Final speaking times

Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:20 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
There were two periods during the debate where Clinton and Obama dominated the debate. Members of the audience, as well as Kucinich, verbalized that they were upset. Although Wolf Blitzer promised all the candidates would have ample time to speak, the clock says otherwise.

Here are the speaking times for the second half of the debate:

Obama: 7:03 (during 5 times)
Clinton: 6:33 (during 6 times)
Biden: 5:45 (during 4 times)
Richardson: 5:29 (during 4 times)
Dodd: 3:10 (during 2 times)
Edwards: 2:53 (during 3 times)
Kucinich: 2:10 (during 2 times)

And, the totals are:

Obama: 18:22 (during 16 times)
Clinton: 17:28 (during 16 times)
Richardson: 13:41 (during 11 times)
Biden: 10:46 (during 9 times)
Edwards: 10:43 (during 10 times)
Kucinich: 6:52 (during 7 times)
Dodd: 6:34 (during 7 times)

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Times up. hillaryclinton.com

Joe J.,Greensboro, N.C. (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:37 PM)

CNN clearly did not want Edwards to be heard.

Jesus this is ridiculous! The American people deserve better.

Linus, Las Vegas (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:37 PM)

It is WRONG for the media to be choosing who will be the nominee. Equal time should have been given to each candidate. Wolf Blitzer was rude as always. All of them are! It's just part of our dog-eat-dog society now. It's SICK. Meanwhile a million Iraqis are dead and their friends & families are mourning.

Myrtle Blodgett (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:50 PM)

CNN should not have allowed the audience to become part of the debate. This was not fair to any of the candidates.

Debbie Parker (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:50 PM)

CNN is the worst...anyone care to see the post debate analysis...They weren't even cueing the right tape for the issues. " Best political team" so they claim...What a joke! Anderson should stick to his field trips around the world

Seth, NYC,NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:53 PM)

Has Hillary's campaign infiltrated CNN? OH Yeah, they have James Carville on their payroll, who we all know is advising Clinton. It looks like CNN is positioning itself to be the next FoxNews with its close ties with the front running democrat. I was disappointed with CNN for running a poor debate. There was chaos at the beginning and the crowd continued to be disrespectful all night. CNN did a great job filling the auditorium with full of Clinton supporters. The opening salvo was ridiculous as Wolf Blitzer allowed Senator Clinton to continually jump back in out of turn. She certainly asserted herself, but I think in a disrespectful manner. CNN appears to be favorable ground for Clinton, as they threw her softballs all night and appeared to go after the candidates that had attacked her record in the previous debate. Cambell Brown's softball question focusing on whether or not she was playing the gender card was a waste of time. Too little time was spent on the issues. Given that disparity of time is usually based on polling position, why is Gov. Richardson getting more time than Edwards? MSNBC ran a much better debate a month ago.

Ryan McDermott, Charlottesville, Virginia (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:54 PM)

quit deciding for us who is going to be the candidate

Deb, San Diego (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:01 PM)

Wolf Blitzer said, as he cut Joe Biden off in the first 20 minutes of the debate, that everyone was going to get "plenty of time."

Wolf is a lying sack.

Shelby (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:22 PM)

WE NEED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS!!!! WHAT I SAW WAS NOT A DEBATE; IT WAS A CON GAME. THE CLINTON CAMPGAIN STACKED THAT AUDIANCE!!! WHO EVER HAS FRIEND IN NEVADA GET THE 411 & SOME EVIDENCE ON THIS!!! NO WAY THIS PASSES!!! ANYONE FROM NEVADA NEEDS TO OUT THIS CON GAME NOW!!

G (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:24 PM)

I have to say I like the MSNBC Debate way better than the CNN Debate. CNN so unfair. I can tell from the debate that CNN support Hillary Clinton. Obama would had a better response in the beginning if it was not for the people in the audience. They was rude.

Monique (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:31 PM)

And the winner is-

BARACK OBAMA

by 54 seconds!!! Sorry old girl, nice try!!!

modernwoman, Anytown,USA (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:34 PM)

John Edwards was definitely marginalized tonight by a shockingly partial and unprofessional CNN.

He was positioned on stage in a way that put him out of the action; he spoke less, was called on less, and I agree the audience was heavey with Clinton supporters.

Good for Biden. He managed to shine and hold his own, but JRE was thrown off center I think.

And speaking of "throne" -- yes, pearls or diamonds for your coronation, my dear? Could they have asked a more kissinguptoher question to end the debate? Pleeeeeese!

Wait for the next debate. Edwards will be back in form.

Obama? Not a factor.

I'm very disappointed in CNN and hope the public sees through this. I wish MSNBC could run all the debates.

Julia02110 (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:41 PM)

The Clinton News Network strikes again! Every American should be outraged that TWO OUT OF THREE of the post-debate "analysts" were Clinton advisers. Disgusting.

Jeff, Oakland, CA (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:46 PM)

I think Blitzer tried to be fair in giving time
to the candidates. Edwards had time to have his
responses. He showed that he has clay feet and Obama
lost his equilibrium early on. Senator Clinton
showed her ability to speak clearly and unequivocally
and hold her own against her attackers.

Pearl Edwards (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:57 PM)

The responsibility is on you to be a critical consumer of the media. Don't solely rely on a debate to decide who you want to be in the White House - look at the issues and do some research on the candidates yourself. Clinton got a lot of play...but that's due in large part to the fact that she's been under fire from Obama and Edwards lately. She deserves a chance to respond. The main issue lately has been the Clinton vs. Edwards & Obama...of course CNN is going to spend a great deal of time to the tension between those three candidates. And when one of them clearly outshines the rest, SHE's going to get the airtime.

All of the candidates chose to accept CNN's invitation and you chose to watch the debate on CNN. Stop bashing CNN because you're upset Hillary is kicking butt and taking names.

TR C., Minneapols MN (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 12:02 AM)

The other comments are right on. CNN presided over a disgraceful event. There was no balance. Edwards got just about half the time of Hillary and Barack. Now we all know that Nevada is a Hillary state--- but this was a program for the whole nation. Edwards is clearly still in the hunt in Iowa. What's the deal? I don't know which explanation I prefer---- CNN is trying to help Hillary win, or CNN is totally inept. They are both pretty sad commentaries on the state of television.

Susan (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 12:13 AM)

Did Clinton pay off CNN or the other way around?

Tina Franks, Dover, DE (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 12:14 AM)

When I think that the media, in this case CNN, is leading us down the path to a Hillary nomination or perhaps presidency, I want to puke. This debate was clearly orchestrated to help Senator Clinton after her gaffes in the previous debate. She went down in the polls. Barack was moving up on her and CNN, Wolf Blitzer and an audience of overwhelmingly Clinton supporters came to her rescue. If the Democrats nominate Hillary, they will hand the 2008 election to the Republicans. The GOP is guaranteed to make the American voters relive every sordid day of Bill and Hillary's past. In the end, a golden opportunity to turn the page will have been lost. He may not be nasty enough or play dirty like the media wants him to in this campaign, but Barack Obama offers the hope of a new era in American politics. He stresses the bipartisanship of his approach to problems. He is a decent man who does not believe in winning at all costs. Experience does not always equal wisdom or sound judgement. The Republican candidates all relish a contest against Hillary but THEY ALL FEAR OBAMA! If you want REAL CHANGE in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2009, support Barack Obama.

OBAMA in 08 GIVE US REAL CHANGE, Pittsburgh PA (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 12:57 AM)

How can you say they stacked the audience with clinton fans, shes got more votes in the nevada polls right now then the rest of the other candiates combined. Wake up and realize that over 50% of people are hilary supporters. And I thought it was great that richardson got more time then edwards, the weasel just rags on hilary and then proposes completely out of reach ideas of change, like stuff happens with the snap of his fingers. I'm sick and tired of hearing from edwards he has nothing important to say and just wants to keep bringing up other peoples mistakes, looks to me like he straight up lied tonight too. If hes got so much beef with hilary and says she supports bush so much why would he support her, i thought thats what he hated.

b.nelson laramie, WY (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 2:00 AM)

There are to many candidates for all of them to have the same speaking times. The problem with this debate is that CNN did not know what they were doing and were unorganized. Clinton can go on and on so someone has to tell her enough because she sings the same old broken record. Let candidates that are in the year 2007, and not the 90s, speak more.

Kim Ramsey (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 2:57 AM)

Wolf Blitzer is sellig tonic water..when is someone gong to get rid of this rude man...I am sorry to have to say he has changed from a reporter to a man who must be concerned with digging dirt and making headlines and ratings for CNN..he seems always to try to slant things and stir them up...what a pity..he could have been real...yes, Hillary wonthe debate..she is oozing brains and savvy...unlike the moderator, Wolf.

Peg Ling (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 3:36 AM)

I'm glad the times the candidates spoke were posted at the beginning of this article. It clearly shows how unfair it was. What debate. I watched the Hillary and Obama show hosted by a hobo that looked like he just got of a freight train. Get that guy a razor.

G. Mercer, Spearfish, S.D. (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 6:35 AM)

The format was a disaster. How about asking ONE question of national importance and giving EACH of the candidates 60 seconds to respond? Rather than couching the questions in terms of "You said this about Candidate X last week, what did you mean by that?" which are designed to elicit arguments among them, just let each of them speak their peace and let the voters decide.

But while we're here - if a candidate has been part of the process for six months and has yet to move above 2% support, should they really still be part of the mix? Kucinich has no chance of getting the nomination, never mind his chances of winning the national election, so there's really no reason he should still be part of the process.

Clinton wasn't as successful as the MSM would like to think she was. There were plenty of moments when you could tell she got pissed off because someone had the audacity to challenge her on a point (like, oh, y'know, defining those making over $96,000 a year as being 'middle class'). Take away her cheering section, and the perception of her 'winning' the thing would go away.

Marcus, Chicago (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 9:02 AM)

My concern is the way questions were worded. The great majority were worded in such a way to cause arguments amongst candidates. The following is a useless e-mail I sent to CNN (because they will not take it seriously):
Shame on you, CNN, for relentlessly attempting to cause arguments among the Democratic candidates this evening. Question after question pushed the candidates, not to positively point out their differences, but to negatively pick at each other.
Kudos to the candidates for ignoring your fifth grade attempts and instead laying out the nuances of differences.
Did you hear the audience boo when Wolf and the other two attempted to cause strife?? Stop it and for heaven's sake will somebody stick a sock in Blitzer's big mouth?????? You would think that he is running for President!
The candidates gracefully managed to overcome the leading questions and present an interesting picture of themselves, despite your efforts to the contrary.
CNN used to be a NEWS channel. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Too bad. Thank God for BBC America and PBS. Those are the channels we turn to when we want to know what is happening in the world each day.

Elizabeth , Illinois (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 9:09 AM)

This was the worst debate to date - ever. Candidates, except Hillary, should refuse to debate on CNN - let Wolf interview her - certainly the press has held her coronation. Out here in Iowa we will have something to say about this.

Ron Spears (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 9:17 AM)

As someone that lives in Obama's state of IL here is a little tidbit you should know about him. He bought his house at 40% of market price on the GOLD COAST OF CHICAGO when he was a State Senator. His father in law is connected to one of the Biggest MOBSTERS in the State and he refuses to release any of his RECORDS OF ANY KIND from his record of service from the State Senate here in IL. Could he be trying to Hide something. He has done less than our pretty boy governor Blago.

Sick of the Obama Express (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 9:27 AM)

wolf Blitzer is the worse moderator I have ever seen and it is very clear to me the personal check from Hillary Clinton campaign cleared!

P.S Hillary is a SKANK!

Louise willshire (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 10:00 AM)

Wolf Blitzer lost control in the first two minutes of the debate and never regained a foothold. He asked banal questions. Trying to force a yes or no answer to complicated issues is a ploy to garner sound-bite answers rather than encouraging an indepth look at the candidates position. That Blitzer was a poor moderator, is putting it mildly. He has a self-inflated ego and should not be asked to host a debate again. MSNBC did much better.

R. E. Bennett, Madison, WI (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 10:09 AM)

I find the dems very funny.

The biggest complaint you folks should have is with Kucinich being on stage, and maybe Biden and Dodd (although they are the two best candidates).

At some point, the clutter needs to be cleared away and the no-hopers disinvited. The questions form the so-called undecided audience members were horrible. Quit with the gimmicks. Give us a debate where you have a couple of questioners sitting at a table with Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Let the candidates mix it up and question one another. Maybe then we'll get decent candidates (the GOP should do this too, although with the fluid state of that race it is hard to say who the no-hopers are).

Bruce, NV (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 10:21 AM)

This was far from the "plenty of time" debate CNN said was going to happen. It was nothing more than the Hillary Obama Edwards show. Both Biden and Kucinich were just waiting for a "real" question about a real issue. Last night was a complete joke.
A blind man could see that once again the media tried to focus on who they want to win.

Pacheck, Huntington Beach, Ca. (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 10:43 AM)

I can't understand why they can't give a more evenly distributed amount of time to the individual candidates. Have they never heard of a timer? I expect the front runners to get more attention that the others, but that much???

Dot, Illinois (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 11:47 AM)

Wolf Blitzer's treatment of Dennis Kucinich was appallingly unfair. Dennis alone voted against the Patriot Act and when asked why replied, "Because I read it." The crowd roared its approval. Yet the subject was dropped and Kucinich continued to be ignored. He alone voted against this Iraq mess, but he wasn't credited.
All the candidates complained that the Bush administration was and is trashing the Constitution, but Dennis alone said "Impeach, Impeach Now" but was cut off.
For shame, Wolf Blitzer and CNN.
The tone of the "debate" can be summed up in one question: "Would you -- Hillary Clinton -- prefer diamonds or p earls?"

Beatrice Williams-Rude, New York (Manhattan) NY (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 12:37 PM)

This was a poorly moderated "debate". Campbell Brown's unprofessional opening question set the stage for mud slinging and was fifth grade level. Wolf Blitzer seemed to have lost control of debate and his bias showed. It was interesting that it took Biden & Dodd to change the questioning to the issues. Bill Richardson finally was allowed to speak as the candidate with some of the best credentials. To CNN: "It's the issues, stupid." This was not the Wolf Blitzer show.

Dick Leabo, Sarasota, FL (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 1:52 PM)

I THINK WE NEED TO FIRE THE NETWORK NEWS CHANNELS - YOU GUYS SUCK!

Pat Wade, Tucson, AZ (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 1:55 PM)

Overall.....Not only was the "debate" one of the worst Hillary commercials I have ever seen, it was also one of the worst CNN commercials too. Staged, one-sided reporting at its worst. Wolf Blitzer was pathetic, and CNN should be embarrased. What we need is not a debate with questionable rules that allow for favoritism, but a forum where each candidate gets equal time to anwer all of the same questions. That didn't happen here.

Kipper Mathews , California (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 2:23 PM)

Wolf Blitzer is garbage and should not have been moderating this debate. CNN is a joke and no candidate should ever agree to do a CNN debate. How many tough questions did Hillary get? Why wasn't see asked about planting questions in Iowa? Blitzer is a pansy and caved into pressure from the Clinton's. I don't there was a "winner" in this debate, but I think Biden or Obama would make a great president.

The thought of Hillary as our nominee makes me want to puke. What do people see in her? A strong women? That can't be it, she hides behind her cronies coat tails. Independant thinking? No, she says what ever the polls tell her to. She would be a disaster for our country and set us back 8 years.

Let's bring in Obama or Biden, PLEASE

Steve. NH (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 3:16 PM)

In the beginning, I thought Hillary would make a good candidate for president; but after she became a sycophant for the worst administration in our country's history, it is clear that she is not the right girl the she claimed to be. We need a clear leader: a person with clear convictions and the passion to appeal to the voters. Our country needs a visionary: an individual with the integrity to push forth an agenda that will often be in direct contrast to the last sixteen years of fascist administrations sucking up to big business at the expense of all Americans, poor and rich alike. We need to secure our country and in so doing, secure the goodwill of the rest of the world. We need to show that we are made of the same stuff as our ancestors who fought to make the world a better place, with principles, and with a clear mandate that was not imperial. We are the people. We have to make ourselves heard. We must vote into office only those who merit our trust.

Frank (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 3:40 PM)

I watched with interest this farce. How does a debate happen when the candadates cannot debate. I noticed only two or three were allowed to talk and all questions were given to only three. Kucinich seems bright and spoke well and informed and seemed honestly concerned with the state of the U.S. Why would your Country ignore this man? This was a very biased debate.

Brian St.Albert Canada (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 4:54 PM)

Well, CNN is pushing Clinton but MSNBC is against her. If I were a Dem I would want them to debate on FOX. I will likely vote for the Republican (unless Biden somehow pulls off a miracle) and I love seeing them get grilled on MSNBC. To be fair I think the Fox guys did a good job of making them answer too.

Steve Aurora CO. (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 5:32 PM)

Kucinich, Biden, and Richardson showed signs of intelligence. Obama was paralyzed by fear of any verbal misstep. Edwards was semi-comatose. Clinton, obviously Blitzer and Co.'s favorite, smugly bathed in CNN pampering.

The GOP believes it can win against clinton and Obama, and will withhold any truly damaging fusilages until after the primaries.
Art, Oregon

Arthur Mock, Alsea. OR (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 6:54 PM)

Geez, did most of you posters watch the same debate I did? Kucinich is the only responsible choice for president. Look at the records of the others--war, war funding, votes to take away civil liberties, no commitment to get out of Iraq immediately, support for NAFTA and all the havoc it's wreaked here and in Mexico. Peace isn't utopian, it's necessary. Kucinich is the only one with the wisdom and conscience to get out of the muck Bush and Cheney have put us in. If the others are so against what Bush and Cheney have done, why are they permitting them to continue in office? Only Kucinich has the guts to say, "Impeach."

Karen Kaining, Houston, TX (Sent Saturday, November 17, 2007 8:09 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=469462