Final Thoughts

*****ATTENTION***** — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:28:10 GMT

CALL,WRITE OR E-MAIL THE PRESIDENT "NOW" DEMANDING THAT THE U.S. PROTEST THE IRAQI PARLEMENT FROM TAKING A 3 WEEK VACATION NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR THAT U.S.SOLDIERS ARE DIEING ON THEIR STREETS DAILY.

Final Thoughts

Cris Nolan, Mundelein, IL — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:31:57 GMT

My Question made the Debate! I asked Hillary Clinton how her candidacy constituted change - and she couldn't answer it. Barack didn't fall for my setup by following through with his attack that "change has to be more than a slogan." Hillary did however fall into my Al Gore trap! Run Al! Run!

Final Thoughts

Matt, OKC, OK — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:32:13 GMT

What is this Obama-Clinton love fest?

Half of the post was about which one won. Then the Edwards' hair shot at the end. Ever heard of substance.

This is the kind of stuff that passes for professionalism? How unfortunate.

Final Thoughts

Shadow, Hamden,CT — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:38:30 GMT

Obama did the best, very strong performance; Edwards was also good. With the longer format, everyone on stage had the chance to shine at one point. Even Richardson improved drastically, save his early answer to a Katrina question that he "opposes all red tape that would help families". Oops.

But it looks all in all like another solid debate win for Obama. Will MSNBC do a poll of who won, and if so, I wonder if Obama will win this MSNBC poll like every previous one, and whether once again the pundits will ignore reporting on that result to instead go on about how Clinton sounded more like a Commander in Chief.

Final Thoughts

Sandy Baymiller, Loudon, TN 37774 — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:39:33 GMT

I thought Anderson Cooper did a great job. Keep some of the long-winded candidates in check. I really didn't want to hear any big, heavy debates between two candidates and your cryptic analysis of the final comment of Obama & Clinton has me confused. I think you wrote your column too quickly.

Final Thoughts

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:46:24 GMT

Clinton had another great debate performance-She nailed the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton about who really won the 2000 election, Richardson alittle better, Obama came across better with less Um; Gravel is an angry lune by so entertaining, Biden seemed to me less yelling/angrier and more blunt as well as sincere when discussing Darfur. Edwards hair video was the best;Hillery's video was lame accept the end and finally Kucinich gets his brief and big brownie points about Iraq.

Final Thoughts

Jim Mignerey — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:47:12 GMT

Can you imagine Bush or Cheney answering questions from real people, but handpicked set up men? It was nice to see real people talking about reral problems and getting real answers. I didn't hear anyone say Al Queada was coming to a neighborhood near you soon.
I did hear people talking about healthcare and civil rights and American values, not lunatic fringe, James Dobson dreams.

Final Thoughts

George Grahame, Brunswick, Ohio — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:47:50 GMT

This format for questioning was great, however, there was no real debate and I think that the voter has lost a great opportunity to find out where the candidates stand. I think, even at this stage, the viewer must be given more information. I know it may not be a popular thought but we do have longer attention spans than 30 second sound bites. More time is spent on CNNs interpretations of shrugs and eye rolls than substantive issues. We need a real debate where the candidates debate not the pundits.

Final Thoughts

Renny — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:49:43 GMT

Obama marched with illegals on may 1, 2007, promising these lawbreakers amnesty within the first year of if presidency, if he was elected. I, for one, would NEVER vote for him. He is no better than the pres. we have now

Final Thoughts

Joe, DC — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:53:19 GMT

Obama exceeded expectations (based on the low bar his previous performances set) while Clinton was on par with her consistent earlier performances. Based on the expectations game, Obama may have appeared to do better. But Clinton came across for most of the debate as the only adult in the room. She was cosistenrly the most presidential. Biden was strong, but not presidential. The debate probably helped Obama, did no harm to Clinton, and was prpbably bad news for Edwards--but only because Clinton and Obama did so well.

Bottom line: Sen. Clinton still way ahead with six months to go.

Final Thoughts

Nicholas, New York City, NY — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:57:19 GMT

Obama has my vote. Richardson is my VERY close second. If Hillary gets the nod, of course I'll back her. But Obama is the man.

Final Thoughts

Larry Miller Hudson Florida — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:59:40 GMT

According to those who participated in a focus group Frank Lutz conducted after the debate, Sen Barack Obama walked away with the debate across the board. The participants who were Sen Clinton supporters before the debate switched to Obama in rather large numbers. As far as the question concerning meeting with foreign leaders, I think Obama got the better of that exchange. Afterall, as of today, isn't the US sitting down with Iran? Most 'inside the beltway' pundits might think it's a bad thing to do (Hillary's answere) I suspect most Americans feel we should be having a dialog with all foreign leaders (Obama's answer). Obama stood head and shoulders above everyone.

Final Thoughts

diane — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:05:29 GMT

one, is that neither of the candidates said they would just go out and meet without preset up. duh. It's just that Obama gives us credit for brains enough to know.
two, did you even listen to Hillary. All of it is spin, dodges, loud voice and blame. No substance and no answers on what she is actually going to do.
You guys are really starry eyed. You do not listen and just assume something and spin in her favor.
All polls show Obama beat her.
Yet you guys all day tomorrow will spin for Hillary
It is sad when people always say it is not Hillary and you guys dismiss it and spin for her. Do you guys even listen to what she is even saying?? Or lack of saying.

Final Thoughts

diane — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:14:20 GMT

did you catch hillary snubbing Obama. When asked to compliment the person to your left she totally snubbed him.
Nice behavior for a supposed grown up

Final Thoughts

Gene Ehle, Madison, Wi. — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:15:07 GMT

It was a fasinating debate and well worth watching. MY biggest problem was Todd's remarks, he is so anti Clinton, along with another terrible anchor man who is just as biased---Matthews!!! They are the reason I do not watch MNBC for my politics anymore. As much as I dislike Blitzer, it still is better than these two. When NBC hired Todd, I also quit watching NBC also. Before someone accuses me of being a Hillary fantic, I have been a republican for over 20 years.

Final Thoughts

Nicholas, New York City, NY — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:16:14 GMT

Obama has my vote. Richardson is my VERY close second. If Hillary gets the nod, of course I'll back her. But Obama is the man.

Final Thoughts

Nicholas, New York City, NY — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:16:17 GMT

Obama has my vote. Richardson is my VERY close second. If Hillary gets the nod, of course I'll back her. But Obama is the man.

Final Thoughts

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:21:44 GMT

I agree about Clinton...she is prepared, she is a very capable politician, but that's exactly what most of the folks I know are balking at....the same old from the same old.

Obama is inspiring...he doesn't have all the answers but he's presented himself as smart enough to know that and gather the best of the best around him for policy formulation.

All that said, I wish the media would get off the Hillary/Barack fascination...there were eight candidates up there and it's the media's responsibility to give us the whole story on all the options...not just yak on about the chosen two...

It's a four person race in my mind...Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Biden are the four I want to listen to more...please convince the media not to do what they did with going into Iraq. Please present all sides and give us the credit to come to our own conclusions....we don't need to be spoon fed what all you wonks think is right for us.

Final Thoughts

George Grahame, Brunswick, Ohio — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:27:31 GMT

Obama was style without substance. His plans don't solve the issues, not everyone is covered in his health care plan. Why would anyone sit down with the head of North Korea without having a plan? Edwards seemed to actually care about the people. Obama doesn't. Clinton seemed to have actually done the homework. But I think Biden was right that the guy calling his gun his "baby" might stalk him.

Final Thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore, ND — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:30:14 GMT

Obama did much better in the second half, Clinton won the first.

Interesting that Clinton didn't have a single good thing to say about Obama

Final Thoughts

Bill Underwood, Albany GA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:45:39 GMT

The problem with Chuck Todd's take on the debate is the same old tired Hillary, Obama lead. Get real. There are some really good candidates that are or will be up and comers such as John Edwards and Bill Richardson. Many of us are very tired of Obama and Hillary. The Democrats better have a candidate that can win a general election and that may not be Obama or Hillery.

Final Thoughts

Jen, DC — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:21:43 GMT

Clinton's response to the question about diplomacy was the better response only if you want the next presidency to be a continuation of the same failed diplomacy as reward strategy this country has had for the past however many years (depending on which country we are discussing). I, for one, think that maintaining diplomatic ties to countries, even when they are not our allies are friends, is in our nation's best interests.

Final Thoughts

Jonathan Holtz, Santa Cruz, CA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:23:03 GMT

Horse race horse race horse race. Who's ahead? Who won? We lost. Andersen shut downteh ideas in teh party (Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, Biden) and allowed the top and 2nds tier to have the time. He sabotoged Edwards with a sucker punch (questioner in teh audience who could not follow Edwards very cogent answer the first time) and allowed Clinton, and Obama and Biden time and leeway that he denied to Gravel and that he tried to deny Kucinich.

I loved Edwards response about bipartisanship. I just wish someone would have said that as important as electing a Dem to teh Wh is, it is equally important to elect more dems to congress to stop the filibusters.

Clinton hit it out of the park on talking ot leaders... confirmed sens that Obama needs seom tiem to mature still.

Richardseon is such a policy wonk, he loses his personal appeal. My support for him has waned.

Final Thoughts

Kristian O — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:46:58 GMT

This thing is far from over. Anybody clainiming that any candidate has it locked up in July is out to lunch. Wait until the voters hone in for real. Obama-Edwards-Biden looked and sounded the part. Hilary is scripted big time. As for supposed "experience edge",
not over Dodd and Richardson.

Final Thoughts

Kathy C., Palo Cedro, CA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:01:09 GMT

I was disappointed in the disproportionate amount of time devoted to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If you truly listented to the answers tonight, John Edwards was the only candidate who gave straight, substantive, intelligent answers that showed his command of the issues and his compassion for all of us. I am just disappointed that more questions were not given to him. He is the only leading candidate not taking money from PACs and lobbyists and has fought corporate abuse his entire life. Could that be why Time Warner didn't want to give him too much time???

Final Thoughts

Deloris Lynders, San Antonio, TX — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:21:11 GMT

After the eight years we've had, I'd be happy to vote for any of the eight presented tonight. AND I was very pleased not to be cringing at anyone's answers as I did the last time the prez was the one in the hot seat. Personally, I liked Hillary Clinton's answers and manner the best. She was poised, polite and showed she's prepared for the job. Obama has a real future, but needs to do the grunt work first.

Final Thoughts

Neil, Durham, NC — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:21:31 GMT

Obama and Clinton are just as corrupt by the lobbyists in Washington. Who really cares what lies they espouse? Both are for amnesty for illegal aliens and both continue to support funding for this war of Preemption in Iraq.

Look at Ron Paul for a real alternative!

Final Thoughts

Jack — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:21:51 GMT

What bunk that being willing to talk with dictators shows a lack of experience. It's called diplomacy - and after the last seven years, perhaps it's time to try it. JFK talked with Kruschev. Obama wouldn't give away the nuclear football.

The idea that rattling a carrier group is more presidential than talking is childish and naive.

Final Thoughts

Jordan, Chicago, Illinois — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:33:52 GMT

I agree with Shadow's comments. The mainstream media seems enamored with Clinton. I was actually listening to what she was saying and she uses her gender way to much to pander to women. She just seems to be trying to hard to have a more masculine approach. SHe comes across as bossy and a know it all to me at least. And the polls always show that the actual voters always tend to favor Obama. I was also impressed with Joe Biden but he seems unhinged at times.

Final Thoughts

eric — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:55:03 GMT

The media is trying to bring down the votes to two candidates--Clinton and Obama. They hype those two candidates and then expect us to nominate either of the two. What do they think of us? Are we some backward people who can't reach our own conclussions? In fact the U.S. media is anti-democratic

Final Thoughts

Audie, Austin, Tx — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:36:49 GMT

I agree that Obama "won" the debate.(Having said that, I'm not sure what the barometer of sucess is in this forum.) I also agree that it's frustrating when you watch Sen. Obama win debate after debate and find that the Clinton spin machine is up and running before you wake up the next day.

P.S. I'm tired of seeing Bill and Hillary paraded around like they're the Waltons. Do they think that we've forgotten the late 90's.

Final Thoughts

Steve James — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:37:33 GMT

Senator Obama won me over HANDS DOWN! I thought that Governor Richardson came in a very close second.

Mrs. Clinton and her shrill voice just got the best of me. Especially when she lost everyone while trying to explain why there are no liberals anymore and only progressives. She wasn't clear.

Obama ROCKS. He absolutely, without a doubt, WON!

Final Thoughts

Nicole, Chicago, IL — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:39:02 GMT

Clinton did not perform well. She came off as arrogant, and sidestepped many of the questions. i am sick of the media trying to shove her down her throats. THat's how we got Kerry as the nominee four years ago. She is insincere and a self-centered elitist

Final Thoughts

Mary, Seattle — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:38:50 GMT

I totally disagree with your conclusion: "The contrast between Obama's answer and Clinton's answer was the difference between someone running for the Dem nomination and someone running for Commander in Chief. She got the better of him on that one."

With the majority of Americans sick and tired of war, I think they are looking for a Leader who will immediately start dialogue with other world leaders to defuse conflict.

So Obama's response was music to my ears.

QUESTION: "In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is
ridiculous."

(APPLAUSE)

"Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not
trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country,but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward."

"And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward
is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."

"They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."

Final Thoughts

George, Seatt.e — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:55:32 GMT

Hillary's response to the "talk with bad guys" question was very weak, I am surprised that they are trumpeting it as a victory.

" I think it is not that you promise a meeting
at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes."

She isn't confident that she can win a debate with Chavez?

We need leadership with the courage to take risks, and the risks to meeting with unpleasant world leaders is very small. The US is a very powerful country; we can wipe other countries off the map or make them wealthy beyond their people's wildest dreams. We can set the agenda; we can ensure that it is our intentions that matter -- not theirs.

If Hillary is too timid to meet with the leaders of other countries with out a prearranged agenda laid out by others, then she does not have what it takes to be Commander in Chief. To me she has proven that like Bush, the only reason that she is even being considered for the presidency is her last name.

Final Thoughts

Robert,Phuket, Thailand — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:59:44 GMT

Lets get real. America has or is suppose to have over 250 MN people living there. If only 2,500 responded to U-Tube with a posting, then what happened in the rest of America? Real questions from real people? Real answers from real people? I don't think so. How can anyone think that these people running for office are real people? $30MN dollars says they're real. What a farse....

Final Thoughts

RIP, Dubai, UAE — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:17:44 GMT

Hillary's comment about the 2000 election was totally off base....GW actually won, sorry lady; however a built in crowd pleaser. The two most qualified candidates came across above board and straight forward, but don't have a chance, Biden and Richardson; although Richardson could surprise.

Final Thoughts

David, Chattanooga, Tn — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:21:26 GMT

Clinton and Obama gave no solutions to any problems but they are top notch on sound bites. Edwards gave solutions but gets no credit from MSM. Again the dems will nominate from sound bites and big money donations. Clinton will win the nomination and lose the election. Edwards is the answer but can't win the nomination.

Final Thoughts

Jim, Washington, D.C. — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:13:35 GMT

I didn't watch the debates, but I agree that the media is Clinton-biased, even though many of us are tired of the "same old from the same old." Clinton doesn't want to sit down with Iran, but most of us are getting so tired of the war that we'd talk to anyone who could help. And Jim M is right on; I can't imagine Bush or Cheney responding to anyone but hand-picked yes-men. So the debate was a good idea, and probably helped both the fandidates and the audience get over "debate fatigue".

Final Thoughts

Mike, Lee NH — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:17:26 GMT

A complete waste of time, no offense to those who posed a question and got something of an answer. I felt this charade coincided with the characteristic that : " to win you must be most popular in a cliche'" I felt it held little substance and I felt it was a childish ploy to achieve attention...alot like high school antics.

Final Thoughts

David, Mississippi — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:18:48 GMT

It's amazing that whomever seems to win the debate (Obama in my opinion) the press always in the end spins toward Clinton. There has been a Bush or Clinton in office since 1980. How about someone outside of those families for a change.

Final Thoughts

Akber A. Kassam, New-York City, New York. — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:21:14 GMT

Sen. Hillary Clinton won the debate last night, second was Sen. Barak Obama and third was Edward.!!!!

Final Thoughts

L Ho, Tokyo, Japan — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:21:47 GMT

Biden seemed the most reasonable and genuine. Clinton portrayed statesmanship, but somehow doesn't really connect (similar to Gore during his run). Obama has potential but also seems a bit unseasoned at times. Richardson also has potential, but his foreign policy strength pales in comparison to that of Biden and Clinton (as does Obama's to a slightly lesser extent).

Edwards seems to have lost his luster. He was considered to lack experience when he last ran, and now seems slightly more out of place than ever, having been out of office since 2005. With a black candidate and a female candidate, it is harder to argue that electing the poverty-fighting white male candidate would best indicate a united nation ("not two Americas").

The other candidates seem to be little more than a distraction at this point. An entertaining distraction at times, but the stakes are high enough to prioritize substantive debate (which takes more time focused on fewer people) over superficial entertainment.

Final Thoughts

Pat, USA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:25:08 GMT

I throughly enjoyed the debate tho I felt the candidates were still allowed to evade questions........whatever happened to yes or no :)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Chuck Todds review as he seems overly concerned about "media" and the "TV" and their "missed opportunity". Personally I think the Media and TV are doing an overkill and we need more voter to candidate direct questions (and answers) such as tonights format.

Congratulations to CNN and YouTube!

"My only critique of the format was the moderator and his lack of understanding when a mini-debate was about to break out. Anderson Cooper (who's never been mistaken for a political junkie) missed a HUGE opportunity to give all of the TV nets and the media a chance to air/write a Clinton v. Obama lead"

"Clinton did nothing to lose her frontrunner status. Obama had to go out of his way to take a shot at her and the moderator missed the shot and denied us a BIG moment"

Final Thoughts

Ed Tilley, Wilmington, North Carolina — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:30:39 GMT

I think Senator Clinton again proved that on day one she would be President. She will not need any on the job training. This time we need a President who knows what the hell she/he is doing. I am voting for Mrs. Clinton.

Final Thoughts

Bart, Blacksburg. Va — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:50:26 GMT

I found it intensely insulting when Hillary answered a derisive "sure" to whether or not she would work for the minimum wage -- proving she cares nothing about the problems of the little people. Watching this debate I find it amazing that she is leading in the polls as she is. She appeared smug and skulking through the entire debate, wouldn't even look at her competitors when they talked most the time, and her responses were generally shallow and disingenuous -- just the hollow words of a hollow politician.

Final Thoughts

Deb — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:51:07 GMT

Gore-Edwards '08

Final Thoughts

vippy — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:51:58 GMT

Do we really want catchy one-liners and the problem with Darfur when we need all the help we can get.
Let us focus on our homeland first, which Bush has ruined. Ask Hillary why she voted twice for the Patriot Act? For crying out loud ask some questions with substance. Just see the DEM's energy policy, the Free Trade Agreement and tell me if we are not heading in the wrong direction. Fire them all, vote 3rd party and send them a message of who put them in power in the first place.

Final Thoughts

Toni Newmarket NH — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:53:47 GMT

To those who want another 4 years of a Clinton don't forget all the nonesense they caused, all the deception, all the lies, and all the manipulation...haven't you had enough already?!

Final Thoughts

kourosh — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:57:23 GMT

Despite that people said they trust Youtube questions better than journalists, the questions were selected and controlled. Hillary was as usual with no depth, manipulative, fashion alert, general, and said nothing worthy of mentioning, Obama was brilliant, and Richardson was the obvious winner.

Final Thoughts

Barbara Jean — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:04:54 GMT

I feel that Hillary won because she comes across as being the one most ready to lead the country should she get the nomination. As you stated, I also believe that Obama came off much stronger in this debate. Edwards was passionate, but the way I see it, he may win one or two primaries but has NO CHANCE in the national election. Either Richardson or Biden would make a great Secretary of State in a Clinton White House.

Final Thoughts

CJ, Woodhave, Mich — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:07:56 GMT

Loved that Youtube was used. Maybe we'll have a better turnout rate of younger people when it comes time to vote. I can't wait for the youth of this country to stand up, vote & get all the archaic, hardened politicians OUT!! Loved Hillary ... sounds JUST LIKE A PRESIDENT! Obama was awesome too.

Final Thoughts

Kathy in Oregon — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:17:19 GMT

I thought the questions were wonderful - so nice to have real people asking tough questions, not plants in the audience with microphones. Although I have supported Edwards for years, I am becoming more and more convinced that Clinton would be an excellent choice. I thought she did a wonderful job and showed that she can handle herself without coming off as harsh or cold. Her answer about sitting down with hostile world leaders displayed her unique preparedness for the position in ways that the others on the stage could not. Richardson slipped in my opinion, and would make an excellent Secretary of State, he would talk issues to death. I liked Biden's repeated emphasis that withdrawal from Iraq will take longer than some of the others were promising - I think having these diverse candidates keeps the top tier candidates honest. I like that Elizabeth Edwards is emerging as a power house, showing that the Edwards' are a contemporary couple in the way that Bill and Hillary are. All in all, I am so excited for this election cycle and think it is a wonderful time in America when the top white male candidate is #3!!

Final Thoughts

David, Washington, DC — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:26:32 GMT

Horrible debate format. Was that a debate for arguably the most important job in the world ... or was that an audition for SuperBowl commercial producers?

Final Thoughts

Kent Wells, Silicon Valley, CA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:32:29 GMT

Everyone refers to the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton fatigue. It's even worse than fatigue!......since 1980 it's been Reagan/BUSH - Reagan/BUSH - Clinton -Bush - Clinton?. America just loves royalty ! The Bush/Clinton royal families love to say it time for a change. I agree, NO MORE ROYAL FAMILIES IN THE USA. !!!

SEE YA IN 2012 JEB BUSH !

Final Thoughts

Frank — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:34:08 GMT

Many of the questions were stupid and beneath the dignity of the occasion. Just awful. Obama has absolutely no substance at all, and some of his answers, such as unconditionally sitting down with the likes of Ahmadnejad, are totally unacceptable.
Joe Biden is the smartest of all. I am no Clinton fan, but she handled herself quite well and is a formidable force.

Final Thoughts

Ray Fox, Whjitney, Texas — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:40:42 GMT

I'm getting really tired of hearing of hearing about nothing but democrats. I'm beginning to dislike liberals as much as i dislike muslims.

Final Thoughts

Chris, Fort Eustis, VA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:53:42 GMT

How is this forum any different from what we've seen previously? Sure it was hosted by YouTube and the questions came from real Americans, I guarantee the candidates saw the video clips well prior to this debate and had their answers rehearsed as usually.
Blame the current Administration for everything wrong in the world yet offer nothing in the form of change. That's the way the Dems won the House and Senate and now they have worse ratings then Bush.

Final Thoughts

Pete, West Hartford, CT — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:03:17 GMT

The next President will need to work with congress to get things done to get our country back on course. To do that, moderate Republicans cannot be alienated so we can work together to fix the mess that Bush has made. Chris Dodd has the experience and the respect of his collegues in congress to get things done.

Final Thoughts

JKB, Birmingham, AL — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:18:09 GMT

I love the idea that we could just stop funding the war, thing is all of the taxes we pay don't make our lives better, we can throw away billions of dollars on making worldwide enemies in the name of anti-terror, but we won't spend a dime on taking care of our own citizens' healthcare, or making our own streets safer for that matter; the point is things won't change, it is pleasing to think someone is going to make a changee for the good of the people, but again, its all about the big money and special interests-and the hypocracy would be amusing, were it not so sad; How many times did I hear the candidates bash big business and the (evil correctly implied)-insurance companies, and big business (where are these candidates getting their paychecks from?)Give us a break! We are not naive, we are simply disenfranchised. It is a world of red tape and lies, and Joe average citizen doesn't have teams of lawyers and campaign dollars to really have his/her voice heard-oh,wait, I thought that was what our electorate was for, but again, that is all "in theory". So I guess the question is, which two-faced crook from which self-serving party do you want to give power and riches to, 'cause for we the taxpayer, the wounded soldier, the infirmed elder, the underpayed worker, we're juust here to fund these modern-day robber-barons.

Final Thoughts

Gary, West Palm Beach, FL — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:22:13 GMT

Reading articles like this just reinforces the notion that the media controls the show. Why can’t Biden break out? Because all he ever gets in the media are these one liners saying how great he did then the focus returns to this stupid sophomoric popularity contest. This is ridiculous! -- "But of the candidates not named Obama or Clinton, Biden probably had the best night" -- Great, how about a better follow up to that comment Mr. Todd? Joe Biden is brilliant, articulate, experienced and a statesman and it’s time for him to get some attention from the press and time to speak at these lopsided debates.

Final Thoughts

Pat Shaffer, Spokane WA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:23:51 GMT

Edwards is the best overall candidate for President, Obama for Vice Pres. - Richardson would be a masterful Sec. of State.
With due respect to Sen. Clinton, everytime her voice rises, she loses 100,000 votes - and frankly - without her last name/connection to Bill, would not even be considered (though the same could have been said for Bush - who did LOSE the 1st election, and has disgraced our country with unbelievable incompetence.)Pres. Edwards will bring us back to our place as the honorable leaders of the free world.

Final Thoughts

willim ryals, ash flat, arkansas — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:25:07 GMT

This was by far the best format for a debate that I have seen. However the problem is there was not enough time to develop answers or to pose a question to all the candidates. A series of debates using this format and limited to a few subjects per debate would give the opportunity for more detailed answeres and debate between the candidates. At some point the field will need to be cut to the top four or five.

Final Thoughts

willim ryals, ash flat, arkansas — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:29:48 GMT

Barbara Jean said that Edwards was the most passionate but doesn't have a chance to win. She doesn't seem to understand that as long as she listens to the media's analysis instead of what the candidates say that she is voting for the medias candidate not the one that she wants.

Final Thoughts

cross, Silver Spring, MD — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:35:25 GMT

If tese are the best we have to offer America and the world, God help us!Hollow preconceived words, no substance as well as no substance questions. Politics are suddenly at a kindergarden level. Clinton/Obama; give me a bresk!!!!

Final Thoughts

Rey N. Baguio, Stockton, California — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:35:50 GMT

I live in northern California and had no chance to watch the debate. DIRECTV doesn't have a channel to replay the debate for the entire night. I was no mad. I missed the first and this last one already. It's unfair. Not everybody can watch this time of P.M.

Final Thoughts

Rey N. Baguio, Stockton, California — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:38:03 GMT

I live in northern California and had no chance to watch the debate. DIRECTV doesn't have a channel to replay the debate for the entire night. I was so mad. I missed the first and this last one already. It's unfair. Not everybody can watch this time of P.M.

Final Thoughts

Sander Bellman — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:39:55 GMT

I've been an Edwards supporter since '04, but his answer to the Gay marriage question left me cold. He obfuscated when discussing the difference between his PERSONAL religious beliefs and what he would do as President, but his refusal to support Gay marriage to me, may be a deal breaker.

I've been married to the same woman for 46 years next month. I would hope that someday, should my grandchildren turn out to be Gay, they would also have the opportunity to enjoy 46 years, or more, of a loving marriage to someone of their choosing regardless of gender.

Marriage is a personal choice and the government has no business denying its availability to anyone, regardless of his or her sexual orientation. I would hope our next President believes the same.

Final Thoughts

Shawn, Chicago, IL — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:48:28 GMT

Chris, unfortunately I missed the debate, so your article was a bit difficult to read. You kept referencing different moments in the debate, but you never explain what happened in that moment, just your take on it. I see you included an update regarding the Obama/Clinton question -- I could use a similar update on the entire article. For those of us that didn't catch the debate the article is a bit confusing. Thanks.

Final Thoughts

R.Anselmo, Los angeles, CA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:48:34 GMT

This WAS NOT A DEBATE! These "arm chair generals" are trying to sound like they know about war... they do not. They do not know how to win; they do not know how to leave; they do not know how to do anything except complain. The key operative word is "SOLUTIONS". They need to present a solution to WIN in IRAQ, Win in the war on terror. Without a detailed solution they are just another group of lightweight media fops. they should abandon "MOVE-ON.org's leftest views.

Final Thoughts

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:49:44 GMT

Was I the only one that could see Biden is the best candidate?

Final Thoughts

Allen Pratt, Wenatchee, Washington — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:52:42 GMT

I missed a portion of the debates but I didn't hear any questions posed about illegal immigration and enforcing our laws on immigration or protecting our border from the waves of illegals coming in as well as potential drug runners and terrorists. I know questioned had to have been posted why didn't they get aired.

Final Thoughts

Anon E. Moose, Indiana — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:57:57 GMT

pretty silly format; having members of the public ask the questions CNN then selects in no way represents connection with the electorate. how unfortunate that this masquerade appears to have worked.

Final Thoughts

Steve Melnick, Bethlehem, PA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:02:29 GMT

In my opinion, last nights show, not debate, was very revealing. I felt that Joe biden did very well with his tough talk. I felt it was very appropriate considering all the double talk we have been subjected to in the past ten + years. Now all he needs to do is get his facts straight and not be afraid of offending some groups who don't really represent Mainstream Democrats.

Obama came off as genuine but a bit amateurish and although I never cared for Hillary, I gained a great deal of respect for her as a result of her "progressive" remarks. I'm a moderate Deomcrat, not a left winger and I applaud any candidate who can admit to having positions both left and right of center.
If Biden can keep up the tough talk with "Facts" and some well placed shots at the GOP, I think he can become a contender.

Final Thoughts

Patrick, Cincinnati, OH — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:12:02 GMT

"To those who want another 4 years of a Clinton don't forget all the nonesense they caused, all the deception, all the lies, and all the manipulation...haven't you had enough already?! "

Ummm the current administration lied about a $ 500 billion war, WMD's, political firing of prosecutors... the Valerie Plame case. All have to do with crimes in office... that are actually against the people and not just a personal issue.

Final Thoughts

Harry — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:16:17 GMT

Kucinich as usual is the candidate with the most substance, greatest depth of proposals, and strong leadership in Congress. He has a plan on his website for ending the war in Iraq. Wish to hear more from him.

Final Thoughts

Ron, Beaver Falls Pa. — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:17:08 GMT

They are both socialist, running for the presidentcy of the United States. Why would anyone want a socialist as President. What is wrong with you people. Look at what Clinton did, sold nucluar secrets to China, Carter gave North Korea the time to build a nucluar bomb,by sticking his liberal nose in some thing he had no business putting it in, as well as give China control of the only water way to the Pacific in case of war to China. Now you want to elect another socailist as President to sell and give up our safety and sovenority away again. As Quinn' says "LIBERALS GENERATE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THEIR STATED INTENT". Look at what the Liberals are doing to this war on terror, Given imformation to the enemy to embold them to stay in Iraq and put pressure on the soldiors tokeep the enemy at bay. Why because the Liberals have their nose in a war that they have no business in anyway. Their "LIBERALS" are doing the same thing they did during Veitnam tring to lose the war for the sake of belittleing Bush. They hate Bush so much that they want him to lose this war for their personal political gain. Help save America vote against any Liberal running for office be they Republican or be they Democrat. Liberals are nothing more then a socialist ,marxist with the Democrat title after it.Every Liberal ran country is in disaray every one of them. Crime high sky, murder high sky and every other immoral issue on earth. Every state that is ran by liberals have turned into welfare states, Pennsylvaina is evolving into one right now. It's a state of prison's and elderly home's and low-income housing projects. With drugs on every corner, and swamped with illegal- alien's in a state that was the steel producing empior with the largest railroad system in the world. Now is a welfare state THANKS to LIBERALS>

Final Thoughts

Amy B Portland, ME — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:19:02 GMT

Rey N. Baguio, Stockton, California, I don't have cable TV. I watched it on CNN's website. You can too...its still there...then I ran back to MSNBC to see what First Read had to say.

Final Thoughts

john — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:19:04 GMT

The candidates all agree that we were sold on the war with lies. But none of them has yet said what he/she thnks were the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Forget WMD, democracy, stopping AlQuada there before they come here. Why did Bush have us invade Iraq? Kucinich hints that oil was involved but even he will not spell it out. My fear is that the dems are against the war now mainly because we are loosing, and not because they disagree with the real reasons behind the war.

Final Thoughts

Susie, Kansas City, MO — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:21:26 GMT

Sen. Clinton came across to me as very stoic, stiff and not someone who I would want to cast my vote for, but after these eight years I will vote for the Dem who gets nominated. Edwards answer about gay marriage has me backing away from him...and my son (18 today) will be proud (I hope anyway lol) to scooot over on Sen. Obama's bandwagon and save me a place.

Final Thoughts

me — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:33:54 GMT

It would be excellent if CNN could strongarm the final 2 presidential candidates to this format for one of their fall 08 debates. The format fits the under 40 generation like a glove, I loved it.

Final Thoughts

Julie, Seattle — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:37:49 GMT

I was a Clinton supporter, however, after last night, I am leaning more toward either Obama and Edwards. I just saw them as "less polished" politicans, and real people. Isn't it time we stop electing more of the same. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results...

Final Thoughts

Julie, Reno, NV — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:43:44 GMT

To Ron from Beaver Falls, PA,

You are obviously either insane, or brainwashed by right-wing media. Not to mention that EVERY one of your supposed "facts" are incorrect. I will not bother telling you what is correct, because, one, you will not listen anyway, and two, it would take actual thought and effort on your part to research the truth.

Final Thoughts

Barbara, Little Falls, NJ — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:48:25 GMT

I think Hillary Clinton won hands down. Yes, she sounds presidential that is what we want. Remember (Bush) never sounded presidential, everyone wanted to have beer with him and look where that got us. Hillary is well informed and very comfortable answering the questions, I don't want someone who will promise everything and then can't deliver anything. We have to be as honest as we can be in this election. I never though Hillary could win in the beginning, now I believe she has a real shot at being the the First Woman President. Here statement was correct (Maybe the best man for the job is a WOMAN).

Final Thoughts

Melissa Fargo, ND — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:53:20 GMT

When it comes to actually answering a question, Joe Biden was the only candidate on that stage that did so frankly and honestly. I saw a lot of dancing around the answer by the other candidates.
That being said, Edwards is such a poor candidate. In a number of his answers he referred to his opponents, which could be seen as and endorsement. If the others have all of the answers right, why should we support him? It is as if he can’t think for himself.
Clinton, on the other hand, looks good and sounds good, but she never actually SAYS anything. While she is probably more aware than anyone else what goes into the job of president, I don’t think she’d be any different than the president we have now. It would just be more of the same.
As for Obama, he seems genuine, even if he does lack experience.

Final Thoughts

trish - Bristol CT — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:58:16 GMT

Obama has my vote - my husband's vote - my son's vote. Although we would take Hilary if we had to, we are tired of the old smooth politians. Give us Obama with his outright honest views and inspiration. I agree that the media puts too much emphasis on Hilary when clearly the people of America want a NEW outlook in Washington. We'd like to see the media start admitting that Obama is the people's choice.

Final Thoughts

Felice Sage Littleton CO — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:10 GMT

Before we get too caught up in who the winners and losers of the debates are, let's remember that the guy who can rarely string together even three words at a time in anything resembling a coherent fashion is our president, God help us.

Final Thoughts

JJ in NJ — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:02:26 GMT

This was a terrific debate, and far more substantive than the questions asked by the cocktail weenie Very Serious People in the Washington Press Corps. This time the Dirty Effing Hippies asked the questions and we got a very good handle on these candidates. I hate to admit it, but Hillary solidified her lead with this one. She looked and sounded presidential, and had the biggest cojones of the night without being shrill. My heart belongs to John Edwards; I think he is onto something with health care and with poverty, but I also think Americans are so frightened about becoming poor themselves that they will respond by running away from the poverty as fast as their legs can carry them. You see how much Americans care about Katrina victims these days (i.e not one iota).

I think Edwards/Obama would be a dynamite ticket, but the Democratic hacks have already decided that Hillary is the nominee. And she will get her behind kicked in November 2008. I hope you liked the Third Reich, because that's what you're going to get with Republicans.

Final Thoughts

Koto — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:18:05 GMT

I agree with Renny, I will not vote for ANYONE who supports a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. I also would not vote for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards as both support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"Obama marched with illegals on may 1, 2007, promising these lawbreakers amnesty within the first year of if presidency, if he was elected. I, for one, would NEVER vote for him."

Final Thoughts

Mike Brooks, Eugene, Oregon — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:26:48 GMT

Just to get a more balanced view of these "debates", as you people seem to have already corninated Hillary Clinton, I went out and read some online comments from foreign newspapers and web sites. The results are more than a little interesting.
the BBC commentators called the debate and format "hype". They also called Clinton's answers "scripted". The winner, according to BBC commentators and the British viewing public was Dennis Kucinich!

The GÖTEBORGS-POSTEN (Sweden) has a one paragrph summary, calling the "debate" a waste of time and a failure. The Scandinavian view of American's is that we are trivial fools, 'too much addicted to the Jerry Springer format of shows'.

The Allgemeine Zeitung (Germany) completely ignored the "debate". The one letter to the editor in todays news paper called it "silly". The Stuttgarter-Zeitung has a lead story this morninging titled "Hillary Clinton: A woman without characteristics".

It sounds to me as if the rest of the world doesn't much regard Hillary Clinton as being any better than George Bush...and maybe even worse. You people at MSNBC *really* need to get more! The rest of the world thinks we are idiots over here, our politics run by fanatics and dupes, funded by corporations that do a disservice to the American public.

Final Thoughts

William D. West Raleigh, North Carolina — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:14:47 GMT

Clinton & Obama are the favorite candidates for the Presidential race.The reason I said this, was that they are better prepared for the race than any of the rest candidates, when compared in terms foreign policies,decession makeing sincerity and dependability.Both of them can put up a good fight against the Republicants,and win the 2008 election.

Final Thoughts

Jim Mignerey, Hamilton, Ohio — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:58:22 GMT

I am sure that Toni Newmarket misspoke when she talked about nonsense, deception, lies, manipulation, and having enough already. She must have surely meant the past seven years of Bush. I guess FoxNews confused her. Their viewers are easily confused.

By the way, I said a year ago that I would love to see Hillary as President with Obama as Vice President(eight years of hands on experience for him) and Bill as Sec. of State. Wouldn't be nice to have intelligent people in charge after the morons we currently have?

Final Thoughts

VernondelRay, Austin, TX — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:23:49 GMT

Having read all these posts, I'm reminded of Winston Churchill's infamous quote: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." If Churchill was alive today, he'd amend it to include pundits, who seem to be more contrived than the pandering candidates and dulled down electorate. Not that I think we should put any stock in what that fat elitist pig ever said, but the quote is apropos.

Rarely have I read a larger collection of horsesh!t concerns. If you're selecting your next president on gay marriage alone, even if you're gay, shame on you, your selfishness knows no bounds. If you're going to vote for a candidate because they "seem presidential", ditto the above. Even ending the Iraq war, as important as that is, should not be anyone's sole reason for selecting a candidate.

Our country's middle class is under an assault more grave than at any other time in our history. The average American carries more debt than ever before, as does our country as a whole. China's real estate holdings, coupled with their de-valued currency, will make them our de-facto landlords in the future. The trade deficit is a menace to middle class America. The same can be said regarding illegal immigration. What is needed is leadership and policy (whether in taxation, immigration, trade agreements, the environment, government spending, etc.)that benefits the majority of middle America, not soley the elites of America.

The media has already annointed Clinton as the next president, and she's the ONLY democrat that, if elected, will cause me to begin job hunting in New Zealand!! Mr. Clinton was a champion of Most Favored Nation trading status to China and NAFTA. If Mrs. Clinton is elected, her leadership will be the ruin of America, a process not started by, but continued by, her husband. Oh, and by the way, does it creep anyone else out that, if elected, she'll have to show up for work everyday in the very same room her husband cheated on her in? Not fair, but true!!

Final Thoughts

Bart, Blacksburg. Va — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:25:13 GMT

The whole thing was a joke, mostly a marketing scheme for CNN, which also managed to frame Hillary as the centerpiece of the debate (notice how she is in the center of the photograph wearing pink so that you are drawn immediately to notice her and ignore everyone else). Andersen Cooper's facilitation of the debate was also pathetic -- he was utterly incapable of keeping the candidates on topic, or keeping them true to answering any of the questions.

I wouldn't trust the fairness of CNN's hosting of the debate. Most of the comments on their web site are overwhelmingly in support of the so-called "historic" YouTube debate (as they called it on the day it was hosted) and probably are biased in favor of the politician(s) CNN is supporting (or are being patronized by).

As for opinions that may conflict with CNN.... I posted the same comment twice on CNN's website this morning that I posted here (which was critical of Hillary) which CNN censored from the comment section to their web article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.main/index.html)
For reference, my comment, which MSNBC allowed to be posted was:

"I found it intensely insulting when Hillary answered a derisive "sure" to whether or not she would work for the minimum wage -- proving she cares nothing about the problems of the little people. Watching this debate I find it amazing that she is leading in the polls as she is. She appeared smug and skulking through the entire debate, wouldn't even look at her competitors when they talked most the time, and her responses were generally shallow and disingenuous -- just the hollow words of a hollow politician."

Final Thoughts

Billie, Mesquite, TX — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:55:45 GMT

John Edwards was the most articulate, authentic and sincere in his answers. His story of the fifty year old man was heart-felt. Edwards has a plan, cares for common people, and thinks on his feet. Hillary is also bright and articulate, politically savvy, and understands domestic and foreign policy. Obama is intelligent, but comes across as shallow and unseasoned--needs more time and grade. He really must quit harping on Hillary's vote for the war. He wasn't in the senate to vote one way or another, and consequently was not subjected to the Bush propaganda machine that promoted this war fiasco..First Edwards, then Hillary. I will be proud to vote for either one.

Final Thoughts

Charles Ashbacher, Marion, IA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:33:50 GMT

I thought Obama's answer to the question about meeting foreign leaders was far superior to Clinton's. In many ways she sounded like George Bush, setting up preconditions. Obama's point was that unlike George Bush and apparently Hillary, he would not hesitate to meet with them.

Final Thoughts

Billie, Mesquite, TX — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:01:48 GMT

Final Thoughts

filo — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:55:04 GMT

That's not controversial. Hillary saying Obama's answer is naive is controversial, however. Obama's position is not naive...its actually what most on the left have been calling for since Bush took office. If she's gonna disagree with that, then what position is she espousing?

Can't have it both ways. If you want to make the point that her position isn't that hawkish, then you gotta admit she's distorting Obama's position. If you won't admit that, then you gotta take her as being much more hawkish than she came off.

What's more, the very fact that she would criticize his position is in and of itself a hawkish move. The only people it seems to have pleased are the National Review types.

Final Thoughts

Virginia — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:56:00 GMT

The venue is a mute point as long as questions are selected by those in control of the so-called debates.

Final Thoughts

Pat R. — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:01:35 GMT

Sooner or later, Hillary will have to admit - though it's obvious she doesn't want to say so - that she's the best man for the job, even though she's a woman.

When she can say that, she'll be ready, and so will America be - because it's a man-sized job, not a man's job!

Final Thoughts

rose.pa. — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:28:54 GMT

CHUCK

Whew i was getting so sick of chris mattews and russert,who love to bash the clintons way before this primary season. i think the reason bill may be so frustrated is that most of the press is pushing this race thing !!! every channel you all talk non stop about the race thing! gee wonder why its become a race thing ITs because you guys push it! you all failed to question bush in the last seven years and now you are slaming the first woman running and letting barack take a pass. you cut the clips to suit mathtews or russett's veiw,i can't even watch their shows anymore its like fox news anymore!! I think all you guys are supposed to do is give us the "NEWS" NOT your opinon . Remember when the economy was good last?? and when we had a more peaceful time? all people ,most people,want is for a fair reporting of the news not somebiased person trying to control the election! by the way chuck i think you are one of the more fair reporters...........I can't even stand to watch the massacre of hillary by some.. the republicans tried to eliminate bill during the monica thing and the press loved it and its being brought up with hillary.did she do it?????? come on all those republians who are against gays have sex with under age pages or like delay steal us blind and you all don't get on their backs nonstop ...WHY?