Was the 6 on 1 attack (7 on 1 if you include the mods) of Clinton in Tuesday's debate appropriate?

[ecstatic]

[hedgehog]

1. She got the most face time. It's too bad for her if people didn't like

what she had to say. I'm sure DK would have loved to have been asked as many questions.

[AndyA]

2. I didn't see it as an attack.

Hillary just needs to give straight answers, no B.S., just tell the truth, and she can't seem to do that.

After the secrecy and abuse we've put up with from Bush, it's easy to see that we need more transparency from the people who are going to be running this country going forward.

[harun]

11. From the clips I saw it didn't seem like much of an attack either (n/t)

[saracat]

3. Yes. She is the frontrumnner and should expect it. If she were a male no one who even be raising

this issue.I am damn sick and tired of the 'gender card " being used when it is convienent. True feminism would not expect preferential treatment and a true feminist would not even acknowledge a differnec in candidates because of gender.

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. I went to an all girl's school for a couple of years ... yup, it definitely

helps.

[ginnyinWI]

5. the question was a fair one

It was not "gotcha" as she says. It was a policy question, and it wasn't personal like Richardson said it was. She needs to be clear and unequivocal on what she believes.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I do agree with her on the substance of the question asked. She shouldn't be so afraid to take a stand, and should not, under any circumstances, start playing the victim.

[Lilith Velkor]

6. Like ole President Truman said:

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of Nagasaki."

[napi21]

7. I've really been thinking about that. I haven't been able to sort out in

my head why I didn't like it, but I didn't. I know after about 15-20 minutes i yelled at the TV "Oh for god sake, another shot at Clinton!" I don't know if it was the way the questions were asked, or because there was such a LONG STRING of attacks without anything in between. I can tell you, something was very wrong in that debate.

BTW, my candidater is Joe Biden...who did an excellent job Tuesday night...as usual! I would feel the same way about a debate like that no matter who was being targeted. Too much of anything at one time is just that...TOO MUCH!

[Beelzebud]

8. If that was unfair, wait until you see how the Republicans will handle her.

If she can't take the heat from Democrats, she has no business trying to take it from the Republicans.

[sallyseven]

17. It was the moderators that were asking stupid questions

and you know Russett just loves that. He and Matthews are women haters.

[Norwood]

9. It was appropriate and should be expected

Shes the frontrunner at the moment and there are many questions and concerns about her, so of course shes gonna get the most scrutiny. It was a bad move for her campaign to even make this an issue, it makes her look weak.

[BushOut06]

10. Please, I want someone to explain to me how it's inappropriate

I stated this in another similar thread, but she is the frontrunner. She is far ahead in most polls. Ergo, the other candidates should be focusing primarily on her. SHE is their primary threat. They would be doing a pretty shitty job if they didn't focus on her.

[sallyseven]

12. It was a gang bang. I opted out of Edwards news

e-mails and withdrew from his data list. I found him to be a nasty self serving loser. Obama too.

[saracat]

15. And Hillary is such a charmer.

[MH1]

13. Hillary did poorly and is making it worse by playing victim.

JMHO.

[saracat]

16. Yup.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Yes

It's politics. It can get rough.

[Bucky]

18. Out of hand! Can we please just this once have a nomination without all that arguing?

Don't you people realize an open argument with thoroughly vetted differences between the candidates only weakens our party and eventual nominee? What, do you think that Republicans are seriously capable of coming up with antiClinton smears without help from her petty Democratic critics?