At one point

[catnhatnh]

Hillary was pissed and they agreed to give her 30 seconds...after her response seemed to go on too long I checked my clock and her 30 seconds went on another 95 seconds. So Chuck and Rachel either had no clock, or fucked up, or were biased. Which do you think?

Edit for spelling....

[tularetom]

1. I didn't watch but my guess would be "fucked up because they were biased"

[onecaliberal]

2. Biased. Every day Rachel's shills for her.

[840high]

6. yep

[TheProgressive]

3. I think the moderators were flexible for both candidates...

It was a true debate... what a concept...

[elleng]

5. I agree.

No such, of course, when Martin O'Malley was still in the game.

[Dem2]

7. Agreed

It seems those above who said they were deliberately unfair didn't watch the debate or have preconceived notions since Rachel has been more than sufficiently pro-Bernie best I can tell (I never miss her show.) I don't like Chuck but didn't think he was in the way, which was a good thing.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

8. I went in with prejudice and paranoia.

But for the first time, I felt Bernie got a reasonably fair shake tonite, even in the pundit post mortem.

[valerief]

4. They said to Tweety they just didn't get in the way. Upchuck said

they could have said, "Lamp," and the candidates would have been off and running. The mods didn't adhere to the time rules, and it's best they didn't.