Totally agree with this POV. HRC did fine in the debate. The "pile on" is totally understandable considering the dynamic of the race.

Bill Richardson's criticism about too much negativity was totally off base and a bit sanctimonious.

Obama seemed reluctant to appear too aggressive, which is in character and apropos to his stated attitude about the debate tone.

Edwards was on the money with his remarks as usual and, although pointed, his tone was never hostile. His trial experience comes into play here most likely.

All in all, to the extent that these debates have been substantive, the Dems have proven to be quite issue oriented and professional.

... no one should be surprised. Much less liberals themselves.

It is one thing to be able to sit back and criticize and another to actually lead. Up until now all we have heard women candidates tell us is what men should be doing for them.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Personally I think the pedistal should be kicked out from under her. She has been doing that to men for the last generation.

If she wants my vote she needs to tell me (white man) what she will do for me. I don't expect everything but she needs to acknowlege our contributions the same way she flacks for people of color or women. The funny thing is that I don't think it is in her. Like teaching a dog to ride a bicycle.

And if she can't, what business does she have running the country?

I also do not want to hear her or the sisters in skin piss and moan about why we should not be attacking a "lady". If she wants to play in the game she risks getting some mud on her canary yellow "pantsuit".

So Hillary what the hell are you going to do for me besides raise my taxes and transfer it to women, maintain the imbalance in health care spending in favor of women, and give my job to a Latino illegal alien? The world wants to know.

You dont' think Russert's attitude has anything to do with Hillary'd gender? How about Chris Matthhews'? Having been married to a fomer altar-buy, I can tell you that even very intelligent Irish-Catholic boys don't seem to outgrow their sexist attitudes. And why not? Because it would be so unseemly for the Blessed Mother to stand up for herself, much less run for office! Russert has revealed himself too many times for you not to have his number. Hillary, and the rest of us, should boycott any further Russert-moderated debates. Andhow honest could it be for him to wave about ("I have in my hand . . .") a routine letter that Clinton wrote in the mid-1990s concerning the classification of Presidential documents. Hillary might be a only a girl, but Russert is a small-minded thug!

If you think that the "men were too tough on her" line damages the cause of equality, why are you repeating it? I am not at all surprised that people (judging from comments here and elsewhere) now think that Hillary / her campaign is the one saying it was unfair because of gender.

It is your peers, Joan, who are creating this myth, and repeating it yourself doesn't help.

Of course plenty of media folk - especially the conservative crowd - lap this up. The wingers have been saying for decades that feminists want special privileges for women and want to make men second class citizens. So of course it seems natural to say that Hillary wants the other candidates to go easy on her because she's female. That's their expectation of all women who advocate for equality.

What a load of crap.

Let loose the dogs of media --

I was quite lukewarm about Bill back in 1992 UNTIL he campaigned in New York where, as usual, the entire press corps went after him as if he were a cheese steak and they were starving rabid dogs.

And he stood in there and answered questions and never lost his temper and I was impressed and thought "OK, that guy could be president, he's got what it takes."

Also -- If you recall, even in his weird Monica deposition, I was met by Republican Bill-hating co-workers admitting the next day they were impressed -- two reasons

(1) he never lost his temper ("I would have kicked the crap out of that guy.") and

(2) he drank soda after soda and never took a break to pee, another talent a president could find quite useful.

So I say pile it on and let's find out if she actually CAN take it. It's political evolution in action...

Only the pack dog press claimed that Hilary was playing the victim (Chris Matthews, NBC Newsies). She merely said, up here at Wesley, that going to an all female school like Welsey gave her the strength and courage to run in a previously all-male electoral race. It was a moving statement at Welsey, and the women there absolutely loved it. She wasn't claiming victimhood, just pride in going so far as a female political figure.

Even the guests on Mathews show the next day wouldn't go along with his bashing of her. Kudos to them.

I'm afraid that if she stays on as frontrunner, then the cable press will do an Al Gore on her - - - tearing down the leader with vicious dog bites of half-truths and innuendo. I have to say that by holding up that piece of paper, Russert reminded me of Joe McCarthy's speech in Wisconsin so long ago, "I have here in my hand a list . . . ."

At least she isn't facing what Benazir Bhutto faces in Pakistan! Imagine Bhutto in such a public debate. Of course it would not happen, but some of the same dynamics of power are at play here without the realized threats of assassination.

If those who are still clinging to any patriarchal notions of power still see Hillary Clinton as being attacked by the boys club, perhaps they can still hear the echoes of little groups of boys linking arms crying out "We hate girls! We hate girls!" on the playground, as some did with some regularity at an elementary school I attended.

Oh, yeah, we've matured beyond such notions as a nation haven't we? We don't elect schoolyard bullies to high office do we? Okay so I am sarcastic.

But wasn't it good to see how she is when she gets pushed into a corner a little bit? We are one nation among many. And we may have gotten a micro taste of the future if she or any of her fellow debaters were president. Don't we have to do something to find out what our candidates are really like under a variety of circumstances? Isn't debate meant to expose the strengths and weaknesses of the participants to the debate's judges, and aren't we one and the same? Didn't we get a little peek at the character of the candidates as a result and are we not a little more informed now than we were before this debate?