Hillary picked the perfect night to shine: It was the highest rated debate in primary history

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/democrats_bet_on_las_vegas_and_cnn_wins_71260.asp

The first primary debate ever held in Nevada was a hit for CNN with more than four million total viewers watching. CNN says it's the highest-rated primary debate in recorded history.

Moderated by Wolf Blitzer with questions from Campbell Brown, John Roberts, and the audience, the debate began like a rock concert, with the candidates being announced one-by-one onto the stage. CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein says what came next, is what kept viewers tuned in. The debate "didn't have the gimmicks," Klein tells TVNewser. "No speed round, no clock, no artificial time limits" on the candidates.

And no doubt, a spike in viewer ship due to Sen. Hillary Clinton's critically panned performance in Philadelphia two weeks ago. How would she fare on this night? On that point, Klein says, "the horse race gets them in the tent, but it's not going to keep them there."

Isn't that a coincidence.

snippets~
.."So then, who cares about them moving it to the Cox Pavilion? Well, HERE is the BIG Problem. I have learned from my friends who are well connected to Nevada Democratic Politics that in fact the audience was actually pre-screened.

There were only 2000 available tickets. 1000 of those tickets were given to the Nevada State Democratic Party, of which I was a member in 2005 and 2006. The other 1000 tickets were given to UNLV. Now here is where it gets interesting. The 1000 tickets given to the NSDP were given to people who were in high ranking positions, of which several of my friends are involved with the NSDP. Those friends were able to go to the Debate at Cox Pavilion. Some of my other friends who are not as involved in the Nevada State Democratic Party were excluded. So you have the State Party who pre-selected who they wanted to go. Many of the people in the NSDP are very sympathetic to Sen. Clinton. It's no secret, its just a fact of the State Party. According to my sources, not only did they pre-select who went to the Debate, they actually based it on the percentage of the various minorities in the state. So 15% of the people had to be Hispanic, 10% had to be African-American, and there were various other groups which were required to be selected by the Nevada State Democratic Party. Now I am not charging that their intentions were not good, I think we need to have minorites at the debate. What I am opposed to is pre-selecting the audience, and those who are pre-selecting the audience at the debate are overwhelmingly in favor of Sen. Clinton. I think it was clear when you watched the debate that there was a VERY PRO-HILLARY CLINTON audience. Clinton was applauded many times, but Obama was booed several times. It was not because Obama was a giving wrong answers, it was because the Pro-Hillary Clinton supporters pre-selected by the Nevada State Democratic Party were being rude and disrespectful of not only Obama, but John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. You could see it very clearly during the debate.

So what happened to the UNLV tickets? Didn't they go to students? Not exactly. About 100 or so tickets did go to the students, and they held a lottery which selected certain students for the Debate. The other 900 or so tickets actually went to UNLV staff and professors and their family members. I am not joking, this is what I have been told by a very reliable source in Las Vegas.

So you have only well connected members of the Nevada State Democratic Party and the Staff at UNLV, and about 100 actual students at UNLV who were in the audience. So, please explain this to me like I am stupid...

Much more..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3729174

millions of women.

Any woman who has worked for a few years or more knows exactly what she was talking about.

Could you explain?

I'd love to what you mean by that.

enough with the crap!

The 4 million viewers, of course, were all Clinton plants...

Circumspect to the point of nausea ,this is why Shrub won a 2nd term ,to our severe detriment.

Or was it 0.1%?

Shine? It was nothing more than a staged corporate Hillary-fest. Still, most viewers do not agree with the corporate Hillary spin, despite the staged audience and attempt by the moderators to create a turn-around story.

just how staged it was, and how lame CNN is.

I can forgive the voice.

Yet negative obsession is rampant. interesting

BTW her voice was fine. Shallow much?

To my ears, she has the least pleasant voice. That's certainly not a criteria I would use to influence my choice, but it is my personal impression.

How big of you to forgive her, though.

That's my impression.

Isn't it funny that you heard confrontation and divisiveness in her tone, and not in Edwards or Obamas?

Women who break gender barriers are always accused of not being feminine enough. Some things never change.

I like Barbara Boxer's voice, for example.

And lacks the annoying-to-Californians flat Midwestern vowels.

Maybe that's part of it, I don't know. Never thought about those vowels.

Or maybe it's just the amount of lies...I forget.

accent in the country. (And thankfully it wasn't common in my particular city.)

But there are millions of people, particularly from the Chicago area, who sound exactly like her.

you were an Obama supporter, then a Clinton supporter, now... back to Obama are you?

Or Edwards? Biden?

It's hard to keep up.

I was an Obama supporter, then supported Clinton (unwisely) when Clark endorsed her. I allowed myself to be unduly influenced by my desire to have Clark in a high-ranking position in the next administration.

We face a very important choice, and Obama is the best choice. Biden is my second choice, Hillary my third.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to keep up.

.

Also, she wears pants-suits instead of a straight up business suit and tie, which is shabby.

And she wears jewelry, which I find very unprofessional.

Also, why all the hair? Crewcut or close-cropped hair shows responsibility.


But especially the high-pitched voice. So grating. So ..... bitchy.


I'm with you, and for people who disagree I'm sorry, but I honestly think these are among the most valid reasons I've heard on DU for the dislike of Hillary.

Thats what friends are for.....

Oh yeah, she would support other countries over America IF it benefited Wall Street and IF she liked the other country. Or something like that anyway.

I do think Clinton did pretty well in that debate, but I just think it sucks that that was the highest rated debate in primary history because it was probably the least interesting political debate I've ever tried to sit through.

Please explain how that fact alone does not disqualify her from running as a Democrat? Obviously she does not give a crap about workers, trade or health care.

:dem:

the same side of the fence. She had to run and hide behind Bill's coattail. Well, Bill might not always be there. Suppose he died and we're left with Hillary alone as President. Geeze, that's scary. To think that she can't even hold her own in a debate with her own kind without crying like a baby. Geeze.

Biden and Dodd also did very well, and Richardson had one of his best nights.

I still think that we have a very impressive field.

whatever one thinks of her, she's perfectly able to hold her own, and to suggest that she's nothing without her husband really is sexist shit. She's accomplished in her own right.

to whom the people watching the debate felt was the winner, all we're hearing is what the media thinks, who are hardly the majority but merely the spinners. Hillary did do well but she didn't put anyones lights out thats for sure!

BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely.

and has a little too much colagen filling up her cheeks.

:rofl: Edwards was the worst last night, too! Obama was thoughtful and consistent.

Obama was 100X better than him.

Wow, did she ever "shine"...

:crazy:

The anti-Clintonites tend to post idiotic comments.

Most of them probably turned the channel after the third canned response.

I think the people of Iowa are smarter than to listen to the tools on CNN.

If it wasn't for that...they probably wouldn't have tuned in. We can thank the media for that! They must be patting themselves on the back. The election was getting too boring...no horse race. ALL the media were probably just salivating waiting for Hillary to stumble so they could attack...and they did...just like the vultures they are.

"presidential" is the best way to describe her.

This is an excellent line to use on Republicans, by the way. Makes them gnash their teeth and writhe like animals.

him. Many who finally got to see him educate the others and watch him show his experience and knowledge were impressed. Yeah man..

Clearly there's a little cult that's against her at DU and makes a lot of noise. Actual voters, however, seem to think she's got a lot going for her.

Sorry, whiners, you have to deal with reality.

Though interestingly enough the "Cult" that dislikes Hillary Usually (not always) asks good substantive questions about the issues. Whereas the Hillary crowd usually cheerleads and frames the entire process of pickign our candidate in terms of inevitablity.

Edit: She's hardly running away with it in Iowa.

Very strong Clinton and Biden supporters it seemed. People seemed disappointed with Edwards and Richardson most of all. There were also some obvious republicans there who really want to see the Democrats chose Obama. Interesting.