[this is ridiculoud. please feel free to delete the first two attempts.]

[Sorry for the double-post but I can't stand looking at the typo in my own letter considering the title of my letter...]

It wasn't "driver's licenses at the same level" it was "driver's licenses at the state level."

He was hinting at a Federalist argument but he didn't follow through because he was trying to make a point about process and question formulation and the politics of distraction, a point he didn't make very well but he was probably distracted himself by the oddly unruly audience early in the debate.

I'm not trying to make excuses for him; clearly he should have gone further towards mastering this "debate" format by now. But it's frustrating that when he tries to give a nuanced answer it always comes across, in this format, as an equivocating answer. Covering presidential politics with 300 word posts probably does more to exacerbate the problem than to clarify it.

I believe he answered it in one word.

Might want to include that at the tail end of this piece about Obama and Clinton flip-flopping.

I really hope this doesn't turn out to be a presidential race where we have to choose to vote for a Black version of Bush or a woman version of Bush.

Both of them proved with their National Security over Human Rights answered that they would be more than willing to do that.

Wolf Blitzer's "gotcha" questions really sidetracked the whole notion of a debate. In a debate, as I recall learning on our high school debate team, people express nuanced positions and explain them in an attempt to demonstrate the logic of their position.

Wolf's reductionist, "give me a yes or no" on truly significant questions mocks the whole idea of intelligent discourse. He reached a NEW LOW with his question on human rights.

Why don't these pompous journalists just get out of the way in debates and let real people ask real questions that they care about. The so-called journalists are just trying to generate useful sound bites.

This driver's license for illegal immigrants issue is becoming the Bermuda triangle for Democratic presidential candidates!

This one word answer stuff is nonsense. These questions, at a presidential debate, are counter to actual participatory democracy. I suggest that we, thinking political minds, should not report on these moments and judge the candidates by how they BS'd their way through a phony question.

That should be left for a gossip column, not political analysis.

What a vile little man.

Obama: I want to say something important and complex.

Blitzer: No, I want to force you to say something stupid and simple. I'll come back to you when you're willing to play my game.

I agree with heyjude and the professor that blitzer was awful. His yes/no questions kept trying to get the candidates on the wrong side of the issue on some gotcha nonsense.

i though obama made quite a few sensible points, and we wouldn't even be talking about whether he messed up the question if blitzer had engaged him on the issue instead of pressed over and over for a yes or no response.