Did Anyone Else Think the Debate Format sucked?

I didn't like the format at all. And it was very clear that the questions were being designed to try and stir up arguments between the candidate....you know...the ole take the eye off the ball trick. Get everyone focused on infighting and forgetting who the real enemy is.
God Bless Dean for reminding everyone.

problem. Though I acknowledge that having 10 candidates makes it intrinsically unwieldy, even with the best of intentions. (which, needless to say, the organizers didn't really have)

I just don't see how it can be done. Even with two hours, that works out to around 12 minutes per candidate (and probably less, once you deduct the time spent asking the questions).

Personally, I wish we could have a debate where candidates were required to spend at least 10 minutes answering the question. That way you can' thide behind soundbytes. But what cable channel is willing to set aside six hours for a debate?

Narrow it down to a few, important issues and let the candidates have enough time to truly express their positions.

sit still for a 30-minute sitcom, much less a six-hour debate!

Seriously though, I think the intention of focusing on specific subjects at each debate was intended to attempt to do what you're suggesting - cover a topic for longer than soundbyte-length. It's just not feasible with 10 candidates.

I think they did a pretty decent job given the logistical problems involved with including ten candidates.

I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised that the questions were designed to shake things up. It's not like this is a new tactic. Lobbing softballs at the candidates isn't going to accomplish much. The questions were pretty well targeted to bring up differences between the candidates, which I think is the general idea here.

Right? Or do we really want to hear all ten people telling us the same things? That's not what I've read on the forum all week leading up to this debate. A lot of posters wanted this debate to point out the differences in the candidates' stances on the issues.

Besides, they all did a nice job of sticking it to Mr. Bush.

But I had low expectations from the WSJ and CNBC. At least they didn't have Kudlow on.That woman(blocking out her name mentally, I'm sure) was sleazy.

The candidates made the thing work by NOT falling for their divide and conquer strategy.

This is nothing new. Candidates have fought each other about as long as debates have been around. Certainly as long as they've been televised.

Remember Bush vs. Reagan and "Voodoo Economics"?

Remember Gore vs. damn near everyone?

Even tonight, the candidates do a pretty damn efficient job of jabbing each other without any interference from WSJ and CNBC.

Example: who brought up Newt Gingrich? Was that WSJ or CNBC? Neither.

I think we're too easily led down the path of blaming everyone else for the way things turn out. The candidates would have taken shots even had all the questions been softballs.

Do I think the questions should encite that? Of course not. Is that realistic to expect? I honestly don't think so.

My only real complaint is that every candidate didn't get to answer the same question.

Otherwise, I thought they all did pretty well in distinguishing themselves from one another where necessary and in expressing solidarity when they could. :thumbsup:

That effort by the moderator to stir up arguments was justified IMHO because each time it was an issue or distinction that has already come up on the road.

In staying above the Jerry Springer level, it was much better than the California debate.