CNN

I think Clinton hurt herself in my eyes, as she seemed to be going around questions instead of giving straight forward, honest answers. John Edwards definitely seemed to be in attack mode, which was a turn off to me. But I give him Kudos on admitting he was wrong.
I do not agree with many of the comments I'm reading about Barack Obama. I don't feel he choked at all. Just because he takes time to think about his answers before giving them does not make him a "deer in headlights". Would your rather him rattle off at the mouth and say idiotic things like our current leader??

As a moderate independent I try to look objectively at what I'm offered by both major parties and not allow my emotions to influence (to any great degree) my decision. It's really a process of elimination. Hilary is a politician through and through, although not as good as her husband. In my book she's too phoney and fake to be put in charge of cleaning up the mess this country is in. Obama shows promise and intelligence but lacks the experience – he needs seasoning and it showed last night. Edwards has charisma, but, definitely doesn't shine when he's playing the attack dog this early in the game. Gravel – well I never heard of him until last night and I'm a political news junkie – didn't impress me at all. Kucinich is probably the one I'd have voted for if I was 20 and still a naive, innocent. Dodd has the experience and some smarts but has not particularly shined in committee meetings(I watch them all the time). Richardson who I was particularly hoping would do well because of his experience floundered all over the place and showed he's not ready for prime-time either. That leaves Biden as my top choice so far. As I said, I watch the C-Span senate committee meetings on a regular basis and have followed him for years. I was actually more concerned that he couldn't be direct and concise because in meetings he's a little long-winded, but, he's got the smarts, the experience and the genuine ability to 'reach across the aisle' when he has to. More than all the others, he's got common sense and a practical approach to problems. If he doesn't get the nomination, he should be seriously be considered for the VP spot or a serious cabinet position.

Billery Clinton by trying to imitate
a humanbeing!

I feel Governor Richardson lost the most ground during the debate. His responses did more to illuminate his resume (albeit impressive) than to explain his positions. His answers were not concise and, as such, his conclusions left undeveloped.

I think Biden did remarkedly well especially given how little time he was afforded during the debate. Otherwise, I thought Clinton's performance was very presidential. She seemed to be a sort of second moderator, above the fray and extremely knowledgeable.

I like Obama but I do not think he should be running in 2008. He will be an unstopable candidate in 2016, after which he will have had 10 years in the Senate and will be the natural successor to Hillary Clinton. I'm glad he's putting his name out there, though.

Edwards is a good guy but I fear he is always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

When Obama replied "you’re about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue", I jumped for joy. Edwards isn't in the Senate now so it's too convenient for him to preach about how Obama should have voted. Especially when he agrees with the vote! He lowered my opinion of him when he indulged in the dirty Rovian politics of "Attack your opponents greatest strength, so it appears as a weakness". Accusing Obama as not leading against the war when Edwards himself got the biggest vote of his career wrong voting for it is blatant manipulative hypocricy!

Richardson hurt himself the most I now know he is Gov NM and he wants to boycott the olympics in China( What are you saying!!!!). Obama seemed to generalize to much no details just spin. Clinton played it safe. The winner was Joe Biden which is incredible because Wolf Blitzer ignored him during the whole debate!!! In the time he did have to talk he came across as the most knowlegdable on all the topics and spoke from his heart especially on Darfur which I think is one topic that has been ignored for too long by all the candidates. He is also the candidate who could appeal to independents the most in the general election, which I think will also help propel him to victory in NH. Keep the pressure on Joe!!!!

Hillary Clinton may seem a bit calculated at times and too stubborn to admit that she may have been wrong but the truth is, she still was the strongest in the debate. She had the best one-liner at the expense of Connie Rice and Dick Cheney. She seemed the most sensible and the most intelligent. I especially liked her answer on the don't ask, don't tell question.

John and Hillary came across as REAL people. Obama's posture and delivery were guarded and serious. I like all 3 candidates, and I warmed up to John and Hillary more because of their open dialogue about themselves and the issues. My perception of Obama tonight was that of an unapproachable statesman. Didn't get the warm & fuzzy with him. Haven't ruled him out, though.

Judging by the unintelligible comments below, perhaps education should be of greater focus in future debates. I have yet to hear the candidates address the issues Americans have been complaining about the most: Privacy (and the current regime's spying on it citizens), corruption at the highest levels of government and its blatant cronyism in awarding contracts to oil and weapons companies in Iraq, and national security. What ever happened to actually catching Bin-Laden? As far as I am concerned, all candidates failed in addressing questions Americans have been asking for years. This debate was just an opportunity for more political posturing- who can come across as the most faithful, politically correct, self deprecating "man of the people". I am tired of the antics, how about some real answers for a change?

Great, great forum! Please bring the candidates to us in this fashion more frequently. No debating; no bashing. Up close & personal with the candidates on the important issues before us: health care, global warming, poverty, New Orleans, the war, our deficit, etc.! We learn what the candidates feel. They tell us what's important to them and what makes them tick. Tonight they came across as REAL people. Soledad kept the speakers focused and managed to pull it off gracefully....left me with the "warm & fuzzy." Bring it on, Soledad, with more spots like this!!! I'll keep watching; you've started a new precedent with this Presidential campaign yuk that we all detest and strive to avoid. Bravo!!!

John Edwards hurt himself the most. He stood on that stage just itching to attack his fellow candidates and it did not serve him well.

Hillary, by far, was the best. I did not expect her to be that professional and impressive. She's a star. We will be voting for Hillary.

I think former Senator Edwards came across as confrontational and spiteful. At a time when this country needs a leader with good diplomatic skills, he showed us all that he can't even get along with members of his own party. I think he shot himself in the foot.

i think Hillary did very good. I dont think so any one near her.

Let me begin my saying that I have lost my support for Hillary and Obama in this debate. Hillary especially flip flopped more than John Kerry on a beach, and Obama stuttered alot and gave many shrouded answers. Both were trying to safeguard their spots in the lead.

Edwards and Biden had an excellent showing. Edwards really slammed Obama and Hillary for being so fake and he was well spoken and definitely commanded every topic, despite his blow dried appearance. Biden has a great deal of experience and got very passionate, a real breakthrough.

Personally, I favor Kucinich the most, and he stood up to the big guys with his bold, objective takes. No one makes as much sense and cares the most about our country (and the least about money). Gravel is a funny guy, but he's more of a cynical side-guy and he'll never make it out of last.

Richardson needs to get out. Yes, we all know YOU'RE THE GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO. Stop referring to it!

Dodd is alright, but he doesn't strike me as a leader.

Kucinich came off soft on national defense and talking like an old 1960's liberal. However, he'd make a great worker in someone's administration.

I definitely agree with a previous comment on my disappointment how CNN conducted the debate. The overall questions were lousy and I was frustrated that most of the air time only centered around Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. I believe that Obama, Edwards, and Richardson hurt themselves the most. Although I like Obama, he showed his biggest weakness- inexperience. Edwards was too busy playing the blame game with other candidates to explain his ideas. Richardson once again showed his inconsistencies with the immigration debate and was not at all prepared for the questions.
Definitely Joe Biden won this debate. He answered the questions, showed passion towards the issues, and he explained how things really are. He has the experience we need.

I thought that The Senator from Alaska had some OK ideas but his delivery puts him out of it if he was ever in it. Hillary was a loser she came across as a politician willing to do anything. Obama broke even. The winners.... Richardson, Edwards, and yes... Kucinich

Richardson needed to give a breakthrough performance and gave an underwhelming one instead.

Richardsonrealy hurt himself by talking all around the questions and not giving any direct answers

I have a big problem with Obama's outspoken behavior, one-liners and aggression in his approach – some of which I had detected in the first and second runs of Mr. Bush's campaign. This, in itself, scares me. I do like the thoughts on nationwide health care agenda but also realize this would never come to be since there are trillions of dollars already involved in the current health care system as it stands now – a switch which would be too much as a loss for the current medical industry.

However, in my eyes, Hillary Clinton clearly stood above all others in the democratic presentation. She may present herself as the "stereo-type politician" at times, yes, but she chooses her words carefully every step of the way, simply to not speak out of line and/or give false hopes until she is certain. I imagine she will speak out more as the months go by, and when the time is right. And I will be here ready to listen.

In addition, who else showed more grace and dignity when talking politics during last nights' campaign? I can easily see (and quite happily I might add), Sen. Clinton running this country. She will work hard towards bringing world peace again between the USA and the other countries which, since the Bush administrations take over, has been greatly tarnished. Hillary has been there done it through her husband's presidency, learning along the way, and stood with more dignity during it all than I had ever seen in this lifetime in a candidate. She is amazing.

Sen. Clinton will have my vote, without question.

Tom in Ft Lauderdale, thanks for making the point about none of these gutless "leaders" having the fortitude to raise their hands when asked about the English language question.

Ask the GOP candidates that question and you will get a different answer, but the liberal MSM especially CNN, will deem them racists, bigots, blah, blah, blah.

Have some guts Democrats and go on Fox and GET ASKED real questions, the GOP goes on all networks including the Clinton News Network.

BIDEN, BIDEN, BIDEN was the WINNER! (BTW, nice Orwellian question, CNN). This nonsense about "first tier, second tier" candidates is based on who has raised the most money, not who is the best candidate. Ever notice how many right-wing commentators keep praising Hillary Clinton? They want her to win the nomination, because she can't win the general election. JOE BIDEN is the Republicans' worst nightmare: he's smart, passionate, tough and presidential. If Democrats want to lose another very winnable election, they can vote for Hillary: if they want to win for a change, it's BIDEN TIME!

Hillary out did pretty much everyone. Edwards was great, and so was Biden, Barack did better than his first run. But we all know Gore should be Americas President for 2008

Richardson harmed himself the most. He was my pick going in but he sounded like a broken record with the, "I'm a governor," thing over and over.

Hillary was frighteningly smooth and one thing we don't need is another salesman!

Gravel was given almost no time to talk and when he did he used it to go off and he probably won't last long, but I did find myself agreeing with just about everything he said: the system has to change and most of the others were part of the system so they aren't going to change it.

Hillary does herself no favors, she never answers a question with any substance she is to busy Bush bashing. Does she know she isn't running against Bush?
But let her continue on this path because she would be a horrible leader.

Who or what candidate can calm the mad and discusted voter that knows the republican party screwed up. Respectfully Johann

The Dems were asked to state what is at the top of the list of what they would do in the first 100 days if they were President and Sen. Clinton stated 'Stop the War' and all else mentioned a number of things they would do besides stop the war. The questioned was answered by Sen Clinton and she did not attempt to try and score other points.

It's unbelievable, and disgusting to see only one hand raised when asked if the United States should make English our "official language". "of the people and by the people" I think that's how it goes. The overwhelming majority of Americans what that yet they defy the people that pu them in office.

Almost every single country South of the US/Mexican border has an "official language" including Mexico which of course has Spanish.

WHY CAN'T WE???????

A single language is the glue that holds a nation together. Look at the writing on the walls. Do we want fragmentation and division because one day millions of us won't be able to speak to each other due to language?

Loosers: Richardson, Gravel, Blitzer, and CNN camera staff

Not electable as President:
- Clinton is not the least bit genuine, and is riding hubby’s coat-tails
- Obama is genuine, but lacks experience, has a silver tongue, but no workable plans – might do well as the VP, though
- Kucinich spoke his vision regardless of popularity
- Dodd did okay, but doesn’t have the recognition or status

Winners:
- 1st RunnerUp = Biden – good job !!
- The winner, for the 2nd time in the 08 debates, was clearly Edwards – he finally stood up to the other front-runners, even if it was seen as abit blunt by many. I think any of these tickets would beat the GOP: Edwards/Napolitano or Edwards/ Biden or Edwards/Obama. Good job, and good luck, John !!

personally, i think hilary and obama were good last night. John edward was not really himself and it could hurt him a bit; however, i think Biden was quite good, I hope the democrat is in charge this time. The war has to be stopped.

I too think Hillary will say anything to get elected. Has she forgotten what her husband did when in office. He started some of this mess we are in when he was in office but will never take the blame. I remember when Bush was elected and the press said that we were in a recession and that even though it started on Clintons watch Bush would be blamed for it. Well that is exactly what the Clintons want to do. They never take the blame for anything they do wrong. They just dance around the subject and blame others. (he never had sexual relations with that woman!!!! yeah right...............) I am amazed of how she became senator in a state she ownly lived in for a short time just so she could run in that state. Goes to show you how stupd some people can be. Come on people. We will someday have a woman president but not her, NOT now.

As a Clintonian, Obama-supporter, and Edwards listener, I was more impressed by Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Dodds. Both Richardson and Dodds spoke with authority and assurance in their work and what there would do as president. I was not at all impressed with the gentlemen from Alaska.

Clinton,Obama and Edward have done very well in this debate. Obama impressed me exceedingly.

I believe all of the candidates looked flat at times and unimpressive. There were some good moments and soundbytes from Biden, Obama and Edwards(even though the media is focusing on his agressiveness which I think it wasn't w/o merit). Maybe is the debate format...I'm going to wait for the next one. So far, the only thing certain in my mind is that Richardson is not prepared at all, Clinton looks more and more robotic and Edwards looks closer to an ideal dem candidateto me.

Bob from California:

Trust me, there candidates were much better and are much more smarter than your former party preference.

Did you watch the disgusting GOP debate a few weeks ago?

What can you positevely say abou their options? Give me one!

1. Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich can't be the biggest losers because being at 1% in the polls means they have nothing to lose. They can personally afford to be mavericks, but I don't think it will gain them anything. Being critical of CNN for directing most of the questions at the top tier candidates doesn't make any sense to me. I certainly think the other candidates should be heard, but would still prefer to hear the most from those that are still likely to be in the race after Iowa & New Hampshire.

2. I think we need to be careful in this country of not just supporting the person who yells the loudest and is most sure of himself. That is precisely why we are in the current mess.

3. I don't think we can be overly critical of the candidates for not getting into the details of their plans last night. The had at most 60 seconds to talk on each issue. That is hardly enough time to detail out a plan to deal with the largest problems we face.

4. Another thing we shouldn't worry about in my opinion is whether each of the candidates read the 90 page intelligence report before voting to give Bush authorization. They have millions of pages of bills and reports that they are supposed to read, but can't because they don't have the time. Their staffs are paid to wade through the excess and give them the condensed version. Additionally, they all talked to other experts about the issue, people whom they obviously trust. I think we can drop this issue. It is irrelevant in my opinion.

Biden – I like him and some of his ideas. He is certainly a realist which I think would be a helpful change. While I appreciated his honest explanation of of why he voted for the recent spending bill I think he could have articulated his point about not being able to override the veto without being so abrasive about it.

Clinton – Matt from Baton Rouge said it well in stating that we shouldn't be critical of her and Obama for not wanting to raise their hands to answer a hypothetical question with no details. I believe that shows that she has the experience to understand the complexity of all of the issues and decisions she would have to make as President and that each must be made on its own merit. You could say that is playing politics, but I think it is being smart so that you don't get pinned to something based on a sound quip from a question with no details. I was certainly surprised by her comment that we are safer now. I don't know if we are safer, but we certainly have more enemies and that is never a good thing. I think she (and fmr. President Clinton) could certainly move us in a positive direction in that regard.

Edwards – I heard him speak in my hometown last weekend and was pretty impressed for the most part. He hurt himself in my opinion last night, however, by being so divisive. That is not what we need out of a leader at this point. It is also very easy for him to point the finger at others and say they are playing politics, but he doesn't have to be the one voting right now. Additionally, his attack dog mentality last night was playing politics at his purest.

Obama – I like him a lot after reading his book and think he would be great at building bridges in the world rather than blowing them up like we do now. I am still undecided on him as the next president, but am looking forward to hearing more from him.

Richardson – Definitely like his resume and think he should certainly have a large role in our national politics, but I don't see him being able to woo enough voters. That was obviously reinforced by reading all of the other posts here.

Summary of the top two tiers:
Biden – no real change, anxious to hear more

Clinton – had a lot to lose going in, but I think she appeared very presidential and ranks higher with me now than before the debate

Edwards – tried desperately to make a move to the top and went in the opposite direction in my opinion

Obama – no movement, kept me interested

Richardson – lost some in my view, but I don't think we should give up on him yet

I felt that Richardson had his chance and blew it. He had the most time to talk out of any of the "little candidates," and still didnt back up his ideas. Richardsons done.

Why "Who hurt themselves the most?" why not who won? BTW Kucinich won.

Obama and Edwards hurt themselves the most. Joe Biden came across as a passionate no-nonsense leader. He won in my opinion.

Suprisingly I think Clinton and Obama hurt themselves the most. To me they came across as superficial and shallow. I don't think either of them would be capable of making a presidential decision since neither of them can answer a question. More suprisingly is how Biden and Edwards came across as decisive and in possession of a plan not the latest poll.

As a republican I'd like to see Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or Gore to win the Dem ticket.

You've got someone everyone hates, someone running 8 years too early, and two hypocrite has-beens in that crowd.

Support of any of them will hand a victory to the republican party.

Richardson

He seemed confused by some of the questions. More times than not you could hear Wolf trying to cut him off before he went even more off-track.

Joe Biden came across very Harry Trumanish...plain-spoken and smart. In 1948 old Harry came from behind to surprise almost everyone. In "08" old Joe may do the same.

Hurt themselves the most Edwards/Obama
Edwards seemed like he was sent in by the republicans to try and discredit his fellow democrats, Obama he just seemed to have no energy and seemed very week when it came to hardball, doesn't enstill much confidetns!

Most supprised by Joe Biden, really supprised me, knew everything that he was talking about.

Helped themselves the most, Hillary Clinton, I think that she showed that she can hold her own, she wont' back down, she is not week, knew the subjects, and loved her comment about condi rice!!!

In the past weeks I have been thinking more about Obama but now i'm all Hillary!

I was really not impressed with Hillary. She didn't say anything that the others were saying. She seems to take what others say and spit it out. But that didn't make her the looser. I think Gravel was and will always be the loser of the debates for a few reasons. Mind you, I like Gravel. The man speaks his mind and puts the other candidates in his place. He is not afraid to offend anyone in his party. Unfortunately, no one takes him seriously because of that. He doesn't get the good questions, instead he gets things like "what would have Bill Clinton do if you became president?" Seriously? That was the hardest question he got!

But as for the serious candidates... I think Hillary and Obama were the ones who stunk up the stage. Those two seemed to be coughing up their lunch and feeding it to each other. In other words, they both said the same thing! I would rank in order of how they did (from best to worst) like this: Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, Obama, Hillary, and Gravel.

I really liked how Kucinich kept saying we needed to get away from Nafta and WTO!

I think John Edwards did very well He did point fingers at his fellow demos but I hope he stops here. As of now, I don't seem to trust Hillary and obama as they looked more political than anything else. If I were to select between hillary and obama, I would tend to go with Hillary. I want solutions to our problems and not blames/fingerpointing.

The clear loser was us – the American people.

I was a Bush supporter until the Terry Schiavo mess, and began questioning my support for the GOP as a result. The post-invasion tactics in Iraq, or lack of any clear strategy for success, finished what had been for me a lifetime of Republican voting and support.

So, I eagerly looked forward to an alternative from the Dems. Sadly, there really is none from among the group purportedly debating critical issues for this nation.

It is amazing to me that the greatest, most technologically advanced, richest nation in the history of the world cannot do better than this group of under-qualified, largely irrelevant, and third-rate professional politicos. I now find myself with no one to support, and am concerned for my country.

Hillary is the LOSER of the debate. She panders to everyone and is shrill and lacking of substance!

Edwards hurt himeslf the most by being so aggressive toward Hillary. Edwards sounded very phony and fake. Hillary won the debate by showing strength, intelligence, experience, and knowledge. She won the debate, and just accpet it.

CNN hurt themselves the most. Their true liberal bias was in full bloom.

Gravel hurt himself most, hardly answering the questions posed to him, his responses were sometimes off subject and filled with blaming everyone on the panel for whats wrong in America ... I feel Edwards did best ... He comes off as truthful, forthright, well composed, knowledgable ...

I would like to see how these candidates address domestic issues as well.

The war in Iraq is not the only issue out there. The American way of life is in jeopardy as well. The infrastructure of this country needs an upgrade and the offshore outsourcing of many jobs is going to lead to major issues with the middle class.

Offshore outsourcing rewards overpopulation and undereducation for the most part. What are the candidates going to do to address this?

Republicans are at their most unpopular in history thanks to the war and probably just as much if not more, their inaction in regard to stopping illegal immigration. Combine this with the fact they have a moron at the head of their party, it's curtains for them. If the Dems find a way to lose after all this, America is in deep, deep doo-doo.

Having followed these candidates from the beginning, it becomes more and more clear that the one demonstrating the most intelligent and poised leadership is Barack Obama. This country needs someone who actually thinks before he speaks. This country needs someone who practices common sense and has a clear vision of what America's place in the world could and should be. It's time for Americans to grow up, stop whining about fringe issues and focus on what's important. We need a far better healthcare system, more fuel efficient vehicles and truely equal rights for all Americans not just those who happen to be Christian, white, straight and male. Barack will repair the damage done by the Bush administration, will build genuine alliances worldwide and will create positive change here at home where we so desperately need it. Don't be afraid to vote for him and don't let your parents tell you he can't win. It's time we as voters show some courage and do the right thing. Thank you.

Must admit I despise Hillary, if she called out her cheating husband in front of the world instead of worrying about the political fallout I might like her more.

The ambulance chaser was easily the best of the lot tonight as he had the guts to call some people out and his hair was perfect.

Obama is just like Deval Patrick in Mass., never answers a question directly, but as long as he talks real "articulate" he gets a free pass because................

Senator Edwards...American needs a President who will be ON-SITE,rebuild the U.S. Mmral, provided a medical healing space for the young men and women who will return from Hell in Iraq; stablise the economy, believe in America might and wisdom again; and appointment inter-racial, male/female compassionate, and intellegent "EMBASSADORS"
to "TRAVEL THE WORLD!"

Whenever a candidate doesn't say we absolutely need to secure our borders before we move toward allowing illegal aliens a path to stay here legally or establish a workable guest worker program, they hurt themselves. To do anything other than secure our borders first is asinine. The Democrats and Republicans pander on this issue and it is a disgrace that they do.

I felt that John Edwards came across as combative and smug, serving only to make Clinton and Obama look all the more professional. I was impressed as well in the uniqueness of Dodds and Kucinich (sp?) who differentiated themselves from their peers with daring plans.
All in all a good showing by Democrats!

Richardson's constant reminder of the fact that he was governor showed him as unsure. Also, when asked about his #1 priority, he chose education (yes, that is an important issue, but not nearly as pressing as the war in Iraq, immigration or healthcare). Personally, I've already written him off. Just something about him doesn't quite fit; I think he's hiding something and if you look at the issues he talked about as governor, you will see that whatever he's done hasn't helped much to bring N.M.'s average in issues up hardly at all.

Obama and Edwards hurt themselves the most. Edwards comes across now as insincere and petty while Obama comes across as unknowledgeable and immature.

Clinton, OTOH, came across as seasoned, well educated and extremely bright. I'm not a guy who would vote for a woman but I would vote for Clinton.

Clinton(Hillazilla) looked flat and lifeless. -RightyTighty

You edited my comment.., how shameless!! But not unexpected from CNN. The leftest news center..

My Dad died serving this country. He didn't die believing in a bumper sticker. It was nice seeing some one who has made a living off of other people's suffering finally shoot himself in the foot. Maybe you can chalk your wife's condition up to Karma, huh John?

John Edwards. His priority is not Americans, but instead the impression the rest of the world has of America.

I believe that Edwards and Richardson had poor showings last night. Edwards is struggling to show that he is a leader, which can be easy when you have been out of office for 4 years and have no public voting record. Richardson, a capable candidate, waffled and all too often fell back on what he is doing as a governor (and we've seen that it's a much different job than President)...he had an opportunity to rise to the top tier and missed it. Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel all should go home. No chance. Biden is a wild card and his passion and pragmatic voice was refreshing last night. He should try to stick it out as a foil to the pack leaders. Barack was articulate (yet he always comes off to me as a bit idealistic). It was Hillary's night to maintain her lead (and leadership) – she clearly did and won the debate.

What about Gore? Think he'll run?

CNN did a terrible job with this debate, placing the top three candidates in the center and giving them the vast majority of time to speak at this stage in the game was unfair to the other candidates and a disservice to the audience.

With the world starting to worry about over population as we pave over good farmland, how can the anti abortion people cling to the hope that every ejaculation will become another human heat producing mouth to feed? Who ever said go forth and multiply probably couldn't even grasp the number 6.5 B!

I thought Bill Richardson was vague on most issues unless he was pressed. Not impressed. Obama too was vague and often veered from the question at hand to put a plug in on some other topic that would make a good sound bite.

Kucinich is the man. Not marketable though. Sad.

It is difficult to measure who hurt themselves most in the debate because the format was very limited. The questions asked and even who got the most air time made it seem like the candidates were being chosen for us.

Beyond that, why isn't the environment the most significant question in this election? We have been told by thousands of the worlds scientists that we have placed the very future of the planet at grave risk. Wouldn't that mean it needs our full attention? If climate change results in the destruction it promises what use will all these other policies be?

As for the war? Just end it. Kucinich, for as much as he doesn't speak the drama filled violence-talk that we have become so addicted to, he actually makes a lot of sense. The domestic crime rate in this country has seen a 3.6% increase in the last 2 years (as much as 5% in some states) – It can't be that surprising when we see endless images of war and violence in the media. It begins to seem normal. And we have a leadership whose approach to problem solving invloves going to the closet and getting the gun out. We already know that doesn't work. Can we try something else? Might Kucinich be something more than just a peace loving hack? Perhaps he sees it more clearly than all the rest, none of this is about politics it's about people ... each of which deserve our deepest consideration.

Sen. Biden seemed the most thoughtful, honest and down-to-earth. I believe he would make a very strong candidate in the general election. I also agree that CNN has no right to select the front runners for us. Each candidate should have been given the respect of equal time.

Kucinich and Edwards are to the left of Karl Marx so they don't count!
Obama is a "marketing package" and Biden is a wanna be James Baker. Who is left but Hillary and Richardson.
Antonio Szabo,

Richardson was huge loser. And I like him. He abandoned the VA for a big bucks voucher program. He wants to spend on energy, education (raise all teacher salaries to his state level), health care. And he is the "supply side progrowth Democrat" resistant to tax hikes. Can u spell debt? Alas, his refusal to provide any military option to end genocide in Darfur is appalling. Biden won. Clinton cemented her lead

The debate was just another venue for people to pick their favorite target, pick on them a bit, and praise their "hero." I don't feel any different about any of the participants now than I did 2 days ago.

They all lost. None of them answered fully the best question of the night: When Wolf asked: "Would you support military action to stop the enevitable genocide after we leave Iraq? They think the fighting will stop as soon as we go. Iran will come across the border and we'll have helicoptors on hotel rooftops again just like Hanoi. "Good morning Viet Nam!"

I think Joe Biden displayed that he is up to the task. He really seems like a no-nonsense kind of guy. I like that a lot as a quality in a president. He doesn't seem "full of it".

I believe Sen. Obama hurt himself by being to polished with his answers, with out any emotion. As if he was practicing his sound bites.

By far the worst presentation was that of former senator Gravel. He seemed at times both angry and virtually incoherent – perhaps suffering from Stockdale Syndrome. Governor Richardson also seemed somewhat off the mark with several of his responses. Congressman Kucinich is so far out in left field he can't hear the ballpark announcer telling him the game is over. Although Edwards was very aggressive, supporters can argue this comes from his deep commitment to the issuees while detractors can label him as divisive and scrambling for points. Either way I don't believe this tactic will translate into any additional support. Senator Obama was unimpressive, striking me as equally dispassionate about everything discussed. In my opinion Senators Clinton and Biden came out on top followed by Edwards and Obama. Senator Dodd seems well-spoken, but offers no great distinction to other, more charismatic, candidates. Hopefully, the field will be narrowed to four or five within the next few months and future debates can be more focused on specific issues. The fact that all of these Democrats support the idiocy of the pending comprehensive immigration legislation leads me to worry even more about the future of our great nation. You would think that after 6 1/2 years of GW they would be more cautious about signing on to something that the president thinks is a good idea.

Hillary Clinton because she put a nice neat spin on the few questions she was given. She speaks out of 2 sides of her mouth – which is why she will never be President.

I also think it is ridiculous to be hearing such early "political mumbo-jumbo" (Over a year early! Go figure!) – these potential candidates need to be doing the job they were elected by the people to do – not spend time furthering their own
political aims. We have Irag, Iran....politians STILL being irresponsible by still allowing illegals coming in over our borders...putting a strain on our health care and education....creating higher crime %'s....but, they are trying to put a bandaid on it all. Do you know why – they want VOTES. Heck with the citizens in this country who
pay their salaries.
The media does a disservise to us all by refusing to really call it like it is – Are they no more brave journalists who really stand up for what they believe in – I'm wondering?

Hilary Clinton with her endorsement of Bush's Global War on Terror and her demogogic use of 9/11 lost my vote.

Excuse me, Patrick from Chapel Hill, I completely disagree with your assessment. Clearly you did not watch the debate very intently. Wolf Blitzer did an excellent job of posing questions for all. While a few of the candidates fit your description, many of them actually did a fairly decent job of answering the questions. You should probably be more informed before you post next time.

Sadly, all of these Democratic candidates hurt themselves last night. Some in major ways, others in smaller ways. First, Edwards has every right to challenge Clinton and Obama on their votes "against" this last funding bill, and I believe he did quite well in doing so. They both waited until their "no" votes meant nothing before even casting them. Edwards challenged their not voting very early so as to "maybe" lead others who might have been skeptical to follow their lead!
After last night, I am almost completely disappointed in Clinton as a possible next president. I could not under any circumstances vote for such a wavering, flip-flopping, dodge the question (beginning to sound like what we have now, huh?) ethical only when it will gain her something kind of candidate. She has completely lost any and all of my support.
Biden impressed me last night, if only to prove that we U.S. citizens really don't want to hear the truth, we'd much rather just let things be and have someone else clean up the mess. He did not have enough time to go into the workings of what we as citizens are supposed to know about how this country works, but he tried. I'll give him that.
Finally, Obama seemed a bit flustered to me. Didn't answer questions put to him and skirted those issues presented. Sad day for his candidacy. But he wasn't the only one on the dais that skirted the questions–some never even answered the ones put to them and went off on tangents into related issues. Seems to me that none of the Democrats are listening, really listening. Maybe they should start...

I would say Gravel, just because he really doesn't deserve to be on the stage advocating for a flat tax and other nutty conservative ideas. But in the end Edwards, Obama, and Hillary all came across very well I thought. Edwards did an especially good job connecting with the audience and addressing issues from a values perspective.

Computer guys going "over there" and making $220k? What nonsense. We're bringing them here from over there to take jobs from our people here at about half cost. No IT people anywhere are making $220k, though if anybody did go over in to a war zone as a civilian and take thei rlives in their hands, that's probably still not a fair salary.

However, the reality is that most of us work long hours for much, much lwess than $220k and fear for our jobs every day.

And your dear Hillary wants to bring even in more and give away even more of our good paying jobs, while at the same time making it easier for big business to outsource more of our jobs. Looks like IT people can't get a break either way.

Clinton, Dodd, Obama, and Biden, hurt themselves, by spinning answers to all questions. Never did they give and honest answer that the people wanted to hear. Gravel and Kocinick tell it like it is, too bad they don't have the money for questions to be directed at them. Money candidates got all the questions, not fair. Edwards won, he told the truth. Votes are looking at candidates who tell the truth. Money won't help people win this election, truth will.

After watching the debate for about an hour, I think the American people suffered the most for:
A) listening to every candidate give empty answers with little support other than to maybe tell us they had a "plan" and
B) listening to Wolf Blitzer's idiotic questions

I watched the debate to hopefully gain some new insight on ANYONE and left very disapointed.

I am so glad these debates are occurring. It really helps to know more about what each candidate stands for. But I do feel the SAME questions should be answered by each candidate and equal time given to ALL the canididates, not just the ones the party likes.

Hillary disappointed me last night. I think she was by far the worst. Although Obama didn't impress me either, he was not the worst.

Edwards is done The War on Terror is a bumper sticker slogan??? Where has he been living????

Well as a Texas Republican, I tuned in to see the competition... I was impressed with Hillary. She got my attention. She needs to stay serious from this point forward and not pander crowds with the "fake southern drawl". Edwards has "pie in the sky" dreams that no one can afford and it's insulting to our intelligence to think it can be done. Obama is inexperienced and the "Security Moms" will never feel safe when he doesn't believe we are dealing with an enemy, and calls it a bumper sticker slogan.

I think Hilary Clinton hurt herself the most by not being honest about her poor judgement in authoring Bush to go to war. Edwards challenged her to come clean and apologize, but she dodged it. It shows a bit of lack of character on her part. She had my vote, now I like Edwards for V.P., Obama for Pres.

Hillary lost the debate- she refused to answer hypothetical questions – what's next? a do-over? oh, I forgot – she already has called for a do-over regarding her Iraq war vote."If I knew then what I know now" – BLAH BLAH BLAH DUH!

Richardson dropped below Gravel on my preferences. I thought Biden was great except for his support of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. (And Yes, I do believe English should be the "official" language.)
Hillary is my choice for best.

The 3 big winners, Edward, Clinton, and Obama each carry a candle light walking on a sharp edge and try to balance with the other hand. They try not to fall, burn themselves and balance due to wind of politics. None of them is truely straight forward with people. They do anything to be elected. Although, I think ONE of this folks will ultimately win the election in 2008.

Obama came across as weak and often flustered. As much as I want to like John Edwards, I can't support him. He just sounds like a sound-bite politician.

I was impressed with Joe Biden's fervent stance and "this is how it is" on many of the issues, but he gave me a slight reminiscence of Howard Dean–a little too bold–might scare swing voters.

Despite Richardson's frequent referencing of his resume, I still think that he's one of the strongest VP contenders of those in last night's debate.

As for who should be president–? I honestly have no clue.

Joe Biden won the debate "HANDS DOWN"
i hope he is elected president.

Too much dialogue from third tier candidates. Time to cull the herd, and have Clinton, Edwards, Obama and Richardson as candidates going forward.
Tim, Fairway, KS.

Edwards hurt himself the most. Clinton came across very calmly and clearly once again. She maintains what she has always said and I like how she again did not waver.

Richardson lost the most...proved he was not or never will be a top candidate.."boycott the olympics"...been there, done that. And Richardson spent way too much time on New Mexico...don't care. The second loser was Edwards. He tried to break out of third, but he must do that by raising his own credentials, not tearing down the others. I don't think he made the progress he was hoping for.

I don't like the idea of having either a Canadian-style health care system or a national language, so I think Kucinich and Gravel hurt themselves the most.

Hillary Clinton

Not one of them would answer a question directly, which I guess is what being a politition is all about. And how can you be against the war, and still vote to support the war? What a bunch of back-peddling! They are all for national health care, but would not admit that it will take taxes to pay for it.

John Edwards sounded desperate. His attempts to make his candidacy seem "relevant" next to Sens. Clinton and Obama fell flat.

Once again, Joe Biden proved that he is the most thoughtful, experienced Democratic candidate, and also the most electable. Hillary can't win, Obama isn't ready, and Edwards is too lawyer-like.

After reading the majority of blog posting in reference to the war and the way the candidates answered the question, lets get real about something....do you think any of them is going to give a straight-forward answer on the conflictin Iraq?? they do not want to touch on that subject because they are just as guilty of us being there as their fellow Republicans, they all went around in circles and did not answer any of the questions they were asked directly! shady business?? it is in my book!! Who was the biggest looser? probably Edwards, fine..he apologized for his vote on Iraq but did not gave realistic plans of egress from there. Corporate America has too much money invested in Technology and Logistics to even consider loosing that money making machine go just like that; imagine this...a civilian logistitian, who just goes over there to make sure computers are connected properly and software configured right is making anywhere between 220K to 250K a year! I think the winners of this whole conflict are the big corporations.

Edwards hurt himself the most in terms of all the "serious" frontrunners. There is a chance he could win the Dem side but not when he goes on the attack like he's doing. Of course he's trying to gain political ground, but he's talking about something "after-the-fact" and because he is NO LONGER in the Senate. Its easier for him to take that stance. Stop talking about the best and talk about future issues, healthcare, energy, future Irag, education, etc, etc. At this rate, since he probablly won't win the nomination, he's positioning himself to not even get picked for the Veep spot–and keep in mind he did nothing to help the ticket the last time, so he knows with 100% ceratinty the winner isn't going to pick him this time so his only option is to attack and try to take the lead. He's like a desperate sports team right now, nitpicking at the leading team trying to get them to turn the ball over. Now, as far as the "non-serious" candidates (or the 'why are you even running and wasting our time?') the clear loser was Gravel. This guy is a work of art and absolutely came off as a surly and cantankerous old man. I think we've had enough of those type of guys as president and leaders in general. Just go back to Anchorage and drill some oil or something and stop wasting our time and our viewing experience.

I think that Richardson hurt himself the most by stating that the first thing he would focus on is education. I believe that we should first focus on the war and then health care. I thought that Sen. Clinton did very well in the debate and showed that she had backbone by not answering hypothetical questions from Wolf.

Did I watch the same debate as some of you.

Richardson was AWFUL. I mean AWFUL!!!

At this point, just give me debates with Biden, Clinton, Edwards and Obama. The rest of them are wasting time we need to get answers and ideas from these four.

My guy, Obama, was unusually and disappointingly bubbly, mostly incoherent in terms of clear messages. Not his day.

Edwards' southern accent was totally dominating – he doesn't usually sound like that. Must have been worrying too much over the $400 haircuts.

Biden, to my surprise, was NOT boring as he usually is.

It was last night. All Dems are well awared and ifnormed. Extremelly smart on important issues. It is actually fairly easy to vote for one of them. Republicans on the contrary on their first debate were kill, kill, kill, revenge, revenge, lie, lie, and none of their stands on important issues were challenged. I hope tonight CNN does a better job than Fox news and challeges their knowledge and future plans if one were to win the party nom.

Ron Paul 2008. God please save this country... if Hilary gets in then we've got Bush Administration # 2

Nobody, since nobody watched.

I think Obama did not do as well as the rock star status hype surrounding him. My husband, who was leaning towards Obama, liked him less after watching the debate. I think Hillary was probably the biggest 'winner' in that she probably maintained her leader status. I think she got everything she wanted from the debate, and the moderators promoted her as the 'front runner' from the get-go. She was center stage, and the outliers in the polls were positioned accordingly.
Similar to what others have said, I was disappointed that the 8 candidates were not featured equally. The three front runners were center stage, I guess so they would appear on camera as much as possible and I feel the majority of the questions went to them and they were given the most response time.
Another winner from the debate I thought, was Joe Biden. Both my husband and I liked what he had to say and will be following his campaign more.

Shame on CNN for the way they conducted the Democratic Presidential debates last night. No election has taken place. There are no "front runners" yet. How dare you put Clinton, Obama, Edwards in a 3 shot together ! You curtailed what could have been a more informed conversation by leaving the other candidates out.

Wolf Blitzer is a true journalist. This was not a good setting for his abilities.

We also felt tha Rick Sanchez was ridiculous... more suited for a basketball game. He asked questions, led answers, and interrupted the guests as they answered. Really over the top.

Obama hurt himself with me, anyway, because after hearing some of his smooth and lyrical speeches, I was surprised at how hesitant and jerky his off the cuff remarks are. He is clearly not the deep thinker I expected - someone else is obviously writing his speeches for him.

Jo Biden reminded of of why I am a Democrat. Thank you, Sen. Biden.

Hillary played it safe, and I imagine if she is elected she will also play it safe. The woman has the passion and excitement of a dead seal.

Gravel had nothing to lose but lost it anyway. His lack of experience on the national stage came through loud and clear.

Chris Dodd showed himself to be the career politician that he is. He laughed out loud at the Olympics boycott suggestion, and he defended earmarks as part of the process. He may be a decent senator, but there is no presidential timber in that man.

Richardson needs to define himself, and quickly.

Dan wrote "They all hurt themselves by being so anti-American – especially the ones that voted to allow our troops to get killed".

To correct you, we are not at war (i.e. Congress has not voted to declare war). So who exactly is "allowing our troops to get killed"? Bush didn't even need a vote to put them in harm's way.

I think Richardson did poorly at the begining, but finished strong. At the end of the day, people are at least talking about this guy now, and all of it isn't bad. He has some work to do on figuring out how he wants to talk about his immigration strategy. His resume is his strength, and I don't fault him for making sure people know his experience.

I think Edwards hurt himself the most when he attacked Clinton and Obama. Edwards's strength is that he's positive and a candidate for hope. In the end, his comments such as, "The war on terror is a bumper sticker" will hurt his campaign more than help.

I believe the Republicans won the debate as the Democrats clearly showed they were either completely wrong on the issues or completely unprepared to become Commander In Chief.

Hillary was the best prepared, but her negatives and skeletons will eventaully doom her in the general election.

Obama showed that his lack of experience IS a problem, and it would be dangerous to put a novice in the Oval Office.

Edwards is a trial lawyer and signifies the many reasons why the world would be a better place if we had fewer lawyers in it.

Joe Biden did a great job and I wish more Democrats were like him instead of those falling over themselves to pander to Kos, Moveon, Cindy Sheehan, and Illegal Aliens.

None of the candidates embody leadership that Americans want as President. In the entire history of the US, only two sitting Senators were elected, JFK and Humphrey. These three do not have the leadership to be the third Senator elected President.

I think Edwards hurt himself the most. He wanted to distance himself from the other canidates, but he came off as being consided and overly aggresive. As an undecided voter I have gone from three possible canidates to two (Obama and Clinton). However- Biden put a spark in things and I will be watching him closely. He may take over John Edwards place in this race.

Richardson and Gravel.

My friends and I laughed every time Richardson brought up New Mexico and such. He prefaced every answer with "As gov. of NM..."

Gravel also hurt himself severly. Towards the end of the debate he was merely yelling like a lunatic.

Clinton hurt herself slightly but only by being out of control with her non-verbal communication. More than once she glared at Edwards like Ali glared at Frazier.

Edwards and Obama helped themsleves IMHO but thats about it. I think they are in a 3 horse race with Clinton.

I thought that once again Governor Richardson was terrible. He can't seem to answer a question directly. He lapses into his "I am a Governor" spiel, which has gotten annoying. I just wish that one time he would give a direct concise answer to a question.

I think the Democrats hurt themselves big time when they all failed to raise their hand in support of English as the official language of the United States. It is an example of how the party desires to gain the support of illegal hispanics at the expense of the culture of the country.

The biggest losers last night were Edwards and Obama. Edwards constantly attacking the others and Obama's careful tip-toeing as to try to not offend ANYONE. Obama also did not really look interested to be there.

I had heard a lot about Richardson prior to the debate, and I feel as though he is certainly the most qualified for the job; however, the structure of the debate was poor and devisive, which didn't allow for a candidate such as Richardson to get his points across... had the debate been more productive, I believe he would have been the clear winner. I will acknowledge that he does need to work on his debating skills a bit.

Biden also impressed me... very straight talker; do I hear VP Biden? Delaware has quite a Senator working for them.

Kucinich: Oh, how I wish more people would take him seriously; he could really turn this country.

Clinton, Gravel and Dodd didn't make much of an impression on me.

All in all, I thought the debate was poorly done by CNN. Stop hand picking the candidates for us... give more time to the other candidates aside from Clinton, Obama and Edwards. And if I ever see another debate which is so obviously designed to be devisive instead of informative and productive, I will be VERY disappointed.

When are the rest of the Dem field going to go after Clinton and her "reasons" for voting for the war? Her own comments prior to the vote clearly put her in the pro-war camp. Her lying to the American people will not change that.

If the firld does not start to clallange her then NONE of them should be President.

In my opinion, Hillary Clinton was hurt the most. She came off as stiff and scripted, and there was probably more discussion and references about her husband than her ideas.

I find it quite amusing how thousands of people watching the same thing, come up with such different opinions. Maybe it is based on bias preferences. I for one like Hilary Clinton, but in all honesty I found Obama to be the clear winner in this debate. I think he answered all questions with confidence and articulated very well. I really appreciated when he called Wolfe out on the language question. The media may like the back and forth cat fights but I do not believe that is what we the viewers are looking for.

Obama,tell me again why he's considered a legitimate candidate.

We turned the sound to mute when Richardson spoke after a while. I don't think he knows why he is running for president, but really likes politics and what he did before.

Why did we primarily hear from Edwards, Clinton and Obama? Someone earlier in the comments mentioned they felt this was media bias; it sure looks that way!!!

Obama was a complete joke. I would want him around as a party leader anytime soon.

Edwards...and quite honestly, all of them. Here we have new, fresh democratic presidential candidates pointing fingers at each other when they should be pointing fingers at the party that has ravaged this country. It's like one giant, professionally educated schoolyard filled with spoiled children.

Hilary Clinton hurt herself the most. She is only a politician in all her answers and has abosolutly no clue how to solve any of our countries problem. She could not even manage her familey. Oboma seems lately to be following in her footsteps.

I think Hilary's support for Bush's so-called "glogal war on terrorism" seriously damaged her credibility. She appears to be "intellectually challenged" when it comes to recognizing Bush-lies.

I thought they were all great and I'm not a Democrat. But Edwards was clearly head and shoulders above the rest. He will be a great President if the Dems have enough common sense and guts to nominate him.

Edwards–

He was attacking and got caught when Obama returned with "You are 4.5 years to late on this one". He has little to stand on really. I think he would be a great president and most of them would, but there is little connect to his perfect hair.

Who hurt themselves the most at the Dems debate?

WOLF BLITZER ... if the "Debate" is all about the candidates then why was Wolf center stage and always on camera? And, oh by the way, the idea is to hear the candidates express themselves not Blitzer constantly interrupting. Finally, Wolf directed too many questions to the "Big Three".

CNN can do better.

Obama. People seem surprised at how bad he looked why?? What has he done to deserve a nomination for President. He is a manufactured candidate with no experience whatsoever. He is very good when he has a written/studied speech in front of him. Bue he is uncapable of thinking on the fly. He demonstrated a serious ignorance on Policy and International Affairs. Everytime he appears in an interview he starts studdering. Ahh, ahh, ahhh. Haven't you noticed? Enough with the hype! We need someone who is qualified!! No substance with Obama. None!

Joe Biden flourished, showing his knowledge of complex situations and spoke straight forward. He clearly won this debate. I am an Obama supporter and felt that he did relatively well as did Sen. Clinton. To answer the ques. Bill Richardson hurt himself most by constantly rattling off his resume instead of policy proposals. Joe Biden spoke clearly and forcefully. I hope it brings him up in the polls

Hillary is really showing her true colors. She will say ANYTHING to get ahead. The other candidates do some of that too, but Hillary is by far the least genuine. We need a democrat up there who has some bit of patriotism, and she has NONE. It will be very scary if she becomes president.

Hillary. Her answers showed that she is just running on her husband's credentials.

"Bill Bill Bill" etc. She doesn't stand on her own.

And she still can't take any responsibility for her vote. Everyone who voted for the war has shared responsibility for it. Its not just "Bush's" war as she put it, when you have to have a Majority Senate vote to allow it.

It showed that there isn't much to her candidacy other than the "Bill Clinton" nostalgia.

They all lost because they continue to forget that they work for the American people and not Big Business.

Obama did not score high with me. Lots of words, but skirted or ignored most of the questions.

Hillary, I hope. Isn't "thoroughly briefed" an oxymoron? If she(and the rest of them)had bothered to read the entire report maybe they would have denied Bush the opportunity to get us into this mess in the first place.

I would like to like Bill Richardson. He has a very impressive resume. However, the debates have not been kind to him. He seemed to have difficulty articulating his thoughts; he appeared uncomfortable; and he spent too much time before answering questions explaining his previous positions held.

They all lost. They all stink.

I agree completely with Kimberly from NH. Blitzer & CNN are the ones who hurt themselves most. Anderson Cooper should've moderated; I found myself wishing Blitzer would somehow have been swept off the stage, breaking the "rules" he set up for the candidates. As a media person, his role was not to "stir things up," but simply to MODERATE, stay on point - and the senseless hypotheticals were sooo totally in the same vein as Brit Hume's rant about another terrorist attack scenario.
As for the candidates themselves; Edwards seemed weaker; I admire Kucinich, but he doesn't stand a chance of getting the nomination.
I felt Sen. Clinton did better in this debate. I believe all the candidates have something to offer - and while only one will get the nomination, I believe there's room for ALL of them in cabinet positions in a Democratic administration.

Bill Richardson had a terrible night. He may have knocked himself out of the box.

Frank Gravel looked like a crazy man. Obama seemed lacking (I was surprised, I thought he would at least display passion, but I saw little passion or command of issues.) I am torn between Hillary and John Edwards. Hillary looked good, sounded presidential, and has an air of competence. I want to see a woman president before I die. But there is something appealing about John Edwards; he has clearly studied the issues and has prepared himself for this election. So by the time the NY primary comes around, I will have decided between one of those two.

Obama really hurt himself the most. Being from the neighboring state of Missouri, I was really impressed when he ran for Senate in Illinois, and even commented to my wife that I thought he would be a viable Presidentiial candidate someday. However, when he announced his candidacy for 2008, I felt he was still a little too wet behind the ears...and his performance last night just verified that fact. His comments on the Iraq war (which I agree truly needs to be ended), show the Senator's idealistic side. However, while idealism is laudable in a Presidential candidate, it must be balanced with a healthy dose of pragmatism...something the distinguished gentleman from Illinoi still lacks. I am hopeful that Senator Obama will be a viable candidate for President someday, but he is clearly not yet up for the task. While I thought I'd never say this out loud, Hilary Rodham Clinton dlearly won this debate and I'm saying so objectively (though not yet decided, I was leaning toward Edwards until last night).

So, who at CNN chose the title for this blog "Who hurt themselves the most?" Let's see what they call the blog the day after the Republicans debate, "Who will be the next president." I am so tired of the right-wing spin. ENOUGH!!!!

In order of "hurting" themselves the most:

Gravel reminded me to Perot's running mate Stockdale - "Who am I?" "Why am I here?"

Richardson sounded like a robotic verison of his "resume" commercial. One more mention of being Governor of NM or UN Ambassador and I was ready to throw something at the TV.

Clinton answers were canned and very (very) safe - reminded me of hypocratic oath, "First do no harm." Her remark "We are safer now than before 9/11" was ridiculous - why didnt' Wolf chime in??? Maybe she is, but "we" are not!

Biden seemed to get excited too much trying to make a point.

Obama's "Bill Clinton fist" should go! Enough of the "pointing clutched thumb" and large hands all over the place.

Edwards seemed distracted and didn't always answer the question asked, but he was hurt the least of the top three contenders, and he didn't pull any punches when he named names.

Kucinich didn't have anything to lose but time/money because he doesn't have a chance.

Kucinich clearly made the most sense and seemed the most human

Edwards was a complete mess and by far hurt himself the most

Clinton was clearly more on point than Obama mostly because she actually answered the questions, Obama seemed like he may as well have been at a solo campaign stop and was never saying much of anything on topic

Edwards hurt himself the most. He came across as a true lawyer. The angry old man from Alaska was the funniest to watch.
I'm leaning towards Obama...but I must admit, Clinton came across as the most presidential. She appears to be a tough, intelligent, cool-headed lady with style.

Edwards was clearly posturing in his comments and looking for some cheap points. He has not shown much leadership on the war either and it is easy to point fingers from the sideline. I agree with Donald Trump, he had his chance and he blew it. His response to what he would do in the first 100 days was ridiculous. Travel the world? Please. Any new president needs to address Iraq first and likely will so let's skip the fluffy answers. Clinton seemed to have the greatest grasp of the issues and seemed to actually know what she was talking about. She is the only one who probably understands how hard dealing with the health care problem is so again Mr Edwards give it up. The question about what the candidates would do with Bill Clinton was obnoxious. Why be that petty and pointed? At least ask what the candidate would do with ex-presidents, don't single one out. On that note, don't ask candidates to raise their hands. Clinton and Obama were right on with calling that practice for what it was. It minimizes the complexities of the issues and belittles the candidates. I appreciated Gravel's candor. It seems his main goal is a reality check to the pandering and I think the debates need that. Senator Biden was right on about Darfur and seemed honest about his answer. I was similarly impressed with Mr Kucinich's straight answers.

It's a shame that the trio of Edwards-Clinton-Obama have been virtually cemented as the only candidates with a chance by the media, because I was impressed by some of the lesser-known candidates, including Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich. I didnt know much about any going in, and I hope Biden gives the others a run for their money– clearly experienced, intelligent, and passionate. Kucinich made good impressions and took bold stances but clearly has little chance, and its a shame.

Richardson came off to me as a good "behind-the-scenes" guy, but in no way is President-material. Gravel seems to be just making a point rather than a serious run.

Out of the "Big 3," none of them did anything to get me off the fence: Hillary does seem to be dodging some issues (but it's because she's the frontrunner and wants to stay there– once she gets the nomination she can divide from the GOP candidate); Edwards gained some points by being unafraid to take a stand, but I'm still skeptical, he's unclear alot of the time; I was expecting more out of Obama, he did indeed appear hesitant and did nothing to stand out this time around, although he's still probably my favorite at this point– I want the most intelligent person possible to run this country after Bush.

Half of Blitzer's questions were awful: How would you use Bill Clinton? Come on! Barack answered this best by saying Mr Clinton may have his own opinion about this.

Kucinich is a joke, even if I don't know how to spell his name...

He looks like a gnome...

John Edwards for trying to boost himself for cutting down other candidates. That's what they did in the last race and the Republicans used their remarks later in ads against those candidates. Don't they still teach that the value of history is that you should learn to avoid future pitfalls by knowing what was done wrong in the past?

It's so frustrating how blind some of you people are. I mean, obviously it doesn't help that the media leads you along a lot of the time, but I really wish some of you people would understand how important other issues are than who voted how on the war in the first place. That is so miniscule but you people fail to see that. What they were voting on was something totally different than what they got. You people don't understand that our Pres and VP are the only people to blame for the war. Period. The congressmen and women voted on something totally different. At the time, GW actually had a little bit of authority and people put weight into things he said. If there are two views, one says there is a chance things are going to fail and there are no WMDs and the other view says there are WMDs and we can take out Saddam no problem. When the President of the F'ng United States strongly supports and believes the latter view, IT HAS AND SHOULD HAVE A LOT MORE WEIGHT. You need to stop blaming congressmen for how they voted. It's so irrelevant you don't even know, which is why I have no care for Obama since that's like his favorite thing to say ("I was against the war from the start").

As for the main topic. I am saddened to say that I think my favorite candidate Bill Richardson was the least impressive. I don't think it will hurt him that bad though because at least he got his name and face out there, but he beat to death the fact that he's governor of NM. As for who's votes will be the most hurt, I think Edwards will lose a lot of votes. He was hardly impressive at all.

Joe Biden in my opinion was the most impressive by far. He showed passion and not only that, but he showed it about important issues (Darfur especially). Kucinich was also impressive but it's too bad he's such a longshot. Those two, along with Gravel although I have no interest in him, are the only candidates who have shown that they have passion and integrity.

This is brilliant, Rovian. Perfect for the corporate-controlled "news" media. Open a comment section with a question begging for anyone to sling mud all over the Democrats.

It's visible that Obama has great ideas, but his presentation skills are poor and he will eventually fall behind Edwards and Clinton.

The biggest loser by far was Bill Richardson, how many times do we have to hear that he spent time in Africa or whereever?

The only people that appear to have any real brains are people that aren't going to come close because they're not a celebrity: Kuchinich and Gravel

I believe Edwards is the best choice out of the celebrity candidates, but it doesn't matter.

None of them is going to beat Guiliani.

I can't understand why Senator Biden
is not leading in this race. He is
the most experienced, the most qualified, the most intelligent the
most honest. He speaks with candor,
intelligence, passion and compassion.
Yet the media keeps pushing Hillary
Clinton & Obama, both of whom have no
chance of winning. They are the
Republicans dream. Senator Biden
speaks the truth, and he would make
an outstanding President.

I thought that Biden did well. He really was forceful and explained his vote for the continued funding of the war in Iraq although I strongly disagree with him on that. Also, Obama was strong and Hillary had some good zingers and sounded great. I was for Edwards but a little less so now. He seemed over the top and desperate to attack the top two.

Gravel and Kuchinich should not be up there. Gravel is way out in left field and seemed lost and didn't sound professional at all. Kuchinich is way too left wing for even most Dems. How can he blame the Dems for not stopping the war when Bush can veto and sustain any bill in both the House and Senate?

The American people were hurt the most last night. Not one of these bums should be elected dog catcher, let alone receive a presidential nomination. It was more of a contest of who is less of a loser and no one wanted to win. Go Brownback!

Obama seemed like a stuffed shirt with very little substance to back up his banter. If the media didn't like him so much we wouldn't even be talking about him. Edwards had to be aggressive to score points over the two frontrunners but made no progress. Clinton was the uniter. She was very personable and presidential. She'll get the biggest boost from this debate.

I don't no who hurt themselves most, but I'll tell you who hurt themselves least- Al Gore, by not being on stage with these people.

Based on the responses I have read here, the big loser was whomever each individual wanted to see falter. There are a handful of responses that are unbiased reviews of the performances in the debate, but most are "My guy won" or "My guy's toughest opponent lost" answers.

As to the notion of the "lesser" candidates bowing out now, I could not disagree more. It is June of 2007. The primaries are a LONG way off. Now is the time for a myriad of voices to be heard, not to let CNN decide who the top tier candidates are and who is not a "real" candidate worthy of being in the debate.

I think damage done in the debate on Saturday night was minimal, but overall I would have to argue that Governor Bill Richardson hurt himself the worst in the debate. As for the other second-tier candidates, they did not have much to lose and out of those only Senator Biden came across well. The three top-tier candiddidates did not really set themselves apart, with perhaps the exception of John Edwards who obviously sought to differentiate himself from the other two. I can't help but wonder though if Hillary Clinton's refusal to apologize for her vote on Iraq didn't come across as stubborn and even a little arrogant to New Hampshire voters, I know it sure came across that way on television. Overall Edwards and Obama looked most Presidential and probably gained the most from the debate as far as New Hampshire is concerned.

Obama.
After reading his book, i saw exalt him as a great potential leader. He was so abstract and unsure of himself. He had no solid answers for anything. He's looking like a hollow monument at the moment

I think Edwards did the most harm. He did come across as divisive. I liked Obama. Hillary is going to have a rough go of it because she voted for the war. I really, really want to like her but she makes it so hard sometimes.
By the way Jake, Obama and Clinton answered the Osama quesion correctly. The only person we are really at war with is Bin Laden.

I felt statement with most zing in debate was from Alaskan Governor: "That anybody who voted for Iraq War should not run for Presidency".

Richardson hurt himself the most, with Edwards a close second.

I though it was a toss-up between Clinton and Obama who actually 'won'

My thoughts today are that the time will never be better for a president or a VP with the name Barack Obama. Imagine the rest of the world's reaction to his election, how enlightened the rest of the world will think we are. To have someone talk AND listen to other world leaders. How wonderful it will be.

Here's hoping for a Gore/Obama ticket!

Sen. Obama seems to be the most sincere and direct person in this race. I wasn't sure who to support, but I must say Sen. Obama is the most refeshing candidate in a long while–Unlike Sen. Clinton who continues to prove that her well-oiled machine is squeaky and scripted.

Edwards hurt himself the most. He had no coherent points, and really sounded foolish about the war. Even if we ended up in this war under false pretenses, we're still fighting Al Qeida there now, and still have to win. In 2002, he's on tape saying that we have to go to war with Iraq, and that he wouldn't politicize the war.

Richardson lost me completely. Obama seemed hesitant and definitely side-stepped most questions – a very disappointing performance (I'm one of his Illinois constitutents).

I was never a Hillary fan and last night reinforced that opinion. I was impressed with Edwards until his response to the what he'd do in his first 100 days. Have to end that war!!

Would like to hear more from Biden and Dodd. I love Kucinich for his unabashed honesty, but know that realistically, he cannot win the nomination. He and Gravel should drop out.

I was extremely impressed with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden. I didn't even know who Biden was until this debate, why is this man not a front-runner?

The crotchety old man on the extreme left hurt himself the most, followed by Kucinich who reminded me of someone who probably got picked on a lot as a kid.

Obama comes across as far too full of himself, and unfortunately full of "it".

I found Bill Richardson playing the "resume" card too often. His communication was unclear and at times I was confused by his answers. Biden on the other hand was a machine last night. Clear, direct and to the point. great stance on Darfur. Other candidates just "talked" about moral leadership. He is the real deal folks. Although I'm still a huge Obama fan – Biden was the most impressive.

Bill Clinton spoke at the Knox college graduation ceremony in Galesburg, Illinois yesterday. This morning on the radio I heard an excerpt from his speech in which he encouraged the graduates to be the kind of person who looks to make a friend rather than one who makes an enemy. Shortly thereafter, in the same radio broadcast, I heard Hilary making a statement during last night's debate in which she attacked George Bush for his lack of leadership, but offered no constructive idea of her own. Haven't we had enough of the good cop/bad cop routine from Bill and Hilary?

Hillary was the clear winner – she was clear, decisive and knowledgeable. She was on point, demonstrated good judgment and was presidential. All of the other candidates failed to measure up to the standard she set. If she is elected, this country will finally have a capable individual as president.

Clinton's connections and face;
Edwards stance on Health Care;
Biden's passion;
Obama overall!

I say Richardson had the worst moment last night in response to an audience question in which the woman referred to her son in the military, but only 30 seconds later Richardson repeated it as her husband. That's completely unacceptable in my opinion. I also thought Kucinich continued to prove he does not have what it takes to be President by supplying such a ridiculous answer to the question about taking out Osama.

Edwards hurt himself the most by repeatedly being divisive and cruel. I was again impressed with Obama for his thorough answers and clear ability to build consensus, even among his opponents. These are the skills that we need in order to rebuild our nation's image!

I think Senator Clinton has proven that she is the one to beat. And that Obama is lacking a lot. Who hurt them self? Edwards sid stepped and did not give any good awnsers.

In my opinion, I think Hillary Clinton hurt herself for her stupid comment saying that we are safer now than we were before nine eleven. I mean what kind of world is she living in. Also, Barack Obama lost because of how he failed to differ himself from any of the other candidates by not attacking any of them. John Edwards won between the frontrunners and Joe Biden I thought won overall. Those two for their positions are the two candidates who could win the general. Clinton and Obama would never win a general, which is why their supporters are stupid.

Not one of them improved their standing. So far, these debates are a waste of time. It is way too early for these debates to make any difference. The only good these debates serve is to give the candidates practice at beating each other up; no one will remember these debates.

Dodd showed a dissapointing lack of courage. To laugh at the idea of boycotting the Olympics, as if years of documented genocide was not reason enough, is tragic.
Posted By Matt, Columbus, Ohio : June 3, 2007 9:59 pm

Boycotting the Olympics IS laughable. The Olympics are an event meant to be apolitical. It is a place for athletes from around to world to interact and enjoy themselve, regardless of how stupid their respective leaders are. All these buttheads are just pandering to the masses, and are trying to politicize the Games simply for their own gain.

hilary looked like a stiff with little conversational tone, bad eye contact and only accusatory tones. obama was bright and more optimistic. biden looks like he is always running for vp and dished out a lot of info, a a more animated less likeable al gore. I think edwards tried to make the evening more interesteing with his frontal attack on clinton, but the others didn't pile on and he looked bad as a result.

I'm so sick of people pretending they actually listened to the debate without bias. Everyone knew who they liked and disliked before watching the debate. Let me guess...your favorite won the debate??? I just wish people would listen to what goes on before making obviously biased comments!

I was so disspaointed by Hillary – I can't beleive she said we are SAFER today than before Bush started the Iraq war that has created hundreds of thousands of people who hate our country. She also indicated that we have done our part in Iraq and its the fault of the Iraqis that the situation is so bad – well, I am just disgusted...and I was truly undecided before the debate.

Edwards and Clinton. The person who helped themselves the most Joe Byden. We hear so much about Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I want to hear more about Byden and Kucinnich. Byden is not afraid to take and make a stand and has a great resume. Dennis K has some great new ideas – I think he would make a great VP.

As an independent-minded Republican voter (yes, we do exist!) I watched this debate closely and am worried that at least 4 of the candidates I saw, Edwards, Clinton, Obama and Biden, have the bearing and timbre to defeat anyone (Thompson included) my party nominates.

Bill Richardson, while somewhat better last night, remains clearly ill-at-ease in such forums and could not articulate a clear vision. He is not the first able administrator to show such discomfort.

As for the comment that Edwards was divisive, he understands that, to maintain traction (and funding), he has to challenge Clinton and Obama. He has to clarify what separates his ideas from theirs at every opportunity. I saw nothing in his demeanor that was strident or condescending. He succinctly spelled out his positions and was quite respectful.

Remember, the idea is to appeal to the most voters in the general election. Right now, Edwards consistently polls the best against my party's candidates among likely independent voters.

To Sarah from West Des Moines:

Richardson is an excellent Governor here in New Mexico. He is extremely popular. I was left wondering how you feel entitled to form an opinion when you live in Iowa. He showed just how diplomatic he is, he can lead this country out of a dismal foreign policy slump.

Sen. Dodd talked at length without getting to the point of the questions on several occasions. The gentleman from Alaska was more interested in attacking his fellow Dems. than in offering what he was FOR.

Although I am leaning towards Obama for my vote, I thought he had the weakest performance. I was looking for a lot more out of him. I don't see the same man who gave the speech in front of the DNC in 2004. He looks worn out from the campaign trail...this is a bad sign.

Hillary Clinton impressed me the most. The other candidates even seemed to defer to her as the standard bearer for the group.

I feel bad for Joe Biden. I know he has the knowledge, experience, the tools. But no one like him has a chance to be elected president. You have to endear yourself to people, not lecture them.

Bill Richardson – I think he needs to fine tune his act. I want to like him, I want to buy his "I've done this before" pitch. He needs to work on delivery and be more authentic.

John Edwards – He was the wild card of the night. In some aspects I thought he was effective, and other times I thought he came across as smug.

Dennis Kucinich – Gig didn't work 4 years ago and its not going to work now. But I do think he is valuable up there as an articulate voice for the left. Stick around Dennis and keep fighting the good fight.

Senator Dodd – pack it up

Mike Gravel – pack it up (you're hurting the party)

I think Hillary hurt herself most when she stated, "This is George Bush's war" when in fact she voted for this war and doesn't want to take any responsibility for her vote...not to mention that she never read the "authorization to go to war". Secondly, she wants to end it! How? Does leaving Iraq end the conflict there? Will there be no more killing if we leave? How stable is the gov't running the show over there now?

Bill Richardson – he refused to provide direct answers to questions (even more than the other candidates), seemed confused at times, and kept referring to what he had done in New Mexico ignoring what his plans would be as President.

I'd like to see Clinton get through one debate without a single reference to George Bush or her husband. While other candidates look to the future, she continues to reference the errors of the current president. Does she not realize the most of us have already moved on?

As to her husband, it's time she stands solely on her own two feet. If she's as strong a candidate as she'd have us believe, she should relegate him to the sidelines and quit referencing his past successes. Otherwise, she should be more candid and resurrect Bill's "two-for-one." Hillary shouldn't have it both ways.

I Like Edwards, but I didn't like his attack. Everyone needs to stay away from attacks

I believe Joe Biden hurt himself by being so very loud and over melodramatically forecful in attempting to score points with illogical, and yes LOUD, arguments about his voting again to fund the war in Iraq. His "I'll always support the troops" would have been laughable had the subject not been so serious. You don't support the troops by buying them more bullets ... YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS BY GETTING THEM OUT OF HARM'S WAY IN A QUAGMIRE OF A CIVIL WAR, JOE! (Caps prove I can be loud too, but then I'm only giving voice to the preponderent majority of Americans who are now wondering whatever happened to representative democracy? And he wants to be President?! Just what we need ... another President who doesn't listen to reason.

Hands own Sen. Clinton. No contest.

Sen. Dodd and his vote on the iraq spending bill. After that i couldn't vote for him. That was his end.

wolf blitzer hurt himself with all of his scenarios and giving candidates unfair time

Everything is a hypothetical to Hillary; great job on evading the questions! Mr Edwards showed himself to be a typical arrogant, ambulance-chasing lawyer who tried to cut everybody off. I'm not impressed with any of these candidates!

Hillary was without question the winner of the debate. And, as an Edwards supporter, I'm sorry to say it. Obama was better, but he was no Hillary. Much can be said about Biden's performance, but he'll have to be more consistent. I'm beginning to look more at Hillary. She's tough, smart, consistent and increasingly genuine.

I don't understand why anyone thinks Richardson did well, I thought he came accross as a pompous a**. Hillary played not to loose and Edwards seemed to help Obama more than himself.

One thing's for sure-the mainstream Democratic candidates are an impressive group and represent our best hope at overcoming the disaster that the Bush administration has been. The Republican candidates have not differentiated themselves enough from the Bush policies to deserve a chance to lead our nation out of the depths their party has dragged us in to. We need transformational presidential leadership again and Clinton, Obama, Biden and Edwards can provide it.

I would have to say Obama hurt himself the most. He just started rambling when he was asked about taxes and didn't say anything during the entire debate. Clinton was just kind of there and Edwards was really the only one that looked somewhat presidential.

...Sure, Kucinich proved he was just another crazy person and Gavel showed he was just a cranky old guy, but they weren't going anywhere. As a whole, I think this debate just showcased how much the democratic candidates are totally out of touch with the average American and tomorrow will showcase the also out of touch republicans.

...It would really be nice to have a candidate that was honest (that's not insane) and someone who would discuss all the issues like eminent domain, soldiers in Iraq not having protective padding in their helmets, the poor state of our power grid, lobbying reform, first amendment rights and foreclosure rates being at an all time high.

SAME OLD TALK JUST TO GET THE NOMINATION AND MOST LIKELY DO NOTHING-NOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH THEM–ALL OF THEM TRYING TO SELL PIE IN THE SKY--THEY THINK WE AS VOTERS ARE STUPID.

Gravel and Kusinech both came off as liberally extreme last night. I think they hurt themselves as far as presenting their base political platforms to the CNN's general viewership. Bill Richardson did reasonably well, although his responses were meandering and pouty at times. I agree with another comment that CNN and Wolf Blitzer damaged their own reputations by directing (misdirecting) most of the questions at the top candidates they clearly believed would fetch the best ratings, Clinton, Edwards and Obama. None of these 3 candidates have significant experience, in my opinion. Richardson is still my pick on the basis of experience... AND was spoke the most to the issue of education and investing in the future of this beleaguered country.

I still don't understand how people can say Clinton has no experience and then go on to say how qualified Obama is to lead our nation.

Does that make any sense? I don't think so.

Edwards anger didnt come off well.

Though I like the idea of Hilary Clinton as President, I fear that enough people hate her to not enable a victory against a Republican candidate. I think if she gets nominated, she will need to wisely choose a VP

Richardson disappointed me. I had heard and read good things about him and was looking forward to "liking" him.

But this much-improved debate format exposed him as someone who wouldn't answer the questions asked. He came across as a braggadocio blowhard.

Having studied and written articles about presidential debates, the most noteworthy aspect of this debate was the format – it did a much better job of forcing the candidates to answer the questions, rather than just use them as a springboard to give canned mini-stump speeches on the issue generally surrounding the questions.

Who helped himself most? Wolf! Great job in trying to pin them down.

Hillary won. She was presidential, in command of the issues, demonstrated her deep experience and was funny and, to my eyes, honest.
Edwards lost. He's a loser. A phony. And he came across as desperate and insincere.

Edwards was very disappointing.

Edwards preached the whole night about how Clinton and Obama were playing politics with their votes. But to be honest, it seemed more like Edwards was playing politics by rolling people under the bus in order to make a move in the polls. We all are aware that a lot of democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. Let's move on from that and focus on how to make progress with what we've got on our hands NOW.

It would be nice if Bill Richardson could answer a question without prefacing it with "As Governor of New Mexico"...

Obama seems more and more like a case of media hype: on the issues, he's about as deep as a rain puddle. Only Biden seems deep enough and tough enough to stand up to the inevitable Republicreep attacks that you know will be coming. Vote Biden!

Ms. Clinton clearly demonstrated what it takes to be President of the United States. She was straight forward, informed, and cool. Her war vote is no more than doing what was right at the time. Thank God Saddam is gone. She was trusting of GW and the information given. Courage of her convictions and guts enough to say it. We could not do much better for a candidate.

The Clinton political machine has moles in CNN news rooms and obviously the NY times. Gergen and most of the so called political pundits were all quick to anoint Hillary as the winner of last night’s debate. For people who are paid for what they do, I hope they realized that Hillary’s avoided answering tough questions by deftly meandering in platitudes and constantly diffused Blitzer’s follow ups with crackles of laughter. And Blitzer, what was that Bill Clinton’s question all about. The Republican strategist actually sounded more reasonable that all the pundits last night.

With the exception of Gravel and Kucinich, who are just a distracting sideshow, Richardson hurt himself the most. Every time he was asked a question he avoided it by going to whatever canned response he had prepared for that general topic. The genocide question, especially, was a total dodge from him. Richardson was a legit contendor, and a very safe bet for someone's VP, until last night.

Obama was a little disappointing – he lacked the presence and authority that I've seen from him before. It might have had a lot to do with Blitzer's determination to cut off anyone who took more than 30 seconds to make a point. I suspect he'll lose some ground to Edwards after this, but he's still in good shape.

Edwards was the clear winner. Some of the comments here have derided him for being aggressive, but if you ask me that's exactly what we need in a President: someone who will stand up and tell it like it is, even if that means stepping on a toe or two. He was spot on when he called out Obama and Hillary for their lack of leadership on Iraq. I can't imagine a single American, Republican or Democrat, who could honestly disagree with him when he said that sneaking in at the last minute to cast the right vote is a failure of leadership. Some folks prefer form over substance, and I guess they're the ones who think Edwards was wrong to say what he did. I think substance wins every time.

Biden was also very good. His candidacy got a tremendous boost last night. His passion was evident, as were his knowledge and wisdom. At the very least he should now be on everyone's short list for VP.

Hillary did a decent job. She didn't lose, but she also didn't win. She seemed a little desperate at first to keep the debate watered down and low-key, but I'm glad it broke out the way it did. She'll still be the front-runner after it all shakes out, albeit with a diminished lead.

Dodd may have nice ideas, but he doesn't have what it takes to be President. He didn't hurt himself much, though, because he didn't have very far to fall.

I have just read 112 negative, nasty and hateful comments about candidates who are trying to put forth their views on why America needs a new leader. The big losers are all of us who carp, whine, sit back and criticize others who at least try, while doing nothing to help solve the problems of this country. Get busy, be positive and look at the world with more optimism and civility. And at least have the courtesy to listen and learn. Before spewing so much negativity ... ask the question, "What have I accomplished that qualifies me to say such nasty, judgmental things about others?" Isn't it great to live in a country where we have many options?

I believe Wolf Blitzer hurt himself the most as a serious news analyst. I was waiting for him to ask: "By a show of hands, who needs to go to the bathroom?"

I think the debate was terrible. The clear loser was me (for watching) and all the American people (who may end up with one of these people). I felt that John Edwards lost the absolute most. He came off as arrogant and unclear. Also in the group of unclear answerers was Clinton. I was eager to see her in this debate because I do not feel I know enough about her actual policies, I still don't. I don't feel like she answered anything other than to reference her husband, or to blame all problems on George Bush.

I feel that all candidates lost a little bit last night. No one came across as positive, thoughtful, or problem solving.

This may be the most important election in determining the fate of the American people that has been held for some time. My only hope is that a new Republican and a new Democrat come forward and run.

I think Hillary Clinton hurts herself the most by being Hillary Clinton. It's the potential presence of Bill living in the White House again that makes her appealing to many Dems. If it wasn't for him and the successes of his presidency, she wouldn't be a top contender right now.

Not sure where Obama was. I think he just had a bad night. He seemed sort of muted, but gave a smart response to the question over English as an offical language.

In my opinion, Edwards won the night. Sure, he criticized and elevated an attack game on his top rivals, but it seems like he's trying to prevent flawed leadership in a time when Americans want out of a war that had dubious circumstances to begin with. He has admitted his political and lawmkaing wrongs of the past and seems eager to turn this country around.

Hillary hurt herself by simply trying to be the Den Mother and keep peace. John Edwards won the debate hands down by showing that he is the only one with actual plans, truthfullness, honest and moral leadership!

They all hurt themselves by being so anti-American – especially the ones that voted to allow our troops to get killed.

Hillary Clinton is, by far, the worst. She says that she's going to lower the cost of healthcare and improve quality. THAT ISN'T POSSIBLE AND DOESN'T MAKE SENCE!

Obama sucked, Hillary ruled, end of story.

I'd have to agree with Nathan from Tempe. CNN hurt themselves the most by conducting a disjointed discussion instead of a real debate. Wolf kept throwing out hypotheticals that made me scratch my head.

As far as the candidates the front runners all seem to pander to the audience, afraid they might damage their image. Biden is obviously the most knowledgable and has the most experience. He isn't afraid to speak his mind either. If I were a democrat I'd vote for him.

Ms. Clinton suffered the most by her limpish defense of the Bush Administration and its bumper sticker bamboozling of media outlets such as CNN by resorting to sloganeering instead of substance regarding foreign policy and American security.

Fortunately polls show that, not surprisingly, the American electorate is miles ahead of our pathetic media figures in understanding that repeating the phrase 9/11 is not a policy nor does it provide protection. Ms. Cliinton's adoption of this Republican strategy of weakness will haunt her as the American electorate seeks solutions, not bromides.

Richardson – every answer he gives is framed as a long, boring, usually irrelevant list. Kucinich's short-sightedness was displayed in its usual clarity. I thought Obama and Biden did the best. Hillary gave her safe, predictable answers and Edwards just seemed angry at the frontrunners.

It was truly a breakout night for Biden. Maybe he was a "pit bull" and brought the fire because that's what was needed standing among such blithering idiots.

I think the Democratic debate was wonderful, and hope that the format continues to be a part of the election process. I disagreed with the vast majority of "analysts", who thought Clinton did wonderfully. While she did show great leadership in refusing to answer hypothetical questions, I did not think that she did the best out of all the candidates. I thought Edwards and Biden did the best, because they were specific about their policies and about the issues. That's what we need to know about in a campaign. We got to know them, and their views and intentions, to a much greater degree than Clinton or the other candidates. Both Edwards and Biden have the kind of passion, leadership, independent thought, new ideas and initiative that the next president is going to need. Actually, I think the candidates that hurt themselves the most were the so-called forerunners, Clinton and Obama. Obama came across as slow, and we heard nothing new from him. Clinton did well but, as usual, came across as though she has a chip on her shoulder (perhaps because she's a woman, I don't know). Gravel's hot headedness and Richardson's apparent simple-mindedness came across, but they were not really high up in the running to begin with. I am impressed with Edwards and Biden and I hope that the nation saw their abilities and potential as president. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions.

Obama hurt himself the most by not being substantive on the issues. His attempts at one-upsmanship were too obvious and seemed to predominate his responses.

I think kucinich did a very good job. I was surprised. He answered questions with an honest answer, not an answer rounded and blunted as to not offend anyone. Dodd was a joke. Typical lifer politician stance. Gravel was brave, calling the others out at times on issues. In the first 100 days of office Edwards wants to travel the world. Hah! The world knows who we are and many hate us. We should mind our own damn business.

Kucinich comes across as a first-class idiot. He makes broad statements without the hint of detail or a plan. Why is he even up there? The guy ran a city into bancruptcy when he was a Mayor, now he wants to run a country...Puhleeese...

I am sick of all the comments saying they are turned off by Edwards going on the attack. I praise him for doing this. I want a President who is not afraid to call people out.

"Hillary Clinton clearly has one agenda, do whatever it takes to get elected. She has absolutely no qualifications for the job, besides being the wife of Bill. Obama, is clearly the best fit for our next president. He shows this everytime he makes a decision or speaks."

Obama has very little leadership experience in the legislative branch. Hillary has policy leadership experience in the Senate and in the Clinton administration.

Obama, more than any other candidate, was created and anointed by the media. I have never once been impressed by him.

The thing that I am noticing about Edwards is that he doesn't seem to be having any fun. Not the same guy he was last time.

After watching the debates last night I am struck by how fortunate we are to have so many able and intelligent people running for the Democratic nomination. In the general election I could easily cast my vote for Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Biden or Dodd. All are knowledgable and trustworthy. Ican't ever remember feeling this way before.

Gravel is clearly not a serious candidate, and his demeanor leaves something to be desired. However, he plays an important role in that he opens many American's eyes to a number of uncomfortable truths about behind the scenes politics.

Dodd is forgettable and not worth too much time or attention.

Edwards did exactly what he was "supposed" to do based on the sport that is politics. As frontrunners, Clinton and Obama are not there to tear other candidates down. As a second tier candidate, however, Edwards strategy is most likely to level the playing field by raising some questions about his opponents. It is clear that to many folks, this approach came off as overly aggressive, but the unfortunate reality is that politics is part sport and part psychological warfare. His views and plans are strong, though, and he is a realistic candidate who I believe would do a good job as president. Don't forget that the main goal, above all others, is to get the republicans out of the office.

Clinton did an excellent job of shedding some of her cold, gruff persona and meeting the opposition's criticisms in a thoughtful and steady manner. She is a brilliant woman, and our country would stand to benefit by having a female president. Her husband was arguably the best president we've had in decades, and her views are not far off from his. America could certainly begin its recovery process with her in office.

Obama is clearly one of the most intelligent candidates we've been offered in a very long time. His views are firm yet thoughtful. I have never seen him react in a knee jerk manner. He has an incredible ability for attention to detail, and he is not fooled by the political sidestepping that our media and almost all of the other candidates are often guilty of. Furthermore, the message that the American people would be sending to the world by electing a black president would be one of the most powerful indications that we have yet been completely and utterly taken over by white, male, right wing, republican, religious ideals and dogma. It would prove that we can think for ourselves and still make intelligent (not just emotional) decisions. His "inexperience" is a non-issue, and clearly just another form of political smoke screening.

Richardson was a joke. Anybody who watched the debates last night and left thinking that Richardson's double-talk was legitmate are deluded. His constant need to offer his resume was mildly irritating, but more importantly, his inability to express any cohesive thoughts is a red flag that I pray the American people will finally start to heed now that we have seen the damage that an idiot like Bush can do to our country and our lives.

Biden came across as intelligent, strong, logical, and presidential. He deserves a closer look in the coming months.

Kucinich is unfortunately too radical and left to be a serious candidate. His view on health care in this country is the only one that offers the complete departure from a for-profit-healthcare-system that we so DESPERATELY need. However, it is doubtful that he could ever muster enough votes to win this election, and once again, PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT THE ULTIMATE NEED WE HAVE AS A COUNTRY IS TO OUST THE REPUBLICANS FROM POWER. AS INTELLIGENT, THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE, DEMOCRATS OF THIS COUNTRY, PLEASE LEARN FROM OUR PAST MISTAKES AND STAY UNITED. ALL OF OUR VOTES ULTIMATELY NEED TO GO TO ONE OF THESE CANDIDATES.

Obama hurt himself. He does not look Presidential. He is more of a preacher than a politician. He does not have strong command of the current issues. He needs to work a little harder in the Senate before he runs for a higher office.

It is obvious that Ms. Clinton received the most damage in this debate. The entirety of the rest of the stage levied harsh criticisms at her, and her attempts to sidestep them, not answer them, were ineffective and shaky at best. During much of the debate she also appeared angry, impatient and undiplomatic. These are acceptable behaviors for a candidate intending to shake things up such as Mr. Kucinich or Mr. Gravel, but Ms. Clinton did not help her own standing.

The winner of the debate was clearly AL GORE, because he wasn't there to make a fool out of himself. Al Gore for Prez in 08!

Joe Biden looked more Presidential than anyone else on that stage but due to lack of funds will probably end up as our next Secretary of State. And not a bad choice at that!

Hillay.
She has aname recognition of 100% and approval of 45%-50%. Her task is to change people's mind about her. Anytime she steps on stage and simply meets expectation and doesn't take support away from the others she fails.

I thought Obama, Gravel, and Richardson hurt themselves. Obama is clearly intelligent, but his responses were too verbose and thus made him look weak. Gravel came across as a loose cannon, and it's a shame that time was even wasted on him last night. I thought Richardson was trying too hard to stand out, and he did not appear polished or articulate.

The clear winners were Edwards and Biden. Edwards had the most specific answers of all the candidates and seemed genuine, as did Biden. Biden appeared passionate and strong in his beliefs and, in addition, smart about current world affairs. Clinton had well-prepared responses, but she needs to stop bringing up the current administration. Clearly, anything is better than what we have now, but that doesn't mean SHE should move back into the White House.

We all know the democrats are against the war. They need to stop making this an issue and deal with a radical energy policy for this country and a how they plan to deal with the illegal immigrants in this country. My vote will rely heavily on these two issues.

I won't vote for anyone who does not pledge to pull out of NAFTA, replace free trade with fair trade, end all the endless wars (terrorism, drugs, etc.), and find a way to insure the 1/4 of our country who lacks ANY health care coverage. The three republicans who debated last night should be kicked out of the democrat party.

As usual Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel constantly harassed Senators CLinton and Obama. It is time they think of an exit strATEGY FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRATIONS

Jake from New York suffers from Stockholm syndrome. Pretty foolish to not take a shot at Osama Bin Laden when the opportunity presents itself, regardless of the fact that there might be others in the immediate vicinity who might die.

Obviously you didn't learn the lesson of 911, that we have actual enemies out there who are actively trying to kill as many innocent American civillians as possible, and not collaterally.

We may all have issues with the Iraq war, why it was started, how it's been prosecuted, etc, but to take the position that we should be pacifist in the face of such a threat makes me wish people like you could not vote.

A word to Wolf Blitzer, an interviewer is requred to speak 30% of the time and the interviewee 70%.

Mr.Blitzer rambles, perhaps a word from the producer about brevity.

I don't think John Edwards gained any ground with the finger pointing of his fellow dems.
Hillary Clinton seems to have played it safe saying everything and nothing at the same time. I'm not sure if that's what it takes to maintain the lead.
Barack Obama, did well for himself, but it was Joseph Biden who caught my eye. Very well spoken and easy to understand. He'll gain ground from this I'm sure.

I frankly don't care about the debates.. I care about competence and experience more than ever before and that favors Hillary, hands down. Beyond that, I care about the issues and where the candidates stand on them over any personal attacks or genuiness. If they commit to follow a policy in the campaign, they'll have to live up in office or come close. I am not listening to any personal attacks this go-around. Separately, the only issue that no party or candidate seems to hit right is that illegals are hurting the middle class and Union workers who cannot compete with these folks who are willing to work for next to nothing. The Republicans say they want them out but they and their corporate interests obviously do not. Democrats are afraid they will appear racist– but they also risk pissing off Unions if they don't boot them. Bottom line is illegality should not be rewarded and we have a standard of living that is slipping out of our hands as we speak.

Mr. Edwards demonstrated his courtroom oration techniques well, but failed to demonstrate any presidential qualities.

Hillary was the clear winner to me. She seemed the most knowledgable concerning any question that was asked and had concrete answers which the other candidates did not always have. She is also most in touch with the reality of the many problems at hand.
Mike Gravel is definitely a republican in disguise and I was disgusted with his answers. Otherwise, I think John Edwards hurt himself the most. I originally was leaning towards him, but after last night's debate, I've decided I'm definitely going with Hilary.

As much as I like him and many of his positions, I think John Edwards' approach was divisive and not constructive. He came across as petty and
overly aggressive.

Well, I'd say Gravel but is he really taken seriously so who cares? Unfotrunately I have to say Richardson, mostly because he tended to ramble or try and squeeze mini-campaign speeches into his time and thus failed to present cogent responses. In many ways, he is highly experienced for aspects of the job, so too bad.

I think that there is too much of a strategy of "Vote for me I am not bush". Only Biden and Edwards seem to make real points or have some strategy. Obama gets weaker whenever he opens his mouth. He is an empty suit, with telegenic presence. Still waiting for Hillary to stop playing it safe. We need some real actionable ideas that people can rally around.... Otherwise we are in for flip flopper and swift boats again.

Asking "Does anyone really consider Kucinich a real candidate anyway?" is fundamentally undemocratic. The choice is an individual choice not to be part of a bigger crowd – use your own brain, this is America. Yes he is a candidate, there he is. If you like what he says and what he wants to do – vote for him. If you do not, do not vote for him.

I think Edwards hurt himself the most. Disappointed in his approach, although I can understand the reasoning for being on the attack. We do need a Democrat who will fight, be heard, be focused, speak up consistently – but it seemed unnatural and forced coming from him. Mr Richardson seems like a genuinely decent person, but I wonder about his fortitude. Mrs Clinton seems like the strongest candidate to me at this point – for all of the luggage that she is dragging, she would be tough, knows politics, education is high priority, knows how things really get done in Washington, knows when to pick the battles etc etc.

I think Edwards hurt himself the most by attacking. Obama was not forward and evaded questions.

I think Clintons relaxed style, humour, and take control attitude won her the debate. Some people seem to forget about politics and its "what you say can and will be used against you". I think it shows wisdow to speak carefully and after Bush it is exactly what we need. Politicians need to quit pretending they have the answers or 'magicals beans' to solve everything.

I am not really sure who hirt themselves since this is the first of the debates I have seen. I did see a tendency though of the questions being directed more towards the Top 3 to give them more exposure. Is this Wolf or CNN controlling who the questions go to? Garvel seems to get upset a lot, but I think some of that is because he appears as if he wants to be honest with his answers instead of saying what the candidates think we want to hear. We aren't dumb, so quit trying to make us out to be.

Prior to last night's debate, I was (virtually) certain that Hillary Clinton could not be elected President. After last night, I'm (virtually again) certain that she will be the next President. The disparity between her level of political sophistication and that of the other candidates is startling. Not that she necessarily has "better" positions. However, her ability to distill what she says to a level that is understandable by everyone within earshot is really impressive. She knows when a short sound bite is appropriate, when a longer, albeit simplistic, explanation is useful to her purposes, when she actually has to try to explain (or wriggle out of) a position, and how to make clear that she has no intention of being bullied by a moderator or a competitor. So, rather than hurt herself, she made clear that challenging her is (virtually) a waste of time.

Our country is so deep in turmoil that the past two elections (2000 & 2004) have been so closely decided. We are all going to hear only what we want to hear, and the candidates are going to say what they think we want to hear. I believe that Biden did really well expressing his beliefs and what he wants; same with Kucinich. But realize the reason why they are doing it is because they both know becoming President isn't going to happen. Richardson did the same thing and he knows this. That's why he was brownnosing Clinton, might as well try to get a cabinet position. I can't even comment on Gravel, he's only there go be argumentative and give the Democrats exactly what they don't need, a weak front. I believe Obama, Clinton and Edwards (no particular order) just furthured what we all know that they will be the final three bidding for a Presidential run. Biden is in a close 4th and believe he could do well on any administration. Now I'm looking forward to the Republican debate on Tuesday..

Sen Bidden was most outstanding with his answers.The rest of the candidates were just avoiding the real issue.

Hillary Clinton consistently comes across as knowledgeable, decisive and pragmatic in the debates. She definitely helped her candidacy.

I think Al Gore should enter the race. Following what would be an easy democratic leadership victory against this obvious weak field of candidates, it would be really nice to see him win the Presidential election AGAIN.

Edwards won. Hillary second, Obama third and Biden fourth.

Dodd was not treated fairly by Wolf.

+Hillary performed the best. She was knowledgeable (especially on the out-of-the-box question on Pakistan), comanding, funny, and CERTAINLY more straight shooting (no pun intended) than Obama or Richardson. She was also suprisingly personable. Funny a woman looked the most presidential on stage when only men have been elected to that office.

-Richardson looked like a fool. Just once I wanted him to give a concise answer. PLEASE stop reminding me you are governor of NM...I KNOW!

-Gravel should never be invited to another debate. He was rude and more importantly was making no sense.

+Biden did well, most knowledgeable. Dodd too...his "first 100 days" answer was very good.

-Obama so/so. Great with concepts, bad with specific policies. Proves he doesn't have experience to be President yet.

–EDWARDS=Worst of the night. If Hillary and Obama were not frontrunners he would not have atagonized them. He is washed up, grasping on to dear life to stay top-tier and it shows. Just a complete turnoff overall.

+Kucinich is very intellegent and stood out as a true liberal, but its obvious he won't win the nomination.

John Edwards appeared desperate and divisive. Though he took responsibility for voting to go to war and stated his regrets, he should not be so negative toward Clinton. She has stated a number of times that she would not have voted for the war had she known what she now knows. Is that not an expression of regret? What more does he want her to say. I think it is time to narrow the race. Some of these guys are wasting air time. We could get a better feel for who is a legitimate candidate and can win against the Republicans if Edwards, Clinton, and Obama were alone on the stage. All the others are just distractions and time wasters.

Another thought-CNN faired very poorly. I may not love fox, but their debates have been better, speaking of technical crew only. I saw lots of cameramen, there were several technical difficulties, and a couple of camera men who were very unsteady while I was watching the candidates: I felt sick once, after the debate, as a camerman was running and had the camera on. Near the beginning of the debate it happened to, a reference to Senator Clinton, and the camera swung quickly. The questions were okay, and Wolf did alright, but not great. I did like that there was no bell-at first I was worried, but only a couple candidates had issues with that, most of them just answered what they needed to instead of using every second of time. I liked that. But the camera crew was poor, whether that was cnn or the local station.

I have a new respect for Obama... Very intelligent person...Great debater...Knows his stuff!Hillary...UGH...Gets worse every time I see/hear her.Do you really want to give more votes to the GOP?

Richardson came off a little unsure of what he stands for. Edwards just looks and sounds like a trial lawyer. I really liked Biden.

Joe Biden – his passion is his undoing.

Way to go, Hilary! We need words that unite and she spoke authentically of staying together through minimal differences of opinion.

Edwards needs to stop trying to be on top – that's exactly how to fall (and how to lose future support).

Obama was cool – he would make a wonderful vice president. Hilary and he should team up.

Who lost? The viewers.

How can we expect anyone except for Obama, Clinton, and Edwards to make a move if all of the face time is given to these three? Gravel, Dodd, Kucinich, Biden, and Richardson barely got a chance to speak in the first 30 minutes. Shame on CNN and Wolf Blitzer for that opportunity for showmanship.

Where are the hard questions? I heard a lot about foreign policy, I heard a lot about health care. Where is education? Almost all democrats support getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible and almost all democrats support proposing some sort of national health care system. Most viewers are not that stupid, give us some credit.

Let's see some real questions instead of this rehashed, rehearsed, seen-it-all, heard-it-all show. The only ones up there really speaking some sense and from the heart was Gravel. I applaud him for saying what they feel, even if it hurts him in the polls.

I don't think any of the candidates hurt themselves, except, Gravel.

But Hillary Clinton was SUPERB.

John Edwards looked like an idiot, ranting about what Congress should have done is very easy when you don't have to actaully have to govern

As much as the pundits feel that Joe Biden did himself some good: I think his near-hysterical answers were a bit over-the-top and show him for what he really is. He's well short of being a real contender and is over-anxious to grab a headline.

I don't think any of them set themselves apart from the whole group...in a postitive way. The big questions that everyone fails to answer is how they plan on paying for all of their programs. Tax the rich? Do you think any one of them up there make lest than 250k/year? I don't think so, so you can bet the farm and that small amount of money in your savings account that your going to get taxed....again.

Obama hurt himself the most!
Hillary always shows class, brains & style..she's my pick for president.

1. Mike Gravel should retire quietly – he is a distraction
2. Yes, we know all the Dems are anti-war in Iraq, but none gave a realistic process for getting us OUT
3. The 'elephant in the room' is illegal immigration – what is each one really going to do if elected. NO ONE said 'secure the borders first, then develop a plan for dealing with those already here' – that is what I want to hear
4. China owns us – what is each candidate going to do – no one can single handedly cancel NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO ,etc. so what is the alternative.
5. Too much time spend on Iraq with no real answers – marshmallows to and from everyone.
6. I am an independent, but I can't find a candidate from either party who actually represents me – well-educated middle class.
7. They all lost

I think Edwards and Richardson hurt themselves the most. Edwards, try to attack based on leadership and was shot right back down by Obama´s response. Richardson after he told us 9 times he was the governor of New Mexico refused to answer all questions directed at him and was sometime so ambiguous and confusing that I barely knew what the hell he was talking about.

Winner: Biden
Loser: Kucinich
Won a little: Obama, Gravel.
Lost a little: Richardsen, Dodd, Edwards
Clinton basically stayed the same.
Why? Biden was fiery. He stood out. That's good publicity, and his "support the troops, not the war" effort resonated with many. Kucinich came off to me as a hippy/socialist, who, in response to "how will you help beef up the military" responded with "I'll cut out spending on it by at least a quarter." My personal views aside, he has earned a place in the "nice, but a little cooky" category. Gravel has earned himself the same slot, but from "Governor of what?" to "the funny one that knows what he's talking about" is a good improvement. Hillary broke even; she both avoided landmines and redirected all of her negative energy toward, no, not other democrats, but George Bush. She's trying to win the race as the anti-bush. Obama came off as thoughtful, and tried to keep ties between democrats. I wonder if he's running for Hill's VP. Edwards tried to be lefter than left, and he would've won-if Hillary and Obama had played his game. But with Biden and the other big two coming out with moderate "end the war, but be smart" type answers filled with respect for each other, Edwards came out looking overly vehement.
Bill Richardson had to really impress to make it, and he didn't. Smart guy, but he's running for VP. He was always over time, and was meandering on answers muttering a "governor of New Mexico" here, and "I love Bill Clinton" there. He, Gravel, and Dodd will probably be eliminated soon. Kucinich may not be, just like Ron paul may not be with the republicans-he's too fun. Biden may have survived the cuts, but it will depend on whether he has enough ground support in polls. Gravel did come off as the grandpa type, but even when they're mad because they just lost bowel control, they're still typically smarter than we are.
P.S. Tom from Tucson made a comment on someone else's poor spelling, a Juliet of Mountain View, I think. Her spelling errors seemed consistant with dyslexia-I'm glad she is participating in the political process. Mocking her and others isn't appropriate.

Up:

Clinton (generally did well and the "we're not going to respond to hypotheticals" was brilliant.

Biden (the fiery straight-talk thing sort of worked.)

Level:

Obama (calm and collected but a bit dull and didn't come off as strong.)

Richardson (is going to be the VP candidate regardless)

Dodd (did fine, but still in that lower tier. Got shorted on airtime.)

Gravel (what can be said?)

Down:

Kucinich (gutsy candidate, had no chance going in, and has less of a chance after flatly refusing to take out Osama bin Laden in the hypothetical.)

Edwards (I don't know what's wrong with Edwards. He just can't find the sweet spot. He's off his game.)

I used to like Hilary, but the more she talks the less I like her. I am getting so my vote will be for anyone other then Hilary for the democrats.

I DID NOT SEE ANY DEMOCRATE CANDIDATE WORTHY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND I PLAN TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

The biggest gaffe was when Sen. Edwards said that his first priority if elected would be to travel the world. Repairing the damage to America's image is certainly something that needs to be done but for the president to make traveling the world is first, top priority is quite amusing.

The guy from Alaska. What is a guy like that doing on stage with others that have something meaningful to say

Please note my sarcasm:

Biden hurt himself the most. He was shrill and rigid. Men should not a commanding presence or authoritative voice like that.

Obama was too ambitious. He is obviously way too big for his britches thinking he should run for president. Men.

Edwards was too calculating. Obviously he has thought WAY too much about his answers. How dare he plan things out like that. We want to see him be totally spontaneous since he is a man.

All of the men candidates in general seem to have relied too much on their wives to get where they are. That really bothers me. They should stand on their own two feet without support.

Hillary easily won the night as she was intelligent, well-informed, and presidential. The depth of her political experience make her desire to be president completely natural.

P.S. To a non-sexist, this is how many of your remarks sound in the inverse. Cut the sexism!

Edwards' combative style cost him in this debate I'm sure. Mr. Gravel came off as a crazy old codger and all Mr. Kucinich, Dodd and Richardson could come up with were Utopian ideas and solutions which will win the weak minds of voters who can't see through it, but will fall apart in the face of reality. While I thought Biden, Clinton and Obama's realistic answers and solutions were wonderful and refreshing to hear, and I hope one of the three of them gets the chance to implement some of their ideas, I fear that all three of them will suffer because they don't tell people what they want to hear, they tell it like it is/will be.

Until a majority of voters realize that nothing is perfect, Utopian solutions don't work (they just sound nice) and there are no absolutes, we'll continue to have corrupt, inefficient, bogged down administrations (of both parties) and this country will slip further and further on the global stage.

Like noted many times already, Clinton's answers seemed staged and unemotional. I am afraid that she is too concerned with winning and not on her policy.

Obama had his moments, but he failed to really drive it home and hit a home run. It could be his lack of experience, but I certainly won't fault him for that. Reading his books, he certainly has a grounded realism to his ideas.

That being said, Edwards nailed it. There are comments here that fault Edwards for being too rough. I don't buy it. The Democratic Party has been looking for a spine for all too long. I want a President who will stand up for what he believes in, and not buckle when the pressure mounts.

Kudos to you, John!

Edwards is a leader, a visionary, and the right man at the right time.

Ms. Clinton was by far the best in this last debate. I was particularly impressed with how she took the lead in knocking down some of the sophomoric questions (raise your hand if....) asked by the moderator of the debate.

Obama: he was vague and inarticulate, even halting in most of his responses. It was puzzling. Perhaps he was nervous, which is not good for a Presidential candidate.

Will someone please take the time to read these comments. This is one reason why we need Republicans in the White House. No one can spell!!! I think they all hurt themselves. They dodged the questions asked. It was a bad day, as usual, for US politics.

Edwards lost my support with his rude, antagonistic facial expressions while others are answering questions – he did it in the '04 primaries and he's doing it again. It is rude. He is rude. I will NEVER support him.

Obama is clearly the star of the Illinois State Legislature and nothing more. Deer in headlights, doesn't know the issues – only nuances.

Richardson – my God, funding for music class in public schools would be a priority of his first 100 days? His meandering, confused responses were disconcerting at best.

After watching the Democratic surrender debate it appears that all the candidates are for taking the red and blue colors out of our flag so that we can have the same flag as the French – white

Hillary said "when I am elected president..." because its already a done deal. The fix is in, the same way Bush "won" the last 2 elections. After all, the voting machine manufacturers and programmers are on their side, just like last time. You don't think the Clintons hang out with the Bushes for no reason, do you?

John Edwards, by going on the attack. I think americans want to hear about the issues and how to solve them, rather than a bunch of school-yard children fighting with each other. Enough of old-school politics. We want to know what the polititions plan to do for our country. I wish immigration had been addressed further. It is a big concern of most americans.

I think Barak Obama is misunderstood. He did not hesitate in his answers. He gives himself time to consider the question and give a thoughtful answer. He is not a pretty, polished politition who is robotic in his answers. Also, it is not in his nature to attack others. Sen Obama is a "real" person, like the rest of us. But, when you put him next to all these long-time slick polititions, he seems quiet and subdued. We're just not used to a politition like that. He is a thoughtful and insightful man who doesn't want to play "the game". I wish people understood that about him.

Hillary appeared bored and only intersted in not risking her lead. She referred to knowingly killing innocent civilians as "colateral damage"...I'd love to see her reaction if her closest loved one were the victims of her decision to approve "colateral damage". What won't these people do for votes?

I think John Edwards hurt himself more when he took a gab at Barack and boy was he not expecting Barack to take the gloves off on that swift gab back!! Barack Im sure stunned America when he told John that he's 4 1/2 late!! LOL That was the punchline Barack needed and boy Hillary stood thier like "D@mn Barack you're on it tonight and Im sure happy to not cross you tongiht!"

Richardson should definitely drop out – he is not presidential material.

I think Clinton when she said that we are safer now than before really hurt herself. I further think she hurt herself when Edwards again took responsibility for his vote to go to war and she continues to blame Bush. I think Edwards did a great job and it'a about time we had a President who can admit they made a mistake and put forth efforts to correct that mistake. Edwards was the clear winner as he was the most forthright. Biden was a close second as he had well thought out answers to most the questions and you can tell he has a lot of experience.

"Well at least juliet of mountian view won’t be the president. Sure everyone makes mistakes but I don’t want THAT many."

Yeah, I was was tripping on that too. LOL. It's like she was clutching a sandwich in one hand, typing her message with the other, watching TV, listening to the radio and yelling at the kids all at the same time. Sorta scattered.

I thought Edwards and Richardson fared the worst. Edwards seemed like a kid trying to pick fights and get attention. Richardson was just dull.

In my opinion, Hillary won the night. She was strong, steady, and in control – and her Cheney quip was great!

JOHN EDWARDS:
"I don't know if I know what a rich person is."

C'MON!!! That will haunt him for a while.

CNN hurt themselves the most. As usual, the national media and the pundits are trying to step in and annoint the candidates they want to cover during the election. Richardson was the only candidate to consistently key in on exactly what he would do, and gave us examples of his experience and successes. Edwards was the candidate who hurt himself the most, because he fails to show leadership. He uses the same techniques he probably used as a trial lawyer to get people to follow him...he looks and sounds great, but there's nothing beneath the surface. Unfortunately, the media wants what's on the surface, not what's underneath. If the voters in this country want to keep getting screwed, then keep blindly following the candidates you are spoon fed every election.

All of the democratic candidates hurt themselves. None of them want to secure our border and all they want to do is bring up tons of Mexican Illegals to subvert them into our entitlement and welfare systems (more votes). Here is a quote by Theodore Roosevelt, is he wrong?

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

–Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

I'm a moderate republican...conservative on taxes, defense, and the economy...while libertarian on social issues and religion. (don't get me wrong...the GOP is screwing up the issues that make me a republican but they are doing better than the democrats would be) But, I enjoy politics and vote for democrats on occasion if they are the best candidate. After watching the debate they all come off as a bunch of short-sighted whiny babies. The only person that would garner any of my attention is Joe Biden. He speaks strongly from a realistic and rational standpoint. I do not always agree with him but he is real and determined.

Besides Gravel and Kucinich the only other democrat that I wouldn't vote for or feel comfortable with as president after last night is Hillary. She makes John Kerry look like a man of principle and convictions. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind on issues or having a change of heart...but she seems to say or do whatever it takes to give her a chance.

Richardson hurt himself the most. He needed to overcome his performance in the first debate and did not. Although Hillary "stayed above the fray" I thought she should have seized the opportunity to defend her actions in order to make people feel comfortable with her perceived negatives. I did not believe she did that and it made me less likely to vote for her as a consequence. I do believe that Obama started to make me feel more comfortable about his readiness to lead.

All but Kucinich showed their lack of respect for human life when they supported bombing Osama while killing innocent civilians...isn't that our definition of what a "terrorist" does???

It is my view that Obama showed the ability to think through the assaults directed at him throughout the debates. He demonstrated restraint also exibited a suprisingly refreshing view on dealing with every issue thrown at him. I was impressed. His vision is apparent.

Clinton and Obama. We already know George Bush doesn't care who gets hurt in the wake of his agenda. Clinton & Obama's assessment of 'collateral damage' shows they are just as morally devoid (willing to shed innocent blood based on fallible intelligence reports) as the current administration.

Who lost the debate? The American People did... is this the best we have to choose from in this country ?

Personally, I would love to see Edwards surge and become the President, I think he actually is somewhat in touch with every day people and I find his blatent honesty on the issues refreshing, I have even listened to other speaches he has had and where he answered questions being asked of him, he would honestly answer and sometimes it was not what the people really wanted to hear but he went on to elaborate why his answer was like it was and it held water and was resonable and understandable. Obama is not experienced enough, Clinton my second choice, I very much question how much in touch with everyday people she is and I hate her view on expanding more H-Visa's I think it is time that America and it's companies and government invest in America.

Who cares? Giuliani for President!!!!

weak...no concrete answers...no one wants to step on the others toes...lemmings headed towards the sea.

Dennis Kucinich is the most sincere, most courageous, and the smartest of the candidates. He represents my views, and I will support him to the end.

Those of you who think he is a joke should get therapy.

Obama was terrific. He symbolizes the movement for change.

Who determined that format and who put Wolf Blitzer in charge? There might be a good candidate in the bunch but last night didn't reveal one.

I think Richardson hurt himself the most. He seemed confused, not particularly articulate, and often evasive (deliberately?) on answering Wolf's questions.

The clear looser of the evening for me was Wolf Blitzer with his "catch-'em-on-a-minor-issue" questions.

"Should English be the official language of the U.S.?" You get 'em, Wolfie. That's really getting to the heart of our substantial national issues.

Dick R. in New Jersey

Edwards lost what support he might have gained from me. In my opinion, he spent too much time focusing on discrediting his opponents then selling his own case. He chose to use his time poorly. The bullying of his fellow congressmen greatly disappointed me.

Despite what seems to be a general attitude toward him, Richardson impressed me the most and I wish him luck.

Edwards by showing his ego and arrogance. Gravell by showing that he is a wingnut and Richardson by never answering a question at great length.

CNN hurt themselves the most by not enabling Mike Gravel to speak anywhere near as long as anyone else.

Hillary Clinton clearly has one agenda, do whatever it takes to get elected. She has absolutely no qualifications for the job, besides being the wife of Bill. Obama, is clearly the best fit for our next president. He shows this everytime he makes a decision or speaks.

Hillary was my clear winner.She showed a sound grasp of the issues, and looked every bit the next president of the United States of America.

The way Edwards acted, you would think he never voted to authorise the war in the first place. His desperate, angry, new-found self righteousness came over as very phony but I understand that he is behind in the polls and that it'a all politics. I just wish that he didn't came off as such a perfect politician!

Obama's performance was disappointing. I am left with the impression that apart from healthcare, he is shallow on the issues. I loved it when commanded the healthcare issue at one stage and both he and Edwards hastened back to the subject to play back-up while Hillary stood between them with a presidential smile on her face. She had them looking like little boys.

I liked Biden for the first time, I hope he keeps the fire. Richardson, i have always note is the most qualified and I have no doubt that he could do the job. It's just that he came across a little goofy. He should just formulate his answers in a more structured way. The guy is the genunine article so I really wanted him to do well. I hope he does well next time.

Sen Dodd came across very knowledgeable of the issues. In fact he was the only candidate who touched on Education. I would like to hear more from the candidate on that.

Sen Kucinich came across as knowledgeable but he's a peacenik. Poor guy! One of us could never win. I just like him though. Of all the canditate, he is the one I would like over at my BBQ.

Gravel provided a needed balance. I didn't think that he came across as angry, just fiesty!

"Does anyone really consider Kucinich a real candidate anyway?"

-Absolutely. He was in my opinion the only non-looser in the debate.
Takes a lot of guts to say some of the things he said last night.
While the rest treated us to more of the same old.

Hillary hurt herself by not saying sorry for her vote, still. Edwards a close second for the same vote but he's still playing it.

I think Edwards hurt himself most. I had been his fan, but he was so keen in trying to shake up Hillary that he came across as abusive and surly. I think Hillary did best and I liked her sense of humor. I think she has the best handle on the issues-Bill Richardson was also a favorite of mine but all he did was talk about being govenor and his experience there. I thnk Obama is almost a joke-he is charming but he has no experience and in his health care issue, he said "well, we can figure that out later"-you just don't do that. Election is a long way off and anything can happen.

Richardson

Not wanted to answer those stupid hypothetical questions is in not way not wanting to answer the questions, but rather being realistic. Presidents are to make informed decisions on much information, not answer hypothetical situations based on as little information as possible. Hillary Clinton recognizes that. She seems the most realistic. People blame her for not taking a clear stance, but I think it's obvious: no issue is clear. Most of these candidates try to appeal to you by taking one side or the other, making it black and white. Hillary recognizes the complexity of all issues and tries to explain her stance as best she can. Sadly the ignorant American public does not seem to recognize the complexity of our world and situation.

Nobody really hurt themselves although Hillary Clinton was shouting at times. I think Obama stood out the most.

Hillary was the winner. She is strong, and definitely the leader among this group as she demonstrated at each talking point by united the party. Obama is easy to like, but this debate again showed that he needs to add substance. Edwards appears honest, a strong characteristic. I loved Biden, very forceful. Other candidates are not in play. Gravel was entertaining but not serious. Go hillary!

Wake up America! Only JOE BIDEN is giving you the straight answers. the man is knowledgable, compassionate, and presidential. Don't let the media make up your minds for you. Biden is the man to stand up to the Republicans in 08!

Bill Richardson definitely hurt himself. His answers were wondering and vague. John Edwards also hurt himself. He was too aggressive and appeared negative.

Impressions:
Obama – seemed a bit hesitant at times, loved his response to English as official language issue. He, Edwards, and Kucinich seem to be the only candidates with an overall theme.
Clinton – I guess she is stuck being the pro-war candidate at this point. Was very surprised she is openly defending Bush Middle East policy. Did much better than I expected otherwise. She and Obama both came off looking presidential.
Edwards – stuck in the attack dog position, but did it very well. Won the debate IMO
Richardson – wow did he look lost up there, and his answer on immigration was ludicrous. If you advocate amnesty, say so, don't try to call it what its not. I was a Richardson supporter, but am now looking more to Obama after this.
Gravel – Woefully uninformed. The Line-Item Veto was ruled unconstitutional in 1997 or 1998. Came off as a lunatic.
Kucinich – he's so far to the left he scares me, but nice job.
Dodd – poised, but made no impression at all.
Biden – well informed, smart, no chance at all.

Hillary really hurt herself here. Seriously, if you think she won this debate, you need to review the tape. She dodged the Iraq issue by constantly calling it "Bush's War," i.e. passing the buck to an easy-to-hate individual. That way, she didn't have to answer anything substansial.

Her rant against hypotheticals (which Obama started, anyway) was a little misplaced. Unless the hypothetical is absolutely ridiculous (see: Fox debate about there being 2 terrorist attacks in the US, what would you do?), they're a good way to gauge a person's moral and policy compass. She didn't want to answer these questions truthfully, because she was bound to anger someone, so she was just playing politics.

Her ideas on economy are absolutely awful, and people also need to realize that Hillary's policies are not identical to Bill Clinton's. When it comes to economics, Hillary is far closer the socialism than Bill ever was.

That, and she seemed rather insincere the entire night, like everything she said was followed by a wink and a nudge.

Hilary was the most poised and had the best sound bites, but I think voters will eventually realize that she's more of a poitician (in a bad way) than Obama and John Edwards. Obama spoke intelligently and honestly about most of the topics, as did Edwards. And, you gotta love Joe Biden – Always telling it like it is. The other candidates seemed too rehearsed and stiff, without a human connection when speaking about the various topics.

But, that's what, to me, separates Obama/Edwards from Clinton. They (Obama/Edwards) seem more honest and forthright, even when it's tough to hear as a voter ie VA Healthcare, initial raise in war spending, etc. I'd ike to see a Obama/Edwards ticket. They seem friendly with one another, and although they don't agree on all issues (which is fine), they're straight forward with their politics (is that an oxymoron?).

The one thing that bothered me last night about the debate was the lack of discussion about the environment. Who's going to be the President to make real changes on this most important of topics? I was hoping someone would say that in their response to the "first 100 days" question. I guess I'll just cross my fingers and hope that one of these candidates sees that inconvenient truth...

Wolf Blitzer....asking them to raise their hands....and the viewers...what a terrible show!!!

All of them were very unimpressive. None of them understand what its like to be a real human. Unless Al Gore shows up, looks like the Republicans will win!

hillary has always been my least favorite of the credible democrats, and i dread the thought of her being the nominee. i don't think that she did well at all last night. she is all over the map and does not have a true conviction. she tries to appease the particular crowd she is talking to at the time. i, and other professional women in new york city can only hope that gore gets into the race before it is too late and we are stuck with hillary.

Clinton looked flat and lifeless.

Not that this even matters, but the Yankees and Red Sox play 19 times a year. My God, if We The People can't get simple stats right, who is going to make sure the candidates do?

Obama was given too much air time and he "hogged" the time as well. Biden sounded like a bit pull; the old guy from Alaska needs to remove himself; and I didn't appreciate the attacks by Edwards on Hillary & Obama. Biden and Edwards were hurt the most.

I agree with Kimberly from New Hampshire : June 3, 2007 10:14 pm.
The big 3 got all the face time, and Wolf Blitzer was prematurely cutting off all the other candidates!
I especially like how they tried to shut up Bill Richardson when in response to a question about gas prices, he actually suggested that Americans CONSERVE!! Heaven forbid!!!

Richardson was awful. Totally evasive, totally corny. Lots of unrealistic ideas. Gravel was pretty bad, too, but no one was really taking him seriously in the first place. Clinton was calm and held her own pretty well, but she too was evasive at some points. Obama was fine. I didn't really like Edwards going in, but I appreciated the fact that he actually answered the questions being asked, specifically and thoughtfully. He seemed aggressive tonight, but that makes sense. I think he, Dodd, and Biden were the clear winners of the debate.

Bill Richardson is a man moving backwards. He appeared "provincial" given his previous experience. He seemed like a candidate for a school superintendency rather than President off the United States

Wolfe Blitzer hurt himself and the debate in general by asking for a raise of hands in answer to questions when the candidates clearly said they weren't going to participate that way

Barrack just keeps getting worse. I've turned the page on him now. He's just fridgid and too careful not to make a mistake. He is becoming quite the fake.

Its amazing how these candidates can't answer a direct question. All of them blamed Bush everything, as if he is alone in this. They should remember that they voted for the war, but now that it is not going the way they would like they talk about retreat Remember that retreat is equal to surrender.

I think the debate loser was obviously Bill Richardson. I started to feel bad for him as he had nothing else to talk about besides his resume. He really seemed like a bumbling idiot out there. Crotchety old Gravel needs to take a hike as well.

I'm a Clinton fan but Biden really impressed me tonight but I feel he can do no better than VP.

I think the clear winner of the night was CNN (besides the horrible camera work). Great job in getting these eight candidates to actually talk about the issues. Probably the best format possible and it made for great TV.

Obama avoided answering the questions. One mother of a Soldier fighting in Iraq asked about medical care at local hospitals. Obama diverted to his VA-policies and left the mother waiting for an answer. Another candidate had to answer the question for him, allowing him to promote his Health Care Plan.

John Edwards seemed very uncomfortable; unsure of himself; and was probably dreading questions on his $55,000 speech on poverty; his hedgefund salary of nearly $455,000 ('to learn about hedgefunds'); and his $400 hair cut. Think that he dodged a number of bullets last evening, but do not think he has helped himself. His wife did him more good after the debated, than he did himself during the debate. He will put this nation in debt for our grandkids if he is elected!

John Edwards used too much of his time putting others down instead of putting his ideas forward, and ended up hurting himself.

They all hurt themselves. I was not impressed with any of the candidates. I look forward to seeing the republican debate.

I think Bill Richardson is an excellent candidate, but he didn't answer questions well last night. He needs to give shorter, crisper answers.

Does anyone really consider Kucinich a real candidate anyway?

Obama does not impress. Richardson was strong on domestic issues, but we live in a global environment.

Richardson did not impress and when the woman with the son in Iraq's question was answered he referred to her "husband" in Iraq showing he wasn't paying attention. Dodd looked like just any other politico and put me to sleep.

Clinton and OBAMA crashed...leaving only Biden to shine.

Bill Richardson. He was obviously trying to avoid the questions to get to his talking points, and he bordered on the pathetic with his constant attempts to simply high-sophisticated international issues.

Gov. Bill Richardson was not allowed enough of an opportunity to respond to questions. He has the most experience and the best credentials. He gets right to the issues with out a lot of useless talk. Give Bill a chance!

Edwards and Clinton tied.
Edwards – travelling the world for the first 100 days to restore our moral authority. Does he have magic beans in his pocket?
Clinton – how can she say "If I knew then what I knew now" followed by "I didn't read the NIE on Iraq because I had all the information I needed from the CIA, FBI, etc"? I can't believe that people give her a pass on those answers.

I agree - time to start dwindling this group down - Why don't we make this Political Idol and drop off a candidate every week or two

edwards was the worst. he was too busy with attacks than answering the questions. obama won.

Gov. Richardson showed that he is NOT Presidential timbre. His answers went round and round and often ended up nowhere. With the amount of time he consumes with almost every answer, he hurts these debates more than he helps them and it is time for him, and for Dennis Kucinich, too, to bow out of the proceedngs so we have the chance to hear more of what the remaining worthy candidates have to say.

I'll say right now that Mike Gravel is a vigilantee of a politician. He debated here at UVA and demonstrated the same arrogant, divisive, and abrasive tendencies as he showed tonight. I was impressed with some of Bill Richardson's ideas, but his style of presentation – occasionally disoriented and tangential – made him appear less authoritative than the likes of Biden, Obama and Clinton.

Despite claims that Joe Biden had a "breakout night," his arrogant, outspoken tone represents the last thing we need in American politics.

While other candidates like Clinton and Richardson were succesfully building up one another and giving credit where due, Biden merely flamed away with a scorched earth mentality that plagues modern American politics. We need reconciliation and dialogue, not belligerence and ego.

I believe Edwards hurt himself the most. I've always liked him, but he did not come across as a strong leader, as he clearly intended tonight. In attempting to make others look bad, he made himself look bad. He also tended not to look at the other speakers when they were talking. Clinton and Obama would turn in their chairs and listen intently. Edwards stared straight ahead and bounced his foot on his knee...he was either nervous, anxious or pissed off. For some reason, that bothered me...

Last time, Edwards played the pitty-card, wearing a lapel pin of breast cancer reasearch to remind us of his wife. Sad tactic. This time, he took it off and bagan to point fingers. Presidential? I think not.

Hillary Clinton didn't have to do much to keep her well-deserved spot in the race. The Dick Cheaney remark was the best line in the debate!

Edwards with his attacks and Richardson with his non-answers were the worst.

Richardson had a really poor showing. I am little confused as to why he is running in the first place. The only thing I got from the debate about him is what I knew before the debate he's the governor of New Mexico, that's it. I felt that he really could not extrapolate his resume to what he actually plans to do if elected President.

I found Senator Clinton, really arrogant, while people loved the fact that she cut Wolf off about hypotheticals to me it only indicates that if asked, you didn't have an answer. That's not an illustration of leadership but rather saying I don't feel like answering that question; it doesn't fit what I want to say. The other thing was something I caught, I cannot recall what question it was but she said, "When I am elected president..." Wait a minute, we are not even near primaries, you are overshooting and I hate when people do that. Don't get me wrong, she's a great politician, but that's all she is and really we need a president who is not a politician but rather a leader.

I was a little disappointed in Obama, I thought he would have a better showing but seemed hesitant at times.

Edwards hurt himself the most. He pretended to have had the first health care plan. To him, there was no way of not raising taxes. Then at the end of the discussion, the audience learned that Dennis Kucinich was the candidate with the first health care plan, that Kucinich has filed a legislation on the matter and that, unlike Edwards's plan, Kucinich's plan would benefit the people. It was learned that the reason Edwards and the others would raise taxes is that they want to give the money to the insurance companies at the expense of the people. The truth pulled in a huge applause for Kucinich and the first real applause of the evening.

Richardson came across as evasive and a little unclear.

When does the debate start? Looked to me like a PTA meeting ast Starbucks, If Mrs Clinton was not married to the former president would she even be considered a serious candiate? ..... BTW please let the Democrats know that they need not go to Home Depot and buy wood and nails to build a 2,300 mile fence along the Canadian border ...or if they do at least use Canadian lunber.. was that guy for real?.

While none hurt their campaigns, the clear winner was Chris Dodd, Edwards and Richardson made strong points. Kucinich and Gravel made too much sense for the current political environment, which is way too entrenched in corporate donations. Obama appeared tentative at times, and Clinton barely held her own.

I thought Richardson was tentative and unconvincing, and Dodd was invisible. Biden showed some fire. Kucinich has come a long way in four years, but his comment about Bin Laden, which I think was quite courageous and absolutely right on, isnt going to gain him any votes with mainstream dems.

Bill Richardson through up his experience too much and John Edwards going after Obama & hillary too much.turned me off.

First off, NO ONE, No One mentioned presiding of the recovery of the Gulf Coast from Katrina. The last Republican debate and this one. Not one thought on the region. And shame on CNN for not bringing it up as well. I get Mrs. Clinton finally. She's an ambitious politician. Nothing wrong with that. Most of the good ones were ambtious. She treaded water. Dodd seemed removed. Richardson, border guy, western guy, ambassador, played point guard for the Spurs...yeah yeah. Mr. Obama just what do you care about?

Bill Richardson by far, I have never heard so much crap come from 1 person, no way on earth I would vote for him. Besides, he has done a horrible job being govenor.

I guess my wife and I are alone in noticing that Hillary Clinton blamed the Iraqis for the mess that their Country has become? WTF! The U.S. (read George Bush) eliminated the civilian and military leadership during the initial invasion, then failed to properly plan for the post-invasion chaos and that's the fault of the Iraqis? Again WTF? For this reason, along with a host of others, Senator Clinton proved that not only was it a mistake for her to be elected to the Senate, it would be a much graver mistake to elect her to the highest office in this Country. Mr. Kucinich is our favored candidate, sadly despite his refreshing out-of-the-box thoughts and ideas, he will not ever be allowed to become President by the special interest groups.

BARACK OBAMA will be the future PREZ!!

Edwards showed once again that he is the most knowledgeable and the most commanding of candidates. He did a great job and differentiated himself in a way that was not offensive, I thought Hillary did well, but was suprised at how poor Obama did tonight.

cnn failed to ask an obvious question since the democrats are going to be fiscally responsible who is going to pay for all thier ideals///and the standard answer would have been the rich as long as it is not them

I strongly disagree with Donna Brazile's scorecard that John Edwards "looked smart". Edwards looked like a disgusted, poor loser. Clinton, Obama, Biden & Dodd all demonstrated knowledge of the issues &/or "leadership" that Edwards would benefit from following.

Not a fan of the format. Wolf's interjections, trying to keep folks to time, made the candidates seem windy and off-topic. Other than that can someone please tell me why Joseph Biden isn't a frontrunner. He is clearly the most passionate and straight-up guy running. Though I believe having Obama or Hillary as the face of the country would be an incredible moment for our global community, experience, passion, integrity, and a sense of humor carries a lot of weight. Biden-Obama 08!

It was clear that Edwards won the debate. He called out Hillary and Obama, and in the meantime admitted his own mistakes. Unlike Senator Clinton, he doesn't blame anyone for his vote. He is not in the Senate now and had the right to call out Obama and Hillary on their votes. He is clear, concise, and yes, it is time that we took a clear look at all the candidates and realized they are different. I was so sick and tired of this fake cordial manner that has existed between all the candidates. It's about time they start challenging each other so we, the voters, know who they truly are and how they handle criticism from their own party.

Clinton lost, bigtime. She managed in the first two minutes of her talking to align herself with Bush and then blame him for what's happened. You have to pick a side! To say that we are safer now–I don't know what Global Terroist assessments she's been reading, but the ones I've read (and just by watching the news), we've had more terrorist attacks per year since 9-11 than before 9-11. So, um, yeah. Maybe you should have read that meesly 90 page document and quit blaming everyone else for your vote!

Mike Gravel. He came off loud and angry, like a stodgy old man!

Wow. I really appreciate most of these comments and feel similalry about what is said about most candidates.

Richardson (who was my fave going in) kinda lost me tonight. I think he'd make a great Sec of State.

Clinton confirmed my fears of her with her attempt to make differences between them meaningless. Either she is clueless as to the very real differences of her vs. Biden vs. Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel, or she simply doesn't want to acknowledge the underdogs, or she is not telling us the truth. Any way you shake it, she is not yo be trusted.

I think Edwards hurted himself because he tried to harm Hillary and praised Obama. He is unmanly. President should have a gentleman's manner, John's attitude is far away from the qualification, he used other candidate for his answer. Hillary did the best job in debate, she had a fair lady's manner, listen other's opinion carefully, respect others, answered the point very well, she led the debate. Hillary acted and looked the best President tonight.

Hillary did a wonderful job. Biden finally stepping up to plate did a great job making his points. Obama so-so, Kucinich is a real joke, But Edwards was the WORST, if his politics is to slam everyone else and call it truthful discussion.....I think we all had enough!

I want to hear a broader range of topics besides Iraq, what may have been–the future–social security–plans to keep the economy directed-plans for education-the future–not the past

Clinton. As she hysterically twice claimed "they", as if she spoke for everyone there, would not deal in "hypotheticals." Soemeone needs to tell Hillary that her being elected in a HYPOTHETICAL!

I am an independent and had hoped to find someone interesting. I did. Gov. Richardson won.

Why won't any of the candidates really talk extensively about the problem of illegal immigration? The American people certainly think it's important.

Edwards and Biden seemed to stand out above the pack tonight. Edwards was prepared and Biden was passionate.

Senator Clinton and Governor Richardson seemed to give constant non-answers and appeared a bit weak tonight.

Richardson hurt himself the most with me. Several of the people interviewed after the debate had the opposite view. So, maybe he helped himself overall.

Bill Richardson was unimpressive on his positions, but he succeeded in making the voters aware that he has experience, as a Governor, an Ambassador, and Energy Secretary, to lead the executive branch.
The biggest problem with the Bush administration is not its bad policies, it is its incompetence in implementing those policies.
The candidates are not asked enough about their abilities to competently run the executive branch. We want a new President who knows how to get things done in Washington, how to interact with other heads of state, 100 U.S. Senators, and 50 Governors. The President needs to appoint qualified people to head government agencies, and to follow up to make sure the agencies are being well run.
The focus of debates seems to be always on positions. Unfortunately, I thought Richardson's position statements were weak at best.

John Edwards- He seemed to be on the offensive right away.

Obama hurt himself the most as he didn't seem to have a good grasp on the issues and seemed unsure of homself at times.

Clinton got the Zinger of the night (soundbite) About sending Condi, who has never made a deal, and Cheney, out to do ambassador work! Really nailed Cheney!

Edwards was the biggest winner.

Biden did well, and had one of the best answers regarding Africa! I loved Biden, but I think time has passed him bye!

The rest were fine, but they did like to throw criticisms too often at those who are working in the trenches. The Democrats have only had Congress for 5 months, and they don't have enough to even over ride a veto! Being an armchair QB is easy! They didn't have to vote on anything.

The poor sure got left out! The biggest losers of the debate!!

In response to Gene Mellott's comment, I would like to know, what would you rather, a president who acts out of passion, hatred, fury, and fear? Or one who is level headed, and obeys the letter and the spirit of laws no matter what? Being someone who was 2 blocks away on 9/11 I tell you that I would prefer the calm, wiser individual in charge of my nation, not the one out for vengence.
Kucinich showed wisdom and restraint, that his moral character would not waiver, and that no matter what he would always be better than those who would wish us evil. He has my vote and should have that of everyone else in this nation.

Richardson looked awful, he never once had a clear and concise answer, he always started by reminding voters once again that he was the governor of New Mexico. It was a sad performance.

Senator Biden hurt himself the most by blaming the American people for being so dim as not to understand the political process that worked up to 50 votes in the Senate on the last Iraq bill. I do understand the process Joseph, but you only get one vote so don't hide yours behind the others in the Senate to create a shadowplay of defeat for the work that must be done on Iraq.

Kucinich hurt himself the most...though Gravel was a close second. The second that Kucinich took a military strike option against Bin Laden off the table because of collateral damage – he lost America's vote. As for Gravel – he brings granddads wisdom and unabashed opinion to the forefront but needs to temper his style with a smoother approach.

Who hurt themselves most? Wolf Blitzer and CNN. Most of the questions posed by Wolf in the first hour were political rather than substantive and aimed at starting idiotic cat fights among the candidates. I liked that the candidates (particularly Hillary and Obama) called him on that several times. A poor showing for him and CNN. Let's raise the bar in the future here. Not sure WMUR is ready for prime time either, sadly.

It's most disappointing that most of the questions and attention went to the top three–Obama, Clinton and Edwards. It's another demonstration of major media attemtpting to control the outcome. It's way too early to focus in on those whom the media have annointed and to pander with questions that really don't matter, such as, What would you do with Bill Clinton in your administration? Please!

Senator Gravel came off as an angry tottering old fool who doesn't deserve to be included with this group. We were all hoping he would just fall off stage or be suddenly sucked underneath it. No such luck.

Mike Gravel Showed himself as the only grown up on stage.

Obama hurt himself by being to calculating in his answers. He appears to want to say the politically correct thing. Also he desparately needs to challenge Hillary since she is the clear front runner. He passed up every opportunityl

Mr. Richardson,Mr Gravel and Chris Dodd. Pack up bags and go back to your home states. In my opinion you folks are the weakest links of the eight candidates. We need to narrow the field so more time can be spent listening to the stronger candidates.

Hillary Clinton hurt herself the most. Partially this is because of expectations, but I think she showed a stubborness in refusing to admit mistakes that hurt her.

Well at least juliet of mountian view won't be the president. Sure everyone makes mistakes but I don't want THAT many.

I think Gravel hurt himself, not by his positions, but by the fact he seemed to lose it a little bit.

Hilary Clinton also did not fare well in my opinion, but that probably stems from my bias as I am not a big fan. Like many of the candidates, she seemed to dodge the questions and give vague answers. I guess that's what most politicians do, but it seemed to stick out to me when she was doing.

I think Edwards and Biden helped themselves the most. Edwards always seems to come accross as the person most knowledgable about this issues and has the appearance of having the most candor.

As stated in a previous blog, Biden definitely brought passion to the debate. I think that will gain him some supporters, but it remains to be seen whether he can garner enough support to move up into the next tier of candidiates.

As for the other candidates, I think their performances neither hurt or helped them.

All in all it was a good debate.

I feel Edwards did the worst job. I used to like him but now I know I will never vote for him. All he did was Whine, point fingers and play the blame game. Biden did a great job and told everyone "how it really is". Hillary looked great, and presented herself very presidential.

Mike Gravel hurt himself the most. He comes off as an out-of-control angry man. Perhaps he has to strike a pose of righteous indignation to get some attention up there, but I think we went too far.

I think Edwards and Obama hurt themselves. I like Obama, but was unimpressed with him this evening. I was suprised by how well Clinton did and was impressed by Bill Richardson.

Dodd showed a dissapointing lack of courage. To laugh at the idea of boycotting the Olympics, as if years of documented genocide was not reason enough, is tragic.

I think Clinton hurt her campaign because she's still not being straight about the war and I really do think she isn't genuine and that she just plays too much politics... Edwards did great though when it came to the war so kudos to him!

After Reviewing tonight's debate, although i don't think she did a bad job, Hillary Clinton didn't show me anything new to garner more support for her campaign. She did renew some old ideas, but she did not generate any new ones.

Senator Clinton. She showed once again that she'll say anything (or nothing) to get elected. Somebody should have asked her the definition of "is"

hillary is the ebstc andidate- bill clinotn is world ambassador- obama docked it-hes not expreience anyway.
bill richardson is the ebst. he could be hillarys vice preisdent. edwards doint ok but not very well- he should go back to the senate.

Edwards. He was all over the place. Most of the time he did not answer the question asked.

THE CLEAR WINNER IS HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON-OABAM JUST AVERAGE-BILL RICHARDSON IS DOING WELL- HE SHOUDL BE A VICE PRES. FOR HILLARY CLINTON.HILLARY CLOJ NT A PORES, AND BILL CLOINTON IS WORLD AMBASSADOR.THE BEST MAN FOR RPES, THEN AND EBST MAN FOR AMBASSADOR.

I think Edwards hurt himself by constantly being on the attack of the other fellow Democrats. He came across as being divisive and arrogant and as a former fan of his, I was disappointed.