It was an interesting debate. I'm glad they're debating; I tend to think the more debates, the better. Though I'll be glad when there are fewer candidates; then we can get rid of the ridiculous format which only allows candidates to speak for a minute or two at a time. It's hard to do more than mouth sound-bites when you have so little time.
I noted the following exchange: "[Mitt Romney]...also duked it out with Giuliani, who supports invading Pakistan as "an option that should remain open." "I would take that option if there was no other way to crush al Qaeda, no other way to crush the Taliban, no other way to catch bin Laden," Giuliani said. "We keep our options quiet. We don't go out to say to a nation that's working with us that we intend to go in there and bring on a unilateral attack," said Romney. "The only people who can defeat radical jihadists are Muslims themselves."
Romney's being a bit unfair. Giuliani was simply saying that we have to keep all options open, but that an attack in Pakistan would be one of our very last options. He didn't take it off the table; he also didn't say exactly when it would be employed. I don't think he gave anything away.
All in all, in what I saw I didn't see any candidate really hurt himself, or greatly stand out from the rest. Sunday morning, of course, isn't a great time slot for drawing a big viewing audience. Which is why all Republican candidates should take part in the YouTube debate, coming up in November (see the petition on this at the bottom of the website). UPDATE: Because, after all, as TechRepublican noted today as well, there are going to be YouTube-like video questions as a part of debates, for the most part, from now on. Indeed we saw it at the Republican debate today.
