Not sure she’d want one, but there you go.

actually faraway, wolf IS a plant. and not much smarter than one, either.

I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source.

Ha! Still having a laugh over this line.

Umm…they are all developmentally disabled. Have you been around a teenager lately?

When that question was asked and answered, I truly thought I would puke. The way this is going I may lose 10lbs by January.

When that’s the kind of questions that get asked, Republicans win.

AlexB on November 16, 2007 at 12:43 PM

True enough, but any germane question answered truthfully, Republicans win.

Plenty of time for the censor to omit a person’s question, cut to commercial or develop some sort of technical difficulty if someone dares to ask an unapproved question.

Personally I think all the debates are staged (I’m inclined to include the Republicans too). You want to know that a person feels – look at their actual record.

Important questions of the day!

When they consume or dispense “Whoppers” they physically get bigger and bigger and when they try to communicate a point that makes them look bigger than real life they can not avoid “flip-flopping”.

This was her “Boxers of Briefs” question.

- The Cat

That is so true!

I don’t think one question should have been used as a meter stick for the whole debate. Even I laughed. If the rest of the debate was snowball questions, then yeah…

This one question shouldn’t be used by Republicans as another tirade against her. Attack her on issues, not petty things. It makes you look petty instead.

This was her “Boxers of Briefs” question. – The Cat MirCat on November 16, 2007 at 10:46 PM

For Bill it was more like the swallow or spit question. /sarc

- The Cat

Does one over the other make you more suitable?

Hilary answered that like the thief that stole state gifts from the White House.

Like, fer sure, like, gag me with a spoon, grody to the max, like tubular man, like, I thought that was bitchen, totally, like eeww, grody, like that was totally awesome.

benrand on November 16, 2007 at 6:55 PM

HUH???

Friday, November 16, 2007
Hill’s Best Friend is CNN?
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 11:09 AM

CNN has long been called the “Clinton News Network,” but after last night’s debate, many today are asking if the name is more than just a joke reserved for Republicans.

If you watched the debate — or even just saw clips — it was obvious that the audience was stacked with Clinton supporters who not only applauded her — but booed any criticism of her.

Now, I’m not speculating that CNN helped “stack” the audience in her favor — that would be conspiratorial. But CNN clearly broke protocol by allowing the audience members to applaud and boo. Traditionally, a moderator will order the audience to keep quiet. That did not occur last night.

In football, you’ve probably heard of “the 12th man.” Well, last night, Hillary definitely had home field advantage. I can’t think of another debate, ever, where the audience was allowed to take control of the debate to this extent. By allowing this to occur, CNN was essentially helping guarantee a Hillary advantage.

So why was it allowed to occur?

As you’ll recall, after the last debate, the Clintons actually threw some elbows at moderator Tim Russert. At the time, I speculated that their attacks on Russert were meant as a warning for other moderators. Could it be that Wolf got the message?

According to Drudge:

CNN debate moderator Wolf Blitzer did an ‘outstanding’ job in Vegas, a senior adviser to the Hillary campaign said early Friday. ‘He was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided the personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far. Voters were the big winners last night.’

… But it wasn’t enough for CNN to help Hillary during the debate. By booking pro-Clinton “independent analysts” like James Carville and David Gergen, they ensured the post-debate spin would go her way. Obviously, both Carville and Gergen have worked for Bill Clinton — Carville in the campaign and Gergen in the Administration. How on earth could they be deemed to be impartial analysts?

http://www.townhall.com/blog

Softball anyone?

Emphasis mine.