Comments on: Less Than One Minute Into The ‘Historic’ YouTube Debate…

By: Ryan Bonneville

Ryan Bonneville — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:58:36 +0000

“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.

By: TWL

TWL — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:58:57 +0000

Ryan,

I want to hear more from Gravel.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:16:18 +0000

I am with you Mark. Turned it off.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:28:59 +0000

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.

By: Ryan Bonneville

Ryan Bonneville — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:38:39 +0000

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.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:40:54 +0000

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.

By: Frankie

Frankie — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:31:30 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:53:41 +0000

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…

By: doug

doug — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:45:35 +0000

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.

By: Ross

Ross — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:56:54 +0000

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?