Edwards and Obama should be going after Clinton more.

[PresidentObama]

If they want any chance of winning the nomination, they have to talk tougher about the differences between themselves and Senator Clinton. Last night they went after her, and backed her into a corner. In all the other debates, they took soft jabs at her that wouldn't connect and she would always come out with the upper hand looking Presidential. Last night they went after her and pointed out the double speak and the differences between themselves and her. And in return, Hillary Clinton gave what I thought and many thought was her worst debate performance yet.

If Edwards and Obama stand a chance, they have to start pointing out the differences between themselves and Senator Clinton. No more soft jabs. The future of our country is at stake, and I want a tough candidate who isn't afraid to point out differences between themselves and their friends they're running against.

I for one enjoy Senator Clinton, but I want Edwards or Obama nominated. But that's just a fantasy until they start showing more backbone and ability to say "here is the difference between us" like they did last night at the Democratic debate.

[Colobo]

1. Don't worry- They smelled blood.

Now it's time to attack!

[PresidentObama]

2. I hated the Clinton campaigns response calling it a pile on.

How is it a pile on to bring up differences between yourself and the frontrunner? When you're trying to get their spot at the top, and trying to win the nomination, why is that a problem? They didn't attack her with anything that was unfair.

[PresidentObama]

3. I want to make this point too. Clinton has said she's the best candidate to fight Republican attacks

Well she seemed to give a mediocre performance when her own friends on the Democratic side came out and blasted her for double speak. If she can't look Presidential against Edwards or Obama, who are Democrats like her, how is she supposed to stand up to Republican attacks? I point this out simply because I've heard her say she is the most prepared candidate to fight those attacks. Yet when Edwards and Obama started attacking her, she gave the only lackluster debate performance so far. Every other debate she's clearly won as far as coming out the frontrunner, and looking Presidential.

This time I didn't think she weathered the attacks very well.

[LSparkle]

4. I agree -- she looked perturbed last night

She wants things both ways -- she wants to point to her White House experience as a strength, but she won't release the records. She says she's best equipped to handle Repug attacks, but she calls the Dems' criticism a "pile-on."

Her comment about "gotcha" journalism -- implying Russert wasn't asking a valid question when he only wanted clarification of her position on the drivers licenses -- reminds me of the current squatter at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. *We* will only deign to answer question that *We* feel are appropriate ...

[Grandrose]

7. Excellent point!

Hillary's performance really highlighted she is not ready to take on the vicious and mean winner of the Republicans! All of them are nasty pieces of work! x(

[mmonk]

5. I agree. I prefer debate because it informs.

Name recognition does not.

[PresidentObama]

6. kick n/t

[hedgehog]

8. I enjoyed last night watching her claims that all the candidates agreed with her

followed by the other candidates pointing out exactly where they disagreed.

[PresidentObama]

10. Yes. Amen. I think it's great Obama and Edwards pointed out the differences.

[polichick]

9. Hillary's pedestal got a bit shaken last night...

But she held her own pretty well ~ though it's flat-out impossible to justify her vote regarding Iran imo. The others have to point out the important differences if they intend to compete, but as much as possible they should do it without mentioning her name.