Less Than One Minute Into The ‘Historic’ YouTube Debate…
…and I’ve already cringed three times. My God, this is almost as bad as the Tavis Smiley infomercial. A true embarrassment. I’m going to try to watch this, but I’m on the verge of throwing up my hands and turning this off…
UPDATE 6:05 p.m.: Okay, well, first question was another cringe-inducer. I’m out…sorry, but as long as the ‘debates’ are nothing more than gimmicks (and this gimmick seems to consist of barely literate slackers smirking for the camera), this political junkie is not going to play ball…
I think this is actually one of the strongest debates so far. The questions are real (two lesbians asking “Would you let us get married?” or a minister asking why Edwards thinks it’s okay to use religion as a wedge) and, even if the candidates aren’t really answering them (what do you expect?), Anderson Cooper is willing to push a little. I’ve been relatively pleased with this one.
Your Google Ads are promising me sexy pictures of Hillary Clinton. *shudder*
Maybe I should have stuck with it (the debate, not the pictures!)…
The huge focus on Iraq in the middle here is really drawing out a lot of interesting differences between the candidates. I think Dodd and Clinton are the real standouts, and while Richardson is giving some decent answers, his stage presence and delivery are so awful that there’s still no way to take him seriously.
I am from Murfreesboro and I find that very offensive. Joe Biden is right! NO ONE here talks or looks like that!
Biden wins the night for that last answer. “I don’t like a damn thing about him… This is a ridiculous exercise… The thing I like best about him is his wife.” Glorious.
Stop and think. Does anyone actually and honestly beleive that this debate was 100% fair? What do I mean? I mean why does Sen. Clinton, for instance, get 10 times more air time in the debate then Sen. Gravel? Is that what you call fair? I don’t think so. CNN should have taken a cue from the NAACP debate and allowed for each candidate to express their views with EQUAL time. Novel idea huh? How do people expect to be informed when they can’t even listen to all of the candidates equally?
I can honestly say that if this is the best that the Democrats have to offer we might be alright after all. The questions themselves were unbelievable and would lead most to believe that everyone in America is sitting around on their hands waiting for the President to do something for them personally. When did we become such a group of collective whiners..??
Nearly everything asked involved something financial that some group wants from the government… the problem is someone else has to pay for it. If everything Kucinich promised came to pass we would all be better off on the Government dime. Their isn’t a single one of these candidates who wouldn’t damage our economy.
Yep, big government liberalism is back with a vengeance…of course, even a Bush supporter like myself has to admit he’s been pretty poor on that score, as well…
In form, I think Clinton did well, followed by Edwards and then Obama. In form, I’d give it to the unwinnables: Gravel and Kucinich. I thought the format was terrible and contributed to the dumbing down of discourse in America.
How do YOU feel about the debate tonight? Who do YOU think won the debate? Vote for your candidate on http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=217
Make your voice heard. You can vote on polls on the topic of importance to you, and if it’s not there, you can sign up and create a poll in less than a minute (literally).
It’s new, it’s easy and it’s cool…and above all, it’s good for the public debate.
http://www.youpolls.com. Check it out.
Ross, maybe they could give each candidate time in proportion to their likelihood of winning. Then Gravel and Kucinich would get no time at all.
The fairness issue doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Does anyone actually WANT to hear more from Gravel and Kucinich? As for so-called “dumbing down,” that’s preposterous. This was one of the smartest debates I’ve seen. The candidates were actually asked real questions rather than silly pablum full of buzzwords (Brit Hume to any Republican: “Which Democrat would surrender fastest?”). Anderson Cooper was outstanding too; he should moderate more of these things. I can’t wait to see the Republican YouTube debate.
Debate? Debate!?!
“Should women be subject to the draft?”
“Mr. Obama, do you consider yourself an authentic black man?”
“Senator Hillary Clinton do you believe you would be taken seriously as a female leader conducting diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim world?”
Wasn’t the question about global warming from the snowman insightful and compelling? Um…. no.
Total bs, an over-the-top pander-fest, with questions from fame seeking morons.
I am with you Mark. Turned it off.
Ryan,
I want to hear more from Gravel.
“Senator Hillary Clinton do you believe you would be taken seriously as a female leader conducting diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim world?”
How is this NOT a legitimate question? Have you seen the Arab/Muslim world? If there is anything even slightly interesting in the fact that Hillary is the first female candidate, this may well be it.
And I notice you ignored everything else you didn’t want to think about. The lesbians asking about gay marriage, the minister trying to force Edwards to think and talk seriously about the use of religion as a wedge issue, the Hillary vs. Obama slugfest over diplomacy with intransigent regimes… This was a good debate. The best of the season so far. The major difference between the YouTube questioners and folks like Brit Hume and Chris Matthews is that the YouTubers are fame-seeking morons, while Hume and Matthews are already-famous morons. At least the fame-seeking ones are willing to ask questions that aren’t uniformly stupid.