Come on Chuck, give Edwards more credit!  He did great tonight against Hillary, he's leading on all the issues among the candidates, and he is the most electable.  Hillary steals John's health care plan, Obama consistently agrees with John when he actually makes attacks on Hillary; who's leading the pack now?

Let's actually report on who is clearly the better politician, which is Edwards.  Now, it's up to you and the rest of the media to decide what's a sexier story: a black man vs a white woman for the nomination, or an honest, well-spoken white man from the South who can bring about change our country.  One may be better for ratings, but the other choice is better for the country.

I thought this was the best debate so far.  I'm an Obama supporter, but I thought John Edwards was by far the most outstanding candidate tonight.  Tim Russert did a superb job; I loved his interaction with Hillary.  I also enjoyed the pre and post-debate shows with Chris Matthews, David Gregory, and you!  Great job!

I think hypothetical questions on foreign policy should be banned. What? Open the kimono and give the Republicans time to craft their strategies?

If you want a Democrat to win, I say we should all start a petition to stop moderators from asking hypothetical foreign policy questions during the primary. Let's wait until we're debating the other side.

Tim Russert does not like Senator Clinton, and it only made him madder when she made a fool of him this past Sunday. He tried to put her on the spot again and true to form,  Hillary got the best of him again.

If Tim Russert isn't even going to attempt to hide his anti Hillary bias he shouldn't be allowed to host anymore debates that she is in.  

know what i like about hillary? she refuses to give phoney answers.she must be laughing like crazy when she hears these, brainless guys, talking as if they have some great plan for all these giant issues.

please! there is no easy answer to ruling the world or even a country, if anyone has a clue its hillary, who's been there, or  even biden or dodd, or richardson.

but everyone else scares me, it would be like putting another learn on the job president like george w., back in the white house.   scarry !

I think you are right on re: Biden.  It isn't just the beltway, but it isn't everyone.  There is still time for the momentum to take off.  He has been working on this campaign through the internet for the last year.  Many on the internet told him to run in the first place and this was before he announce his candidacy.  I doubt the internet had much to do with it but it didn't hurt.

Give him time for the rest of the country to know him.

If he could just get the West Coast to know who he is...I think that might set the stage for real action on his campaign.

On that subject- why is it the East Coast just forgets the Western States?  We make up over 60% of the voters (if not more)...someone, somewhere continual has a braincloud about the viability the Western States...from Colorado West (and parts of Kansas, OK, and TX.

Anyway, I like Biden and if he has staying power, he will have my vote.
Lynn
San Diego, CA

I like how Hillary uses ""Post auto suggestion"" She has the grind down just like Mao, Hitler, That nut case in N.Korea, And the Total insane case from Iran. Well, she uses that chicken back woods laugh when she has lost the ability to stay with the subject matter. That ear plug used as a prompter can tell her what to say ""Must be stuck in the wrong Place". ""Hillary you put it in the ear!!!!!! Now You know why these clowns stumble for words!!!

HILLARY IN 2008 AND 2012  OBAMA OR EDWARDS IN 2016     THIS WOULD BRING OUR COUNTRY  BACK TO OUR ONCE RESPECTED STATUS BEFORE THE BUSH   DEBACLE

I GUESS THE REPUB'S ARE NOT THE ONLY WAR MONGERS SINCE NONE OF THE TOP RUNNING DEMS WOULD PROMISE A TIMETABLE PULL-OUT. ONLY A COUPLE NO-CHANCER'S TRYING TO MAKE A RUN AT V.P. AND HILLARY WANTS A NATIONAL CONSENSUS ON HEALTH CARE. YEP SOCIALISM IS ON THE HORIZON, WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMEY AND THEY WERE DEBATING LAST NITE.

My mind is made up, my vote goes to Hillary! She's a strong intellegent woman who can stand her own.  People may not want another Clinton presidency but I think they did a fine job when they were in office in the 90's.  She's got my vote!

The winner last night was Kuchinich.  He even brought the house down with a laugh line. Can't you mention him even once?  You're not alone in this media bias and over simplification, but perhaps you could break ground by giving him more coverage.

I'm really disappointed I can't get the debate video to play. I watched the last MSNBC debate video on here, and I always watch MTP online, so I don't know what the problem is. Guess I will have to catch it on You Tube. At least from this blog, it sounds like the best debate so far.

I am very disappointed with Russerts lack of questions to the lower tier candidates such as Kucinich and Gravel. Especially on the health care issue. It is obvious to me the main stream media does not want to discuss single payer government health care. This was not a fair debate as most of the floor was given to the top tier candidates who by the way dodged most of the questions head on.

The problem with these debates is that the media builds up the expectations and would to see a knock down drag out fight or a dramatic confrontational moment.  Sorry, Mr. Matthews, that is just not going to happen.  For the most part these things are boring and I'm speaking as a political junkie. There are too many of them, there are too many candidates on the stage and no one is given adequate time.  The candidates with the most interesting things to say, in both parties, are never taken seriously.  I agree with Todd on one point - Joe Biden does always seem to shoot from the hip and I think that comes off well.  

Chuck, it's not just you.  There are quite a few of us out here in Iowa who think Biden is Mr. Straight Talk.  Of all the candidates I have been to see as they marched through here, he is the one who actually answered questions.  Maybe he would get more traction if the media was not so mesmerized by the Clintons and the horse race.  I think you all bear some responsibility if we end up with Hillary in the White House, and troops in Iraq for the next ten years.

I wish Russert had followed up more with Gravel's outburst about the vote on the Iran amendment yesterday.  Hillary voted for that stinker, which is a not-too-subtle effort by Lieberman (again) to push us closer to war with Iran.  

The Media has corinated Hillary as their queen! Very much as they covered for her stumbleing husband Bill for eight long years before her. And the Kennedys before them.Therefore they, the media, will continue to praise her non-answer answers as brillant with never a challenge. Once again leaving what ever credible journalism work gets done up to Talk Radio.

How about a discussion of the issues?  Why is the entire analysis focused on "how" the candidates debated instead of about "what" they debated??

Hillary saved her night with the set of answers to the Bill/torture hypothetical. "He's not stadning up here" is the line of her campaign so far.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

The narrative the media has woven that all forums/debates have to be judged by whether or not someone "landed a blow" on Hillary Clinton is an artificial one that allows the media to drown out other candidates and their positions. The controversial nature of Hillary makes it much easier to talk about and helps with ratings. I'm becoming more disappointed with Chuck Todd who I have viewed as being as about as much of an "objective" analyst as one can be in his position.

I thought John Edwards did a great job! We were VERY impressed.

Chuck Todd, you mentioned that the Washington insiders hate Edwards. Sounds like you have a story to me. How about giving us some more details? Don't you think the voters are entitled to know about the enemies of each candidate? After all a candidates enemies says as much about a candidate as who their friend are. How about a story on this or are the details only for the ears of those inside the beltway?

Our country is at a crossroad, where our long term financial security and foreign policies in the Middle East cross as forks in the road.  We have a choice to continue on the current path with American occupation in Iraq for the long haul at the risk of ignoring our financial security or take a different path that puts the burden of security of region on the people of the region themselves and have our role to shift from occupier of the region to become a meditator of agreed solution(s) for the parties of the region.  It is true that a percentage of Americans believes we should have a long term occupation of region as the only way to get stability.  But some fundamental questions must be asked about such a long term occupation.  Did we not come to liberate the Iraq peoples or did we come to occupy and dominate them as greater vision to empower American interest in the Middle East?  If it is the latter, then we lied to the world about liberation of Iraq.  Now who will pay this long term war debt and occupation for Iraq?   Today, Americans who support the Iraq occupation have not stepped up to the plate to purchase war bonds.  The purchase of war bonds are all historic low considering we are at war, but the Chinese and Iranian governments to date have taken this opportunity to purchase our debt as it grows with our war effort in Iraq.  Richardson is correct, we must shift our role from occupier to meditator and pursue our long term American interest for security and stability with foresight.  As Richardson has stated many times, a nation with a strong foreign policy and weak  military is a weak leader, a nation with a strong foreign policy and strong military is a powerful leader, and nation with a weak foreign policy and strong military is blind.  We are at crossroads.

Great job, Edwards!!! Obama was obviously sick because he did not have his game on tonight--which is a shame. I think Hillary is finally beginning to show her true colors--her testiness and irritability was quite apparent in her answers to the social security and Iran questions. What she doesn't realize is she isn't president yet (and may never be!), so she comes across as just plain arrogant and disingenuous when she bluntly refused to answer questions. Way to go nailing her to the wall, Tim Russert! More journalists and media people should do the same to show the American people how Ms. Clinton handles off the cuff questioning (read: she squirms!).

Edwards won the debate hands down! He has in many of the debates people are just starting to listen to him. He is the best canidate in my mind and has my vote.

I thought the whole debate was about Hillary Clinton! Tim Russert could have invited Bill Clinton if he had that many questions for him. Chris Mathews should say straight out that he is biased and endorses Biden before trashing everyone on stage after debate. I thought MSNBC did a horrible job. The candidates were great. All of them.

Chris Todd, please do more work for MSNBC and actually correctly analyze debates because your story didn't really tell me anything about Clinton's performance, or even how she answered questions. Clinton never really answers the questions directed at her, much like someone in the White House we know. I don't want more of the same, and currently, with the way she is running her campaign, taking money from senate campaign funds and using it irresponsibly for presidential campaign funds, I don't really trust her. She has big plans for health care and she had more than enough power and resources to do it in the mid-nineties but couldn't get the job done then, and even now is failing to reach out to republicans. That's dangerous for a possible democratic nominee and could, as Bush and other republicans know, cost democrats the presidency.  Barack is way more honest. Whether it be his answers, which are thougthfully answered and aren't just cookie-cut rhetoric, or his method of raising funds for a project as big as a presidential campaign - he really knows how to get things done and to do things right. Edwards I think is just saying things in order to win, not really truthfully answering questions on what he would do if elected.

If you feed people divisiveness they will be divisive if you feed them intolerance they will be intolerant if you feed them fear they will become fearfull , but if you feed them reason , tolerance ,and hope they will become reasoned , tolerant, and hopefull . Well i guess that flew right over chris and the pindits head , because right after the debate what did they feed us hate ,divisivness, intolerance . Why do they think this is a pay perview fight . It is a forum for ideas not to see who can through the biggest hissey-fit   . at least one person remains to act like a mature adult .
Obama \webb 08

btw that was the best line of the debate to me .

Overall I thought it was a good debate, and I think Tim did a great job. But...Hillary in charge? I just don't buy that. She reminded me of Bush "It's just so hard" in his first debate with Kerry. No substance. Playing dodge ball. I think if more candidates had gone after her, Dodd's failed at his chance, she could have been knocked out. Imagine if everyone of the other candidates had taken just one good shot...she would have been using that annoying laugh all night. I'm beginning to wonder if she could hold her own with Guiliani or any other GOP candidate when she will be taking some real shots. Clearly Edwards did the best tonight...better than at anytime in the past. I agree that Obama was off his game, and I was dissappointed in him. Richardson seemed to ramble as usual. My biggest complaint is that Biden did not get enough air time.

"CBS/AP) The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013."

OH!  the truth is starting to come out now. Great debate give Tim Russett credit for "pulling" this info out of the slimy Democrats.

Here's a Party that with the help of America''s corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press pulled one the the biggest propaganda campaigns off in 2006 by "promising the American people THEY would end the war in Iraq.

And now last night they, the most unqualified bunch of Dems to ever run for president, are saying that troops will still be in Iraq in 2013.

What do you liberals think of that now?

Is it too late for Tim Russert to get in the race?

I agree tim russert won this debate ,he came off to me as a honest moderator and held everyone to the same standard plus held them to their statments.
Good job Tim .

GOOD LUCK OBAMA .I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A BEDATE FOR THE PRES. NOT THE V.P.,DON'T WORRY WE STILL LOVE YOUR IDEAS. AT SOME POINT THEY WILL SHINE THROUGH.

SO let me get this straight, all of the Democratic canadites have been telling the President he needs to det a timeline to get troops out of Iraq, but none of them want to set a timeline if and when they win?  HYPOCRITES!!!!

Hillary--"He's not standing up here tonight.  I am."  Best line of the campaign so far.  Hands down.

Dave
Traverse City, MI

If Chuck Todd would take off the Hillary-inspired glasses he's wearing then he would realize this was Hillary's worst performance.  She seemed flustered, agitated, temperamental and refused to answer any questions.  Democrats desreve to know where the candidates stand on issues and Hillary will not give them the pleasure.  She's playing the general election strategy...but first she has to win the nomination.  You and your so-called media "pundits" have already anointed her as the nominee...but half of the Democratic electorate is still undecided.
I think the most telling response was to the last question:  which baseball team do the candidates support? Red sox or Yankees?  Hillary called herself a Yankees fan but in a hypothetical World Series match-up between the Cubs and Yankees- she would alternate her support. WTF? She couldn't even take a position on this issue whereas, Obama said he was a White Sox fan.

I didnt think it was a loooooong night at all. I was actually entertained by the debate and pleased with most of the answers the candidates gave.
If you mean the Democrats didn't rip each other apart then, no, that didn't happen.
By the way Dian.....if you thought Obama did well last night I would have to question just exactly what debate you were watching? It sure wasnt the same one I saw.
He flubbed the Iran question...again...by saying that he would sit down and negotiate with Ahmedinajad (spelling?) How many times is he going to give that same answer.....and then have his people claim "foul" when he gets taken to task for it?

I think John Edwards shined through tonight, he answered the questions, told the truth and had the guts to stand up to Hillary and define their differences.  I realize Hillary is extremely intelligent, however, I was very unhappy that she chose to avoid answering questions and she lead me to believe she would follow the same trend of arrogance of not listening to the voters and not being forthright with us...I for one, am very sick is this behavior.  America deserves a President that will work for all Americans and will be honest and at the very least give us a little respect by listening to our wishes.

When Howard Fineman agreed with Pat Buchanan (whose praying Hillary is the nominee, because other than Kucinich or Gravel is the GOP's best chance at the WH) that Hillary won, by not losing, I could not believe it. I will not fully share what I thought of Fineman at that time. The other pundit also agreed. Immediately after that Sen. Biden was the first post debate interview, and he came across great, as usual. And when the pundits were back on Fineman said he had a change of heart, that this was actually Clinton's worst debate. DUH! Better late than never, the female pundit then also agreed with Fineman, that this was Clinton's worst debate performance.

It was nice to see Clinton challenged a bit. All candidates should be challenged to answer the questions, and not what they want to answer, but the question actually asked. Most did that last night. Clinton not only didn't last night (or in previous debates) but when pinned down to answer, she simply refused to do so. The idea that we are suppose to support a candidate with no proven track record of her own (name one piece of major legislation she has passed)is the best candidate, when she refuses to answer questions, refuses to provide specifics (go to her website)is crazy! I am not going to blindly support anyone, and I'm unwilling to wait until the general election when the nominee will be forced to take a stand on issues to find out that I've been sold down the river.

I understand it's the Clinton strategy not to say anything that would hurt her in a general election. But if the choice is between candidates being honest and stating the truth and one who won't say anything, because it might hurt her later, I'm sticking with the candidate who'll tell me where they stand, if you don't have enough confidence in your position(s) to publicly state them, why should I have any confidence in you?

It is hard to pinpoint Clinton's most disingenuous moment. Her Cubs versus Yankees bit, right you're a fan and you'll alternate cheering between two teams for the world series. Give me a break, or when she said her husbands not running she is, after she criticized an un-named guest's statement on MTP, only to find out, the statement was made by Bill. and she is running on her own accomplishments. Really? Because I recall several times Clinton referring to in my husbands administration, blah, blah, blah. Clinton can't (WON'T) take a stand on anything, not even anything as simple as what team she really supports.

Biden, Dodd, & Edwards were all great last night, they at least respect voters enough to not act like Bush and refuse to answer questions.

Edwards did an outstanding job of taking Hillary to task regarding her pathetic Iran vote yesterday and what it means (she still hasn't learned her lesson after voting for the Iraq war!). He's taking the tough stance that I was hoping Obama would. Even Mike Gravel said he was "ashamed" of her Iraq vote--touche!! Joe Biden came across as smart and well-versed regarding foreign policy. Finally, it's nice to at last see a moderator like Tim Russert who is tough enough on Hillary not to let her get away with her usual song and dance (which has obviously fooled quite a few people on this post--sadly). Keep up the great work, Tim!! You really cleaned her clock.

Edwards is already well past Obama in Iowa and Nevada, and closing thhe gap in New Hampshire, where Obama lost 7 points in the latest poll and Edwards gained 5.  Edwards will be in second place in NH polls by next month.

One thing I wanted to ask, Mr. Todd - who are the 'Democrat elite' as you put it, who 'hate' John Edwards?

Unless you have an agreement with a specific anonymous source, it is journalistic cowardice to say something like that and not identify who you are talking about.

You can't pass on rumor and gossip as fact without attributing the comments to someone.

So name some names.

I'm astounded that none of the front runners have the stones to commit to getting the troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term!  I'm voting for Ron Paul!

Who did best in a single debate should never be the issue.  (My opinion is Clinton overall last night, Edwards on movement, but who cares?)  

What is most important is that we keep our eye on the prize, winning the Presidency.  That is why not answering "hypotheticals" or committing yourself to a sweeping policy through 30 second or 90 second responses is appropriate and candidates are right to be cautious

The other problem with last nights debate is that most questions have been asked multiple times in previous debates.  Tim Russert had the opportunity to broaden the discussion to such issues as cancer research, environmental protection, global warming, stem cell research, NASA's Constellation program to establish a permanent Moon base and eventually go on to Mars, infrastructure, future of the Older Americans Act, and on and on. Such issues need to be addressed.

This was not an episode of Meet The Press. Russert needs to remember that journalism is not about the journalist, but rather about the story. He deserves a C- for his performance.  

First of all I support Obama, before and after the debate.  I think John did well, For Hillary finally the chickens are coming home to roost...people will see she says nothing and couldn't get away with it last night.

As for Obama, yes he was ill and yes he was off his game in terms of energy.  But I still thought his answers were good.

The MSM is so anxious for a dog fight...well before the debate they had it set up if he different walk across the stage and slap her (which he wouldn't do) then he had lost.  

BTW if he had come at her swinging then they would have been the first to say "what happen to the politics of hope"  so of course he couldn't win.

MSM if you want people to know what Hillary has been up to and the lies she tells why not do YOUR job.  It was your failure to that that got us in Iraq.  But you don't because you don't won't to anger the Clintons in case she wins just like GQ, you have NO spine.

I thought the most telling thing was post debate when you guys slipped and mentioned that Hillary has no impromtu questions on the stump..that her staff comes to people first and ask what the questions will be....Now who does that remind you of.  I wonder how many people caught that.  

"Clinton has been attacked, and yet has maintained her composure. She is the Democrats' best shot.

Jeremy, Philadelphia, PA "

You have got to be kidding. What candidate up there hasn't withstood political attacks? Even though Sen. Biden is less than 5 years older than Clinton, he has been elected to the Senate 6 times, don't you think he was attacked each time? I don't live in Delaware, but I'm sure he was.

Clinton has maintained her composure? What the heck are you saying? Are you referring to the fact she didn't break down and cry? She didn't go into a screaming fit?

How about the fact that Clinton is largely to blame for the current health care crisis. in 93/94 the legislature and WH were all under Democratic control. And the Clinton's were going to revise health care in the US. Hillary admits some mistakes, but it is clear she either is dishonest or has yet to learn all of her mistakes. Every time she says how lonely she was back in 93/94 trying to reform health care, I have to use all my self control to resist throwing an object at the TV. (why break the TV, because Clinton's lying, or has no clue) Hillary shut not only GOP, health care industry rep's out of her planning/meetings, she shut out leading Democrats, and then tried to smear those shut out because they refused to embrace a plan the country was not yet willing to accept (and apparently not that great or it would be her plan today, instead of a mirror of Sen Chaffee's (RI-Rep.)plan prior to 93.


Hillary might win the general, if God forbid she's the nominee, but if you believe she is the Democrats best shot in the general you are politically isolated.

Chuck Todd said "Biden, once again, did well. The guy just needs resources and he just might get some traction. Then again, maybe it's just us Beltway types who think he's shooting straighter from the hip than any of the other candidates. ...At a minimum, I think he's earned a spot on the VP short list, forget Sec./State."

Chuck you're right and wrong:

Right:
1. "Biden, once again, did well." Yes, he did, he shined, even though he didn't get anywhere near the time as almost all the other candidates. And did you notice he had no problem with the rapid fire questions.
2. "The guy just needs resources and he just might get some traction." The only disagreement I have is with use of might, he already has traction in Iowa, but more funding would increase his exposure on TV, which would INCREASE his traction. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE BIDEN WIN IOWA,GO TO HIS WEBSITE AND DONATE MONEY!
3."maybe it's just us Beltway types who think he's shooting straighter from the hip than any of the other candidates." No it isn't just the Beltway mentality, in Iowa he is recognized as the most honest, and forth coming candidate. Even people who oppose him don't criticize his candor. Although shooting from the hip normally has a negative connotation, it usually refers to someone who speaks without thinking. With Biden its true to the extent, he speaks truthfully, and lets the chips fall where they may, as opposed to someone who speaks stupidly without thinking.

Wrong: "At a minimum, I think he's earned a spot on the VP short list, forget Sec./State." If you believe Biden is honest, which I do, and it appears you do, then Chuck there is no way Sen. Biden would agree to be VP, he has made it perfectly clear in Iowa on numerous occasions, that he will not agree to run as VP, or  agree to be secretary of state.

Nick F, Berkeley, CA hypothetically should be banned? According to Hillary asking about social security is a hypothetical. Maybe Hillary should just provide the moderator with a list of questions that are off limits, because God forbid she be required to actually answer questions that the voters are interested in.

My biggest complaint is that Biden did not get enough air time.

Al, KS

I agree, but what little time he did get, he again proved to be the best choice.

To Mary, NH: Excellent point about Hillary not taking impromptu questions on the stump (just like our current pres). And thank you for bringing up the GQ story (which a lot of people may not have heard about)--Hillary's campaign actually threatened GQ magazine that if it published an article detailling all the infighting and chaos within the Clinton campaign, then GQ would no longer have access to Bill!! And GQ caved in--how lame is that? Please journalists--have some integrity (and courage)--don't cave in to these kinds of threats!! Or better yet, make it your next story--Hillary's campaign threatens GQ magazine--expose her for the fraud she is.

Joe Biden is by far the most experienced of all the candidates.  He gave real answers to the questions and took the least time to do it.  Russert lost control of the debate early on and never got it back.  He let Hillary take charge and she spoke about twice as long as anyone else.  When she said I won't answer that question he should have said fine and moved on instead of let her make some talking points.  All of the candidates are now coming to some agreement with Joe Biden on how to end the war.  Hillary doged the question of how much she was involved in high level discussions about forien policy.  The answer is she was not involved and she got away with the dodge.

Are you all crazy?? What happened to pulling ALL our troops out of Iraq? All of that is now gone? We are going to roll over now and say "Oh, Hillary, we agree with you on all your other policies that we'll let you slide to keep HALF of our troops over there." Hellloooo!  What happened to all the pressure on your congess-persons to bring the troops home. I see now, it's 'support the troops' when it's convenient. Are you for a pull-out or not? And don't give me an evasive, kind-of, sort-of answer like Hillary! Stand for what you believe in or don't.

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