Thoughts on the CNN/YouTube Debate

[pstans]

I really liked the format of the debate. I think the questions brought out more in depth answers on the topics and it was funny. I laughed out loud way more than I usually do while watching political things on TV. (PoliticsTV compiled all of the YouTube questions.)

My only complaint would be all of the candidates should have had the chance to answer the questions. There were a couple of questions that I wish a certain candidates had the chance to answer and they didn't. I was surprised there weren't many questions on immigration. At every campaign event I have attended the most passionate questions were about immigration.

You can read liveblogs of the debate at Iowa Independent and the Rocky Mountain News.

As far as the candidates performances, I don't think any candidate really hurt themselves at all.

Here are some thoughts on each candidates performance...

Joe Biden - He didn't come across as angry in this debate like he has in past debates. He tackled the issues strongly, especially about the ability to pull troops out of Iraq immediately, saying it would take at least a year to do so. Even though I disagree with on this, I respect his view and it has merit. He was strong on Darfur when he said...

Kids will be dead by the time diplomacy is over.

Biden gets points once again by bringing up public financing of elections.

The funniest answer came from the question about gun control that asked, "Are our babies safe?" Then the person asking the question held up a semi automatic. Biden responded by saying...

If that's his baby he needs help.

Hillary Clinton - She didn't do anything that really hurt her, but I don't think she was the flat out winner of the night like some of the analysts on CNN thought. It was interesting many of the talking heads gave the nod to Hillary, while the citizen panels had her towards the bottom (Obama, Biden, Edwards were the top 3 of the citizen viewer panel poll on CNN and Hillary came in 6th, ahead of only Kucinich and Gravel).

Hillary was asked to define the word liberal and if she considered herself a liberal and she ran from the word. It seemed she got applause when she talked about it being time for a woman to be president and not as much applause on her stance on the issues. I will give her credit, she probably had the toughest questions.

Chris Dodd - Dodd didn't do as well in this debate as he did in the last one. He did get in about his carbon tax and his call for national service. I really liked his commercial he submitted and hope it hits the air in Iowa. Dodd has been on TV with typical boring ads and didn't see a bump in the polls. Richardson had humorous ads and started doing better in the polls. Dodd's ad tonight was funny, highlight his experience, and would help people remember who he is.

John Edwards - Edwards pushed his idea for bold leadership and came out more strongly than in past debates. You could see his passion when on the question about health care. Edwards had perhaps the best line when he had this to say about big oil, pharm, and insurance companies...

Big power will not negotiate, we need to take it from them.

He gets points for this line...

Anybody who's considering not voting for Obama because he's black, or Clinton because she's a woman, I don't want your vote.

The question from the Reverend about using religion to support not being for gay marriage was a tough question and I think Edwards handle it well for knowing his answer would not go over well with some.

His submitted commercial was great and tackled the hair issue.

Mike Gravel - Gravel complained that he wasn't getting the time to talk. Gravel has yet to campaign in Iowa this year, so I want to extend him an invite to come to Iowa and talk to caucus goers as much as he wants. I am starting to think that candidates that don't make an effort to actually campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, S. Carolina, and other states shouldn't be able to participate in the debates. Gravel's only campaign events are these debates.

Dennis Kucinich - Kucinich's best part of the night was at the end when he said CNN didn't have anyone to the left of him. Anderson Cooper responded by saying he wasn't sure if it would be possibly to find anyone to the left of Kucinich. Kucinich laughed and said it is interesting that his views on health care and the war are mainstream ideas. I agree that Kucinich has the right message, it just happens that he is the wrong messenger.

Barack Obama - Obama did a lot better in this debate than in the past. He had some very good soundbites. He had two jabs at Mitt Romney, one about Romney forgetting that he once supported age based sexual education, saying Romeny must have forgotten about that. Obama shined on the question asking if they would work for the minimum wage when elected. Obama said...

we can afford to... because most folks on this stage have a lot of money.

Obama then says they may not be Mitt Romney rich, but they are better off than many Americans.

Obama was exactly right on his answer about gay marriage. He said we should do everything under law to give equal rights from the state and that includes the transfer of property, civil unions, benefits, etc. However, marriage comes from religious institutions and they should decide about gay marriage.

I think Obama made a good case that he is the one that can bring about the change. He separated himself from Clinton saying we need to change attitudes and can't have the same people. He also mentioned numerous times that he doesn't accept money from PAC's and lobbyists and we need to get the big money out of politics.

Bill Richardson - Richardson also improved from his past debate performances. I don't think I heard him talk about any of his 5 points plans and he stuck with the basics of what he will do. He pushed hard to separate himself on his plan for Iraq calling for the withdrawal all troops in 6 months. On a question if their health care plans cover undocumented workers, Richardson received applause when he said they should. He got big points from this teacher when he said we should scrap No Child Left Behind and then backed it up with his experiences as a Governor.

Here are my final rankings of tonights debate...

1. The format
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Joe Biden
5. Hillary Clinton
6. Bill Richardson
7. Dennis Kucinich
8. Chris Dodd
9. Mike Gravel

Check out the past debates here, here, and here.

[Colobo]

1. Obama did excellently well.

[TeamJordan23]

2. Yeah, it was his best debate thus far. I think people liked his message. nm

[Clintonista2]

9. I'm a Hillary supporter, and I agree

Obama seemed to be very open during this debate, and he came off looking very good.

[napi21]

3. I liked the format. The avg. person is much more willing to ask

questions a media moderator wouldn't be willing to ask.

As to who won, I say Hillary. There weren't very many things that were noteworthy tonight, but I think her response to the "would you be willing to commit to meeting with the heads of Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, she had the best and most experienced answer. That's why there are positions like Secretary of State and Ambassadors! Find out FIRST what their real intensions are!!!!

[frogcycle]

4. nice synopsis

I liked when Dodd insisted on getting to comment on healthcare...

Edwards struggled some with the gay marriage question, but was sincere.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Excellent summary

I particularly agree with you on Dodd; seemed like he was blown off the stage by the others tonight.

[pstans]

7. There were times I forgot Dodd was there

In the beginning, I forgot Richardson and Biden were there, but they came on in the end. Dodd stayed flat.

[lvx35]

6. Yeah, it was amazing. I wished at points I could elect them all. Here's mine

My superficial impressions just from tonight, best to worst.

I thought Hillary shined, but in a careful moderate way, as I would expect from a front runner. She did a really good job of holding her ground, and also as projecting herself as being sort of "above" the other candidates, with her clothing and points and demeaner. But at the same time, she came across as being really kind to them; he almost looked like a mother to them in some weird ways.

Obama was good too. He seems to have the Bush thing going for him, (in a good way) where his mistakes come across as honesty, make him human and appealling. He looked tonight like a really grounded authentic guy,but also smart, and moderate in the ways you'd want to see from sucha new guy; not reckless.

Kucinich made some really good points tonight, namely about the mandate dems were given in 2006 that we have not seen enough action on. He struck me as one of the scooby gang, in a scooby gang with a few to many people: He was a real voice that should be taken seriously, not put off on the side stage.

Richarson came across as solid too. But the guy is just oo much of a stranger to me..I like what I see, but he makes me nervous because I feel like I don't know him as a person much. I hope he puts himself out there at the personal level more, because his policies seem pretty sound.

Edwards seemed like a real statesmen and good soul too, but I thought he stammered too much on faith. The other answers were what I want as a person of faith: God in heart, reason in policy. Edwards made me nervous when he presumed that I give a damn about his religious convictions on gay marriage enough to talk about them instead of his political thoughts.

Dodd was neutral, he made no bad impression on me. He seemed like a nice guy, but not enough to make me think that much more of him.

Biden came across like an ass kisser to me again. He seems to spend his time yelling about about the candidates below him and sucking up to the ones above him, who he is supposed to be challenging. We could have the troops out in less than a year if we wanted to.

Gravel. Sincere guy. does not play well with others!

[lvx35]

8. Thoughts on Gravel.

I had pangs of guilt over putting Gravel at the bottom of the list, so I must ammend. This is the superficial BS impressions list. Gravel was the only person to say something that made me really think, about the troops dying in vain. I'm fucking glad he said it, because what the hell ARE we getting out of Iraq? What did we get out Viet Nam? I thought about what I would have said if I were up there. I would have said that upholding the honor of the armed forces is what they died doing, so its not in vain, but its a fucking tragedy that such an honorable sacrifice was asked for such worthless ends.
But the point is that it takes a certain kind of person to get up their and tell that dirty truth, that nothing was accomplished in Viet Nam nor will anything be accomplished here.

[TankLV]

10. Edwards did NOT "handle" the "gay thing" well at ALL...

He wiffled and LOST my vote. Period.

You're either for EQUAL RIGHTS or you're not. It's really that simple people.

It's called COURAGE - the Courage of your Convictions - either you have it or you're "uncomfortable" around gay people...

Edwards blew it...

[jillan]

11. He was honest. And I admire him for that.

He could have said "Hell ya" and that is what everyone wanted to hear.
But instead he spoke from his heart. He actually moved up a few points in my eyes.

[rufus dog]

15. same for me

It did help him to have Obama go on after him and not contradict him. So he is a bit of a Southern homophobe, he got points by saying his wive is 100% behind Gay Marriage, with one caveat, he needs to make sure he does not continue to use her or she may outshine him.

Also I thought the Biden comment on the guys baby (a semi auto assualt rifle) was classic.

[pstans]

18. I agree he was honest

He was singled out on a tough issue. At least he was honest. He did say he didn't think his religious beliefs should be forced upon other people.

[jonnyblitz]

19. wow so that is how it is spun now when one of ours has a

bigoted view? his HONESTY is refreshing??!?! jesus FUCKING christ. the excuses some of you make for these assholes. I am glad he was honest TOO so I know NOT to support him!!!

yes let all our candidates be honest of their dislike for gays so we can RESPECT THEIR HONESTY and praise them for their ignorance!!! "he spoke from his heart..." GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.

[pstans]

23. Edwards said he doesn't believe it, but his beliefs won't get in the way of things

Edwards believes in equal rights.

[IA_Seth]

26. It came across Blouin-esque to me though..

(which I guess only us Iowans will probably understand)

Blouin would say he was against abortion personally, but wouldn't legislate against it. All that did was piss off both sides.

I think Edwards comments here will do the same. Edwards says that he does not 'believe in' gay marriage, but that he wouldnt allow his faith to interfere as President. I think he alienates supporters of gay marriage for being anti, detractors of gay marriage for not being solidly against, and maybe even those faith-based voters for basically saying his faith wont play a part in his governance.

And why would he have to throw in the fact that Elizabeth supports gay marriage? Did the rest of them tell us how their spouses feel about key issues? It sounded like an "oh shit I got stuck" comment to me.

I won't lie, I've never been a huge fan of Edwards really, but he has been seeming pretty politician-y to me these last few debates.

[frogcycle]

17. I thought he was a bit of a deer in the headlights on that one

and you'd think he would have had a canned response ready

I think the problem came from the way the question was posed - in a straight "up or down" political question he says equality under the law is essential - no grey area

so far so good

The inflammatory part of the question is always "should the states and federal government call it 'marriage'"

It is really all about a word.


"marriage" is an institution that predates governmental definitions. It is a religious institution, with different rules and traditions in different religions. In our country, with supposedly secular government, states and fed have no business paying any attention to it whatsoever.

They CAN define legal contracts, which they have done, but should NOT require that those contracts discriminate based on race, gender, national origin, etc. Its that simple.

Stop calling it 'marriage' for heterosexual couples and this discussion is over.

Edwards, I believe, was caught off guard with a perceived 'trap' question. He was trying to take care not to appear to deny his religious faith and to reinforce his political position at the same time.

Since that religious faith (apparently, I don't know much about it) says it only recognizes heterosexual marriage, he's saying gays should be able to have the same state-sanctioned rights as anyone but he does not disagree with his church in saying they won't call it 'marriage.' I suppose to some belonging to such a religion is analogous to belonging to a whites-only country club. But people raised in a church have a harder time disavowing the church than someone who joined a club does in quitting it. Not being religious, I tend to sneer a little at ALL the candidates promoting their 'faith' as a political metric. And when that 'faith' is in teachings I disagree with, I give them a checkmark in the 'negative' column. But if they say states should not allow the same legal contracts to all, then I write them off.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Agree with your take on it, except I would say Hillary came in at #2--

from the half-hour I was able to see, anyway.

[countmyvote4real]

13. Thank you for your analysis. For the most part I do agree.

I hope that I can substantiate my opinions as thoughtfully as you did. So here goes…

The Format – This was the most refreshing thing about this exercise. (I can’t call these “meet and greets” debates. They just are not.) It was truly great to see the candidates respond to questions from ordinary citizens and not a WH press corp looking for a “gotcha” moment. Of course, the questions were still edited down by corporate media whores at CNN, but the result was more insightful responses from all the candidates. I don’t foresee the Republican version being as much fun.
.
Hillary Clinton – I am not her biggest fan, but I thought she was smooth, confident and very practical in her responses. For instance, when asked about personally meeting with F-list leaders within the first year of the presidency, she said no, but backed it up with stratetic reasons for her position. Also, when asked about the “Bush/Clinton” dynasty issue, I think she was very savvy by reminding us that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election. For the first time she managed to me make forget that the dynasty issues will be a problem. It didn’t last long, but I had a moment.

Barack Obama – He has yet to convince me. I agree that he has a fresh view, but I can’t see him being the strong arm executive we’ll need to confront the obstructionist GOP. I think he will sell out some interests in order to move one step forward before two steps back. That’s my takeaway.

John Edwards – He is my winner tonight for (1) his honesty on the gay marriage/church and state separation issue and (2) his response that you also noted about taking away the influence of corporate lobbyists. He’s fought corporations and knows how to fight. Plus, I thought his video was great: Is it about his hair or the issues?

Everybody Else – The rest have years of public service to their credit and some have more corporate support than others. (I will not ever support Joe Biden based on his vote for the bankruptcy bill. I will give him some credit for bringing up the subject of public funded elections, but that gets cancelled out by his voting record tied to credit card contributions on the bankruptcy issue. He might by a thoughtful whore, but he’s a whore.) Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are the two candidates that I would most likely want to have a beer with, but I don’t see them or me ever elected to the office of POTUS. Bill Richardson probably has the best resume for the job out of the lot, but I don’t think his experience will be much about change to the status quo.

Al Gore – He was not represented tonight as a candidate, but he would get my vote hands down over anybody else in this race. Hillary’s props to him raised my acceptance of her promotion by MSM. Let’s face it. He’s the angel in the house who should have been POTUS. Most of all I trust either Gore or Edwards to fix things.

So, here are my final rankings:

1. The format
2. Al Gore
3. John Edwards
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Bill Richardson
6. Dennis Kucinich
7. Barack Obama
8. Chris Dodd
9. Mike Gravel
10. Joe Biden

[countmyvote4real]

14. Update. Edwards just lost my support based on impeachment.

I wish him and Elizabeth well, but I can no longer support another potential dictator that looks the other way when it comes to executive privilege. Sorry. It's either fight or flight. This position is pure flee.

Here's the Edwards post debate link. Truly sad. I fear that he is an imposter like Hillary afterall.

I guess impeachment is my single issue. And that goes for everyone up for vote next year. Did you or didn't you sign on or do anything to remove these thugs from office?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2sqwfYBzq0

[TheDonkey]

16. I liked the debate I also "lol"ed a few times which is good

I think the Democratic party is fun and this debate seemed a little more lively and entertaining than some others. I can only imagine how awkward the republicans will be in it (I won't be watching to find out though).

Biden always does really well in these debates but never good enough to truly break out like John Kerry did in the debates. He does well but only as a sidenote, not the main attraction unfortunately but I still really like him and think he's make a good VP pick and of course Sec. of State for the next Pres if it is not Joes.

Obama is still improving. I'm glad he was getting some applause and laugh lines in there. He does MUCH better when he is relaxed than when he tries to be all stern. I wish he had better handlers to prep him for these debates so we can see more of the relaxed and charming Obama and not the nervous and lecturing Obama.

Clinton did very well. She is calculating and precise like a machine. She knows all the right talking points and can gauge how to tweak an applause line. I would consider her the winner if I wasn't a little creeped out by just how machine like she is able to work a debate!

Gravel wasn't as obnoxious in this debate as before. He still needs to be left out though along with Dodd and Richardson who always seem to bring nothing interesting to the table.

[flaminbats]

20. I learned more about the underdogs last night..

some of it was stuff I didn't want to hear! ;) the candidates who impressed me most last night were Obama, Gravel, Edwards, Clinton and Biden. actually..the more I watch Gravel and Obama, the more I want to vote for them! I think Gravel needs to let more voters know where he stood on Vietnam, then more people will listen whenever he speaks out on Iraq.

candidates who turned me off last night..Kucinich, Richardson, and Dodd. I didn't like Kucinich's answer on reparations for slavery or his answer regarding increased taxes vs fewer tax credits. man..what's the difference? :eyes: I actually caught him pandering for every kind of vote last night!! :banghead: yet Kucinich's refusal to ever stoop to pandering was the quality that won my vote primary in 2004. I was disappointed with Dodd's refusal to back scrapping "No Child Left Behind", something I liked about Richardson. but Richardson shouldn't be covering undocumented workers in his healthcare plan. that's the kind of thing which gives liberalism a bad name with too many voters and a key reason universal healthcare, something taxpayers badly need, always gets defeated in Congress!

Obama did great last night, this guy is honest and has allot of courage! Kucinich did terrible, and pandering will ultimately lose votes for such an underdog.

[Debi]

21. Thanks for the overview - didn't get to see most of the debate

came in right as Joe Biden was taking on the guy with the assualt rifle! :bounce:

[aikoaiko]

22. Biden gun control answer was ad hominen and only served to further alienate gun owners

...who are moderate democrats and republicans.

As a Democratic gun owner -- his response did a little damage to the party.

[IA_Seth]

24. As another gun owner, I agree with Biden.

Do you call your guns "your baby"? Even further, would you do so while filming yourself in your home with the full intention of having that tape be broadcast on national TV?

You can be a gun owner and not be a freakin crazy bastard.

[aikoaiko]

25. I would not have portrayed myself that way either -- but some other questions

tried to funny or different. Biden could have spewed his anti-gun rhetoric without the insult.

And yes, I have referred to a gun or two as a "baby" as in "check out this baby". Perhaps is a culturally thing or a regional thing, but referring to an prized inanimate object as a "baby" is not really a sign a mental illness as Biden asserted.

[IA_Seth]

27. I guess it didn't seem funny to me...

And sure, I've probably called my car 'my baby' at some point in my life, but you should understand that for a lot of people calling your gun your 'baby' is akin to gollum standing over the ring and saying 'my precious'... it just doesn't go over well.

If the question WAS supposed to be funny, perhaps you should take Biden's answer the same way. I know I laughed!

[anachro1]

28. The Republican YouTube response

That was the most welcoming debate I have ever seen. People were asking questions on topics that REALLY MATTER in our world. I cannot wait to see the questions that Republicans will ask their candidates:

Gay hatred, and how to finally legalize it.

Some nonsense about JEZUZ.

Some pointless shit about THE CHILDREN.

What country can we decimate next?

Should the flag be burned?

How can we stop stem cell research?

Are computers EVIL?

Republicans; you birthed this ugly little baby called the Republican agenda - now we get to see you eat it.