Believe it or not, I actually watched the Dems Thursday night debate on CNN. To say that the overall quality of the event – questions, responses, and participants on both sides of the stage – left something to be desired is to understate the partisan (and often juvenile) atmosphere that often prevailed.

First of all, it was blatantly obvious from the start that CNN – a.k.a. the “Clinton News Network” – set the proceedings up to paint front-runner Hillary Clinton in the best possible light from the start. Moderators Wolf Blitzer and Campbell Brown – two shills for the liberal left if there ever were – tossed Madame President softballs all evening. And the audience seemed full of Clinton partisans: anytime anyone would try and criticize Hillary! they were met with catcalls, boos, and (in the case of poor Barack Obama, who had a dreadful night) even a heckler. But did Wolfie chastise anyone? No. Did Wolfie press Hillary! on any question she either dodged or double-spoke a response to? No.

Then, to make matters worse, eliminating any remaining shred of credibility the network might have still had, it filled its post-debate roundtable with former Clinton White House (and, in the case of James Carville) current Clinton campaign advisors!

Just how much of a sham was the debate? Turns out several of the audience questioners were hardly “average citizens” (that is, unless you call Democratic Party operatives from, of all places, Arkansas! average citizens). And, come to find out, the network not only pre-approved every question that was asked (including that inane ‘diamonds or pearls’ question that closed the night), but may have also had a hand in hand-picking the audience as well.

So much for hard-hitting journalism for you! (Hat tips: Instapundit and Drudge)

Look,as far as I’m concerned, the Democrats can debate wherever they want. CNN is a cable network, and people can choose to watch or not watch as they wish. And if they want to show their obvious preference to one candidate to the detriment of their journalistic credibility, that’s up to them. But if I were any of the other Democratic candidates for President attending that event, I’d be pissed.

While today the Clinton campaign is trumpeting their candidate’s performance and saying she’s back on track after a rough two weeks following the previous Philadelphia debate, in the end I believe this debate does not work to Hillary’s advantage – in fact, it might even make things tougher for her; for two reasons: 1) even if people prefer a particular candidate, they don’t like having one candidate given preference above all others, and they will resent her being shoved down their throats, especially in a place like Iowa; 2) these debates do little to prepare Clinton for the rough-and-tumble of a national campaign and the spotlight that will be on her in one-on-one debates with her Republican challenger. She’ll get her lunch fed to her.