I am a Repub-Dem. I don't vote party lines I vote for the best qualified. Does that mean I am a moderate? - Who cares I hate these labels. Obama and Edwards did really well, a good surprise. I really like the idea of an Obama/Edwards Ticket!! As the race gets tighter these guys will get better as time goes on. Think of Roosevelt to Kennedy era. Like most front runners Hillary is the one with the most to lose. Obama/Edwards can and will get it done in the White House. Hillary did ok not well but ok tonight, and it's too bad because Bill or no Bill he can't run her race. She is qualifed to be Comm-in-Chief, but not this time. She can do more good for the country in a top appointed role, she's no Conde Rice but she will get it done with the best Dem's as Pres/VP and a Bi-Partian administration from the White House down to the Senate/Congress - she will earn and shine in her own legacy by having the autonomy to get it right for the U.S. on a Global basis. (Who needs Bill?) if Obama and Edwards are on the same team. Dems - get 3 for 1. She did good tonight, sticking to the message and not returning the personal attacks. The Dems real race will be with Mitt Romney and company. I don't really care for him, but I have to keep myself honest and I actually like what he's been saying. I couldn't stand Mr. Puppet Pres. Reagan - But he built up our military defenses which I see as being most important today with Terroism. Clinton (Bill) destroyed our Military. Bush could have scored by being fiscally responsible and quickly re-built our Military to go after Pakistan/Afganistan - Then Iran/Korea wouldn't be so noisy right now. Romney is the sleeper in this race for the Republican nomination. Giuliani is fooling himself. Again he would do better in another capacity of the administration Dem. or Repub. Look at Romney's record (Bi-Partisian) in Mass. My dream race is Obama/Edwards - Romney/???  I like the idea of Obama/Edwards Pres/V-Pres with Thompson and Kucinch padlocking the Pork barrell from the rest of our sorry greedy congress. Campaign reform - TV has to give free airtime to canidates. How about an Ethics Szar? (Dreaming)-Romney or maybe Elliot Spitzer. We need to rebuild our Military-McCain. Biden, Dodd, Huckabee, Richardson, Paul, Tancredo can all stay and be a part of the new White House administration in top roles for 2008-2009 (Yes Rudy, even you). school's about to be in session. We gave away our Technology and modernization and now our weapons. Russia's here - We are losing jobs forcing us to compete as a Service economy with no real ownership in our own land or people anymore. Let's be and compete Global-but the field must be level. Paying someone in another country $3-$6 per hr., for a better quality of life dosen't get it when there countries are not held responsible or accountable like the U.S. is. Some countries are the biggest polluters and pay no taxes. Companies are greedy and pay little to no taxes and the government can't manage or govern itself. I love everyone, but if you aren't here legally, then I will just have to love you long distance for a while until achieve legal status to be in the U.S. and not just because you had a child here just inside the border. Get the picture? Obama/Edwards you have much to do - Are you up to it? Everybody else in the race except those mentioned here in my little diddy - GO Home...and comeback to session with a name tag that say's I am here to serve collectively not selfishly serve your country and community using the 3 R's-Do the Right Thing for the Right Reason and the Right Way.

I knew it. What a ridiculous set of questions MSNBC asked the Democrats in the debate. Do you believe in the war in Iraq? Do you support diplomacy? Do you believe in UFO? With questions like these, even I could be president.

Until Democrats have a debate on FoxNews, we will never know whether they are telling the truth. And by the way, we know they hate the president, we get it! W is not re-electing, so move on and tell us what you would do instead.

One simple question that should be asked is:  Once all diplomacy has failed and a city in Israel has been bombed, what would you do against Iran? Why would you wait until Iran has killed millions to take action.

Also, if Democrats are afraid to answer questions on a Liberal-Loving netowrk, they sure will have a heck of a time answering real political questions on a Conservative-loving network.

This debate was an absolute disaster!

I was disapointed in the moderator- he was one of the pack and if I wasn't clearly behind Clinton before I am now.  The focus is on Bush and change of power not each other.  The Dems are being Dems except for Clinton.  Obama and Edwards sound desparate when attacking- stay on the mark Bush and change.  

I was happy to see that Hillary finally was pressed on some of the troubling things about her candidacy.
Edwards and Obama did excellent and i was happy to see them expose her as a doubletalk and secretive.  Basically she is a democratic Bush.
It is far past time for the free ride to end.  
I thought Obama did what he needed to do and he did real damage to Hillary.

If Kyle Lieberman was important enough to cause all this fuss why was it not important enough for Obama to vote against it. I still say not voting is tacit approval.

Ms. Clinton once again managed to answer without answering. She is very good at not saying anything while her mouth is moving. If she gets the nod- and one can only hope she does not- I beleive she will be the reason the dem's lose again in '08.  I hope that democratic voters look beyond the love for Bill, and realize it's time to move beyond the nineties. I really think she will be , as I've heard recently , just a smarter version of Bush (not hard to do ).

I didn't get to see it, no cable and the stream would not come through, but thanks everyone for some good insightful information, you all put journalists to shame. I just say BRING ON THE DONKEY RACE, YEHAH YEHAH YEHAH!!!! NICE TO SEE THERE WAS GOOD GIVE AND TAKE!!

So Chuck Todd, you were on morning joe and you as much as admit that this debate was organized for the sole purpose of ambushing hillary clinton.  you media people are unbelievable! you try to pass yourself off as objective moderators of discussing the issues when in all reality you are trying to create hype. All of you conspirators should be ashamed of yourselves, you certainly don't deserve to be called reputable journalists.

i don't understand why all these men didn't understand what senator clinton was trying to say about the drivers license situation in NY. She answered the question very well. 1. SHE DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE PROPOSAL 2. BUT SHE UNDERSTANDS WHY TO KEEP TRACK OF THE MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS IN NY AND FOR SAFETY REASONS. WHAT PART OF NO DON'T U UNDERSTAND AND WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SHE CAN SEE THE REASONING BEHIND IT. A MOTHER MIGHT TELL A CHILD NO, BUT ALSO EXPLAIN SHE UNDERSTANDS. THAT IS WHY WE NEED A WOMAN PRESIDENT. THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE RULES THE WORLD. I AM A SENIOR AND PROUD OF IT BUT MOST OF ALL I AM AN AMERICAN AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE, ASHAMED OF WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY.

Many may not say it directly. But there was one clear winner, and that was John Edwards. He was the one who really gave Hillary some hell. Obama only recycled his remarks!
Biden was funny as usual. Richardson was sweet. Dennis was out-there! LOL

THE SCANDAL IS THAT MSNBC C O V E R E D  U P  Obama's opening statement by extending the blabber of Olberman/Mathews and NOT LETTNG US SEE/HEAR the debate until after Edwards was already speaking !!!!!
CLINTON MACHINE??? CLEARLY MSNBC IS GUILTY OF THIS INCREDIBLE TOTALITARIAN STENCH!!!!!!!!

Hillary cannot win.....the republicans will eat her alive in the general election. Democrats, if you want the White house, you must ensure that Obama is nominated.

In the past few months I have spent some time watching both the Republican and the Democratic debates.  I can't help but think that the current Democratic candidates are spending a whole lot of time fighting amongst themselves.  I personally am tired of the constant bickering and fighting.   Yes, the Republicans are doing this too...just much less and more focused on planning and policy instead of going into Tattle Tail(?) mode on each other.

It's dissapointing and I can't believe that I am saying this..but, I think the next President will be a Republican and he will win in a landslide.

I agree with those who feel Giuliani is the best candidate, and I disagree that Clinton is the better choice on the Democratic side. There really isn't any good choice there, and she of all, is least favored. A debate is suppose to show how candidates differ, and those who attacked her had a right to, for if it were you and she had a substantial lead, you would as well show that she is a flip-flopper, and thus deserves to be put on the spot. Not only that, she is a deceptive human being, a liar, and a manipulator with no self respect. To be with a person (Bill) just to boost your political agenda, regardless of how loyal they are cannot deserve respect. It is something they all must earn. To say we must leave Iraq immediately... it is too late for that, the war is on, the war will continue, and there will be even greater challenges ahead. The USA cannot hide or run any longer. Blaming anyone for that is immature and irresponsible. Clinton has no experience with the level of seriousness this entails nor does she have credible answers. As well, none of them do, which is why a Republican will win. It is not a popularity contest; it is a choice for the greater person that has the best chance of getting priorities completed successfully. This takes previous experience with business and a level of success unsurpassed by others.
PS. She won the debate at 40%? Are people blind or just nuts?! I vote for nuts!

David Deloso, my thoughts exactly. Both Matthews and Russert looked like two boy bullys picking on a girl on the playground...smirking when they got one over on Hillary at the very end of the night with the drivers license issue. I don't mind if Obama or Edwards went after her as this is what they are supposed to do in a debate. But Chris and Tim looked like fools. Hillary was still standing at the end of the night though. Good for her.Tough as nails.

Chris Matthews and Tim Russert were obviously doing the mans association trash the little woman attack..and it made them look like petty young boys. I was embarrassed for both of them. I don't think I'll be watching Chris anymore. Going to boycott his show for awhile after his nasty boy performance.

Obama can try to attack Sen Clinton but it fails to stick. He is good speaking in generalities, but when he trys to be specific he is just another pol. Edwards is a good attack dog but the middle class need a spokesperson who gets haircuts that do not cost $400. He sounds good on issues but not credible. Sen Clinton withstood the onslaught and stands out among this group as the one in touch with middle class voters. She is prepared, convincing, intelligent, sanguine and saavy.

Hillary is still standing after being fairly attacked by her fellow dems but also unfairly attacked by two of the moderators. I'm still voting for her.

It seems to  me that everyone has forgotten history. Right now the US reminds me og Germany 1939. Housing crisis, toys for kids, water shortages,global warming, health care is what we need in this country.Who are best for US, Obama & Edwards, either one at the top will win. With H. Clinton, republicans win. We all know this, who will say it.

Were some of you watching this debate? Obama and Edwards both came off as more interested in attacking Clinton instead of giving anyone a reason to vote for them..."I'm not her" will work no better than John Kerrys "I'm not him" in 2004

One other thing for the Dims here...Clinton looks much more like the type of leader the American people will actually elect than either edwards or obama who both come off as weenies...file that under why dims lose national elections...we dont like weenies...we dont like bush either but we aren't about to elect a weenie to replace him

Got through to about 10:30 last night.  That's a record.  Thought it was important since MSNBC has really been plugging away at how important it was that Obama go after Clinton or he's finished business in the campaign.  I think the biggest problem that has shown itself in the campaign is now at the surface.  Its called MSNBC overkill.  Russert likes the smell of blood, and he certainly showed it last night.  I'm an Obama leaner, but to tell you the truth, last night Edwards threw it back at Russert as did Clinton.  You of the media types keep throwing in the fact that its tight in Iowa and New Hampshire and that most of the likely voters in Iowa have not shown their colors and in New Hampshire the independents (the clear majority) have not been counting.  What you guys need to do is just be reporters and broadcast the facts rather than your love of the smell of blood, and the need to end it before it begins.  You haven't got a clue as to who is going to take it in either Iowa or New Hampshire, so why not cut the crap and let the people do the talking in a few months with their vote.

Who, in any moment of rational consideration, would want any of these characters in the position of POTUS?  All the nasty thugs throughout the world must be praying for all of them to be elected as they represent nothing but weak, wimpy, self-serving punching bags.  Lead us not into temptation? HA! Lead us not into submission and last place status for a Nation that is still the best in the world.

Shame on you, MSNBC. First off - this was not a debate. This was a Michael Vick Attack Dog show with an absolutely obvious setup against Hillary Clinton. I can believe Russert would participate in such a below the belt attack, but am sorely disappointed that Brian Williams would be part of such a thing. A debate is usually started by a question on an issue to one party to get things started - this started with a setup question, specifically aimed at the respondent to attack Hillary, and so were the questions to follow. How below the belt can you get? Why call it a debate - why didn't you call it what it was - a forum designed to attack Hillary from every angle?

But you know what? It didn't matter - because Hillary kicked-ass on all of them. If she didn't prove last night after the barrage they laid on her, that she has the temperment, clear-headed, sheer courage and strength to lead when attacked by a pack of wolves, then nobody can. She even convinced my wife, who never cared for her before, that she's the one we need to fight to get our nation back.

And Obama? A mealy-mouth who stammered and spoke as if he was startled every time a question came his way.

John Edwards? Just showed how he made his milllions as a sleaze-bag lawyer.

The true winners - Hillary 1 and Joe Biden 2.

The REAL LOSERS - Brian Williams and (Fox?)MSNBC.

Journalists, reporters and bloggers: please take a long look at yourselves in a mirror.  Is it inevitable that the "horse race" aspect of a political campaign must overshadow the "issues" aspect?  Is it a natural phenomenon that reporters are more interested in handicapping a political race than in delving into in-depth analysis of serious topics such as Iraq and Iran?  Richardson deserves praise for trying to steer  the others back to the issues.  

Without a doubt, we saw on display, the reason these radical islamic extremist attacked us in the first place.  Lets elect these guys so they can send the message to them that they can attack us and kill as many Americans as they want, with the assurance that we will not respond.  Lets tell terrorist around the world, attack us, we won't respond.  Pathetic!

I wish the Clinton supporters would stop whining. I want to hear a debate about the issues. I want positions delineated. I wanted inconsistencies accounted for. I want specifics. There are serious issues that need to be addressed.  
I just don't get democrats for Hillary. She's wrong on the war, she's wrong on her Iran vote. Maybe dems for Hillary only attack Republicans who hold those positions. Oh no... you probably think this is personal.

I've been for Obama, but thinking of switching to Edwards. He had the line of the night when he turned to Hillary and pointed out all of the special-interest money she's accrued ...

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!  Bush screwed up this country so bad, both domestic and international policies, that the most important thing we need in the next POTUSA is experience.  Be it Biden or Ron Paul or even Clinton (Bubba) - but we can't have "learn on the job".  Not this time!

jnik, Richmond, VA,

Obama did not have much in the way of Republican opposition, but he did have a tough primary election, which Sen. Clinton most certainly did not.  My point was that under sustained, close attack, Sen. Clinton seemed very shaky in comparison to previous debates, with a multitude of backtracking and opaque answers. Also keep in mind that a Republican opponent (Guliani, Romney, McCain) will be much less gentle.  Guliani and McCain especially are extremely good debaters, Romney and Thompson less so.

My point regarding Clinton was that neither Obama nor Edwards are, at this point, likely to be the nominee, barring some magical upset by Obama in IA (unlikely, given the early caucus date and who is likely to show up) so Clinton's debate shakiness is more of an issue than Obama's soft-soap approach.  Edwards is still a very sharp, aggressive debater though.

Folks,

I told you before this campaign is just getting started. To the rookies in political affair, get your pop corn ready.

Madame Clinton is finally exposed. More exposion is on the way.

Shame on Tim Russert and Brian Williams.  It's one thing for the candidates to attack each other, but setting up the questions for them to attack Hillary and then attacking her themselves, was really bush league.  As always, Tim Russert tries to make the debate about how he can get someone, rather than putting out some good questions that America really cares about.  Brian williams asking Kucinich about UFOs?  C'mon.  Williams single handedly just sunk Kucinich with that question.  Instead of asking him about serious questions that matter, this is what he came up with?  Shame on MSNBC.  They might have well been Republicans bashing Hillary, instead of independent journalist.  The other Dems are not doing each other any favors by bashing other Democrats.  Bill Richarson hit that right on the head.

In my 25 years of watching debates, I have never seen one candidate get jumped on by every other candidate plus the moderators.  After all that, Hillary stood tall, took it, and handled herself with dignity and strength and like the next president she will be.  

Would someone PUHLEEZE tell MSNBC to get Chris Matthews off the air?  His show is becoming impossible to watch.  It has become a 60 minute lecture time for him.  His questions aren't questions as much as they are his agenda, and his rudeness to "guests" who won't fall into and agree with his agenda is amazing.  Can't think why anyone would go on that show.

Having him anywhere near a Democratic debate is just a ridiculous waste of time.

And while we are on the subject?  Lose "Morning Joe" too for the same reasons.  It is not fun to watch someone who behaves like a 12 year old try to discuss the issues of the day.

Bring back Imus.

I'm glad I'm not alone in noting how "the station for politics" is diving into the sewer.  Free press, my eye!  

I'm glad I'm not alone in noting how "the station for politics" is diving into the sewer.  Free press, my eye!  

Eileen Williams, Pittsburgh, PA,

I can but point out your hypocracy. The focus should be on Bush, are you kidding me. Please give me a break. This is a race for a democratic nomination not coronation.

I have been saying it all along where does Hillary Clinton stand on the issues that matter? I don't know where she stand and her performance last night highlighted what i have been saying in the last few months.

She is so wishy washy, she is all over the place. Even when answering question, she doesn't give specific. She connect question of Iraq to child health care and women paid leave.

The pundicts and MSM have been giving her break all along and yesterday demonstrate how calculating she could be. She is not forthcoming on her answer. Her credibility is questionable...sorry i can't help you on your dissapointment

Pointing out serious flaws in Clinton's candidacy (or anybody else's candidacy) is not attacking!!!!  We NEED to know the differences in these candidates, on a policy level as well as a values level, to ensure that we make the correct choice.  Ultimately, however, it comes down to electibility.  Not only would half the country not vote for Hillary, but I don't think half of the Democrats would vote vote for her in the general election.  WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!  Edwards and Obama are the only electable candidates in this group.  Biden is a great guy and very smart, but his tendency to say dumb things occasionally hurts him.  He would be great in the cabinet somewhere.  

"No one could have expected that anyone would be able to endure the personal and vicious attacks on her, launched mostly by Tim Russert.  Obama and Edwards were fairly good, insofar as the issues were concerned, but were desperate and cowardly in their appalling attacks on Hillary." - John C.

What personal attacks are you talking about, John? What appalling attacks, John? Can you even understand the difference between pointing out inconsistencies in a person's rhetoric and argumentation and personally attacking them, John? Let's play the same game Mark Penn slinked away from. Compare and contrast these two statements:

Statement 1:
"John C. Polifronio makes the statement 'Hillary was absolutely brilliant.' Then, instead of supporting this statement, he proceeds to accuse others in the debate of personally attacking Hillary Clinton and incorporates irrelevant (and misleading) other issues (e.g.: Obama and the Kyl-Lieberman vote). This demonstrates that John has failed to support his assertion, and moreover failed to disregard irrelevancies in doing so."

Statement 2:
"John C. is a shameless, ignorant shill for Hillary who, blinded by his own adoration, is either incapable of or unwilling to distinguish between personal attacks and legitimate questions regarding integrity."

Which one of these is a baseless, irrelevant and mean  personal attack, John, and which is merely a statement critical of the validity of an argument or position?

Hillary pretty much kicked ass through most of the debate; however, the archive question had her double talking and reaching pretty low to come up with a faux answer.  Fortunately for her the max two questions were asked and the moderators had to ask someone else a question before they got back to her for a follow-up and by that time she changed the subject.  She definitely got caught in the double talk on the driver licenses for immigrants and I think that actually hurt her more than some think.  Richardson was an idiot; Biden was Biden; Dennis was out of this world; Edwards did well and the Far Left, unions and lawyers probably loved him; Obama did halfway dissent for the first time, and Dodd actually sounded like the most intelligent one in the pack.

Kucinich wasn't very forthcoming about the UFO thing.  He failed to mention that he arrived here on one.

I didn't like Hillarys answer on the drivers license question, but that was the only thing. She is tough as nails. You can see the hate on Russert's face when he asked her something. She won last night, she will win the nomination, and she will win in November and be our president for the next 8 years. Her second term relection will be because of the good job she will do just like Bill did in his terms. My other prediction is that Bush's ratings will fall into the teens by next year if he is not found to have mental problems by then.

Blow it off! Clinton is just another Howard Dean! The same song and dance . ""Which all Washington self serving Paper Hangers are! Nothing ""NEW"", We again are forced to see how disqualified these Paper hangers have all but destroyed our government!

Clinton, A track record of failure in which she has no leadership. Conjecture and scandal are factors which achive nothing. Between her spouse and their confessed lies , they have obstructed the process of Washington while in the White House! We would be stupid to elect her as a President! America needs leadership, not self serving hidden agenda's!  She is a ""LIAR", Her SPOUSE is a ""LIAR"" , America needs not one who condone's perverted issues!

Howard Dean must be writting her speeches!

First I was disgusted with Tim Russert and his questions attacking Hillary.  Not only did it set the tone for everyone else to attack her but it distracted us from the issues that the American people wanted to debate.  As a result we did not get to hear from most of the other candidates on their positions.

With that said, I use to be a big Edwards supporter but with the $400 haircut, the $6 million estate and his all out attacks on Hillary I think it made him look bad and pathetic.  I don't trust him, he does not carry himself as a strong leader.  

I have never been a big Hillary Clinton supporter, but I felt bad for her last night.  I understand that some of her answers are vague, BECAUSE if you give any specifics then these guys hammer you a month later when all the conditions change and the answer you gave is not valid.  I think she did good until the end when she did double talk and she may be done.

I thought Obama did great, he has stage presence, he looks like a leader, he speaks confidently, he is all about the little people.  I loved his response on the Aliens he wants to "take care of people on earth.."

I also think Biden did great, he also looks like a strong leader, I loved his strategy on China he said he would stop importing all those crappy toys.  Hello he is going to protect the American people and he has a lot of Foreign Affairs experience.

Kucinich is done over the UFO, but I applaud his honestly AND I've been saying for Months why doesn't anyone want to IMPEACH president BUSH?  We all sit around and complain but no one comes up with a solution.  Well he has a solution to IMPEACH and he said he submitted a plan, I say lets do it BUSH is a disgrace to America.
                                   
Both Richardson and Dodd have some great ideas, but all in all I would rather see them on the cabinet or helping the future president improve our country.

So in conclusion I would like to see a Biden/Obama or Obama/Biden ticket.  Obama said that he and Biden were working on some policies together.

Edwards has a problem.  For all of his evident talents he's still perceived as a loser - people don't forget and there will always be that nagging piece of Kerry history to lug around.  Edwards does not come off as presidential - an elusive quality but either you've got it or you don't.  People need to remember that Kerry didn't have it either - and God knows how, but apparently lots of folks thought the loser in the White House did - I know, go figure.  

Obama has talent, but is likewise just not presidential at this point...likeable enough but no presidential persona being projected (a mysterious quality).  He just hasn't been at the game long enough, although he's got a long political future ahead.  

Joe Biden is a member of the over-the-hill gang, but still has a shot at a Cabinet post.  

Hillary will prevail (and maybe for all the wrong reasons - but a win is a win is a win).  As long as she's the focus of these debates it's perfectly clear as to who the dominant contender is - now that's very good publicity, so attacking Hillary definitely has a down side.  She's still standing and she's just getting tuned up for the republicans - and none of those characters have a clue.

Any of the dem candidates will be tougher competition for Hillary then any goper you can name - they're just functioning in a different (and much higher) intellectual stratum altogether.  That doesn't mean you have to be smart to be president (we have living proof) - however, projecting huge self-confidence is the far greater asset.  That said, these days folks will be more sensitive to the issue of broad knowledge and intellectual acumen in all candidates like never before (thank you George) - they want to hear answers to all the many questions we have post -Bush.  Hillary will have to knuckle down on issues in a big way one day soon, but I expect she will eventually come off  as not only the most informed candidate on issues, but as the only real candidate qualified to sit in the Oval Office after the dust settles.  

Ron Paul??  Oh, you mean the ghost of Ross Perot?
Thought so.......

was russert the moderator or was he running for president...he has become a real loser..a white male who has switched to hillary

Looking for truth:
I basically agree with your assessment except for a few modifications. I think that for Hillary this was her weakest performance yet.  Her Iran - Lieberman/Kyl answer was double talk.  How can a vote that authorizes force, be a vote for diplomacy?  Deja vu 2002?  Her SS answer was evasive because we all know that something has to be done sooner rather than later and that some hard decisions, other than balancing the budget will have to be made.  Her archive answer was duplicitous and I find it insulting that she thinks that we will buy this Bush/Rove cover up.  Sadly, her driver's license answer suggested organic brain disease.  The question was 'do you support it?' not do you understand Elliot Spitzer's motivations.  You can't have it both ways.  It was unclear and a typical Clintonian dodge.  Initially she left the impression that she supported it and she should have left it alone.  Not everyone is going to like it but it is a proposal not without merits and is very defensible.

Edwards was the best that I've ever seen him.  He really got the ball rolling in exposing the Hillary hypocrisy factor but he faded toward the end.  If he wasn't so slick, if he didn't pander, I might be more inclined toward him.

Obama (my choice) was weak in the beginning and strengthened toward the finish.  In fact, by the end he gave the strongest performance that I have yet to see him give in the debate forum.  This forum encourages hostile exchanges and I know that he feels bound by his 'politics of hope' message to keep it down.  However, I think that his demonstration of Hillary's Bush-lite positions is an obligation and doesn't counter his basic thesis.  Her policies and double talk are exactly what the 'politics of hope' is supposed to counter, but he's going to have to be the one to get it going.  I wish that Axelrod would stop advising him to hold back, the stategy wants for demonstration of leadership.

Richardson is running for VP or just wants Bill's fundraising help to win Domenici's seat. His defense of Hillary was laughable.

Biden, although the pithiest, can't get away from his 'I know more than everyone attitude'.  Personally, I think his federalization idea for Iraq is irrelevent since the Iraqi's will never accept it and it will unleash Kurdish (PKK) rebels.  In the
post-debate interview he wouldn't say that Hillary was wrong to vote for authorization of force in Iraq in 2002 because then he would have to admit his own mistake.

Dodd had his best night but he is an old pol and sometimes gets caught up in his own double-talk.

Dennis, man what can you say about Dennis.  He is passionate and sincere (although, I, for one, am against his plan for socialized medicine).  I find myself loving his idealism, what he wants for this country (he is a true patriot, as is Ron Paul).  But then he'll come out and say something wacko like 'impeach Bush/Cheney', a move which might have some legal merit and may even be an obligation of the Congress, after the treasonous deceit in which the two have participated, over the years.  But practically speaking, is late in coming and would do more harm than good to the country.  All of this passion should be directed instead, at ending this illegal and disasterous war.  And ending the debated on the UFO thing?  Personally, I would have refused to answer the question as it was irrelevent (as, in the end, will be his candidacy).

All in all it was the best and most in-your-face of the debates, although I did believe it was slanted against Hillary.  But I have two feelings about that.
As others have said, if she can't take this heat now, then how does she expect to face the Republicans in November 2008.  This race for the presidency isn't going to be like a senate race in one of the most Democratic states in the country against a weak and under financed Republican candidate.  Secondly, (I have to admit) I was glad that the public got see the Clinton propaganda machine for what it is, an attempt to slickly slide by with a bunch of platitudes and smiles.  Mark Penn, you can't do the Dick Morris thing.  You can't win the Democratic nomination while maintaining the posture of a Republican.
Obama '08

The paradigm did not shift last night. Withstanding a barrage of attacks, including many from Russert who went over the line as a supposedly neutral moderator, she emerged largely unscathed. Obama landed no punches, Edwards was strident and may put on a point or two but that puts him at 17%, Biden had the best one liner, and Kucinich proved he's loopy. Overall, it looked like piling on against Hillary and she took fire and stood it. If anything it helped her with women and solidified her toughness reputation. The press of course want a horse race so they are promoting it but nothing much changed last night.      

Anyone that believes that our next White House resident has not allready been chosen,raise your hand.The only thing that is happening is similar to the Democratic knee capping that occurred in 2004.I thuoght Edwards and Obama attacked Clinton well enough on their own,without Russert and Matthews piling on.I am not defending any candidate,only pointing out that when a moderator chooses sides,it stops being a debate,and becomes a political lie,supported by a biased media.Until last night,I had not decided who to vote for,but thanks to the sanctimonious,pious,smug,self aggrandizing manner of the so-called unbiased media moderators,Hillary's my candidate,and she will also get my cash.Lose the smugness media,or risk your very existence.Maybe you should adopt the "Fair and Balanced"title.It seems to fit.

 This is expressly for Tim Russert.When did you begin to HATE Hillary Clinton?I have never seen an expression of unbridled hatred when questioning a debater in my life.The first debate I watched was Kennedy,Nixon,and you sir,seem to have a deeply seede hatred of a single candidate.Until last night,I truly thought that you were simply pushing hard for answers when you asked tough questions.You sir,came off like a schoolyard bully,picking on a girl.I am earnestly hoping you do not host another debate,unless you hate any Republican as much as you hate Hillary.You,Sir,are a disgrace as an unbiased moderator,and if you have one shred of dignity or decency,you will publicly apologize.I won't hold my breath.Shame on you.

I think the comments have been great so far, I did not think it was a good debate though.  Did you see the number of questions asked each candidate:  Clinton 21, Obama 17, Edwards 14, the rest were 9,8,7,6 so basically they barely got any air time!

The most frustrating to me was Tim Russert's questions. I mean seriously asking about UFO's?  What about what matters most to the American People?

I think Hillary did an impressive job fending off the boys but she got caught in double talk at the end and it could hurt her.

Edwards is shifty lawyer he has some good pts but I just don't trust him.  Kucinich is wacky but I like some of his ideas.

Obama is the clear leader, his answers are direct and concise there is no side stepping.  He stands up for what he believes in and does not change his mind.  
With a strong running mate for VP I think he could win it all!

We need a Democratic Candidate who will BEAT the Republicans and I'm not sure Hillary is strong enough to get all the votes to do it.

I was not only disappointed in the moderators, but outraged by the hugely disproportionate amount of attention given to the "front runners."  Long ago, the MSM decided who the "contenders" would be and focused all of their media attention on them.  Obama got more press (even including him in polls) before he even announced than Kucinich who had been campaigning for months.  The media attention is self-perpetuating--the more it focuses on just a few candidates, the more well-known they become, the others drop down in the polls and then aren't covered at all.  Each candidate should be given the same questions and the same amount of time.  The candidate I support, Kucinich, got very few questions, and then Tim Russert insults him by asking about UFOs!  Ask him about universal healthcare (not insurance--health CARE; HR 676), or impeachment (H Res 333), or his plan for a Department of Peace (HR 808), or his 12-point plan for getting out of Iraq (HR 1234).  Shame on Tim Russert for his role in undermining the ONLY CANDIDATE who is not beholden to big PAC money and lobbyists.  

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