down. Why he is not doing better in the polling is a puzzle...

He is sincere and genuinely has the best interests of the Anerican People (the bottom 98% anyway) in mind. He truly would make a difference -- much for the better -- in our lives.

Edwards understands what makes a nation great.

HRC did well, I think. Not shrill at all -- just strong. If a man fought like she does, he would be characterized as "tough". She does it, and she's "shrill". Go figure. It wouldn't be sexism, would it?

To me, HRC seems prepared and knowledgeable on the issues. Yes, she's bland and lacks the wittiness of, say, a Huckabee, but she is solid in debate.

As for Obama, debating is not his strong suit. Oratory is. He is a great speaker who would rally this nation. He finished 3rd in this debate, but very well may be the best Leader we have...

So...

Of all candidates, I prefer Edwards, but I honestly do not think he has a realistic shot.

I would prefer HRC to anyone the Repubs have to offer (possible exception: John McCain -- if only he'll change his policies on health care and Iraq... yeah, that'll happen!).

And I still believe Obama would be the best for this country of ours, reminiscent of JFK.

Obama:
"I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama sarcastically noted during one exchange.
Clinton:
"I think that he is very much advocating on my behalf, and I appreciate that," she said. "He is a tremendous asset. And he feels very strongly about this country, and what's at stake and what our future should be." She added that "this campaign is not about our spouses."

This is a fight the Clinton campaign welcomes. But it is one that threatens to have long-term consequences if both sides cannot find a way to pull back. Given the stakes of this nomination battle, that seems unlikely anytime soon.
=====================

Depending upon the perspective of the opponent and their overall supporters inclination, it is their option to point out possible contentious points about gender or race.
Obviously Obama has chosen to take on the victims role in this battle while Clinton has reiterated the old saying of "all is fair in love and war".
She's right so if Obama can't take up the gauntlet he should step aside or concede.

Obama:
"I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama sarcastically noted during one exchange.
Clinton:
"I think that he is very much advocating on my behalf, and I appreciate that," she said. "He is a tremendous asset. And he feels very strongly about this country, and what's at stake and what our future should be." She added that "this campaign is not about our spouses."

This is a fight the Clinton campaign welcomes. But it is one that threatens to have long-term consequences if both sides cannot find a way to pull back. Given the stakes of this nomination battle, that seems unlikely anytime soon.
=====================

Depending upon the perspective of the opponent and their overall supporters inclination, it is the candidates option to point out possible contentious points about gender or race.
Obviously Obama has chosen to take on the victim role in this battle while Clinton has reiterated the old saying of "all is fair in love and war".
She's right so if Obama can't take up the gauntlet he should step aside or concede on point.

Michelle Obama was on the board of a wholey owned subsidary of Wal_Mart.

Obama never mentions that, does he?

Obama looked into the camera and lied last night. He didn't come close to telling the truth about his deep, long time relationship with Tony Rezco, or all the media Rezco has raised for Obama over the years.

Want some truth, complete with photos of OBama and Rezco, copies of letters Obama wrote as an IL Senator on Rezco's behalf, and multiple link and clips from the local Chicago papers detailing their relationship? See for yourself:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/22/11049/2664#64

Great work by a blogger here.

Chris...a couple questions

1. How confident can Democrats be that Hillary will be able to win against John McCain in a general election. Personally, I don't mind Hillary (though I'm an Obama supporter)...but I didn't go through the last eight years to see another republican in office, even if it is McCain

2. When is JTIII going to get the Hoyas rebounding again...I think Maclin needs more playing time and Summers needs to get out of his funk...but seriously, 15-3 in offensive boards, we snuck out with one last night

Hoya Saxa

Democrats kick off final showdown before South Carolina

The top three Democratic candidates jumped into Monday night's debate with a heated discussion about how to stimulate the economy.

Who Won the CNN Democratic Debate in South Carolina?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1603

.

Somebody please explain to me, why are some blacks referring to Bill Clinton as the first black President? As a black man, I find this to be insulting. Bill Clinton is a white man, not a black man. Some ignorant blacks need to get over it and see Clinton as he is, a white man.

For those posters not old enough (or who are old enough but just didn't pay attention), the popular joke back in the 90's when Bill Clinton was president was that he never met a Republican idea he didn't co-opt.

I think it's absolutely hillarious how the Clintons twist and spin like Carl Rove in his prime but then maybe they're just getting forgetful. (I hear that happens at their age.)

This accusation that Obama is a massive heretic who is guilty of the unpardonable sin of favoring Reagan over Bill Clinton (which I personally do think is an inpardonable sin) seems to me to be fundamentally dishonest. If Barack Obama is such a Reagan lover, wouldn't he be running in Republican circles, where he'd be their wet dream of the great black hope?! I mean come on, does anybody in the Democratic electorate really believe that Barack Obama is a closet Reaganite?! How is it that he is the most popular elected official in Chicago and Cook County, home to the most liberal/Democratic voting districts in America? The absurdity of this accusation should be evidence enough that the Clintonistas are willing to be intellectually dishonest to any extent needed to win.

Ward wrote "This is why I said, I am not voting for Senator Barak Obama based on his being a black man."

oh thanks for the explanation, I misunderstood the post as well as I think everyone else. Good point you make.

rd

I am now waiting for the Talent and Swimsuit parts of the competition.

Let's try that again, with a few less typos:

Hillary did the best. I can't believe Obama's ability to miss the central point on critical issues. America needs universal health care. Both Hillary and Edwards's plans are excellent. Obama's plan doesn't guarantee coverage for everyone and would leave large incentives for people and insurance companies to waste time and money "gaming the system"

Hillary's plan is the best.

Hillary did the best. I can't believe Obama's ability to miss the central point on critical issues. America needs universal health care. Both Hillary and Edwards's plans are excellend. Obama's plan doesn't garentee coverage and would result in both people and insurance companies wasting time and money "gaming the systems"

I thought they all did well. Edwards was good, but I don't think he'll get the support he was hoping for. The crowd was obviously for Obama due to locale.
For me, and those I watched it with, Hillary is still our choice as the strongest and most forceful leader we believe this country needs. Obama side-steps too much, and what little details he did let out (health care), we didn't like. The GOP will have a field day with him if he is the nominee.

I need to make a few points. I work for the public I know that at least half of them think obama is a muslim, and will take over the country! They are unedjucable. We have to pick a candidate who will get us out of this stupid war, which was the number 1 issue until the economy got in the way.

The media has given Obama a free ride. He has not been challenged on any of his issues. He is now being challenged and this has frustrated him. He came off as a very angry man because he does not like criticism. Its okay for him to challange Hillary on her policies, but notfor her to question him. He wants to be a perfect human being...always telling the truth, while the other candidates are lairs. He was clearly frustrated tonight. I don't need a feel good speech. I want to hear about the important issues facing this country.

Let's focus on the credit card interest rate ceiling of 30% for a minute. Rather than debate the vote, how about the fact that the choices were a 30% cap, or no cap at all? Anybody think their legislators just might have been letting the credit card companies write this bill? Anybody remember Obama stating there were no hearings before this legislation was introduced? There's a deeper question here when a legislator can suggest they were looking out for consumers when they voted yes to increase the interest rate cap to 30%. We, the citizens, were rolled. No one was looking out for consumers or they would have demanded proper hearings! Imagine giving a consumer group the right to challenge the rate. Don't you wish you could play a game where you win if you make one choice, and win bigger if you make the other. Welcome to corporate America and their K Street buddies. Let's vote for politicians who don't take PAC money. Let's demand stricter ethics reform. Maybe then we'll be able to take our government back from the big corporations and their lobbyists. Obama voted no, expecting better legislation to be vetted through the senate banking committee. It is a travesty that our legislators haven't addressed this yet.

I want to vote for a Democrat again with every bone in my body.

There's no way I can vote for Hillary. Especially after tonight. Absolutely horrible. I'll get over it personally, but not at the polling place. Hillary is so obviously twisting words and playing games with Bill. It's completely disgusting to watch. It's the lowest level of politics. It only benefits Bill and Hill and will drag the country down into muck further and further.

I'm not that crazy about Obama or Edwards either, but I will vote for them if either of them gets the nomination.

nick - I actually watched it. If SC thought JRE did well in the debate, do you think that will get him enough votes in the SC primary to reach 15%?

In SC are they votes that will eventually go to HRC or BHO?
---------------------------
I agree with earlier posters who thought that
the Ds would want a race based on domestic policy against McC.

Dave, you are correct! I am not voting for Senator Obama based on his views or policies, not because of his skin color.

Obama is the candidate who brought up race FIRST. Ask Congressman Charlie Rangle.

mbakke,
Tell your kids don't be an idiot and do drugs. I think it is problematic that the example Obama would set is that he did drugs and became president. Kids and teens think of themselves as indestructable as it is, they don't need "proof" that you can do coke and still be president. Unlike optimyst, I actually like Bush's answer the best. Much like I don't need to detail my sex life to my kids, I don't need to detail any drug use to them.

I accept your apology bokonon13. We can agree to disagree, but we all must be "civil" towards one another.

I agree with dewanitum - I would like to add that Clinton's 35 years of experience won't amount to much compared to the years of experience that McCain has.

Ward4DC, I apologize for making the assumption that I made. I don't agree with your point about Obama, but I did not mean to offend.

I think Obama was the clear winner tonight he stood up to Billary tonight and won the back and forth but the best thing that he did tonight was to call Hillary on her mantra that I have taken on the GOP for 15 years and I am the only one that can fight and take the Republicans on in a general election the 51% strategy the poison coattail strategy that we have seen for the last two divisive Presidential cycles. Obama on the other hand talked about the 60% strategy a working majority that can move a progressive agenda for America the golden coattails strategy! Instead of becoming the enemy of the GOP like Billary wants Obama wants to be the alternative to a failed Republican policy and party and bring these disenchanted disenfranchised Republicans into the fold! Obama has the winning strategy for the D's and for the country! Change doesn't come until EVERYBODY in America has hope! Senator Barack Obama For President of the United States of America! IT'S TIME!

Ward4DC,

Ahhh I misread, I am sorry. When I read it the first time, I thought you were not voting for him simply because he was black. Just so I am clear, you are voting based on policy and despite the fact that he is black, as are you, you don't agree on issues which you consider more important than the fact that he is black. Which is, IMO, how things should actually work in America.

I'm sick and tired with Clinton, Obama BS. This infighting will only give the Repubs the election in Nov. John Edwards can unite the party and give the Dems a much needed victory.

to mbakke about drugs. If Obama is elected, he'll be the third consecutive president who did drugs, and the first who was honest about it. Clinton said he didn't inhale. Bush said he did "childish things" when he was younger.

So the talk with the kids might be about honesty.

CNN and rest of Mass media is pushing for Clinton for long time and everybody is rooting for Clinton's. Almost every political pundit on CNN is former Clinton staffer so there is obvious bias toward wanting Clinton's back in white house. Anybody who goes against Clinton is pulled of the air by CNN

bokonon13, I am a black man. Unfortunately, many blacks are only voting for Senator Barak Obama, because he's a black man. I am not voting for either Senators Clinton or John Edwards based on their views on illegal immigration. By November 2008, I will have switched from being a Democrat to an Independent in the District of Columbia.

dogsbestfriend - "The media is hell bent on trying to surface latent racism among white voters to stop Obama's momentum."

How is that working? If there is latent racism among white voters, aren't they going to not vote for Obama anyway? How would the media bringing it to the surface make prejudiced white voter less likely to vote for Obama?

I may vote for Obama or Clinton, but I agree that Edwards won the debate hands down. No wonder he won so many settlements - he can debate.

to mbakke - for how to talk to your kids about drugs - I would say that remember that Obama does not say that it was right or smart. The issue of presidents taking drugs is also not a new one, G.W.Bush and B.Clinton have admitted taking marijuana. There are good websites to help prepare parents to talk to their kids a/b drugs and I would suggest you google this to find support for this issue (ex: http://www.talkingwithkids.org/drugs.html)

Usually public comments on such political matters quickly descends into personal attacks on other posters. These comments have been pretty readable so far-thanks. I'm a moderate GEN X DEM who wants so much to believe in the notion that the US is ready for a Black president. While Senator Clinton's win would be similarly historic, it would be diminished by the obvious presence and influence that Bill would have.
As for the personal attacks, all Democratic candidates have to show that they can take a punch. First, because you can be sure that the GOP is crafting them now, and two because the rest of America will want to know that they will have a leader who can stand up to the rest of the world, when necessary.
I just hope their opposition research camps don't make it to easy for the GOP to captalize on shortcomings, or that the candidates don't say too much that they will regret seeing on YouTube in October.
Lastly, it's MLK day, so I say to all conservatives and libertarians who read this message...if the new president is a DEM, I hope there's still room for agreement across philosophical and moral lines. Some people might find the notion distasteful, but we do need each other.

Dave, as a black man, many blacks/family members are voting for Barak based on his skin color. They haven't looked at his policies on issues like illegal immigration and others. This is why I said, I am not voting for Senator Barak Obama based on his being a black man.

Ward4DC says "I am not voting for Obama, because he's a black man."

Take your hood off, Ward, and stay awhile in the 21st century. You may find it different from what you're used to back in the 1950s.

The question of general election was interesting, OBAMA specially scored on National security, he said how Clinton being McCain light and all along her strategy of triangulating for being president thats why she voted for IRAQ war and IRAN vote. He said fear mongering won't work that was message he presented in Iowa and helped him win and he needs to get back to that sort of change idea, rather than fall into Clinton presenting him as race candidate. Clinton keeps saying we will have to fight with Republicans but OBAMA counters that if democrats have majority in both houses and democratic president you don't have to fight with republicans.
I am thinking that if Clinton does indeed become president, the democrats will lose the swing states in congress and senate to republicans and the fight of 90s will return, what a tragedy would that be.

Edwards won. And it's not because I'm a supporter. Everyone who's posting of course wants to support their candidate, but I think we can objectively say that he was the best debater. Why?
(1) He rose above the fray and squelched the personal attacks that were going on between OHB and HRC early on, getting the debate back on tract.
(2) A lot of his policy points are first articulated by him and then simply repeated by the other candidates. For example, green-collared jobs -- he came up with that before HRC. The need for universal health care -- he came up with a plan months before HRC came up with a not-so-comprehensive one, that repeats many ideas of JRE.
(3) He was clear and straight to the point. On the health care issue, he was able to challenge OHB's rationale for not supporting universal health care. (read the transcript).

Wolf tried hard to make Obama's race the issue. The media is hell bent on trying to surface latent racism among white voters to stop Obama's momentum. They want the same old same old Clinton cronyism.

Ward4DC - "I am not voting for Obama, because he's a black man"

Well you get extra credit for bluntness. Why is this an issue for you?

Obama was hurt tonight. His only chance was to continue speaking in generalities. This is what we learn when he gets specific.

His health plan does not cover 15 million people? This compares to 40 million uninsured now. So his plan ignores roughly 40% of them. That's outrageous!

If this election is about anything its health care and the economy. His health care plan sucks.

Correction:

After watching this debate on tonight, it was apparent, the debate became personal. As a registered Democrat, I am fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties. Illegal immigration and the Economy are the most serious domestic issues to me. Both the Democrats and Republicans are down in the polls with the American people. I have to live in this madness daily in the D.C. area with the influx of Salvadorans/Central Americans, mostly illegals.

I am not voting for Obama, because he's a black man or his skin color. I will not be voting for Edwards or Clinton either. Neither have addressed the seriousness of illegal immigration in this country. I do know, all these Democratic candidates want to bestow citizenship on an estimate 20 million illegal aliens. If this happens, this country will be finished!!!!

I read the New York Times article, and it didn't change my mind all that much. Then again, I benefitted from parents in a labor union.

I'm honestly puzzled on who to vote for in the super tuesday primary. Honestly, I think all three would be good presidents, but I believe a HRC candidacy would mobilize the Republican base. I feel particularly strongly about that given that her husband has been so involved in the primaries. I haven't been a fan of the 'good cop, bad cop' with the Clintons. Given that I think it's important to have a Democrat in office, I'll probably vote for Barack Obama.

My dominant impression from watching tonight's debate: I am so grateful that the Democratic Party has three smart, articulate, and accomplished prospective nominees!

Here here! I am tired of hearing Hillary Clinton described as shrill when she forcefully defends herself and stands up for herself. Chris and the rest of the media establishment need to get over it and drop the shrill comments! Barak Obama looked rattled throughout the first hour of the debate and just really didn't come across as ready to be President of the United States.

Bill and Hillary have done more to divide the Democratic party over the past week than any of the Republicans over the past 12 years! I am a die hard, I have never voted for a Republican and I will not vote before I vote for Hillary in the general election. I am not the only one who feels this way. The Democrats, Bill and Hillary should really consider the damage they are doing to the party!

Obama was the clear winner tonight? I can hardly understand his "rate of 30 percent is too high, so vote yeah" standing.

I find it very interesting that anyone would take Obama or whatever his name is seriously;

He says he is a Christian - then why the name change RELFECTS TALK BUT ACTION IS OPPOSITE

He cannot articulate an answer - just gives vague ideas and no substance

If he wins the GOP which I do not believe he will - anyone with half a functioning brain will switch parties and vote Republican for the safety of this country and that is a very painful statement to write! Barry is no different then George Bush - no experience!! Huge ego - did you notice after the New Hampshire debate when Clinton and John were autographing - this guy had a young intern trailing him because he was too weak to carry his own papers!! Talk about slavery and egotism and elitist??!! I just can't stand him and feel anyone who votes for him is a very ignorant or uninformed person. God help us if he wins - we'll all have to move to Canada!

Wow. What a fun debate if you are a republican. Democrats taking the gloves off in SC. This campaign is getting mean and shows no signs of improving.

Edwards once agained showed himself as the only person with any decency in the debate. Too bad wapo and the rest of the msm will find it more important to cash in on the "Historical" nature of the democratic failure next november with the hillary candidacy.

After watching this debate on tonight, it was apparent, the debate was personal. As a registered Democrat, I am fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties. Illegal immigration and the Economy are the most domestic issues to me. Both the Democrats and Republicans are down in the polls with the American people. Illegal immigration is a serious issue to me along with the Economy. I have to live in this madness daily in the D.C. area with the influx of Salvadorans/Central Americans.

I am not voting for Obama, because he's a black man. I will not be voting for Edwards or Clinton either. Neither have addressed the seriousness of illegal immigration in this country. I do know, all these Democratic candidates want to bestow citizenship on an estimate 20 million illegal aliens.

HRC's true personality came out tonight and it isn't pretty. She found her voice tonight and showed hell hath no fury like HRC out of control. Poor Oh-bah-mah...he cannot win. No fight left in him. Any tougher responses from him would made him have come off as a mean spirited male. Unfortunately, we saw the best of the dems tonight... and boy was it painful to watch. Low down dirty fight...made mud wrestling seem pleasant. McCain wins. His fights with Mitt have not degenerated into the abyss like this death fight between HRC and Oh-bah-mah... they are now both wounded. Cannot sat anything nice about either and the nation has seen why it is so important to vote in 08 and elect anyone but HRC.

I agree with the Fix that Edwards is the best debater of the 3 and Obama's debating skills are not his strongest skills. I also think Clinton does well at debates - she does not falter and always seems well prepared to answer the questions. I just don't think the debate is enough of a basis for choosing the best candidate. For example, I think Huckabee would probably beat both Hillary and Edwards in a debate but I would never vote for him (Democrats should really check out some of the Republican debates to get a better idea of what they might be up against in November).
I will support Obama because his message and the way he has run this campaign are what I think are needed the next 4 years: integrity, hope, and most importantly, he does not seem to be driven by the powers of the presidency but by the desire to bring change. Maybe it's just because I am a young woman and his message happens to appeal to youth. I also care about the issues and I like what he proposes(http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)

After watching this debate on tonight, it was apparent, the debate was personal. As a registered Democrat, I am fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties. Illegal immigration and the Economy are the most domestic issues to me. Both the Democrats and Republicans are down in the polls with the American people. Illegal immigration is a serious issue to me along with the Economy. I have to live in this madness daily in the D.C. area with the influx of Salvadorans/Central Americans.

I am not voting for Obama, because he's a black man. I will not be voting for Edwards or Clinton either. Neither have addressed the seriousness of illegal immigration in this country. I do know, all these Democratic candidates want to bestow citizenship on an estimate 20 million illegal aliens.

Great analysis as usual, Mr. Cillizza.

Personally I thought the debate was a three way tie for last. Clinton and Obama and Edwards need to start standing together and being civil or we're going to have a repeat of 1980.

Democrats kick off final showdown before South Carolina

The top three Democratic candidates jumped into Monday night's debate with a heated discussion about how to stimulate the economy.

Who Won the CNN Democratic Debate in South Carolina?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1603

.

It's hard to support a democratic candidate whose "universal healthcare" does not really mean "universal" (to cover each and every legal citizens.)

Seems like someone is playing the word games. And seems like a lot of people love vague words.

mbakke asks "How do I tell my 3 kids it's not OK to try drugs like pot and coke when maybe the president has?" referring obviously to Obama.

you could also ask how you should tell your kids not to run the kind of campaign the Clintons have run,

or not to mix business with pleasure if they ever are put in charge of an intern,

or how and how not to file records which may in the future be subpoenaed,

or the best way to prepare for making an important decision (e.g. authorizing the invasion of a sovereign nation - hint: READ ALL AVAILABLE PIECES OF INFORMATION FIRST),

or never to assume that they deserve what they want just because they want it SOOO BADLY,

you see where I'm going with this. Speaking as someone who may or may not have engaged in activities similar to those you cite himself, I can tell you that some of the people I know who have are now successful lawyers, doctors, executives, politicians (no names!), teachers, students, parents, and generally good people. And those of us to whom I may or may not be referring did or did not engage in such activity far more recently (although, I hasten to add, not VERY recently) than did Obama. It's revealing that the moralists have seized on this, obediently following the example of She Whose Voice Induces Headaches... that says to me that they got nothing else of substance.

Obama was the clear winner tonight.

He was crisp, on-topic, and quick with his answers and come-backs. Think what he could do to John McCain!

I want to make one more point. I am tired of Bill and Hillary trying to 'marginalize' Obama as the Black candidate. Has everyone forgotten that Obama WON IOWA by ten points over Hillary? Iowa is 98% WHITE! He did very well in NH and Nevada which are mostly white. And as to South Carolina, why, just because demographically it has a large African-American population is it not a real contest between two candidates who both are very popular with that community? Why, when Bill has said he will be going door-to-door to win Black votes should that not ELEVATE the competition between Obama and Hillary to see who can win more votes. In a general election, Obama will get most of the white votes which have been going to Hillary and Edwards, as well as his own white votes. So he is NOT a 'Black candidate' as the Clintons - and GOP pundits like Pat Buchanan - are trying to portray him.

Yes, it's evident that some people are very comfortable slinging disparaging, gendered descriptions of a strong woman ("shrill") without fear of consequence, and I'm tired of it. I wonder if a male candidate having been described as "aggressive" would be considered a bad thing. I've followed this race very closely, and for what it's worth, I am not committed to any particular candidate--but I will say that these "observations" are shameful.

An excellent debate with 3 excellent candidates and platforms. I feel the show is helping me to decide. I have one question that still looms and won't be touched because it's too sensitive. How do I tell my 3 kids it's not OK to try drugs like pot and coke when maybe the president has? I honestly don't know the answer but if I did it might help me cast my vote.

Prozek: HRC was indeed on the Wal-Mart Board. I too was turned off when I initially heard that, but then I read this article (www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?scp=2&sq=hillary+clinton+wal-mart) describing her tenure there and was impressed; in fact, this article helped to convince me that HRC could be a pragmatic and effective president.

I'd rather have someone who votes 'present' in order to keep a bad bill from passing, leaving room to make it better, than someone who votes for an obviously bad bill in order to triangulate for a future run for the presidency.

Let her wonkness stay in the senate, even become the Majority Leader. We need someone who can unite this country after years of (Republican-instigated) divisiveness.

Given Edwards pattern of supporting/defending Obama in these debates, it's possible that when he challenged Obama on his "present" votes he was trying to create an opportunity for Obama to explain himself further.

How come nobody ever notices how Edwards lifts his right eyebrow and looks pretty snotty or how Obama furrows his brow and looks pretty mad? I'm sick and tired of people saying Hillary is shrill--in my book she's being forceful. There's definetely a double standard as far as women are concerned.

This is a real "debate." Or at least the first half was. Hillary won this debate, again. But all three have been very impressive, really. Barack and John Edwards's mutual ribbing has been genuinely funny. And please drop the "shrill" term for Hillary. I will be proud to see our first woman president. She is great. The other two are, too. Bottom line: Dems look so much better than Reps in every way.

I saw all three live in Reno last week on Wednesday and Friday.

Edwards was warm and presented many good proposals.

Obama was warm,funny, and brilliant and had a real Q&A session where he answered any and every question asked.

Hillary arrived two hours late didn't apologize for the delay and droned on and on like a DC bureaucrat. In short unlikeable.

If the Republicans want to win they just need to pool their money and pay for Hillary to make personal appearances in every town in America.

newagent99, yeah, well, your candidate is only even running because of her BOYFRIEND...

do you really feel it necessary to sink to this level when commenting on people about whom you really know NOTHING on a personal basis? You should try using grown-up words.

Like "harridan," for example.

Was HC really on the board of Walmart? She would lose my vote.

The truth is that Obama has little choice but to fight back tonight with Bill lobbing shells at him constantly in recent weeks.

I thought Bill did a good job as President, but I've lost a great deal of respect for him over the last month. I'm 28 and have voted Democratic in every Presidential election, but if it turns out to be Hillary vs. McCain, I am currently leaning towards McCain. As I've read on other topics on the Fix, a lot of Dems share my view.

Although I do think that issues are very important, and I largely agree w/ Dems, I think what the press calls "leadership qualities" are also important. Obama is a leader and exudes integrity. McCain is for the most part honest (when he's not pandering to the base), and is a war hero. Hillary Clinton (and as I've seen recently, Bill) are both so personally ambitious that they'll do anything to get power, regardless of the damage to the country or their party.

Besides, we'll already have 20 years of Bush & Clinton. 24-28 is more than my stomach can bear. Are we still a democracy or are we turning into some third-rate oligarchy?

Hillary is really coming off ugly and desperate.

I sure the heck would not want Obama fighting for me. What a sissy!

Here's my concern with regard to a possible Democratic nomination of Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton has refused to say how or when she would end the war in Iraq. She says only that she would quickly "begin" or "start" to withdraw our men and women and that she would task top brass to meet and come up with a plan, as if shifting the onus for future action from herself to others. Meanwhile more of our lives are lost and dehumanized, our wealth eroded, our global reputation additionally sullied.

Moreover, besides voting to support the original license on Iraq granted to George W. Bush, she has since voted for the Lieberman-Kyl resolution, thereby potentially emboldening if not empowering Bush to attack Iran. Hillary Clinton's vote may have been intended merely as another triangulated position - a stand near enough Republicans' to insure her the imprimatur of toughness in the general election. But it could lead to a situation in which Bush feels empowered and emboldened to act against Iran by this Democratic nominee's tacit approval, approval joining hearty encouragement by McCain or even Romney or Giuliani as Republican nominee. An attack on Iran justified by reference to Hillary Clinton's vote would devastate her chances with fellow Democrats, but more seriously it could yield widespread wars throughout the greater Middle East and new acts of terror globally.