I am happy Mike Gravel was there. He is running for President and served in the Senate. Let him speak. Sometimes he does a better job of shining light on issues then the moderators or other candidates.

I agree with the comment about Dodd and Biden. Both are quality candidates and I would be willing to consider them if I was given the chance in Iowa.

Sent by Justin McMillin | 5:50 PM ET | 12-04-2007

Okay, let me be among the first.

To my point of view, the NPR debate proved that the anti-war vote no longer exists (not that it really ever did, there just aren't enough concentrated anti-war votes in the electoral schema).

Dennis Kucinich was the poster child for the anti-war far left. Every time he opened his mouth, he waved a white flag of surrender. His campaign is over. And, I would imagine, so goes Kucinich's call to impeach Bush as the last bastion of the anti-war rally cry.

Now we come to the point of what this all means. First and foremost, Hillary Clinton has to prove herself as the first female wartime president of the United States (good luck).

This is carry on the Iraq/Afghanistan and possible Iran War situation under her lead. Is the nation ready for Hillary as Commander-in-Chief under fire?

So, NPR's debate pretty much marked the end of any anti-war topics (unless Air America can persuade the candidates to come debate in their studio...and I don't think so).

And, actually, I am happy to see the end of the illusion of the anti-war vote. It didn't exist. No Democrat could win on a mirage.

Now, can a Democrat win as a wartime president? I mean, it seemed to work for Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson during Korea and Vietnam. Albeit, these are different times.

Give 'em heck, Hillary?

fred call

Sent by fred call | 5:51 PM ET | 12-04-2007

Hillary obviously won.

Sent by DC | 5:58 PM ET | 12-04-2007

It doesn't matter who won the debate.
America obviously lost.
The national debt, which will leave
this country at the mercy of its
creditors?
Immediately pulling out of an idiotic
and illegal war?
Immediately prosecuting Bush and
Cheney, so as not to have another
Nixon-style legacy emphasizing to
the American people that the law is
something applied to those lacking
wealth and power?
Nothing was discussed other than
plans to preside over the demise
of this once great nation.

Sent by Dave Randolph | 6:14 PM ET | 12-04-2007

I thought that the obvious "winners" in this debate were Biden and Dodd, in that their answers showed clear thinking, realistic expectations, and a refreshing lack of rhetoric.

Clinton was more interested in wording her answers defensively, so that nothing she said could come back to haunt her later, and Edwards and Obama were more interested in taking subtle or not so subtle jabs at her than really giving a feel for their own positions.

I was truly impressed by Mike Gravel's victory over Dennis Kucinich as the conscience of the field.

All in all, I think that the focus on real discussion rather than soundbites and image management played very much to the advantage of genuinely experienced statesman like Biden and Dodd. Hopefully caucus goers were influenced as much by this battle of ideas as they are by the battle of sentemental rhetoric on TV.

Sent by Josh Pearson | 6:36 PM ET | 12-04-2007

I was so glad to hear Mike Gravel. It is a shame to me that the only reason they claim my gravel came to the debate was because the invitation was sent out months ago before MSNBC and CNN decided to drop Mike Gravel. This tells me that NPR is NOT a true voice of the public and not a leader in the public debate. NPR did not give equal time to Gravel and Kucinich and it is obvious how biased they are. Mike Gravel is a true voice of the people.

Sent by Maxim Noah Khailo | 6:39 PM ET | 12-04-2007

The Wrong Debate Issues

On what criteria did NPR select the topics/issues of the debate?

Was it the issues that voters would most like addressed?

No.

The percentage of voters who would most like candidates to address each issue (according to a recent Pew Center poll):
Iran: did not register a %
Immigration: 4%
China: did not register a %

Were the issues chosen on the basis of the topics that most differentiate the possible candidate choices from one another?

No.

Dissagreements on issues:
Iran: virtually none (Hillary's vote the only major point of contention, and it is debatable whether this actually translates into a real overall policy issue difference.)
Immigration: virtually none
China: virtually none (with the possible exception of Kucinich on fair/free trade)

The choice of these three issues means listeners are more disinterested. It also means that the it is much less of a "debate" and threatens to turn into something more akin to a mutual admiration society. NPR does a great disservice to its viewers by not focusing on right issues.

What topics would have been the best to address?

According to the Pew poll:

Issue Priorities and the Vote
Most want to hear about....
1. Iraq War 39%
2. Health Care 35%
3. Economic Issues 22%
4. Education 7%

Issue You'd Most Like Candidates to Address
1. Iraq War 36%
2. Health Care 33%
3. Economy 11%
4. Education 5%

According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll:

Top priorities for the federal government:
1. War in Iraq 46%
2. Health Care 34%
3. Job creation and economic growth 27%

The top three issues are the same for both polls and all three questions. Also note that even the percentage given to the third ranked of the top 3 issues still more than doubles or triples the 4th ranked (education - which additionally is much less of a relevant federal issue in any case).

As it happens, these top three issues are also among the most contentious among the candidates, or ones in which the candidates have different policy ideas or solutions, and are therefore good ways to differentiate them:
Iraq: immediate or gradual troop withdrawals; leaving troops behind; and funding.
Health Care: requiring health insurance or not; and public financed single payer vs. private health insurance.
The economy: fair vs. free trade; tax policies, breaks and abatements; and solutions to the housing crises.

C'mon, NPR! You can do better to give the people a real debate!

Sent by Nathan Ruggles | 6:52 PM ET | 12-04-2007

It seems to us the people listening were the ones who won. They got a good debate; alot of issues answered and alot more thorough answers then usual.

NPR should do alot more of these and forget the ones on TV / UTube etc!!! They have alot more topics in their questions then they had time for so what do you say NPR???

Sent by jm fay | 7:28 PM ET | 12-04-2007

i listened to the debate and also commented and read the comments, somehow you seen something no one else did. the question were not questions as to Mike Gravel they were glad to see you had him there. Im disappointed in you, after i was glad to see you do the right thing and let gravel speak.

Sent by DW Arnold | 9:24 PM ET | 12-04-2007

though the sen. gravel did himself no favors by being as cranky as usual, i have to agree with the above posters.

mr. rudin, your comment (and the behavior of your moderators) insinuates to some that you generally did not welcome sen. gravel's participation in this debate and did so simply to give an appearance of fair play.

if you had not extended the invitation months before the non-invitation of the CNN and NBC debates, would you have invited him?

and if not, why not?

inquiring minds are curious dear sir...

Sent by s_tristero | 9:26 PM ET | 12-04-2007

Nathan,

it's not by any means a stretch to say that Iran is a subset of "Iraq issues," and China is a subset of "economic issues."

Since 9/11, Iran was labeled as Axis of Evil by Dubya, under constant threat of war by the United States, and it'd be foolish to think that Iranian government has nothing to do with the Iraq war and Iraq insurgents. In light of the fact that Dubya has uttered WW3 and the new NIE report, Iran is narrowly averted from being the next Iraq. Of course it's important, of course it's relevant.

If you start with a topic as broad as Iraq, you can easily spend 40 minutes with 7 candidates, get lots more finger pointing and less substance.

China has had a huge influence on the American economy in the past 2 decades and will continue to have a huge influence in the decades to come. China caused major loss of manufacturing jobs in the US, China is one of the major countries we outsource to, and China is one of the biggest trading partner of the United States. Chinese imports account for a substantial portion of the American economy, China funds substantial portion of the United States' debt, and like it or not, the US needs China to help stabilize Asia more than they need us to stabilize North America. China question also gave some insight into each candidate's foreign policy, which is also important.

Additionally, after the debate, there's 1 question directly addressing the general economy, for each of the candidates.

One day, when your job gets outsourced and you get drafted to fight a preemptive war of phantom reasons, maybe you'll realize why these issues matter, and these issues are related to 2 of 3 major topics you mentioned.

Sent by donut | 11:51 PM ET | 12-04-2007

Sent by Nathan Ruggles: The Wrong Debate Issues

An interesting point which goes to the heart of the matter how the more organized Republicans win against the scattered Democrats.

And this is not a statement on who is right versus who is wrong. This is a statement on political strategy. Winning isn't the most important thing, it is everything.

Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Which speaks more profoundly today than ever.

There is no 'ONE' right topic for Democrat voters. There's not even 'TWO' of 'THREE' or a 'DOZEN' right topics. Whereas Republicans cull down their focus to a more precise target and stay the steady course.

In the Electoral process, focus and pinpointing is the weapon Republicans use time and again for winning elections.

And, by and large, the average Republican voter obviously understands better than the average Democratic voter how the political system works. Shouting that you want to bring down the entire system is usually not a way to develop a concentrated political strategy.

It's early on in the nomination game, but already the same old Democratic Party weaknesses of organization are showing through. While the Repbublicans are getting better organized.

The biggest debate the Republicans are having amongst themseles is which religious conservative they are going to vote for. But in the end, on election day, they will all vote for the religious conservative, be he Mormon or Evangelical or whatever.

While the Democrats will still be debating among themselves what is the 'right' topic.

It's called 'Divide and Conquer.' The GOP uses it well. The Democrats do it well.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 9:05 AM ET | 12-05-2007

Conspiracy Theory: George Bush stole the Florida vote in 2000.

Journalistic Fact: If Al Gore had taken his home state of Tennessee, he would have won the election without Florida.

Point of contention, there are a lot of us listeners and viewers of public broadcasting who are sick and tired of conspiracy theories.

Whether from the left or the right, conspiracy theories are the lazy way out of having to perform objective, thought provoking journalism.

There are a lot of us potential voters who just cringe if we have to hear one more conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter if the conspiracy theory happens to be right or wrong, after a while it all sounds like a din.

I am rather bemused by the number of comments in this blog that are more hormonal than thoughtful, researched insight. And, I believe that flying off the emotional handle does the world of public broadcasting a great deal of harm. Whether it is radio, television, internet, newspaper or even word of mouth.

Too many of the questions leading up to the NPR debate were made on emtional outbursts rather than thoughtful insight. Which, in my opinion, did more harm than good to the final outcome of the debate.

Too many of you blamed the questioners when too many of you failed to issue quality questions.

Conspiracy theories and emotional bents are like yelling. There's all kinds of conspiracy theories that education in America is being thwarted, when the accuser has done nothing to use fact to make the statement.

There are a lot of us in America who don't like being yelled at.

There are a lot of us in America who want to make our decisions based on journalistic integrity.

If you want or need conspiracy theory or factless, emotion packed rhetoric, there are plenty of outlets, both left and right.

Let public broadcasting, in all its forms, present an objective program based on credible journalistic research.

And maybe future debates will be more thought provoking.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 11:52 AM ET | 12-05-2007

Ken--couldn't find room to mention Dennis in your summary? he is, after all, the only one who got it right on both Iraq and Iran before the rest of Washington did...Steve (w/ Kucinich)

Sent by Steve Cobble | 12:42 PM ET | 12-05-2007

NPR? Why indulge the tired rhetoric of the "front runners" (they are each great in their own right, the candidates, not the rhetoric, but have squeezed themselves into sound bites, now only characteurs of themselves) in exchange for the enlightened (and less contrived) comments of the others. Kucinich, Gravel, Biden and Dodd should not only serve as challengers to the top three (that's your job) or place holders to give the illusion of fairness. Lets not turn these men into tokens. Don't invite them if they are not to be given the same time and respect. While I am not sure the topics were the most pertinent issues, I think more importantly, the questions were at times very poor choices. The question about removing the language options from phone messages was offensive and ignorant. Jean Batalova of the Migration policy institute reports census numbers of about five million "Limited English Proficient" students enrolled in public schools in '03-'04. this is just the students. 80% of which are Spanish speaking. These are American citizens who deserve the same rights as the rest of us. How can we expect these people to rise from their (often) lower class impoverished status if they can't even understand the language when calling a government agency? To treat this as a legitimate question is disrespectful not only to our fellow Americans but to our immigrant ancestors, the majority of which were non-English speaking themselves. Not to mention that the answers given would all be the same and predictable. Did you expect Obama to say ???NO, as soon as i'm president, i'll be sure we don't do any of those Hispanics any favors. If they can't understand English, it's not my problem. Let's start sending them the message we've all been thinking all along: GO HOME??? ??? Come on!! NPR can do better.

Sent by ann delmariani | 2:12 PM ET | 12-05-2007

Sent by Steve Cobble: Ken--couldn't find room to mention Dennis in your summary?

The rest of congressional Washington has continually voted in favor of George Bush's proposals on Iraq.

Dennis Kucinich lost all credibility by calling for George Bush's impeachment in George Bush's last year of office. Which not only demeans the Democrats, but demeans the Constitutional process of impeachment by making it a last ditch effort.

That does not smack of a smart political move on Kucinich's part. That smacks of total desperation on the part of a candidate who was never considered a viable candidate.

Kucinich went the extreme route to make publicity for himself. That strategy has backfired on Kucinich. I'm sure you will see Kucinich drop out of the race very soon.

The Republicans will back whomever their eventual nominee is, be it Mitt or Rudy or Fred. Does this mean that after Kucinich officially drops out, you will quit your support of the Democrats?

I ask you, in an intelligent and thought provoking way, what's left to mention about Kucinich?

I'm more than willing to listen to you tell me what qualities Kucinich has that I, a Democrat, should consider as a viable nominee.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 2:37 PM ET | 12-05-2007

A thought to NPR on the debate and Conspiracy Theory blogging:

There is a world of difference between blogging that: "Iraq is an unjust war."

From: "In my personal opinion, Iraq is an unjust war."

There is a world of difference between: "The CIA was behind 9/11."

From: "In my personal opinion, the CIA was behind 9/11."

Conspiracy Theory are those theories that have not been proven. Stating a Conspiracy Theory as fact should not be unequivocally tolerated. Not on a public broadcasting media. For one aspect, it teaches our children the wrong way to go about the political process. It's not right that just because one does not agree, one should have free reign to state Conspiracy Theory as fact.

It is a world of difference between: "The President is guilty of war crimes."

From: "It is my personal opinion that the President is guilt of war crimes."

In my personal opinion, there are media outlets for conspiracy theory, both left and right. NPR or any other public media outlet should not be one of them.

If someone wants to editorialize, then they should make clear they are editorializing, as apart from claiming they are stating fact.

If NPR asks for questions from the public, then NPR should require Conspiracy Theorists to qualify their statements with something related to fact. It is not enough that a Conspiracy Theory was stated on another broadcast network.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 4:46 PM ET | 12-05-2007

You'd think there'd be a test for a voter to prove they are capable of voting for a good candidate for President of the United States.

fred call

"A recent trip to Starbucks got me entered into a sweepstakes for $1000.00 USD. While perusing the sweepstakes rules, I came across are very amusing loophole in the rules that will make sure that any Canadian who wins must first pass a math test to claim their prize!

"The line is under section 4, about 10 lines down. It reads:"
If a resident of Canada is selected as a winner, they will be required to correctly answer, without assistance of any kind, whether mechanical or otherwise, a timed, mathematical skill-testing question, to be administered by Marden- Kane, Inc. either by mail, telephone, e-mail, or fax (at its sole discretion) before the awarding of the prize.

Sent by fred call | 11:06 PM ET | 12-05-2007

NPR has integrity! Thanks for having Mike Gravel! He should be in all debates, that way the people can see why Gravel is the best leader! He has proven experience, and he is the strongest tactician and leader.

Sent by Core N. | 2:01 AM ET | 12-06-2007

This is very sad. This is why politics suck in America. Let Gravel speak, most of the time he has more sense and honesty than the rest of the others combined.

Sent by Jack | 2:46 AM ET | 12-06-2007

And one more final thought on the debates that goes out to NPR as advice, should NPR hold a Republican debate.

Because, if NPR does hold a Republican debate, try to remember that it is looking more and more as though one of these fellows is actually going to be the next President of the United States.

And first impressions might be important to NPR.

Asking this crack group of amateur, conspiracy theorist blogging rocket scientists to devise a set of questions for the Democratic candidates was akin to asking a high school driver's ed class to be the drivers in the next Indy 500.

NPR ostensibly has a team of professional journalists with experience and knowledge of politics and world events. Use them when dealing with the future President of the United States.

Just my opinion. Because if I was boss of NPR, I'd be thinking of how to get the future Commander in Chief to think more highly of your news organization down the road.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 9:20 AM ET | 12-06-2007