I can't believe people take offence with Obama & Edwards for standing up to Clinton. And with the moderators for serving the right talking points. Guess what people, I don't need no republican to tell me Clinton is neither here nor there on any point. Oh, except on 'bomb Ira*!' (fill in the blanks!) Good for Obama & Edwards for fighting and (while at it,) pointing the obvious. Good for Dodd for mentioning we need an electable candidate and Clinton is not. A vote for Clinton in the primaries is a vote for republicans in the general. (or so many votes away from dems in the general.)

Is it the duty of a "debate moderator" to inject himself into the debate? Isn't it the responsibility of the "debaters" to challenge answers of another participant? Russert ran the debate with questions for Senator Clinton as if he was an inquisitor or prosecutor. I am aware Senator Clinton (usually the condecending Hillary) is the front runner, but wouldn't it behoove the other candidates to promote their own policy ideas rather than denigrating one of their own? Isn't that the responsibility of the party opposition? I find it strange how ALL the others running, with the exception of Richardson and possibly Kucinich, are piling on the front runner.The Democrats should adopt what Reagan said about other Republicans , that you wouldn't speak bad about them. I am a Democrat and not that enamored of Ms. Clinton, but she is a Democrat and if she is the candidate I will vote for her. As a Democrat, what would be my alternative? One of the Republican candidates? Giuliani? Read the article regarding Giuliani, Mukasey, Kerik and other cretins in the Village Voice. Is there another Republican running who can beat him? Firstly, there are too many debates, too many candidates, too many PHONY moderators and too much bullsh*t.

God, you Hillarites are pathetic.

One minute, she's the rough, tough, two-fisted fightin' gal, scarred but unbowed by decades of relentless partisan warefare with the evildoers of the right, thick skinned and ready to rumble on our behalf. Then, first time she actually gets into a minor tiff (and make no mistake, that's all this was compared to what we'll see in the general election and for the four years following if she wins) all the sudden its "boo hoo hoo, all those mean men are picking on her, boo hoo hoo." Indeed, her campaign issued its instructions to the drones to begin playing the victimhood card before the damn debate even started.

Well, just this once, she doesn't get to have it both ways. She can be the tough warrior or she can be the wet-eyed victim, but she can't be both. Although her core supporters are apparently able to doublethink their way past contradictions that should give them a coma-inducing case of cognitive dissonance, this one's too much for the rest of us.

Fercristsake, what did you people think was going to happen when she decided to declare herself the Frontrunner and Inevitable Nominee last month? No doubt, the expectation was that all the other campaigns would just collapse from the sheer glorious force of her inevitability, and bow down before her vast sense of entitlement. Well it t didn't happen and apparently, when the going gets a little bit tough, the tough start whining.

Is this how she's going to deal with Congress or foreign despots if she's elected? Send out surrogates to whine and pout and play up her victimhood and complain about all the mean things that were said about her? Wow, what a great role model for little girls everywhere. Damn, we might as well relent and let 'em have those Bratz dolls now.

HERE ARE SOME OBSERVATIONS--Men who are highly educated (journalists, etc..) will not be voting Hillary-- she will only be getting the blue collar men-- question here is: Do the blue collar men go out to vote in the general election? Sure- she got some great big union support yesterday-- but do these people vote? Ditto- the highly educated women aren't going for her- she needs that great big middle class- or is that an oxymoron?

Tim Russert is a right wingnut. Why the Democrat's allow him to moderate a debate is stupid. Why not get Billy Bob Krystal or mAnn Coulter if they just want entertainment.

Here is what I think of the other night's debate: Edwards and Obama acted like two perfect lap dogs for the two fat boys. For every bone thrown them they obliged their masters with their barking. They even did follow up barking to get extra credit. I have no problem with Obama and Edwards being critical of Hilary they did not have to be the lap dogs of (right) two Guiliani supporters parading themselves as Journalists.

We watch these debates and the real performers are the moderators - This is their opportunity to be 'the man who asked the question.' Never the less, we want to see the potential president in action - are they informed? Do they wither under pressure? Are they quick thinkers? They might one day be sitting in a room with Leonid Breznev, negotiating the future of the world.
Ohg.
Link to Fireside on the Democratic Debate

By cheaply jumping on Senator Clinton, Senators Edwards, Dodd, and Obama have become Republicans. The good news is therefore that the number of Democratic candidates has been reduced to six. Governor Richardson had it right at the end when he called them holier than thou. The most insincere, hypocritical comment came from Obama when he faulted Clinton for having voted yes on the recent Kyl-Lieberman resolution when he was AWOL for that vote and had supported a very similar resolution earlier this year.

The narrative in this election has already gone all screwy. There is an interesting view of this here: http://blog.skewz.com/2007/11/latest-narrative-existential-crisis.html

I think the Democrats have seize the message and make the debate about an extension of existing policies or not. The Republican field is essentially lobbying for extension of the Bush presidency. That needs to be called out.

Mr. Linkins,

Thank you for your eloquent statement of the obvious.

I was eagerly interested in the debate because I wanted (wished) to see a light at the end of the dark Republican tunnel. I could only watch close to an hour until I could take it no longer.

I give Biden credit for resisting the temptation to participate in this media melodrama.

I do not support Clinton, it goes without saying that Russert's implications about Kucinich were expectantly facetious towards the one candidate that truly promises "change," still, afterwards, I have more respect for Clinton.

She showed grace under fire and refused to bow to the bullies on the playground -- Edwards, Obama, and Russert included -- she focused on Bush and the neo-cons like a lazer and didn't lose focus on the REAL PROBLEM.

Obama and Edwards completely turned me off -- literally. I stopped watching because I could not bear one more minute of these sophomoric opportunists kissing up to Russert's agenda of defamation towards Clinton.

This is actually the first time I began to sense that the Democrats may actually lose the general election to the Republican candidate (I believe it will be Guilliani.) Let's be honest, neither Edwards nor Obama have a chance in hell of winning the general election -- but they both have shown that their personal obsession with power has no bounds and they fell right into the hands of the MSM/Russert's defamatory agenda.

This Democratic debate made me sick to no end -- Clinton, Biden, and Kucinich, focused on the real enemy -- Bush and his neo-cons. Edwards and Obama, with Russert's help, focused on their goal -- personal gain at the expense of their party. In doing so they have given talking points to the Republicans and alienated voters like myself who were looking for real alternatives.

I turned the shit off -- I don't need to hear more from these power driven egotists who feed on the MSM "storyline" manufactured by the likes of Russert et al.

Rest easy, all you well-connected wizards who "know" Clinton's no different than Bush, will bomb Iran, doesn't answer questions (in monosyllables, so you can understand) and is bought off by the special interests...

The "news" media will be serving a steady diet of your favorite pablum straight through to November '08.

... and, whatever you do, don't try to repair any household appliances or resolve any family conflicts -- neither responds well to a two-pound drilling hammer.

Today I tuned into MSNBC hoping to find an honest summation of the dem. debate last night. All I heard was Chris Mathews' ranting on and on and on and on against Hillary Clinton and, against all manner of intellectual proportion, exaggerate her comments within the hyped margins of his mental capacity. Please.... We US citizens deserve a break from news makers who, like Mathews, warp the depth of the debates. If anything, he, Fineman and other Hillary fearing cyclops have increased the credibility of Hillary's presidential run.

Elders passed on the necessary tribal narratives around the fire.

The mainstream media passes on the week's trite script around the television.

We've lost our way.

THe moderators sucked. They were harder on Hillary than anyone else, but I could care less. She sucks as well.

Neither their suckiness nor her suckiness mitigates the suckiness of the other.

They are each sucky to their own ends. Those ends may or may not be universally compatible but rest assured they are both sucky.

I like Obama, and Edwards, but despite the blowhard pronouncments of Chris "John Stewart Kicked my Ass" Matthews....lat night was hardly a major setback for Hillary Clinton. Hillary has made one mistake is how many debates. The laughable near hysterics of Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman about the supposed "knock-out blow" aren't shared by any other serious journalist who has analyzied the debate. Even more egregious was Chris Matthews claim that the MSNBC insta-poll numbers showed Edwards coming in third place and Joe Biden in fourth. As hw was saying that they flashed the numbers on screen...Edwards came in fourth and Biden came in second. Matthews either needs to go back on his meds and calm down so he can get his facts straight...or he needs to learn how to read, either way it was another poor, biased performance from MSNBC and Chris Blowhard.