[redgirlinabluestate]

Hasn't this been posted 3 or 4 times before?

Anyway, in all fairness, many didn't have much to say or were stumbling or stammering (Tancredo/Rudy/Thompson). It's not Mitt's fault.

In my view, Hunter and Romney came off sounding the best. On one hand, Mitt's answers were longer, more detailed and interesting enough that he didn't get cut off by Matthews because the way Mitt spoke made one want to hear the answer.

On the other hand, Hunter may have gotten less time, yet he also answered very well, but in a shorter, more succinct way. His answer about what America does right and wrong, didn't take much time. But, it was excellent!

So this whole argument regarding time is kind of silly and sounds like sour grapes.

It's not how much time you get; it's what you do with it that counts.

[Gelato]

Granted, Hunter did well with succinct answers.

Romney required more time after he failed to give direct answers to simple questions. It took two follow-ups before Mitt admitted he doesn’t oppose embryonic stem cell research.

[George W. Bush]

Anyway, in all fairness, many didn't have much to say or were stumbling or stammering (Tancredo/Rudy/Thompson).

There were a couple of times that candidates didn't use more than a few seconds, almost like they didn't like Matthews or the format so much that they didn't want to speak at length. Tancredo, for instance, was on one of the Sunday shows and really did well. But he was lousy and close-mouthed at the debate.

Some candidates are not good debaters. Maybe they say less because they know they aren't good debaters. I thought a few of these candidates were having an Admiral Stockdale moment ("What am I doing here?").

[TAdams8591]

Hey, redgirl. I also thought Romney and Hunter were the best (and have already said so), and in that order. : )