I've watched both debates and have come away with the realization that there are too many candidates for this type of a format. It devolves into the mediator interrupting the candidate, like Wolf Blitzer routinely did.

I'll continue to watch, but I plan on getting to know the candidates through online sources.

I consistently find the one I like least is Edwards, despite my Chapel Hill days. He is a phony lefty and, in my view, plenty shallow. Dennis K is a real lefty and a useful voice to have around. Hillary Clinton is superb. She knows her stuff, she is responsible, and she commands the stage, as when she interrupted the boys who were struggling to answer Blitzer's adolescent hypothetical about killing Obama along with an unknown number of bystanders. Every Republican would have competed to say how they would overkill him. Our boys were struggling to dance to Blitzer's tune when Clinton interrupted with a Presidential admonition.

One hopes her consistent superior performance will win the day, without the requirement of the one big moment, like, "I'm paying for this microphone!"

That should have been killing Osama, not Obama.

While correcting my terrible gaffe, I might mention I found Dodd impressive, and Biden, also, but Dodd exudes a kindness and knowledge that can't hurt. They are all pretty creditable, except, as I say, Edwards is oddly repulsive. Gravel is of only mild interest and comes very close to being a pest. Richardson is hard to bring into focus, but my consistent reaction is he is a journeyman and not remotely Presidential.

When I see and listen to John Edwards. His faux moral-crusade is almost too much to bear. I don't trust him and I don't like not trusting him, because I have been a Democratic my whole adult life and I happen to like all the candidates for different reasons.

But John Edwards sends up too many red flags for my comfort.

I thought Hillary and Biden were strong and Presidential, but Biden maybe a bit too aggressive?

Obama is slowly getting better. He'll be the greatest VP.

Whether you think John Edwards is "phony" aside, he is right that the "war on terror" is a slogan that has been used to generate fear, confuse people, rush us into an unjustifiable war, and turn heads away while a right-wing battering ram savaged our constitution. And it's inaccurate - of course terror is a tactic, and the people who use it are not a homogeneous group we can wage "war" against.

Hillary, playing the "I'm from New York so don't you dare talk to me about terrorism" card, is overcompensating on the advice of the idiot strategists who (incredibly) lost two general elections in a row to George Bush. The same can be said of her initial vote for the war. While she, Edwards, and for that matter Kerry, all voted for the war to appear tough and "statesmanly," she is the only one to not admit it was a mistake. Why? Because she honestly does not know the difference between playing a political role and being an actual leader.

Hillary says she didn't know (or even suspect) Bush was hell-bent on war when she voted to authorize force. She didn't know that he had no intention of letting the inspectors finish their job. No clue. She was totally in the dark. Does no one remember what was going on?!! Do the bellicose "regime change" speeches in August or September of '02 ring a bell?!!!

As Obama pointed out, the fear-mongering and shifting explanations were a dead giveaway that something was up. If you didn't have time to read the news or your mom wouldn't let you change the TV off of Fox, maybe you can be excused for not picking up the scent. But if you were a member of the U.S. Senate you can't. Even if we took her at her word, how could anyone support a candidate with such a faulty B.S. detector?

Nice summary of the debate, Mr. Shapiro. Hillary's line...

"I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda."

...makes it clear why the existing strategy doesn't work, although that's not her intention. Given that the attacks came while the US was "the sole superpower" -- vastly outspending everybody else in military matters -- it should be very clear just how much damage a small band of terrorists can do, and that all of our military spending isn't a defense against it. Terrorism is the comparatively poor opponents's tactic against a more powerful adversary.

In the cacophanous march to war, that lesson got willfully lost, if it was ever realized to begin with. In terms of payoff, the 9/11 hijackers got an incredible amount of bang for the buck in their attack -- the US has practically destroyed itself politically, and has engaged in a war of opportunity abroad that's become a quagmire. The success of the 9/11 attacks (and the continuation of our policies abroad, particularly in the Middle East) will ensure more, not less terrorism in our future. We could double our already staggering military spending and we would still be as at risk for terrorist attacks. There is no defense from terrorism -- Americans don't like to think about that; the cowboy's supposed to get to ride into the sunset and all, but that doesn't happen if you're up against guerillas/terrorists. No happy ending; no ending at all.

Anyway, it's distressing to see Clinton embracing Bush's folly, just trying to say she'd be smarter about it. We need a new direction, and a different approach.

Remember how the Republicans successfully used their spin of Democratic fervor from the Mondale funeral to help scare Democrats into supporting Bush on Iraq ahead of the 2002 midterm elections? Remember how Bill Clinton backed down on every fight during his presidency? Remember John Kerry quickly deciding not to let Edwards tear into the Republicans and fight over votes in the aftermath of 2004's Diebold/Ohio results? And do you remember the Democrats rolling over once more two weeks ago, funding Bush's continuation of the Iraq fiasco? I see two candidates who understand where the American people are on the Iraq war--Edwards and Kucinich. The rest of them are being careful. And Democrats being careful not to speak out is what got us into Iraq and allowed the 2004 election to be stolen. You better keep Edwards in the mix no matter what, because there is no way the Republicans are going to suddenly start fighting fair--and we need someone involved who can win in both the court of public opinion and the actual courts. It is going to take a hell of a fight to take this country back from the Republicans who have gutted everything. I like Edwards prez and Obama vice prez, and lots of respect for Kucinich's voice.