Russert is a great interviewer. He leads people into places they don't necessarily want to go, and is always well prepared. That doesn't translate into being a good moderator, as the skill sets are very different.

OK- just to jump right in here- that was a pretty ridiculous debate, when it comes down to it...if someone likes you, even though you do or do not like or support them means what????? just a hypothetical here: Adolf likes VW's, and Anne likes VW's, so therefore Anne and Adolf are both 1940's German Nationalists...???? and VW to this day stands for the German Nationalists...????
This election seems to somehow spend most of it's time with the Urinalist's or moderators (sic) debating non issues...I'd like to see a debate over what the candidates will do about jobs being moved overseas, or our lack of a GNP, or lack of healthcare, or what to do about, well, the recession that may or may not be starting right now...
I'd like to see this election decided on real issues instead of what our current popular media thinks maybe might be an issue that may appeal to the vast majority of the people....
As far as I can see the Journalists on SG have the popular media beat hands down...and that is, no offense, pretty sad...
What's next on @bs, ^bc,%nn, or<bc... a serious in depth look over what color to paint the oval office?
Sad part is the popular media is doing the same great job as the fringe media...the only real reporting seems to be in college newspapers and e-news....

damn, Mrs. Senator Hilary Clinton really wanted to throw Mr. Senator Barack Obama under the bus with her semantics game at the end there, she's really grabbing at straws now.

Fixed.

There's been like 900 debates already, Jobs/NAFTA/the economy has been beaten to death, both Obama and Hillary have pretty similar plans. They both want to talk about Health care all night long as you can see from this last debate with Hillary getting hit with "TV doesn't stop". They have talked about 'the issues' the problem is that they both have pretty similar stances in general. It comes down to who you think can actually pull it off and how intelligently they will go about it. These debates seem like they were a ploy from Hillary anyway. She was getting(and still is) getting clobbered in fundraising and debates are free air time. Also I think Hillary is a pretty strong debater if she keeps herself in line, probably better than Obama at her best.

Also, yes, with that whole Farrakhan thing Hillary was trying to attack him, and it was just a stupid time to try to. Would anyone seriously believe that Obama is an anti-semite? From what I understand Farrakhan didn't even officially support Obama, he just praised him, likely because he knew his support would be fodder for morons. Take that last bit with a grain of salt though, as I heard it secondhand and never bothered to fact-check it.

Fixed.

I blame Jon Stewart.

Not necessarily unprecedented.

Bump-sorry-I am so glad that I am not the only person in America that finds Russert to be a "Super Douche"

Your comparison doesn't work. we are not trying to fight one organized force trying to unify a country into its form of government. We are fighting several decentralized groups who dont like the idea of our way of life, our religion, or anything about us. Also involved are Sectarian divides in Islam going back hundreds of years. When we pulled out of Vietnam, Saigon fell to conventional forces of North Vietnam. The government of the north took over the south, and the country was unified under communism.

In Iraq, the forces we fight are non governmental. if we leave, no conventional force is likely to sweep in and take over. Terrorist groups may strengthen their positions here, but it will not be the same type of pullout as in Vietnam. No one will take over, most likely, the region will simply destabilize without proper security,and a civil war will start between groups wanting to take over.

What the media doesnt make a big deal of is that Al Qaida in Iraq is not the only major terrorist group active,and in fact, is only a major group in some areas. There is not one large terrorist organization working in Iraq, there are several smaller ones. There are also local militias, and tribal factions in certain areas. Iraq is really in no way analogous to Vietnam.

As to the assertion that the people of Iraq want nothing to do with us or our form of government, id like to know where you get your information. Most of the Iraqis I've talked to don't mind us or our form of government. During the first free elections we held, people were running through firefights to vote. It really is only a small group of extremists fighting us in Iraq. Yes, not all of the people want us here, but the majority like what we have done for them.

And finally, your statement that we cannot "win" in Iraq. We cannot in a conventional manner. But in a counter insurgency such as the one we are engaged in, we can, and we are taking large moves in the right direction. we are training and equipping local security forces, rebuilding infrastructure, providing what aid we can. Unfortunately, what is lacking is support from home. sure, people support the troops, but congressional funding cuts for the war hurt us badly, as does the constant negative media coverage. Rather than show a broad look at what is going on here, the media covers only the negative aspects of the occupation of Iraq. This supplies an image to the American people that is not complete. We have indeed done much good here, and though there are still many problems, and much violence, things have gotten much much better than they were. Perhaps if the media would actually show some of the good were doing, we might actually get the money we need to get more equipment to save soldiers lives.

The media is an extension of corporate power. Guess what will happen in the general election (GE)?

Obama or hillary will be eaten alive by the media that fed them so generously during the primaries by utterly ignoring their democratic opponents. That said, its pretty obvious that the corporate media wants obama and not hillary. You democrats (i'm independent) might want to think about that.

Russert is just setting the stage for the GE.

Its going to be ugly either way but it'll probably be uglier and more personal if/when obama gets the nomination.

it seems that no one has noticed, but the Kurds ARE ALREADY AT WAR WITH TURKEY!

Why is the Turkish invasion getting hardly any coverage, anywhere? How can anyone believe that we are succeeding in Iraq if one of their neighbors sent 10,000 troops across the border?

Because the US government said it was aware of the invasion and fine with it. And because the media doesn't usually cover wars between dark skinned people, almost no matter how bad the death toll gets. As evidenced by Darfur. That isn't meant to be snarky, that's just the pattern I see in all US media coverage.

The people who believe we're winning have to ignore so many facts and realities that an invasion by another country is probably being catagorized as Turkey fighting it's own terrorist problems. Then again, I've yet to see any real right-wing media coverage of it, so I'm talking purely in terms of theory. Anyone have a link on the right's view of the invasion? I can't find any other than a short Fox news piece that was relatively neutral on the subject.

Also, the Kurds and the Turks have been at war for awhile. its not highly publicized, and the Turks have never come into Iraq before, but Kurdish terrorist groups have been attacking Turkish sites for years, because the Kurds want Kurdistan back, but Iraq and Turkey wont give up the land. In Iraq, if they break loose now, most likely the U.S. would not intervene and the Iraqi Gov't is too weak still to stop them, but the territory in Turkey would be harder, thus terrorist tactics much like the Palestinians attacking Israel. They didn't get media coverage before, they don't now. its not a big deal to the media and never has been.

Perhaps in this race he is poking at both Hillary and Barack, but I'd have more respect for Mr. Russert, and give him greater credence if he showed the same intransigent attitude when George W. Bush was running for President.

Instead, he fell onto his backside, writhed around, and scampered his legs into the air like a too-happy puppy. We were, after all, talking about a presidential hopeful with a black cloud of idiocy cloaking him like a Boston pea-soup fog, and Timothy Russert bought his "aw, shucks" act hook, line, and sinker.

Let the ass-kissing commence!