I totally agree. The "moderator" from washingtonpost.com was clearly showing bias against Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton and for Obama.  Why couldn't he just let the numbers speak for themselves. We don't need his biased "context" after every active real-time poll result.  Clearly, young voters love Ron Paul, so why does this moderator feel the need to denegrate him after he got by FAR the most positive results in real time of all 4 candidates involved.  And why did he plug Barack Obama at every available opportunity and say that, "anyone who's looking for change clearly has to be voting for Obama."  I vehemently disagree.  I want change, and I'm voting for Ron Paul.  No one else is honest.  Everyone else is a talking head whose record speaks badly about them.  Ron Paul is a man of integrity who actually votes according to the Constitution and principles of freedom--regardless of what others do.  Not only is he against "special interests," but he's willing to vote against something even if every other member of congress supports it.  That's why they call him "Dr. No"--because he stands by his principles and won't vote for unconstitutional bills that reduce our freedom (which most of them lately do).

Next time choose a more objective moderator from a less biased source than the blatantly liberal Washington Post, please.  Otherwise, I love the format of allowing them to speak and give full answers rather than interrupting them and letting them bicker with one another.  Thank you for letting Ron Paul's message be heard, even thought the Post man made his derogatory color commentary afterward.