About time we talk about NEW ISSUES in the PBS Debate *Best format by far*

[Bullet1987]

Every single issue discussed, except for Darfur at the end...were domestic issues that have been ignored in the previous debates. I'm glad we didn't talk about global warming again, and the war in iraq, and overtalk about universal healthcare, etc. They talked about OUTSOURCING, poverty, HIV, Katrina, EDUCATION. How can we have like 5 debates in the bag and not a damn question about education?!?!?

Much better debate, I just wish it were longer. People are going to complain about the format, but it was by far the best format we've seen thus far. I bet when the numbers come back, you'll see that everyone talked about the same time. The questions weren't framed for the Top 3...

[welshTerrier2]

1. no ... not really

i liked the questions and those who asked them. i liked the wide span of the questions. i liked the fact that the time seemed to be evenly distributed among ALL candidates.

but this was just NOT a debate ... it wasn't ... there was close to ZERO interaction among the candidates. if Gravel called for ending the war on drugs that discriminates against inner city blacks, the others should have had to respond to him. When Kucinich said we could pay for necessary programs by cutting the defense budget, the others should have had to respond to him.

this was nothing but a bunch of pre-scripted presentations ... who wrote the scripts? probably speechwriters and marketing types ... fake forums like this one offer only the pretense of democracy but without a real debate and the full range of ideas being both presented and debated by ALL candidates, the status quo will just go marching along on its merry way and nothing will change ...

i don't think any of the top tier candidates have much interest in responding to Gravel or Kucinich. and that is a major disservice to all voters and especially to those who liked what they had to say ...

[Bullet1987]

3. What are you talking about Welsh?

Yea...how can you say they didn't get equal time? The only disparage was between Gravel and Richardson. Richardson got like 8:00 and Gravel got like 6:13. Everyone else was close in between. This has been the MOST equal. They've talked about the same issues in every other debate, it's about time they spend a debate talking about domestic issues.

[welshTerrier2]

5. did you misread my post?

i wrote i liked the fact that the time seemed to be evenly distributed among ALL candidates.

I was stating that as one of the positives of this "debate" compared to the previous ones.

what i did not like, and I thought it was a disservice to ALL voters, was that, as the Washington Post said, "this was little more than a series of mini-stump speeches."

Gravel talked about ending the discriminatory war on drugs and treating it like a public health problem instead of a crime. Did the other candidates agree? Did they disagree? The reality is they all wish Gravel would just go away. What they did was completely ignore his policy suggestion. Thanks for nothing. It's an important topic and it should have been discussed.

And Kucinich brought up an issue that many of us agree with: to fund critical programs, like health care and education, we should cut the defense budget. The "Queen" didn't want to go within a million miles of that one. And neither did any of the others except Gravel. Well, then don't expect my vote if you get the nomination. I'm sick of the disrespect for this position so many of us hold. Instead, they're all posturing and primping for us about how tough they are or about all the great programs they'll implement. It's all bullshit. There's no money for any of it. It's just one big corporate welfare con game.

So, there was NO DEBATE tonight. The marketing teams built the themes after market testing them and then the speechwriters told them what to say and how to say it. And it all went totally UNCHALLENGED. This is NOT the way democracy should work.

[Old and In the Way]

4. It's pretty difficult to have an 7 way debate.

Personally, I wish this had been another hour longer....it was a good showcase and a fair environment for all the participants. I'd like to see smaller groups with a mix of top/lower tier candidates in a real debate format. It's important to see who can think quick on their feet. I'd like to have had the big 3 respond to ideas like cutting the defense budget in favor of domestic programs and politicization of drug sentences.

[welshTerrier2]

7. i totally agree

there were lots of other formats that could have worked. We The People deserve better than this. Why not do a "round robin" (even on videotape) where every candidate debates every other candidate one-on-one for say, thirty minutes. that's the kind of real back and forth that could give an honest airing to "new" ideas. the current system totally reinforces the status quo. the minor candidates, i.e. those without million dollar corporate bankrolls, are just ignored.

a head-to-head, one-on-one could change that. without deep cuts in defense, we'll never see quality education, quality health care, or quality mass transit to start really addressing global warming. you can bet Hillary et al will do everything possible to duck the questions that some of us on "the left" would like to hear answers to. we're being ignored; we won't forget it.

[rwheeler31]

2. Yes it was very well done.

Thank the sponsors and host.

[ShortnFiery]

6. I appreciated that Tavis did not insert his ego into the debate.

Chris Mathews is shameless in his omnipotent arrogance. :crazy: