Yeah, it seemed a bit a over-hyped... oh well, I hear the republicans are supposed to do one too, so we will see. By the way, I am trying to get a conservative digg alternative going called GOP Hub (GOPHub.com). Anything you can do to help spread the word would be awesome. Plus feel free to submit any articles you write here on your blog :). Take care and have a great week!

Posted by: Jon at July 24, 2007 03:53 AM | Permalink to this comment

point of Obama's answer was not some putative nuance, which I don't believe it had anyway, but rather that it blatantly appeals to the youth vote - the wistful, naive vote - and that's what bothers me about Obama.
Hillary's answer was also of course tailored to a voting sect - let's call it the realist vote - which is where she needs to be as a woman running for president. Both offered postures then but the inferences behind Hillary's are for my money much more reassuring than the ones behind Obama.

Posted by: gus at July 24, 2007 12:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

I watched the earlier ones, and at least one GOP clownfest (Ron Paul is the only Republican worth anyone's attention), but I didn't bother to catch this one. I know I'll end up voting for the Dem nominee, simply because the Republican Party is now an outpatient program for various DSM-IV categories. Citizenship as damage control.

But what I see from the Dems is the usual caution and triangulating. I think that the Bush gang has brought us to the edge of being a banana republic. Rather than opt for the Guatemala model, we need to be reverse these terrible years through the most drastic measures available. If Dems were serious about what we still call "our republic", back in January they'd've started pursuing withdrawal from Iraq, and impeachment. Instead, I think they want to keep this shambling abortion of an administration crawling along, because it's such an easy target to run against. It's the flip side of Bush's own criminal strategy -- keep the Iraq botch ticking, so that its horrible consequences can be dumped on his successor.

Our leadership caste is awful, close to criminally negligent. But we keep electing the sods, so.....

Posted by: sglover at July 24, 2007 03:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

> Our leadership caste is awful, close to criminally negligent. But we keep electing the sods, so.....

Well said.

Hamilton was the most perverted of the Federalist authors from a Constitutionalist point-of-view, because he was so much for big government (compared to the others), but even he looks like a libertarian anarchist compared to the government and administration we have now. Even he assumed a tyrannical President like Bush would be swiftly impeached long since.

Posted by: george jay at July 24, 2007 03:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

Saw only a few of the questions (because I find that I just can't bring myself to even think about another freakin' presidential election more than a year prior to the event), but what I saw didn't impress me much. Call me an elitist too, but I don't find questions from an uninformed public any more enlightening than carefully vetted questions from blow-dried newsreaders. The time for all this righteous indignation would have been 2003-2004 at least, not well into Bush's second term. I love how his former supporters are suddenly realizing what a disappoint Bush is, now that people who question the great leader are no longer considered traitors and terrorist enablers. He started disappointing me in late 2001 (to the extent he was able to disappoint me, since I never expected too much from him in the first place).

RE "Instead, I think they want to keep this shambling abortion of an administration crawling along, because it's such an easy target to run against." - Word. I don't think any Dem president who follows Bush would be blamed for messing up the war effort, Bush's fingerprints are all over it and everyone knows it, but I can't say I blame the Democrats for not wanting to get into various smackdowns with a lame duck president and his cronies in Congress right now. Cynical and politically expedient, yes, but what does anyone expect? These are politicians, after all. And most of them voted for the war they're so busily criticizing now, so they don't even have the high ground to argue from.

Posted by: LL at July 24, 2007 04:37 PM | Permalink to this comment

(And, horrors, I wondered: is this what blogs feel like to the uninitiated, with a cascade of quasi-stream of consciousness tirades, yelps and shout-outs? Well, very sorry, if so!)

It's not just the uninitiated who view blogs that way. As a longtime reader of political blogs I can attest that you've just described most of the political blogosphere.

Posted by: jayinbmore at July 24, 2007 04:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

It gave new meaning (at least to me) to the title of John Lukcas' book, End of an Age. It was cartoonist, for the most part. And I think it had little to do with blogs. And more to do with commercial exploitation of narcissistic boobs. And come to think of it....that was all that was missing, 'boobs', the other kind. That will be next. Its turning into a game show akin to something like What's my Line.

Posted by: jonst at July 24, 2007 05:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

The Youtube and CNN debate was more about entertainment than enlightenment. I agree the format was troubling. It would have been better had the questions been asked by a professional.

I found Hillary to be too, too prepared. No emotion. Everything is considered from a Mount Olympus level as she peers down on the rest of us mortals. I see her as a female Dukakis. I'm surprised how quickly some of the blogs proclaimed her the winner.

Her position on talking to Iran or other rogue nations is no different from Bush's. "Well talk to them only if they promise to agree to our conditions before hand and to behave appropriately afterwards." Obama's answer was compelling. Talk an see what happens. So what if the other nation uses it as a propaganda tool; take the chance. You can't lose anything by talking.

I think Dodd is really Senator Foghorn who runs on and on and offers nothing. Biden in my mind is the best of the litter. I was amazed that not only has his lost a wife in an accident that his net worth is around 100,000. He's a man who is closer to the average Joe than anyone. He did not use his public position to enrich himself unlike almost all of the others. How can you not like that?

Edwards is inauthentic. I'm always leery of guys with tens of millions of dollars talking about helping the poor folk while they live the good life. Gravel is refreshing and entertaining, sort of like a drunk in a bar room who finally gets up the courage to disparage one of the big shots. Richardson is hard to figure other than to guess that he is running for VP. I like Obama and want to like him but although most of his responses are good sometimes he seems really out of touch. I think he's too good to be true. Finally, as Biden noted, the best thing about Dennis is his wife.

Posted by: Llyonnoc at July 24, 2007 05:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

Edwards is inauthentic. I'm always leery of guys with tens of millions of dollars talking about helping the poor folk while they live the good life.

Are you for real? Authentic? And you post on the blog-o-sphere?

What are you...a paid shill?

Posted by: someotherdude at July 24, 2007 06:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

[Biden]'s a man who is closer to the average Joe than anyone.

If you mean the Average Joe who can't keep his mouth shut after he's had a few two many at the corner bar, and loves explaining to you, over and over, why *his* solution to whatever, the one he suggested three years ago, is the right one, and here's why -- then yeah, Biden IS a helluva lot like the Average Joe.

Posted by: sglover at July 24, 2007 06:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

It was Churchill, no wilting flower he, who said "Jaw, Jaw Is Better Than War, War." It probably sounds better in his accent (than in 12-point Arial or whatever) but the point is, you should be willing to talk to anyone, even if the only topic of conversation is why precisely each of you thinks the other is a lousy human being. You might learn something, and occasionally even make progress. Not gonna happen if the only interchanges are of gunfire.

Posted by: Warren Terra at July 25, 2007 12:24 AM | Permalink to this comment

"It was Churchill, no wilting flower he, who said "Jaw, Jaw Is Better Than War, War."

Right. And it was the Cheshire cat that observed, " if you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."

The sad truth is, we have arrived at the geopolitical endgame. Our traditional configurations of war and peace have become theatrical shadow dances-the new matrix confounds, and time-tested vaccinations for man's raw impurity no longer function in today's eschatological world.

So sorry to disappoint. But what one really saw on YouTube was proof of our ultimate despair; look closely and there were (self-styled) saints trying to explicate sinners; virgins reconciling promiscuity, and dreamers confronting doom.

No wonder I had a headache.

In short, 'twas a Shakespearean comedy performed in the new-wave agora but sadly, so sadly, Much Ado About Nothing.

Posted by: reshufflex at July 25, 2007 03:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

Llyonnoc,
So you dislike FDR and JFK? You are joking, right? Hell LBJ wasn't no pauper either.

Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience at July 25, 2007 04:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

As I watched some of the YouTubed questions last night I thought of Bill Murray's line from "Groundhog Day": Morons, your bus is leaving.

About half of these people looked like rejects from "America's Most Humiliating Home Videos." They were there for entertainment, not edification -- the dope with the snowmen, the clown moaning in verse about his taxes, Backwoods Bob with his assault rifle. It could have been worse. Candidates were not asked about their personal hygiene, or invited to tell us about a time they got really drunk. No one made a speech about Medicare through his buttcheeks, and all the people who went on camera were fully clothed if often no more than half-groomed. Expect part or all of that to change if CNN thinks it will help ratings.

I'm sure this sounds elitist. There are probably readers who will think I've never even watched "America's Most Humiliating Home Videos." Tough.

The format aside, I had another question: why are Sen. Dodd and Sen. Biden running? They sure don't seem to be trying to win. You don't need to be a campaign professional to figure out that candidates in single digits don't hurt the frontrunner if they don't hit the frontrunner, and neither one of these guys seemed interested in doing that.

Granted that the odds against them are long; they aren't married to a former President, and they haven't been campaigning nearly as long as either the frontrunner or the two other candidates polling well at the moment. Granted also that some of the consultants advising Dodd and Biden may be hedging their bets against the possibility of a big payday later from the Clinton or Obama campaigns. But what do these guys expect to happen?

Maybe they are just hoping to get lucky. John Edwards' instincts could get the better of him, and lead him to rear-end an ambulance in New Hampshire. Obama could answer a debate question, "will there be Crips in an Obama administration? Sure. But that's not the real issue." Sen. Clinton could say, "what the hell do you mean I have to go back to Iowa again? I am his WIFE! What part of 'Bill Clinton's wife' do these fat smelly uncultured hayseeds not understand?" I mean, she could say this in public.

The chances of these things happening are remote, however. Edwards doesn't do his own driving anymore; Obama hasn't had time to even think about who he might appoint to his Cabinet if elected. And the message discipline of Clinton campaigns is legendary, one item on a somewhat lengthy list of things she has in common with the current occupant of the White House. Where does that leave Biden and Dodd?

Going through the motions like two guys who haven't had a tough election race since the Age of Disco, that's where. Either man by himself has accomplished more in public life than the three top-polling candidates put together. I know that doesn't matter (it doesn't for Richardson either) and it's bad taste to point this out; I just thought I'd mention it, by way of wondering why they are putting themselves through this process now.

They don't even swing at the big, fat pitches right over the middle. Pop quiz: You're on a stage with Sen. Clinton, and a question gets asked as to whether there is anything wrong with just two families passing the Presidency of the United States back and forth for decades at a time. What do you say? Here's a hint -- you say YES! You don't leave it to shambling old Mike Gravel; a significant number of voters aren't really sure Clintons and Bushes are the very best America can do, and this is your chance to appeal to them.

Neither Dodd or Biden said anything. Look, Dodd scored major points with me by endorsing (OK, sort of half-endorsing) a carbon tax, the one energy/climate change policy option out there that isn't just for show; Biden told Backwoods Bob and his "babies" where to get off, which is probably enough to get him mentioned in the next couple of NRA fundraising letters. And these things are fine. But this campaign is being waged in a celebrity culture; the only way career public officials have a chance is if they cut down the current celebrities. This has to start with the frontrunner. There isn't anything complicated or subtle about this; in their position I wouldn't give becoming a Presidential candidate five minutes' thought if I weren't willing to give the person I needed to beat an elbow in the back of the head (figuratively speaking, of course. No, really).

Dodd isn't. Biden isn't. What the hell are they doing this for?

Posted by: Zathras at July 25, 2007 05:24 AM | Permalink to this comment

On the format: Not great, but honestly, better than I'd feared.

As an Obama guy, I, of course, agree w/ you on the Obama-Clinton deal on policy. Look at Clinton's quote. In essence, "I'll meet with leaders of hostile states, but only under certain circumstances." Wow, great insight there! Furthermore, guys like Chavez would be backed into a cornet if we offered talks. If he accepts, he feels he has weakened himself. If not, he shows himself to be the unreasonable belligerent he really is.

Posted by: Kevin A. at July 25, 2007 07:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

Clinton did do a bit of political jujitsu on the nasty foreign leaders question. The question was phrased, "Would you be willing etc etc" and Obama answered that question -- "Yes, I would....." Clinton then began her answer with "No, I will not promise to meet with...." which utterly changes the scenario, from Obama's flexibility to Clinton's characterization of that as dangerous pandering. Very clever on her part, but also very disingenuous.

Posted by: DB at July 27, 2007 02:28 AM | Permalink to this comment