The reviews are in

Brian, Cedar Hill, TX — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:24:08 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.

The reviews are in

Tuck,Realityville, KS — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:28:37 GMT

saw this on another forum and it's true.

Obama looked like a boy scout attacking his den mother.

Edwards did better.

But it seems Obama would be run over if he was prezident.
He doesn't have the stuff yet.

Edwards is viable, he seemed to be much,much tougher than his usual genial demenor

The reviews are in

Tuck,Realityville, KS — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:30:19 GMT

The reviews are in

Scott, PA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:30:39 GMT

Biden continues to school every candidate on either side of the party line. If the MSM starts benchmarking all policy and campaign talk against what he is doing, we will have a more in-depth, honest and much more spirited debate. This guy rocked it last night and also stayed above they fray by not "running against Hillary, but running to be the leader of the free world".

Also, please notice how all of the democaratic candidates are following his lead and continue comment on how Joe is right. I think they're campaigning to be his VP.

The reviews are in

FACT / AZ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:40:30 GMT

Reading between the lines? Clinton displays her typical Washington self serving paper hanging tactics, many of them are stolen from her husband! Clinton is neither orignal nor inventive, Never addressing real current issues, ""12 million ""PLUS"" Illegals roaming our streets, flip lopping on Iraq and Iran. Those are just ""two"" current major Issues.

Clinton opens her mouth and you will open you wallet! From Self made Bonds to tax's, She is for change, but you and I will will pay every cent!

The reviews are in

H P Boston — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:49:53 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 temperament, 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 millions as a sleaze-bag lawyer.

The true winners - Hillary 1 and Joe Biden 2.

The REAL LOSERS - Brian Williams and (Fox?)MSNBC.
Brian, Cedar Hill, TX (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:24 AM)

saw this on another forum and it's true.

Obama looked like a boy scout attacking his den mother.

Edwards did better.

But it seems Obama would be run over if he was president.
He doesn't have the stuff yet.

Edwards is viable, he seemed to be much,much tougher than his usual genial demeanor

--------------------------------------------------
Ditto guys, glad to read you have the same reaction to the "DEBATE" as I.

The reviews are in

CitizenJ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:54:30 GMT

saw this on another forum and it's true.

Obama looked like a boy scout attacking his den mother.

Edwards did better.

"But it seems Obama would be run over if he was prezident.
He doesn't have the stuff yet.

Edwards is viable, he seemed to be much,much tougher than his usual genial demenor "

Surprise, surprise. Tuck didn't like Obama's performance.

The reviews are in

Pam OC, CA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:55:29 GMT

I'm for Edwards, and think he was tough and articulate, but personally I give the debate to Biden..Obama was good..(they are all good at this point) Hillary, although not losing her cool, (and I think that is the best that can be said about her) still NEVER ANSWERED ANYTHING! I think the toughest questions of the night for me were still on her vote on Iran/pro Bush that Hilary made, and Bidens' comment on it. Good Job!! The drivers licence, although resonating w/Republicans and conservatives is not the main issue here, although the press could certainly make it that. The war and more importantly to me, our economy at home are my driving issues..

The reviews are in

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:57:00 GMT

WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

"The boys are being mean to my candidate!!!!!!!!"

Hey, all you HRC disciples, she sucked last night- looks like the race isn't over quite yet.

Therefore, start the inevitable "repackage, reshape, restate, clarify" cycle that follows Hillary's blunders.....how long 'til she trots out Bill to give her cover.

The reviews are in

Blue state baby — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:07:47 GMT

The only woman on stage agaist all men candidates and two men reporters all attacking her in a staged plan.
Yet she stood strong and won the debate.

The reviews are in

--NSMSNBC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:13:12 GMT

The Big Winners were Edwards and Obama. Edwards for not being forgotten and Obama because he was able to step up his attacks. By coming out in advance that he would step up his attacks, he raised the stakes so more would pay attention to him and put pressure on the other candidates to perform. As a result, all (but Richardson) ratcheted up the anti-Clinton rhetoric, which protects Obama from appearing like he is personally attacking Clinton. He just needs Clinton to fall and he’s sitting pretty at number two to take her place.

*Note: Those who think the country is not ready for a black, women, Hispanic or Mormon President, need to realize that those who would vote against a black or woman would probably not vote democrat anyway.

The reviews are in

Tuck,Realityville, KS — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:14:29 GMT

what's not surprizing,J, is that you can't argue that Obama was overrun in the debate.

By Both Edwards and Clinton , and also the second tier canidates (who are now vying for VP)

The reviews are in

Betty Soline, Manchester NH — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:15:07 GMT

If what the Democrats put on stage last night is the best they got, we can look forward to 8 more years of a Republican being President. If these candidates are baffled and confused by the pro-Democrat NBC crowd, what is it going to be like when they are faced with real adverse issues and questions? A very poor performance by all of them. They all seem to be getting worse as time goes on.

The reviews are in

Ron, TX — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:18:50 GMT

The only woman on stage agaist all men candidates and two men reporters all attacking her in a staged plan.
Yet she stood strong and won the debate.
Blue state baby (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:07 AM)
==========

How pathetic, using the fact that she's a woman to suggest that's why she did so bad answering questions and defending herself against a bunch of men. Hillary Clinton wants to play the role of strong woman when it suits her, but doesn't mind playing the role of innocent helpless woman when it suits her either. A strong woman doesn't shift positions. A strong woman can defend herself. If you think THAT was embarassing for Clinton, wait until she's in the ring with -Republicans-!

The reviews are in

Kevin Eggers, New York, NY — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:19:35 GMT

The debate was a political lyching. With Tim Russert carring the rope. A very difficult night for Hillary, to withstand. Lke the story of the fighter bloodied and beaten telling his handler he was taking a terrible beating. What are you talking about replys his manager, he's not laid a glove on you. The badly beaten fighter replies, you better keep an eye on the ref he's beating the sh.. out of me.

In the long run this said excuse for a debate will be seen for what is was. A tip of the hat to getlemen from New Mexico for standing up and being a mench.

The reviews are in

Joanne Robinson, Halifax, Massachusetts — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:25:07 GMT

I was very disappointed in the forum and the questions seemed to put all candidates on the defense. Hillary displayed strength (under the circumstances) whereas Edwards appeared to be whining as usual. I don't like it that Hillary keeps referring to what "we" did in the 90's. I am ready for change and a new direction and I think last night's so-called debate clinched it for me. I'm voting for Barack. I like Biden but his demeanor proved last night he knows he has no chance in winning; but everything he offers in his comments is always right on as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to see a Barack/Biden ticket.

The reviews are in

Daniel, NY — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:29:36 GMT

Campaign Diaries's summary is rather similar. The quick 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 rundown and analysis: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/philadelphia-debate-no-more-mike-gravel.html

The reviews are in

Ed, Brunsiwck, Georgia — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:38:46 GMT

I think Clinton was horrible! She talks about fiscal responsibility but she is spending in excess of $60,000,000 for a job that pays $400,000 a year, clearly that doesn't reconcile with fiscal responsibility. Biden was the clear winner! He was the only one of the candidates who gave clear articulate positions on each of the questions in the debate. It's sad too because the media is touting Clinton simply because she has the most money of the Democrats. If the media started reporting Biden's message and platform he would win the nomination!

The reviews are in

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:40:33 GMT

H P Boston LOL:

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 am glad that you agree with me H P that Hillary Clinton has no business being in a tough debate. If she couldn't defend herself against a bunch of liberal men, how is she going to defend herself in a real debate with the GOP?

For you to use the Michael Vick attack dog analogy, one has to wonder if your decaff hasn't kicked in yet.

The reviews are in

Elle — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:42:09 GMT

Shame, shame on all of you especially Brian Williams and Tim Russert. I will look at the positive instead of your negatives and welcome Madam President. You can't keep a good gal down and you won't. I agree with Billy Graham---"this is a gracious woman." She can handle the attack dogs and she WILL get the U.S. back on track again. Sorry Obama, you just don't have the stuff for Prez.

The reviews are in

Elle — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:43:33 GMT

The reviews are in

Bee — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:48:12 GMT

The verdict is out Obama won the focus group. See, if you don't undertsand Obama phenomenon....you must be mistaking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ocKiHEzvM

The reviews are in

Burtonsville, MD — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:49:07 GMT

Before the debate, I was leaning more towards Obama. After the debate, I saw why Clinton is high in polls. The lady showed her strength despite the attacks. Tim Russert was as if he was sent to attack Hilary and she carried herself so well. Her answers to all the questions at times a follow up twice made me feel that she is more than prepared to stand for the common man in this country.

What Obama and Edwards failed to realize is that they are working against the whole Democratic Party to push for their own selfish interest. Hey, what next, they are ‘politicians’

The reviews are in

Toris — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:52:17 GMT

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA,

I am pretty sure you are one the feminist who see nothing good in men. Well, i've got a news for you get a man.

Hillary Clinton is not the best candidate last night. The best candidate that won was Obama, Edward and Biden.

Richardson is the most pathetic of them all.

The reviews are in

Bee — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:57:21 GMT

H P Boston,

I thought your name is experience/Judgement. Anyway, your candidate is nothing but fluffs on the critical issues. Like i told you yesterday, we don't know where Hillary Clinton stand on the issues. Her answers to question last night displays exactly that.

She double speak and not forthcoming on her stands. Guess what? This race is just getting started. Here is the focus group conducted by an independendt party. Pay attention to the key words..."Angry Democrats"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwZl5L0zfDk&NR=1

The reviews are in

Bee — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:58:52 GMT

Here is clinton's strategy after loosing the debate.

--- Attack Brian williams
--- Attack Tim Russert

I guess her advisors and bloggers are all on cool aid

The reviews are in

Dot, Illinois — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:03:02 GMT

As I read these posts, it occurs to me that Senator Clinton and her supporters need to remember that tough questions (they call them personal attacks) are but the prelude to the fullly orchestrated attacks that will come from the Republicans if she becomes the Democratic candidate in the general election. If the ads from past elections are any indication, what she would face in the general election will be much, much harsher than anything she was asked in the debates. In a way, Senators Obama and Edwards are doing her a tremendous favor by letting her get used to what she will face down the road, so that she can work on how to responds to such questions (or attacks)

And to those who say the men were picking on the one woman on the stage, all the candidates, whether male or female, shoul be treated the same and should be subjected to scrutiny by the voters. I will add, however, that there may be a fine line between questioning Senator Clinton agressively and going too far so as to make voters feel sorry for her.

The reviews are in

Perry, NYC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:07:41 GMT

"The only woman on stage agaist all men candidates and two men reporters all attacking her in a staged plan.
Yet she stood strong and won the debate."

~Blue state baby

==========

And if Hillary is so foolish as to actually PLAY that kind of "damsel in distress" card, it will sooooooo fk-ing backfire on her. Talk about flipflopping ... "I have the experience, the toughness, the hawkiness ... waaaaah, those boys beat up on me, waaaaaaaaah!" =)

The reviews are in

Tiffany, Illinois — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:11:19 GMT

I'm glad someone asking the questions in a debate was finally trying to get Clinton to give a clear answer. She consistently beats around the bush and she did it again last night. It's about time someone readdressed the question and tried to get a straight answer out of her for once, after she clearly evades the questions. I would hope they would do the same to any other candidate not giving a straight answer, fortunately they all did. Apparently to some this means they were "attacking" Clinton. I see it as providing the American people with the answers they need to make an informed decision. The clear winners were Obama and Biden.

The reviews are in

Sierra, SF — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:21:56 GMT

From First Read:
'...If language tells the story of the debate, then it's clear the Clinton campaign doesn't believe it won, since it is only trying to spin that "she survived." You don't say that if you think you actually won...'

Hillary lost !!
Hillary can't give a straight answer
Where does Hillary stand on driver's licenses for illegal aliens ?
Where does Hillary stand on Social Security ?
Why won't Hillary release her White House papers ?
Why did Hillary vote for war against Iraq ?
Whyu did Hilary vote for war against Iran ?

Let's not get stuck with this LOSER during the general election !!
Think the debate was rough ?
The Republicans will eat her alive !!

Stop the Hillary Cli9nton Forked Tongue Express !!

The reviews are in

Dan — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:50 GMT

I thought that Dodd won the debate, with Edwards coming in second. Obama is a joke.

I was disappointed with the questions as it looked as if MSNBC intentionally attacked Senator Clinton.

I will likely be voting for an independent candidate.

The reviews are in

Ed, Brunswick, GA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:23:00 GMT

Iowans are very smart people! They don't get caught up in polls, and are not impressed by how much money a candidate has in their war chest. I beleive the status quo is going to change big time after Iowa, and people are going to start seeing candidates they haven't heard much about lately get attention after Iowa. Candidates who don't perform their due diligence in Iowa and meet with Iowans are going to regret it big time! Iowans are representative of how much of the country thinks!

The reviews are in

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:23:42 GMT

Toris - did you read what I wrote? If so, then what the hell are you talking about? Reread - I cannot stand when women want to be treated equally and then trot out the "I'm a defenseless girl" schtick.

I have been supporting Biden since '06 (to the tune of $1,000).

Read before you write.

And, I have got a man - JOE BIDEN.

Biden/Obama '08
Today, Tomorrow, Together.

The reviews are in

Brian, Cedar Hill, TX — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:25:13 GMT

jerry - since when does decaf kick in? Anyway, why don't you go put your head in that noose hanging off the back of your truck and release the parking brake.

The reviews are in

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:26:05 GMT

I don't think it is a male-female issue at all. I think the issue is that this debate, from the very first questioned, was designed to focus on one thing - the perceived problems that Hillary has as a candidate. To me, that's not what these debates should be about. They should be about the candidates debating the issues - not debating the other candidates.

The reviews are in

Diane Stein, Dallas — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:26:24 GMT

I was so disappointed in the debate last night. That wasn't a debate, it was a premeditated "pile on" by both the candidates and moderators. John Edwards was the biggest disappointment for me closely followed by Tim Russert who forgot he was at a debate...not Meet The Press. I use to respect both.

The reviews are in

Laura Hornbeck — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:27:29 GMT

What would Margaret Thatcher do? She would stand up and take it "like a man" in any forum because she had ideas and principles that were stronger than personality or gender. She showed how women win -- by simply expressing better ideas consistently and eloquently --exactly the same way that men win. Look at the new Chancelor of Germany, also a conservative, who won because she elucidated the strongest path to the future for her country.

Democrats do not have that, quite simply, thus Hillary has to rely on sympathy, anger, revenge, and all the other emotions of disgruntled voters.

The reviews are in

JENNY ELLIS — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:27:58 GMT

WERE YOU WATCHING THE SAME DEBATE I WAS? CLINTON STOOD STRONG, SMART AND ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS AS I WANT MY PRESIDENT TO DO. SHE MADE THE BOYS LOOK STUPID.

The reviews are in

Charlie, Mt Holly, NJ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:29:47 GMT

I find this interesting - Obama, despite out of the box thinking and the first true new way of thinking in American politics in a generation, is taking heat why? Because he isn't entirely comfortable attacking. What has happened to this country that we guage a Presidential candidate on how comfortable they are slinging mud, with more slinging being the better candidate? Is America not ready for a candidate with a positive message and who is a genuinely nice guy?

The reviews are in

Cindy Nevins — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:33:57 GMT

I was glued to the TV watching the debates. Hilary looked good until the questioning about the licenses. That answer will haunt her. I believe in my heart of hearts that Joe Biden is the most qualified candidate and would be delighted to see him in a debate with Rudy.

The reviews are in

Jeff, Avondale, PA — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:36:35 GMT

It was a "staged" debate folks....... and Senator Clinton is the leading the pack so she is going to be a target. Hillary held her ground and while not perfect has the "balls" to be President. Whom among us in these blogs, etc. is perfect at all times and under such pressure. The 30 sect. answer sessions are meant to trip up a candidate and with little time to expound on the questionsed raised. Edwards and Obama
looked weak by attacking Clinton and trying to make themselves look better. I frankly lost some respect for both of them last night by playing that game. Hillary has my vote and I even give exra credit to Richardson for his better "political tact" when asked to slam Hillary (he has real class).

The reviews are in

Tom Dunn, Central Square, NY — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:38:15 GMT

As Joe Biden would say, "Here's the deal."

Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner and Iowa looms only 60 days away. The other candidates who believe they're still in the running have to attack or fade away. The frontrunner avoids attacking back so as not to look defensive. All of this played out as expected in Philly last night. Why anyone finds this startling is a mystery. The MSNBC moderators and commentators did everything possible to turn this debate into a slugfest with a clear winner and loser. Post-debate opinion split along pre-debate preference lines, with the added bias of requesting an initial straw poll by text message which favored Obama's younger crowd. At the end, Hillary took the blows and will still be the frontrunner tomorrow. Gee whiz!

I'm getting tired of Chris Matthews' obvious anti-Hillary tirades, which are starting to sound like Fox News. These debates are beginning to seem more like staged news events than legitimate expressions of candidate opinions. The format from now on will be rigged to favor attacks on the frontrunner, so everyone will get to decide who scores the most inter-necine body blows instead of who has the best approach to fixing our ailing nation. Such is the nature of TV-driven campaigning.

The reviews are in

John Smith — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:41:34 GMT

The big winner in last nights debate? NEO CONSERVATIVES. The democrats ALL lost last night. When you spend a public discussion trying to one up the next person instead of taking to task real issues, nobody wins. This is Bush's last year in office. These people running for president give this guy way too much power talking about what to do with him and how he's ruined the country. Save that for a session in congress please. We all know Bush is horrible. It actually affirms his authority by default to keep paying him any attention. Then when there is no uniform platform that as a party, the democrats can put forth? The media and you idiot uninformed voters focus on stupid slights and digs at real potential by trying to spin Obama as not ready for prime time when he has great charisma and great ideas, Hillary as wishy washy when she has a good diplomatic hand with republicans, Biden would actually make a great Secretary of State, Edwards as sound as his judgment is, would make a great president or vice president regardless of the outcome. This critical spin crap is bogus. It's nonsense. All these journalists who judge these people by face value? They are the losers. All you voters who believe them? You lose too. It's the same mistake made when Al Gore was running. He had the best ideas, the most substance, but people focused on how he "looked", and now look at the mess this country has become in the past 7-8 years? Kids are murdering and getting murdered in Iraq, defense contractors are making a killing from it (pun intended), basic civil liberties have been and are being rolled back, US education ranks 60th in the world, the climate change will create more Katrina's, etc. etc. Gore got the Nobel for having told the truth all along, and you idiots will do it all again next year. Choosing the wrong person based on your comfort face value levels, and not on who's actually the smartest, brightest person with the best integrity and character. Don't get upset when the republicans steal yet another election because the side with the right intentions fumble the ball again.

The reviews are in

Left Wing Nut, Tallahassee, FL — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:47:46 GMT

Burtonsville, MD said:"What Obama and Edwards failed to realize is that they are working against the whole Democratic Party to push for their own selfish interest."
Hold on honey! So you think because someone has raised a ton of money that the race should be over? That the other candidates should throw in the towel? That there is a viable woman candidite all others should cave?
This is the opportuntiy for Democrats to find the best person for the job. Most of the time process works. Sometimes it doesn't. But those with the desire to go through this meatgrinder of a system deserve to be heard...even if they don't have the buckets of cash.

The reviews are in

Carol Anne, Seattle — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:51:08 GMT

How I wish the presidential election was next week. The thought of another year of all this squabbling just makes me ill. Dubya is still prez, dang it!

The reviews are in

hobson banks new york,ny — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:52:08 GMT

The anti-Hillary performance by Tim Russert (shared to a lesser degree by Brian Wlliams) should come as no surprise to anyone who has observed him on Meet The Press and beyond during the past year. Sadly, his unreasonable and unprofessional bias also infects many others of his colleagues in the "liberal?" media. The nasty and often arrogant attacks of Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews leave little doubt of their inability to reach beyond their peculiar personal animus.
The Matthews pre and post debate "attack analyses" (joined in by Fineman of Newsweek), the blatantly orchestrated emceeing of the debate by Williams and Russert and the followup column by Dowd were a disservice to the public.

The reviews are in

Leslie, Lawrenceburg, Indiana — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:52:59 GMT

Hillary Clinton is an impressive. She is not the candidate for the Dems or the country though. John Edwards was excellent. Dodd did a great job also.

Who won the debate? Edwards, 2nd - Dodd, 3rd - Biden
2008 Election - John Edwards / Bill Clinton ticket (Wouldn't that be great?!)

Reality Check: Edwards / Dodd in 08'

The reviews are in

Chesley Foster, Montgomer,Texas — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:58:22 GMT

The only way a Democrat is going to become President,is if they come together and quit putting down this great country and causing the deaths of the brave men and women fighting for their freedoms. And for the Drivers License for the illegals....it is a privlege to drive not an political guesture....Hillary Clinto should be ashamed of herself for even thinking that it may be ok to start with....and for everyone that thinks that she was being attacked.....I guarantee you....if she was to act like she did last night when some other country attacks our country.....WE ARE DOOMED.....This is the greatest country in the world and our elected officials are making us look like a joke.....Rep & Dem need to stop fighting like little kids and quit stealing our fellow americans lunch money and grow up. To be honest...maybe we need to start this whole thing over again with differant candidates...The ones we have right now have not grown up yet. I have served in 2 branchs of service and here we are listeing to men and women that has never spent as day in the service saying that we are losing the war...wake up...people die in war...more people are dying in this country every day by starvation,by illegals,drugs,etc....what have you done to help that...Answer: NOTHING
You all are to busy running for office. I believe that while you are an elected official serving our country, you should not be able to run for office...you are being paid to do a job....not being paid to run for office....Let's clean this mess up and quit stealing from the tax payers of this great nation.

The reviews are in

John Carpenter — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:00:16 GMT

"But you know what? It didn't matter - because Hillary kicked-ass on all of them."

I heard the parade in my town (New York) today for those who believe that is being cancelled. One person called in sick and the other doesn't want to march alone.

The reviews are in

Jane, Southern Mississippi — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:32:36 GMT

I am not a republican, but I just can't see myself voting for any of these candidates. I want our borders secured and I don't want illegal aliens getting driver's licenses, and then getting on the voter rolls. Why didn't any of them talk about that? That threatens our sovereignty as a nation, so I guess it is important. But the democrats running don't seem to think so, or if they do they won't say so out loud. I like Ron Paul. I was heartened when I saw all the Ron Paul banners and signs during the post-bebate commentary.

The reviews are in

mary Davenport Iowa — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:58:45 GMT

"The only woman on stage agaist all men candidates and two men reporters all attacking her in a staged plan.
Yet she stood strong and won the debate.
Blue state baby "

Hey Blue State,what would HRC have to do for you to recognize she didn't do well? She stood strong? What does that mean she didn't cry, she didn't walk off stage? HRC can't win the general, and most likely Iowa will be the first of many primary defeats prior to her bowing out gracefully.

My take on the debate:
Biden number one. It's amazing in less than 6 minutes he can actually address the issues, and has the most memorable lines of the night. His post debate interview was funny.
Number 2 & 3. Probably Edwards 2 and Obama 3, but a strong case can be made for Obama 2 and Edward 3. Both made some great points. I think which you think is 2nd or 3rd depends on which you liked better prior to the debate. They both did great.
4.Probably Hillary, but a strong case could be made for Dodd and then Hillary.
5. Dodd/Hillary
6 & 7 Does it matter.

The reviews are in

John newport rhode island — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:59:01 GMT

I'm tired of debates. they suck. i want an interveiw with a great reporter who asks unscripted questions. Questions the canidates do not get in advance. All they do is he said she said. i don't care about that. what were your passed accomplishments and failures. Debates are attacks. give me a good interviewer and interviewee. Thats how we got our jobs isn't it. Screw the debates they are usless.

The reviews are in

CitizenJ — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:04:44 GMT

Taking a cue from their leader, the feminists among us say that Clinton is strong because she is a woman and no man can take her down.

Then, she gets beat up a little bit during the debate and now it is "How dare they pick on a woman. Those boys should know better."

If you want a make a case for you candidate - do it. Do it on policy. Do it on character. Do it on morals.
DO NOT do it on gender.

Pathetic. Undeniably, irrefutably, disgustingly, degradingly, ignorantly - pathetic.

The reviews are in

Christopher DiLoreto, Keene, NH — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:20:51 GMT

To those who seem to think Brian Williams and Tim Russert were somehow being too mean and unfair to poor, disadvantaged Hillary, I have to question whether any of you actually pay attention to this campaign at all or if you simply get physiologically excited anytime you see or hear the word "Clinton."

If you haven't noticed, more than two months before the Iowa caucus, the media as a whole has all but coronated Senator Clinton as the seemingly unquestionable nominee. Ms. Clinton herself behaves as though this primary is a mere formality. What angers her supporters is that the moderators last night failed to blanketly accept "The Sacred Presumption" of Ms. Clinton's nomination. They asked questions challenging the assumtions of the national media and they provided the other candidates an opportunity to challenge the notion that they are somehow inferior to the current front-runner.

Guess what? That's their job. I know it's hard to insert too much critical thought into political news sometimes, but that's what made last night's bout in Philly a REAL DEBATE--perhaps the very first of this democratic primary.

The reviews are in

HP, Kansas — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:27:59 GMT

I think Hillary has hurt herself with her position on Iraq/Iran. The point was made last night that she was already running in the GENERAL election as though she had already won the primary. A democrat will win the general election, but I think the primary voters (democrats against Bush's war) will not like her position.
Look for Edwards and Obama to close the gap.

(Personaly, I thought Biden won the debate.)

The reviews are in

Remi Shara — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:34:23 GMT

Reading the comments above, one would think that the debate included only Clinton, Edwards, and Obama--and maybe Biden. You people don't realize that your consent to these as the only viable candidates has been manufactured by the corporate media and you are only following in tow. Do you even listen to what the 'lower tier' candidates say--or have said in past debates? Your favorites have sold out long ago. They will keep us in Iraq indefinitely and continue to use fear as a license to control the world and American citizens. Why don't you pay attention to the anti-empire, anti-war, pro-American (in the best sense) candidates? Why must you assume that the top tier candidates are so much more worthy? Are you all so unperceiving?

The reviews are in

Rob — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:49:38 GMT

Hillary would be a good thing for the Republican party--pulling them back from the margins of the NeoCon fringe--since she models herself as NeoCon lite. However, she is not an asset to the Democratic Party in terms of the issues or definitive policy shifts. We really don't need a replay of the Clinton years in the present time frame.

The reviews are in

Beverly Ann North Haven CT — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:53:45 GMT

I have a problem with 30 second answers BUT if that is what you want, shut the sound off after 30 seconds. Then you don't need the cute sound effects and grafics.

The reviews are in

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:20:49 GMT

Leslie - Whether Bill could serve as VP is an unsettled matter, as the 12th Amendment says that no person constitutionally ineligible to be president can serve as VP. The 22nd Amendment prohibits a person from being elected to more than 2 terms.

For a discussion of this issue, look here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901572.html

The reviews are in

Richard, Washington State — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:35:53 GMT

I don't suppose there is a possibility that everyone posting here had decided who their winner was before the debate even started?

The reviews are in

Richard, Washington State — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:50:01 GMT

Ed, Brunsiwick, GA:

Trust me. Hillary is very good at math and understands perfectly how the job of president doesn't stop at a $400,000/yr salary. She's been through it once, remember? She's also worth more than Bush or Cheney and hubby Bill is profiting handsomely. Perhaps one could call it "Election Profiteering."

On that note: Do any of the questions she might be asked or criticisms she might be subjected to rise to the level of what she had to endure during her husband's administration?

I honestly don't think there is much in the way of questions or approaches by moderators that can throw her off her game. So, if she sounds inept or non-responsive, take the responses as completely genuine.

The reviews are in

Molly, Iowa City — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:22:02 GMT

Carrie, Eastern Iowa it isn't unsettled, to be VP you must be eligible to be President. Bill isn't eligible. Bill told Tim Russert in an interview (during his recent book tour) that they looked into this and Bill said it was not constitutionally allowed.

The reviews are in

Jo, Seattle, Wash. — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:25:50 GMT

I don't know what debate the Clinton fans were watching last night but she got her rear handed to her by almost all the condidates with the exception of Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich.

I am a Bill Clinton fan but just because Hillary happens to be his wife doesn't make her as qualified and he was to be president. I think Obama and Edwards said it best, we need to move on from this dreamy and terrifying era of either a Clinton or a Bush in office cause they are but for big bisness. Is there anyone who is so blind out there to see that both George Bush and Hillary Clinton were the candidates to raise the most money from special interest in their running for the White House???

Wake up people, she's not the one we need to take us back ont the right track.

The reviews are in

eSPO — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:25:20 GMT

Why would Hillary and her crew get so DEFENSIVE about answering straight forward questions ? Ask yourself that question. All you Hillary backers are just angry because you finally realized that she cannot answer the questions. You call this bashing ? You call it a set up, staged, say "shame on you". What is wrong with moderators asking straight forward, specific questions. Obama won big, he refused to attack and he spoke straight.

The reviews are in

David — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:00:39 GMT

"The only way a Democrat is going to become President,is if they come together and quit putting down this great country and causing the deaths of the brave men and women fighting for their freedoms."

You mean Republican don`t you. Just giving you the benefit of the doubt. You can`t be that ignorant.

The reviews are in

Mr. Unite Us — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:16:49 GMT

Obama did just fine. He is the right person at the
right time to lead this country.

Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP4bKiYrI7w

Note Thank Obama for boosting getting people to tune into the debate.

The reviews are in

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:46:28 GMT

Molly:

Did you read the link? Obviously not. If you had, you would realize that even constitutional law experts cannot agree for sure whether or not he would be prohibited from being a VP nomination. My inclination is to say he would be, but then again, the 22nd Amendment says "elected" to the presidency. If he took over from the VP spot, he wouldn't have been elected. However, to get to the VP spot, he would have to be eligible to serve as president.

It's a very complicated constitutional law question, and one to which there is not an easy answer. It depends, basically, on what your philosophy is with regards to constitutional interpretation.

However, it appears that Bill's advisors have answered the question in the negative, which pretty much ends the debate. The point I was making, and that the author of the article I provided, is that it's not a simple "yes or no" answer.