YouTube Presidential Debate

[monsoon]

If you watched it, what are your thoughts on the Democratic Presidential debate put on by CNN where the candidates were asked questions by YouTubers?

[Recchia]

This was the first debate I actually watched for the upcoming election. I really liked the format and thought it was entertaining yet at the same time the candidates were able to get their points across. By the end I liked Bill Richardson even more than before and thought Hillary came across strong as well.

[UptownNewOrleans]

If this was done more often, morepeople would pay closer attention. Both candidates brought their A-game. An entertaining yet informative debate.

[Captain Worley]

I broke my embargo and watched the debate. I really liked the format, and the way they had a few of the people who asked the questions in the audience.

I thought Biden looked good, overall. Hillary and Obama seemed to be in 'don't mess up' mode. Richardon slammed one out of the park when he agreed NCLB should be repealed. Kucinich lost all credibility with me when he agreed on reparations for slavery. Edwards, jeez, could that guy tell us a few more times how he fought big this and that? Gravel was like having your cray uncle at Christmas dinner: highly distracting, but you can't wait to see what he does next.

As usual, there was the dodging of answering, and I thought it was great when the person there and asked them if they considered their question answered (looked like a lot of 'not reallys).

[JerseyBoy]

I'm a big supporter of Hillary myself but feel she kind of came off a little bit arrogant when she made comments like," Who else is better qualified for the job?" Gravel was quite entertaining I must say.

Overall, I like this style of debating and it felt good that we as voters had our questions put to the test to the candidates.

[Gusterfell]

I'm a big supporter of Hillary myself but feel she kind of came off a little bit arrogant when she made comments like," Who else is better qualified for the job?"

[BrandonTO416]

Kucinich lost all credibility with me when he agreed on reparations for slavery.

[Gusterfell]

What really hurt Hillary was the definition of liberal. She didn't have the spine to speak out and stand up and redefine the word back to its meaning, instead she accepted the "problem" and embraced something else - progressive

[BrandonTO416]

Like I said, I voted for Kucinich in 2004's primaries. I think he's a good candidate, but he had the lowest point of the entire debate when he said he supported reparations.

Again, what Kucinich said is far less extreme than what Bush actually did (and still does) by funding his faith based initatives office.

A matter of fact, even though I OPPOSE reparations VERY MUCH I would rather see Kucinich in office and have a program spending money for reparations rather than the current billions of unaccounted dollars that are going to religious groups for charity work.

I just question what our government has become, because this is rediculous.

[erdogs]

I thought the youtubers questions were much better than what we usually get from reporters. If I had to choose from the candidates last night they would go in this order; Biden, Richardson, and Obama. I think Biden would make a pretty good president and he has the experience to get things done.

I know few of you watch Fox news, but they had a focus group led by Frank Luntz. Many of them came in as Hillary supporters, but they thought Obama won the debate. They also said that they would like to see both of them on the same ticket, which I think is going to happen anyway.

[BrandonTO416]

The problem with Hillary is more of the same. She has already demonstrated that she doesn't have a strong enough backbone, and after the Democratic primary is over it'd be back to politics as usual. She'd start touting the fact that she supported the President's call to war after primaries are over, then she would say that she just disagrees with the management of the war.

In other words, she'd create a "Democratic version" of the Iraq war.

All of the other top tier candidates are less pro-war than Hillary. Edwards is slightly, Obama certainly is.

Health care is another issue where she's "changed" her stances on. Hillary is Senator from the state that Wall Street runs in. Therefore she's the second highest recipient of health insurance industry lobby money in the Senate, and her opinions have strongly been swayed.

She can't be trusted with health care or the war in my opinion. But the sad fact is that if she's running against someone like Guiliani or Romney or Thompson, there is no choice... Hillary is many times better.

Hillary may win the nomination, but a lot of Democrats will be voting for her out of obligation not because its a great thing.

I've changed my political affiliation to being an independent in the past year, although I strongly supported the Democratic wins in Congress last year.

[erdogs]

Heckles, what are your thoughts on Biden? To me he seems like the natural fit for the democrats, why doesn't he get more support.

[BrandonTO416]

Biden has generally good ideas. Being gay I can't stand that none of these candidates can't just back gay marriage and grow a backbone. Civil unions is the same thing as separate but equal. We can give you the rights, but no we can't call it marriage.

Bullcrap.

I think its worth mentioning that my application to live in Canada is already in and I'm waiting on the results, so I really don't know if I care which way this election goes.

[Captain Worley]

A matter of fact, even though I OPPOSE reparations VERY MUCH I would rather see Kucinich in office and have a program spending money for reparations rather than the current billions of unaccounted dollars that are going to religious groups for charity work.

[BrandonTO416]

That money isn't going to the Salvation Army. Its going to churches pretty much. Google it if you want to research the program.

[kayman]

I broke my embargo and watched the debate. I really liked the format, and the way they had a few of the people who asked the questions in the audience.

I thought Biden looked good, overall. Hillary and Obama seemed to be in 'don't mess up' mode. Richardon slammed one out of the park when he agreed NCLB should be repealed. Kucinich lost all credibility with me when he agreed on reparations for slavery. Edwards, jeez, could that guy tell us a few more times how he fought big this and that? Gravel was like having your cray uncle at Christmas dinner: highly distracting, but you can't wait to see what he does next.

As usual, there was the dodging of answering, and I thought it was great when the person there and asked them if they considered their question answered (looked like a lot of 'not reallys).

[monsoon]

I agree about Clinton and I hope she doesn't win the nomination. I came away with the impression that she has been ultra packaged like fast food to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately I get the same impression about Obama. Democrats have a habit of nominating unelectable candidates and she fits this category. If they hope she is going to get in because of her husband's record then the party is set to lose the Presidency again.

What bothered me about this "debate" was that CNN picked the questions and who got to respond to them and hence it was just a bit one sided for my tastes.

[kayman]

I agree about Clinton and I hope she doesn't win the nomination. I came away with the impression that she has been ultra packaged like fast food to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately I get the same impression about Obama. Democrats have a habit of nominating unelectable candidates and she fits this category. If they hope she is going to get in because of her husband's record then the party is set to lose the Presidency again.

What bothered me about this "debate" was that CNN picked the questions and who got to respond to them and hence it was just a bit one sided for my tastes.

[BrandonTO416]

The elections are already set up anyway. Every political "pundit" came on the air and did the usual nod to Hillary and Obama giving fantastic performances, and everyone at home just follows along.

Until we get public financing of campaigns so that money cannot buy a candidate, we will have bad politics regardless of party affiliation.

Republican party doesn't follow conservative principles, Democratic party doesn't follow liberal principles. They follow the money and get bought off by the highest bidder.

This isn't democracy.

[tamias6]

Then our system of government is a complete failure and in need of being replaced outright.

The elections are already set up anyway. Every political "pundit" came on the air and did the usual nod to Hillary and Obama giving fantastic performances, and everyone at home just follows along.

Until we get public financing of campaigns so that money cannot buy a candidate, we will have bad politics regardless of party affiliation.

Republican party doesn't follow conservative principles, Democratic party doesn't follow liberal principles. They follow the money and get bought off by the highest bidder.

This isn't democracy.

[Lowerdeck]

Then our system of government is a complete failure and in need of being replaced outright.

[BrandonTO416]

It doesn't take a revolution, it takes public financing of campaigns and more free TV airtime that goes equally to all candidates.

[Lowerdeck]

It doesn't take a revolution, it takes public financing of campaigns and more free TV airtime that goes equally to all candidates.

[Captain Worley]

It doesn't take a revolution, it takes public financing of campaigns and more free TV airtime that goes equally to all candidates.

[erdogs]

With public financing who gets to decide who gets financed?