Obama was actually very good in stressing what you are saying when he claimed "political maneuvering" which is what Stephanopoulos prooved when showing that Clinton clip from her statement about nukes and Iran.

His point was clearly made.

He doesn't need gotcha moments, these is insider politics he regularly decries. There's a deeper narative to this: Obama can't match Clinton's details and in any case a president need not be a policy wonk.

The president needs to have judgment values and consistency so we know what we get.

I'm surprised you don't understand that to be Obama's pitch.

His answer is consistent his best card, his will to govern for the USA not the 50.1% who elect him president.

Chris, With respect. Obama's appeal is that he is the candidate of CHANGE. Change not for a slogan or a sound bite. You in the MM keep watching this campaign with the wrong glasses ! The fact that he does not jump on every opportunity is a BENEFIT this year of change. With all the media's focus on negative PR on him for the last month, polls show him slightly ahead. Chris, in 2008 AMERICAN'S DON'T WANT A POLITICIAN FOR PRESIDENT. We are tired of the canned 30sec sound bites. I keep waiting for you pundits to realize that, I guess I will wait your wisdom after the voting begins......

BORINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG, this debate did nothing to change my vote from Obama, Hillary ducks everything again and the Media crowns her champ

I say, "Oui oui, Ciara!"  Very succintly stated.  It's time folks (and that includes you media!) to put this "gotcha" style of politics aside.....  ESPECIALLY in the press coverage.  The way you guys prod and poke and tease and dramatize things with your choice of verbs and adverbs is, simply put, exactly what Senator Obama is working hard (and mostly succeeding well) at NOT responding to; he rises above each of your glamorized "spats" and sticks to the facts, albeit with strength and conviction.  I honestly admire Senator Clinton but, she is old school politics (i.e. polarizing) and I'll work hard to see Senator Obama win the nomination and then doubly hard to see lead this country as president.

I am a Disabled Veteran and have always honored my oath to follow, to the best of my ability, the orders of my Chief of Staff. This debate was exactly what I expected from the Democratic Party. Very calm,refined and educational. I was at elementary school when President John F. Kennedy was killed. I have always thought that one day God would give us another President like John. Out of all the Candidates I feel Senator Clinton and Senator Obama were the most serious of all about their religious belief. I have two things in common with Hilary. I am a woman who served and serve my country, who's husband cheated on me while I was active-duty. Hilary prayed for strength and courage to withstand the trials of a good marriage. Most of the woman of the world pray everyday for peace and goodness in our families. My daughter's father disappeared on her for 20yrs and has just come back in her life. What could a 24yr old pray for now after her own father deserted her. So The question about prayer needs to be a requirement of all candidates. If you cannot pray for daily food, how can you know what is good for a whole nation of people. Senator Hilary, thank you for standing up for all praying women. Senator Obama, thank you for standing up for all praying men. May God continue his blessings on our Nation and our world.

I have to laugh at the write-up. In one sentence you say its August and no one really wanted to debate anyway (maybe because no one was watching an August Sunday morning debate?). And in another you say Obama showed his innexperience because he failed to hammer Clinton, the way Clinton would have hammered him if given the same opening.

My takeaways there, Chuck, are 1) you see Clinton as an eternal attack dog who, even when people aren't watching, wouldn't pass up an opportunity, and 2) you value this as an attribute in a candidate.

If there was ever an indication from you that politics ought to change (i.e., grow up from the second grade gotcha level), its this.

The Democrat candidates all convey inspiration, and the three front runners are all capable changing the country for the better. I think Hillary is the most vulnerable though and if she wins the nomination it will polarize the electorate and she (we) could lose. I think on the GOP side that Rudy and Mitt and Fred are all Bush business as usual and they all lack imagination and are not inspirational. The Democrat debates evolve more into discussions about new ideas and the GOP debates more about fear and image - the country is tired of fear image and needs new ideas.

Chuck, your analysis lacks objectivity and therefore reduces your credibility.  Sorry, the truth has to be told and bold.  

SAME AS SUSUAL CLINTON IS THE EBST NO MATTER WHAT- NO MORE RPEUBLICNA PLEASE- THEY REALY DESTROY THIS COUNTRY EVERY PEROSN I TLAK TO- I SAID TO THEM THEY SAID TO ME- BAD BAD REPUBLICAN- WERE ALL SUFFER THEN -WERE ALL SUFFER NOW- THINK ABOUT IT THINK WISELY TO CHOOSE OUR NEXT DE, PRES.08-CLINTON.,

I am waiting for the first debate when we will have the candidates trimmed down to no more than five. Not that Gravel and Kucinich are not entertaining, but it is getting cumbersome to get each candidate's take on each point. It appears Clinton won this one. We may be heading for a debate where Obama's style will be rewarded, but we didn't get there today. Is this the first time Hillary or any candidate has made the point that Bush abused the consent the congress gave him to  go to war? It seems like a pretty important point to have gone this long without surfacing. She mentioned that she probably should have been tipped off by her distrust of Bush. I know I never trusted him, and I expect someone running for prez to be at least as wary as I was of his honesty at that point in time. So the point is that Bush was given the go-ahead to exhaust all means of getting the facts on Saddam and Iraq before invading the country. We know he did not. He did what he probably intended to do all along, reducing the consent of congress to a mere formality. The fact that Hillary is the one to beat at this point indicates to me that the format so far has not favored Obama or Edwards. I don't know who is planning the format, but whoever it is has more power to shape the outcome of the debates than any anonymous entity ought to have. I expect a bit more transparency on that point.

After the primaries most people will look back to see that it was a huge mistake for Hilary to directly attack Obama as naïve and inexperienced this early in the game. This has given Obama the opportunity to back her into a corner as establishment candidate who is a hostage to conventional wisdom that is at the core of what ails Washington political class. Now only what Obama has to do is to continuously hammer the point home that any Democrat nominated in the primaries is going to win the general election. But winning general election does not translate to untangling the political gridlock in Washington that prevents passing of bills and legislations. Hence, it is only a candidate that can win general election and be in a position to bring moderate Republicans onboard that can resolve many problems relating to healthcare, social-security, ending Iraqi war etc. To campaign that Hilary is not such a candidate that is capable of transcending political divide is very easy to make. Hilary has been saying consistently that she knows how to deck the opponents and Republican attack machinery. But that is the behavior that stands at the core of political gridlock in Washington. Obama in the fall will back his argument with what Hilary has consistently said she will do to deck Republicans. If Obama were to go into offensive during the debate to attack Hilary, he loses his winning masterstroke. But Chuck as a journalist cares more about headlines that will make news without contending with the qualities folks in the rural areas want in their leader. Obama is taking his case over the MSM to the folks in the rural areas and in the end it is the votes that count rather than sensational news headlines.    

Hillary does the best job of conveying experience, strength, compassion, and inclusivity. we don't need another president who will only cater to the needs and interests of his or her political base, be it democrat or republican. it isnt easy to run a divided country, but Hillary would do an exceptional job.

Once again you guys seem to be a odds with the people.  Glad they are the one who's voice counts:

Most importantly in this particular form, voters in Iowa who sat for a Fox focus group responded overwhelmingly in favor of Barack. We'll start the transcript and continue after the bump:

Luntz: "Our respondents here have a very interesting reaction.  How many of you walked in here backing Barack Obama as your first choice?  Raise your hands."

[Few hands go up.]

Luntz:  "How many of you honestly thought Obama won the debate?"

[Clear majority of hands go up.]

Luntz: "Almost everybody."

Luntz: "Now, you are not a supporter of his, but you thought he won -- why?"


Participant: "I feel that the first ten minutes of the debate was pile on Barack. They were attacking him and his comeback to it, about going to the fair -- practicing bumper cars to practice for the debate -- it immediately put the man in control."

Luntz: "So you liked his humor ..."

Participant: "He was sincere, he was comfortable with himself ..."

Luntz: "Christian?"

Christian: "I think he continues to demonstrate that he's got a nuanced approach to the answers and he understands that they are not easy and he is willing to look at all sides and involve that in his policy."

Luntz: "More than any other candidate?"

Christian: "More than any other candidate, and he's more precise with how he responds."

Luntz: "You also were not an Obama person but you thought he won. Tell me why?"

Participant: "I thought he was very relaxed and very honest and he seemed very open. Willing to answer any question straightforward."

Participant: "He seemed very sincere.  I was disappointed in Edwards; I came in here as an Edwards supporter. And he just seemed too staged too not with it. Obama just seems to stand behind what he says."

Luntz: "Was that enough to change your support?"

Participant: "At this point, yes."

Luntz: "Did anyone else switch from who they came in here for?"

Participant: "Hillary ..."

Luntz: "Hillary to …?"

Participant: "I probably would say more Barack Obama now."

Luntz: "How many of you thought that she was the biggest disappointment of the debate, raise your hand."

Luntz: "Why? Did she not look presidential to you?"

Participant: "She looked very staged. She looked very cold and I was fairly disappointed coming in as a Hillary supporter. I'm not saying that it changed my view, but it did disappoint me quite a bit."

Luntz: "Tell me why ..."

Participant: "She came across as being very ... she was very outgoing and very in control but her answers were wishy-washy."

Luntz: "Great. That was -- you've got a clear winner here you've got Obama is the winner.  Hillary Clinton is the disappointment of the debate. You know that every time that we do this there is a different answer, there is a different response based on the people that we have here at Des Moines University, but one thing is for clear, Obama is getting better and better as time goes on. The language he uses, the way that he presents himself, his use of facts and figures, he's becoming a whole candidate and I think you’ll see that in the polls in the coming weeks."

BTW it doesn't matter how bad she is boo's and all in a debate it is a given you will give it to her.  I don't blame Obama for deciding why keep up this nonsense any more than necessary.  But the people are catching on.

Barrack Obama has not done his home work. He is looking for sound bits. I thought it funny that when it came to facts he refered to things the other canadates had said. Offering nothing new himself, and sticking to the same gun he keeps firing at Clinton about her vote that he was not part of. Old story and a waste of time. Move on to something new and productive. But when your a follower like Obama you have to rely on other peoples knowledge and what ever fancy sound bite he may hear.

Link to the focus group video in Iowa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4aVFJ3FIrY

In Madison WI we only got the first 60 minutes of the debate ... makes me appreciate MSNBC.

I felt that Obama did very well in what I was allowed by my local market to see, starting with his ability to diffuse the first question with humor.  

But in my view, I think Joe Biden kicked serious foreign relations bootie, not only on the Iraq debate (which he owns in either party), but in general.  Despite CW, I don't believe we can do any better than Sen. Biden.  Okay, he's had press for verbal gaffes, but even during those media storms, no one doubts his integrity, his dedication to the middle class and the poor, and most important for 2008, his foreign relations expertise.

I'm going against the "Hillary is it" mantra and I'm going to put my money where my heart is ... Joe Biden's campaign.

As an almost life-long Clevelander I was truly shocked to find myself feeling that Kucinich actually came across as the most honest and realistic candidate.  I thought he did a great job of admonishing Democrats for not doing their job, realizing that Bush will not be running and, thus, is not the target, and that, when asked about religion, quoted appropriate scripture and even used humor saying he was praying to be called on!

See this ranking on Times magazine, Obama was clearly the winner. At least media that speaks the truth.  http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1654198_1654197,00.html

Judy, glad to have you as a Biden supporter.

Chuck,
Why are you always licking Hillary's butt after the debates?  Get with it!  It's obvious to the voters and anyone who has half a brain that Obama romped! Please start watching these debates more objectively.  Your "Hillary won, Hillary won" mantra is getting quite old, especially because it's not true.

Be careful about picking your candidate on whether they seem "too staged" or "more relaxed".  Look at what they want to do.  In the YouTube debate, Obama, in his relaxed way, advocated building more nuclear power plants!  Some people voted for Bush over Gore because Gore seemed "too stiff".  We should pay close attention to the specifics of what each candidate is proposing to do as President. And these pseduo debates fail the American people in presenting any in depth discussion.  It's like some kind of talent contest going on up there.  Not that we shouldn't expect our Prseident to be able to speak well and lead with some charisma, but we also need more specific analysis of what each candidate will do on all the important issues.

I have to completely disagree with Chuck. Obama couldn't respond to Hillary's " I believed George Bush on the Iraq war moment because Stephanopoulus shifted the conversation. I heard someone ask her if she had been brainwashed and then Richardson cut in. That said, I thought Barack Obama was dead on when he said that it was great to have these complex plans for getting out of Iraq but all of the experienced candidates on the stage should have asked these questions before they voted to support this war. I don't care how long someone has been in Washington if their judgment is still piss poor or they are more concerned about covering their political a#% on important votes.

Isn't it amusing to see the people who, attack any poll that isn't favorable to their candidate, yet praise and  insist we take note of those that ARE favorable?
So far I have seen that senator Obama is the victor in both the Frank Lutz and Sun Tsu(?), focus groups, which his supporters find credible(yikes!), yet they regularly attack, CNN,Time, Rasmussen, RealClearPolitics averages, and any polling that sees anyone other than Senator Obama, leading.
What does this say about their objectivity?

Van

Sigh.  another one of these "Hilary Won" write-ups from the mainstream media.  She can eat a live puppy on stage and you guys will say "She's so majestic the way she ate that puppy!"

Apparently, the focus group watching didn't seem to think so - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4aVFJ3FIrY

GIVE ME A BREAK.. DEMOCRATS ARE JUST SPINELESS PEOPLE IF THEY IMAGINE HILLARY IS THE BEST. If you really want the truth, Biden is more experienced than Hillary by all means. Its just that you are living and dreaming in the Clinton era. More of dirty tricks and favoritism. OBAMA IS TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL. He was smart to lay that down by talking about political manouvering. I am sure no one had the spine to contradict the principles he spoke. Funny enough, after he raised issue about Pakistan, there was more pressure in PAKISTAN to hunt in the TORA BORA area. How can dumb, non-thinking DC folks ever notice these things when all they are focused is bickering about Obama's experience. I live in the South East Asia area and Musharaff did really weak up from sleep. Barack is really smart, much to the surprise of these grey haired senators in DC. Hillary never expected this to be a tough fight. So many of the independents will surely jump ship including me.

Great Posts!  I think "Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA" said it best!
Go Obama!

to Judy Anderson and Ada:

Judy:
It's too bad your local ABC affiliate didn't carry the full 90 minutes. I was at the debate and the ABC rep said 90% of the affiliates were going to carry all 90 minutes. Joe did do great today, and he does great on the campaign trail. And he is the only one who talks honestly on the trail about Iraq.

Ada: I don't know how you can judge the candidates feelings on religion. When I watched the debate in the audience in Des Moines, and when I got home on DVD I certainly didn't pick up that Obama or hillary were more serious about their religion. I don't doubt any of the candidate's faiths, but I certainly don't see what you based your belief that Obama and Hillary were more serious about their faith. I happen to know that Joe Biden is very serious about his faith. i recently read his book and in it he mentions he says the rosary daily, and got special premission when he had his second surgery to have a rosary with him in surgery. I had a couple extra rosaries that had been blessed by Pope John Paul II, and brought one to give to Senator Biden atan event a couple weeks ago. I wasn't sure whether he actually said the rosary every day, but I thought he'd appreciate the gift. He was not only very gracious (as I'd expect any Presidential candidate to be to an Iowan, even if they could care less about what you gave them)he said his sister would be so thrilled, because she keeps telling him he needs to replace his old white rosary, he then pulled his white rosary out of his khakis. I don't think he keeps a rosary in his pocket at all times to prove he has one if challenged.

Chuck when are you going to get off the Hillary bandwagon.  You've been doing this too long and a refreshing voice like Barack Obama scares you.  You need to be a little more objective in your responses.  You have never once said that Barack or anyone besides Hillary does well in these debates.  People expect you to be a little more objective as an analyst and MSNBC Political Director.  I'm beginning to cringe everytime I see you coming on TV.  This is comimng from someone who has not made up his mind yet.  Don't become the Sean Hannity of MSNBC you are better than that.

BB

Oh yes the trolls and not effective irregulars are on the  "gotcha" and "polarizing" script. Yep all the usual suspects, jerry clones, so subtle. Yawn.
Yes Lyn the people ARE catching on......

Chuck which debate wee you watching.  Clearly this was the best debate and we can see finally the deepness of the candidates.  Obama and Dennis did
extremely well.  I think that Obama showed presidential character.

I am tired of the media "declaring" Hillary as the Democratic nominee because of "her" experience. What "experience"? She has never been "president". Furthermore, just because she is married to Bill, doesn't make her qualified. Is Laura? I think she, Dodd and Biden are "Washington Establishment". She is a "pro politician" and she will say what ever the audience wants to hear. No sincerety; all programed and polished. She comes off as "snobbish"; not gentle and sincere like Bill. Obama has to be a strong man; just to be where he is. He make not know all the "tricks" they know; but he is a "fighter" and he is familiar with the "little people" like me.

Your column is the first i have read tonight that awarded the debate to Clinton.And i have read a lot of pundit reviews.Based on all i have read you can not be right for all others to be wrong.Maybe you need a new job....this job callls for objectivity which you lack.

Chuck...once again you are off the mark. Obama is NOT interested in gotcha soundbites, when will you get it? You think when he talks about fundamental change, he doesn't mean it? Obama has had numerous chances to play gotcha politics, but he always resists. Somehow you people in the media punditry class cannot phathom this...keep living in your bubble.

And while you're at it Chuck, you say Obama has not had a tough campaign, so tell us please...how many "tough campaigns" has Hillary had? Please don't try to tell us her NY Senate campaigns were tough...that would be laughable.

I'm waiting for MSNBC tomorrow to declare Hillary the winner of the debate...it seems to happen all the time now. Watch Joe Scarborough in the morning...I can guarantee he will say Hillary won, and then Tucker will say the same, and Chris Matthews will too.
Never mind that the actual voters who watched the debate say Obama won...who cares about the voters anyway??

You guys in the MSM never fail to amaze me. How can you look at that debate and see that Hillary walked away as the victor? I'm sorry but MSNBC has loss all credibility to me in regards to politics. It's easy to see which candidate they like despite the greater number of people who saw Obama as more presidential in this debate. Keep on spinning for the Clinton camp. Your true colors are showing.

Hillary has no substance. Her answers were vague and I don't think she answered one question directly.  Yes, a perfectly "polished politican"...but I think we know were that gets us. There is no way on God's green earth that I would ever vote for her.  Please, God, let Obama win this nomination.

Anybody who saw a strong Clinton performance in this debate is going out of their way to look for one.

Edwards was weak, Gravel is getting worn out, and Richardson is becoming laughably more awkward every debate.

Biden was a little better this time through, and Kucinich did well, but Obama definitely came across strongest.  His best performance so far.

It is obivious yu have a media biased towards Hillary.  Many other media pundits stated Obama clearly won the debate.  I am beginning to wonder if the Clintons are paying you because you evidentially were not watching the same debate as the other media pundits.

Chris, please stop deciding the results of these elections before they are held. You sound like a Clinton stooge based on your biased analysis. Please learn from this serious mistake you are making, trying to make Hillary seem like the winner no matter what!

Here we go again, The politics of old and the Media of old the Gotcha. How about doing some serious reporting on what actually happen and get out of the sound bite and gotcha politics. we are tired of it and won't accept it anymore. Just like the run up to the Iraq war the media is a step behind what is going on. I guess all the focus groups and all the times Clinton get boed in the debates doesn't mean a thing. I don't blame Obama for skipping the debates and taking his message to the voters after reading junk like this. Chuck please do your job of objective reporting and not the Gotcha sound bite reporting, if you haven't notice change is in the air even for the way the establish media conducts itself. I really expected better from you.

An almost uninterrupted 10 minutes of piling on by other candidates before Obama even gets to speak; yet with one well-placed joke about bumper cars, he shuts them all down. You are WAY off-base on this one. Obama was brilliant. He was witty (bumper cars), fair (acknowledgment of others accompolishments and ideas like Biden), honest (especially when discussing teacher merit-based pay), and tough (taking others to task on their Iraq votes). And for some reason, because he didn't attack and rip on Clinton directly you feel he wasn't as good. Remember that Clinton answered the "thought" question even worse than Obama did (neither one did particularly well). Seems to me she's doing a fine job of sinking herself. I mean, c'mon, if a FOX focus group was that swayed by Obama's performance, that says something!

Your incessant cheerleading for Hillary is so transparent.  Anyone who watched the debate clearly saw what was happening.  Barack Obama handled himself very well, even presidentially, after that well coordinated attack on him in the first minute. I'm sorry, Chuck Todd, but for a politcal expert you are not doing the American people any justice with the BIASED reporting.
Please explain, in detail, all this so-called experience that Hillary has.  MSNBC is nothing more than just another water carrier for the Clinton machine.

I am an undecided voter so went into this with no bias. I left the debate with an absolute certainty of who won. Barack Obama. He was calm, intelligent, dignified, and cleat thinking. He seemed to be able to understand the issues on a level above the other candidates. I especially disliked the way Hillary seemed proud of the fact that she has been fighting the "right" for 20 years. Sweetheart, if you've been fighting for 20 years maybe it's time to try WORKING for change instead of fighting for it. Obama won. Plain and simple.

Jimmy, you are way off.  Hillary didn't read the intelligence briefing and then voted for the worst foreign policy disaster in our recent history.  Barack was campaigning at the time, and took what was then the UNPOPULAR stance of opposing the war.  This isn't "old" news, it is a clear demonstration of good judgment on the part of Barack Obama, and poor judgment on the part of Hillary.  "Getting over it" would be stupid, especially when it highlights a distinct advantage of Obama's.  

Senator Obama came across clearly as calm and presidential.  The rest were a gallery of screaming monkeys.  Obama would be a great president and a president this country sorely needs. Hillary's voice was so loud and strident that my Mom could hear her from two levels down in our house. We don't need shriekers. We need someone to bring this country back together and Hillary will never be able to achieve that.

These two links say it all. OBAMA won this fair and square, and you cant take it away from him.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1654198_1654197,00.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4aVFJ3FIrY

Chuck you are one sorry political analyst!  Even after all of the piling on for the first 10 minutes Obama came across with his message loud and clear.  Just think how shrill Hillary would have sounded after a 10 minutes of the same treatment!  Why is the MSM not going after her!  She is the "front runner", is she not??  
Clinton has NO substance.  What has she ever done??  What did she DO in Arkansas all those years??  What did she accomplish in the White House??  What has she done in the Senate in NY??  I see NO ONE holding up her resume of accomplishments!!  Not even Hillary herself!!  That's because she hasn't really done anything!!  
She hasn't even come out and made any formal policy statements so we know where she will actually take this country!  Why do you guys keep saying she is going to win???  YOU ARE CLEARLY BIASED!  
As a faithful watcher of MSNBC for the past several years you have now lost my support!

Kim Corning NY - The rest were a gallery of screaming monkeys.

Wow - talk about hitting the nail on the head!  Kim you got it just right.  Agreed 100%.  All these debates have shown is that the Democratic candidates are a bunch of petty Washington insiders that pose to the cameras trying to get a little more face-time then the one standing next to them.  The Republicans are smart to hold back and let the Democrats play themselves out.  People are getting sick of the Democrats, and the election is still over a year away.

Why is it that so many people claim the media gives unbiased favorablity to Clinton when in fact, she has increased her national lead over Obama to almost 20 percentage points, and the gap is increasing.  In a recent poll, Clinton beat Obama by impressive spreads in almost every category, including experience and electability.  She was slightly ahead of Obama in honesty, one of Obama's key appeals.  Her negative ratings are actually decreasing.  It is very easy to look like a candidate of change and hope if you haven't been in national politics very long.  The Republicans tried everything they could to bring down the Clinton's and Hillary withstood everything they brought against her, and is still going strong.  Obama has yet to confront this and it can be gaurenteed he will if he becomes the nominee.  Everyone has skeletons in their closet.  There is nothing left to bring against Hillary and I don't know if Obama could sruvive even the smallest tarnish on his record because he is protrayed as so new and honest.

Hillary will not be your best friend, but look at George Bush, someone who I am sure is a very nice person and who would be fun to sit around and talk with...he did not make a good president.  I think Obama has a wonderful future ahead of him and I think he will make a great president one day.  However, right now experience is what is needed.  We are at war, facing extremely low foreign opinion, struggling with health care issues and social security.  If this is isn't the time for experience I don't know when is.  

Chuck you really disappoint me, dear.  You were one of the last real journalist (Tim Russert and to some extend, Chris Matthews) that told the truth.  You know that Senator Obama won that debate hands down. He was Presidential, humorous and truthful.  He is the President Ronald Reagan of the Left. You know this why are you creating the sense that Hillary Clinton won, when she did nothing but her usual, not answering the question.  Come on!  God is watching you and He is taking notes.  

It is not a surprise to most of us that you Todd and co are engaging in this gusto euphoria of Clinton's brainwashed fallacy. The reason why we are not surprise is that all of you in Washington drumped an overwhelmingly support for the Iraq war, and Obama did not supported your view at the time on the war (He was right)--thus, exposing the dumpness of the so-called intellectual elites.
It is a common sense issue here that ego is at the center of the media bias against Obama; because he was right and you guys were wrong on all counts. It is anti-egolistic for you guys to admit publicly that you guys were wrong. In order to maintain your ego, why not support (Hillary) who was wrong with you guys from the start. It is simple as that.
But the goodnews is that, in the Democratic Party, voters are always smart not to support who the Washington media endorsed. We voters are happy that you all are supporting Hillary. It is good for us. In Feb. next years, we will disgrace you ALL.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):