I think the idea of these debates is interesting. Having virtually anyone with a videocamera and an issue pose questions to the contenders. But I don't think this debate lived up to the potential that this format could bring. For one, and this has been stated by several people, the debate is still structured in so that the candidates answers are effectively sound bites.

I for one am tired of sound bites, they remind me too much of the "cute" catch phrases used by the current administration (i.e. "cut and run", "the decider", "flip flopper", etc...).

Sent by E.L. Gulbranson | 10:33 AM ET | 07-24-2007

Jeff Jarvis of PrezVid.com has a blunt assessment of the debates. "I am sorely disappointed. CNN selected too many obvious, dutiful, silly questions.... I have no doubt that we would have heard far more substance without CNN and TV cameras in this. This should have been a debate held online: candidates answering questions directly without the need for CNN, Anderson Cooper, or their questions."

Sent by andy carvin | 11:24 AM ET | 07-24-2007

You know Andy, I agree and disagree with Jeff. On the one hand, I wish we could see a forum where online viewers ask questions without moderators. But realistically, the candidates - especially the major ones - aren't ready (or courageous enough f you want to put it that way) for that yet.

Take small victories when you can because they push you in the right direction

And I actually think the questions were a valid microcosm of the real online audience. Some of the questions were smart and thoughtful, some were goofy, and some just downright dumb. But that's the online audience to a 't.' In that sense, I think the questions suited the occasion very well.

Sent by Tom Regan | 12:32 PM ET | 07-24-2007

I prefer this format taken one step further, where netizens can not only question candidates, but nominate them, like what Unity08.com is doing. The internet is presenting us with some serious alternatives and we should take advantage! As people are given a voice outside of the partisan system of debates and primaries, I believe we will see a greater consensus on the issues arise. The problem has been time and again that this consensus has never been given a candidate. It will be interesting to see if Americans use the internet to build their own alternatives, just as they have used Youtube.com to speak up.

Sent by Fari Edouart | 1:16 PM ET | 07-24-2007

By the end of the debates, the candidates looked tired and you could tell it was getting harder for them to be as precise and well-spoken. It was at least a 2 hour show, which is a decent length to expect people to focus. Not many people would have the endurance to watch it (nor would the candidates be at there best) if there weren't time limits on candidate's answers. Candidates are forced into well-rehearsed answers because of the need to keep things to a time limit. However, I felt that there was enough sponaeity--at this stage of the game to make debates more than just sound bite barrages I was very proud of all the candidates and thought they gave honesty and forthrightness a very good effort. I thought all of the candidates had well-thought things to say. I don't want to endorse anyone in particular, in this forum, but I thought I saw some real concern for issues and I did not expect that from debates. I think the CNN/You tube forum is putting candidates in new and sometimes uncomfortable positions and I think it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Sent by Melissa | 1:30 PM ET | 07-24-2007

Anyone else notice how CNN/Time/Warner dictated who got to speak, and for how long. Not exactly "fair and balanced" either. I would even go so far as to say, a complete disregard for journalistic ethics. I actually counted how many times each candidate was allowed to speak. I only counted once, so I could be a tiny bit off here and there, but certainly not as off as CNN was when it came to the notion of "equal time".

Candidates # times allowed to speak
Biden 12
Clinton 15
Dodd 13 (plus campaign video)
Edwards 15
Gravel 10
Kucinich 10
Obama 19 (plus campaign video)
Richardson 12

I also found figures online that list the length of time that each candidate had to speak.

Candidate length of time allowed
Biden 7:05
Clinton 12:26
Dodd 8:39
Edwards 10:30
Gravel 4:10
Kucinich 6:01
Obama 15:11
Richardson 9:18
Cooper (the moderator) 11:37

To me, this is a real story that is being ignored due to the YouTube buzz surrounding this debate. How could this debate be so obviously tilted to favor certain candidates and not others? What are the reasons?
I can guess.
Perhaps CNN/Time/Warner wants to influence the election, and exchange favors?
Perhaps their strictly in the entertainment business, and are really only interested in candidates that are already popular prior to the debates?
Just think if Brad Pitt and Britney were running, CNN/Time/Warner would love that huh?
Guess we can kiss grass roots movements goodbye then huh?
Also seems the more outspoken a candidate is on corruption, the lest time they were allowed to speak.

I have yet to hear others speak on this issue. I have yet to see one news story that addresses this injustice. Yes injustice! Not just to certain candidates in regard to how little time they were allotted, but an Injustice to the American people/voters. News organizations are supposed to have integrity. What happened to this ideal?

Sent by Jim Ellis | 4:36 PM ET | 07-24-2007

I think news commentators can really learn something from this style, and I'm irked that NPR and other news organizations are already dismissing it. The fact is that the media is *missing* a large segment of the population that now YouTube and other social media allows us to report on news and interact with candidates.

I think the questions, while sometimes delivered off-key, were thought provoking and for the first time in my time watching debates (I'm 37) I heard "yes" and "no." (A one word answer - simple and straightforward without rhetoric.)

I think it would behoove the media to take a look at why this style was suggested and think about how to harness and appeal to this group.

Sent by Tami Matthews | 3:18 AM ET | 07-25-2007

In listening to this story I had to laugh when Steve Inskeep brought up the quality of the answers. This format is not about issues or serious answers, it is the next step in making the campaign and coverage of the campaign strictly entertainment. When we get members of the public dressing up as snowmen, strumming guitars and the like to win the lottery over who gets to have their two minutes on the air, we are not talking about substance. The next step will be for the candidates to use entertaining ways to answer the questions, such as using rap or singing. Then we can move on to having the audience and viewers vote as to which candidate "wins" the debate by being the most entertaining.
As for the argument that this system is "democratic," or that having those who use this medium vote on which questions are asked would be "democratic," we have stretched the meaning of the term way beyond recognition. it is a narrow slice of the public that is involved, not the public. As for the process, it is nothing like a fair and comprehensive election. We have now moved to ersatz elections for all-star teams, television shows, and on-line questions asked of those who go to a particular site, such as ESPN. Don't confuse such a stunt with an election or any truly democratic process.

Sent by Frank Codispoti | 3:37 PM ET | 07-25-2007