The great YouTube debate


Hughitt and his co-blogger Patrick Ruffini are currently on opposite sides of whether or not the GOP should attend the Cnn/YouTube debate

Not THAT YouTube debate, the debate about whether the debate should happen. For those of you not up to speed, CNN hosted a YouTube debate for the Democratic candidates last week. It featured CNN-selected questions from YouTube submissions (including, infamously, a question from a snowman about global warming) instead of questions from a moderator. The idea is to shake up the questions, new media it up, power to the people, and all that. The truth is that its name is most accurate - the CNN/YouTube debate. In other words, CNN comes before anything actually found on YouTube because they have the power of selecting which questions get heard. It was also a bit more embarrassing than it was liberating, and it seems to be just what the "freedom equals licentiousness" crowd ordered.

So the big question facing the Republican candidates is do they take part in a debate that will feature below the belt shots selected by CNN? Hugh Hewitt argues that all of the front-runners should skip what is clearly an old media ambushed dressed up and hiding behind a new media veil. Patrick Ruffini argues that the Republican party already is completely losing the internet generation and ducking the debate will be seen as being afraid to answer real questions from real voters and just as callous as the Democrats ducking Fox News.

First off, I think both of them, and all of us, can agree that there is nothing new media about the debates. The simple way to make these debates new media is to add a voting mechanism on YouTube to allow the good questions to bubble up. That would take the editorial process out of the hands of unnamed people at CNN and place it in the hands of the internet. True, it would be susceptible to Kos or some other big lefty blogger asking people to go and dump a ton of votes on a hit piece question, but as long as the voting mechanism is not subject to cheating, then the same could be said for bubbling up friendly softball questions the candidates can really knock out of the park. That comes with the territory in new media. The new media is all about the meritocracy - its about letting the good writers, ideas, etc bubble up to the top because people agree that they are good. It also means that the community will have differing ideas and several "goods" will bubble up that are ideologically driven. As long as no one is shut out and the voting is fair, then alls well.

In fact, YouTube could possibly even do this idea now, by using the existing most viewed feature - but it would wrest editorial control away from CNN, and as I said, its the CNN/YouTube debate and not the YouTube debate on CNN.

But the next question is how should the Republicans act, knowing this is going to be dangerous (at best). While I agree wholeheartedly with Hughitt that this while be a litany of cheap shot questions (quick, what's the over-under on someone asking about Thompson's "trophy wife"?), I also think Patrick is right in how it will be perceived. Most of the people of my generation will have no qualms about people looking presidential as they will have misconceptions about the political elite dodging questions that are uncomfortable. Like it or not, its been very cleverly branded as YouTube and it will look like YouTube, and backing out on it will have the appearance of backing out on YouTubers. I can safely say that I can anticipate that, were I still in an office, the watercooler straw poll would go decidedly against candidates who skipped.

While my gut reaction to the first YouTube debate was a sickening realization of how undignified and silly it made our electoral process look, I don't think the office of President is anymore revered in our culture - sad, but true. We had 8 years of Clinton chasing skirts and lying under oath, and then another 7 years of Bush refusing to make the case for the war (which I agree with) and relying on his own obstinate will to hold the country on track against Islamofacism (I admire the president's resolve and willingness to say "I'm the President and its my call", but he'd help himself out so much more if he could just explain it - not to mention how little he has exercised that position when it comes time to veto something truly dreadful). Add into the mix issues like illegal immigration which illustrate in stark contrast just how out of touch with voters the politicians are (something like 80-90% agree on it, yet the remaining 10% are all Senators), and you've got a powderkeg just waiting to explode.

Perhaps one of the frontrunners could get away with missing it, and perhaps it could be handled well, but there's slim chance that only one of the big 3 will pull out. If the Republicans leave this debate wholesale, or only Ron Paul and McCain show up (both have officially committed), we all know what the talking points will be for the media. I think it will dog the candidates throughout the process, and probably even be an election issue. Imagine if Obama - being heralded as the people's candidate and Washington outsider - said in one of the debates "but thats why I agreed to answer questions from the people about 'not being black enough' and you ducked out - I represent the people and you represent special interests." Something along those lines could very well prove to be a decisive "I paid for this mic" moment.

So while I agree with Hugh that its not prudent and could potentially be a slanderfest, I don't see that there is any alternative for the Republicans. Even if someone has stacked the deck, you can still only play the hand you're dealt.

UPDATE: Joe Carter has become a co-sponsor of the SaveTheDebate movement.

I also wanted to add the following thought - anyone who really believes that being presidential wins elections should think about two words: Bob Dole. Dole was clearly the most presidential candidate and yet a man who has a great sense of humor and was known for his wit came off as one of the most wooden candidates of recent memory.

Posted: Fri - July 27, 2007 at 03:29 PM | | | | | | |

©