Wolf Blitzer has an unassuming demeanor, but he is an annoying spinner of news, and this time he and his time warner mafia bosses spun the debate the way they wanted it to go, for Clinton. Letting her slide on her waffling told you all you needed to know. It's all about the Israeli lobby, and it has been for half a century. Thank you verrryyy much; you're in the menstruation room: let it bleed!

There seem to be many Biden supporters writing in or just reacting to his strong debate showings. If he got lucky and pulled it off, he would have to choose Obama as his running mate to overcome his foot-in-mouth gaffe early in the season.

Since my reply is being buried beneath a sea of post I just want to reiterate to the people who claim that Hillary was talking about firefighters and not school teachers when referring to the "middle class" who make $97,000 a year.

It doesn' tmatter if she was talking about teachers, firefighters, police officers, nurses, or any other "middle class" profession because fire fighters actually cap out at $68,475 base pay or $86, 518 with fringe benefits such as holiday pay and overtime after 5 years unless they make Lt., Captain or Chief.

See for yourself http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml

The real truth is she's trying to protect her rich buddies.

I guess Morris reads my posts. I mentioned the following point right after the debate on HuffPO board.

Under Wolf Blitzer's gentle questioning, Hillary was able to avert another debate meltdown in the Nevada Democratic debate held last night, November 15. Asked about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, a compliant, even subservient, Blitzer accepted Hillary's one word answer, "No," with no follow up. Had a better journalist been asking the questions " like Tim Russert " he would have followed up the bland negation with probing questions about why she is yet again flip flopping on the issue.

This audience was scripted. I didn't believe one hoot or holler. It was a joke...just like Clinton is. We need a fresh wind blowing through the White House. No more Clintons no, more Bushes no more pains in the American tookuses.

like the planted questions during the week, the skull and bone crowd was planted to make Clinton look good and her opponents look bad. It's funny that when audiences erupt in cheers for kucinich no one makes much of it, but the Crappy News Network pundits were quick to jump on Edwards and Obama as looking bad and emphasizeing how Iowans don't like negativity. Is that what expressing a different opinion is? Neither Edwards nor Obama called her names. Neither implied that she was incompetent. They just pointed out differences in who represents what. The cabal controlling the media seem to have made up the minds of the American people for them----again!

I believe we can all agree that the George W Bush's presidency has been a disaster for us and the rest of the world. Further, we can also agree that the Bill Clinton presidency was the best at least in a generation. Bill Clinton should be for the Democratic party what Ronald Reagen is for the Republicans.

While I certainly will support anyone that gets the Democratic nomination, I do believe that Hillary Clinton presents the best choice of a candidate who will command the sensible center- where most of the electorate is. Barack Obama or John Edwwards can excite the left fringe today but will lose a general election.

The last thing the country needs is for the Democrats to lose the election. I shudder to even think of a Rudy presidency. The press and his fellow republicans are turning a blind eye to this man using a national tragedy to promote his lust for the highest office. A man who cannot even earn and keep the trust of his own children does not deserve ours.

I support Mrs Clinton wholeheartedly & would hope that she would pick Richardson or Clark as the VP running mate. And, for the good of the nation and the party- I wish that Obama and Edwards would restore some dignity to their campaigns.

Hillary probably planted the hooters and booers.
She's not politically naive. She knows her votes for war, the abrogation of our civil rights and her schmoozing with the right wing have made her unpopular. I think it very likely she borrowed yet another page from Karl Rove's book and seeded the audience with vocal Hillaryites.
Her agenda is a mirror image of Bush's; stay in Iraq forever, attack Iran and an imperial presidency. It isn't much of a stretch for her to use his tactics.
Hillary represents a lot of things; the military industrial complex, big oil, big pharm and corporate health care.
The one thing she doesn't represent is change or the interests of the American people.

There are a lot of pro-war Democrats, especially the women, who want Hillary to start a war with Iran if she gets elected.

This is for the attention of all the anti Hillary Bloggers.

I am a strong Joe Biden supporter and I have contributed to his campaign. IF he is still on the ballot, he will definately get my vote. He is the MOST experienced candidate on either side to run the country. (By the way, he won the debate on Thursday, no matter what the pundits say.)

However, I am also a realist; Hillary is ahead, and she most likely be the nominee of the party. Will I vote for her?? Your damn right I will; I surely would not vote for any Republican. Don;t you think we have had enough of that?

Time to stop bashing Hillary, and accept the facts !!!

This just goes to show all of America that Hillary knows she can't beat anyone without using dirty tatics.

She is jealous of Obama because he is younger and more intelligent than she is. Barack completely outclasses her.

I dunno Maybe HRC supporters don't use the internet or something. Or maybe I'm just visiting the wrong websites, but it seems to me that Clinton does no in reality have the overwhelmingly support that the media claims she does.

I mean statistically speaking if she has this huge lead in the polls and overwhelming support then it should show up on left leaning websites like this one if any place.

However what I see here, as well as sites such as other left leaning sites such as the Daily Kos is a few people speaking up to defend her while hundreds more expressing their disapproval. I personally don't know a single Clinton supporter out of all of my liberal friends. We're all either Obama, Edwards, or Kucinich supporters.

My point is I don't know who these pollsters are calling but I don't trust the numbers they are coming up with.

Carville had some of his redneck friends in the audience hoot and holler every time the guys went in attack mode. It's so obvious Hillary can't take the heat.

It seems obvious that if democrats accuse the front runner and most possible nominee of the same things that the republicans are saying for at least 10 years they are the winners they will say: I told you.

The most interesting thing about this for an informed observer is that the accusations are basically false.

She is not part of the establishment, were she the establishment would not be attacking her for years,

she is the same as Bush or she is neo-con; false she is not an ideologue but a pragmatist,

she is unelectable she got 70% of the NY votes

she is corrupt she has been investigated more than any other politician by political enemies and now she is not being accused by anybody of anything. You need proves in this country to accuse somebody of a crime not generic name calling.

The facts are crystal clear She is a very ambitious, determined, brilliant politician that have been involved in central issues for 30 years with a whatever works approach that I myself seems appropriate to solve the complex problems of the present days.

Propose better solutions.

Attack her on the issues.

If you can prove any criminal acts prosecute her

If you cannot do any of the above then shut up

Forget the stupid debates. Forget the stupid moderators, the stupid questions"the Goddamn plastic conformity of it all.

They should sit around in a semi circle, without prompting questions, and get into it with each other, sort of an intellectual jerk off, (girl included), on any subject any of them might bring up. The conversation would go on for three hours"uninterrupted by phone calls, commercials, or potty time.

When it was done, we would know, pretty much for sure, for whom we were voting.
Jack Flynn