I thought the clear winner in last nights debate was the format.

For a first go at this type of exchange between The People and the candidates, my impression is that this is a great forum for Us to get to know these would be presidents a little better. The questions were at times funny, others passionate, personal, and usually smart. There was one or two "silly" questions slipped in for entertainment purposes, I dont think it took away from the overall event. Even professional press corps ask dopey questions sometimes.

The great part was, these were Real Americans asking questions about what was important to them.

My impressions of the candidates:

Hillary seemed polished and professional, answered every question without stumbling and came out with a slim lead over Obama. She included every candidate on stage with a statement of praise while simultaniouslly getting a dig in on "the current administration", which the audience supported. That was a prime moment.

Barack continued to improve his stature in the race. He is getting a reputation as a capible speaker, and again last night, when he spoke, it was with steady confidence and a tone that would not be an uncomfortable voice to listen to for the next four year term. He dove into stump speeches occasionally, however all the candidates do out of conditioning and the sound of his voice when he does, is easier on the ears than the other candidates. So if his policy can match his stage presence, I feel he will rise to the top. (I have a criticism: he kept referring to Us as "ordinary Americans". I in no way consider myself ordinary, nor do I consider politicians extraordinary. That raised my condescention meter, he should come up with a different term, I prefer "The People")

John Edwards cant seem to rise above Clinton or Obama. Last night was not an exception. While he didnt make any gaffes, I dont think his performance would sway a voter that was not already leaning his way. I have been on the Edwards bandwagon since his run in '04, so I personally hope he can somehow overtake Clinton. Its getting less likely, on a personal level thats too bad, I'd rather a President Edwards over another President Clinton. Hes gonna have to step it up.

Kucinich is an excellent democratic candidate. He is unwavering left on all issues, and passionate about his platform. I like Dennis Kucinich as a candidate, unfortunately .....hes kinda funny looking. Too bad, because he seems grounded, (same house since the '70's) smart, has conviction and even a sense of humor. He definately got off the best exchange last last night when he said to Anderson: I notice you didn't put anybody to the left of me..." to which Anderson replied: "we couldn't find anybody!"

Joe Biden. He could be a good president, but proved last night that we need to settle somewhere between the $10 he spent, and $400 Edwards doo, on the amount we will accept a candidate spend on his haircut.

Dodd and Richardson were both interesting, but need more recognition. I admit I dont know these candidates very well, and last night heard their stance on a few issues for the first time. They came across as competent, but I will reserve judgement til I learn more.

I thought Gravel was great. His answer to every question was: "Follow the money, you want to see who you're voting for, just follow the money....." All while pointing his finger at the frontrunners. That was great!! (You could almost see the knives coming out of Hillarys eyes) The scary part about Gravel (like Ron Paul on the Rehablican ticket), what he says is probably the closest thing to the truth that any one of them will speak, so the mainstream candidates will try to minimize his voice by allowing him to come across as a little strange. His message, like Paul, is that the eventual winner is going to be beholden to special interest. Gravel, like Paul, will not go very far in the race, and that is a shame because they have the capability to inject some Perot style campaigning into this race.

Hooray for YouTube, I thought the debate was lively and informative. Hope we see this format expanded and improved upon in the future.

Excellent post.

I particularily like the snowman asking about global warming trying to protect his son.

wdp

I think snowmen are a particularly underrepresented constituency.....

It is about time.

My mommy always told me, anybody can grow up and become President of the United States.

Dennis Kucinich is on his second try. Gotta give him credit for his aspiration. He is certainly a long shot, but its usually those second tier candidates that are the most interesting, somewhat more honest, and less beholden to special interest groups. Which means hes got nearly no chance of winning.

While the country might be ready for a woman or a black man, I still think we are reluctant to elect someone who looks like an (as you say) "elf".

Yeah Kucinich's wife is babealicious. I hear she's smart and nice, too. You know the little elf enjoys climbing her.

You know, I agree with the poster, except despite the good 'performances' by Hillary she ain't saying what I want her to say. I agree she looked the most polished and 'presidential'. But no universal health care, a war hawk, a globalizer, and a family dynasty seeker, the second greatest recipient of health care lobby money in the senate, pro nuclear power...to me all bad bad bad.

I trust Dodd, and he says things I want to hear. Ditto Kucinich. I think Edwards is who I'll end up voting for and he had the stones to say no nuclear power. I want him to say "universal health care for all Americans".

And I could be had on Obama, although I do consider him less ready than some of the others. Gravel is an asset, and I hope he stays in as long as he can. He's dead right about how the others are bought. And dead right about how much more important that is that 'looking presidential'.

If Biden wasn't an alpha male blowhard, I'd warm to him, reluctantly. I think we need to go into alpha male blowhard recovery, though. I liked the non mincing answer he gave the gun guy, although I'm not a big gun control guy. At least Biden didn't dance that wince inducing temporizing dance the others did, and i think the gun guy was nuts. Biden for sec defense. Even VP, if he can stand it, or would give up the senate.

I do think Hillary gave the best performance, but I think she's bought and paid for, and has history and dynasty in her mind. I agree she's Bush/Cheney lite. No dynasties!

I agree the winner was...the format! I noticed some questions didn't get asked, though. CNN's (Time Werner) corporate interest was showing a bit in the selections.

"You know, I agree with the poster, except despite the good 'performances' by Hillary she ain't saying what I want her to say. I agree she looked the most polished and 'presidential'. But no universal health care, a war hawk, a globalizer, and a family dynasty seeker, the second greatest recipient of health care lobby money in the senate, pro nuclear power...to me all bad bad bad."

It'd be nice to have a candidate who agrees with all my views. I'm not perfect, though; my views could be wrong. So a more important question is WHY do they agree or disagree with my views. That said, I'm not real fond of the whole family dynasty thing, either. She'd make a better VP to Edwards or Obama than a President in her own right.

Feline you are generous. And your right, I'm surely not sure of everything either. I'm not sure about globalization, and in some ways, the war. But I am sure about universal health care and nuclear power and family dynasties. And Hillary's postures on these are bought, I believe.

Power companies don't want solar panels on everyone's roofs, oil companies don't want these panels charging electric cars (or the 400/month people currently pay to these entities would not be forthcoming), insurance companies don't want single payer (or the 20-35% of the health costs absorbed by these entities would dry up). Hillary will let power companies keep their monopoly and poison the place, and I don't care why, but I think its the money. Tens of millions uninsured and health care costs the highest in the world is ok, and I think its because AIHPAC is so good to her, but I really don't care why.

Hillary supports and takes money from these entities to do establish bad, dangerous, polluting policies, even though she knows its not best for us.

And I think know why she disagrees with me on family dynasties too, again, crass self interest over our welfare. I'm sorry, I had high hopes for her, she's admirably qualified in many ways. Unlike many, I think her first lady experience was very valuable. Alone, I might have swallowed the family dynasty thing, but the other factors make that moot to me now...

Well, we seem to have viewed the debate and the candidates much the same way.

I too, do not want a Bush/Clinton dynasty. So Hillary will not get my vote. Even though she seems to have all the right (prepackaged) answers. I like the fiestiness of Gravel, and the straitforwardness of Biden, but those traits tend to only get one halfway to the top.

Unless another viable candidate emerges, it really looks like the nonination will come down to one of these three: Clinton, Edwards, Obama.

I hope for an Edwards/Obama ticket.

I also agree with you regarding the questions, and there needs to be some non-partisan panel (with no agenda) that weeds through the questions and comes up with the ones that will be asked of the candidates. CNN or any other network is too beholden to shareholders and advertisers to be completely impartial.

Thanks for your input-

NorCal

If she's bought, then she has no business being President, family dynasty or no. That said. . .

Nuclear: EVERY source of energy has its problems and limitations, solar included. And our energy needs are high. Until we can reduce the problems and limitations with renewables and/or reduce our energy needs, I won't be comfortable keeping any energy source off the table. The more sources we use (renewables, nuclear and fossil included), the less exposed we are to the risks and limitations of each.

Universal Health Care: I think it's a good idea; I also think improvements to the current private system would be a good idea. I don't fetishise or demonise planned and free-market economics, so I don't care where the solutions come from so long as they're the best. If Hillary is letting herself be bought out of the debate, then she doesn't deserve to be President; if she genuinely believes a free-market approach to be best, she needs to present her ideas and let them stand or fall on their own merits.