I'm not surprised that James Carville gave all the props to Clinton - after all, he's a paid adviser to her campaign.

Could you please find somebody from the Dem side who isn't a paid shill to provide your punditry? This is amateur-hour stuff, folks.

These "analysts" are poor, biased, and unthoughtful.

I wouldn't put an ounce of faith in this "scorecard." These folks, just like the sound crew and moderator Wolf Blitzer are inept.

Biden's performance was only alright, the top three were given far too much time and offered little real insight, and Richardson did not hurt himself. Did these analysts even watch the debate?

Why is James Carville, a paid Clinton consultant, allowed on your panel?

Have Katrina and New Orleans been forgotten? Nobody was asked about them last night, and the moderator of the GOP debate needs to ask the candidates how they intend to see that post-Katrina recovery is taken care of. This is a valid campaign issue that needs much more attention than it has been getting because of the divide in this country that was laid bare not only by the effects of Katrina itself but also the Bush Administration's inattention to the region's recovery.
And I'm 100% sure that last night's omission of Katrina is because those impacted by Katrina are not only poor people of color who don't have a voice of their own, nor do they have powerful special interest groups sticking up for them. Wake up and smell the coffee. Katrina and its aftermath are not a mere local issue only of interest to voters in Louisiana and Mississippi–it has ramifications regarding future disasters, which could happen anywhere. Were a serious disaster to hit where you live, and you'd done everything you could to prepare but it wasn't enough, wouldn't you want your government to handle its effects much more competently than Katrina was handled by the Bush Administration?

The CNN moderators were even worse than those on MSNBC. No hard questions, just the same ol' easy, "What will you do about gas prices, etc"? A much better question would have been, "Gas prices are high in part because Democrats have opposed offshore drilling, nuclear power, and insisted on high taxes. As president, on which of these issues will you break with your party to bring prices down?" Instead, with the questions they were asked, they all got to make pre-rehearsed speeches.

I'm a registered republican who is very disallusioned by the GOP at the moment. The lack of integrity shown by republicans, their pandering to Bush, and their inability to speak to the American people as PEOPLE rather than votes is highly disturbing.

Last night, I was looking for a Democrat who could rectify these wrongs. Clinton is trying to win the Democrat establishment; Edwards is trying to separate himself from the other candidates; Richardson is more impressed with his own record than with the needs of the country. Last night, Obama spoke to the people; he helped them to understand what his plans mean for individuals. Of all the candidates, he is the most accessible.

However, there is one candidate last night who showed integrity and came across as experienced, knowledgeable, consistent, and ready to act moreso than all the others: Joe Biden. It was a break-out performance by him, and one to which I hope people pay attention.

It's early, and we'll all have to wait to make final judgments on the candidates. How about a Biden/Obama ticket?

I found the "raise your hand" methodology to be disrespectful of the complexity of the issues. Wolf should have know better. "Who won" and "who dressed the best" are questions also not worthy of analyzing a debate. As more Americans continue to die overseas and gas prices continue to escalate, we all are losing. CNN should raise it's coverage a notch to get beyond the methodology of approaching the debates it showed last night. There are complex issues and I would like CNN to add something of value to the debates. I hope the same approach is not followed in the next debate this week!

I am amazed at the American people who keep up this charade!

The CNN debate was a joke. If the Democratic candidates cannot even take on Fox News, what makes them think that they can talk with world leaders who don't have the same free speech values that we all cherish.

Down with the cowardly Democrats!

The real loser of the debate was CNN.

The sound was terrible. Microphones were kept on and off-camera chatter could be heard throughout the entire broadcast. Amateurish.

Wolf Blitzer's condesending tone was inappropriate and Clinton truly had the best one-liner when she dressed him down for asking hypothetical questions. Only Gergen was bold enough to bite the hand that feeds and acknowledge Clinton's effective attack on the media represented by Wolf.

The after-debate commentary was difficult to follow with faces moving around. Why not just bring everyone together in one place?

CNN's lack of a dedicated political show was telling during the follow-up commentary, which lacked depth. Its time to bring back Crossfire for the 2008 election. But, Carville and Begala are too close to the Clintons to be credible commentators (at least for the Democratic primaries). Gergen is probably the most insightful CNN political commentator, too bad he is so boring.

Surprise, surprise. James Carville thinks Hillary won the debate. Carville as an "analyst" for Democratic primary events is as about as blatant as conflict of interests come. To make things "fair and balanced" perhaps CNN should hire Michelle Obama and Elisabeth Edwards as analysts as well.

Barack Obama stumbled several times, for example his responds to the women's question of why do war Veterans have to go to a VA clinic that is far from where they live.

I agree that CNN did a poor job of providing an "equal" platform, reflected in both the initial time given to Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, and to seating the remainder on the outskirts.

Moreover, from the station that hosts Lou Dobbs, there wasn't a single question during the first segment on trade agreements. It took an audience question to bring it up, indirectly. Nor was there one on global climate change - just as our president made a hypocrite of himself again on the world stage regarding that issue. What did CNN think the time was better spent on? How to use Bill Clinton, and - aagghh - gays in the military? (Will the Republicans have to answer that last one on Tuesday?)

Kucinich continues to be marginalized by the media, seated ironically on the far right. His health care agenda is radical, and so is his idea of ripping up NAFTA. He took the voter-provided opportunity today, though, to show me that someone besides Sen. Byron Dorgan (ND) understands how free trade has really put the screws to this country, not to mention having done worse to the ones we've had to bail out.

As always, Barack Obama shines. He shined here tonight as well as on the MSNBC poll. The pundits cannot squelch the voice of the poeple. We know who has it and it's Barack Obama.

I wont vote for any of these democrat blow-hards because how can they claim to be tolerate and defenders of free speech when they all bonded together to avoid any debates on fox? They are spineless! And we are to expect these political wimps to stand up against terrorist?

Why don't you guys give people like Gravel more time to speak? How is it that you pay lip-service to democratic traditions in the US but never give the time of day to candidates who clearly have political track records but not substantial fund raising? Who are you to decide what is mainstream?

I'm glad the internet is quickly becoming the medium of choice for young people. If this country survives long enough, your chokehold on the ability to persuade mainstream America will diminish.

For the record, I'm a traditionally conservative Republican. I'm completely disappointed that you didn't give Gravel more time. Do not make the same mistake for the Republican debates.

The continued presence in Iraq is a political reality that I feel not all candidates have addressed fully. Not all have fully addressed the South Asian culture that makes this form of warfare so ideal for an enemy that historically been well equipped for guerilla or 'cell' warfare.

There must be an immediate and unequivocal decision on what will happen in Iraq. Stay for the long term or get out right away. Some of the candidates in todays debate are choosing a 'middle of the road' strategy to assuage voters but also seem not too soft. Let me explain.

Should the United States decide tomorrow to leave Iraq but announces a gradual withdrawal which will take 6 months - this is what I would do were I an Al Qaeda operative: NOTHING.

You know they are leaving, so you sit tight. Don't expose yourself. Simply hole up somewhere and plan your next offensive. The same goes for the Iraqi militants - why fight a war with the Americans when you can waltz in in a few months and take with ease. The Americans stand to undermine all that they have done and give a false statistical analysis of their success in the coming months. In those final months, the insurgents will cease operations or at least down size: this will mean that statistically the Bush administration will show a collateral decrease in hostile activity and claim a victory - one that will ensure that US forces leave all the quicker.

I am ashamed that none of our candidates have explained their understanding of this as a scenario. I would like to hear someone demonstrate that they understand the Arabic peoples and the history and culture of the region.

It's so early–and it's a time when the media should be giving equal air time to all the candidates; to give the people a chance to hear from them on issues. I, for one, do not want the networks and spin doctors manipulating and annointing the winner. Please! Not yet.

Oh, to have non-corporate-owned, free and independent press to report news.

Carville is not a "analyst", he is a paid consultant of the Clinton campaign.

He's biased. He should not be involved. Nice lax ethics you've got there. With ethics like those, it's no wonder you sat by as corruption ran rampant under the Bush administration.

It's stuff like this that enforces the common belief that running for President is some kind of popularity contest… but what is REAL goes way deeper than any of these "inside the box" thinkers might be able to fathom.

Click here and read "GoldenT" if you are able to think INDEPENDENTLY and outside the box.