I could not agree with you more on the format it was terrible.  Biden stood out the most among the candidates to me.  Mike Gravel needs to get out of the race asap he takes up valuable time from the other candidates.

it wasn't a debate.  IT WAS A FORUM.  Not meant to differentiate as much as educate.

Tavis Smiley did an outstanding job of conducting the Democratic Presidential candidates forum.  Every candidate was given an equal opportunity to respond to every question, as it should be.  Compared to Mr. Smiley, Wolf Blitzer looked like an amateur journalist and moderator.  Kudos to Tavis Smiley.  All the news networks could learn something from his approach.

Very well stated about the most boring and flat debate I've ever watched. I don't think  Gravel or Richardson add anything but awkward moments in these debates ,and Dodd has obviously been too long in the senate, sounds like Kerry four years ago, but without the purple hearts.

The Republicans won't shy away from a debate with Smiley and PBS. They know out of the gate they'll be attacked by anyone with any of the networks. All part of being a Republican. You think they're blind to all these media hacks that once worked for a democrat WH, or congress person? When Biden said there aren't enough leaders in the community, Oh if looks could kill. Al didn't like that one at all.

What stuck in my mind was Clinton's fierce commitment to shooting down Sudanese planes intent on bombing those villages. OK...I'm generally anti-war, call me a hypocrite, but I liked her passion on this point and I believe she will DO something about ending the genocide in Darfur. I was also impressed with Obama...wouldn't it be awesome to have a first rate guy as President? He's brilliant. I wish Biden were already President. He probably is the most qualified and capable of the bunch. I liked Gravel and Kusinich too. Dodd and Richardson are two examples of the kind of high quality talent the Democrats have. And I support Edwards because I think he is the real change-bringer, the one who will grow in office and ignite a period of active growth in our country.

So I am to believe that giving equal time to speak on issues is what?... a drag?...  "Oh man you're wasting my time?..."  Maybe there is no hope for this country.  We're all to consumed with... well consumerism.  "Give me Hillary... give me Paris... give me something that doesn't make my head hurt if I ACTUALLY HAVE TO THINK!!!!!!!!!  Thanks for nothing Chuck, I thought you would actually want to hear what ALL the candidates had to say.  My God man!  Are you turning into Anderson Cooper?!?!?!

Chuck Todd...How did you get your job?  How many times did Obama say John is right?  Two people on CNN post debate said Edwards had a good night. How can First Read and MSNBC continue to avoid and mislead the public regarding John Edwards?  Better yet why?

I have alot of respect for Tavis and the movement he has created; But I felt that I wanted the forum to go on longer. The intro was too long and it seemed that it was about selling books ! I loved the give and take and it was more fair in the answers. I think They all did well. I find it so interesting that Barack , is so clear and focused. Clinton was not as comfortable in the 30 seconds and Gravel is becoming more and more a joke. I agree with Todd, I can not imagine the GOP forum.

I disagree with Chuck Todd. John Edwards was great tonight! Giving the broader contexts of the issues involved and supplying specific solutions. (Most of Obama's answers were to praise Edwards' answers or elaborate on them!) Edwards' specificity was more impressive because he only had a minute or 30 seconds to respond.
I will say that it's about time we started ditching the also-rans and concentrating on the top three or four who actually have a chance. Eight people talking for 30 seconds is just not that helpful.

This bag of Idoits won't address the status of 12 million Illegals wandering around the streets of America, Mexian gangs, prisons filled with Illegals, community services over whelmed by Illegals! The clowns can't and will not read the laws on immigration,, meaning can they even read? America ""Washington has failed the people"". General George Patton said ""Washington is nothing but a bunch of Paper Hanging Sons 34 6237432. He sure was ""RIGHT""

John Edwards was not good tonight.  It's pretty clear from the debate that Hillary and Obama are at the top, with everyone chasing them, Edwards included.  Edwards is there w/ Richardson and Biden, running for VP.

It was a great debate. I loved it. I couldn't tear away from it. I wished there was a commercial so I could get to the bathroom. So issues were discussed in a rational, intelligent fashion and you didn't like it because there weren't any gotcha moments so you go and make up distinctions without a different to try to generate heat instead of light. What's up Chuck, did Ann Coulter on Chris Matthews get you jazzed up.

I liked the format (a lot) and thought that all of the candidates did well.   I just wish it was longer, although the candidates probably don't.   Let's do this every two weeks until the election.

The Darfur comments were the weakest part to me.   Once again we are supposed to solve problems with military force.   The unilateral "no fly" zone was just what got us into Iraq II (the return of Quagmire.)    We need bases for a no fly zone, and we then need to worry about our pilots getting shot down.   Before you know it we are bombing villages to save them.

I was disappointed to see a return to the old "US as a mighty force" nostrum.   Hasn't anybody learned from the Iraq debacle?   I know that Edwards is gung ho on attacking Iran (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html) , but I was hoping for more restraint from the other candidates.   Obama was the only one to bring up the point that we really need to look into improving Africa's economy more than we need to be bombing them into peace.

Oh wow! Big News!! Chuck Todd dismisses John Edwards once again. The Corporate media will always declare Hillary the winner because she's enmeshed with their corporate spon$ors - with Obama not far behind.
OTOH - Edwards would represent OUR interests!

i can't believe a candiate for president would advocate legalizing drugs!!  also, all seemed to favor military action re a no fly zone.  talk about hrpocrites.  anything to get votes, tsk, tsk. no mention of 9-11 and the thousands killed. can't these people get it, we're fighting for our survival! what's happening in iraq can happen here!

It seems certain people at MSNBC are always falling over themselves to find a fault in Gravel. Tonight khakis is your best shot? <sighs>
He's the only candidate truly trying to empower the citizens of this nation. He's also the only one getting people to think, and so many voices in the media act like it hurts.

This debate was about race and class and these corporate media pundits can't relate.  This debate shined a light on the difference between the corporate candidates and the solution oriented candidates (Clinton, Obama, Biden) vs (Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel)  

Everyone agreed that reduced domestic spending for the poor and middle class is connected directly to increased war spending. Yet most of those on stage have voted to increase war spending. By the end of the debate almost every candidate said they supported Universal Healthcare, but Kucinich and Gravel were the only ones to support the not for profit healthcare solution HR676

Tavis takes a crack at Larry King by teling Chris Dodd as he went extremely over time, "Senator Dodd, if you were Paris Hilton I would give you an hour"

Obama hypocritically makes a homophobic clarification after saying that the African-American Community needed to be less homophobic.

Edwards was solid, since almost all of the questions fit into his two America concept quite well.

Richardson seemed nervous and disorganized in this thoughts.

This has been the most substantive debate by far. No more of these egomaniacs for moderators. Tavis did well at keeping things moving without any self indulgent rants. The majority African American crowd was palpable. Maxine Waters looked great, you would of thought she was at the Grammys.

I'm sorry, but I find absolutely no sincerity in John Edwards.  His purported commitment to poverty is almost laughable.  He's an intellectual lightweight and the obligatory mediocre white guy in the race...which is usually enough to win.

I really liked the debate because of the equal time. I think your method of picking the "winner" is very flawed. I think the winnder of the debate was the Democratic team of candidates. All provided thoughtful comments and far exceed the Republicans in substance. I thought Gravel was uneven, but I was impressed with his nerve to call an end to the war on drugs. I totally agree with him. I think more attention should be given to Kucinich, who was impressive with every answer he gave. I was also impressed by Richardson's thoughtful, even keel approach, which I do not think will be appreciated as muchas it should be. If you twisted my arm, I'd say Obama won: his comments were thoughtful, especially how he tied every issue to a larger problems--gave you the impression that he can seethe big picutre, and he had a mature, genuine charisma about him.

Unifying theme: Racial divide persists
Questions about AIDS, criminal justice, education, taxes, outsourcing jobs, poverty and the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina all led to the same point: The racial divide still exists.

Clinton drew a huge cheer when she suggested there was a hint of racism in the way AIDS is addressed in this country. "Let me just put this in perspective: If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country."

Of course the dems love to play the race card to a receptive audience.

It's always whiteys fault.  No one in that group has the balls to hold black's responsible for their despicable and self-destructive behavior.

John Edwards was very commanding. Obama fed off him.

I get the feeling that this so called debate is what a hard hitting news conference will be with a Democratic president. Funny thing no questions on the immigration front.  I guess the amount of contortionism needed for pandering to two audiences at once is beyond even the smartest woman in the world.

I liked the different format. I am so tired of listening to regurgitated campaign material masquerading as a real debate. It was refreshing to see candidates think (or not think) on their feet. As an aside, I was also glad to see that Obama did not take advantage of his popularity there by pandering. He gave each question careful consideration.
Kudos!

Todd was right

John Edwards was just as plastic as he has always been. Todd is just now noticing it. As far as the set up , I agree with others. It was not a debate; it was a forum. I thought it was okay. I also thought that Barack Obama did very well connecting with the educated Blacks in the audience despite the fact that there were a large number of people wearing Hillary Buttons which explained the crowds perceived excitement over her. I know the Media will miss that little fact, but I caught a glimpse of it on the video. Boy, they must think we are really stupid. In any event, it was okay.

The format may not have been the best--the beginning where the moderators made their speeches taxed my patience, and I kept thinking, "Bring on the candidates!" But topic-wise, it was the best so far. Kudos to the moderators for including a question on the "right to return" to New Orleans--which no previous debate moderator has had the moral courage to bring up so far. But that's not the only thing I found interesting--it was a refreshing change to see the real problems of real people talked about--crime, AIDS, poverty--not such inanities as hedge funds, Edwards' haircut, and same-sex marriage. I'm looking forward to seeing the GOP debate they'll be hosting later this year.

w. tom barnes: First, if we are fighting for our survival, its a fight against our top national security crisis, which is the financial vulnerability created by our out-of-control national debt. We all saw how quickly social order can breakdown with Hurricane Katrina. A financial collapse would be like a national Katrina - even worse than a terrorist who managed to detonate a nuclear device in one of our cities (and I say that from the perspective of living in one of the likely cities). I simply do not buy your notion that Iraq is a battle for our national survival. Second, it wasn't a debate about Iraq.  

I'm happy that we have several Democratic candidates who would make good presidents, but if I had to vote right now, it would definitely be for Senator Biden.  This time around we need strong foreign policy experience and the willingness to lead on many domestic issues. Some people say Biden seems too angry to be President, but what's wrong with being ripped about the current state of affairs when you can see so clearly the right course of action? Time is wasting on a great many issues -- from Iraq and Darfur to climate change and education -- but I feel confident that Joe has the energy and knowledge to work with the Congress to address each and every one of them. It's comforting to me that we have at least one candidate who truly grasps the complexity of the issues facing our country and also has the skills and commitment to bring meaningful change.

Amy B - You must be joking about Clinton actually doing something about Darfur, especially over what Biden has been calling for. She is slowly starting to adopt Biden's position, this was his stance in last debate.

Chuck wanted contrast (Gravel is not enough?). It could be that they all have the correct answers for America's problem which is a good thing. We could have a token Republican there to give the wrong answers if you want some contrast.

Did anyone else notice Clinton nodding her head emphatically when Biden was speaking? I get the feeling they have an agreement he will be her Vice. Just my hunch. Or Sect'ry of State (Delware's not going to give the ticket many votes.) That's not to say I'm conceding the nomination to Clinton. I'm glad this is all starting so early as I'd like to hear all the issues really debated and to get to know all the candidates. I may even watch the Republicans.

I actually liked the format better.  Each candidate had a chance to answer each question.

And Amy from Portland, ME - I was thinking more of a
Biden/ Clinton ticket. :)  He is heads and shoulders above her, especially on Foreign Relations

The forum on PBS utilized a very impressive setup that was as yet unused: Equal time for all candidates. This allowed Kucinich and Gravel to actually get to all their opinions and points. However, many candidates had advantages over others by being always able to speak before the other except on one occasion. One example would be in the final question on Darfur. Senator Clinton was able to get a rousing response and take much of the credit for the institution of a no-fly zone, while other candidates such as Biden and Richardson have consistently called for this or have dedicated alot more time to region than any other candidate. It would have been better if the candidates answering the questions were switched in order of direction for every question. However, all in all, great forum and opportunity for the second-tier of the major candidates to stand out once again.

Clinton had a very impressive night, she was, in my opinion, the winner of this debate, she really hit the audience hard and made some good points. The Clintons' close and warm relationship with Black America was made apparent that night.

Obama had a great night and made a few good points, but still appeared to be a little on the wayward side of substance in a few of the questions.

Biden had a strong night as usual, he was able to answer all the questions and managed to stop talking when he needed too. He also always brings the most substance and depth to every answer in my opinion, rivaled with Kucinich' answers, but his opinions are far to radical to be accepted by the general public. At any rate, Biden had a close third in this debate, very close behind Clinton and Obama.

Richardson just doesn't seem to have a strong point when it comes to debating. I would not mind seeing him our president and he is my close-second pick for the nomination, but he lacks clarity in his answers or specific solutions as well. I have no doubt that he can get things done and make things work, he's shown that in his experience, but his forte is obviously not in forums or debates. He was really nothing to take note of tonight once again, but outside of the debates, yes, absolutely.

I was impressed with Kucinich' passion and charisma, if anything he should get attention for that. His other half (known as Mike Gravel) had strong opinions but too radical solutions for anything that came up, and in my opinion should not be in these debates because any educated voter would not support someone that far radical in either party.

Edwards, I really don't respect a guy that charged 50,000 dollars to a poverty PAC for a speech, nor do I respect the fact that he is drawing attention to personal attacks by trying to raise money off of those attacks (ie. Ann Coulter). If he truly believed in negating her and others views, then don't try to raise money off of them. However, in the debate, he did okay, and connected with the voters, yet still lacked substance.

Coming in last is Senator Dodd, not only is he way low, in the single digits in the polls of his own state, but he gave the 'fluffiest' and most unsubstantive answers in the whole debate, consistently for every question. His campaign, in my opinion, will be the first too call it quits. Probably in the next 8 weeks.

Overall, I think that Clinton, and then Obama/Biden took first and second in this forum. Clinton has the ideas and stood out, and Obama and Biden commanded the audience. Specifically, Obama connected with the African roots of the majority of the audience, and Biden offered carefully laid out solutions to the problems and truly commanded the issues without a doubt, just as he has done in the previous debates. However, Biden lead on substance, Obama lead in character and connecting, and Clinton lead in laying it out in what is really happening in the world today. The other candidates lacked any real luster in this forum.

(Disclosure, I blog for the Forums)

I believe that any Presidential candidate has experience handling tough questions. Republican candidates are not so thin-skinned sir.

And as a previous person pointed out...it was NOT a debate. It was a chance to get people on record on things. Note especially interesting is how many publically backed a UN-based "right to return" for New Orleaneans - wow!

Dennis Kusinich was the clearest candidate in this debate but never had enough questions given to him.In recent days I have heard nothing about Dennis Kusinich, Why is he the only candidate not being mentioned anymore?!  The "top" 3 seem to be the only ones in the news, what's up?  Kusinich is the only one that has any real changes in mind with plans to help the country.  Do the Republicans have another "Swift boat attack" in mind and the top 3 will make great targets?  Don't let another John Kerry moment happen and start talking about Kusinich for 2008, He's the only real candidate for change up there.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):