Viva Las Vegas: After the debate

Tony I. New York, NY — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:32:06 GMT

As usual, Hillary flip-flops on the issue. What a waste. If she's elected, it'll be same-old, same-old politics as usual.

Viva Las Vegas: After the debate

Tuck, Realityville, KS — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:32:10 GMT

Clinton won.
Edwards was awful
Obama looked out of place
Richardson was great
Biden was good until the time whiine.

Viva Las Vegas: After the debate

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:35:29 GMT

The definitive moment of the debate was when Obama took down Clinton on Social Security; her claim that the richest 6% of the population are middle class was detached and potentially toxic for a Democratic Primary audience, as was her dismisal of human rights in favor of security (they're the same thing, only Obama got this one right; security means protection from threat of violence to live freely, and that's what human rights are). What looked like a minor win for Obama last night turned into a definitive victory over Clinton at that point.

Viva Las Vegas: After the debate

Bee — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:14:16 GMT

This is one of the most ridiculous debates I have ever seen in the last 7 months. CNN organization should be ashamed of itself. Please bring back credible Journalist that can ask the tough questions.

We don’t need moderator that is pessimist about America’s future. We don’t need another Clinton’s plant in the audience. Clinton’s supporters are the most rude in the history of debate. They Boo when candidate challenge her on the issues. She is the phoniest person I have ever seen.

Thank God there are other media outlets not named Clinton Network News

Viva Las Vegas: After the debate

David Anders, Pharr, Tx. — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:51:31 GMT

joe biden was the winner hands down, experience experience, Hillary has none compared to him. What i dont understand is why the blacks vote for hillary, what have the clintons done for them except show up at their church.

Viva Las Vegas: After the debate

Mark Fischman, Buffalo, NY — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:04:43 GMT

I'm one of those that think a democratic victory is tatamount next fall. With that said, I'm confused and hope someone can help me clarify. I keep hearing that many will vote for Hillary because she is the most electable. I feel entirely the opposite. Nobody brings out the Republican ire and push to the voting machines than Hillary. I'm in the business world and outnumbered by Republican peers and I have never seen such angst for a candidate as she brings out in the right. If you want a poster child for the Republican get out the vote campaign, then all we Dems have to do is nominate her. Yet many Dems think she's the most electable. Frankly, I think it's the only way we could lose given their record the last eight years. I welcome anyones comments.

Viva Las Vegas: After the debate

Dot, Illinois — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:44:11 GMT

Mark Fischman, Buffalo, NY
I am glad to see that someone else isn't getting the same reading about Senator Clinton that the polls seem to indicate. I come from a very small town in Illinois, and I have not heard one person say that they liker her, let alone vote for her. In fact the "anybody but Hillary" sentiment is the most prevalent remark when the campaign is mentioned. Frankly, I think lots of people from small towns feel that way--I'm not saying that is right, but I believe it is a fact. So, either her strength is coming from the large cities or her strength is being overblown. I really don't want to see another 4 years of Republican rule and I worry that if Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee, we could very well be inaugarating President Giuliani.

Viva Las Vegas: After the debate

Armando Rosales, Pico Rivera, Ca — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:18:49 GMT

Richardson's "civil rights or national security" position is in play at the moment.

Bush's position is that we should not assert the Armenian Genocide because of national

security issues on the Kurdish border with Iraq while Pelosi and the Democrats want to

assert that the Armenian Genocide happened and must be asserted as a matter of

principle and perhaps sanctions. So which is it ? Richardson's position is not as "softball" as has been stated.