CNN/YouTube Debate: Post debate write-ups…
The LA Times’ Paul Brownfield weighs in…
Involving YouTube.com in this process was supposed to put the candidates off their game — or so CNN kept saying, teasing the event with an increasing amount of hyperbole, which Monday included a staple cable news alarmism.
We speak, of course, of the countdown clock.
It was the uploaders, not the candidates, who were on good behavior. It was the uploaders who asked the questions in a timely fashion, the candidates who kept hearing CNN host Anderson Cooper prod them with that word — “time — as they refused the preposterous business of squeezing the whys and hows of leaving Iraq into a 1-minute answer.
“Our soldiers died in Vietnam in vain!” screamed Democratic outsider Mike Gravel at one point. “You can now go to Hanoi and get a Baskin-Robbins ice cream cone!”
Now there was the spirit of YouTube and the Web — raw and uncensored and entertainingly half-cocked.
In the end, though, the event didn’t amount to a lot more than an interesting town hall, people able to crawl through their broadband connections and meet the candidates.
Sort of.
I like the format too. The star was the medium btw… (Youtube) The innovation, not the message.. Good questions.
Comment by Rodrigo — July 24, 2007 @ 6:25 am
I thought the questions were interesting and on point. However, I didn’t appreciate the limited commercial interruptions. But, it sure didn’t seem to me like CNN was asking the Dems “easy” questions. With that said, I don’t recall ANY hypothetical questions.. which is a good thing, IMO.
Comment by Terance — July 24, 2007 @ 7:18 am
Anyone notice CNN copied O’Reilly’s usual tact of bringing in a “body language expert” , the format was laughed at by KO and many in the MSM, now CNN uses one unabashedly at the end of the debate
Comment by Macjoubert — July 24, 2007 @ 7:38 am
The part I saw was interesting, but it mostly amounts to nothing. Most of the candidates on that stage were illegitimate candidates (Gravel, Dodd, Kucininch, Edwards), so the debate seemed pointless to me. I also think the whole “Are you black enough” question is stupid.
Comment by JMK24 — July 24, 2007 @ 9:01 am
“I also think the whole “Are you black enough” question is stupid.”
Agree, that was a particular low point. These people are running for office as equals. It’s not necessary to separate out one for color or being female. It’s not like that is something they can change about themselves. Like Hillary said, “I can’t run as anything other than a woman” and she can’t so stop making it such an issue. Are you going to separate out Kucinich as th “short” candidate?….or Gravel as the “grumpy” candidate?
It’s wasn’t really a debate, a debate is more of both sides talking about an issue, this was a question and answer period. One minute or 30 seconds wasn’t long enough for the candidates to speak fully on the issues that are most important like Health care and Iraq.
If they really want to make it a debate, then the Dems and Repugs should be on the stage together, have the questions asked and then each side gets to state their side. That would be a debate.
Comment by Mary Snow — July 24, 2007 @ 10:22 am
“If they really want to make it a debate, then the Dems and Repugs should be on the stage together, have the questions asked and then each side gets to state their side. That would be a debate.”
Kind of pointless in primary season? One is going to be voting only for Dems in the democratic primaries (and Reps in Rep primaries, of course), so knowing how Dems differ from Reps at THIS point is not exactly going to help a voter decide, is it?
You’re not from around here, are you?
Comment by Arthur — July 24, 2007 @ 1:22 pm