Power to the People (With Webcams)

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:20 AM

Not everyone loved the YouTubers, but most of the reviews have given a thumbs-up to the highly personal and sometimes wacky questions posed to the presidential candidates through the magic of video.

If you're a TV anchor, you may find next time there's a debate that your job has been outsourced to a snowman, the guy in the Viking helmet and other assorted amateurs armed with webcams.

Here's what I liked: It is so much harder for a politician to give a robo-answer when two women are sitting on the porch and asking why they can't get married. Or a father is describing how his son was killed in Iraq and he doesn't want to lose his other son. Or a gun owner is asking whether you want to take his baby away. Or Obama is asked whether he's authentically black. It just shifts the frame from the usual journalist-candidate discourse to a more personal level of conversation.

But inevitably, political pundits are hard-wired to ask the question "Who won?" In my view, that's a simplistic question in an eight-candidate debate, as opposed to a one-on-one face-off. But you can never entirely take the horses out of the horse race. So let's take a spin through the coverage of both the video questions and the answers.

Slate's John Dickerson likes the format:

"The highly hyped experiment in user generated content worked. In the privacy of their homes people were at ease and their videos reflected that. They sounded human. Had the same people been standing in the auditorium at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina asking questions they would have frozen up or tried to sound too polished.

"Sure some of the videos were so washed out it made you want to dial 911 to report a hostage taking. The whimsical videos were also not good: a talking snowman, two rednecks, and a heavy metal ditty about No Child Left Behind were awful in that special embarrassing way usually reserved for parents who try too hard to show their children they're hip. But what the majority of the nearly forty YouTube videos provided was authenticity which is usually as hard to find in presidential debates as humility . . . In one powerful question a woman being treated for breast cancer removed her wig."

Dickerson's rankings: "Hillary Clinton: She's like a machine. (I mean that in a good way.) In four debates, Hillary Clinton has been commanding and made only small mistakes . . .

"Barack Obama: This was perhaps Obama's best night of the four debates so far. He gave solid answers and seemed more decisive and declarative, something that has been missing in previous forums. He was funny and knew how to pivot in his answers, which is one way candidates convey a sense of command to voters. In three different instances, he took personal questions--about whether he is black enough, whether he'd work for the minimum wage and whether he sends his daughters to public school--and turned them effortlessly in to responses to larger issues . . .

"If Clinton is not going to make mistakes, Obama has to take her on."

Roger Simon gives the night to the man from North Carolina:

"John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side. He is bold and he will use his boldness for you . . .

"We were forced to deduct 3.5 points, however, for his dumb attack on Hillary Clinton's suit jacket. We like her suit jacket -- we thought it was a vision in coral -- but that is not why it was a stupid attack. Write this down, guys: Attack her policies, attack her past votes, attack her personality if you want to, but don't attack what she is wearing. It looks sexist and cheap . . .

"Hillary Clinton Analysis: Another good job, but when you are the front-runner, expectations are very high. She did have one outstanding moment in which she wiped the floor with Barack Obama."

That would be when he said he'd meet with hostile foreign leaders such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez--which made headlines in Miami--and she said she would not be used for propaganda purposes.

"Barack Obama Analysis: His people keep saying that debates are not really his thing, but, hey, you show up to play the game, you gotta try to win it. And except for walking into a trap on agreeing to meet with foreign leaders, he did fine. A nice, third-place fine. He did have a good moment when he was asked if he is black enough. He replied that when he tries to hail a cab in Manhattan and does not get picked up, he is plenty black enough."

At the New York Sun, Ryan Sager is a convert:

"I came into the YouTube debate a skeptic. But, after watching it, I think it was the best Democratic debate so far. I was afraid it would be all questioners-personifying-their-questions (sick people on health care, immigrants on immigration, squirrels on deforestation, etc.) -- and there was some of that. But there were also a lot of insightful and abstract questions, such as: on the use of the term liberal, on whether Obama and Hillary are black and feminine enough (respectively), and on whether two families should dominate the executive branch for 24 or 28 years . . .

"Biggest gaffes: Obama splashing right into saying he'd meet with a rogue's gallery of unfortunate world leaders face-to-face in his first year in office. It gave Hillary the chance to dive in after him and discuss why you don't just make such sweeping concessions to your enemies in return for . . . nothing. It made it seem like, despite his eloquence, Obama really belongs in the kiddie pool for now. Too green.

"Edwards insulting Hillary's outfit. . . . "Biden's obnoxious response when he insulted the gun owner toward the end as being nuts. It wasn't so much a personal gaffe as a moment that projected an ugly image of the Democratic Party as out of touch with rural voters and gun owners -- big problems the party has been trying to overcome. He got a huge cheer from the audience, but that just compounded the problem."

Joe Klein also changes his tune:

"Well, I had doubts about it . . . but the YouTube format was pretty good. The informality and the irreverence of questions was [classically] American. The answer to Drudge's mocking headline 'Is This Any Way to Elect A President?' is:

"Hell, yeah. It's a lot better than electing a president by having the Democratic candidate slimed via sleazy Republican leaks to your site, Matt.

"As for the candidates . . .

"Hillary Clinton--a good night. Very quick tactical move to challenge Obama on his desire to talk to 'foreign leaders.' . . .

"Obama--a pretty good night. But I fear that the operative sound bite will be Hillary's foreign leader takedown. Also, he's just wrong: the only way to get to universal health insurance is through a mandate. No two ways about it . . .

"On the subject of haircuts, if I were spending all that money, I'd have the barber add a little gray: I'm not sure why it is, but Edwards comes off as too much the tyro to be a president. Appearances do matter. Sorry."

So with Dickerson in Hillary's corner and Simon voting for Edwards, American Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta has a different winner:

"Barack Obama owned this debate. He started off with a series of clear, crisp answers that deftly turned questions to his advantage, and he was doing that Obama thing that he does where he manages to look luminous and transcendent, as if he just stepped out of a Wordsworth poem, trailing clouds of glory."

Somehow I failed to see those clouds.

Josh Marshall has mixed feelings:

"At some level I think CNN/YouTube still treated this as a novelty. I'd say 2/3 of the questions were pretty good -- in as much as 'good' means questions that are off the beaten path and yield productive answers. I agree with a lot of viewers who have said that having actual voters posing the questions made it harder for the candidates to duck the questions. Perhaps a third or maybe a quarter, though, were just silly. I don't know how else to put it -- songs, corny jokes, etc. That can be fun for viral video. But I thought it cheapened the exercise a bit.

"The real problem is that there was no follow-up from the questioners, though Cooper did a decent job playing that role. But conventional debates almost never allow for real follow-up, even though the questioner is live and in person.

Jeff Jarvis absolutely doesn't have mixed feelings:

"I am sorely disappointed.

"CNN selected too many obvious, dutiful, silly questions.

"Anderson Cooper didn't pace the debate; he tried to trip the runners.

"The videos were too tiny to be given justice.

"The candidates' videos were just commercials.

"There were far too few issues.

"There were too many candidates.

"The candidates gave us the same answers they always give.

"I have no doubt -- no doubt -- that we, the people, would have done a better job picking the questions than CNN did."

Fred Barnes is preparing to cover the Clinton administration:

"For Hillary Clinton, the presidency is not in the bag. Even winning the Democratic presidential nomination is considerably less than a sure thing. But of the 18 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Clinton is the most likely to be the next president. And she did nothing last night in the bizarre presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina, to alter that.

"Clinton managed to maintain at least the outward appearance of seriousness in a debate that included a taped question from someone dressed as a snowman, another from a sanctimonious Planned Parenthood official who asked if the candidates had talked to their kids about sex, and an especially silly one about whether the candidates would be willing to be paid the minimum wage as president. Most of them lied and said yes . . .

"With YouTube providing the questions and the candidates offering special one-minute commercials, the idea was to make last night's debate livelier and more fun. Often, though, it was merely unserious, excessively cute, and frivolous."

National Review's Byron York says Obama's answer on hostile foreign leaders is a huge problem:

"With those words, Obama seemed to commit himself to talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong Il -- separately, without precondition. He even said it was 'a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.' But after the debate, speaking to reporters in the spin room, [adviser David] Axelrod claimed Obama didn't mean any such meetings would actually take place."

That, in fact, has led to a second-day news story:

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized Senator Barack Obama for the first time yesterday as inexperienced on national security, calling him 'irresponsible and frankly naïve' for saying he would be willing to meet without preconditions with leaders of Iran, North Korea and three other nations during his first year as president," says the New York Times.

"Mr. Obama responded swiftly, saying the Clinton campaign was concocting a 'fabricated controversy.' He also contended that Mrs. Clinton's skeptical view of such meetings was similar to that of President Bush."

At last--an actual dustup for the press to feast on.

Captain Ed is underwhelmed by the debate:

"I missed the show, but if the transcript is any guide, YouTube and its citizen journalists missed the boat. The questions ranged from the inane to . . . well, the inane. Here are the first five questions posed by the YouTubers selected by CNN (via Memorandum):

"1. Issues don't matter. How are you different?

"2. Dennis Kucinich, how are you better than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

"3. Hillary, how do you define the word 'liberal'?

"4. If you had to pick a Republican for VP, who would it be?

"5. What's with the white hair?

"Okay, the fifth came from Chris Dodd, in his own YouTube campaign commercial, but it wasn't much worse than the rest of the questions . . .

"If anything, one had to sense the glee that mainstream journalists must have felt while watching this debate. It proved that, while many journalists use their own agendas to craft debate questions, at least they tend to keep them focused on real issues and demand real answers from the candidate. The only question YouTube missed was 'boxers or briefs'."

With all due respect, you can't judge a debate--and especially this one--by the transcript. It's a TV show above all. And doesn't the Captain own a VCR?

Andrew Sullivan says enough with the usual talking heads:

"If you're sick of people like me on television, or worse, then the direct questions from regular voters and non-voters must have been a breath of extremely fresh air (there's another asthmatic metaphor). I was fearing it would be lame. It wasn't. Anderson was calm and appropriately tough (and, yes, I'm a friend but I'd say if he sucked as well). His affect was particularly well-suited to the new YouTube format."

This non-campaign thing is working out pretty well for Fred:

"Some of the nation's most influential social conservatives say their movement is quickly coalescing around Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee, for the Republican presidential nomination, a decision that would bolster his expected campaign with money and grass-roots support," says the Boston Globe.

Could Hillary have family problems that extend beyond Bill? The New Republic's Keelin McDonell notes that her brother Tony Rodham, who helped arrange a presidential pardon for carnival operators convicted of fraud, is being sued for repayment of $107,000 in loans he happened to get from the folks whose pardon he was championing:

"With George W. Bush's controversial pardon of Scooter Libby kicking up memories of the Clinton administration's own dubious pardons, Tony's Carneygate trial could hardly come at a worse time for Hillary Clinton. Not that she's unused to her brothers being a liability: Throughout the Clinton presidency, the bizarre antics of second-born Hugh and baby brother Tony often left Hillary chagrined and apologetic. From wacky business schemes to ill-fated Senate runs, the Brothers Rodham--as they were known among White House staffers--engaged in one embarrassing shenanigan after another, often brazenly cashing in on their connection to the Clintons . . .

"But perhaps the most curious aspect of the Brothers Rodham is not their penchant for bad behavior but Hillary's track record of turning a blind eye to it. Much as Bill endlessly indulged his ne'er-do-well brother, Roger, Hillary has consistently defended her intractable younger siblings, forgiving their misdeeds and allowing them endless second chances."

If you haven't been following this mini-Watergate unfolding in Albany, originally broken by the New York Post, here's a fill-in:

"Gov. Spitzer suspended a top aide and reassigned another Monday after Attorney General Andrew Cuomo released a bombshell report concluding they conspired with the State Police to damage Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno by cooking up a plot claiming he misused state aircraft.

"Spitzer, who had recently insisted that neither his staff nor the State Police had acted improperly, said communications director Darren Dopp was suspended without pay for an 'indefinite period' of at least 30 days . . .

"The scathing, 53-page report detailed a months-long scheme in which Dopp, Howard, and Felton - at times with the partial knowledge of Spitzer chief of staff Richard Baum - used the State Police to gather and create misleading and inaccurate records on Bruno's use of state aircraft to travel from Albany to Manhattan in hopes of showing he was using the flights strictly for political purposes, a possibly illegal action."

And today's installment:

"Two of Gov. Spitzer's closest aides refused to cooperate with state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's investigation of the political plot that was hatched against Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, The Post has learned."