<p>I am watching the debate right now and I must say I like Hillary Clinton when she is a fighter. She is kicking Obama’s hind parts. </p>
<p>I won’t support either one, but I must say that I think Hillary when she is a fighter will be harder for McCain to beat than Obama.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>Where??? I don’t see it on CNN and not in my tv listings.</p>
<p>Msnbc 9est</p>
<p>I support Clinton, but I think Obama is starting to dominate the debate.</p>
<p>I think Tim Russert is a blowhard who loves to hear himself speak.Its more like a “Meet the Press” than a debate. Brian Williams has no control at all. The commercial breaks are really strange as well.</p>
<p>The constant railing on NAFTA has me really annoyed. Especially the “we need to get tough on Canada and Mexico about labor and environmental standards!” Give me a ****ing break. Canada has arguably better labor and environmental standards than America. They should just say what they mean: “we’re tired of our propped-up, inefficient manufacturing sector being out-competed by foreign producers who are lower-cost. We’re going to cater to the special interest manufacturing groups and labor unions and restrict trade [labor standards and environmental standards are effectively tariffs] and on this issue to the detriment of overall society”.</p>
<p>I find it very unfortunate that Obama and Clinton both need Ohio so much; it’s going to lead to this whole anti-trade tone dominating this section of the primary campaign, which I think is very, very bad.</p>
<p>And I agree about Russert being annoying. I was very, very happy when Hillary cut off his increasingly ridiculous hypotheticals; him shutting up about that crap was one of the best parts of the debate.</p>
<p>clinton is getting really old in my eyes. she knows that she will lose and is starting to get desperate</p>
<p>
What you are saying is completely correct, however, the truth does not get votes from Democrats in Ohio.</p>
<p>I liked it when Obama was challenged about Farrakon supporting him. Obama answered well saying he did not agree with Farrakon’s antisemetic views. I didn’t think Clinton would have anything to add, but she then said she did more than merely disagreed with supporters who were antisemetic, she renounced them. I thought that was a strong answer too.</p>
<p>Why do we need these news guys in the first place? Put Clinton and Obama in a room and let them have a conversation. We will watch it. </p>
<p>Russert is bad, Chris Matthews (who didn’t monitor the debate) is worse.</p>
<p>These news guys try to make the election about themselves instead of about the candidates.</p>
<p>“Tim is right”. “Great question, Tim”. You’re a genius Tim. Why aren’t you running, Tim?"</p>
<p>Keith Olbermann said, “Obama held his own against Clinton”.</p>
<p>@@@@ you Olbermann.</p>
<p>The public doesn’t need you to analyze the debate. The public can decide for themselves.</p>
<p>The talk show radio guys are disgusting too. “McCain isn’t conservative enough”. McCain, you better kiss our a@@es if you want our support". </p>
<p>Who appointed these guys as the deciders?</p>
<p>Bill O’Reilly’s viewership is down over 1 million people this year compared to the last presidential election or is it over last year?</p>
<p>Who cares?</p>
<p>Two million people in the whole country watch his show. Two million freakin people!!!</p>
<p>And he has the highest rated show.
I think 12 people usually watch Chris Matthews.</p>
<p>This is the first debate I missed. Darnit!</p>
<p>So how come the democratic candidates don’t have the guts to debate on Fox?</p>
<p>
I would pay to watch that. I still think Clinton would take Obama. She clearly has more experience than Obama.</p>
<p>
I would like to watch Matthews’ show but I can’t stand him always asking questions and then answering them instead of letting his guest answer the question. He reminds me of Dr. Laura.</p>
<p>“I think 12 people usually watch Chris Matthews.” </p>
<p>“I would like to watch Matthews’ show but I can’t stand him always asking questions and then answering them instead of letting his guest answer the question.”</p>
<p>Yeah. That 12 people watching number might be too high. :)</p>
<p>Matthews sometimes seems to go into some kind of fugue state where he’s talking without paying any attention to what he’s saying…like automatic writing but with his voice. Olbermann is pretty good at snapping him out of it. And Russert is so busy being ‘Mr. Serious Talking Head’ that he seems to forget that he’s supposed to be letting the other people talk. I think they all get paid too much and so think they have more influence than they do. They all get paid more than a U.S. Senator (I’m willing to bet). Maybe they think that makes them more important. </p>
<p>Williams just comes across as an empty suit. </p>
<p>The fewer people watch O’Reilly the sooner he’ll end up in the dustbin of history with Father Coughlin and Morton Downey Jr.</p>
<p>If you missed the debate, here’s pretty much all of it:
[YouTube</a> - DemocraticMedia’s Videos](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=DemocraticMedia]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=DemocraticMedia)</p>
<p>I guess it depends on your point of view. I was watching the debate with my adult son. At one point he said “those moderators need to handle her better.” When Tim Russert interrupted her finally, he said he’d vote for Russert. </p>
<p>Personally, I don’t see what this debate accomplished. What is there left to ask after 19 debates? I think it’s true that Clinton wants them only for the free publicity. Is there anything left to say on their position on health care? In my opinion, we were really only watching to see if one of them really messed up. I don’t like Clinton when she is being a “fighter”. And no, it’s not because she’s a woman. I just think she comes across as rude when she constantly interrupts and won’t stop talking. I did not see Obama do that.</p>
<p>But then again, we all watch with a prejudiced eye.</p>
<p>Over 1.000,000 donations to Obama (I’m not sure these are unique donors, so I’m not using the Obama campaign’s “over one million people” meme). This beats the campaign’s goal of reaching the one million mark by March 4 by a considerable time. Pretty impressive by any yardstick.</p>
<p>I thought it was fascinating to hear two intelligent articulate candidates debate. Perhaps Hillary came across stronger on some issues, but she does get shrill. OB is very composed and has maintained his dignity throughout the debates, even in the face of some of her barbed shots. I am so impressed with how he conducts himself, even when he disagrees. She, unfortunately gets pit-bullish, interrupts and carries on.</p>
<p>I agree about Chris Matthews, and the MSNBC folks trying to decide the election for us. I’m astonished by some of the less than factual stuff they spout-- truly slanting the way the election is going. I admit, though, I’m one of the 12 people who watches Matthews, because the show does have some interesting guests (when they’re allowed to talk), and Matthews is so weird, I just find him amusing. They play re-play clips of certain events or interviews I usually haven’t seen, so that’s useful. I do think all those guys need to be reined in, though.</p>
<p>I agree about Brian Williams, too, though he was a guest host on Sat Night Live last year. I have no idea what possessed anyone to invite him, but he was hilarious. I would have never guessed he had such a great sense of humor-- really funny-- like a completely different person. Who knew? Since then, I’ve liked him better. </p>
<p>3bm103: Well, I’ve never heard anyone ask Obama about Farrakon. I thought that was useful, just to see how he would answer that.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>I thought Russert did very well asking pointed questions and not letting the candidates duck or deflect questions.</p></li>
<li><p>I did think he was a bit harder on Hillary than on Obama, perhaps because she was trying to duck more. But even so, they seemed to be a bit more soft on Obama.</p></li>
<li><p>I thought Obama performed brilliantly. I like how he acknowledges many good things about Hillary’s plans. He spent almost 30% time praising her plans, 20% criticizing her plans and 50% promoting his own plans. Very classy. Nice way to disarm her attacks by giving her points for delivery and humor, and by saying, OK, I reject and denounce. Kind of made her look silly.</p></li>
<li><p>I think Hillary was great too. IMHO she knows she has already lost and in these debates she is simply trying to preserve her own reputation and genuinely trying to make sure she does not hurt Obama’s chances in November. My respect for Hillary keeps growing and I will feel better about voting for her if she is the nominee.</p></li>
<li><p>I think Hillary is correct about the healthcare mandates being important to get to universal coverage. Perhaps she can continue to push for them as Senate majority leader.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>" agree about Chris Matthews, and the MSNBC folks trying to decide the election for us. I’m astonished by some of the less than factual stuff they spout-- truly slanting the way the election is going. I admit, though, I’m one of the 12 people who watches Matthews, because the show does have some interesting guests (when they’re allowed to talk), and Matthews is so weird, I just find him amusing. T"</p>
<p>I watch Matthews, too, because he has the good guests, but they are very biased and David Schuster is a lipless hack. He is just so bad that he sucks the credibility out of the show.</p>