"I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help. I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious."

Git'em Joe! I love that guy.

I thought the debate was interesting and that giving real people the opportunity to ask questions was a good thing. I would, however, improve the debate overall by not allowing the frontrunners to dominate and by that I mean not allowing so many questions only directed at the top candidates.

CNN should not have allowed question after question that only called for responses from Hillary or Obama or both. The questions should be questions that all the candidates get to respond to at least theoretically and there should not be any "gotcha" kinds of questions allowed unless the gotcha is equally applicable to all.

There seemed to be a close correlation between candidates' standing in national polls and both the number of questions that were asked of them and thus, the amount of time they spoke. Now is the time during this process when we should be hearing more from those who are NOT ahead in the polls. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes even more of a fait accomplis than it already is given the compressed and frontloaded primary schedule, etc...

You can't fault the questioners really since their view is skewed mightily by the fact that very little news coverage is given to anyone running other than Obama and Clinton. Nonetheless, that is not reason enough to allow any debate to become just a part of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the media in terms of who will or should win the nomination. Personally, I think it helps to push the debate toward more substantive discussions if we hear more from Kucinich and the others who are already considered also rans by the media.

I think any candidate like Biden and Hillary who claimed it’ll take a year to get out of Iraq (Biden) or a month to redeploy each brigade (Hillary) did serious damage to him or herself. We now have what, 15, 20 brigades in Iraq? It took us 3-1/2 weeks to fight our way to Baghdad and it’s going to take a year or two to do what most Iraqis want us to do and get out? That’s just stupid, overly cautious, inside the beltway, serious person blather. Occupying Iraq isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.

Yes, but the mobilization and placement of those troops (and needless to say the discussion within the White House about going in) prior to them entering Iraq took much longer than 3 1/2 weeks. We tend to plan (if at all) for quick invasions and not for the aftermath, including the logistics of getting out.

I agree with you that the occupation itself is a big part of the problem in Iraq. But a mad dash for the exits isn't necesarily better over the short or midterm for the US solidiers who are dying there -- or for the Iraqis who are perishing in far greater numbers. US troops need to leave as quickly as is safe. I'm sure you and I can agree that it would be much better if, instead being exposed to ceaseless attacks, the troops were preparing for a safe, ordely exit right now.

As much as we want and need to leave, we also need to be honest about what is going to happen in Iraq, to average Iraqis, once we do. A haphazzard withdrawal can set all sorts of consequences in motion. Open, unlimited genocide in Iraq would be a terrible conclusion to an already disasterous invasion and occupation.

Just one point: This wasn't a debate. A mass interview perhaps. A moderated open mic. A speech-a-thon. But certainly NOT a debate. I guess it's easy to con otherwise intelligent people into accepting this hogwash as a substitute for a real debate if you get them involved in perpetrating the farce.

It's like 1984 all over again...

By the way, for me, Joe Biden's response to the gun lunatic's question was the quote of the evening.

Overall, it was a moderately successful experiment.

I only saw the first hour and a half, but thought the debate was better than the preceding debates. But I don't think of it as much of an experiment. As another commenter pointed out, CNN ultimately chose the questions and there were enough submissions that they could pretty much find any question they wanted to ask among the entries. And CNN was a filter between the candidates and the people, just as all debate sponsors are. So the only real difference was the somewhat quirky videos and the fact that actual voters got to ask the questions instead of some overpaid talking head.

I came away liking most of the candidates more than I did before the debate. It's a really good field. The general election is the Democrats' to lose.

I found that I really like Joe Biden and don't understand why he gets such a media blackout. He's passionate, extremely well informed, and seems to be incredibly candid in his answers.

Those excuses ring hollow Evan.

Think it through, neither you, Brooks, Cheney, or I have any real idea what Iraqis will do when we leave. They may decide that killing each other is so much fun they'll do it on an even bigger scale than they're killing each other already.

Or they may decide that the major reason they're fighting each other, the occupation and destruction of their country by a foreign aggressor which they think is trying to subjugate them and steal their oil aided and abetted by the puppet government we've installed in the Green Zone has ended and instead celebrate their victory and independence.

The second scenario is more likely than the first.

But in any case no matter what might happen 160,000 US soldiers can't stop 25 million people from doing whatever they're gonna do anyway. Leaving 40 or 50,000 behind is even crazier.

As General Odom says it's gotten worse every year since we've been there. As General Petraeus himself wrote in the new US military counter insurgency manual last year we'd need at least 20 soldiers per 1000 civilians just to keep the peace let alone beat an insurgency.

George Bush knows all this. He fears Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad celebrating their victory over Americans not genocide in Iraq. He knows it's inevitable and he'll do what ever he can to make sure it doesn't happen til after he leaves office so he can claim someone else lost his war. Handwringing about genocide just plays into his hands.

As for a timetable how can Hillary claim she's done a lot of research on this? She just started
trying to get the DOD to show their plans for redeployment out of Iraq.

We've rotated whole battalians in and out of Iraq for the last 4 and a half years in a matter of days. It doesn't take nearly as much planning to redeploy out of a country than it does to plan for an invasion. And nobody is calling for a mad dash for the border. But getting all American troops out - if you're not looking for excuses to stay - shouldn't take longer than a few months, 6 at the most.

Joe Biden is the only straight shooter in the bunch. That is why he's doing so poorly. Hillary probably doesn't disagree with him on much, but she's a bit smarter on how to word things and on pandering to the far left. Edwards stock rose a bit with me, but I don't think he makes the cut. Obama is better than Richardson at the "talk in generalities and don't actually say anything" game, but it's still the same game. Dodd has my respect...as a senator, not too many bold ideas there. Nothing changes in America, the far right is doing their level best to sink the Republican party, but the far left won't let them.

And CNN was a filter between the candidates and the people, just as all debate sponsors are. So the only real difference was the somewhat quirky videos and the fact that actual voters got to ask the questions instead of some overpaid talking head.

As I mentioned in another comment, I think there's more to what's going here on than just quirky videos.

While it's certainly not clear where things are headed, the idea of mixing the professional world of journalism with the amateur world of YouTube is, to me, a significant step forward. If people can feel somewhat closer to the political process, through posting YouTube videos or using Twitter or blogging, that's certainly a good thing.  

It would have been better, of course, for CNN to be less involved in the process -- the most common complaint about this was CNN did not use the tools already in place on YouTube to allow the "top" video questions to come forward.

It's possible, for example, that one day YouTube could host this thing directly -- they really didn't need CNN, other than TV coverage. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

C'mon that's just Bush bullshit. We have convoy routes to Kuwait 300 miles away that are used every day. Do you think Iraqis are more likely to try and kill our soldiers if we announce we're leaving than they are now? What are you guys smoking? An orderly withdrawal shouldn't take more than 6 months at most.

Look at the damn polls. Iraqis overwhelmingly want us out. They say we make the security situation worse, not better. We're not protecting anything but the last shreds of George Bush's reputation by hanging around. Even Maliki said we can leave anytime we want. The American people want us out. Practically everybody but Dick Cheney and George Bush wants us out and you guys are making their excuses for them.

There's not gonna be a pony. There's not going to be a US ally in Iraq. There is going to be an ally of Iran in Iraq. Most of the Shia political leaders of the country spent most of their adult lives there. The second biggest business in Iraq is Shia religious tourism from Iran. George Bush has made America the enemy to most Iraqis by invading and wrecking their country. They may forgive us someday but first we have to stop trashing the place and get out.

Anything else is the fairy story. Get over it. It's not worth one more US or Iraqi life or limb trying to change it, especially not with the US military. Once again, occupying Iraq isn't the solution, it's the problem.

Agreed. I can't understand how we're supposed to believe that Clinton and Obama vote the same on everything, except for if Obama had been in the Senate at the time, on that one vote, he would have voted differently.

I don't get it.

What I also don't understand, in terms of getting off Clinton's back about the vote, is why she cannot just come out and say she made a mistake? It was the worst and most misguided vote she ever cast?

If she said that, and explained how she learned an important lesson about trusting the Executive Branch, who could have a problem with that?

The idea that the prez can use the military for whatever he/she wants is exactly what's gone wrong in this country. The presidency is the executive, charged by the Constitution with carrying out the will of the people as expressed through a democratic (small "d") congress and overseen by the judiciary. It's a job like being Sheriff or CEO. The president is not a monarch.

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing Hillary Clinton refer back to 'her scars EVERY time SHE is asked WHAT HER Universal Health Care Plan is.

The fact is that every since her huge healthcare policy failure she has simply pandered to the insurance companies for all their lobby dollars. She is now the 2nd highest beneficiary of healthcare lobby dollars. She capitulated rather than stand up and fight for universal health care.

If Senator Clintor has a feasible PLAN for Universal Health Care she should tell us about it and not hide behind the Democrats are 'unified' to avoid dealing with the question.

Hillary has not once put forth a Universal Health Care plan all she does is talk about how the American people need to have the will for it will greedily taking lots of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry to not ever provide us with healthcare.

One thing is for sure no one will ever be able to say made promises she did not keep because she is not making any when it comes to the issue, she is simply hiding behind Barack and John's plans. 

When it comes to the War she has no plan for that either. She once again is trying to hide behind words without deeds. Senator Clinton was not the one who pushed for timetables to withdraw. Barack was. Hillary kept repeating Bush's lines about not being able to set a date because of the potential for civil war, in the meantime Barack worked right along with Feingold to mold consensus for a date.

It is time for Hillary to acknowledge her lack of responsibility on the vote for the war, her lack of leadership to stand up and advocate change on the war policy rather than blaming Bush and it is time for her to come up with a plan for Universal Health care as well as produce a track record of experience other than being a spouse who traveled the world as her husband's helpmate and trying to project that as her representing the country. No she did not represent the country, she represented the president's wife, the President was elected to represent the USA and that is who the heads ofstate respected,not her. Just like the American public respected her husband as President not Hillary. Hillary polarizes Bill charms.

Let's hear about some actual deeds from Hillary instead of all this 'the Democrats are united' when she has failed to produce any plans and only Barack has deeds of merit.

I like hearing people focus on their good judgment and experience, Barack was right on the war and he needs to keep saying it so that folks do not get deceived into believing that Hillary is actually going to do anything. Because when it comes time to acting on principle and exercising good judgment Hillary doesn't.

The death of all those Americans is too REALISTC to forget. This was a dumb war and should never have been waged.

Hillary has poor judgment when it matters..she capitualated on health care and she trusted Bush.  Barack needs to keep emphasizing that significant diffference especially since Hillary's poor judgment is costing people their lives whether it is due to lack of medical care or being blown up by IED's, Hillary's lack of judgment is responsible.

Very nice. I'd add to it that its somewhat absurd to ask for detailed withdrawal plans beyond, basically, what we're getting. What does that even mean, really? "We'll draw down three brigades in the first 2 months using 30 [big plane X] while moving another 2 brigades along out of Baghdad towards Anbar" or whatever, on and on...?

I mean, is the demand for "detailed withdrawal plans" even coherent? Do you want Hillary, Obama, or Edwards crafting those plans? Do we think anything even the best military minds could come up with right now would still be applicable in Jan 09 anyway? It just seems like a vacuous question, and then people get upset when they get a vacuous answer. "Gradual re-deployment while putting pressure on Iran and Syria" is the most anyone can offer. Or "complete withdrawal in [x time]." Or, "residual forces in permanent bases" or "residual forces but no permanent bases". Do some expect to learn which specific aide is going to get a job in the State Dept and what exactly they're going to say to some Iranian ambassador to "pressure" them?

I mean, c'mon. We've heard a million times where the candidates stand on this. They all want gradual troop draw-down, though their timelines are a little different. Some emphasize long term, "over the horizon" residual forces, others do not. Some are in favor of permanent bases, others are not. Some emphasize talking with regional powers, others do not. What else is there? And if you want a direct answer on any of those questions, ask it directly. "Candidates, yes or no question: permanent bases in Iraq?" Etc etc.

Senator Clinton does have a bill in the senate to end our participation in the Iraq war. It is 'S 670 IS': "Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007" (introduced in the Senate February 16, 2007) -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110phxEJV::

Why isn't Barack Obama cosponsoring this legislation?

In addition to capping troop levels, Senator Clinton's "Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007" would:
-- Require President Bush to begin removing the troops from Iraq within 90 days of passage, or Congress will revoke authorization for the war.
-- Put an end to the blank check to the Iraqi government and give them real benchmarks with real consequences if they fail to meet them.
-- Require the Secretary of Defense to certify that all troops sent to Iraq have the training and equipment they need.

There is a summary of the bill at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00670:@@@D&summ2=m&

- - - - -

On the issue of healthcare, here are some her plans to provide better healthcare: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcare/

And here are some of the efforts she has made on healthcare in the past: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

Hillary does not co-sponsor bills Barack leads. She is playing a political game. Just like the healthcare fiasco, if it is not her way...than no way. Hillary is 'in it to win it' and that means not working with the real contender for President. Hillary is outmatched politically and financial by Barack. She creates bills so as not to have to roll with his good judgment.

She has an expansive view of executive authority...

 Yes, indeed. Very true. Much worse than that though is that she trusted Bush. Exceptional poor judgment and while she acknowledges that really poor judgment she doesn't seem to get that it was even worse that she sent Americans to die without ever reading the NIE report. It is just bad judgment and worse judgement when it comes to her actions on the war.

When you couple her view of expansive executive authority with bad judgment it is horrifying, Bush is a tyrant and bully. Hillary's bad judgment will be due to her believing she is a benevolent bully and tyrant. She will do the same as she did with the Healthcare bill,create a byzantine complex structure (500 folks divided into 34 committees)and tell us she is working hard at solving it when it actuality she will be digging a ditch deeper and with more twists and detours than Dubya's dumb mind could. The end result will be the same...disaster.

We need to remember that Hillary is responsible for us being in Iraq due to her poor judgment not her intellect.

Yes and no. Kucinich has some very serious ideas and if he were given more than a blip of time those ideas might catch on whether or not he wins. Thus, allowing the nation to actually hear what he thinks instead of dismissing him as a loser out of hand makes some sense because his ideas and positions could change minds and therefore impact the election regardless of his ability or chance or effort to win. But more importantly, you also have people like Biden, Dodd, etc... who deserve to be heard. These folks are serious and powerful elected officials whose ideas can help shape the national debate as well as impact their chances for election.

I still think now is the time to open things up and consider them all instead of narrowing the focus so soon and so much that our choice among Democrats is no wider than the eventual choice between the two parties. Ideas count. They may not win elections, but the do influence them, but can only do so if people know what those ideas are.

In what way is Joe Biden an outlier?

but isn't the issue of the actual logistics and timing of a withdrawal from another nation, one that is in the middle of a civil war, simply an area of knowledge that actually requires from specific expertise?

It certainly takes more expertise than it takes to look in a cracked crystal ball and prognosticate the same talking points about genocide after we leave that the Bush Administration and the war supporters do. The Bush Administration which BTW has gotten virtually every single thing they've said about Iraq wrong.

It's a 300 mile drive to Kuwait. There is more than one highway. There's a couple of big runways at the Baghdad Airport. Load 'em up on transports and trucks, set up marines and special forces along the route for force protection and get the hell out. Halliburton has plenty of trucks we've paid for to supply 160,000 troops that can be used redeploy. Moving an army isn't rocket science and the US military is very good at it. The Iraqis are fighting us to get us out. Somebody explain to me the logic of them fighting us to get us to stay.

Abandon those big bases and the Vatican size embassy complex in the Green Zone, the Iraqis need the housing anyway and it's the least we can do.

Apologize for the mess, congratulate them on their freedom, and tell them we'd love to have diplomatic relations with them when things settle down. When it does we'll come back (if they'll have us) with an ambassador and staff and about 50 marines to protect the embassy gates like we do everywhere else.

It's a sovereign country with a democratically elected government. It's about time we started treating it like one.

I don't have a camera, but the burning question all presidential candidates need to answer is "How soon do you intend to restore the Constitution of the United States of America as the prevailing law of the land? Senators, do you think NOW is too soon?"

Not buying it. Where there's a will there's a way. The US military has plenty of airlift capacity that can be shifted temporarily. Even you say flying them all out (which I don't envision) is a process that would take weeks to complete. I'm not talking weeks, I'm talking 6 months max.

On top of that we're already contemplating renting big Russian airlifters. If we announced we've wised up and needed jumbo jets to exit Iraq half the world would be standing in line to offer up their national airlines starting with Brown in the UK.

Tell me again why the Shia in the south who want us out as badly as everybody else but the Kurds would stop us from exiting thru Kuwait. And in the unlikely event they did try to shut down the road what's to stop us from doing to them what we did to Saddam's army on the way in?

I don't expect we'll have to fight our way out of Iraq if we announce a withdrawal this year. But the longer we stay the more likely - not less likely - that scenario becomes.

Exactly. Well said.