What really troubles me about these debates .

[blues90]

I watched a few but I have to say it is disturbing to me when the Dems attack eachother . This leaves me with one impression which is it's all about the big win and not about the peoples benefit .

There are senators in this battle of the stars and if this is any indication to how much they are willing to run over eachother then this tells me they are all about winning for their own personal goals .

I know well that this is something new with all the candidates and no vice president running but man what sort of example are these people setting when it comes to becoming a president . Bush has already lowered the bar so low that a compressed cock roach would find it difficult to pass under it , do these people need to keep the bar at this level too ?

[DefenseLawyer]

1. I have yet to see an attack

I have seen candidates who get called out for their positions or lack thereof and who respond by saying it is an "attack". An attack is a swiftboat lie or a Willie Horton lie. Maybe you don't like it when Mrs. Clinton's triangulation and doubletalk is questioned, but just because she calls it an attack doesn't mean it is. The whole point is to demonstrate differences that exist between the candidates. Personally I think this short question and answer session format is a poor way to accomplish that; but at the end of the day, who exactly got attacked?

[truedelphi]

2. I tend to agree. It can't be a love fest. We need to know

Where the candidates stand. And it seems fair that they can call each other out onpositions.

BTW according to the OP's definition of "attack," Hillary attacks the least.

But since she is the darling of the media and the corporate (military industrial) complex
ANd since she is the front runner, she hardly needs to call any one out.

[blues90]

5. It's not about Hillary

It is the entire thing , the way each has to call out the other on issues rather than a civil ideal of one candidate saying , yeah , that's a good idea to another .

I know they have differences but they way to display these differences is what troubles me . The display one has a better plan then stick to the plan , state your views in an honest way and stay out of the insults . Most people in tune with their political views know their faults and flaws from their past , this is not the place to display vengence .

Perhaps I'm to honest and not competitive , if someone had a better approach to solving an issue then I would say they had a better idea than I had , but that's just me . I don't belong in the world of politics .

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. What troubles me is the total lack of substance...

...and this is something for which both the candidates and the TV networks must share the blame. There's absolutely no nuanced discussion of issues, and the post-debate punditry is ridiculous. It stinks.

[Clive2]

8. It's true

every debate is exactly the same. There should be some rule about not getting to say the same thing twice. Except Obama should be able to use the "red state, blue state, united states" line as much as he wants cause its catchy.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. The moderator should ask pointed questions...

...and call them on their bullshit. But you won't see this happen, unfortunately.

[H2O Man]

4. Sometimes I think

that the "debates" are too much like what one would expect from a "gentleman's debating society." I'm more concerned by the cold shoulder that the club gives to some candidates.

[graywarrior]

6. What troubles me is that these debates have sponsors

[blues90]

11. true , and one was clean coal

As if such a thing even exists , sort of a sick twist . It's close to peta running sponsors from cattle slaughter houses .

[Clive2]

7. Agreed

I like the cock roach limbo metaphor

[class2068]

10. True

True... these "debates" are pretty content-free.

[rug]

12. They remind me of the interview segment of beauty pageants.

[mmonk]

13. How else will you know of differences

or when someone isn't quite forthright?