HILLARY there pilling on because you give stupid answers:

DRIVERS LIC. FOR " ILGAL IMMERGRANTS "

GIVING " FREE CITISONSHIP TO ILGAL IMMERGRANTS"

I BET YOU WOULD CALL A COP IF THEY FOUND THERE WAY TO YOUR HOME AREA.

GET US OUT OF IRAQ BRING THE TROOPS HOME IF NOT YOUR NO DIFFERENT THEN THE GOP,
THEY STARTED IT DOSEN'T MEAM YOU CONTINUE IT.

The latest Newsweek poll after the debate shows Obama lost 1 point and edwards 2. Clinton is not damaged by the debate. She has 44% Obama 24% Edwards 12%. Looks like Road rummer and the Cayote(s). Here is the newsweek link.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/67789

How pathetic that Hillary can't even think of her own words to undo the backfire of "boys against the girls". Now she is taking advice from Chris Matthews, who wrote this line and broadcast it on Hardball.

This is a leader?

If you don't think this is funny you are at the bottom of the Hillary tank and ideology has sapped your sense of humor.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4809593639765824214

Hillary is a corporate pig!

So, anyone...

If the records of Reagan and Bush Sr. were released, would they show that they had committed perjury and TREASON in the Iran/Contra affair?

And if not, WHY would Bush issue Executive Order 13233, blocking the release of ALL records of presidents from Reagan to Clinton to Junior??

I say it WOULD show they committed TREASON.

Come on, BRING IT ON!!

Hillary --

Shut the fuck up! You're an embarrassment to women. I'll never vote for you -- you're a closet Republican.

Mr's Clinton Continues to Blame Tim Russert for her dismal performance in last Tuesday's Debate. The Clinton political war machine is now in full spin and damage control after the american voter has seen the incompetence of there leading canditate. "Thats the headline from hereidnews". The guy is right on!

Let whoever wants to pile on Hillary. Clinton isn't perfect but she's an excellent example of a female's ability to be intelligent, feminine and a feminist.

Thank you, StillAmused.

Executive order 13233 was Bush's way, under the guise of 9/11, etc. (same old BS), of blocking the release of records that would clearly show that Reagan and Bush Sr. had committed TREASON in the Iran/Contra affair.

Moreover, another article on Huffington Post shows Giuliani being tricked into respond "9/12 was the day after 9/11, which we should NEVER forget".

A better question to ALL the candidates is:

WHY do you think the Bin Laden family was flown out of the USA on 9/13 under restricted air conditions, in order to avoid being questioned by the FBI.

Richard Clarke, counter terorism director, as well as right-wing hawk and TRUE PATRIOT says that the order to let them go came from "higher up".

THIS question needs to be asked of ALL the candidates, and whether such, like the SABOTAGING of National Security by exposing COVERT CIA WMD spy Valerie Plame Wilson, and the CIA company Brewster Jennings, is ACCEPTABLE to the presidential candidates.

And rightwing NUTJOBS, don't bother with the "she wasn't covert" BS.

The CIA said she was, and asked for the investigation.

Patrick Fitzgerald says she was, and SIX Bush officials, including Armitage, Libby and Rove had leaked her name.

Plame says she was, and testified UNDER OATH to Congress as such.

Something that Bush and Cheney REFUSED to do before the 9/11 Commission.

A commission they resisted forming for OVER A YEAR after 9/11, finally bowing to pressure from the 9/11 families.

Bush and Cheney and their PNAC WAR CRIMINALS are TRAITORS to the USA, and deserve the

penalty for TREASON during "wartime".

Examining the logic of those who criticize those who take exception to Senator Clinton's explanation of her political thinking or her own explanation why there is such criticism, needs some airing. As hard as the media tries to portray her either as a bullied victim due to her sex or because she is a front runner or she is just so qualified that there is just plain envy, it ignores the truth. There is there, there. She has presented nothing new, has much to explain why she follows instead of leads, and has yet to really satisfy a large part of the public on her bellicose stances as opposed to more diplomatic rhetoric to obtain peace.

The marketing of these candidates must be stripped away(a la Mark Penn). Given that Senator Clinton, in particular, has had an extraordinary amount of attention to show the voting public how she would govern and it still remains vague and in some cases worrisome(­"lobbyist(­i.e. corporations) are people too") it deserves the scrutiny that has come her way. To reverse this and blame her colleagues because they are male is the height of an ad hominem argument on her part.

Of course she is not the only one who engages in this. At times they all do but that does not mean it should be given the kind of special treatment to soften it as been extended to Ms. Clinton. It should be recognized for what it is.

I believe this was Bill Richardson's intention at the last debate so that we can all benefit from every candidates' views. The time was frittered away instead on certain candidates who have already dominated too much of the space we could use to figure out who should be president.

BLACKWATER

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vRlVTn5fmrI

Another excerpt from the Harvard study:

Nightly network news

"Network evening news closely reflected the overall media when it came to dividing time between Democrat and Republican candidates (49% vs. 28%). While all three produced more stories about Democrats than Republicans, at the NBC Evening News the gap was smaller—just an 11 percentage point difference (41% Democrats vs. 30% Republicans) vs. roughly a 30 percentage point gap at ABC and CBS. The tone of coverage in the 30-minute evening newscasts was much more positive toward the Democrats than Republicans." (page 29)

An excerpt from the Harvard study:

Newspapers

"Another distinguishing characteristic of the print stories studied was tone. Democrats got much more positive coverage in the daily papers examined than they did elsewhere. Fully 59% of all stories about Democrats had a clear, positive message vs. 11% that carried a negative tone. That is roughly double the percentage of positive stories that we found in the media generally. Just under a third (30%) of the front page stories examined were neutral. ...

"Republican candidates, in contrast, were more likely to receive clearly negative stories in print than elsewhere: 40% negative vs. 26% positive and 34% neutral." (page 26-27)

Obviously, the clintonforce is strong with the weak-minded; they're paying no attention to what she actually has done (or not done, like spearhead an end to the mideast mess). They only need to look at her voting record, but they trust that she'll be different once she's president. The clintonforce is strong with the weak-minded.