CHRIS MATTHEWS SEEMS BIASED TOWARDS BARRACK OBAMA. TO ME, HE SEEMED TO LESS THAN FULLY PREPARED ON SOME OF HIS ANSWERS.

Obama doesn't answer the questions. He gives platitudes. He ever did answer how he was going to pay for health care . . . he just gave the Democratic position. At least Edwards was forthright. Glibness like Obama's is not sophisticated answers to concrete questions. Haven't we had enough of that?

This is one of the most level-headed comments I've read in quite some time. Every village idiot knows that partial birth abortion is straight up killing a full term baby. Leave it to the Democrats to not understand that. Kudos to Tucker!

I agree with the Obama remarks...I thought Obama was not clear at all...Matthews loves Obama...and is giving Clinton the most praise he can muster

Joe, I couldn't agree with you more. When are the Dem's going to get off the Hillary Bandwagon. She's simply not electable!

I think the responses of many of the candidates had 2 prongs: First, their responses to the process of late-term abortions. But second, to the actual words of the Surpreme Court ruling. All legal scholars agree that the decision itself went beyond the issue of this particular abortion process, and suggested a later erosion/elimination of a nation-wide protection of a woman's right to choice. Depending on your views, this might be seen as a good or bad thing, but for anyone who supports the general right to choose, there is a lot to criticize in the wording of the Supreme court majority opinion--even if you oppose the particulars of late-term abortions.

Ah, Joe's integrity comes through. Edwards was good, and Joe gives him credit. That's why the Republicans are so scared of Edwards. Good for you not to carry anybody's talking points, Joe!

Matthews assessment of Obama's response's as sounding 'the most presidential' makes me seriously doubt his ability as an unbiased and capable journalist. And Matthews' patronizing comments about Clinton sounding 'professional' and that her voice only became 'sharp' at the end were totally unacceptable and highly offensive. Nothing more than kid-gloved minimizing of the candidate! Obama's statements were essentially vague and short of point...more of a diplomat's response rather than a presidential statement; and a re-inforcer for republican branding of democrats as weak/wishy-washy. Am beginning to look at his strengths being more in the arena of emotional appeal (a la the old JFK footage) and short on substance. Clinton came off much stronger. Appeared more knowledgeable with a better draw on 'factual' components. Edwards came off as the most human and most in tune with the historical democratic concern with 'those without a voice.' He could develop into a force to be reckoned with if/when the silent and shrinking middle class concerns gain greater awareness.

Tuck, War is killing too, but conservatives have no problem reconciling that. Hypocrites.

Wise of you to back off the Hillary bandwagon, Joe. Especially if you want Arianna's Huffinton Post to continue allowing your transparent attempts to reinvent yourself.

THIS is what we get waiting for six years to throw out President Criminally Adolescent (Time magazine)! THIS is what we get after milion and millions are rasie for "informative" commercials. THIS is the best set of candidates the Democrats can muster? Shame. Maybe we should select our President by who can throw a spear the furthest or play poker. THIS system is not bringing up any real talent. Hillary is not electable. Obama was disappointing. I am back to Edwards. No, Shrummie, Israel is not a great ally. A great ally does not drag America down or get us involved in stupidities in Iran or elsewhere. Germany didn't need Italy as an ally, either. Things with Israel are a o ne-way relationship. They steal the bomb from us and then deny having it. I didn't hear ANYTHING new or interesting tonight.

Speaking of inaccuracies, David Shuster should be ashamed of himself (as should Joe, for piling on) for his misleading crack about Richardson's supposed "gaffe." If you listen to Richardson's answer, he corrected himself no more than 30 seconds later, during the same answer, and said, "post-Castro Cuba. Shuster was far less "truthful" than Richardson.

I felt it was incredibly obvious there was only 1 candidate who ANSWERED the questions quickly, precisely and Presidentially. He painted a picture of his plans and our future, in terms I could understand. Folks this is not a popularity contest or who has the prettiest smile. It's our future and your childrens future in a time we need solid leadership more than ever before.....Joseph Biden and his 24 years in the Senate ARE the future!!

Speaking of inaccuracies, David Shuster should be ashamed of himself (as should Joe, for piling on) for his misleading crack about Richardson's supposed "gaffe." If you listen to Richardson's answer, he corrected himself no more than 30 seconds later, during the same answer, and said, "post-Castro Cuba. Shuster was far less "truthful" than Richardson.

Chris was wrong.My wife and I both thought Hillary was too loud.Obama as usual was thoughtful and Presidential.Obama seemed to think we should make sure the first responders were on the job at these two ground zeros,and wanted to know if there were further immediate threats FIRST. How silly of him not to see Hillary's tactic of bombing the heck out somebody NOW,and find out WHO did it and from WHERE Later.Most Obama supporters understand that Countdown is to Hillary what FOX is to the Republicans.Obama has never had a shot there.Carlson hates Obama(aint that a surprise) even though he always says he likes him just before he picks at every little detail of the man,including his church.Far right people like Pat and Tucker wouldnt vote for Obama on a bet. Greg Hill

If it wasn't for pundits such as Scarborough, Matthews, OReilly and Hanitty living off political arguement rather than honest debate this country may be able to finally rid itself of the Bush;s and Clintons and find someone who can truly unite this country. Comments like "Hillary is on top of her game" suggests that most Americans can't tell the difference between a well coached candidate and someone who cares. Sadly it is true, the state of politics in this country reflects pundits opinion and their affect on the population at large. In my world we would send you all to the B planet with hairdressers and lawyers. I believe the debate should be shown sans post comment from you panderers to advertizers. We really do not need you Scarborough, Oreilly Hannitty Matthews Buchanan, et al. Please go away.

I didnt think Obama did that bad, he remained calm, refused to take shots at anyone. Kucinich was obviously trying to make a name for himself at Obams expense, even edwards to a swing at him. He took it in stride and stood tall.

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