On Demand
Vote 2008: WNYC's Election Coverage
Art.Cult blog
Street Shots: NYC Photography
Studio 360: Klezmer in Krakow
The Takeaway: Electoral College prediction tracker
The Toni Morrison Lectures: Newark Mayor Cory Booker
Radiolab LIVE in Chicago!
Democratic Debate Scorecard
Ana Marie Cox, political correspondent for Time Magazine and Jeff Jarvis, who writes the blog Buzzmachine.com, reveal who they thought won the debate and whether the YouTube/CNN format worked.
You can still post your comments on the CNN YouTube Debate:
Who did you think won the debate and why?
Who made you think about an issue in a new way?
What was the most memorable response?
And...grade CNN on how they handled the YouTube questions.
Missed the CNN YouTube debate?
Listen | Download MP3
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date. Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Who the heck is Mike Gravel and why is he so riled up? And yes, why is Hillary so botox-ed?
The first Youtuber, Chris, was rude.
Kucinich was the one who voted against the Iraq war every time. He's winning on the issues.
What is the purpose of defining the word 'liberal'? So far none of the Youtubers have impressed me with any trenchant questions.
I agree that the majority of You Tubers were kind of brash, but having questions come from regular people did bring forth a little more honesty and passion in the candidates than I've seen before. Don't forget that CNN vetted the questions so you're getting their committee's choices.
- The winners... 1) Barack 2) Biden 3) Edwards.
- Biden made me re-think Iraq and the logistics of getting our military out... as much as I'd like the troops back in the US tomorrow, it'll take a large & time-consuming effort to get everyone out safely. He made sense.
- Barack and Edwards' responses on health-care illustrated that, even though, Hillary worked on a plan in the 1990s, she is yet to put forth a plan to provide health-care for all Americans. Hillary's response to a "nation-wide attitude" was very weak.
- I loved the debate. I find the typical formats stale and full of the same, boring rhetoric. Yes, some of the videos were a bit brash, but they were interesting & kept the candidates on their feet.
I feel as though the Youtubers aren't asking journalistic questions and are trying too hard to be provocative, confrontational or arbitrarily 'informal' (because this is Web 2.0, or something).
Most of the questions seem to be prefaced with:
"I know you don't have an answer for this..."
or
"I know you have an answer for this..."
1) Who do you think is winning (won) the debate and why?
Sen. Clinton did not do herself any harm and according to the polls, it's her race to lose. So I suppose based on that criteria, she won. Sen. Obama's second-place is safe for now, though as with Sen Clinton I do not think he moved either up or down. But the candidates who moved their bids the farthest forward would be Sen. Biden followed closely by Sen. Edward. Based on that ranking it would be, in this order, Biden, Edwards, Clinton, then Obama. Sen. Dodd and Gov. Richardson have their hearts in the right places but their plans on core issues (Iraq, Health Care, Economics) seemed a bit out of focus. Rep. Kucinich has some good ideas, but is a bit too unrealistic on Iraq, and he's too nice. Sen. Gravel has brass, but he's too angry at everyone (not good for building a consensus anywhere).
2) Who made you think about an issue in a new way?
Unfortunately, no one.
3) What was the most memorable response?
Sen. Biden's response to the "This is my baby" pro-gun questioner. My gut response to the video was absolute disgust when the gun was brought out, so I applaud Sen. Biden's candor. And I agree with him.
4) Grade CNN on how they handled the YouTube questions.
B+ Questions were handled well, but the candidates were not completely house-broken and often got "off-the-paper." Maybe a bigger whip next time?
First, a clarification. I junked my TV in 2001 because I couldn't stand it anymore! I replaced it with both available sat radio systems. Reception of WNYC (online, sat system in in rural TX) was wiped out by a serious electric storm.
This was the first time I've ever tuned into CNN on sat radio. The host for the debate seemed to do a surprisingly good job. It was sometimes hard for a listener to tell who was speaking. If I got my voice identifications right, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and John Edwards all made sense. Hillary Clinton was impressive and would seem to "win." I wouldn't vote for her. She's slick. She's smart. But she responded to each question without addressing the more difficult specifics of the question.
Most memorable response? Probably Obama and Edwards on healthcare.
Issue in a new way? The importance of seeing the energy issue in terms of opportunity, not desperation.
What was impressive to this citizen who hadn't seen or heard a presidential "debate" in about ten years was the energy and freshness of the debate itself and what that did for the Democrats in general. If I were a Republican candidate now, I'd be very, very worried. Betcha the Repubs try to do something similar and will end up looking stiff, klutzy and imitative.
Eternal thanks to Brian for a first-rate show.
Interesting that they didn't ask a question about health care. I guess nobody put one up on YouTube. Or else CNN vetted them out.
In the last half of the debate, there were four videos on health care that were shown sequentially...
Winners: Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich, Biden
Who made you think about an issue in a new way?
The YouTubers made me think about
election journalism in a new way.
CNN: Good selection of questions which were
great, but questions paled by comparison. What value is there in a question like Cooper's "Senator, do you think our troops died in vain."
He gives them opportunity to spin words, which is not what the people who participated want to hear any more.
Most Memorable Response: Obama re: getting a cab in Manhattan as a Black male.
I think the YouTubers were fine as far
as respectfulness. We're all tired of
the etiguette and rhetoric that yields no change.
Hey Brian. Check out the blogging here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/07/23/10510/
and here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/07/23/youtube-debate/
Who lost the debate: Republicans
Who won the V.P. Slot?
I like Edwards & thought he did well. His courtroom practice really helped him get his answers across effectively. And his substance is the best on most issue. Finally his "hair" video is brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
Too bad he won't get the nomination.
Yes, I agree with eCAHNomics that Edwards was impressive and the Hair video was the best of the candidates...
I think both Biden and Edwards helped themselves a lot. Biden was really great about Iraq - he has thought this out carefully. Edwards was both truthful and thoughtful when he expressed his anguish over gay marriage. I would much prefer an answer like his than the canned response given by the others. As a former teacher, I really respected both Biden's and Richardson's answers - more power to them.
By the way, Kucinich was NOT in favor of gay marriage, only civil unions. Hillary's response about women's issues was terrific.
Thanks Brian for giving us a chance to do this.
As I listen, I'm essentially interested in full, well thoughtout responses by everyone participating. I am growing more frustrated by Anderson Cooper's style of cutting candidate's responses short. We are finally able to hear answers to relevent important questions, and speed ought not be the goal. It's very interesting overall.
1)Who do you think is winning (won) the debate and why?
Hillary Clinton really showed her stuff tonight. She won the debate hands down by capitalizing on every questions, even the sign off question. Edwards and Obama both stumbled on what should have been rehearsed responses given the size of their campaign funds and (thus) campaign staff. Hilary beat both of her top tier rivals.
The Lower tier:
Biden was good, but again he was angry and America doesn't elect angry presidents. Dodd was also good, but his responses were textbook and completely ordinary. Richardson did poorly, fumbling straight-forward questions by being too eager to get to what he wanted to talk about. Gravel at least kept the spectre of running for president alive; Kucinich did the worst because left no doubt in anyone's mind that he has become a solely "issue" candidate.
Who made you think about an issue in a new way?
Edwards, by picking hairs on the Obama/Romney healthcare plan and its claim to universal care.
What was the most memorable response?
Richardson, saying that he'd have Biden as his secretary of State: This is exactly the role for Joe Biden with his logic, judgement and knowledge in foreign affairs.
Grade CNN on how they handled the YouTube questions.
They were a bit cute with the questions, but overall better than I expected. I was most disappointed not with how they handled them but to whom they directed them. The lower tier candidates, especially "issue" candidates like Kucinich or drops in the pond like Gravel, do not need to be asked questions. Its time to cut some dead weight, even if they are funny to watch.
Great comment -- enough with the Bushes and the Clintons. Let's get real integrity -- Dennis Kucinich has the answers on Iraq, nuclear energy, healthcare, minimum wage. No "agnosticism" there (i.e., 'let me consult the polls and then I'll form my opinion', Hillary).
Who do you think is winning (won) the debate and why?
Clinton and Obama lost. I think their problem is they are in front and so they are scared to say the wrong thing. I think Edwards and Kucinich did great, I hope one of them is
the next president.
Who made you think about an issue in a new way?
The format... I liked the YouTube questions better than the way reporters asked questions.
What was the most memorable response?
Kucinich and Edwards saying how awful the health care system in the USA is.
Grade CNN on how they handled the YouTube questions.
They did fine, better than I thought.
The questions from YouTube worked better
than having reporters ask the questions
directly. Of course the YouTube questions
were screened, but maybe that is good combination.
I am an Edwards supporter because I am involved with a NYC soup kitchen feeding the poor of the city. So for sure I look at the debate with a preset believe that Edwards should be president but lets just "shmuze" about all a bit.
Who do you think is winning (won) the debate and why?
Edwards, the best on the issues, looks the best, argues the best, he took direct difficult questions and more.
Who made you think about an issue in a new way?
Obama made that good contrast of the IRAQ parliament and the us solder.
What was the most memorable response?
Clinton thanked the first YouTobe video question to her (What's a liberal?) as if she thought that is was someone live. its not on the transcript but you sure hear and see something on the CNN clip of that Q&A
Grade CNN on how they handled the YouTube questions.
vVery good for the first one, I do think that they had some Republican trick questions like; "What's a liberal"
I see today's NYtimes claiming the same, with an other Clinton incident:"When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York addressed a man who said his son had died in Iraq, she looked up at the screen where his face had been, even though his video had been replaced by the image of an American flag."
1)Who do you think is winning (won) the debate and why?
Hillary Clinton has definately hit her stride. In the first debate, she struggled a bit, but now she stands out above most of the democrats. She makes herself sound personable yet calm, cool, and collected. Overall, she made the biggest impression and had the best answers. Joe Biden has done very well, but adds a bit too much anger to each of his answers. He knows exactly what he is talking about on domestic and foreign affairs. He has a lot of experience and knowledge in foreign affairs.
Edwards and Obama are struggling to stay on top. Each should have had better answers. Kucinich did not impress me at all during this debate, although he usually has some pretty decent ideas that could be built and improved upon. Dodd and Richardson did not stand out at all, and as in the last debates, Gravel is just the comic relief.
2)Who made you think about an issue in a new way?
Joe Biden's response on what he would propose about the troops in Iraq was very enlightening, I guess you could say. I was all for bringing the troops home immediately, but I have now realized that it would be better to do sso lowly and wisely, without leaving a civil war or another worse situation behind.
3)What was the most memorable response?
None of them stood out that much to me. Some of the first impressions and comments, such as Senator Clinton answering her questions first with the names of the people asking the questions, did stick with me though.
4)Grade CNN on how they handled the YouTube questions.
The questions were good, but the more pressing issues and questions should have been given to the top tier and overall more serious candidates. I could understand, appreciate, and pay more attention to the questions onscreen rather than spoken by the commentators.
I was a bit taken back by the guy whipping out the gun and calling it his baby, even though he had a good question.
This format was clearly the most entertaining. The creative video questions helped add an element of fun while also adding a directness that allowed access to the candidates at a more authentic level. Hearing and seeing what real voters are concerned with was a step forward. CNN should get credit for having the opening you tuber ask for something revolutionary---actually answering the specific questions asked vs. giving their elevator speech on the general topic---and I believe this format helped do that. And, Anderson helped keep them speaking on point as well.
If one were charged with the responsibility of appointing one of these candidates to the Presidency instead of deciding who won the debate, one would have to seriously consider Joe Biden. He has the background and experience and passion one would like, and he is authentic in his responses. He does need some coaching on softening his edge at times, but this shows his passion is still alive after all these years. I think if he were not in the race it really would lower the level of discourse. I am glad he is there.
All of the leading candidates did well however, and they will continue to lead the polls. But I think the real winner was the people and the quality of the election dialogue with the candidates.
The best responses were Biden saying the best thing about Kucinich was his wife, and Anderson Cooper responding to Kucinich regarding no one standing 'left' of him.
Thank you to those whose questions were presented, except for attack weapon guy.
Can't wait for September 17.
Another useless debate, this time at least it was slightly entertaining. How long do we have to beg to have a two-hour debate in which the candidates only talk about ONE or TWO TOPICS AT THE MOST, so we can actually press them on what they think and why, instead of pointless soundbites that they have said before.
C'mon CNN, take some leadership with this!
I thought the debate was great!
I stayed with it the whole time.
Going in I was a a John Edwards supporter.
I am still a strong Edwards supporter.
But I have to say I Strongly like Chris Dodd & Joe Biden.
Favorite part when Mike Kucunich said there was no one more left than he. Plus his wife is very attractive as Anderson Cooper pointed out.
I like Mike Gravel's role. He kept others honest.
I feel that the candidates missed out on the opportunity to speak to youth (the supposed audience for a “youtube” debate) in the right way. Most of the questions were asking for straightforward answers, often yes or no. And while issues are by no means black or white, I believe that youth today are looking for candidates to directly answer the question. If candidates are going to energize young voters, they need to stop taking any time given to them to deliver their campaign talking points, they need to answer the question and then move on. Please stand firm behind your beliefs, say yes or no!
Also, re Kucinich asking us to text. Just because new technology is out there and youth are using it, doesn’t mean that candidates should automatically assume it is the way to reach us. A silly idea for older voters is still silly.
I think it was very clear that Senator Clinton has much more experience then Senator Obama. While his intention are wellmeaning, unfortunately I feel that having only been in the public sphere for two years does not qualify him for the position then an avid NY Times reader.
I don't think Hillary was being 'more experienced' on the Iran talks question. Let's not forget she was one of the most hawkish senators (democratic and republiccan) before the war. If somebody shows you who they are, shouldn't you believe them?
Good idea, but come on folks it's cnn hosting this not democracy now, what did you expect?
Who did you think won the debate and why?
I thought Hillary looked really skilled and would not be afraid were she running the country but I like them all and would like to hear more from the cranky old-timer. Edwards strikes me as dramatic (like a trial lawyer) not passionate. Interesting group we have though and I was thinking of who will get which cabinet post.
Who made you think about an issue in a new way?
I like Obama's calling our attention to our cynicism
What was the most memorable response?
I like Hillary's preference for the word "progressive" over "liberal"
And...grade CNN on how they handled the YouTube questions.
I think Anderson Cooper is very civilized if you put him next to his colleagues on CNN.
Weird coincidence for me to hear Jeff Jarvis on this segment, since just minutes before I had been reading his blog; funny the way the guy has gone almost completely silent on Iraq lately - he used to be a virulently dunderheaded hawk. Did he get smart or just get embarrassed?
On the question on whether the candidate will visit Cuba, etc... Obama said he'd actually do something DIFFERENT... Hillary equivocated, why does she get credit for that?
We shouldn't be concerned with narrowing down the candidates yet, the election is over a year away.
Clinton and Edwards are absolutely right. You do not talk at the head of state level until you do lots of preparatory diplomacy. I like Obama a lot but he showed his inexperience on this question
I hope all of you enjoyed last night's episode of The Dating Game as much as I did.
OK, took a while to fire up the computer, so moment has passed, BUT...Jarvis taking a cheap shot at Edwards about feminism, saying Edwards claiming to be more of a feminist, ~~more of a woman~~ (this last in a somewhat soto voce manner) ticked me off.
Historically, some of the strongest feminists were indeed men. Men can be feminists. And ,many of the Republican/religious conservative/right wing women are hardly feminists.
OMG! Brian choses to close with an exchange between Edwards and Hillary on this very subject!
Yesterday when this came up, concerning Elizebeth Edwards' comments about her husband's stands and policies being more supportive of women's issues than some of Hillary's, she was criticized as being an "attack dog," and John was criticized as being a cad for allowing her to be U
"used" as such.
A couple commenters on Brian's comments section then pointed out how Mrs. Edwards was right to be concerned, that many of her husband's policy stands will be better for women.
Now, if Hillary is the nominee, she will be much better than any Republican imho, so this is not an attack on her. She's just a bit careful about her opinions and tends to, perhaps, triangulate.
Ah, something's boiling away--must run, but I had to point out the tendency for media figures to accept the current narrative about Edwards.
Being a feminist does not emasculate a man--it does not make him more "womanly." I appreciate a good man's feminist stands.
Get a grip, MCMers! (Mainstream Corporate Media members)
New type of MCMer: MCM sanctioned blogger. Jarvis has fit this for a long time, and Cox is there now.
I just heard John Pilger, a foreign correspondent and filmmaker, on DemocracyNow! http://www.democracynow.org/ over WBAI-FM. The transcript will be online later today. It seems to be the same speech he gave in Chicago http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=446
He quoted Obama: “We must not rule out military force against long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria.”
You Obama fans, are you OK with invading Iran and Syria? Just a few surgical strikes?
I'm really tired of everyone jumping on the "Why are Kucinich, Gravel (etc), up there still" bandwagon.
We're talking about an election that is still 16 months away. Seven months until the "Super duper Tuesday". Why narrow the field now? Why not force Obama, Clinton, and Edwards to actually be set next to people who have substantially different views than they do.
I don't want the Presidential election to be reduced to a high school student government election, where its about being the popular kid. In this society popularity is measured in dollars. All that Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton really have to show us, is that they have the money to polish their message to a TV friendly shine. They are machine candidates, they have hired the same consultants and staff that any top tier candidate would have, or actually did hire. They can afford to constantly be spinning their message, and have a room full of people deciding how they have to make up for their missteps. I'm sure there are staffers who stayed up all night to figure out how Obama will save face in light of his eagerness to meet with Chavez.
What bothers me is that people talk about how expensive it is to become President and how much money influences politics. Why then are we so hard on the candidates that have no money?
It bothers me more that the media, including NPR/WNYC, has completely bought it. More focus, more air time. Over what? Do substantive differences in policy between Obama and Clinton set them off as the two front runners. No. Their top tier status is due to the fact that they are taking in money hand over fist from anyone who will give it to them.
If you really don't know why Gravel is still on the stage, don't say its because he isn't a real candidate, say its because you, the voter, hasn't researched him, his past, and his platform. Its all out there.
I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for. But I gained much respect for Gravel by actually looking at the collection of videos that he has put up. Where? YouTube. All the second tier candidates post videos there.
It is incumbent on all the serious voters to actually learn about the second tier, because how nice would it be to have the candidate with no money get the Democratic nomination because they are the person the people elected.
This morning's deconstruction of last night's debate was terrific -- but I'd like to recommend that, if you have Ana Marie Cox back for future episodes, encourage her not to respond to callers as though they're idiots: When a caller said she thought the debate had served as a promotion for YouTube, Cox blurted back (words to this effect): Of course if was a promotion for YouTube!
Please, let's treat callers as though they, too, have a brain.
I'm still reading John Pilger's address to the Chicago Socialism 2007 Conference. http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=446 Here's a good story:
A group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. “I have to tell you,” said the spokesman, “that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don’t have to do any of that. What is the secret?”
Obama stated that related to gay marriage, gay couples should be first, "equal under the law," (in the form of civil unions) and then the denominations should be left to sort it out as to whether they support gay marriages.
MARRIAGE IS A LEGAL RIGHT, it is not exclusively religious.
A heterosexual couple can go to a drive-in at Las Vegas and get married, without ever coming into contact with a religious person.
Quit making it out to seem as though "civil unions with full marriage rights" (Dodd) is the same as marriage - and if it is - let them get married!
Winners: Edwards and Biden.
Edwards because he made the case that he has fought special interests (read Clinton and Obama) all his professional life and it will take a fighter to change Washington, especially when it comes to Health Care and SS.
Biden because of his passion and the fact that he's the only candidate that has come up with a constructive way to disengage (although a fact check done by one of the networks after the debate disagreed with his assessment of the time it would take to pull all of our troops out).
Format: I didn't mind most of the questions, and agree that ordinary people can "get away" with asking edgier questions than professional journalists. However, I think the moderator then minimized the format by picking and choosing who to address the questions to and not letting all the candidates respond to the same question. Also, I think he was tougher on Edwards than to any of the others (except, perhaps, to Mike Gravel,in terms of time allotted). He first allowed a tough question that was directly addressed to Edwards on his stand on gay marriage, and then tried to embarrass Edwards by allowing the questioner to follow up, clearly seeking a comment that Edwards hadn't answered the question. He didn't do that with (or to) any other candidate.
Also, the television work left alot to be desired, especially with respect to the video questions. Several questions depended upon reading something on the screen. By the time the cameras closed in on the screen,it was too late for a viewer to see what was asked.
Finally, as a Gore supporter ("Re-elect Gore"), I still couldn't make out the last phrase of the video comment (although if they weren't going to comment about Gore, why put that in there in the first place?!?)
Well -- you managed to match that "Happening" with the perfect 2 guests.
Brian, you rule.
But: Color me underwhelmed by Cox's analysis (and yes, snappishness with callers). And Jeff Jarvis, honest, "we" don't "all" watch "American Idol."
Loved Edwards' "Hair" video.
Let's get political commentary back to serious formats. If the candidates want to listen to comments/questions from voters, then they can do so when out in the various state venues or read letters written by prospective voters.
This was nonsense.
I continue to feel that the only one who is (mostly) not dodging, and telling it like it is, is John Edwards. I would take any of them over any Republican running (I am not registered in any party). But I do hope that Edwards begins to make real headway. He tells the truth.
Did anyone notice that Hillary seemed open to nuclear power plants as a possible way to solve the energy problem? I've been supporting her, but when she said that, I said into to the air: "Hillary, you've just lost me as a supporter."
I like Biden for his honest, humble manner, and his passion and commitment to what's right.
I like Kucinich for his ideas, which are the most progressive of all. Not to mention he's a vegan. If you want to know why that's important to me, keep reading...
I agree with Nat (number 39 above) when he says it's a shame that money talks so loudly, in that the candidates who raise the most are taken the most seriously.
I'm sorry that my YouTube question wasn't aired. I know that the video and audio quality (and delivery of lines) in my video wasn't top-notch, but my question is one that's been overlooked in mainstream media, for the most part, and is really important. Here's my question:
"Did you know that according to a UN report, eating vegan food does more to help the environment than even driving a hybrid car? The report says that animals raised for food generate more greenhouse gasses than all the cars and trucks on the planet. What are you going to do about this?"
I think that these debates would better serve the American public by being hosted not by network "talking heads" but by professionals, such as professors, who are experienced and knowledgeable about the issues of government and goverance that really matter as well as the rubrics of conducting debates.
This thread is closed.
Back to Episode