What a Load of Crap

Editorial The YouTube Debate (From the Philthadelphia Inquirer)
Viewers won

The YouTube presidential debate Monday night contained some flaws, but overall the event on CNN proved it is worth repeating. (this journalist must be smokin crack)
This debate was very different from ones you've seen in the past. (not really)

Eight Democratic presidential candidates took questions in the form of videos submitted to YouTube, the popular Internet site. About 50 questions were culled from more than 3,000 received. (in other words the STAFF of CNN hand picked the questions they wanted)

So, rather than answering a panel of journalists, the candidates fielded queries from the mother of a soldier starting a second tour in Iraq, two lesbians wanting to know why they cannot marry, and others. (see BULLSHIT questions Cherry picked by Dems for Dems)

On Iraq, Barry Mitchell of Philadelphia asked: "How do we pull out now? Don't you think . . . that would open it up for Iran and Syria?" Nancy McDonald of Wilmington, pointing out that earnings exceeding $97,500 are not subject to Social Security taxes, asked: "What's up with that?" (ooh good questions from a couple of rocket scientists, I'm surprised he doesn't list the gun kook question that they threw in for fun)

The result was an entertaining two-hour discussion on a variety of subjects. (if that's what this journalist finds entertaining I would hate to be his/her spouse) Many of the YouTube videos were produced creatively; some used humor effectively to inquire about a serious issue. For example, one depicted a melting snowman asking about global warming.

This isn't to say every presidential debate should use this method. But if a debate is entertaining, more people will watch - and that's a good thing. (no they won't their ratings sucked almost as bad as the debate itself)

A YouTube debate for the Republican candidates is scheduled for Sept. 17. (what a MISTAKE)

There's always the danger of form obliterating substance in this format, but it didn't happen Monday night. The questions were usually good, leading to discussions that highlighted real differences among the candidates. (where was the substance? Like I said this journalist needs rehab.)

Some still dodged questions, but they may pay a price. (with who?) It's one thing to ignore a question from a reporter; it's quite another to give short shrift to a woman suffering from breast cancer.

Unfortunately, equal time was a casualty in this debate. Moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN was more likely to ask follow-up questions of the front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D., N.Y.), or Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.), while back-of-the-pack candidates former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) got far less air time.

Each candidate should get roughly the same amount of time.

For years, this Editorial Board has sponsored civic forums aimed at giving citizens more of a voice in the democratic process. The YouTube debate used a popular technology to reach the same goal, and the result was encouraging. (what a Load of CRAP)

This format was perfect. It showed more than usual the idiocy of these debates. The Presidential Debates are a spectacle of moronic tapestry. Never would we have believed as kids that the most powerful position in the world would be settled by geeks asking a panel of bigger geeks question that mean NOTHING.

What we need are debates in two formats 1) Hugh Hewitt and Tim Russert asking both sets (Dems & Rep) questions with REAL follow up, 2) One on One debates of two candidates at a time, where each candidate gets 20 min to state a position and then their opponant gets 15 mins to rip that position apart. With each candidate getting 3 20min sesions.
You Tube