Lessons of the YouTube Debate

I wasn't really impressed with anyone in the debate (except kuchinich, whose name I can't ever quite spell), but I am just not a big fan of the general debate format. Like I was irritated by the time limitations on the answers. I don't want to hear a 20 second soundbyte consisting of recycled propaganda from anybody, and the format seemed to ensure a lot of that went around - no time to get into anything really detailed or specific, just enough time for them to get a few on-point (or, more often, off-point), well-spun sentences out. It all seemed pretty superficial to me. It was an interesting exercise, I just don't feel like I know more about the candidates than when I went in. I would love to see a real, roundtable discussion of these folks brainstorming some real solutions to problems. Or, I would totally buy and read a book of essays, where each politician wrote detailed essays answering a standard set of questions on across-the-board topics. That would tell us a lot more about what they think about issues than a debate like this would.

Hi James,

I agree with your analysis of the CNN/YouTube debate, on target and interesting as usual! I have a related Web 2.0 nit to pick, though, as regards how Time interacts with its Person of the Year (aka ME): what's with having to scroll back up to the top of a post in order to get the "Comments" link? It's a back-assward interface, at odds with pretty much every other site on the Web. I'm convinced that some of the weekly Lost discussions would pick up a bit, if the comment link weren't so obfuscated. :) Just my $0.02.

Cheers,
CJ

" I would love to see a real, roundtable discussion of these folks brainstorming some real solutions to problems."

Well then, catch the webcast of the Candidates Forum at Ykos on AUgust 4. It will be 3 hours long, and based on questions submitted (not gimmicky videos) through progressive websites, which will be selected by a panel composed primarily by progressive bloggers.

THAT should be a "debate" worth paying attention to.

Of course, expect Time.com's coverage to be either completely non-existence (like the NAACP debate), or dismissive of the event (just as Time is consistently dismissive of the progressive blogosphere because its not part of the DC cocktail weenie circuit.) So you'll have to watch it, if you want to know what a real, informed Democratic debate looks like.

i beleive it went better than it could have been, especially given some of the videos that were rejected

cnn and youtube did a good job screening the questions out

the debate format has needed to be changed for years now, and this is showing that it might finally be happening (but probably not)

i'd have liked to see Cooper insist on more yes/no one word answers, however

we'll see how the republicans do later, if its just another "debate" (and i use the term loosely)
or if theyve worked out the kinks

i also look forward to seeing this type of debate during the presidential campaigns

The "debate" was just plain bad and gimmicky. Some of us are actually trying to form an opinion on these candidates, which is hard to do when you don't even hear from some of them until 55 minutes in ("Mike Gravel is there?!"). If hearing from the American people means silly songs and nuts with assault rifles then I'd rather not hear from them. What is so wrong with the old town hall style? Let's focus on issues, and not "How cute can I make my video?"

What I would really love to see is a town hall event where each canidate spends 45 minutes or so answering questions from the audience alone. Split it up over two nights. Let the public, and the candidate, focus on issues and ideas, instead of fighting for face time.

p_lukasiak, there's a reason the progressive blogosphere doesn't enjoy national repute. Their debate will likely produce irrelevant and silly questions about impeachment and such. I.E., questions that ultimately will not inform the policy of any serious candidate.

The progressive blogosphere has a very specific agenda, and a very narrow tolerance for debate. Their contributors and commentors scream about how much they agree with each other, and when their ideas are challenged, they respond with vicious anger and personal insults. If you don't believe me, check out the comments for Swampland on TIME.com.

As for the YouTube debates, JP hit the bullseye. The style of the videos added little to the discourse, and the format neutered the ability to ask follow-ups. "YouTube" was a distraction, IMO, with too-long videos inviting canned answers. Incidentally, the canned, broad-stroked platitudes are very flattering for Obama's style.

Intrepyd,

You remind me of a point I forgot to make. (Yes, with all that blather, there were still points I left out.) In a lot of cases, 30 seconds was actually TOO LONG for the question videos, and some of the questioners seemed to be padding their statements to fill out the full 30.

I have to agree with Mike. Im also tired of the 'across the board' topics of interest. Honestly, for those against abortion~I do understand but to actually overturn Roe V Wade~I just think it foolish. Its Prohibition all over again except much deadlier! Does any candidate really have the balls to overturn this ruling regardless of how we FEEL about the issue? Should gays be allowed to marry? I dont see why not~I dont see straight families making marriage life so wonderful for themselves or their kids. If the gay population can do it, raise a family, be loving and caring and good parents~I say have at it~maybe we can all learn from them. In the meantime, why should we prevent anyone from their pursuit of happiness. They arent hurting anyone!

I thought the format was interesting, but some of the questions selected were irrelevant. The thing that amazes me is all the positive reaction to Barack Obama and how this was his best performance. I thought it was maybe his worst. I was very disappointed in his performance. And I am tired of his lofty and philosophical answers. I would like direct answers. Another thing I am sick to death of is hearing how he spoke against the war. So did I, but I'm pretty sure I'm not qualified to be President. He talks about change and moving on. That's what he needs to do. So far the only actual and factual reason he presents for voting for him is speaking out against the war. Well, Obama, you are not alone. But most of us who were against this immoral war realize that it takes more than talk to qualify for the Presidency. And I wonder, if you had to actually vote on the record and it mattered, would you have been so sure? Move on and get to some direct answers. I'm tired of the preaching.

I enjoyed the debate and thought that it did a good job of posing simple, direct questions of general interest and keeping the canidates for the most part on point and pressing them to provide direct answers--kuddos to the moderator. What I didn't like was the spin the in the follow-up reporting of talking heads and CNN's "fact checking." If you go back and listen to what the canidates actually said and what you imply in the fact checking comments, you will see you were spinning more than the canidates. Using one focus group of 20 odd people in New Hampshire and another in New Mexico is hardly a fair or comprehensive method to judge the debate performances. The spin from the media is far worse than the spin from any canidate. It's annoying and insulting.

I think Biden won the debate, but I think Cnn was Bias in the video questions they chose. We all know how democrats feel about the war and what they want to do, answered daily and in every debate.
A number of issues from you tube that weren't inserted. Veterans, Earmarks, ( like clintons earmark funding for Woodstock memorial, and Rangles earmark funds for a museum /office/ library in his Name.
Nothing on Abortion, Immigration , on either side of that issue. Many educators put up questions on schools , teachers . and many others
I felt Cnn stayed with video questions they knew Democrats are confortable with, and stayed away from The hottest important issues.

Oh, i saw CNN YouTube news at www.timesofearth.com ..... I enjoyed

This debate and CNN as a whole is rallying for Hillary. It is so apparent to everyone. Even the other networks notice it.

Jim,
I live in Charleston and was lucky enough to score tickets to the debate. (Believe me, the hall was stocked with mostly high-donors of the SC DNC.) The "average man" just wasn't there. Sad.

It is all so interesting to me, how it all happened. While I was thrilled to attend, and am still digesting all that happeneded, I can't get over certain details of the CNN circus that came to town. Having to know someone to get in; being asked to "respond enthusiatically after each question aired;" and even enduring the "let's get this party started" producer who kept jumping up and goading the masses to clap and cheer at "just the right" spontaneous moments. (He looked unnervingly like Santino from project Runway.)

Ironically, the average attendee was a 53 year old volvo driver who sends her kids to private school, likes her bourbon straight up, has a gun and votes democrat. All of this before noon. Most had no idea what Youtube was. Several behind me asked if there was an open bar and then wondered that it all had to do with a video game. I told them that it did.

It was such a privelege to attend, but I just can't get past the canned aspects of the evening. I don't have the right to wish for more, but I will: to have been in the room with those fine minds, and to have heard them truly speak would have been wonderful. That and the open bar.

(PS - Jim, just wanted to say hello. I went to MHS and knew you a little your senior year with Kim Diven on the "newspaper." I've enjoyed reading your blog.)

My preceptions for this CNN debate was far inferior than anticipated. I felt that anchorman, Anderson Cooper did not permit much time allocating responses from the candidates,did not ask enough candidates their opinions based upon the questions asked.
And by now anticipate any CNN debate to be catered in this awful format.
Valuable time was wasted showing candidate videos because more time should have been structured differently.If anyone wishes to view a video from a candidate they can view it not during the debate anyways.
The format provided far too much time allocated to a select few candidates for their participation and far less for other candidates.
The format for this debate gave the impression that only two or three candidates are running on the Democratic ticket.
Personally, liked to have known more responses per candidate during the format.
Then, viewed that the Time reporter, Mark Halperin rated the format as B+ and felt that Mark most have been viewing a far different format that myself.
I would have rated the format closer to a C-D rating and never would have selected the format to be B+.

Heaven knows what the next debate is going to resemble.
Did anyone else wish to have observed more responses and less dramatic time wasting?
Woudl any of yourselves have selected any additional voter videos of other questions?

As a young voter, I applaud the debate for its efforts to appeal to a range of generations. There were some sticky technological issues that could be worked out better for next time - the videos should be enlarged to full-screen, the text was small to the point of illegibility - but overall, I felt as though the YouTube format forced the candidates to reply in a more direct and honest manner than they do when replying to pundits or moderating journalists. Although I will say that most of the candidates need to get some teenagers on their staffs before the next create-your-own-video contest comes around! Unfortunately, the one big downfall of the night was the fact that it had not been marketed well enough. As a teenager who pays attention to national events and reads a newspaper every morning, I still barely remember to change the channel to CNN that night. I know we are young, but man, are politicians losing a major part of their potential supporters. Did anyone applaud the efforts of the people who submitted questions in any kind of a meaningful manner?

While, overall, I'm extremely pleased with the debates - I do think that CNN/YouTube made mistakes in selecting the lineup of chosen questions.

Women make up 54 percent of the population, 55 percent of registered voters and 60 percent of the electorate.

In all recent elections, women have outvoted men (in terms of both turnout rates and actual numbers) in every racial and ethnic group - African American, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, and white.

So, when CNN/YouTube/Google selected only 24% of the questions as female questions - they created a tremendous credibility and gender gap with the majority of the electorate.

Please read my recent blog entry -
Almost 9 Million More Women - YouTube Blew It?
at EverydayCitizen.com
for more thoughts on this subject.