That wasn't a debate, it was have yourself whipped by CNN

The format of this "debate" does little other than to institutionalize the authority and permanence of the obnoxious moderators running it, as opposed to the candidates who are merely there as prey.

One step further in the slide to mediocracy. (Think about it, who is the one man who can break Arnold tomorrow? Jay Leno.)

From the start the moderators insult, provoke, discredit, interrupt, condescend and arbitrarily dole out soundbite-sized speaking turns. They speak in between every candidate statement, decide the issues, judge whether an answer was adequate, and present long editorials in the guise of questions. They get by far the most face time and it is the obnoxious Woodruff whose voice will resound in memory more than any of the candidates'.

The debate should not be a struggle for time or the attention of the media moderator! This makes them look either like beggars or chickens fighting over feed.

This is not just dumbed down; it is also boring. At the end you have a few touchy-feely questions from audience members who are presented not as people but as embodiments of demographics, and then it's over.

Everyone ends up torn down and I don't know why the candidates accept it, although I realize it would be hard to get them to agree by consensus to use a different format of their own devising.

Ideally it should also not be a test of some TV-time "performance under pressure" but of thoughtfulness and reason.

I don't see this as a plot due to bias, by the way. I'm sure they would do the same to the other party, but the Republicans might be clever enough to find consensus on a format that promotes them.

Even nine candidates can get a fairer shake. The debate should have rules that guarantee equal time and minimize the fighting over who gets to speak when. It might open with statements of two minutes each (=2O minutes with intro of each) around a particular theme that is announced at the beginning. The order should be determined randomly. They should be encouraged to respond to each other extemporaneously. No moderator is needed for that first part. One could come in for a subsequent, more open debate, but should only have the task of calling on speakers and occasionally forcing a change of subject. No questions should be tailored to a specific candidate.

(For example: the Clark & Dean questions were actually ill-founded criticisms, whereas the Edwards was a softball invitation to get sentimental about his background.)

Responses should be strictly timed. Everyone should get an equal number of turns.

of hosting debates and had the two political parties take over,
they threw out legitimacy....

I think what you're referring to is the "bipartisan" (meaning only our candidates and nobody else's!) Commission on Presidential Debates.

In which case, I would agree wholeheartedly with you.

But the party debates are done by the party, in conjunction with news outlets.

The less formal "jackets off, walking around" bit was a nice part and I liked the questions from the audience.

But you are absolutely right about Judy. Why was she on stage?? Why was she allowed to march around like a school teacher badgering them??

Right about the time too. I noticed Lieberman and Kerry had about two answers a piece before Sharpton even got to speak.

Does anyone know that the next CNN debate is supposed to be like? I heard it was "Rock the Vote" so I assume it will be with a young crowd. But gawd I hope they don't ask what kind of underwear they wear or whether they think thongs are hot or not!!

It was by far the poorest moderation I've ever seen in a debate. CNN is hosting another. We should contact our candidates and demand changes.

reading her notes, looking at one candidate while asking a question of another - her whole performance was a distraction. She doesn't speak she whines and pleads. She does a similar whine during her 'news' show.

Perhaps college profs or some other type of mod's would be more appropriate.

--I've only watched the first 20 minutes of it so far, but:

*she called Mosley-Braun "Mr."
*she called Gov. Dean "Senator"
*She interruped every candidate

These people should know that oftentimes the candidates don't give a direct "yes" or "no" answer to these questions, they've got a lot to say and very little time to say it. Stop badgering!

and am appalled at how blatent the hystrionics of the moderators. It is all about them.

held was the best imho. (maybe it was the LaRouche operatives who kept interrupting which threw everyone off timing and made them seem more natural) but even the way the individual candidates handled the disruptors was interesting. Most with humor except Lieberman who was really pissed.

I didn't think the Faux debate was too bad. The Wall St. Journal one was a Dud and the rest were unmememorable, either because one or two candidates were missing or it was too early and they hadn't gotten their act together.

Has anyone seen all the debates? Maybe someone could do a poll as to which debate came off best.

...that sponsored that debate. That's the only one I've had time to watch so far...

:-(

I actually think the CNBC-WSJ moderators were even more hostile--throwing questions about "no new taxes" pledges that didn't even belong in a Dem debate!!!

This time the moderator's agenda was clearly to focus the attack on Clark and Dean, a tactic that could be said to have served the interests of the so-called "Establishment" candidates like Kerry and Gephardt, and especially Edwards, who had a pretty good night, I thought.

But Judy was intrusive, interrupted constantly, harangued the candidates for going overtime or attracting applause, stood in the way of the candidate's faces, and was audibly worrying about time and freaking out about it both off-air AND in her questions toward the end.

"We only have five seconds--that's LITERALLY five seconds!!!!"

JEEZ.

She was pathetic, and should retire after taking a very long vacation.

Also, the bit about the "letter" from Kerry's campaign against Dean--which was introduced as if it was some sort of late-breaking news of a new terrorist attack, was incredibly distracting and unprofessional.

Each debate question was more like an accusation a politician might encounter on a political talk show. And the moderators were purposely trying to pit the candidates against each other.

The most obvious example was near the end where Judy jumped into the forum with a supposed fax from the Kerry campaign about something Dean did as governor. So Judy took the debate to an entirely different tangent, and pretty much destroyed the audience question part of the program.

immediate improvement in format & moderators, to address these outrages. Participation in last night's "event" was a humiliation & a disservice to most of the candidates.

He stopped her by saying, "You're not taking that out of MY time" and she shut the hell up. That was a farce, the dumbass reporters from CNN kept asking the same questions on subjects already addressed. It's like they had their script and were too stupid to think of another question instead. Judy needs to sit her ass down and give everyone a chance to speak, her stalking around was distracting even to her, it seemed.

about the Arnold showcase slamdunk debate? Why on earth would those setting up the debates impartially(hah) or the other candidates kowtow to the orchestration of the final debate with superman? Yet they did as the Arnold persona fraud rose through the fluff.

You can bet the LWV and the Dems will come crawling to Bush to get his debate format and timing and the lmedia wioll be lined up all around it for the appropirate effect. This is hardly a surprise or a necessity. Just becuase Bush has such a horrible record and is such a dunderhead it is almost too much to let the debates go and look like WE are ducking it.

Time to get a little more proactive? Don't accept the fair rules, the negotiations, the position of challenger with meek helplessness and then perform to expectations. Our candidate will be on pins and needles because one quote out of context, one exploitable phrase will be the stake through the heart even if Bush passes out in a flurry of garble.

What I find frustrating is that Clark, as well as the others, are relying on proven failures in political strategies that take no account of the tactics of dictatorship.

These early debates can be a little looser but I hope they craft their own forums in the future. Why on earth not? Better to all appear on the Leno show then. Accepting crucifixion as media exposure... Sheeesh.

Need I say more? I agree with JackRiddler. They were interrupted at the most inopportune times and Judy Woodruff did an absolutely horrendous job. She wa attempting to "be in control".

And Judy the Whore took to it like a fish to water, alternately cajoling and admonishing (naturally to keep the Bush-bashing at a minimum, Good Whore Judy...Uncle Karl gives you a Scooby Snack).

A grotesque Orwellian format (for those few of us who can remember what happened yesterday) for what now is rapidly becoming a grotesqque Orwellian Empire.

And 2004 is very likely to be a Stalinist Farce with a predetermined Imperial victor, driven by the same Orwellian media which couldn't help injecting itself into the debates.

I miss the League of Women Voters.

Your handling of the Democratic debate was terrible. The questions posed were snarky little anti-Democtrac, written-by-Karl-Rove-like editorials and non-issues related (Jeff Greenfield quoting some obscure poll). And Judy Woodruff was HORRIBLE, trying to cut everybody off as soon as they started talking - and ESPECIALLY as soon as they started to criticize Bush. As I watched last night I was appalled!! Does CNN have some kind of agenda against the Democrats? Are you annoyed that the new FCC rules are under attack? Is this whole phenomenon of DEMOCRACY just so inconveeenient for all the media execs and talking heads? What's sadly ironic is that the Fox News debate was MUCH better - go figure.

I think CNN has entered into some kind of bizarro universe and is doing a grave disservice to the American people. You effectively cut off General Clark from the debate in the "town hall" portion after his Preemptive Doctrine comments - and this last portion of the debate was laughably scripted. Town Hall?...please.

And now evidently the Washington Post edited out Clark's Preemptive Doctrine comments from their debate transcript. Shame on them and Shame on You CNN!! Shame on the producers and execs who organized this debate! Shame on Judy Woodruff and Jeff Greenfield and Candy Crowley!


You can go to www.cnn.com/feedback to write your own love letter!

As soon as I can calm down. I plan on emailing CNN.

nt

.....were forced to spend the whole evening defending against the oft-stated premise that Democrats have lost the hearts and minds of America. A false premise, but one useful to the RNC.

I have an idea. Why not provide the time, and let the candidates themselves decide how to use it? Let the candidates agree on format and moderator. It might be better to give each candidate ten minutes uninterrupted than to have this kind of time-wasting fake jousting.

Thanks for the simplest solution, in the shortest time...

Now can we keep this essential thread kicked up against the flood of Rush threads?

Thirty minutes would make some difference, especially if each candidate has more time to answer questions.

I also felt the questions at the end were stupid, all you have to do is visit any of the candidates' web pages to find the answers to such widely asked questions. Most of them were answered in the first segment..before being asked! It would be nice if CNN would do something informative, and look over all questions beforehand to make sure they enquire about subjects or details not brought up during the debate. This would provide the voters with a greater variety of info rather than the often repeated soundbites.

think they are getting the candidates anywhere.

until the field is narrowed some. There is not enough time to get rational responses from all the participants on all the questions and that is what I want to hear. I want to hear them respond and be able to compare their responses in order to make my decision. I like two or three of them really well.