We don’t have cable TV and I hate trying to do this kind of thing over the internet, so I didn’t watch the debate. I’ve been picking up this and that on the radio (Drudge has a show on Sunday nights that plays in LA) and on the blogs. This from Patrick Ruffini at Hugh Hewitt’s blog is the best posting I’ve read about it. Hewitt and Dean Barnett also posted, but Barnett seemed to be more worried about the Sopranos--though, for me, that debate sounds like it would have been all the mafia I could take for one night.
I think the forum was horrible, and Wolf Blitzer was a horrible moderator. He'd let Edwards, Clinton, and Obama (conveniently set in the middle of the stage) talk for 2-4 minutes and then cut off people like Richardson, Biden, and the others after one minute! It completely favored the "top tier" candidates.
Furthermore, a lot of the question were rather stupid. "What would you do with former President Clinton if you were elected president?" "Should English be the official U.S. language?" Right, because there's absolutely nothing more important to talk about. I was very amused when all of the Dems on stage started getting antzy and finally Clinton took the floor and chided, to applause, that they shouldn't be waisting their time with silly hypothetical questions that Blitzer kept giving them.
I watched the debate at the Cock'n'Bull Pub in west Los Angeles with a decent crowd. I was surprised that some people turned away from their soccer games to look at the debate we were watching in our corner. I'm fairly certain everyone I watched with was a Democrat, and I know some of them seemed to be leaning towards Bill Richardson or John Edwards. However, all of them seemed to be somewhat dissatisfied with the field and convinced that Al Gore is still going to announce his candidacy.
As for the debate itself, I feel that the "top three" did decent and that, of the lower tier, Biden did the best debate-wise. I was a little disappointed with Bill Richardson's performance (I'm a Richardson guy). I was, however, surprised and delighted with the praise that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton gave to Richardson several times throughout the night. I'm convinced those two are trying to warm up to him to be their running mate; he was on the short list to run with Gore and Kerry. Maybe now is his shot.
Looking forward to the GOP debate on Tuesday.
I think Rob's right on here. I'd only add that Blitzer was asking certain questions just to piss off the candidates and make them fight (I guess that makes good TV). That always frustrates me. I'd also like to emphasize how well Joe Biden did. I'm an Edwards-leaning guy right now, but I was really impressed by Biden last night. He definitely gained the most from the debate. Richardson did not do well at all. Sorry, Rob. I'm sure when both of our candidates have been outed by the big money Hillary and Obama can throw around, we'll at least have each other's shoulders to cry on . . .
Julie - I enjoyed watching it online (I don't have cable either). I use that CNN Pipeline thing. It's pretty easy.
P.S. - people are so mean on that blog you've cited . . . gee whiz . . . How the binary curtain of the internet makes us lose our sense of tact.
"I think the forum was horrible, and Wolf Blitzer was a horrible moderator. He'd let Edwards, Clinton, and Obama (conveniently set in the middle of the stage) talk for 2-4 minutes and then cut off people like Richardson, Biden, and the others after one minute! It completely favored the "top tier" candidates."
I saw the first hour, and I had exactly the same reaction. It is not call ENN (Establishment News Network) for nothing.
I was disappointed there weren't more Gravel moments like there were last debate. He is the only thing that makes these things watchable.
I thought it was telling how far he (Gravel) sat away from the other candidates during Q&A time.