DescentBB

Did anyone watch this last wednesday? I just finished watching it on youtube, search:

2008 FL CNN/ YouTube Republican Debate (Part 1)

@ www.youtube.com If interested. It goes to 12 parts, so I watched it over the week.


Did you like the format? Dispite the obvious problems/controversy with CNN picking the questions, I do like the idea. I think Huckabee did well for himself overall. Rudy/Mitt looked rediculous taking swats at eachother, which is good in my book. Fred's choice of Ad was a dissapointment.

I'm starting to think Huckabee might take it. He should calm down his preacher voice a bit if he wins it though. Whenever he talks I feel like I am in mass.

Exceterah

(Hobobob10's Part 1)

is that Chuck Norris sitting in the audience at 7:47 ?!

Of course, Chuck Norris is the secret service.

Personally, the idea of a YouTube Debate is (IMHO) stuuuupid.

Obviously, it's \"for show\" and not much else. Impossible to really get a serious debate without losing all hope of credibility.

Debates used to be useful and informative. Now they are usually a waste of time. You can get more accurate info and be better informed through other means.

Like I said ... IMHO

Speaking time from left to right, give or take a few seconds:

1. Cantredo 220
2. Huckabee 579
3. Romney 870
4. Guiliani 1035
5. Thompson 556
6. Mc.Cain 750
7. Paul 448
8. Hunter 283

How on earth does THAT happen?!
Guiliani was able to speak for almost 5x as long as Cantredo.

I made a graph comparing them all here (tell me if this doesn't work, first time using Google Docs):
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... CCWkSsiRSw

Thats not quite as bad as it seems on the surface. By the rules if you invoke somones name they are allowed 30 seconds to respond. Rudy is the front runner, so he was attacked the most, and thus allowed to respond the most.

It still wouldn't of been even. I think in these debates everyone should be given 30 seconds to every question....but that would be fair, not entertaining.

roid wrote:(Hobobob10's Part 1)

is that Chuck Norris sitting in the audience at 7:47 ?!

Hell, he endorsed Huckabbie!

Gooberman wrote:Dispite the obvious problems/controversy with CNN picking the questions, I do like the idea.

I agree, it allows people to get their questions into a debate. I don't know where the questions come from during the normal ones BTW. And I don't like how CNN was able to pick the questions, too much chance of a special interest group giving a gift to the right person. I'd would rather see CNN being told what questions will be asked, and that's it. If they don't like it find another network, though it may be challenging considering a ton of networks are owned by conglomerates of other companies.

I think CNN should have filtered out the offensive/inappropriate questions, and then used a random number generator at the debate to choose which questions were asked.

The way CNN did it will make people less likely to contribute the next time, they chose questions just like the ones that they themselves would have asked.

I think the YouTube debate is stupid because of the video format. Seriously... remember the talking snowman from the first debate? What the heck, people? If you really wanted to involve people, why empower the ones with the video cameras and the loads of free time? Just let people submit questions in text. Is that so hard? Maybe fly out the \"winners\" to ask the questions themselves if you want to get fancy.

Really, some of those YouTube videos scare me. But that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, Huckabee was clearly the \"winner\" of the debate, as I personally think he deserves to be. I don't agree with him on Iraq or a lot of those fundamentally right wing issues, but I still think he deserves to be out in front.

One thing that Huckabee is doing that I feel is a very welcome change of pace for a typical campaign is how it uses humor. Whether he's on the Daily Show or Meet the Press, he demonstrates a likable personality and surprisingly non-forced humor. What a concept. And how different from Rudy's incessant invocation of 9/11 every thirty seconds. Huckabee showed that it's not about the raw time in a debate, but it's how you use it. In the end, he left a lasting impression that broke him from that \"second tier\" status and pushed him to the front. Humor really goes a long way in driving points home. I'm surprised, in this age of the Colbert Report and whatnot, how few candidates acknowledge that.

As a Democrat, I'm kind of envious of the enthusiasm and conduct of Huckabee. In an ironic way, he's the Obama we never had.

Because the ones with video cameras and lots of free time probabyl arent' the same ones with big bucks that can spend on getting their canidate into a Primary, or get tehr igth questions asked. Though with CNN picking the questions it doesn't much matter, now does it?

Its just advertisement. YouTube gets advertised to Joe Schmoe, and CNN gets a hip, iPod-ish image that it gives 'power to the people'.

I agree that Huckabee seems to be the more reasonable candidate, but given how backwards our politics and the people running/voting in them, I doubt we will get proper candidates. It will be just the same ★■◆● all over again, and ill just be turned off from voting next year.

This took place in the Mahaffey theater in St Pete? Since when the hell did that happen?
http://www.cfnews13.com/Politics/Florid ... in_st.aspx

That does NOT look like the Mahaffey theater at all, I don't see any similarities!