Was the so-called "debate" important? Will it have any signficant influence on the race?

[Clarkie1]

With one-minute answers and no real interaction between the candidates, I think they might have done nearly as well to just stand there for an hour smiling at the cameras. I didn't see the debate, but I don't think I missed anything. I can all I need to know about the candidates from their biographies, their websites, and reading their speeches online. Honestly, I think the so-called "debate" was a rather silly excercise.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. I don't think it will have much effect on the races. there needs to be a more

involved debate than 60 sec. sound bites.

[hedgehog]

2. It allowed people who are second tier political junkies to get a good

look at the candidates side by side. I had never seen Richardson in action before. What I saw was a man who was uncomfortable with the format but who had a good head on his shoulders and some good ideas. For others, it was a chance to see Obama in a serious format disproving the charge that he is only a flashy rock star. Hillary was not the shrill monster so many have labeled her. Kucinich was not a crazy man. Biden can control his speech. I doubt any minds were changed last night except to the extent that people's qualms about this or that candidate were shown to be needless.

[AliceBlitzstein]

3. as long as TV news bimbos like Brian Williams

"moderate" the debates by trying to goad the candidates into professional wrestling style mud slinging, they are worthless. Why not have people from the audience ask the questions? Why do we need the TV bimbos at all?

[WA98296]

4. The real purpose was an occasion for the pundits to tell us what to think

[KingofNewOrleans]

5. From the Joe Biden School of Replies- - -

No.

[cleveramerican]

6. hugely important

three of those candidates will be gone by the time the next debate rolls around.

[CK_John]

7. It all depends on the ratings. If MSNBC got a bump then the rest will

want to get in on the action and start to give candidates some air time. No bump, no change.

[Tejanocrat]

8. The 2nd tier candidates were affected: Biden passed Richardson to lead the 2nd tier; Gravel moved up

to join Kucinich as another morally invincible (but not politically invincible) unwaivering voice against the war.

But none of the 2nd tier candidates made any progress toward joining the top tier and so the race is increasingly looking like a 3 person race, and this was a significant lost opportunity for Richardson and Dodd who needed great performances and turned in sub-par performances.

So, was the debate important? That depends on your perspective. Here's the answer for each candidate:

HRC - not important
Obama - not important
Edwards - not important

Biden - important (helped him)
Kucinich - important (every forum to get his important message out is important)
Richardson - important (lost opportunity hurt him)
Dodd - important (lost opportunity hurt him)
Gravel - important (got him on the map which helps him get get his message out)

In summary, if you believe this is already a 3 candidate race and you're content with that, this was an unimportant debate. If, on the other hand, you relish every opportunity to get the anti-war message out to a politically tuned-in national audience, it was very important. Or if you were hoping for a 2nd tier candidate to break out, the debate was an important and disappointing lost opportunity.

You can put me in the 2nd anti-war group.