Seems that intelligent, well thought out posts get zapped and half-illiterate ones that just whine don't. I don't think CNN wants the competition of smart people. CNN has zapped quite a few of my posts too, to the point that I'm not going to waste my time on these blogs anymore.

Now watch them post this stupid comment.

It bothers me that gloria bolger is so anti-clinton. after iowa, and before new hampshire, she was really laying it on. even now it continues, can you ask her to be fair and balanced. i will vote for which ever democrat that wins the nomination.
bill

This is tawdry journalism at its worst. The consequences of this confrontation may dash the hopes and aspirations of generations for decades to come. This is inexcusably irresponsible behavior. In any serious debate, failure to establish and ENFORCE rules of civil discourse will force participants to the lowest level of confrontation. We certainly hope to see some MODERATION in future debates.

' Guess this is fun for the media; who cares if it's a disaster for the country. ' Think we'll stick to NPR and PBS in the future.

Florrie and Allen Bachelder

I have been a supporter of Obama from the beginning (because I feel this country needs someone who can work side by side with Dem's and Repub's) and my boyfriend has been a Clinton fan since the 90's. After watching the Myrtle Beach Debates he is considering voting for Obama for President instead of Hillary.

The Clinton's are the one's playing with words and starting the political mudslinging. They started it way before Obama made the "factual statement" that Hillary has been connected to big business for quite some time (Walmart).

It's sad I used to like her before she decided to run for President.

My impression ever since Obama upset Clinton in Iowa is that both Clintons have been stretching what opposition research they have on Obama to generate some negative press on Obama. They are correct that the media has been somewhat in love with Obama, but I actually think that reflects what is happening in the public as well. He attracts huge crowds. His speeches give you goosebumps.

While I respect Clinton as a politically experienced person, I do not believe she has any more executive-style experience than does Obama. She seems pretty strong and knowledgeable, both good qualities. But she can be so shrill and petty (I found her Rekzo remark truly ugly, as did the audience; Obama landed a punch that spoke to the offshoring issue; she just swung back with mud). She seems so rehearsed and measured to tell us whatever may be politically expedient at the time. Her vote to authorize war with Iraq is the epitome of this need to occupy the popular political space of the moment. Politicians always have to make some compromises; but I, as a lay person at the time, could plainly see we were being railroaded into a war of choice. And I didn't have access to the weak intelligence estimate that Clinton did (and didn't read).

I think Clinton's proximity to a former president would certainly be useful in hitting the ground running, but it also brings with it the baggage we all just want to forget. That doesn't mean the Clinton years were not prosperous, in part due to the Clinton administration and Congress, but they were also years of extreme demoralization in the institution of the president (as have been the Bush 43 years as well). While I agree it is a roll of the dice to bring in some fresh leadership, it's no bigger a risk than to bounce the presidency between two families for three decades. Electing Obama would be a healthy way for this country to press the "reset" button, not only from a domestic politics perspective, but in the eyes of the rest of the world.

If Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her, because I have been waiting for Democratic leadership since Bush took office. But I do not think Clinton is capable of drawing out independents, reticent Democrats or moderate Republicans, no matter who the Republican nominee is. As the primary turn out shows so far, Obama is the candidate who CAN do and has done that. And for any Democrat to manage addressing looming crises in healthcare and social security, they are going to need a mandate, not a razor thin margin.

More than anything else, Barack Obama makes a great many Americans feel good again about where this country could go. He inspires hope not because he repeats it as his message, but because he embodies it.

I don't know if you had anything to do with the format of the debate but personally I didn't think that it was the best format. Each candidate did not get a chance to answer on the same question and when it seemed to get personal between Senators Clinton and Obama I thought you should have put them back on track. As for the questions to Senator Obama about whether Bill Clinton was the first black president–that could have just been left alone -no he was not!

Jones
Sacramento, CA

It's a debate people. That means hearing from the candidates with "format control" from the moderator. I especially liked the fact that as long as each candidate stayed on task with the question, they were not given a timeframe in which to answer.

It was a good debate because it finally let us see the candidates for who they are, and what they are or aren't discussing. Debates are supposed to get viewers thinking and generate good discussion

I look forward to more.

Thank you and your CNN Team. Great Job. CNN is #1 in my book.

Watching Lou Dobbs has helped me to open my eyes and see what is going on in Washington. Let's hold them all accountable.

Keep up the good work !!!

G. Ellis
Ohio

You did a great job and a great service to the country–let is see how these candidates handle these issues.

My chief complaint is this: Everyone knows that the contest is increasingly between Clinton and Obama and all of the debates (on other stations as well) sit them next to each other. It is as if the producers are intentionally doing it so they can't get some back and forth bickering going on for ratings. Edwards should have been in the middle of the candidates. Shame shame shame.....

This is how the Clintons run their campaigns - go in for the kill and when they are criticized they back off for a little while.

There is no doubt, this was clearly the most intense and entertaining debate in recent memory, let alone in this historical season. Kudos on that.

However, you are simply too nice sometimes and need a little backbone. Just ask Lynne Cheney.

Perhaps a more stringent M.O. would help, along with a co-moderator (like MSNBC utilizes).

I don't doubt your sincere effort, Wolf, but there is a fine line between letting the drama unfold and allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

Perhaps you'll find a happy medium between letting the candidates express themselves and keeping necessary order.

I was a Bill Clinton supporter, but I'd never vote for Hillary is she gets the democratic nomination.... I'd rather vote for a replublican than Hillary. She has 35 years of experience making CHANGE. Give me a break.

Hillary was right when she said to Obama that he should not expect a hands up from her while Obama was firing all the shots against her.

I like Obama but he has not come up with something that is concrete. One does not live and aim high and eventually accomplish it just by blurting out , change, the change we can believe in???????????????

Obama speaks in general terms and Hillary provides the statistics. I hope everyone sees the prepared person is Hillary.

Sincerely,
Pat

By the way, most people will not spend more than one minute reviewing a candidate's website, let alone study their largely safe positions. They understand that they really need to judge the character of the candidates to see who can make a great President.

Interestingly though, this time around all the Dems have essentially the same agenda, with a few minor differences. Of course, Hillary is afraid to admit it will take a tax increase to save Social Security but we all know that choice is her preference. At least Barack and Edwards have the guts to admit it.

Given the similarities of their programs though, personalities rise to the fore. Barack is very smart and charismatic, embodies change, is funny, and is inspiring. Hillary is very smart, embodies change, can be funny but often tries too hard and is simply uninspiring.

As a result, Hillary is determined to bring Barack down into the mud where she spends most of her time. He's toooooo inspirational, so Hillary is attacking him at every turn in the hope he will keep responding to her and be unable to hold her accountable for her inaccurate claims and lose his charm.

Hillary is following politics 101. If you can't play at their level, bring them down to yours. What's sad is just how excited new voters were to get involved because of Barack. After Hillary's done, though, neither of them may be able to win back all of their opponent's supporters. That would be devastating.

In any case, we might as get used to this now, the GOP is planning worse.

P.S. The best candidate for Dems is the one who has the best appeal to independents. Who can not only win, but not hurt our Red or Purple state representatives. That man is clearly Barack and the best way to confirm it is to see just how many Red State Democratic office-holders are endorsing Barack. That really tells the tale.

He did never told Clinton to wrap it up but he was sure quick to cut off Obama when it was his turn to respond to an attack or allegation. Same for Edwards.

It was very frustrating to watch. He should have just said I am going to give Hillary an open microphone for two hours.

At this point your debates are purely for theatrical entertainment. Of course the higher-ups don't tell you this, but they love the drama and that's why they keep airing these debates...and although they they don't tell you this of course you know.

At this point the debates are superfluous until there are two nominees.

It's just a chance for soundbites and one-liners....not that any debates are truly substantial, many of our great presidents would've looked like idiots if they needed to debate their opponents. Expceting a candidate to answer questions they possibly (but not very likely) haven't thought of before is ridiculous; if they answer quickly and confidently, they're even more ridiculous than the questioner but will be praised nonetheless. Reflection is a lost political virtue.

Our process makes way for the made-for-tv-polish and the media doesn't even attempt to change this. Such is life, eh?

That's all I saw, but CNN's online coverage made Hillary sound like she lost big time. The analysis and editorials seems far to skewed towards Oboma and very hateful towards Hillary. It doesn't seem impartial at all, almost at the level of arrogance of FOX News. I'm not sure why CNN is so pro-Oboma, it seems to go against the spirit of journalism.

Hopefully I can see a recap this weekend, but I'm leaning towards Clinton at the moment.

You know very well that it was Obama who started the fight; yet all of your CNN clips later continued showing as though Hillary started it; come on, you guys should rewind the tape and take some time to see the truth.

Edwards came back looking strong. I never listened to him before, but after yesterdays' debate I think I would like clinton/edwards combination

Though I like CNN, I feel that you are very partial to Mr.Obama

I wish, however, for you to dwell more on the differences of the candidates on issues rather than on their personal attacks on each other.

I agree with you 120% of your following writing:

You hear it all the time… the media hate Hillery.

I have three televisions On all the time in my Living room. I watch all three news networks … back and forth…over and over….

The media hate Hillery….

I watched the debate… live…. I watched it againn at midnight… watched it again in parts…. on all three news channels…. still watching it….

Then… even you Wolf…..
at about 4:45 pm Central time..
you parsed sections of the debate to make it look like Mrs. Clinton hit Mr. Obama first with the slum-lord swat…. you know Mr. Obama hit first with the Wal-Mart smack…. I love politics. Everybody gets to play….

This stuff is important, Mr Blitzer. Your not the only one doing it, but you were there Mr. Blitzer….. Take Mr. Dodds advice… stay out of it!

Last night he was finally forced to answer substantive questions regarding his record and the issues and came away looking weak, petulant and defensive.

So far he's had a cake-walk from the press and it's time he's tested by more than starry-eyed gushing from a press that can't seem to ask him an in-depth question if their jobs depended on it (and they certainly should).

However, it is so sad the so many analyst put their own negative spin on valid points that were being made. More discourse is what we need. A candidate is responsible for what they say. They must defend past statement and seek to provide clarification when missunderstood.

It dosen't take a rocket scientist who thw analyst favor.....

Baltimore