watched the first half more formal Debate which Edwards clearly won and had 90% of his speaking time.

(at the intermission people like Dodd complained and than Edwards got almost no time in the second half).

I would hope people like Dodd and Richardson would eventually drop out because they have no reason for their candidacies that are not already represented.

Richardson knocked himself out of the upper 2nd tier.

Edwards made the best use of his time to draw positive distinctions between himself and others on multiple issues.

Obama talked circuitously around issues and restated GOP frames about not "playing politics" with war funding.

Clinton tried to excuse her lack of leadership by blurring distinctions -- "We're all better than the Republicans, etc." No surprise there.

Realistically, I am glad the top tier got the most time.

So I think given the number of candidates and the likelihood that Mike Gravel, and Dennis K. have zero chance of winning, it was a fair.

the sad part about the debate clock and the media bias towards the frontrunners is that on the off chance a mainstream voter tuned into this debate not knowing as much about the campaign/candidates as most of us political junkies do, they could miss out on some of the other candidates. no one wants to listen to mike gravel so i suggest he not be invited to future debates. but dodd says A LOT of good things and, partly because he is the only good presidential candidate we have ever had from  CT (see: joe lieberman), i think he deserves some attention.

But I think that Obama, Clinton and Edwards should have equal speaking time since they are all serious contenders unlike the others.

The debate was "won" by these three plus Dodd who was impressive considering how little time he got. Anyone saying that either E, O or H won is just spinning for their favorite and has no distance to their own biases.

It seemed to me that Obama (for example) got time because he was criticized by name.  This is obviously a process that would naturally add time to the frontrunners.  On the other hand, this does not explain the full disparity.

I tend to think it is good anyway.  Do we need to hear more Gravel and Kucinich?  

I'm wondering if perhaps the blogosphere should host a debate on the same night as Faux News hosts their "debate."  That is, gather some prominent Democratic bloggers, call the candidates, and call C-Span.  Who knows?  It could work.

I don't have a problem with the forums deciding to give more time to the front runners in lieu of excluding candidates who are not polling well but you have to make that explicit in advance of the debate - not make a programming decision based on what will make the best TV show. Then it becomes Reality Television, not a fair political debate.

Publish the rules up front.

Technique plays a role. From the very first minute when Blitzer announce that they had no timers or bells and would use the "honor system" the game was on.

Blitzer tried to cut people off. The compliant lost time.

Blitzer also recognized candidates who were indicating to him a desire fro rebuttal while others were talking. The first ones to take advantage of that built up a big edge.

That said, Hillary was really favored directly by Blitzer's directing questions to her.

I have a number of criticisms of Wolf's moderating at http://www.debatescoop.org/story/2007/6/ 4/04129/13951

All the candidates in a debate should receive exactly the same amount of time (+/- 10%).  If the debate host doesn't want some of the candidates on the stage, it should find an objective means to exclude them.

That being said, excluding any qualified candidate based on poll standings this early in the race would be ridiculous.  The early debates should be meant to help voters make up their minds, not limit the field based on who is already well known nationally.

These tiers closely resemble the actual state of the campaign

I disagree. This is a three way race between Edwards, Obama and Hillary.

Edwards is much closer to Obama and Hillary in the race than he is to Richardson who is no where near being in Edwards' league in this race.

I can agree that someone like Gravel doesn't need equal time. Nor Kucinich, possibly. He says some good things, but nobody outside his inner circle, and probably not even them, believe he has a shot this time.

In general, however, I don't think any candidate should have more than 150% of another candidate's time. Insurgent candidates need time to state why an insurgency is needed.

Also, I would agree that Richardson got more time than his tier might merit, except that for New Hampshire (and New Hampshire alone) those four tiers might describe the campaign as it currently stands.

It's what you do with that time that matters. (3.00 / 1)

Edwards made the best use of his time to draw positive distinctions between himself and others on multiple issues.

That funny. He was attacking all night and he looked desperate.

Conducting a series of debates between only two candidates so that each has to directly debate each other solves and creates some problems.
Candidates should get a roughly equal amount of time.
First tier candidates can't avoid confrontation by hiding in a forest of competitors.
Second tier candidates have an opportunity to directly demonstrate distinction between themselves and the entire first tier. Fewer comments would have to be cut off for the sake of time.

However, this does create a situation where there would be about 28 debates; debates with lower tier candidates wouldn't be watched by people only interested a first tier candidates.
There is a question as to whether these debates would be an arena where substantial issues could be addressed, or whether they'd simply be another parade of painfully asinine questions.
Additional benefit: Kucinich v. Gravel debate: it might not be the most edifying event, but it would be interesting to watch.

OK, it's JUNE.  Don't you think it's just a bit early to winnow the field?  Democrats and America deserve to hear more than the three-headed fundraisers.  Clinton said last night that there was no difference amongst the Dem candidates, and lots of difference with the Republicans, but there are lots of voices in the party, and they should all be heard more 18 months before the election.

Just as America and the Republicans should be exposed to Ron Paul, so should we hear the ideas of Gravel and Kucinich and anyone else who will be on the ballot in 2007

Winnowing the field to just the big 3 so early in the process is undemocratic, especially if we see polls next week with Biden or Kucinich taking support away from Johnary Obamintonards.

Richardson should count himself lucky he didn't get more time.  He just doesn't seem to have it.

Why not have two debates one among the HIGHER ranking candidates and one among the LOWER ranking candidates only?  Think of it as a minor-leagues debate.  Then the best of them could potentially jump up to a higher level, given the extra exposure.

But who would watch?  I would, for one -- the chances of someone saying something really controversial are exponentially higher with the lower ranking candidates, making for a much more interesting time.

It's not surprising that CNN allots the lion's share of time to the front runners.  It's all about ratings.

What's striking is that the comments to this post rapidly sank into charge and counter-charge for/against favored candidates.

I have a favorite candidate but if my favorite wins or loses the nomination I'll support the party's nominee.

What we should all look at, in the hardest light possible, emotion aside, causes aside, is who can win.  

Don't think for a minute that the 2008 election is in the bag no matter who wins the nomination.  Please, please, please don't make that mistake.

We should all keep two things in mind.

1)    The presidential election is about 51 separate elections, not one.
2)    And this is really, really important - what candidate do the Republicans NOT WANT to run against

Think about it real hard.  The clues to that are already in front of us.