July 24, 2007
Grading the YouTube Debate (Frank Donatelli)
The Democrats faced off last evening in South Carolina, but they might as well have been on the moon because all of the questions were posed by individuals who posted their queries on YouTube. I know I’m getting up there in age, but I found this more of an attempt by CNN to increase its ratings rather than a serious way to improve the quality of the debate. Why exactly is the video question better than having a live person in the studio actually asking the question himself? I admit that I’m partial to dialogue involving a real person rather than focusing on an image in cyberspace. But that’s just me. Also, it strikes me that the problem with these “debates” is not with the questions asked, but rather with finding a mechanism to force the candidates to actually answer the question asked. Moderator Anderson Cooper tried gamely, but he found diminishing success as the debate wore on (nearly two hours and 20 minutes).
As the young voter would say, Whatever. Here are some thoughts on the debate itself and how each candidate performed.
Debate Fatigue may be growing, but there seemed even fewer surprises than the last encounter. The candidates’ positions and strategies are becoming better known by now. The predicted “Assault on Hillary” did not materialize and the senator remains firmly in the lead.
There were fewer mentions of President Bush than I would have suspected. Maybe there’s Bush Fatigue also.
Democrats sure dislike American business, but apparently love the jobs they create. You couldn’t find a candidate who would not freely denounce oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies and (insert your favorite industry here). This field is totally focused on economic redistribution (from bad guys to good guys, of course) and not at all with wealth creation.
Thinking back just four years to the 2004 presidential debates, that field at least included the foreign policy realism of Joe Lieberman and Richard Gephardt. This field is outdoing itself to appease a rank-and-file moving ever leftward on national security issues.
How about the candidates?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was and is the clear front-runner. She is very poised and articulate in these encounters. No one really laid a glove on her. She managed to keep at least in the center of the foreign policy debate, which wasn’t that difficult considering everyone else moved left, especially Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards. She scored among serious Democrats by refusing an appeal by a questioner to meet with every despot and anti American dictator (Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, the nut who runs Iran) within one year after she became president. She also noticeably refused to give a date certain when all American troops would be out of Iraq.
Sen. Barack Obama. He’s always good, but never great, in these forums. He has so far failed to give definition to the “new politics” cause that is fueling his insurgency. He has spoken of bipartisanship (he mentioned Ronald Reagan twice last night), but that is not a winning issue in a Democratic primary contest. Unless he can identify an issue or cause specific to him, he will not supplant the front-runner. He also made a rookie mistake by foolishly agreeing with the Jerry Garcia-like questioner to meet with all known foreign despots.
John Edwards. He was the most aggressive in seeking the “fundamental change” mantle and endorsing the most liberal agenda (no nuclear power, out of Iraq immediately, government takeover of medicine) of all the major candidates. I just don’t think there’s enough strength there to ultimately prevail.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. He moved significantly left in this debate on Iraq, saying that he wanted American troops out by the end of the year. He tried in vain to force Anderson Cooper to ask the other candidates about keeping a residual force of troops in Iraq, which he opposes and Senator Clinton favors. I think he and other candidates will come back to this tactic.
Sen. Joseph Biden. He is always interesting in these encounters and speaks more candidly than the other candidates. He spoke most realistically about Iraq and the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal. Bill Richardson was accurate when he noted that Biden would make a terrific secretary of state in a Democratic administration.
Sen. Chris Dodd. He’s articulate and has great hair (his video was funny), but he’s the ultimate establishment candidate whose way is blocked by Senator Clinton.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich/Mike Gravel. It’s tempting to say that these guys are good for laughs, but their ultra-leftist positions make them appealing to a significant slice of the Democratic electorate.
In the final analysis, the dynamics of the race were not altered much by last night. It is clear that to displace the solid front-runner, Sen. Clinton, someone will have to attack her hard on her vote to authorize and defend the war in Iraq. After all, if that is the basic Democratic indictment of President Bush, how can their nominee justify such a vote?
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 9 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Mrs. Forgiver was the overwhelming winner of the forum. She was Presidential, and actually displayed some leadership and steadfastness. I had to keep reminding myself why I would never vote for her. Jeb better get ready in the bullpen, because there's no other Republican with any realistic chance to defeat this competent, professional, poised and dare I admit…very attractive female candidate.
Comment by David Erlichman — July 24, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
David, she couldn't even answer the question of why she should be President. She simply stated that anyone was better than Bush. That was lame at best. Also, contrary to the CNN spin with Carol Costello afterwards where some consultant came on and said she looked the most confident, they shot a back angle at just one point where it clearly showed she was standing on some sort of box to make her look taller, which is a joke. It reminded me of that old joke, "I am standing up."
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 24, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
The truth about Iraq from our own military will set the lying defeatocrats free:
" Baghdad revives as surge, economic programs take effect "
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13003&Itemid=1
Comment by Igor R. — July 24, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
My initial reaction was the same- why is a video better than a live person posing their question from the audience. After some thought, I've come down on the side of the video. The average person getting up in front of lights, and cameras before famous, polished candidates, in front of millions of TV viewers is easily flustered, and intimidated. What may start out on paper as a tough question can easily be watered down in a hurry under those circumstances. People are in charge in their own homes, and consequently better able to speak their minds. Thought the format generated some tough, thoughtful questions.
As for your second point- these pros can duck and weave whether they're responding to a live person or a video- that's what they do. Chris Dodd was the only person who answered when asked who among them had family serving in Iraq. Seems to me that Anderson Cooper let the ball drop bigtime on that one.
Comment by Harriet M. — July 24, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
I do understand how exciting being "live" is to the world. Reporters are always LIVE, interviews are always LIVE, special recordings of concerts are always LIVE, but live doesn't always mean well-thought out. While few of the people on the videos were well-spoken, their questions were at least well thought out.
Also, it's catchy and attracts young people to at least tune-in, if not stay. Sure that boosts ratings, but it also may increase involvement by young people.
Comment by From the YOUtube Gen — July 24, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Yes, this Youtube nonsense was gimmicky.
It's a shame that such meaningless gimmicks get so much attention and press coverage. It's asinine to claim that this "debate" featuring cherry-picked questions on video was revolutionary as some newspapers are doing.
As far as Hillary Clinton goes, the woman is a fraud. From her marriage to her platform, Hillary Clinton is as phony as a $3 bill.
She's for the war, against the war, for immediate troop withdrawal, supports leaving some forces behind…
The fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the leading candidates for the nomination at present speaks volumes about the Democratic constituency.
Comment by DFAL — July 24, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
I thought the video format was cheesy and unnecessary, and it limited the pool of people asking questions. What % of voters knows how to create a video and upload it?
Per the questions asked and answered, it's clear they are heavily vetted by the embedded press–you know, the straight-faced lie machine that is now trying to convince us that Iran is ALSO a threat to the U.S.
This is essentially mass murder, by the way. Steering the young into another death trap with full knowledge that the scripts you're reading are lies and propaganda… Another inexplicable, illegal catastrophe sold to us by "our" press. May you all rot in hell.
Comment by Jon B. — July 24, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
I agree on the Youtube point. It struck me as more of an attempt by CNN to show off technology, as you point out, than a tool with a constructive purpose. Kind of like that zip camera that the NFL broadcasters use that floats down the sidelines with very little viewing purpose other than to give the football fans headaches from the dizzying motion.
The debates are boring and flat. They are not even debates, but rather a series of canned soliloquys. As a political junkie, I yearn for the day when candidates can get up on a stage and the moderators cut them loose to argue. That's what America is all about, and pre-taped and edited questions from on yonder isn't the kind of citizen interaction these debates are intended to facilitate.
Comment by Screamin Armenian — July 25, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Well, the republicans are going through the same thing next month so we'll get a chance to see how they make out under similiar questioning.
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 25, 2007 @ 2:53 pm