A Drop of Blood in the Water

Let the piranhas roil the waters. She is going to lose anyway. Might as well put her away in grand style. There's plenty of ammo out there boys. She's been in more scandals than anyone can keep track of.

After last night's performance, I would NEVER vote for either Obama or Edwards! I find their attacks to be petty and ridiculous and not becoming of a presidential candidate. Let's hope Clinton wins the primary because if she does not, it will be the first time in 37 years that I have not voted for a democrat in the presidential election. I will stay home rather than vote for Obama or Edwards. The shame is that prior to their going negative I had a healthy respect for both candidates and might have been persuaded to cast my vote for either of them, but NOT NOW!

Who is Bilderberg?

I find the questiong of Senator Clinton about President Clinton's policies annoying. She was not the policy maker when her husband was president. If the moderators want to know why he made those decisons - ask him! not her! I believe the moderators of the debates have shown their hands that they are not supporters of Mrs. Clinton. I find their tactics highly unprofessional and biased. By the way, least you peg me as a Clinton supporter, I have not yet decided who my candidate will be.

I was disappointed with the "frenzy" so to speak. I thought the democrat men were acting like republicans. I expected better. Where's the love?

Hillary, Don't commit to anything. Play it close to the vest. Let the people just imagine what you will do. Don't say anything that can be used against you in the future. Just "ghost" around the issues. Peoples imaginations will fill in what you leave out. Good luck!

Boy the Hillary supporters are a bit cocky. I remember having that feeling as a Dean supporter at this same time 4 years ago - and that didn't turn out how we expected to although we were way up in the national polls at this point in the game. There are a lot of days left and Obama and Clinton are in a statistical dead heat in Iowa. Let's see what happens. A lot of people are against this war and don't want to vote for someone who helped start it.

People cannot wait to see what Edwards and Obama would do when Hillary have the official nominee for the Democrats. Is there any choice, by the way?
Politic means hypocrisy, they said. So that would be the only way out for Obama and Edwars when they have to say in the general election ... Vote for Hillary Clinton!

Somehow Hillary made some Democrats believe that electing her is getting a ticket back to Bill Clinton era. Why do we have to believe that? She is clearly using that aura of her husband while her "personal record" on important issues pointed the opposite direction. For example, can anyone point out the differences between her foreign policy and Condi's? First Bush was good president but his son clearly is not. Why do Democrats believe that a wife of a good former president should be as good? Isn't it a time to closely examine based on her own policies, records and performances?

I cannot wait to see what Obama and Edwards will do when Hillary is the official nominee for the Democrats, we all know there is no other choice for the Democrats if they really want to have a President in the White House on January 2009.
Politic means hypocrisy that be the only way out for Edwards and Obama, because in the general election they would have to say ... Vote for Hillary Clinton!

I think the main problem in this country is that we want a presidential candidate to tell us exactly what they will do as president. If we don't get specifics, we feel they aren't taking a stand. The fact is, like it or not, a President can not make decisions based on their beliefs alone. None of those candidates standing on that stage last night who said they will do this or do that actually knows whether they can get that done or not. They must work with Congress. They must form committees and surround themselves with staff members and advisors who look at tons of data and advise based on that criteria. The only candidate who tried to make that clear was Hillary.....and she was blasted for not taking a stand or being decisive. We currently have a President who makes decisions in a vacuum and look where that got us. To expect any of the democratic candidates to "pledge" to do anything would result in the same type of administration we have now just at the other end of the spectrum. It was very clear that not only Obama and Edwards had an agenda last night, so did the network. I've lost all respect for the MSNBC team. Debates should be fair. If the candidates want to challenge each other so be it. However, the group holding the debate should be unbiased and not steer the debate in that direction. No, I don't think Hillary needs defending, but the others shouldn't get help from the debate team either. Even though I haven't made a decision as of yet, the only two candidates I feel are truly presidential and capable of leading this country are Hillary and Joe Biden. Just my thoughts.

I think we're all avboiding the obvious. Pollsters sometimes add Bill Clinton to the mix of who one might vote for if it were possible. This was done several times and Clinton always beat both Kerry and Bush. It may be easy to attack Bill Clinton on moral grounds but more difficult when you look at the impact of his administration on middle class americans. Balancing the budget, keeping takes on the middle class level and at least some attention paid to the environment are things many of us look back on as the good old days. A lot of us believe that a Hillary administration could even be an improvement on the Clinton one, abiet she's inheriting a much more insecure world. The Clinton's are the most respected american leaders worldwide and that's why she'll be elected . Even centrist Republicans recognize that our perception around the world is severly eroded and needs repair. The Clintons are the best representatives we have today.

I totally agree with Christina, the Democratic party is definitely the good time party. How dare we consider someone with resolve and seriousness lead this country. We should definitely return to the era where our Chief is being pleasured in the oval office. YEE HAW now thats a good time.

In all seriousness, the debate was a joke. I especially love John Edward's responses or lack there of. Did anyone notice after Tim Russert asked him about Democrats about doing nothing about Hedge funds, Edwards answered him with the first two words......."They shouldve", then proceeded with some soliloquoy about everything else that had nothing to do with the question.

If anyone wants substance and understanding of our country, watch the Republican Debates.

Hillary is the most electable Democratic candidate. Thats the reason the republicans are always degrading her. They, the republicans, think they can 'swift her' enough and the stupid democrats will nominate, Obama or the guy that seems to have never been in the Senate. Won't work republicians. The Democrats have at a minimum of 51% voters that won't fall for your vain statements again...

I think one of the main reasons Mrs. Clinton has risen so high in national polls is because her rivals for the job of president have all been polite gentlemen. They are her "enablers." She's risen unscathed and unbruised. If the males running for president don't start treating Mrs. Clinton like a fellow competitor, they will all soon regret it. The males need to put aside female talk about " don't be so mean to Hillary." Criticizing is not the same thing as being mean. The idea that her fellow competitors are supposed be sweet to her because she's female makes me wonder how she will handle being president - the toughest job in the world. Are Hillary supporters admitting that if she's challenged loudly and criticized for her positions there's no way she'll be able to get the nomination for president? Why should males not be allowed to criticise a woman who has chosen to step into the competition arena? Did you hear nice Gov. Richardson protecting her last night? Does she need protecting? Why should any candidate president be allowed to sail easily to their party's nomination without being severely tested by their fellow competitors?

I think Dodd or Kucinich (love the UFO reference) or Biden won the debate.

Edwards was great in his arguments against Hillary. Obama as well although less so.

Why is everyone, including the media, referring to their arguments as 'attacks"? That's what debate is all about!

I'm voting for Obama, but I wish he wouldn't stutter so much. Still seems nervous.

Hillary did the best she could under the circumstances, but she was her old, non-decisive self. Take a stand BABE!

Dodd made a great point in pointing out her electibility. She will never win the general election. Heck, in order the win the gen. election, you need to win over independents as well as some centrist-Republicans PLUS you need many Repubs stay home on election night. NONE of this will happen with Hillary as the nominee!

I wonder what John Edwards did while he was in the Senate.

"Electability" was the most important factor brought up in the debate last night and I think that's what the candidates should focus on. Generally speaking there are very few issues that concern most people. At many points during the debate the candidates were speaking on a high level that the average American doesn't understand. It's a sad reality, but one which the candidates must be mindful of in order to attract a majority at the general election. The public will not go for a stilted intellectual. Hillary floundered and did not provide specific answers; Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson were the only candidates who outlined a clear position on most issues, as well as a demonstrated ability to offer solution. Unfortunately neither of those two are 'electable' in the popular. John Edwards or Barack Obama are the most "electable" out of the group, and have charisma that should bode well with the international community. As a previous poster pointed out our general elections have turned into name recognition tests. I firmly believe that Bush won twice because of name recognition, and neither Al Gore (he was robbed!) nor John Kerry connected with the average person. In the end, what matters is dramatic change from the status quo, and any of the frontrunners on either side of the fence would provide that. We need to encourage more voter participation or the system will continue to fail. As a side note, if I were an advisor to any of the candidates, I would encourage them to steer clear of engaging in the Clinton-sligging. The only person benefitting from all that free advertising is Hillary. Case in point is Chris Matthews' questions for the candidates after the debate. Instead of using the opportunity to keep driving their individual message, each candidate participated in analyzing the Hillary issue. The lower profile people such as Biden and Richardson should have spun that mess into demonstrating their own merit. It's a frightening time in the world, and I encourage our national community to turn up the volume on the dialogue to promote more dramatic change.