A Drop of Blood in the Water

Boy, was I angry at Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, ordinarily 2 of my favorite tv people. Russert seemed not to know the difference between the debate and Meet the Press. His job at the debate was definitely not to go for the gotcha moment, but that is what he did. Leading up to the debate, Matthews spent days pointing out Hillary's supposed foibles and when he was finished bad mouthing her he would smile and say: "That's what Barack Obama should say." Again, he sure stepped out of the role of a commentator who shouldn't take sides. And when the debate was over, his first words were to start in again over Hilary's supposed 2 sided answer to the illegal immigrant driver's license. What is so 2 faced about saying "it makes sense," without agreeing that it should be done? That's a fair statement, not a flip-flop. Anyway, Tim and Chris, you both stepped over the line onethical journalism.

abrooks8-you are as far off as you say the naive liberals are. I am neither naive or gulliable. I consider myslef well-educated, articulate and politically savvy. Your opinion is important and debate is what makes our politicals system work. But you do mot suplly facts for your very general and incorrect statements about Clinton. It seems you are the naive one that buys into the negative bias of the other candidtes and their double-speak. Why can't they sell themselves as the next president of the United States. The bashing they did on Hillary was exactly what we see on grade-school playgrounds. Name-calling because they don't have anything worth saying.

I've been following the debates (and politics generally) for a while now, and am consistently impressed with Joe Biden. He's smart, decisive, tough, charismatic and articulate. I think he'd be an amazing candidate. I cannot figure out for the life of me why he doesn't catch on with the voting public. My only guess is that his ideas are too complex and/or that the media just doesn't pay attention to him (and therefore, the public doesn't know him). Anybody have thoughts on this?

Shame on Tim Russert and Brian Williams for their performance as moderators of the debate last night. I think Russert was upset from the last debate he moderated in which Hilary firmly refused to answer a hypthetical question. It seemd that the entire NBC crew ganged up for an assault on Hilary well before Obama, Edwards and Dodd let the mob attack. It was on of the worst debate we will witness. It is one thing to disagree on issues, but personal attacks show desperation. Actrually for the last two weeks or so Chris Mathews was whipping up the frenzy with Howard Fineman and others. And it is all for the rating. I thought Russert was better than that. I recall when Mathews was all gung ho behind Bush and Cheney's invasion of Iraq, because it was a popular thing to do after 9/11. As it turned into a blunder, nobody could criticize Bush more than Mathews. Now the Democrats race had a front runner in Hilary by a large margin therefore it was not attracting that many viewers in the evening or Sunday morning talk shows, hence, this promotion of attacks by the media, particularly by NBC media; again all for the rating.

If Obama and Edwards are going to follow what the media wishes, what kind of President either one would make, although I confess that Edwards does not need much help to be so pathetically negative most of the time. Dodd is smart , but he has no hope whatsoever. The kind of mess we are in Iraq, it does not give you many great options, so it has to be handled wisely and I am sure whichever candidate becomes President, she or he would do the right thing except may be Kucinich, who is bright but unrealistic about immediately pulling out of Iraq.
Hilary voted nameing the elite guards in Iran as terrorists. She did not authorize Bush to attack Iran and trust me it is not going to happen, because it would destroy Repulican party. I continue to believe Obama can be a good leader one day, but he has much to learn. Edwards is getting desperate. Hillary will eventually win the nomination.

Posted BY: Shotti Kawlra

BS, Thank you for a well considered articulate post. I disagree with your conclusion. When Hillary Clinton was fist elected senator, it was a fairly close election. New Yorkers are savvy, well informed and difficult to fool. When she was re-elected she won the majority of republican districts that she lost in previously. This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Hillary works extremely hard and has earned a reputation as an informed and competent legislator. It's unfortunate that so many just hate her without reason. John Edwards many be a great tort attorney but was basically a failure as a senator. In fact, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have far more significant records of achievement and are in fact the heavyweights in this campaign but lack funds. If choosing between the lifetime achievements of John Edwards and Hillary Cinton your right, it's no contest. Hillary wins and the polls show that I'm not the only one believing this..

This whole article proves media bias. Hillary is not even quoted as to what she said! Instead, it;s all about how Hilary wethered the attacks. What attacks? What did she say? Try as you might, msnbc can't cover up what she said. In one sentance, she took 2 different positions on illeagal immigration, and then blamed the Bush administration! And she never answered the question. Do you favor driver's licences for illeagals or not? yes or no? her answer, a type of B clinton doublespeak, speaks volumes And msnbc should be pointing that out instead of acting like a cheerleader for the Democrats.

This whole article is an example of liberal media bias, and it proves just how gulible and naive liberals are. Hillary did not answer the question about driver's licences honestly, and that fact what she actuall said was not even quoted in the article. Instead, the whole tenor of the article was to say how sad it was that poor Hillary was attacked and how she wethered the attacks. With reporting like this, who needs a Democratic party headquearters? You have it already at msnbc

I agree with the quoted comment below. There is no equal opportunity in the campaign arena. The media keeps reporting about who has the most bucks. So it comes down to cash, name and face recognition, and who the media reports on. I'm disgursted with this whole thing and the first primary is at least 2 months away. Hey, media! Can we please hear about more than just Hillary Clinton? There are better people for the job than ANY of the "top tier" candidates, but America won't consider them until you start talking about them! Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are both experienced, honest, moderate, have deep understanding of foreign policy, and even have presidential images. They are leaps and bounds more qualified for the presidency than Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. They are not polarizing characters who could never swing a red state (like Hillary). They are serious policians, not just celebreties. They say things that are true, not just things people like to hear. They would have an actual shot at defeating whichever gun-slinging yahoo the right ends up nominating, if they could get any camera time. Hillary is maybe the 5th best person for the job on that stage - let's hear about the others, please!"

Its about time some of the canadites actually expose hillary for what she truly is, a flip-flop conartist. I cant believe people actually fall for her stances or lack there of. everytime she was asked to state where she stands on an issue she backed away and/or switched positions two minutes later. At lease the other canadites know where they stand and dont have to consult with their campaign managers on what policy sounds good enough for the particular people listening. And what is up with the claim to have 30 years experience? Last time i checked she only had one term as senator under her belt. Being married to a politican doesnt count. Otherwise Nancy Reagan would have over 45 years. What a joke. I dont think this will hurt her in the polls because americans, most of them, are too dumb to realize it. Those that do already are in the 50% of americans that wont vote for her under any circumstances. I wonder why this is. It couldnt possibly be that forked tounge she uses so freely...or could it?

I will be honest, I was leaning for Hillary for awhile and realized more I was wanting more of Bill Clinton. After last night, I do not feel I would vote for her. I did feel that Obama did a great job at holding his tact and was well spoken. Although he did not go on the offensive as much as the media would have liked, he proved himself intelligent and poised and doesnt give us the runaround. Which is alot more than I can say for Hillary!!

Its about time some of the canadites actually expose hillary for what she truly is, a flip-flop conartist. I cant believe people actually fall for her stances or lack there of. everytime she was asked to state where she stands on an issue she backed away and/or switched positions two minutes later. At lease the other canadites know where they stand and dont have to consult with their campaign managers on what policy sounds good enough for the particular people listening. And what is up with the claim to have 30 years experience? Last time i checked she only had one term as senator under her belt. Being married to a politican doesnt count. Otherwise Nancy Reagan would have over 45 years. What a joke. I dont think this will hurt her in the polls because americans, most of them, are too dumb to realize it. Those that do already are in the 50% of americans that wont vote for her under any circumstances. I wonder why this is. It couldnt possibly be that forked tounge she uses so freely...or could it?

Sad to say, as a lifelong Democrat, I can't vote for Hillary or any of the Dems because of their support for amnesty for illegal aliens. The Dems lost the immigration vote in August largely due to opposition from the public, but they stubbornly continue to try to sneak bills like the "Dream Act" (which grants amnesty to thousands of illegals) past us while no one's looking. Democrat Governor Eliot Spitzer (New York) is now giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens despite the opposition of his constituency. I worked for Kerry/Edwards in 2004, but I can't support the Democrats next year.

are you kidding? a couple of softball "attacks" which by the way should have been asked or said. Should we just give the Presidency to someone without asking them any questions? or challenging their answers? how rediculous.

Boo Hoo so she has finally been challenged and she and all of her supporters feel like she has been "attacked". She constantly lobs attacks, is it any different because she does it with a smile? or tongue in cheek? if she can't handle a little confrontation how in the world can she possible be President?. I am tired of the run around, never getting a solid answer from her. She says stuff then takes it back .whenthepollsdosupport it