Give your assessment of Clinton's debate performance last night:

[youthere]

I'm looking for honest assessment here folks....so save the petty bashing for elsewhere please. You must list at least one pro AND con...so no fluffing the candidate...OR using it as an opportunity to bash mercilessly.

PRO: Damn this woman is good. She stays on point no matter what. She took everything that was thrown at her..and be honest folks..they hit her hard last night. For the most part, I'd say she handled it with a great deal of composure.

CONS: The licences for immigrants issue is going to hurt her. She did appear to waffle on it. She maintained her composure most of the night, but it was clear that she was angry.I also got that she was trying to give the impression that a Hillary Clinton administration would be a continuation of the Bill Clinton administration..I don't necessarily believe that is a good thing, BUT I do believe that some would see that as a PRO, and also that I could be reading her wrong on that.

[truebrit71]

1. She seemed more 'in control' and relaxed than I've seen her before...

..she wasn't flustered and countered Russturds obvious 'gotcha' attempts quite nicely. On camera she looked cool, calm and composed....off camera she looked mean, spiteful and vengeful...her 'death-ray' glares were captured...and it was not a good thing for HRC.

She was the number one target of everyone except Richardson, who couldn't have been more of a suck-up if he kissed her feet right there on stage...she survived the night, but she took some pretty hard hits...interestingly the hardest coming from none of her opponents, but rather from her own strangled explanation of drivers licenses for illegal aliens...

She was less 'shrill' than before, didn't have a phony accent and didn't cackle...

Overall grade C+

[insanad]

24. Glaring Mistakes

I said MAYBE, and that's my final answer!!!
I think I have a good picture of what Bill Clinton faces daily when he's being a typical naughty boy. Hilary's face was absolutely reflective of her bristling anger and resentful bitterness as she glared at Obama with daggers that would pierce through a steel and concrete bomb shelter. Imagine if she wins the nomination and then faces the onslaught of the Republicans and other people who don't want her there. We'll have that face, that edgy bitch tone, that harsh rebuke and glaring resentment facing us every day on the news. It's hard enough to have the shit flinging chimpanzee of George Bush gesticulating and goofing daily but at least he's easy to dismiss as the buffoon he is. Having Hilary nag and rant and chide would make me cancel my cable.

When I watch these debates I'm in awe of the stamina and grace that any of these candidates must muster. The questions can set one up for a disaster and a cool head, thoughtful but quick and focused answer must be given. Every nuance of a facial gesture or tick is noted and analyzed for signs of honesty or emotional reaction. Then there's the time limits that force the one answering to give in essence, a committed yes or no, even if there's qualifiers.

From a debate standpoint, from a perspective of who can take charge even when they're not in charge, from a measure of one's grace and quick decisiveness, a sense of humor, an ability to stay on message and turn trick questions in their favor BARACK ROCKS!!!! I loved his response to the UFO thing, his response to the Social Security mess, his Halloween response, and the absolute dignified and intelligent demeanor he exudes when he's on stage. God I hope he can win. Not because I'm caught up in his electrifying charisma, but because his ideas, his leadership, his ability to reflect strength and diplomatic reason are all the kinds of things our nation needs to help us heal from the years of George Bush and his disastrous presidency. If anyone can take this bag of broken glass that is our nations economy, military, and reputation and make a virtual stained glass window to illuminate the goodness that is inherent in America, then I believe Barack Obama can.

[msongs]

2. clinton eats human babies for breakfast & is secretly married to GW BUsh? nt

[youthere]

6. MSONGS that is uncalled for.

If you only want to bash her then go find one of ten thousand threads meant to do that.
please delete your post.

[Skip Intro]

7. you'd think, reading some of the hate, woudln't you? n/t

[quinnox]

3. I agree with you

She took everything the rest of the candidates could throw at her and maintained her composure.

I'm a guy but I would have not been able to handle that kind of pressure and constant attacks she was under last night from what sometimes appeared to be a 6 on 1 steel cage match with Hillary being the one against the six.

Hillary showed she could be under attack and not resort to the same level instead basically shrugging off the attacks and concentrating her fire on the republicans.

I thought Hillary was well prepared for the debate in this way, she must have done a lot of practice to maintain her cool.

On the minus side, since she was under a constant barrage at times she did seem defensive and her voice got loud a few times which was not flattering to her. She seemed to be yelling at times in her defense which is not a good image.
Mind you, it didn't happen much but the short time that it did wasn't good.

[flvegan]

4. Pro and Con

PRO: She was under very heavy attack last night. I think a lesser candidate would have easily lost much of their composure and resorted to the verbal equivalent of fisticuffs.

CON: She sounded scripted. At least to me. She seemed to lose track and repeat herself a couple of times.

She's still better than those monkeys on the R side of the table.

[ddeclue]

5. "Two-faced" - She got her a** handed to her by John Edwards last night...

She got caught weasel wording on multiple occasions and looked very two-faced and dishonest.

Doug D.
Orlando, LF

[youthere]

9. One PRO now please...or delete your post.

[ddeclue]

13. PRO???? I don't know what that means and NO I won't delete my post...

[youthere]

15. If you will reread my original post,

you were asked to state AT LEAST one pro (something positive) and AT LEAST on con (something negative) about the candidate. You have stated your negatives about CLinton, now find something positive to say. If all you want to do is trash her, do it on another thread. I'm looking for HONEST and FAIR assesments of the debate performances. This is not meant to be a Clinton hatefest.

[ddeclue]

16. Who made YOU the moderator? I don't have to delete anything..

nor do I have to say something nice about someone when I don't have anything nice to say about her.

Good Day!

Doug D.

[youthere]

18. Then why did you post on a thread that specifically asks you to be fair?

[ddeclue]

19. I WAS being fair! You don't have to do "he said she said" to be FAIR!

[youthere]

23. ddeclue...that is disingenuous

there are already plenty of threads on DU where hurling insults at Senator Clinton would not only be welcomed, they would be applauded. This is not one of them. Anyone can throw shit...even monkeys do it. I GET it that you don't like her. I don't either, but even I can see that she did some things well at the debate. One of those candidates that was on that stage last night is going to get the nomination and be our candidate. I'd like it to be Biden personally, but if it turns out to be Hillary, or Edwards or anyone else, I want to take every opportunity to examine the positive (and the negative) things I may have overlooked. I personally would prefer not to hate or vehemently dislike any of our candidates, I'd like to feel confident that each one of them will have something positive to offer.

[Catherine Vincent]

27. "there are already plenty of threads on DU where hurling insults at Senator Clinton "

And Doug D is making the rounds to hurl them. :)

[cuke]

33. Like a rabid dog searching for water

and going crazy vicious when it finds it

[Catherine Vincent]

37. I've always described the republicans during Clinton's presidency as rabid dogs,

but the way the Hillary haters here are behaving, they come pretty close.

[emilyg]

40. Childish.

[youthere]

43. Very much so.

[youthere]

21. delete

[cuke]

25. Give it up

You can't reason with a rabid dog, and you can't reason with someone whose mind is clouded by hatred

[youthere]

29. I'm thinking...

this might be the third time in all the time I've been on DU that I will resort to ignore (for that particular poster). It's no secret I am not a Hillary supporter, but I have to give the woman her due..there aren't too many candidates that could have taken that last night and not lost their composure. As much as I don't like her...I was impressed.

[cuke]

32. I don't lie ignore either

but there are posters that add absolutely nothing. Absolutely. Nothing.

There's nothing wrong with not liking her, but some people act like rabid dogs. They see the name Clinton, and the ranting begins

We're all better off ignoring the rabid haters

[cuke]

8. Clinton supporter: Not her best performance

PRO: She basically kept her cool in the face of a relentless attack. She have real answers to difficult questions instead of standard campaign blather. She was the only one to say that the SS crisis was a right wing myth and that she "will not repeat republican talking points". She also stood her ground on her K/L vote and other issues

CON: She was definitely off her game last night. She was stressed from the beginning and her tone sounded a bit rushed and defensive. And she flubbed the immigration question. Her position is a brave one, but she did not articulate it well, and the others exploited her mistatement by trying to misportray it as dishonest, with some success

[CookCountyResident]

10. She came off as "tap dancing"

She came off as "tap dancing" on the immigration/drivers licenses issue. This is unfortunately a toxic issue with many people, and she just didn't handle it well at all - no direct response, kept talking about Spitzer's plan as if she was trying to dodge the direct question by putting up HIS plan. I got uncomfortable watching her. Imagine how Johnny Six-Pack is going to respond.

[FlaxieB]

11. PRO: Nice suit. CON: Runs on her husband's legacy. Also, she's aggorant.

[Catherine Vincent]

What's aggorant?

Should I get my dictionary?

[gorekerrydreamticket]

30. dyxlexic for "arrogant", maybe?

[themaguffin]

12. Maintained her composure - mostly - but here's where she loses me

When she won't make a fundamental response. Yes there are times when you don't get specific. I agree on not getting too specific on Iran - however she didn't do well in justifying her vote on the Iran measure as she agrees how bad W is and what he could do. It doesn't add up.

Her response to her (Bill's) White House records, as they relate to her, was weak to. Mrs Clinton, Russert asked specifically about the letter that your husband wrote the Library/archives and you still gave a wishy washy non response.

And of course, the illegals/driver's license mess.

These are legitimate issues. She is very smart and very capable, but no she doesn't get a pass. She needs to respond to some of this.

[Forkboy]

14. I thought she was average, at best, last night.

She kicked ass in the first two debates I watched, and did well in the third.This time she looked a little unsure and off balance (understandably).

Pro - She takes on the idiocy of the moderators to my great delight.

[AlCzervik]

17. probably her worst debate on the con side, on the pro side-

i would have folded "Like a lawn chair" and she didn't.

[itsrobert]

20. PRO: Able to keep standing after she was humiliated on stage

CON: Came off as a weak candidate, looked shell shocked at times, didn't have a good answer for Kyl, she didn't give any specifics about her plans, was wishy-washy on illegal immigrants licenses, threw a hissy fit when Russert asked her a question she felt was a "Gotcha question"

[Perry Logan]

22. She made the other candidates look like a bunch of little grubs.

[youthere]

26. COn?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. Too shrill. But impresive in that she remained standing at all. (It was pretty rough)

[BootinUp]

31. PRO: She never attacked another Dem

despite withering attacks on her, she stayed above that and instead focused on her record standing up to the RW.

CON: I wish she had answered the immigration question better. I think if she had just said that NY really needs more help from the Federal Gov., and she understands that states with large undocumented populations must find ways to deal with it until then.

Gee, looks like I agree with you for the most part. :)

[youthere]

34. You know what? I had completely overlooked that.

She didn't. And it would have been so easy too.

[Ninga]

36. This is an attack: "you are stupid"... "you are ugly" "you shouldn't be here"

It is OK in DEBATING to be CRITICAL of one's views, positions and legislative behaviors.

[Ninga]

35. She lost debate points by not asserting her positions above the others, and by neglecting to point

out others perceived wrongs and weakness.

It's called....DEBATING.

[Catherine Vincent]

38. That wasn't really a debate.

If anything, she was really debating Big Head Russert.

[emilyg]

41. I admire her for not attacking.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

39. I think she took a couple of direct hits last night...

from Edwards and Obama and staggered. The DL issue and the Kyle/Lieberman were big weak points for her, IMO.

She does stay on message -- sometimes painfully so. She somes across as far too crafted for my taste.

I really, really, really want her to stop being so cautious and measured in these debates -- too often I just don't feel a great deal of authenticity from her. Joe Biden may step in it occassional, but I never feel everything he is saying isn't 100% authentically him.

[PresidentObama]

42. Not good. I think Edwards and Obama backing her into a corner didn't help.

She just didn't look or sound Presidential at the debate like she has at every other debate. For someone who claims she can rebut and defeat Republicans when they attack, she seemed to it very poorly against her own friends on the Democratic side.

[Colobo]

44. Well

Pro: She is really tough and knows how to play the game.

Cons: She was exposed as someone that doesn't like to take a firm stand on anything.