In the beginning of the summer, for one of my first posts on this blog, I categorically bashed the planned YouTube Democratic Debate. I really enjoy watching political debates, and I thought the YouTube videos would get in the way. It thought it was too informal. Some how, I figured, it was too Democratic.Tonight's YouTube debate was not a great debate. I got that part right. But it was great entertainment, and I'm glad they had it.
This format should not become the norm, but it is an excellent complement to the typical, more formal debates.
The YouTube debate did not uncover much about the candidates polices that we hadn't already heard. But it gave us a unusually large glimpse into the President's personalities. This is very important.
Above all else, you want to vote for a Presidential candidate that you can trust. This trust can only be established when you get to know the candidates and see who they really are. If you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, you can do this in a diner or corn field. If you live in Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Minnesota, you have to find other ways.
The YouTube debate made the candidates as unscripted as they're ever going to get on TV. Yes, the majority of responses were the typical stock answers, but there was verve and personality mixed in much more often than usual. Biden joked about the "baby" turned gun. Dodd joked about his hair. Hillary joked about her sex.
Edwards was put on the spot as to how he didn't separate religion from politics, and his response failed miserably. Gravel was challenged about his quote that American soldiers in Vietnam died in vain, and his answer hopelessly meandered to something about to ice cream (with sprinkles?).
Just as importantly, the YouTube debate was great for attracting young voters, like me. I watched the debate in a room filled with college students, and we were laughing half the time. Sometimes because of the candidates asinine answers, but more often because of their humor, or the humor of the YouTube videos. It's not often that you're going hear candidates joke about each other's wives.
As with past debates, I still cannot understand why candidates continue to completely ignore questions to instead get in their scripted B.S. The voters realize what they're doing and certainly don't like it. When at the table with Vladamir Putin, and asked a tough question on Nuclear Disarmament, do we want President Dodd to start blabbing about immigration reform? Or President Edwards to go off about wicked big business?
Part of being a great leader is responding promptly and appropriately to any situation that may arise, no matter how unpredictable it may be. By skirting around questions or completely ignoring them, the candidates do not convey a sense of leadership. Why don't they understand this and just answer the darn question? I'd rather hear a somewhat unsatisfactory answer to a question than a completely scripted response that fails to address the question at all.
Some other thoughts:
Obama Won.
Dodd, Edwards, and Richardson Lost.
Gravel, please leave.
Biden. I really like you. But just take a deep breath and calm down.
Why were so many of the questions from the East Coast? It seemed like at least 75% of the clips were from the Eastern U.S.
The opening bit, showing the YouTube videos that didn't make the cut was completely unnecessary. If they didn't make the cut, why show them? Let's hear from the candidates, not rejected YouTubers.
This feels just like ranking Super Bowl Commercials, but I'm going to have to say my favorite YouTube clip was this one:
(Image from Washingtonpost.com)
1 comment:
"I watched the debate in a room filled with college keys."
Sounds like you're hallucinating. Have you rehydrated from your hike?
Post a Comment