Very early thoughts

Robert Palmer, Santa Maria, CA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:22:43 GMT

I watch him every day and was shocked to watch Chris Matthews read the results of the text message poll after the debate tonight incorrectly. He said that Edwards came in third and Biden fourth when the results shown clearly on the screen showed Biden was third. I hope this was a mistake not a deliberate mistatement of factsas Chris seems to like Biden.
I do think that not giving proper credit to Joe Biden for his actual showing on a national debate deserves at least a correction and apology on his show tommorrow and I will be watching. Please give one of the few really honest candidates his do.

Very early thoughts

Samir, cincinnati OH — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:29:47 GMT

In another debate, Sen. Biden once again won when it comes to the substance of the issues. He is extremely intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues. He also had the best one-liner of the night with his Rudy references.

Sen. Clinton continues to evade the tough questions and won't detail specifics.

Very early thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:35:36 GMT

Obama delivered a devastating punch on her secrecy and experience at once asking why she doesn't release the records that supposedly show her experience. For the rest of the night Edwards was more sharp against her. With all these attacks one wonders if Clinton who seemed rattled will present herself as a victim...

Very early thoughts

David Deloso — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:36:31 GMT

Before anything else, I would like to express my disappointment on the moderators. I thought we had responsible moderators from MSNBC but what I saw instead were Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity dressed as lambs.

It's sad to see the debate moderators, particularly Tim Russert, joining the targeting of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. I understand Obama and Edwards doing their best to bring her down but when you see a distinguished moderator fueling the anger towards one candidate one can't help but say "foul"! This is unfair not just to Senator Clinton but to the other candidates as well. On the one hand, the only woman on the stage looked like little Red Riding hood in the midst of a pack of wolves, and you would expect the moderators to 'moderate' and not metamorphose into a wicked wolf in Grandma's clothing. On the other hand, other candidates do not benefit from the lynching as they can be perceived as masochists and over-the-top. Kucinich was right is asking if "this is a debate!"

My assessment of this debate is, Clinton won but not on her own account and debate merits. Obama's goal was to distinguish himself from Clinton by drawing clear distinctions between them. So was Edwards'. But the two of them seem to have been finishing each others sentences in attacking a woman candidate. Sure, they have made distinctions between them and Hillary but they haven't made a distinction between Obama and Edwards. This just goes to show that Clinton's strategy of staying positive and not losing her eyes on the target--Bush,Cheney, and Republicans-- is the winning strategy. And none might agree with me but I like her "gotcha" moment which sums up Tim Russert's line of questioning.

I won't be surprised if Obama and Edwards spinsters will come up with headlines saying that their respective candidates won. I say, that will be stretching it a bit too much. They attacked but they missed their targets because Senator Clinton "just ain't bothered" by the boys next to her.

My verdict, and this is just considering the top three candidates-- Hillary won the night and it's still a waiting game for the other candidates on whether they can live to fight her another day. Taking into account the other candidates however, I would credit Biden for his one-liners and headlining statements re Giuliani.

Biggest losers-- Obama and Edwards for singing a lousy duet throughout the debate.

Very early thoughts

Daniel, NY — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:36:53 GMT

My summary: Clinton attacked Bush; Obama, Edwards and Dodd attacked Clinton; Kucinich attacked everybody; and Biden delivered clever one-liners. The result: Obama and Edwards did what they needed to do, but Clinton (barely) managed to stay afloat...

Full analysis here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/philadelphia-debate-no-more-mike-gravel.html

Very early thoughts

weezimp — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:37:55 GMT

There are two people I can think of who should never be near or moderate a debate for any party: Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. Shoo them away if you can. Brian Williams is a good choice.

Tim and Chris both make it abot them: answer my question goddamit!

I hate them both. Love NBC news otherwise.

Very early thoughts

Marbw — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:41:28 GMT

Great debate, B Obama. Her royal highness was dethroned tonight. Obama came out on top with 29% text vote. I think Kucinich hurt himself with the UFO thing. Loved B Obama response about taking care of people on this earth(in response to UFO sillyness).

Very early thoughts

Ryan — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:43:49 GMT

I heard the hype about the planned attacks on Hillary. I watched the debate. I have to say, that Obama and Edwards sorely revealed why they are stuck in stagnant campaigns. The ease at which they alluded to personal attacks is what America needs to get past. Hillary was the only one who didn't attack tonight- along with Bill Richardson, who heroically pointed out that Obama and Edwards were visciously attacking the leader.
Hillary held her own tonight, she clearly solidified the image of a commander in chief.

Very early thoughts

bobby taylor — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:46:52 GMT

are these comments from viewers that watched the same debate that I did? It was crystal clear that Hillary Clinton was reeling and the evasion and slick campaign tactics finally nailed her to the barn door. Obama and Edwards both carved themselves out some running room, and frankly Joe Biden put some daylight between him and Clinton, too.
If the democrats go forward with this Clinton nonsense, then you can imagine what a republican will do to her. She cannot hope to govern and Iowa will be her waterloo. In the meanwhile watch her poll numbers take a nose dive. They were not real to begin with.
I almost felt sorry for her tonight

Very early thoughts

bobby taylor — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:47:37 GMT

Very early thoughts

Joe Lawson — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:49:38 GMT

Rather interesting that Ron Paul ruled the Democrat debates - look out I think we found a winner

Ron Paul 2008

Very early thoughts

Garry Kelly Oro Valley, AZ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:52:56 GMT

From a Conservative's point of view, Edwards was the clear winner

Very early thoughts

Adam Columbus OH — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:56:26 GMT

Immigration is a **big** issue in IA, and Edwards really made a sharp distinction with Clinton, nicely done.

In both 2000 and 2006, Hillary faced laughably weak Republican competition. Dems need to keep this in mind: she has never, ever run a tough race, and the piling on by Dodd, Biden, Edwards and Obama seriously rattled her.

That being said, she still has to be considered the prohibitive favorite.

Very early thoughts

Louis Simspon — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:05:38 GMT

I think that Hilliary did not do well tonight.
She contradicted herself a lot. The covering was off.
She needed Bill tonight. I think that Obama, Edwards,
Dodd and Biden did much better tonight. I think that
Obama is going to be competition.

Very early thoughts

Mark Kahle, DeKalb, IL — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:08:27 GMT

I am still sticking by the candidate I have stuck by since the beginning, Obama simply is the best guy for the job... I simply want someone not attached to the typical Washington ways... We need something new, and tonight Obama stepped above Clinton, and showed he can lead.

Edwards did very well tonight too.. but Hillary choked as I figured she would, and proved she can't and would not be a good leader for this country.

Obama in 08'!!

Very early thoughts

Leon tremmel — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:10:10 GMT

Clinton showed why she will not be able to get elected. 50% before the debate said they wouldn't vote for her and I suspect she added another 10% to that number after the debate. I truly believe that when it gets down to two or three candidiate debates she will fall apart and be unable to regain. Can you believe her answer on DL's for undocumented aliens!

Very early thoughts

Philip Blumel — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:10:31 GMT

Was it my imagination, or did I see Ron Paul signs and hear the "Ron Paul" chant in Philly tonight? There is clearly an element in both parties that favor restraint of government power in both foreign affairs and domestic civil liberties.

Very early thoughts

Louis Simspon — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:11:15 GMT

Very early thoughts

Ginny Day, Granite Bay, CA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:17:34 GMT

I was blown away by Barak Obama! He came across as smart, compassionate, honest, and full of common sense- just what we need at this point in time. I think he has the greatest chance of any of the Dems of beating ANY Republican running.

Very early thoughts

Elaine, Lenexa, KS — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:21:53 GMT

I was leaning towards Hillary until tonight. While some say she did not get rattled, I saw the "disapproving mom" look several times. It seems clear that if the Democratic Party nominates Hillary, the Repubs will have reason to celebrate.

Edwards and Biden won me over. They both appeared sincere and strong. I will be researching their websites for more info.

Very early thoughts

Ben Franklin — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:24:51 GMT

In looking at the pre and post debate shows you'd think RON PAUL won the debate!

Very early thoughts

David Johnston, kansas city Mo. — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:24:53 GMT

Hillary won, the others played dirty politics in bashing whom ever is ahead of them an dshe is leading them by a bunch. Who is Ron Paul?

Very early thoughts

Retnep, Ft. Lauderdale — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:24:55 GMT

Senator's Dodd answer to the immigration question is the reason I can't vote for him or most of the Republicans.

Driving is not a privilege, it is a right. Freedom of movement is a fundamental right. Driving is an expression of that freedom. The state issues licenses because cars are dangerous, not because it is a privelege to move. Movement by vehicles is regulated through licensing for saftey purposes. The notion that a license is a privilege is absurd and would not withstand a constitutional challenge.

Barack Obama was 100% correct in his answer addressing this issue. This is the reason that Ron Paul is at odds with most Republicans. A true constitutional conservative would never see this argument framed in a manner of rights vs. privileges. Immigration is a federal issue. Licensing is a state issue. If the voters of a state do not want to their state to issue licenses to illegal aliens then they can elect officials who agree with them.

Very early thoughts

Jim, Santa Clara, CA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:25:17 GMT

Hillary is a WOMAN. She is the victim. The only thing she wants is to be a "woman" President. Don't attack her.

Very early thoughts

C Collins, Portland, Maine — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:25:49 GMT

Ron Paul presence at the Democratic Debate... can't go wrong there... NO INCOME TAX, CUT THE OVERSPENDING and BRING TROOPS HOME NOW... what more could one ask for!!!!!

Ron Paul 2008

Very early thoughts

Jay M. Minneapolis — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:30:41 GMT

I HAVE TO LAUGH, IF THIS ALL ALL THE SUBSTANCE THE DEMS CAN MUSTER FOR A DEBATE "IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT", THEN THEY ARE GOING TO GET THEIR ASSES HANDED TO THEM BY ANY ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS. WHEN I WATCH BOTH DEBATES A SEE A ONE STAGE FULL OF PEOPLE WITH INTELLIGENT IDEA'S AND REAL DEBATE SKILLS ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE VS. A BUNCH OF STICK TO THE SCRIPT, NOTHING NEW, ANSWER AVOIDING, SOMETIMES CHILD-LIKE DEBATE SKILLS FROM DEMS. LOL

Very early thoughts

J. D. Edwards, Rio Rancho, NM — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:31:15 GMT

Clearly, something must have happened between the control room and TVs Chuck Todd (and Craig Crawford) and some of you were watching to scrabble the signal. (A UFO, perhaps?) The debate I saw showed Hillary Clinton losing to Barack Obama and John Edwards. It showed everyone else (except for Bill Richardson) getting in some good shots, too. It exposed her vacillation and triangulation and yes, good ol' obfuscation and fibbing.

It is a shame that the media is so entrenched (or in Hillary's purse so deep they can't get out) that her obvious failure gets spun into "well, she didn't cry, so she won!"

Hillary lost tonight. Craig Crawford was looking for the "knockout punch." Let me remind him that in boxing, the refs score the fight and you can lose by decision. This time it was unanimous: after 10 rounds and 2 hours, Barack "Rocky Balboa" Obama wins.

Very early thoughts

Mr. Bluth — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:35:46 GMT

So how about those Ron Paul signs in the background for HardBall. I mean what's up with that?

Very early thoughts

JJ Warrenton MO — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:43:30 GMT

Geez, the debate tonight was very professional compared to the Republican debates. Obviously, Clinton showed her true flipflop colors. I support Ron Paul and it fascinated me to see that Edwards seemed to be the most compassionate Democrat speaking tonight. Hillary really scares the American people and I really think these stinkin polls are truly not a reflection of the American people...Wake up America...Ron Paul is the only hope for America!

Very early thoughts

Stephanie Galluzzio, Chicago, IL — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:45:57 GMT

Great debate tonight. Some of the previous comments about the moderators are dead-on. I don't think either did that great of a job in staying professional. And who designed the set and arranged the candidates? Does anyone else think that it was wrong to place Hillary in the center (especially with all the buzz about the impending Clinton attacks...), as well as the placement of Edwards and Obama on either side of the lone female candidate? Doesn't this send the wrong message? Aren't debates supposed to be all about letting the public hear each candidates position and plans? Well, with the set-up of tonight's debate, one might think this was a three-way debate between the front runners. Come on, NBC, I know you can do better. Also, the moderator's desk looked awful sloppy. Ok, now that those criticisms are out...

I thought Senator Clinton was off of her game a bit, and she definately did not keep her cool, like her counterpart, Bill, would have during her tiff with Senator Dodd over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Poor, poor Rep. Kucinich, I thought he had some of the best, solid responses of any of the candidates...until the UFO incident. All I can say about that is: it is a good thing that he isn't a front runner, that would have been disatorous.

I have always been a huge supporter of former Senator Edwards, and continue to be. I thought he did well tonight, but I was little disappointed in the attacks he and Senator Obama made on Senator Clinton. Yes, I understand that this is what happens during debates such as tonight's; however, both Edwards and Obama continue to say that their respective campaigns will bring new politics to Washington, and well, all I saw was typical, old fashioned mud slinging.

Senator Biden's witty comments were very refreshing, I thought. He does an excellent job of bringing out the humanity in all of this political craziness, and I wouldn't be surprised if after tonight, we start to hear more of the Delaware senator.

Overall, I think that Governor Richardson and Senator Dodd gave mediocre 'performances' though neither made any huge waves.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun a little here, but I see an Obama/Edwards 08 or Edwards/Obama 08 ticket in our near future. Both are fresh faces to Washington, each with high likeability scores. Let's face it, while Hillary may be qualified, smart and probably the most experienced with the White House- a lot of Americans simply don't like her and the last thing this nation needs is to be divided in half for another four years.

Go Edwards! Go Obama!

Very early thoughts

Elliott Green, Sioux City, Iowa — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:47:41 GMT

After watching this debate along with "Hillary: Uncensored" I am really shocked by any American who could still support Bush-Clinton politics. Obama-Edwards seems like a much stronger ticket.

Very early thoughts

jnik, Richmond, VA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:47:58 GMT

i'd like to ask Adam Columbus: who did Obama beat to get his Senate seat? And remember how Edwards turned into Huckleberry Hound when he faced Dick Cheney in their debate. The Democrats don't have a set of really combative people here.
And this must be a different debate than the one NBC News reported in the local late news. They said that Obama failed to carry out his attack, leaving Clinton untouched.

Very early thoughts

Billy Cioffi, Scottsdale. AZ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:50:37 GMT

I really am tired of the pundticracy, yourself included, piling on Hillary in a desperate attempt to make news and discredit her. Matthews is particularly contemptuous regarding Ms Clinton. More vulgar than normal , and that is saying something. you Mr Todd sound like some college radio station jock enamored in the sound of his own seriousness. These people all hate HC but they should love her because they all came into prominence with their mock outrage during the Clinton years of scandal which were minor compared to the war crimes of Bush. Andrea Mitchell with her holier than thou jealousy acting like some virginal college girl newbie. I actually think they are afraid if HC is the next Prez the payback will be awful and that s certainly what these journalistic pundit millionaires don't want . they loose much of their power particularly Matthews and Russert a real cretin. the King of Gotcha dumb questions that mean nothing!Billy Cioffi

Very early thoughts

Steven, Surprise, Arizona — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:51:12 GMT

Mark... I'm with you. CLEARLY Senator Clinton was not only 'dethroned,' but at times her demeanor came across brash and almost mad. At one point, I seriously thought she was going to burst out in tears.

Edwards nailed it when he said, "a vote for Hilary will be voting for the status quoe..." and Dodd nailed it by saying, "there's an electability problem with Hilary..." Both VERY true...

Obama/Edwards '08...

Very early thoughts

Harold Ramis, Raleigh, NC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:52:15 GMT

I think Edwards was the clear victor in this debate. Obama got his shots in as well (especially with regard to secrecy), but at times he looked nervous and somewhat surprised to have been called on. Edwards was solid throughout and delivered his best performance to date. I'm glad someone finally came out and spoke bluntly about the corruption of our system of government - that's a message a lot of us have been waiting to hear for a long time.

Clinton started out on defense, and did well enough at first, but eventually she got tired and started falling back too hard on scripted answers to questions that weren't asked. At times she looked almost desperate to change the subject (the secrecy question, again). I personally wasn't confused at all by her answer on illegal immigrants (it made perfect sense to me), but given the atmosphere of the debate and that issue she could have handled it much better.

Biden was brilliant once again. He is, hands down, the most knowledgeable voice on foreign policy that his country has seen in a long time. It speaks volumes about the strength of the Democratic field that he isn't a front-runner.

Dodd was somewhat less than impressive. Not bad, but not great, either. I don't know what it is about him - he's got all of the pieces, but he's missing that extra oomph that could make the whole more than just the sum of its parts.

Richardson looked a little desperate tonight. He's a competent and very experienced man - probably would do great if he got a shot at the job - but he never seems focused enough to give the impression of a solid leader. I think it's safe to say that he's now campaigning for VP.

Kucinish and the UFO. I think that pretty much sums up the essence of his campaign.

Very early thoughts

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:52:32 GMT

Obama and Edwards were very effective in showing Clinton's unwillingness to be straightforward with her answers. At the point where she was going on and on about "processees" in a ridiculous non-answer about her sealed records from the White House, Obama turned around and decked her for her lack of honesty, and the irrationality of claiming Presidential experience via the position of first lady, and then sealing the records that show that history for voters to judge. That was probably the strongest point made by anyone all night.

Edwards also scored big on what may have been his strongest performance to date. Dodd did very well for the most part, too; decriminalization of marijuana has much higher support among average Americans than is generally assumed, and Dodd showed bold progressivism by advocating it.

I'd say Obama did the best, followed closely by Edwards, then Dodd. All three campaigns advanced their causes forwards as a result of tonight's debate.

Very early thoughts

Adam — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:55:23 GMT

Why were there so many Ron Paul supporters at the DNC? Did he convert that many people while he was on Jay Leno?

Very early thoughts

Bruce A, Missouri — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:57:33 GMT

What was the deal with all those Ron Paul signs in the background of the DEMOCRAT debate? Isn't Ron Paul running under the Republican party?
Are Democrats now abandoning their own liberty-loving candidates (Kucinich and, to a lesser extent Gravel) for Ron Paul? Maybe there is something to Paul's grassroots appeal after all?

Very early thoughts

Steve, Borden, Indiana — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:06:12 GMT

From a conservative Republican perspective I could not have been more pleased. Hillary is the best of the bunch and she cannot be elected. That means we get 8 years of Rudy. I can live with that. I will say if I had to go into a dark alley to defend myself and was looking for someone to go in with me. Out of the democrats on the stage tonight I think I would choose Hillary. I am sure she is the only one who would not have to debate with herself about whether she should fight back or not.

Very early thoughts

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:10:05 GMT

I am an Obama supporter and I think that, although he did not reach his zenith tonight, he certainly has improved. I know that his handlers (David Axelrod in particular) want him to hold back (fearful of an Iowa backlash if he appears too aggressive) but I would really like him to treat Hillary as though she is genderless so that he can call her out for her ingenuous votes and policy positions.

I admit it; I'm real angry with both Hillary and Bill. I used to be fans of theirs but I feel that they've become 'one of them' along the way. Also, I perceive their sense of entitlement to the office of the presidency and the smugness that comes across from Howard Wolfson and Terry McAuliffe is very offputting. Their cynicism is obvious when they exhibit their triangulation politics and their association with the likes of Mark Penn is no different than was that of Bush with Rove. They've lost their bearings and are now aligned with corporate America and that to me is the antithesis of what this country is about.

I will say that I thought that Tim Russert was tougher on Hillary than the others and I have to assume that this is because she is perceived to be the front runner at this time (a fact with which I don't agree). It may also be that MSM is finally awakening to the fact that their coverage prior to tonight has been biased in her favor (coronating her with the nomination) and they wish to correct this bias. They have been deferential because she is the former FLOTUS and because it is amazing in that she is breaking the glass ceiling (and to this accomplishment, I must offer my kudos).

But now the race is getting down to the wire and Hillarophiles (I feel like I have to apologize) will have to realize that there are a lot of us Democrats who not only prefer other candidates but strongly feel that she doesn't represent us. We are going to fight her nomination strongly because that is what this system is about.

My particular candidate (in my case Obama) is a representation of what I want this country to become - a true multiracial meritocracy with a foreign policy that not only protects our interests but is one that wins us respect abroad. I just don't get that from Hillary when she votes with Bush on these war efforts and when her associations with corporate America and lobbyists smack of elitism.
On to Iowa - Obama'08

Very early thoughts

jr new jersey — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:12:46 GMT

my question is, unless there is something in it for you. would anyone in there right mind, vote for any of these liberals?? wow simply amazing. by the way has anyone told hillary that iran does have lots of sanctions.

Very early thoughts

Jake, San Diego, CA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:16:04 GMT

Some are criticizing the candidates for attacking Hillary, but if she can't handle attacks from her own party how can anyone expect her to handle the attacks from the Republican party.

Edwards was the only one that got sort of personal but as far as the others it was all clean debating.

I think Obama won the debate, Biden had the best one liners and finished 2nd, Hillary continues showing how phony she was, Richardson took a hit as well, Edwards did ok. The other 2 didn't gain any ground.

Very early thoughts

A.D. Denson, Cincinnati, OH — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:24:55 GMT

I think Obama edged out everyone else in the debate, with Edwards a close second. Clinton did not seem to be at the top of her game, especially as the debate moved on. Unfortunately, until the debate format changes, the candidate best prepared for TV sound-bites will appear as the winner until the field narrows down to where a real debate of substance can take place and one needs more than a plan ticket to stay in the race and appear on stage, creating false credibility. When candidates get to rebut each other, and expound by follow up to another's comments, these debates won't prove much other than who can be prepped for two or three minute, round-robin, answers, which favors the Clinton planning team, but Obama and Edwards are getting better at. However, with such early primaries, it may be over before the nation gets to hear a real deabate where ideas and substance win out over style. A professor-typed, lectured. campaigner like Obama has a higher learning curve to adapt his message to this type of format, but tonight he prevailed, but only slightly, due to Clinton's stumbling on immigration and the N.Y. driver's license issue, which Edwards nailed her on as she waffled. It seems clearly a three way race, still.

Very early thoughts

Opa2 — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:29:48 GMT

So much for that debate. Obama had previously announced that he would "attack" Clinton. In fact he started off as a stammering high school boy. He was rescued by Edwards who in turn was egged on by that Russert fool. Russert has lots of experience and should know better than to take sides in the debate but, after a while it became crystal clear that this was a planned attack, at least planned by Russert, three against one. The other participants, at this time, must nave wondered why they bothered showing up. My impressions are: Edwards is fighting for his political life. After a less than distinguish campaign as the VP nominee four years ago he has not a snowballs chance of being picked again. Obama is a nice guy, charismatic and all that but not ready for prime time. Clinton is campaigning against republicans. She cares less about this primary campaign than perhaps she should. (remember Howard Dean four years ago) But she knows that the vote she was attacked for this evening by her fellow democrats she will be attacked for, had she voted against the motion, in the general election. I can see the republicans now: "You voted against doing something to Iran." She avoided that trap with that vote. Richardson showed class by being the first to say that they should stop fighting amongst each other. Why were the others there except for good old Joe Biden providing comic relief?

Very early thoughts

Reggie Phillips, Portland, Oregon — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:33:23 GMT

I think, that is intesting that Comcast chose tonight to discontinue MSNBC, until a new converter is instaled...Last night MSNBC, tonight no NSNBC---would like someone to look into this, sounds very supicious.
Reggie

Very early thoughts

FACT / AZ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:43:10 GMT

Clinton again showed she has "no" leadership traits! Conjecture and evadeing the real issues. This style is her Wahington self serving paper hanging discoures to reality.

Again, America has seen clinton bungle the present day issues. Why would America want one who can't function to lead this nation tomorrow????

Very early thoughts

Joy Gilmore, Honey Grove, Texas — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:47:32 GMT

I agree that the moderators should not take aim at one candidate, as with Sen. Clinton, and go after just her. If the other candidates want to do that, well, that is another story. Tim Russert thinks he is something always trying to trip Hillary up. Hillary did a fine job when you consider everyone was after her, even the moderators. If Obama or Edwards win the nomination, I, a forever Democrat, will vote for Rudy.

Very early thoughts

Will Pierce, Cincinnati OH — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:00:42 GMT

Biden killed them all. The guy really looked Presidential. Clearly he understands the foreign policy stuff, which is more than a bit relative right now. He definately gets my vote and my money. Obama is not ready for prime time yet, Edward's fake populist routine is wearing thin, and Hillary is like a wooden Bill Clinton wannabe. Proximity to the man is not being him!

Very early thoughts

john c polifronio — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:39:04 GMT

Hillary was absolutely brilliant. Her reaction to the attacks on her was amazing. 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. Chris Matthews was incapable of containing his lust to attack this remarkable woman. Amusingly, a post debate commentator made the idiotic observation that Hillary showed signs of strain when she was under attack. What an incredible comment. There wasn't a "man" on that stage, that could have handled 1/2 the attacks that Hillary was forced to endure from every direction.
Bravo Hillary!

Very early thoughts

Nancy Acheson Payson, Az — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:41:19 GMT

I was horrified by the way Hillary was attacked tonight and especially upset with Tim Russert for joining in and even adding fuel to the fire. I felt like this debate was all about how bad they could make her look and really not about the issues. Obama and Edwards came off looking like bullies and it never fails to amaze me when Obama talks about how he was against the war. He was not in the senate to vote so it does not matter and he did not vote on the iran resolution so he needs to be quiet about that. I have liked him and thought that he may make a great president some day but tonight I really changed my mind. One thing I have always noticed about him is he never really gives any of his own plans or ideas. He always says I agree with ... whoever spoke before him.

Very early thoughts

Mitchell, Tucson, AZ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:19:37 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Alvar Day — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:00:23 GMT

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!

Very early thoughts

Eileen Williams, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:12:20 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

diane — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:17:59 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:22:12 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Jeff Gallo — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:24:20 GMT

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 ).

Very early thoughts

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:52:36 GMT

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!!

Very early thoughts

steve daytona beach, fl — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:54:02 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

BRENDA LOVLEY CHARLESTON SC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:14:14 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Phyllis Gorton Bellbrook OH — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:32:35 GMT

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

Very early thoughts

John Doe, Seattle WA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:40:25 GMT

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!!!!!!!!

Very early thoughts

J Ousley, Houston,Tx — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:54:22 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Rick, Alexandria, Virginia — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:59:51 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Jack, Concord, NH — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:03:30 GMT

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!

Very early thoughts

Susan, Miami — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:03:47 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Chris, Penn — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:07:25 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

G. Man lexington Ky — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:08:40 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:09:14 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Winston Allen, NYC, NY — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:17:10 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Rick, WS, NC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:24:48 GMT

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

Very early thoughts

Original Bob, Middletown, CT — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:26:29 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Give us your losers, quislings, and weak-kneed leftists Paris, France — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:28:46 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Brian, Cedar Hill, TX — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:35:12 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Jim Condon, Colchester, VT — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:37:55 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Mike, Cleveland, Ohio — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:38:52 GMT

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!

Very early thoughts

Fed up — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:43:13 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Jeff — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:47:14 GMT

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 ...

Very early thoughts

Kal, NJ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:47:59 GMT

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!

Very early thoughts

Adam Columbus OH — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:59:20 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Bee — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:11:24 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Stopwatchingfoxnews, Rochester, NY — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:14:24 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

ll — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:17:37 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Original Bob, Middletown, CT — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:19:39 GMT

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

Very early thoughts

Original Bob, Middletown, CT — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:20:06 GMT

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

Very early thoughts

Bee — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:21:05 GMT

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

Very early thoughts

Jesse, Burnsville, MN — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:22:46 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Justin, Gainesville, FL — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:28:25 GMT

"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?

Very early thoughts

Looking for the Truth — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:30:45 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Phil McCracken, Dubuque, IA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:39:22 GMT

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

Very early thoughts

Blue state baby — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:59:54 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

FICTION ? AZ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:12:08 GMT

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!

Very early thoughts

Miss MS, Raleigh, NC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:23:05 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

isaidithere — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:26:27 GMT

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.......

Very early thoughts

sam chieffalo cleveland ohio — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:31:18 GMT

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

Very early thoughts

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:44:43 GMT

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

Very early thoughts

John Ellis, Hartford, CT — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:50:38 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

doc/lewisville tx — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:21:33 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

doc/lewisville tx — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:10 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Cindy L, Chapel Hill, NC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:39:29 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Leah Bolger, Corvallis, OR — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:45:26 GMT

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.

Very early thoughts

Desmond/Still Crazy After All These Years — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:47:25 GMT

Off post to the others. Careful boys, you may crossed over the line.And you know what I am referring to. I always told you Mama did not raise a fool.Sidelined for now but I'll be watching you.Be very afraid ( did I get the nuances just right?)

Very early thoughts

PollM, Dallas TX — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:21:42 GMT

With Clinton holding a huge lead among Democrats in national opinion polls ahead of the November 2008 election, rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joseph Biden all took turns aiming shots at the New York senator in hopes of bringing her back to the pack.

Who do you think won the Philadelphia NBC - MSNBC News Democratic Presidential Debate?

----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=842

.

Very early thoughts

Jeff McKissack, Dallas, Texas — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:47:01 GMT

Like many on the comments section, I could not HELP but notice all of the IFO's (Identified Flying Objects) flying over the heads of the commentators before and after the debate-- signs of support for Ron Paul. I thought these people only existed in chatrooms and blogs? Hmmmmmmmmm, maybe there's something to this guy afterall since his are the ONLY supporters I keep seeing on street corners, rallies, straw polls, fundraisers, etc. Everyone else seems to have to PAY for their "volunteers." I actually was leaning Democrat till someone introduced me to Ron's campaign-- now I'm sold!

Very early thoughts

Bren, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:51:33 GMT

Yes, Hillary is now presenting herself as a victim!!

"CLINTON INNER-CIRCLE BLAME 'UNFAIR' MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT. 'HE BORDERED ON THE UNPROFESSIONAL,' TOP HILLARY ADVISER CHARGES. 'HE BROKE DEBATE RULES AND WAS BELLIGERENT'..."

Very early thoughts

James Parker — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:56:02 GMT

"Who is Ron Paul?"

You know him under many names: Liberty, Freedom, American.

Democrats used to wholeheartedly embrace these values. Some still do.

Very early thoughts

Bren, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:08:41 GMT

I am an Independent.

The Moderators did a GREAT JOB!!!!

I can't believe some of you people saying that the debate and moderators were unfair. If Hillary has nothing to hide, then NONE of the questions or comments should have bothered her. Only someone who was not telling the truth or trying to keep something hidden would have any problem with being called on their responses/actions in previous articles/situations.

The moderators did a GREAT job---asking the questions that are definitely going to come up when the Dem candidate faces the Republican candidate. This is especially true regarding all questions about illegals.

I think that the Dems (except for Chris Dodd) made it very clear that if they get in-----illegals will be getting amnesty, welfare, healthcare, etc. The Dems will then raise taxes in order to pay for the illegal citizens----and US citizens will watch their own jobs, wages, rights/benefits disappear in order to reward the illegals!!!!

The MAJORITY of US citizens---both Republican and Democrat----do NOT want the illegals rewarded with amnesty, healthcare, welfare, licenses, etc. Therefore, any Democratic politician who supports rewarding the illegals----will be crushed when they face the Republican candidate.

Also, Rudy is not the man for the job either. Due to his actions prior/during/after 9/11----the NY emergency responders/families of victims----have openly come out against Guliani. They did not want him to speak at the 9/11 ceremony this year. In addition, he also has said that he would reward the illegals!!

Our best choice in this upcoming election is Mitt Romney. Some of his positions are very similar to that of the Dems---so he can also be supported by the Dems. While he was governor of Massachusetts, he was already taking steps to deny illegals rights/benefits----long before this became the hot issue that it is now. He has a lot of experience and success under his belt.

Very early thoughts

Jane, Southern Mississippi — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:35:48 GMT

Jeff, I'm sold on Ron Paul, too. He is the only one who doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth. He just makes a lot of sense. I was happy to see the Ron Paul signs.

Very early thoughts

Howard, New York, NY — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:41:12 GMT

"Richardson did well on a few questions"? Huh -- on what? This guy is all about platitudes and utterly pie-in-the-sky promises. I don't get his appeal AT ALL.

But clearly he's angling to be Hillary's choice for number two, which is why he jumped in to help her when she was on defense.

Very early thoughts

dog day — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:47:40 GMT

A day later, it's still hard to believe that the priviledge to broadcast such important, potentially historic programming of the crisis (how do you spell crisis plural? (crices?)) facing all of us now became so deteriorated into a pathetic entertainment exercize about UFO's...Halloween costumes...and of course, an almost likeable NC Senator, who, after probably raising $$$millions killing Americans with his States' product had the audacity to say the absurd comment that the decrimininalization of pot "sends a bad message"... SHAME on MSNBC for(or possibly just Tim Russert, who I admire, for asking bad questions) not providing complete, quality programming.

Very early thoughts

JAY M. MINNEAPOLIS — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:57:09 GMT

ATTACKED YOU PEOPLE SAY, HELL WHAT IS A MODERATOR SUPPOSED TO DO JUST ASK NON-INVASIVE QUESTIONS LOL. SHE IS A BOLD FACED LIAR AND YOU SAW IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES BUT YOU PEOPLE ARE SO DAMN BLIND TO SEE THE TRUTH. HEY I HAVE AN IDEA LETS GIVE ALL OF THE ILLEGALS A DRIVER'S LICENSE, YEAH THEN THEY WILL VOTE FOR US AND ENSURE US A VICTORY AT THE POLLS AND AFTER WE GET IN THE WHITE HOUSE WE WILL MAKE THEM ALL LEGAL SO WE CAN HAVE A VICTORY FOR MANY DECADES TO COME. YOU PEOPLE SHOULD GET A FRICKEN CLUE. "SHE IS WOMAN, HEAR HER LIE" YOU DEMS ARE SO PREDICTABLE AND UTTERLY MINDLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very early thoughts

Grace, Philadelphia, PA — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:59:27 GMT

I was at the debate and all I could do was laugh and laugh over what the candidates said about Hillary. You should have seen the crowd outside when Biden said how every sentence from Rudy Giuliani has a noun, a verb, and 9/11.
There were SO many Ron Paul supporters there, I could barely get up front! Their "revolution" must really be gaining momentum. At the end they had more signs than the other democratic candidates. I can't believe how many republicans showed up for the democratic debate! I think i'll look into Ron Paul's campaign.

Very early thoughts

Kay M, New York, NY — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:48:26 GMT

This is not an attempt to be coy or anything, but can someone please tell me why it is de rigueur to hate Sen. Clinton ? What exactly has she done to earn the vicious ire that the majority of this blog's contributors have demonstrated ? The woman has been called a female canine by Newt Gingrich's mother (and I bet the two women have never met), by the octogenarian in Sen. McCain's little get together and everyone in the middle. How exactly did she earn her assigned nom de guerre ?

Apparently, "stand by your man" is a beautiful sentiment, when sung by country music stars and a parade of Republican matrons a la the wives of the redoubtable senators from Louisiana and Idaho. Just because it is Hillary Clinton, there has to be some programming involved, an ulterior motive, or some entirely dastardly reason for her behavior - why ?

Messrs. Russert and Mathews, two truly distinguished journalists, think nothing of tearing her down. To the person who says Sen. Clinton obsesses Mr. Mathews - please attend to what Mr. Mathews says with more alacrity. His problem is not that Ms. Clinton obsesses him - he had decided that the good Senator was not electable early on. As he got exposed to her, he sort of mellowed out - then he went to see the World Series in Boston, where a bunch of people said that they would never vote for her, no reason, just that they won't, and so, Mr. Mathews decided to conduct regular post mortems on every debate, every event, wherever Ms. Clinton said anything - the bottomline seems to be, that he is exorcising whatever ghostly or ghastly hold Ms. Clinton has on him, so that he can go back to being critical in all good conscience. I am a Mathews’ fan, have all his books and watch every one of his shows, even if I have to do it at 3:00 a.m.

We keep hearing about Ms. Clinton playing the gender card – how about Sen. Obama ? In what Mr. Mathews calls “Martin Luther King, Jr.” style speech, Sen. Obama has repeatedly referred to people’s perception of his candidacy in general as, “He cleans up good”, has an accomplished wife and two pretty kids – and all that with a decidedly southern twang – why isn’t that playing the “race card”? Only because no one dares to say it for fear of causing a national incident. That is unfair, yet completely acceptable to all of the bloggers – sad, very sad.

As for Mr. Russert - there was nothing objective about his last debate performance, and I genuinely like the man; haven't missed a single Meet the Press in the past 21 years, have all his books, etc. etc.. He was caught being fed information by the resourceful Mr. Rove and coterie, and waged a relentless war to clear his name. Libby got indicted, and the general verdict with regard to Mr. Russert's performance, is that he had a great attorney. Thus, it was necessary to take Hillary Clinton down - so, he did.

Why is it so terrible that Wolf Blitzer/John Roberts decided to even the scores and reminded Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama about the number of times they have waffled, or voted exactly like Ms.Clinton, or not voted at all ? Why does it hurt so much when the field genuinely becomes "fair and balanced" ? Let's have some honesty for once. We are supposed to hate Hillary Clinton because she is Hillary Clinton. We would also be required to hate President Clinton, but he is the sole remaining headliner for us "liberal progressives" thus it doesn't help to knock him down right now. The sad fact is that we call the Republicans/Conservatives, hypocrites - but we, ourselves, are far worse than they are, and pretend that we have the moral high ground - we don't, and its a terrible shame.

If you can refute everything I've said logically, I'd be much obliged - also, please lay off the vulgarity - it doesn't suit us. Let the O'Reillys, Hannitys etc. of the world take care of that angle.