Post by valporun on Jul 24, 2007 14:27:57 GMT -5
How do those of you who pay attention to presidential debates this early in the voting cycle feel about the way last night's debate was formatted with the common everyday middle-class American having their chance to have their questions exposed and discussed in a YouTube format? Does it make sense for this format to be used in a matter of this national importance?
I know I found it unique, but it could still bring on tons of the canned answers based on the fact that the candidates were not given the apprpriate time to honestly answer or show concern for the questions being asked. I think its a shame that the candidates are limited, but for the sake of the 9 candidates on stage, there does need to be some limits or they would talk a ridiculous amount of time. Also, I think the banter between the candidates about questions like the "One good and bad thing about the candidate to your left", but does it make sense to stay with this format or do we go back to the national moderator who asks the same questions over and over from previous debates and things we hear all the time on current television?
I know I found it unique, but it could still bring on tons of the canned answers based on the fact that the candidates were not given the apprpriate time to honestly answer or show concern for the questions being asked. I think its a shame that the candidates are limited, but for the sake of the 9 candidates on stage, there does need to be some limits or they would talk a ridiculous amount of time. Also, I think the banter between the candidates about questions like the "One good and bad thing about the candidate to your left", but does it make sense to stay with this format or do we go back to the national moderator who asks the same questions over and over from previous debates and things we hear all the time on current television?