It amazes me that with the current state of affairs and how the whole corporate media has bowed down to beltway-logic and Bush-Administration lies that Salon.com would have a sentence as the one below. Not allowing Mike Gravel to the debates was Corporate Censorship plain and simple. Just because you don't like Mike Gravel doesn't mean he should not debate. The media is sabotaging Gravel and in doing so are giving the other candidates a free pass and an excuse for engaging him. Gravel is the most honest and sensible candidate in the race. He had the courage to take on Hillary when the others did not. His ideas should be heard and it astounds me that a journalist would ever support censorship.

"Little more than nine weeks before the Iowa caucuses about all that can be said with certainty is that the Tuesday night debate was enhanced by giving Mike Gravel and his angry-old-man act the well-deserved hook."

Edwards came off badly, not well, and Russert and Williams joining in the attack on Hillary was not only unseemly, but unprofessional. I have said it elsewhere and I will say it here: attacking a woman relentlessly WILL antagonize women voters, it is guaranteed. That is how Hillary won in NY...I see no evidence of a blunder on what Hillary said about Spitzer in NY...your interpretation is odd...Maybe I will let a blogger at The Nation put it perfectly for me:

Hillary clearly won the debate. She was attacked by everyone except the classy Kucinich and Richardson, who stuck to policy not personality, and she managed to remain unscathed. Edwards was shrill and personal in his attacks against the Senator which is nothing new. Obama was muddled as usual and in trying to step it up against Senator Clinton he seemed to confuse himself more than usual. Of course that is the Democratic Party and politics: Devour your own so they have little chance in the general election. However, it is appalling and troublesome that Tim Russert continues to be harder on Senator Clinton than on the rest of the field, and one could say clearly against her. How many soft ball opportunities did Williams and Russert give to Obama and Edwards to attack Senator Clinton? Not one opportunity was afforded to Senator Clinton to make any attacks on other candidates. But, she has stuck to a positive campaign, and people seem to understand that she is the best choice.

Posted by DRA

Now, if Mr. Shapiro wrote this, I would say he was making a correct analysis of the debate. Edwards time is past, and he will be demolished by Republicans.

The energetic give-and-take of the Dems is what a tussle for the nomination is all about, but...I just wish that they weren't quite so vicious about their differences; I wish they would take on Dubya and Satan (Cheney) more than each other.

You can bet that the Repooplicans are loving it and you can count on some of those comments being used against the Demo nominee in '08 in those ubiquitous attack ads.

Of course, what's good for the goose...I'm sure that my fellow Demo advertising warriors have enough from the Repooplicans for years to come.

This is largely because she has little substance. She is definitely bright, no question. Unfortunately she doesn't stand for anything except her high paying special interests. She carpetbagged her senate seat specifically for the purpose of running for the presidency. She says whatever the current audience wants to hear, but at the end of the day, money talks.

She is probably a decent person at heart and as noted before, quite intelligent. My wife is quite decent and intelligent as well. My wife should not be president of the United States. Neither should Hillary Clinton.

For me, Obama's essential courtesy, his refusal to claw another candidate's face and draw blood for the sake of the crowd--even his occasional stumbles when he tried to cooperate with the time clock...

All these made me like him even more. Those who wring their hands because he's not "fighting" in a style that is crafted for TV are looking to judge by shallow criteria, in my view.

I find Obama thoughtful, consistent, and a man who refuses to choose theatricality over thoughtfulness.

I listen to what he's saying. He's consistently thoughtful and consistently himself, and I think he's not only what America needs, but what the world needs right now.

He's the least "performing" debater. Americans are going to respond to that. I think it's hopeless that the media will.

...the Democratic primary would be be a neck-in-neck horserace between John Edwards, Chris Dodd (who won that debate in my opinion), Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. I heard concrete ideas from people with the experience to justify their positions.

Barak Obama is in hopelessly over his head. I found it painfull to watch him. Hillary clinton could not give a straight answer to save her life. She came across as calculating and dishonest from start to finish. Everyone is talking about the final ten minutes. Personally, I found her "elastic" justification for her Iran vote to be frightening and her tap dance around her husband's sealing of his presidential document (covering his communication with her) painted her with dishonesty.

I wish the media would focus it attention on those candidates that actually could make a difference instead of the two who's main qualification seems to be raising money from wealthy interests.

If it looks like a media set-up, and it sounds like a media set-up, then maybe that's what it is. Giving one moving speech that inspires nostalgic self-satisfaction on the part of the media simply isn't enough of a resume to be president. There's nothing wrong with it, it just isn't enough. We can't afford this type of indulgence this time.

And, please, please give the Lady Macbeth crap ("daggers darting from her eyes") a rest, would you? All of you? You're supposed to be the guys who DON'T get mimeographed marching orders from some K Street troglodite. The woman already has to endure being questioned by that pasty snail Stephanopoulos who literally made a career out of resenting her. The fact that she doesn't reach across the table and pop his eyes out really should stand for something.