But Grover Norquist gets a pass? What gives? I'm sure some of the questions during the Democratic youtube debate were submitted by Republicans. What's the matter, the Repubs need to be shielded from any question that doesn't affirm their backward attitudes on God, guns, and gays?

Were it a Dem debate, then no apologies necessary, "bring it on" Carville and any other hack.

And who was the questioner? What was that lady's name? And who does she favor? Geez! What ass-kissers!

I'm thrilled. I'm tired of well-behaved liberals standing noble while the Republican machine rolls over them. If the Clinton team can fight dirty tricks with dirty tricks -- more power to them.

Diamonds or pearls?

I am an Obama supporter.

I say more power to this Hillary supporter for asking his question.

I think an Obama supporter would have asked a better question, but I am not objective regarding that.

I do not get the big deal about this issue.
Blitzer had Howard Dean and Govern Crist of Florida
on his situation room with questions they wanted
to ask.

What about having Mrs. Dan Senor (fmr Iraq CPA spokes-hack), Campbell Brown, as one of the panel members? She might be biased in favor of the GOP. They let blowhard bill bennett get up there and tell baldfaced lies.

The whole point is that he asked a valid question regardless of who he supports in the election. Who cares who the YouTube questioners support? We don't know, we don't care, and it obviously doesn't matter. A good question is a good question no matter who asks it.

I'd be more inclined to think it wasn't a gotcha if the guy hadn't been brought to the debate and allowed to prattle on for live over a minute. Regardless of how legitimate the question is, the way it was handled and presented does not look good. We'd react the same way if Fox did something similar.

CNN has to realize the king does not allow unfriendlies in his orbit and his minions deserve the same treatment. If there is to be any embarrassment, let the republic prez wannabes do it to themselves just as the king (repeatedly) does. What's a throne for, CNN?

I don't know ... I think there is some reason to be bothered by this episode.

That the guy is a Dem asking questions at a Republican debate doesn't bother me, nor does the fact the question is uncomfortable for Repubs.

But the fact that he had campaign ties is somewhat troublesome. The debate process is ugly and biased enough as it is -- do we really want to open the door to high-level staffers using their media connections to ask questions as a matter of course? I'm not particularly eager to have, say, a Huckabee surrogate show up to "ask" Dem candidates what they plan to do about the psychological damage caused to women by abortions. Yes, that may mean that staffers aren't treated like the great unwashed and are somewhat restricted in their ability to participate, but, frankly, cry me a river. They already have plenty of access to the process.

I'm also unsure what the practical results were, either for the general's cause or for the Hillary campaign. Neither strike me as benefiting from this. The candidates' answers and the substance of the debate have been almost completely overshadowed by the general's affiliation. The Hillary campaign, meanwhile, has -- deservedly or not -- had its reputation for, err, horticultural pursuits bolstered.