Hillary is playing end game chess, while other democrats are still on the mid game.
Its close to the time some of them declare defeat.

was Edwards. But seeing as how he has the most to lose in this race, that's to be expected. Back in '04, when he was angling for the VP slot, he rarely took off the kid gloves.

Tonight we saw Richardson and Biden auditioning for jobs in the Clinton administration by coming to Hillary's defense.

I'm amazed nobody has been talking about Markos' recent revelations about Hillary over at DK. He basically admits that he was wrong about her and he expects her to win the presidency easily next year. He also said this:

I recently talked to a federal candidate in a tough, red-leaning state. I asked the candidate if Hillary would make for a more difficult race. A year ago, the universal answer was "yes". But this time, this candidate said, "You'd think so, but I'm no longer so sure. I'm hearing a lot from my constituents, 'I used to hate Hillary, but...'"

I used to be in the anbody-but-Hillary camp. Now I just don't know who I consider my first choice. That's from a combination of Clinton exceeding my expectations and others not living up to them.

Oh yeah. Markos also admits in that post that in '04 he knew that Dean was a timebomb waiting to happen. Funny. Whenever I said that about Dean I was accused of being brainwashed by the media and some sort of vast, DLC conspiracy.

Tonight they basically stood united against a Republican President and the Republican Candidates, except for some moments when there were attacks on Hillary.

Kuccinich showed his courage and attacked the media for promoting war with their questions.

I think Jim and Brian were trying to play gotcha all night long with their bias questions. Always trying to trap a candidate, instead of getting to the issues. In fact I am getting sick of Chris Matthews and his promotion of his show and his form of I gotcha.

Obama had some very good moments and Hillary had many good responces. In fact all of them stood tall, with some trying to win the Presidentcy and others jocking for a position in the cabinet.

Dennis pushed for impeachment, but with the Senate the way it is, that can be forgotten and Bush knows it.

Hillary had 1 big mistake at the end. She gave 2 answers to the NY Governor giving illegals driver licenses.

Listened a little to the comintators at the end and Chris was really beating Hillary up over that. But it is to be expected, because for the last 2 weeks Chris sounds like chauvinist jerk.

Earlier on Hardball he wondered why Philly people were behind her, then he says the people of Philly like a fighter.

Well Chris, being hit with White Water, Monica and that other woman in Arkansas, the hit on Health care, being called gay and many others thing, she is back fighting for the Presidentcy.

If that isn't a fighter, I don't know what is.

....from Joe Biden:

"Rudy Giuliani is probably the most underqualified man to lead this country since George Bush. There are only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and 9/11."

Clinton's response to her quote supporting the NY governor's intention to license illegal aliens was a disaster. If she wasn't a sitting Federal legislator with responsibility for immigration law it would have been less annoying. It was a leadership moment that she managed to mangle, badly. Look for that screw up to haunt her. 

just proves she is all too human.
By that standard, Bush and his cronies are superhumans!

Hillary discussed the issues, while Edwards and Obama made personal attacks against Hillary. 

If Edwards and Obama want to gain votes they need to exhibit leadership skills by talking about substantive issues - what they would do - rather than displaying their immaturity attacking Hillary.  It just makes them look really, really bad.

If I was Hillary, I wouldn't waste my time in any more debates with those schmucks. 

Their is only one leader on any of stages of this or the past debates. Hillary is follwing her own lead, while the other front runners are playing up to the Media.

My main concern now is will the Media kill her chances, just like they killed Howard Dean.

I don't know who listens to MSNBC nightly (like Tucker/Chris), but it is a total bash of Clinton and always trying to start a war between her and the other 2 top candidates. Tucker, I understand since he is totally Republican and Clinton made him eat a shoe after his comments about how many books she would sell.

Last night was not a debate, it was totally bashing Clinton by MSNBC and I hope no one debates on their network again.

Are the Democrats and the Democratic Party going to allow the Media to pick our candidate or are Bloggers and DP going after the media and tell them to back off?

The media has been picking our candidates.  They have been nothing but pro-Hillary for the past months.  Inevitable was a line they picked up and ran with.  They are fickle though.  So they could totally turn on her and knife in the back.  But that is the way things go.

What is her position on IRan?
  U'm give all the crazy neocons the OK to invade and start another war with a wing and a prayer.

What is her position on Iraq?
  U'm lets stay there till - u'm I do not know - until General Petraus tells me.  (Bush would be secretary of state)

What is her position on health care?
  U'm make sure insurance companies have the status quo - ten times over.

What is her position on anything - it is the same as the republicans - Tell me truly how in the world she is a leader?  A great politican maybe, leader not!

the media is directing your thinking. I question if you listened to her answers last night? Did you watch the debates?
She answered all those question as a person who does not know just how much Bush has screwed up the mess in the middle east.
Does anyone outside the White House really know?
With all the secrecy in this administration who really knows the facts?
Anyone who thinks they know the answers without sitting in after Bush, is terribly naive.

requires job shadowing of President Bush, we are in deep trouble. 

There is no great mystery to Iraq.  We have lost enough lives and spent enough money.  It is time for the occupation to end.  The war has been won; we ousted Saddam Hussein.  The Iraqis have a government that they chose in free elections.  We're done.  We don't need to lose another American life or waste another taxpayer dollar on nation building (something Republicans promised we wouldn't be doing again; this just demonstrates they are liars (except for Ron Paul)).  The right answer is that when our candidate takes office, they will immediately ask the Pentagon to draw up plans for a relatively safe and quick withdrawal and then execute it.  The right answer is also to redesign the $1 billion embassy into something much smaller or better yet locate our embassy in Jordan until things settle down in Iraq.

Iran is a simple answer too.  Her vote on that resolution was wrong as her colleagues in the Senate on that stage so deftly pointed out.  Like she so often does, she was triangulating.  She doesn't need shadow President Bush to know that is wrong.  And if she does, is she the right choice for Democrats?

Claiming that Hillary Clinton is a "leader" is either falling victim to her propaganda or blowing smoke.

Hillary Clinton follows the dictates of the business lobbies who fund her and enrich her, her husband and their "foundation".

H. Clinton postures as a "leader" while basing her decisions on a cynical political calculation that can best be termed "Machiavellian"...

For example, on Iraq, the "patriot act" and offshore outsourcing, the Clinton model is to test the wind, go with what is immediately advantageous and then, later, as necessary change position while never admitting error or personal responsibility. 

No question she won - and it's embarassing to see them attacking that way.  Obama and Edwards slipped to the end of the line for me.

Oh, and someone needs to tell Tim Russert that the debate isn't about......Tim Russert.

Edwards asked her to defend her positions and pointed out she doesn't.  Attack?  I think not - True, exactly.

This is a debate, this is the platform to compare each other one on one,  if they cannot highlight the exact reasons why you should not vote for her here - when would they?

How in the world would you want another politician that does not answer honestly?  Please tell me that?  What have you experienced in the past 7 years with secret and closed government?  NOthing good.

She was the only one who looked and acted presidential.  The rest were like puppies nipping at her heels.  Edwards and Obama were especially acting like petulant children.  Debating vs. attacking.  I'm not sure you understand the difference?

Should no one ask any questions of Clinton or challenge her positions or ask her to better define what her position are?  If you do this, are you attacking or critiquing?

Its a debate. Its about time both sides actually debate. Its not some infomercial though the last few debates mights as well have been. Tim is what the debate formats need. The soft balls have to end. We have hard issues facing the country and we need real solutions and Russert is not goinf to stand for the triangulating of positions. Good for him....and us.

We're choosing the leader of what used to be known as the "free world" here.  I don't care if a candidate's feelings are hurt or a bit of china is broken in the process.

Here in these carefully planned candidate appearances which have been dubbed "debates" we have a what is often just ritualised series of exchanges far outside the rules of real debate. Real debates, if people heard them, would likely be considered sharp and even brutal. Real debates are what we once had in American politics. Contrast, for example, the Lincoln-Douglas debates with these modern "debates". Oh, I'm sure that people might have had "hurt feelings" but that's as you say, part of politics. We need more such confrontations of ideas, political philosophy and discussion of deeds...

Yes, Hillary Clinton was slammed last night. She had opportunities to defend herself. But then, how does one defend policies and legislative actions which are *undemocratic* -- contrary to the views of most of the people who vote for Democrats? It's no wonder that members of the "Democrats Like Clinton" (DLC) faction will cry "foul" but then again, they have been avoiding the hard truths that most Democrats see around them and directly experience.

If Sen. Edwards has pointed out uncomfortable facts about Sen. Clinton, the problem is not with the messenger. The problem is with Sen. Clinton. 

And there was a Chuck Colgan ad during a break.

Edwards and Obama and (to a lesser extent) the other Democrats are playing into the GOP's hands by personal attacks on the Democratic front-runner.

Hillary's not the ideal candidate, but I'm backing her. She doesn't share my views on every point, but on balance her positions outweigh those of her primary opponents. Most of all, though, I'm convinced she's the only one of the bunch who could possibly withstand the dreck the right wing will dump on the Democratic candidate next year. But before she gets to that point, she has to survive sniping from within her own party.

her positions and quick being the "swing" candidate depending on who she is talking to.

Dodd, Biden, Edwards have continually taken positions stated those positions, end of discussion.

Clinton and Obama - I have to stick my finger in the air to see how I should answer.  It was so blantantly apparent last night.

Dems who pissed at the congress for waffling - Clinton would be the same way - she will do it based on her poll numbers, her donors, not what is right for America

It made me think of Bush, Rove and the GOP politics.

Divide and Conquer.

Last night was a prime example from within and the Media.

Are we so obsessed with winning back all of Congress, that we would shoot ourselves in the foot?

Hillary, I believe is the best choice and I do not believe all the bull that goes with getting one elected. Yes, many things will be said, but the voter needs to search the soul of the one saying the words.

Obama wears his soul on his sleeve and it is not hard to recognize.
Edwards is close to the same, but he is turning me off with attacks of the Democratic front runner.
Hillary hides hers as most women do. When men see a womans soul/compassion, they consider them weak, but I find very few weak woman.

As I posted on my blog this morning (under the title, "Edwards assails the Clinton corruption machine")

  John Edwards summed up the "choice" Americans will have should Hillary Clinton become the Democratic Party presidential candidate: "Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine."

I think that this is the most important point made in the debate. Hillary Clinton represents continuity with the Bush administration. She may be a Democrat but she is not a democrat.

I think that we must ask ourselves what sort of "change" is really possible under Hillary Clinton...

Edwards was right on the money with that statement.  If you look at who her donors are (and how much they have funded her), we won't have a prayer to have any reasonable degree of regulation (a completely deregulated system is devouring its citizens, in choking air, dying seas, unsafe products, war-without-end and for profit, prisons for profit, corporate media--which Hillary will further consolidate). 

I don't believe she'd rule with an iron first (ala GWB), but I do think that aside from that admittedly significant factor, it will generally be a continuation of current policies, including multiple wars.  She'll just act more "presidential" or dignified about it.  But acting and being are not the same.

Nothing of any consequence  will ever get done on health care with her beholden to the health care industry (she's received more money from that industry than any other candidate, moving up from No. 2 last year to No. 1 this year).

The fact is that by contrast to the ever-increasing idiocy of our national leaders, Hillary doesn't look so bad.  But that's not saying she is even close to the right choice for what ails this country right now.  She is part of the problem.  She made some of the problems. And continues to talk one thing to her fans/voters and another with many of her votes.  So what I am seeing is Bush fatigue overcoming Clinton fatigue.  I see tremendous contrast effects because Bush is just such a terrible leader.  People are wanting to look for someone better.  But is better than Bush setting the bar awfully low?

Kathy but the 7 candidates on the stage is whom we have to decide on and of those 7 it is Hillary.

I am going to assume you are a woman. So my answer to you about health care I will present this issue from the 90's.

A woman scorned usually gets revenge.

And I dare to differ with your opinion she created the problems. George W.(Supreme Court) Bush created most of the problems.

Kathy wrote:

[B]y contrast to the ever-increasing idiocy of our national leaders, Hillary doesn't look so bad.  But that's not saying she is even close to the right choice for what ails this country right now.  She is part of the problem.  She made some of the problems. And continues to talk one thing to her fans/voters and another with many of her votes.

Gordie wrote:

I dare to differ with your opinion she created the problems. George W.(Supreme Court) Bush created most of the problems.

Who colluded with the corporate Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) to RAM the initial free trade agreements through Congress? [Answer: Bill Clinton]

Who has unabashedly supported additional free trade agreements and "guest worker" programs used to facilitate offshore outsourcing? [Answer: Hillary Clinton]

Who has *courted* Indian offshore outsourcing firms which are at the center of tens of thousands of job losses and permanent job eliminations for American white collar workers? [Answer: Hillary Clinton]

Who has, more recently, attempted to create a false image of opposition to offshore outsourcing? [Answer: Hillary Clinton]

No, Hillary Clinton may not have created many of the problems which we now see in our economy, jobs and health care. However, Hillary Clinton and her husband are allies of the business lobbies and corporations. What sets Hillary Clinton apart from George Bush on labor policy? What actions has Hillary Clinton taken on behalf of even the workers of New York? She has done NOTHING to address the massive offshore outsourcing of jobs in New York by IBM, for example.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton helps the Indian offshore outsourcing corporate giant, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) (which has an office in Buffalo, NY) by signing on to legislation to increase the numbers of lower cost non-American "guest workers" used to replace "expensive" (middle class) American workers right here in the U.S. She does this in the wake of numerous shocking disclosures of abuse and evidence of an uncanny patterns of age and nationality based discrimination against American workers. Hillary is indifferent re. offshore outsourcing of the best of American middle class "information age" jobs. (These are the jobs that her husband claimed, in the 1990s during the NAFTA debate, Americans could and would have.)

George Bush did NOT create "most of the problems". The economic, jobs issues at the root of our present problems (including health care) arose because of the combined Republican -Democrat sell-out to corporations in the 1990s. (Note: Not all Democrats or Republicans "sold out" but enough of them did to pass NAFTA under intense lobbying pressure from Bill Clinton.]