CNN's YouTube Debate: A Mockery of Democracy? Part III

So now that the actual format of the CNN/YouTube debate has been beaten around in talk shows and on the Internet in the hours since, how did the candidates take advantage of this new format? Did they use this opportunity to make themselves seem more accessible, more down-to-earth?

Well, like the other debates between the Democratic candidates, most of those on the stage again failed to use this opportunity to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack, even when challenged to do so by the selected videos.

A large part of the reason why a candidate wouldn't break out of the pack would be that they dodged the question completely. The most glaring example came at the very end of the debate, when each candidate was given a chance to speak out about the candidate next to them. Aside from Mike Gravel, the other candidates either stated that they could not find one thing they disliked about their competitor (not even on policy) or used the opportunity to make a light-hearted joke (Biden being jealous of Dennis Kucinich's wife, who's approximately half the age of both candidates). What would have been a perfect opportunity to state why the primary voter shouldn't vote for the other guy and seal that statement in the memories of those watching at the very end was passed up.

Another chance to take charge of a subject was presented to Hillary Clinton, though this question was not one of policy.

From the CNN/YouTube debate transcript, Part I:

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Rob Porter, and I'm from Irvine, California.

I have a question for Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?"

And would you use this word to describe yourself?

Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.

COOPER: So you wouldn't use the word "liberal," you'd say "progressive."

Unfortunately for Clinton, this is one of the issues that has dragged down her campaign, even as she's taken a solid lead in the horse race. Instead of either telling people that you're going to take the "L-word" back or why she'd be a better "progressive" than anyone else on the stage, she took a pass. The netroots are probably very angry at her for this today.

Next came Joe Biden and John Edwards:

QUESTION: Hello. This question is for all of the candidates. Partisanship played a major role in why nothing can be done in Washington today. All of you say you will be able to work with Republicans. Well, here's a test. If you had to pick any Republican member of Congress or Republican governor to be your running mate, who would it be?

SEN. JOE BIDEN: At the risk of hurting his reputation -- and it will hurt him -- but I would pick Chuck Hagel, and I'd consider asking Dick Lugar to be secretary of state.

And I do have -- I do have a record of significant accomplishment. The crime bill, which became known as the Clinton crime bill, was written by Joe Biden, the Biden crime bill. That required me to cross over, get everyone together, not -- no one's civil liberties were in any way jeopardized.

We put 100,000 cops on the street. Violent crime came down.

The Violence against Women Act, what we did in Bosnia, and so on. So I have a track record of being able to cross over and get things done.

And by the way, if you want to end all this money, support my effort to pass public financing of all elections.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: All right. Stay on the topic.

Senator Edwards? Any Republicans?

FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: Actually, I think Chuck Hagel is a good choice. But I -- if you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?

And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.

I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.

(APPLAUSE)

And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them.

If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them...

COOPER: Time.

EDWARDS: ... over and over and over.

It's a very successful hit job on Hagel if he wanted to pursue a future in Republican politics, as perhaps a member of a Republican administration. However, neither candidate answered why they would consider Senator Hagel or Senator Lugar. Yes, the question didn't ask why the candidates would choose who they chose, but neither candidate offered reasons for why working with such a Republican would be beneficial. John Edwards tried to channel the frustration against Republicans in his answer, but did not successfully articulate how he might have to put up with an uncooperative Congress.

And although Bill Richardson has been my frontrunner thus far in the nomination process, here's one from him:

COOPER: Governor Richardson, what are you going to do? Would you commit American troops?

RICHARDSON: I was at that refugee camp. And there was a refugee, a woman who came up to me. She'd been raped, her husband had been killed and she said, "When is America going to start helping?"

This is what I would do: It's diplomacy. It's getting U.N. peacekeeping troops and not African Union troops. It's getting China to pressure Sudan. It's getting the European Union to be part of economic sanctions in Sudan. It's called leadership.

A no-fly zone, I believe, would be an option. But we have to be concerned about humanitarian workers being hurt by planes, being shot.

The answer here is caring about Africa. The answer here is not just thinking of our strategic interests as a country, as oil and Europe and the Middle East. It should be Africa, Asia and Latin America, doing something about poverty, about AIDS, about refugees, about those that have been left behind. That's how we restore American leadership in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: You say U.N. troops. Does that mean American troops?

RICHARDSON: United Nations peacekeeping troops, and that would primarily be Muslim troops. We need a permanent U.N. peacekeeping force, stationed somewhere.

If we get U.N. peacekeeping troops authorized for Darfur, there's some already there, it'll take six months for them to get there. Genocide is continuing there; 200,000 have died; close to 2 million refugees in that region.

America needs to respond with diplomacy, with diplomatic leadership.

First of all, the Muslim janjaweed militias as well as the Arab government in Khartoum are the ones making those advances in Darfur. Thus, putting in more Muslim soldiers, even under UN banners, would not help the situation. However, it could be chalked up as a simple mistake in response.

Richardson waffled on what America's commitment would be in the region. Simple diplomatic gestures to get more African Union and United Nations soldiers in the area without adding in some kind of aid from the United States would likely not get very far. Though Richardson spoke out on the need to help, he declined to state exactly what he thinks he could do as President to help the situation.

One other area where the candidates bogged themselves down during the debate came when it was time to answer how they would withdraw the soldiers from Iraq. Different timetables, ranging from six months to a year, were presented as realistic estimations of how long it would take to withdraw the soldiers from Iraq. Yet, unless they truly believed that the Senate could find the sixty votes needed (and the senators on stage offered no solutions as to how they would try to get those needed votes while on Capitol Hill) to overcome the Republican filibusters, they have to answer what they would do at 12:01 PM on January 20, 2009, since President Bush has said repeatedly that the next President will have to deal with this situation. It's easy to be for withdrawing the soldiers by March 2008 when you're one of 100 Senators. Tell us how you would do it when you become the one President.

Maybe this is just another example of a group of politicians debating very early in the nomination process refusing to take stands on issues or draw differences between themselves and their opponents. However, this format of debate can only be truly useful if the candidates decide to take on the challenges presented to them in several, if not many, of these submitted questions. The Republican candidates may well act the same way on September 17th when it is their turn to tangle with this format, but hopefully they will not.

As for all the attention given to the CNN/YouTube venture, although it may not be on the "historic" proportions claimed by everyone at CNN promoting their own event, but it is potentially another step in the evolution of presidential politics, much the same way that the Internet as a whole brought changes to the 2004 presidential race. If we are to draw more people into the process, as candidates love to declare that they want to do, they have to step up and evolve with these changes. Nobody is expecting them to be perfectly upfront all the time or even half of the time. However, with some of the questions being more direct than those asked by moderators, the candidates do have to paint with broad strokes at this time. Deflecting most of the questions and trying to have the same nuances as everyone else on the stage will not win a whole lot of votes nor will it expand the electorate. Taking the opportunity to engage just might do the trick. Until then, there may just be more of those silly videos up on YouTube for the candidates and then the format would truly become a mockery of democracy. The opportunity is still there to show that it won't.

See you in September, CNN/YouTube.

Part I
Part II