once again MSM and Clintonistas are attempting to control the spin on this debate. Frankly, the fact that she was so well prepared does nothing for me. Obama thinks on his feet.

I hear ya.  Let's complain tomorrow.  btw, all our candidates did well. Hill is too scripted, can't anybody get to Mark penn to tell her to stop it!  I'm glad they went after Barack. He's gotten a free ride up until now. My candidate, JRE was supperb. Vergy substantive. He'll be one helluva a President.

Right...Obama could never get away with that.

God bless America.

Obama can't help that he is black.  One is standing up loud and proud and the other is not.

It would not have been answered or mentioned during the debate if it had not been asked not once but twice by Campbell Brown.  I could not believe that Campbell asked the follow up.  

Yes, it was awful.  Look, if you're still watching after 2 hours of a primary debate, it's because you're actually interested in politics!  God, why not ask her what color of fingernail polish she likes.

I agree with your assessment except the SS issue.   I think Obama saying that those who make $100,000 are upper middle class.  Hillary made a good response that you she knows firefighters and school supervisors who make that much.  Hell I live in DC and $100,000 is not upper middle class.  

Yes, I was very pleased to see Hillary bring up that Edwards was against UHC in 2004.  I would have liked if she had gone even further and actually quoted him verbatim, use his own words: "Universal Health Care is fiscally irresponsible" "is bad for the country," "too expensive," etc.  I think if Edwards does not back off on his "flip-flop" charge, we will see a lot more of what we have seen tonight fleshed out on Edwards' own stuff (Iraq, Yucca Mountain vote, right-to-work legislation, universal health care, etc.)  

I thought there was a big pushback against negative campaigning tonight.  Edwards and Obama have to tread very carefully moving forward, because this debate may be a game changer on that issue.  You had the audience vocalize their disapproval, but more so several people on that stage.  Clinton was talking about "slinging mud,"  so did Richardson, Dodd called the attacks "shrill,"  Edwards' "anger" was discussed, Edwards was called out for his own flip-flops (China, Yucca Mountain, Iraq, Universal Health Care, etc.)  

 Negative campaigning can be effective to an extent, but if it is constant and ongoing, it will have people push back at some point, which has been happening, and I think it has now gone to a point where people view future attacks on honesty, trust, etc. through the lense of what they saw tonight.  My wife groans every time she sees Edwards on the tube, and I think there is a stronger and stronger "Enough already" sentiment growing.  

All the left pundits on CNN have worked for the Clintons at one time or another. I mean who else can they bring up there....Begalla?

All the left pundits on CNN have worked for the Clintons at one time or another. I mean who else can they bring up there....Begala?

I don't think it was orchestrated, but I do have to question whether the supporters were evenly balanced. (As someone pointed out in the post-debate, Hillary has as much support in Nevada as all the other Dems put together... but debate audiences should still be balanced).

My wife, a Hillary supporter, pretty much had the same reaction as the audience did to Edwards' lobbyist attack, so I don't think anything had to be orchestrated.  I think it was just an instinctive reaction from people in the crowd who supported Hillary.

Hillary has over 51% support in that state...so it makes sense that most people there supported her.

Ever since Obama became a phenomenon early in the year, I thought that Edwards was going to be odd man out.  There was going to be a Hillary and an anti-Hillary and I just didn't see how Edwards was going to occupy either niche.

There's a relentless psychological push towards a two-person race, the front-runner vs. anybody-but-the-front-runner and Edwards just doesn't seem to be able to catch a break with the broader audience (unlike the on-line elite & cognoscenti who often make the mistake of thinking they mirror the broader voting public).

She does better against Tootsie from coast to coast than any other candidate.   Tootsie beats Obama and Edwards in NJ ... that would mean defeat.

I concur, aside from the brief fireworks in the beginning, it was another snooze.  

Edwards' weakest show, although he did have a few good moments (sadly, those moments were straight from his stump speech).

Hillary basically did what she did in previous debates.  I was unimpressed, but she was effective.  

Biden rocked.  

Kucinich's best night so far, I thought.  He was less hobbit and more angry, forceful, strident in his positions.  I like him when he's cranky.

I don't think the GOP can eat any one of our candidates.  The Dems are more inclined to treat each other with kid gloves.  Even their attacks against one another are, let's face it., pretty tame.  

I guess they were when they found out that the Hillary campaign planted the boo birds in the audience.

You ain't kidding, Obama seems totally thrown at the beginning when Hillary refused to back off and demanded to answer the accusations he was making about her.  The same with Edwards- they backed off when they realized she was going to come back after them- it's a lot different when you know she won't answer the charges- when you know she will, it's too unpredictable what will happen so they became very wary of doing that.

Last debate, you anti-Hillarites were heaping phrase on Russert.

So, no.  Wolf did not suck.  Unlike Russert, he didn't go after one candidate all night.  He didn't pit all the candidates against one.

Yes and no.  I thought he was awful with the constant attempts to cut the candidates off, particularly when they were right in the middle of giving the good part of their answer.  But I thought he was good at following up and insisting on an answer to the question that was asked instead of letting the candidates meander wherever they wanted.

You actually think a moderator who insisted on asking "so, which is more important, national security of human rights?" is worthy of respect?

end of all credibility for CNN, right there.

Someone should have walked over and taken the mike from the moron and given it to a member of the audience.  Even the diamonds or pearls lady would have been better.

basically that's right. Hillary was terrific, i thought Obama was good, but not great. Edwards got his butt handed to him. Biden was great. Kucinich had some good moments but was also whacked out at times. Dodd was good as ever, but came across as marginal.

Obama's my guy, and I thought he was terrific on social security and, to be honest, I feel for him on the drivers license issue the same way i felt for Hillary last time: they're both right that it's a wedge issue that shouldn't be reduced to some idiotic yes/no question. But in a debate format they both come across as dithering. Sad, but true....our system sucks, but it is what it is.

Bottom-line, though, is I suspect the Dem primary is over. Hillary has a huge lead everywhere but Iowa and this just puts an exclamation pointt on it. And have to admit she's impressive: was put on the defensive over the last two weeks, but this will put that to rest. I think my preferences are:

1: Obama

2. Biden
   
3. Hilllary
   
4. Dodd

4: the rest -- guys I'd support, but don't particularly like.

Many debates try to ensure an even distribution of supporters in the audience, where audience participation is permitted.  It's a pretty standard procedure.