Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

YouTube Debate Lives Up to Its Hype

Posted by Guest Blogger at 4:09 AM on July 24, 2007.


Ari Melber: The YouTube debate lived up to its hype by serving up questions that traditional media moderators don't ask.
Will you talk to foriegn leaders?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Ari Melber, originally appeared on The Nation

The YouTube presidential debate actually lived up to its hype. For about two hours last night, American political discourse was more genuine, diverse and - just as the Internet visionaries promised - more authentic than most days on the campaign trail.

CNN presented compelling homemade videos on a wide range of topics. Volunteers called for intervention in Darfur, as they stood amidst children in a refuge camp. One Michigan resident asked for the candidates' views on gun control while brandishing a huge assault riffle, which prompted Joe Biden to note that the guy "needs help." Stephen Sorta, a middle aged Californian, pressed the candidates with an idea that sparked one of the most revealing exchanges of the evening. He asked the candidates to commit, during their first year in the White House, to unconditional meetings with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to "bridge the gap that divides our countries." Obama seized the idea, committing to the meetings and aggressive diplomatic engagement, while also blasting the Bush administration's "ridiculous" notion that "not talking to countries is punishment." It was a fine answer for Democratic voters fed up with Bush's cowboy foreign policy. But then Clinton and Edwards both offered much deeper responses, worth quoting in full:

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.
And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?
EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.
But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America's moral leadership in the world. It's not enough just to lead with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.
COOPER: Time.
EDWARDS: That, in fact, we believe in equality, we believe in diversity, that they are at the heart and soul of what the United States of America is.
Edwards and Clinton are right to emphasize that Bush's incompetent rejection of diplomacy cannot simply be replaced with diplomacy on the cheap. Even American allies have to jockey for presidential level meetings, so the dictators and tyrants of the world don't deserve speed diplomacy for nothing in return. But that doesn't mean it was a bad question. I actually think Mr. Sorta's idealistic, big picture question is precisely the kind of issue that voters care about -- and the traditional media often refuses to raise. As CNN producer David Bohrman recently explained, many YouTube entries were great because they pose "straightforward, interesting questions that the mainstream media couldn't -- or wouldn't -- think to ask.

There were a lot of questions like that last night. And there should be more on the way, at the Republicans' YouTube debate in September, the YearlyKos candidate forum next month (more information and disclosure here), and hopefully in another round of citizen-driven campaign events during the general election.

Digg!

Tagged as: debate, clinton, election08, edwards

Ari Melber is a regular contributor to The Nation, focusing on American politics, public policy and Internet activism.


GOP Senator Lindsey Graham Breaks Ranks, Admits "The Green Economy Is Coming"
Finally, one member of the GOP has a slice of reality pie.
Post by Staff. November 5, 2009.
Iowa Wingnut Steve King Lauds Lobbyists as American Heros for Bussing in Health Reform Protesters
Astroturfing earns praise from the GOP rep.
Post by Lee Fang. November 4, 2009.
GOP Loon Goes Off the Rails: Health Reform Greater Threat than Terrorism
The government's trying to put you to death, don't you know.
Post by Faiz Shakir. November 2, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Still room for improvement
Posted by: lb on Jul 24, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am thrilled that questions from "regular" citizens are being entertained, rather than those from inside the Beltway. But, I still felt the debate was scripted and far too controlled by the moderator. It felt like the Anderson Cooper show, and he clearly picked questions and directed them for a response. Obama, Clinton and Edwards had way too much time compared to the other participants. I felt Tavis Smiley did a much better job of giving all candidates equal time on the PBS debate. I do not want the media to select the candidate and they continue to discount the candidacies of Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, Dodd and Richardson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You have got to be kidding!
Posted by: genefire on Jul 24, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate last night "SUCKED" It wasn't informative at all. The only thing worth hearing last night was Gravel driving home the Wall Street Financing Angle on the Candidates...and it didn't come from any of those WEAK questions that CNN "FILTERED" and used an overpaid moderator to ask the questions!

Sorry, but you must be on the Kool-Aid as well and I really wish my fellow American will snap out of it! Here are some of the things I as a voting American would have liked to hear:
Restoring the Constitution of the United States,Repealing the "Patriot Act", Accountability restoration at all levels of government, Re-opening the 911 investigation with no limits,The North American Union,National ID cards,Illegal wiretapping, The Monetary System(Regulating,auditing,verifying the countries gold supply and bringing up the Federal Reserve Act and repeal it),Our continuing rising of debt, Lobbyist,Foreign persuasion over our branch of government and the media meaning ISRAEL/AIPAC,Israel Palestine conflict,Lifting the embargo off of Cuba, A definition of Terrorism,selling of illegal weapons,voting machines investigation,Trade,War on Drugs, Real Health Care, I can go on but I feel you get the point!

Please use your talents into educating people instead of dumbing them down....

Honestly this is for the other readers instead of you because you seem set in how you like to view the current crisis in our system..I'm just trying to get some substance out debates not entertainment about white hair or who will be my running mate, or a snowman asking the US Presidential candidates about something only nature can solve....

One more thing why didn't any of the questions ask the candidates about the "Electric Car"

Thanks for reading my rant! I guess I'm one of the few that sees all of this as theater

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You have got to be kidding! Posted by: Susan Kipping
» RE: You have got to be kidding! Posted by: peacefullaim
It was a joke. There were a few decent moments, particulary Gravel talking about Banks
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jul 24, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and Hedge-funds and their influence on US politics. And Kucinich on de-funding the war. Both of these statements caused visible concernation in the other candidates who totally ignored their statements and went along with the standard drivel. Both of those gentlemen actually seemed like they believed in their politics and really cared. Everyone else just seemed like typical politicans; sticking to their 'talking points'. The video questions themselves made Americans look like fools to the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CERTAINLY AN IMPROVEMENT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 24, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice to see people with access to politicians instead of just being onlookers. I almost didn't watch and thought I'd give it a chance. Glad I did. I like the whole idea of involving voters and asking real questions. Hillary's experience worked well for her. Obama handled himself like a pro. They all had something to contribute and made it work. For what it's worth Republicans do poorly with cold questioning. The format was a great idea. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CERTAINLY AN IMPROVEMENT Posted by: genefire
i have to agree
Posted by: defiant on Jul 24, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...with the first comment (above). The debate was much more interesting than the others, and had an element of truth to it, but the most telling moment about how it was going to become "Anderson Cooper 360" was right at the beginning, when Anderson said they had selected all the videos, and weeded out many more, making fun of several of them.

The event was billed as a direct democracy thing, and yet CNN was filtering the videos so that the resulting questions were no different than the scripted debates we've seen before. I thought it would be unfiltered, not filtered just as the rest, but with a new advertiser on board, YouTube. Still, it had much better human energy than the others, and many "real person" comments from all the candidates, especially Obama.

As a debate, I thought it rather leveled the playing field, and Kucinich did very well, along with Edwards, Clinton, Obama and Richardson. Clinton, too many times, seemed to fall back on prepared applause lines. Regardless, I'm glad they did this, and hope it will be perfected and used again! :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was better, but...
Posted by: tiellis on Jul 25, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Internet format was obviously an improvement over the usual sound-byte pap of political stump speeches, pseudo-debates, and filtered questions from the corporate media.
But still, there was extensive filtering. For example, I saw on a YouTube poll of the questions most people wanted to be chosen that a young correspondent with the handle "Lonelygirl" got by far the most votes with an eloquently worded question on whether or not Bush and Cheney should be impeached. And I looked forward to the candidates' responses. But needless to say, the question never arose. It was filtered out.

Ditto for ANY questions about reopening an investigation into 9/11 with a special prosecutor, restoring our stolen civil liberties, curbing executive power, closing down Guantanamo and other extralegal US gulags, enacting a carbon tax on corporations, creating a national health care program, trimming the bloated military budget, or any other issue or measure that would bring about fundamental and necessary changes to the status quo. And far too many of the selected questions were still silly, trivial, and personal, and had absolutely nothing to do with the office of the Presidency...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It was better, but... Posted by: defiant
"Debates"
Posted by: frank69 on Jul 28, 2007 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't watch the "debates." They are not debates, never have been, never will be. It's all BS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will No One! Tell Clinton/Bush –We Are Not Goliath Anymore.
Posted by: NeoCogito on Jul 28, 2007 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
David Against The Universe Wants! A Scintilla Of Humility

When the well respected journalist Christopher Hitchens said “…his legacy is the expiration of American liberalism,” and “…his machine, if successful, will become the model of pseudo-democracy for the coming century,” he was talking about Bill Clinton in his book, “No One Left To Lie To.”

Looking at their “legacy,” the Clinton’s latest grandstand/strategy, to finance a museum dedicated to –what!?— Woodstock!? has gotta!! be a joke. I mean– do military generals hold benefits for Pacifists?

Their jihad was never against republicans, it was/has always been against the democratic SYSTEM. From the NAFTA follies to terminating the free press–looks like their “contributions” DID! a heck of a job. With reckless deregulation & institutional integrity severely compromised –then, enter GWB. Buh-Bye Democracy. The 90’s, except for ad-infinitum Monica, was the most conservative administration in modern history & the most opaque. The Clintons reliance on the Media-”Aristocracy” to keep the public ignorant is the cornerstone(angle) in triangulation. They’ve enjoyed a free pass for a decade and a half. We need some authentic! opposition to Clinton/Bush– from banks, the market and insurance companies to the battlefield–Enough is Enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]