[Politics] Rocking the Vote YouTube Style

From what I can tell, most of the major media outlets (other than CNN...I wonder why?), have treated the most recent Democratic debate, in which questions were submitted via video-sharing site YouTube, as if it were no different than the last. Certainly it was not as revolutionary as the pundits at CNN, co-sponsor of the debate, might have you believe, but if you watched the debate closely there were many facets that, through the traditional style, would have been much different. Watch the entire debate through CNN's website.

The most obvious difference is that, rather than questions being asked by a moderator working from cue cards, the questions were asked by real Americans with true concerns related to the problem. This puts a much needed face on the issue, not simply for the candidates, but for the audience as well. Too many people in the country believe that nothing really changes whether we elect a Democrat or Republican; this person or that, it is all politics as usual. The YouTube format helped speak to the way in which policies from the top effect people at the bottom (even if politics as usual persists). In other words, the issues were vacated of nearly all the abstractions of the traditional style that are so stodgy and that instill in the populace a sense that things don't really change with elections.

The format also pulled the curtain off what are often overlooked questions and perspectives with video submissions that put those ideas, challenges and inquiries directly to the candidates. There was not enough of this done this time around, but the display of it can certainly encourage more participation, especially from people across party lines. In that regard, the debate served as an important reminder that if you are elected president, you serve the people that did not vote for you as much as those who did. To me, the most memorable of these pointed questions, directed at Hillary Clinton, was "How would electing you and allowing the same two families to rule this country for the past 20 years instill the type of change you say we so desperately need?" Other great questions of the sort included one on nuclear energy and another on standardized balloting.

In some respects, the above had very little effect on the candidates in their responses (Hillary definitely did not field the above question very well). Much of the time, the candidates resorted to the same scripted responses they used in other debates, but, in some case, this scripted response suddenly took on an impassioned tone. "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" made light of a good example in which Chris Dodd responded to a question on gay marriage with virtually the same language as previously. Yet in this debate his words took on a more personally invested tone. To me, that is an affect the problem itself being removed from abstraction. That was certainly the case when one of the submission came from two people working in a Darfur refugee camp.

While it may be that many candidates were simply pressed for a more personal response, and therefore strategically gave one, it is also the case that a certain level of passion cannot be faked. So, it does make the argument that the more candidates are confronted with an issue, the more likely they are to feel strongly about it. Thus, the YouTube debate serves more than simply to give the candidates a chance to rehearese their responses; it actually forces them to elevate their political and emotional investment.

Finally, what made the debate so groundbreaking was Anderson Cooper (and not simply because he is CNN's resident hipster). Cooper actually held the candidates accountable for answering the question they were asked. There was, firstly, the aspect of the debate in which any candidate could, at anytime, be blindsided by the fact that the video questioner might also be in the audience with a follow-up to the candidate's response. But, beyond that, Cooper did something I never see moderators do: he blatantly pointed out when candidates were not answering the question and were instead resorting to their rehearsed rhetoric. That is important, if for no other reason to remind us all when a candidate is trying to give us the old debate slip. One of the reasons Americans have become soured by politics is the very real belief that you cannot get a straight answer from a politician. A presidential debate moderator should not just be responsible for asking questions, but also should hold the candidates accountable to answerin the specificities of those questions, to force them away from their rhetoric.

If the YouTube debate was truly revolutionary, I cannot say, but what seems clear is that if it was revolutionary, it was so because of its ability to bring the American public back into the political discourse, and not because it altered the course of election politics. Eventually, such a format could have a profound effect on election politics, but that change will come because it inspires the American public to become more involved and not because it inspires change in candidates specifically.