None of the above, America's core problem is corruption. Iraq, crime, drugs, racism, is all facilitated when government is too busy lining their private pockets at the cost of the needs of its' citizenry. None of the candidates from either side has addressed the real issue, so it doesn't matter what they say, they all intend to continue the game. Anyone else hear the fat lady?

I'm not going to make a definitive statement on who "won" this debate because I think it was more about staking out turf and establishing yourself as a contender than anything else. But I just need to comment here on the astounding sexism some of the guys showed last night (even you danced close to this, Keith, which surprised me). I would not call Hillary my favorite of this bunch, but she does deserve to be treated like the men and no differently. ENOUGH ALREADY with the comments from Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews about how she has to avoid raising her voice so it doesn't have "that feminine shrillness" to it! (Yeah, I agree it can come off poorly, but so can some MEN's voices when they go off on a tirade!) And ENOUGH ALREADY about what Hillary wears, and how she can get away with wearing things the men can't wear, enough about her pearls that make her look "like Grace Kelly," etc.! Honestly, what is this--1952?? Andrea Mitchell was right, and Keith, all of you guys should listen to her as the election season goes on, because as a woman, she'll give that much to you straight. Women are tired of competing with men for a serious job (in this case the Presidency) and having to defend their looks, their clothes, their hair, the tone of their voices, whatever. Yes, it's true Edwards has gotten the flak over his haircut, and many a male candidate has been hashed over about how "old" he looks, and there was the whole "how Kennedy and Nixon looked vs. how they sounded" thing. But when Chris Matthews starts getting into how Hillary's pearls make her look like Grace Kelly, that's just insulting. Unless you're going to say Edwards' haircut makes him look like a young Harrison Ford or something. And let's not lose sight of the big picture here. We should be voting for President based on who we think can do the best job--not what they look like!

Impeachment is a nice idea, but it will never happen. All it will do is take up months of time, and they'll never get the votes anyway. Dems' time would be better served undoing the damage the Repubs did: getting us out of the war, reestablishing habeas corpus, etc.

Schroeder -- Thanks for your comments. I wasn't much impressed with the new Pulitzer winner, either, and I wouldn't have guessed it (at least, not based on what she said) until Mr. Mathews pointed it out. I wonder why Mr. Olbermann didn't mention it.

This was not a debate. This was an introduction to the democratic candidates to say hello, how are you, next. There is no way you can call a 90 minute discussion between a moderator and 9 individuals a debate. They are forced to speak in generlaizations just to get a few words in (which they tend to do anyway). Chris E: saw your response to me on another thread, blog, whatever it is we call these things. You apologized for ranting because in reading one of my post you saw I was on your side (I am assuming what you meant by "side" is the side of most folks who blog here and who the majority are either indpendent, democrat or lean to the left). Hate to burst your bubble Chris E, but I am on nobodies side. Well, I take that back, I am on my side, what I feel is good for my family's side and on the side of what I think makes good common sense. I am an independent who most likely leans a little left, but I also have had a great deal of respect for some folks who in the past and in the present are more to the right of the middle. I try to judge each individually if they will stand out as individuals. If they don't, I have no choice but to lump them in with whatever group they are hiding behind. Give you an example of my thinking; I was not impressed by any of the candidates tonight. Not enough substance, too worried about offending one another, too rehearsed, not enough time to dig deep into what they believe and have planned for this country. Their answers (those that did answer) on what would they do if the US were to be attacked by terrorists were all pretty lame (even Hilliarys although she did use the term - retailiate which really tells me nothing). What I did want to hear was: First, I would not attack a country I could not be assured was responsible, and second, I would use every resource available to find out who was responsible and where they were hiding, and then lock and load to kick some serious ass no matter where they may be hiding. I would give any country where the leaders of these attacks were hiding one week to hand them over or we would be coming in to get them. Whether Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India, Venezuela, even Russia or China. That's what I want to hear. And Chris: I'll be checking out some decent south seas island prices. Now to the Republican candidate introductions incorrectly entitled as a debate. Don't expect anything different, hello, how are you, next.

obama has bought the right wing -- "IRAN is building its nukes, and we have to stop them" -- so, he would cave under any pressure. he dropped in my view. But not Dennis. and Not Richardson, although i cant say as I agree with him on the 'retaliation' points [both he and Hill] if there were an attack. that was a stupid question. Gravel is a wild card who made some of the others look sensible. he seems like an irascible old dude. In order - Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, Dodd, Obama, Hillary, Biden, Gravel. but just MHO.

I wish the democrats would give a more detailed idea of what they want – my guess is they can’t because they are not unified on the subject. For example if they supported the idea of exiting Bagdad, but keeping a force there to secure the Kurds and Saudi border, while to the best of their ability keeping our guys out of harms way - that is a position I can support. If however the position is to just completely exit, i.e. surrender I cannot support that – they need to be specific in what they want. Of the Dem candidates the only one that doesn’t scare the hell out of me is Richardson – I kind of like that guy for some reason.

What's that quote? Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. The reason you don't hear the Dems speak in a unified voice is that we tend to think independently and we speak without the party's talking poins in front of us.

Scott--You like Richardson because he is the candidate with the broadest range of the right experiences -- governor, congressman, cabinet officer (and the energy department, to boot), ambassador, and negotiator. He's also a minority and he takes a generally popular (if not with me) position on gun control. To be sure, he's not as pretty or as glamorous as Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, so he will not draw the media groupies. But, after all, since when have qualifications had much to do with this? Four of the last five presidents have had no foreign policy experience whatsoever, and no experience at the national level on any domestic issue. But we keep voting for them. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me about a hundred times, shame on me.

Democratic convention starts here in San Diego today!

I agree with so many of you, especially CA & Tru. What was striking for me was Senator Obama, he's not ready for prime time, Senator Clinton is. I always thought Barack had the best shot at winning in the general election against the Republican candidate; Hillary appears to be quite unpopular across the nation. Barack on the other hand is quite popular. I hope he didn't hurt himself last night. If he did, this could pose a problem for the Democrats in Nov. '09 if Clinton ends us securing the nomination. I don't think she'd win in the general election, but that's just a guess and it's still early.

After yesterday's wall to wall debate coverage I reached the following conclusions: A) there was no breakout candidate; B) having said that I'm pretty sure neither Mike Gravel or Bill Richardson is going to be moving into that very exclusive address; and C) I am just about politicked out. I'm going back to blogging about my beloved classic country music to recuperate. Just one thing: KO, the silver tie looked really good with your hair. Could you PLEASE fit it into your schedule to teach Tucker to pick out ties?

Kucinich and Gravel (also Dodd to a degree) were pretty much ignored last night. So much for a fair debate. Can't they make a more even handed format the allows the less monied candidates to get some mic time? League of Women Voters needs to start running these things again.

I loved it last night, all men were heroes, especially Chris, nice verbage with 'dicking around", so glad you guys werent manhandled by censors or bleeped out.I felt all three top contendors did well and spoke eloquently, as far as Gravel goes, I felt he was a bit of a whiner and his comments about not getting enough air time wa pathetic. Who needs another whiner, I dont.Obama is good one to one but keep in mind, he is new to this so cut him some slack. Hillary redeemed herself and spoke beautifully and I never knew Chris loved pearls so much. I was happy to see Dodd with his family and felt that was a nice touch, but Gravel, come one, it looks to me that he just wants to really be remembered for something, now it will be for "more real time for me please." with a side of whinning, yikes! I know KO was going nuts when the mic went, I hope that wasnt done on purpose, he did great, as did the other fellas. I truly enjoyed the event and look for more great reporting live with the upcoming REp....how do you spell REpublican? It is so nice to see a group of professionals behave so well, no fires needed to be put out and no one got into a shouting match or needed security to show them out. AS you guys said nor fireworks! Denise

So has everyone submitted a question for the republican debate? You can do so at Matthews site.

Gravel ROCKS!

Stephanie Jordan, Oklahoma City, OK (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 11:58 AM) So Stephanie, how can one support a position if that position is so fuzzy no one can figure out what it is? The Dems need a position other that Bush is an idiot, and we can do better. I want specifics on what the “do better” is. If their proposal is something idiotic like I suspect Kucinich and Gravel want – pull everything out of Iraq now – then that is something I cannot support. If on the other hand they propose something reasonable then perhaps I could get behind it.

Scott is right. The Dems need to give specific details as to what they would do, and the republican candidates need to to the same. If one of these knuckleheads had taken 2 minutes last night (provided they had gotten the question or had the guts just to blurt it out) they might have suggested that they would bring Patreus to Washington and plan for the redeployment of our troops over a reasonable amount of time that would ensure their safety and well-being and that would give approriate notice to the Iraq government (and I don't mean a year's notice, perhaps 3 months or less). Begin the redeployment of our troops to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the northern Kurdish area (but be careful because this would make the Turks nervous), so redeploy some to Turkey as well to aide them in watching their borders and to make them feel better. Use the troops to protect these borders while getting them out of harms way in Baghdad and central Iraq. Remain in these areas for the time being, maintain air bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey, provide relief aide and medical care to any Iraqi who wants to relocate to a secure border area to avoid the slaughter, keep an eye on Iran and watch the melee in Baghdad and central Iraq. Provide arms to both sides of the melee, sunni and shiite and any other radical jihadists group with just enough to encourage them to destroy one another. That's it.

Some items I forgot after redeployment. The assistance to Iraq refugees would be offered because we created this mess. But no Iraqi seeking refuge in a secure border area will be allowed to drive in. ALL VEHCILES shall remain in Iraq (5 miles from the nearest border crossing check point). Any vehicle breaking this line would be taken out. Only on foot would refugees be allowed to seek refuge. Women and children under 15 only or older men over the age of 70. All would be required to undergo a thorough personal belongings and body check. No current Iraqi government official would be allowed to leave or cross a border but would be required to remain in Iraq to work their shit out. US jets to fly over central Iraq now and then to blow the crap out of any suspected terrorists enclave.

I think that is enough specifics for now. What do you say Scott. Want to add to it?

instead of a pre-presidential or primary debate what we had here was a game show format with the time keeper deciding how long was long enough. I guess when you bypass debate formats you get to decide how many seconds there are in a minute. this was clearly not fair or unbiased. Gravel was right about the potted plant remark as there was little time for anything else but a light watering. When will the first real debate take place? or like everything else these days, maybe I'm useing the 'old' definition.

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 2:09 PM) Wow! We might actually agree on at least the basic points. I would like to see also an intense covert war using various proxies to inflict as much damage as possible on the jihadists and Iranians. We need to thwart their ambitions. Like you said air patrols to prohibit the movement of heavy weapons from Iran as well as to destroy jihadist enclaves. I don’t know if I’m coming closer to your position or your’s to mine.

Covert. Covert is a good choice of words Scott. Now you are speaking an area of my expertise from experience in Nam. Instead of sending young military foot soldiers en masse into another country (unless absolutley necessary to defend ourselves) all activities against terrorists should be done covertly. That would include training those who want to volunteer from the USA and other countries (knowing fully their role and the potential consequences) to covertly enter into a country like Iraq and take out the leader, yes, assassinate. It would include the development of small anti-terrorists strike teams (again knowing their role fully and the possible consequences) to go wherever and whenever needed when terrorists are located, the infiltration of the jihadists groups where possible, use of car bombs and IEDs to take out their people. Air power wherever there is a need including taking out any Iranian military equipment entering Iraq, and sooner or later, to take out their nuclear facilities. You have to fight like a terrorist in order to beat the terrorists. You cannot ask our young men and women to play policemen in another part of the world and expect to have success against terrorism. You have to be very lean and mean and underhanded and be able to strike as fast as a snake then be able to disappear into the night until you are needed to strike again. And if you lose some people who have agreed to play this role so be it. They knew their duty and role and the potential consequences. But you would not lose thousands in a country like Iraq who are trying to play policemen. That is how you fight terrorism. And while you do all this you play the perfect diplomatic game with any nation, friend or foe, willing to sit down and talk and listen to your rhetoric as to how you are their good friend while you remove those in their country or under their care who are your enemy. You help other nations that are friendly and that do not harbour terrorists. We decrease our reputation as being a big bully that sends its military anywhere we wish at any time, and increase our reputation as a world power that will leave all other countries alone, but screw with us, house terrorists, and we will be in and out of your country faster than you can say Bin Laden leaving behind the death and destruction of our enemies they never believed would have been possible.

CA - now THAT's what I'm talkin' about!! Yes, Yes, Yes to the last post, especially. We are the ones who taught the British that conventional warfare wouldn't work againse guerillas. You'd think that we would demonstrate that conventional warfare (horrid term) wouldn't work against non-national (although seemingly very well organized) militaristas! (I am just flabergasted at how well we are all getting along today.)

I vote for CA as the next Secretary of Defense.

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 4:32 PM) Right on C A, I think we are begining to see eye to eye. Although I like the idea of using Shiite militias to go after the Jihadists, and using the Sunni's to attack Iranians. Simply arm them, provide them with information or mis-information and use them as proxies. Have a good weekend.

CA-All excellent points.The spurs of the CIA were won on the spectactular covert operations carried out by the OSS during WWII.Everyone got in on the act that had the flair for the covert.''Gone With The Winds''Leslie Howard was killed impersonating Churchill during a visit to North Africa.One former catcher for the St.Louis Cardinals was one of Americas top spies,French Cpt.Cousteau,taught OSS frogmen in the use of the new ''scuba''technology while OSS leader Gen.William ''Wild Bill''Donovan kept the greatest secret of all,that of the Manhattan Project safe from not only enemies,but allies as well.It carried out a huge series of successful operations from the fjords of Norway to the jungles of Vietnam[where it assisted a little known guerilla leader named Ho Chi Minh].The post-war CIA was as efficient as it was ruthless,able to go up against asymetrical as well as conventional enemies.Its hands in international coups d'etat were profound,particularly in Iran,Africa and South America going up against Soviet clients.It was present at the death of Guevara in Bolivia,and planned assassinations with such expertise that it was not known who had carried out the actual hit.[One brilliant example in East Germany,was the taking out of a Soviet double-agent whose cover was that of a dentist.Keenly collecting a full dossier on the agents habits,it was found that he was meticulous to the point of mania.Inserting a CIA team outfitted as painters and wallboard workers,these inserted a small explosive in a wall tied to a painting which they left at a crooked angle.When the agent/dentist returned to his office the following morning to adjust the offending picture,Boom].The Bay of Pigs debacle spelled the beginnings of decline.It's PHOENIX program in Vietnam and other operations tied to South American adventures and the Watergate scandal spelled further problems.It would [without engaging in partisanship,but the mere historical merit of the thing],be the Democrat-led Church Committee Hearings in 1975 led by Frank Church and Edward Kennedy which would destroy the CIA,and render it nearly useless unto the extant hour.Political assassination was forbidden in Adm.Turners[Carter]CIA,where it reached its nadir.Agents fled or retired in droves.Iran-Contra[Casey-Reagan] was a botched job throughout,and its entrance into the 1990s left it nearly completely impotent.Even Israels MOSSAD,patterned after the OSS,and an efficient service in its own right,mourned the loss of CIA greatness and worried,with total justification as it later turned out,that it would be unable to deal with new asymetrical threats in the world.It is long past time to revisit that which allowed the CIA to conduct its greatest successes.Make no mistake.Dulles CIA would have eaten bin Laden for lunch.Also see:''Rise And Decline Of The CIA''Ranelaugh,John. Touchstone Books,Reprnt.1994.

Woah Independent Texas: Secretary of State. No thanks. I couldn't handle Pam and Don being mad at me if I did something to displease the left, nor Scott and Larry pissed off at me if I did something to displease the right, nor you upset with me if I did something to displease those in the middle. I would have said Lee too but I'm still not quite sure where Lee sits. Flabbergasted at how well we are getting along today hey Independent. Well, there is still much disagreement, and it has taken a few days, perhaps a week or two, but diplomacy on both ends does work. When wrong say so. When possible compromise and give a little. Even when disagreeing let the other person know you are reading and considering their viewpoint (comments) That,s all it takes. Never completely shut your mind off to other opinions and ideas even when and if you think you have ALL the facts and are 100% right. Because facts are only half the battle when appealing to another's understanding and agreement. Passion in what you believe and sincereity for your beliefs and opinions are also required if you want to gain the cooperation of others. Even if you cuss someone out one day, respond to their comments with an open mind the next. All of us have feelings and egos. Continuous bruising of those feelings and egos only makes matters worse. And finally, never give up, because you might just become flabbergasted - smile..

Well CA - I don't know. I had recommended you as Secretary of Defense but I think you just sold yourself as the Secretary of State position you rejected :-)!! This has been fun, all you guys, but I suspect I'll be leaving the blogs for a while. Keep the work going!

I deeply think traditional political parties , with multisecular DNA  are genetically inadapted to XXI century . At the age of information and singularity,New parties and philosophies have to be invented with evolutionary structures

What else do you want the Clinton's to do? Their plan for this campaign did not exceed 5th (Supper Tuesday) When that failed they had nothing left, including message and money. They started with the message of experience, then moved to Obama's change and hope, then moved to substance, then moved to solution and attack AD. The only thing left for her at this moment is to twist the hands of supper delegates behind and take the nomination at all cost, irrespective of what it may cost the democratic party and the voters. She should declare her income tax if she has nothing to hide as usual. The fear of the Clinton's is the beginning of greatness in America

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