Watching the debate, the main thing I can tell you about the candidates is Faso contends that Spitzer plans to increase taxes, inciting more New York citizens to leave the state, while Spitzer contends he is not what Faso calls a timid candidate.
  Throughout the debate, Spitzer repeatedly emphasized what seemed to be his main talking point: that he will be a forward thinking legislator that will "challenge the status-quo."  I did not catch what Spitzer considers the status-quo, other than a state government that does not support the public, but maybe I was too caught up in Spitzer's refusal to address the camera.
  The debate between Faso and Spitzer did not entail two candidates addressing actual questions so much as rebutting what each said about the other. Spitzer repeatedly attacked Faso's support of big business while Faso attacked Spitzer's tax increase plan, neither substantially addressing issues brought up by audience members.
  Spitzer continually ran over his response time and was cut off and redirected to another question. I actually caught myself laughing a coupile times because of Spitzer's refusal to leave an issue after the bell rang. Faso used his time much more efficiently than Spitzer and in affect seemed more organized. Spitzer seemed like he had too much to say and not enough savy to put it all together.
  On the other hand, Faso's rhetoric was much more aggressive than his opponent's, causing Spitzer to comment on Faso's "angry" message a couple of times. But as Spitzer highlighted Faso's agressive style, he seemed to concede Faso's assertion of Spitzer's timidity. While he was attempting to insubstantiate Faso's rhetoric, Spitzer's reaction questioned his strength and accredited Faso's claim.
  Overall, the debate did not get much accomplished. Both sides paid more attention to each other than the issues and at times it seemed as though response time was too little. I think Faso won the debate, but then again, how much debating actually occurred?