Come on Joe, give Biden his due. He is the most articulate candidate so far (in my humble opinion). Edwards is crashing and burning. Obama is showing his lack of knowledge. If you are going to call a spade a spade do it and quit beating around the bush.

The thought that the second tier candidates are being less that explosive worries me that we go back to preset, pre-recorded democracy.

I second the nomination!

As for Hillary. Why don't you just come out and say if her last name was not "Clinton", she would not be a US Senator, let alone a presidential candidate.

Need to give EVERYONE equal air time, not keep asking the same few people. Clinton's gotten the most air time of any of them. I want to hear more from Gravel and he's not getting any decent questions.

what a sad excuse for a debate, unfair, some people get to answer as long as they want while others are cut off or can raise their hands.

Dodd - WOW! Super speaker! Clinton - better than expected-confident and clear Obama - less than expected-uh, uh, uh... Biden - as expected--always confident Kucinich - as expected-a utopia we would love but cannot expect given the nature of humans Richardson - less than expected-facial tics will drag him down despite fine service history. Sadly, image rules! Edwards - as expected--how can a trial attorney not improvise and sound more interesting? Gravel - the Ross Perot diversion effect

I agree on several points, the second tier candidate arent getting the serious questions and I wonder how many people know that they are voting for Hillary and not Bill Clinton.

Did Hillary just honor herself for being a Senator on 9/11?

clinton as pres and obama as vp for next go-around

"raising the dead" applies to the candidates. They're all weasels refusing to answer the question, with the exception of Kucinich.

barack's subtle mistake:...whe brian williams made the comment about sen gravel rambling about the war (like actor melvin douglas did in movie "seduction of joe tynan". ALL on an environvental question...(implying almost senility)...THEN barack...immediately does a similiar thing..answers quickly then exounds on the war...

biden most presidential..least rehearsed.. we need substance from barack....richardson needs to quit numbering his changes and ideas..only style... edwards most rehearsed...dodd least noticed...and gravel won't be asked back

Lop-sided tilting toward front runners. Each candidate should have been asked the same number of questions and have answers cut off same as others. I wanted to hear more from Gravel and Kucinich. Obama was a wind-bag.

love biden ...but sad for kucinich....when joe applied "reality" to world affairs when countries threaten..(happy world)

Lop-sided tilting toward front runners. Each candidate should have been asked the same number of questions and have answers cut off same as others. I wanted to hear more from Gravel and Kucinich. Obama was a wind-bag.

I agree with many of the comments -- the #3 issue on American's minds is immigration and only one question to one candidate!!!! Who is your moral leader? -- who are our friends???? In the beginning the questions were good, tough, and it went down hill. Dodd and Biden went up in my eyes; Edwards down; the rest about where they were -- Barak thinks his relationship with crook Rezko was only about a campaign contribution!!!! The man is a charlatan, imo.

You guys treat Mike Gravel very poorly. First you refuse to mention him up till now. Then you exclude him from most of the debate. Now you won't even mention his name on this blog, referring to him instead as "the ex senator from Alaska. He still came out the winner. More and more people will join him now. The same goes for Ron Paul. You have blackballed him from any real coverage. His name is never mentioned. Instead we are bombarded with the Wall Street picks night after night. You should all be ashamed.

I though Dodd performed well he just didn't get as much time as the others. Furthermore, this was not really a debate but more a question and answer session, it was far too cordial. I think I have learned virtually nothing from this "debate" so the fact that Richardson looked horribly uncomfortable. I mean substantively no one stood out too much and frankly because the candidates were not allowed to engaged each other we were not able to get into the intracisies [sic] of their positions or personas.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton very impressive and sophesticated candidates. They still make it difficult for the voters to go which way.

I didn't care much for Edwards in 2004, sort of a pretty boy lap dog whose insincerity turned him belly-up to Dick Cheney. Now there's a guy (Cheney) who could really play the Fat Bastard. "Get into my belly, John Edwards!" Anyway, Edwards did better than I expected. Obama surprised me by totally dodging a question from a service wife who asked what conditions he would consider to be "mission accomplished" in Iraq. Hillary was as expected, and has honed her response to "why did you vote to invade Iraq" so well over the past year (I've heard her answer a dozen times) that if you don't pinch yourself you just might think she's actually saying something. Bill Richardson just looks funny on camera, especially when looking at the camera. Too bad, he's got good ideas and seems fairly forthright. Since this was just a glamour piece I give my vote to Dennis (I'm gonna impeach Cheney) Kucinich. Did you see his wife, who is also his political strategist? Now there is one long drink of water. He might not be Jack, but she knocks the Dior off of Jackie. Yes, I am a man of immeasureable depth (shallow, and a Republican).

I thought Dodd stood out very well. He was extremely eloquent and barely stuttered his answers. He exuded and air of confidence, and answered the abortion question very well. I had not heard of him before tonite, and I definately noticed him. Obama underwhelmed until the end, when he battled Kucinich and Gravel with sophistication and grace. Hillary was also flawless, but not spectacular. Edwards disturbed me.

Clinton was trying to ride the coat-tails of Bill and evertyhing they did while trying to blame Bush for everything, Obama spoke well and will probably become the dark-horse, Kucinich does not seem realistic at times, the others did not get much face time which was not fair. Richardson is to the point and says what's on his mind. He has good ideas and has a plan though not sure about the iraq immediate pull-out. Being from NM, I can say that the state has seen a significant improvement in economic and social ranking including Forbes #1 place for business and several other favorable economic indicators. I vote for Obama and hope he picks Richardson since he has the most foreign policy experience. Clinton is good but too polarizing, just another Bush. Nothing will ever get done. You need a leader, a pragmatic person that has a vision in Obama and a in the dirt kind of guy like Richardon. I'm pretty sure, he won't shoot anyone like our current VP

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):