I like both these guys. Sad thing is, most people "don't think they can win" because the MSM tells us so. They argue that we have to vote for the guy they say can beat the dems. That mentality is what has resulted in crappy choices for years.

I think everyone should vote for the candidate that represents what they believe in. These two guys come the closest in my opinion. But the party will probably pick whoever it thinks can beat Hillary (The dems do the same thing) so we end up voting for candidates we didn't pick.

Maybe it's time to let the "popular" winner actually win.

Seems the democrats can't help but try to subvert every effort to allow the public to get straight information. Isn't it interesting how, out of all the videos submitted, CNN managed to pick such a high percentage of "plants"? Did the dims stuff the video box?

CNN could easily have caught them by just looking at their personal profiles on their web pages! Was CNN practicing some kind of "don't ask, don't tell"? "If they are plants, we don't want to know"?

Isn't here any honest, unbiased, impartial, straight-shooting place to get accurate information about news, candidates, anything? Is everything tainted?

No wonder people don't trust anything the msm or political candidates say.

On the plus side, I liked most of the answers given by the two candidates in your clip of question #4. I don't know too much about either one of them, but I am going to find out more.

We missed it (actually we forgot it was on). Thank goodness for the link to watch it on YouTube. Thanks!

As for the "plants", we're not surprised. To some people it is all just about winning. The end justifies the means. But other than getting a number of dumb questions in the mix, we still get to hear from the candidates. And I'm sure it is better than the old debate questions and non-answers.

Yes, I watched. I think it is a good format as long as the questions are tough and direct and they make the candidates answer directly instead of sidestepping. I have to admit that I was less impressed with Rudy Giuliani than I was originally. McCain seemed to want us to love everyone, even illegal immigrants. Fred Thompson said some good things but stumbled on others. Ron Paul is a kook. Romney comes across to slick - I don't think I trust him. But Tancredo and Hunter both came across as solid, in the know, honest and with strong convictions. I will have to look at them more closely.

I thought at first that the idea seemed silly. But having seen a couple of these debates, I have to admit that I like them and believe they will ultimately prove helpful to voters.

The only criticism I have now is that there should be one of these once a quarter until we go to the polls. Given this is really our only opportunity to see the candidates think on their feet and see how they really feel on issues, it is obvious we need more.

I am just having a difficult time disassociating the seriousness of the issues being debated from the silliness I associate with typical YouTube content. So it makes it difficult for me to view the process objectively. I suppose that is my issue to resolve.

I am bothered, also, knowing that CNN is selecting the videos and has apparently chosen a surprisingly high number made by democratic impostors posing as "undecided Republicans." That taints the intended objective nature of the whole process. In effect, Democrats get to pose questions to Republicans with the aim presumably being to influence the ultimate outcome. That can't help but affect the viability of the YouTube debate format.

Don't you get it? That is how the game has to be played. We have to pick a candidate that has the best chance of beating Hillary! The guys you mention may be great, but nobody knows them and so they probably can't win. Run a guy nobody knows and you give the election to the Democrats on a silver platter!