She clearly loathed the Republicans and enjoyed the Democrats.<\/p>\n
She asked the Democrats nothing about Iraq and terrorism. It was as though 9\/11 never happened, noted Nina Easton.<\/p>\n
Jim Geraghty writes for National Review<\/a>:<\/p>\n Saying I hated this debate is like saying George Soros can spare some change.<\/p>\n The retired brigadier general who was on Hillary’s gay and lesbian steering committee was bad. This one was… egregious.<\/p>\n Appalling. Extraordinarily frustrating. Alternately an uncontrolled circus and a banal snore-fest. Some of the questions were extraordinarily stupid – “is it more important to have a nominee that is socially conservative or fiscally conservative? What New Year’s resolution would you recommend for one of your rivals?” And what was with the video snippets of each candidate? What, each guy is going to get too much time with nine guys on stage?<\/p>\n This was a disastrous format, with insane time limits on candidates, all mismanaged by a brusque, snippy moderator who seemed to think Iowans did not want the candidates to finish their sentences. She seemed to want to ignore Alan Keyes, and when he was skipped over, he piped up and complained, and she allowed him to go on at length after that. It would have been better to not invite him.<\/p>\n Because the Des Moines Register included Keyes, and is not including Kucinich (on a technicality) nor Gravel on the Democratic side, I have to conclude that this was a bad faith effort to make the Republican candidates look bad.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" She clearly loathed the Republicans and enjoyed the Democrats. She asked the Democrats nothing about Iraq and terrorism. It was as though 9\/11 never happened, noted Nina Easton. Jim Geraghty writes for National Review: Saying I hated this debate is … Continue reading