I thought that the use of user-generated questions added a groundbreaking new dimension to the process of presidential elections. If used more in the future, we might have seen tonight a new outlet of democracy that forces candidates to face real people and answer real questions.

One aspect that I appreciated about the debate was that candidates had to struggle more to quickly come up with genuine answers, and for the most part, they handled it well. By allowing potentially unconventional questions from ordinary people, the candidates had to truly and swiftly convey their true feelings, values, and beliefs on a wide range of issues.

I think the YouTube format was awesome, and I hope it becomes a regular feature of election cycles from now on.

I liked it a lot, and thought that the You-Tube videos were a neat gimmick that held my interest longer than just having Cooper read the questions would have.

Unfortunately there was just too little time for each candidate to really get in a substantive answer. This is the real shame of the night because there were a few moments while they were discussing Iraq and health care that they really seemed to be getting somewhere, a serious policy debate was agonizingly close to breaking out on live television, but then time was up.

I watched the "Dial-test" for a while (I was watching the web feed) and it was interesting but I was more interested in what was actually being said so I switched back to the regular feed.

Speaking of Gravel: he seemed to be itching for a fistfight. His attacking Obama right off the bat was amusing, but didn't really add anything. He did a good job of looking crazy but not much else.

All said, it was an entertaining and thought-provoking debate and I can't say that about many others that I've seen. The most exciting thing for me, though, was Edwards' post-debate Q/A session, which was very short but interesting. I hope that he will do similar things often and that the other candidates will follow suit.

I was pleasantly surprised at how well CNN and YouTube operated the gate. Good mix of questions, smart pacing, and some helpful follow-ups from Anderson Cooper.

I really like the question archive format at youtube/debates. BUT:

Where are the answers? There's a list beneath each question of who responded, yet no way of reviewing the answers. We need those answers in comparison-friendly format to make informed choices as donors, activists, and voters.

Also: how about letting viewers rate the candidate answers? CommunityCounts.us makes an admirable start, but we should have a range of responses available, not just thumbs up-down. Debates should be scored.

Unfortunately I was unable to watch or listen, but the feedback I received was less excited than those expressed here so far. There was a new medium, to be sure, but since CNN picked the questions many complained that, as usual, candidates were asked irrelevant or soft-ball questions, and candidates continued their regular method of not really answering the questions, lower-tier candidates didn't all get to answer the group questions... pretty much the same criticisms that have come from the previous debates.

However I find it interesting that in their discussion of the YouTube influence on politics, the major media shows themselves to be completely ignorant of the way this works:

TechPresident reported that MSNBC wants to have users "create" a viral (i.e. spontaneous, not planned, success) video; an NPR reporter thought the most exciting candidate-related things on YouTube were Hillary's song contest and Sopranos spoof (which actually never showed up on her YouTube channel) and John Edwards' combing his hair, saying that it "must have a million plays by now," showing the reporter's complete ignorance of its actual popularity as well as the number of other videos (everything from 1984 to ObamaGirl to Rudy's firefighter friends) generating much more views and discussion. Michael Savage ridiculed the Democrats for using YouTube, seeming to think it's just a place for soft-porn potheads, apparently completely unaware of all the professional discussion that takes place on YouTube.

And that's just the analysis that I've happened to hear about. Will this ignorance come back to bite the major media? Time will tell.

Like many others, I find that the combination of canned rhetoric and minuscule answer time makes all of these "debates" almost worthless. At least last night, we had some interesting questions. I found myself tuning out halfway through many of the answers, eager to see what the next question might be.

How about turning things around next time? What if the candidates were each asked to videotape a series of questions for voters, and then we could show a random sampling of citizens answering them. It would be interesting to see what kinds of things the candidates wanted to know (and how many of them simply used the opportunity to "ask" about issues in ways that were basically tie-ins to their own talking points).