CNN + Debates = Farce

Last night I helped live-blog the CNN/YouTube debate over at Tech President. Here's my rough thoughts on how it went down:

• Overall, CNN continues its fine tradition of infantilizing its audience, this time also managing to take the internets down with it. After an opening montage about how they carefully weeded out all the crazies and "unserious" questions, they proceeded to waste the first five minutes on a ridiculous song about the candidates that asked no question and made no substantive points beyond caricature. What followed was a freak show (Bible Kid, Confederate Flag Kid, etc) of issue advocates mostly lobbing softballs and non questions to the candidates (what' kind of gun do you own?!?). To wrap up, CNN almost topped the Diamond and Pearls incident of a few weeks ago with the most important question of the evening: Red Sox or Yankees? Surprisingly, there was no Mac vs. PC question. CNN: The most trusted name in news? More like CNN: We think you're dumb.
  
  

  For more on how CNN spectacularly failed the audience and demeaned the internet as an information resource and media outlet, I recommend checking out J-Ro over at The Seminal.

• Let's all pause for a minute and remember that this debate was postponed two months becausethe Republican candidates were scared of the internet. Granted, such an up close look at their base was indeed scary, but they really had more to fear from Chuck Norris in the audience. I think with the power of his mind he cowed the other candidates into either mumbling incoherence (Thompson) or clouded their minds, giving Huckabee cover while Romney and Giuliani sliced and diced each other and every topic under the sun.
• Huckabee was the clear winner tonight, and it came at a time when his star is rising in Iowa. He really came across as a true compassionate conservative, particularly on issues like immigration and poverty. If he holds similarly "compassionate" views on the environment (stewards of the earth and all), then Huckabee truly is the most dangerous candidate in the GOP race. I can see the Huckster pulling the GOP away from its radicalism of the last 7 years, and appealing widely to moderates, progressive evangelicals, and even younger folks who mostly don't even know who he is yet. Huckabee might be the only candidate that actually could beat one of the Democrats in November.
• Did everyone notice that the debate was sponsored by Big Coal, and not a single question out of 5000 submissions was about energy policy or the environment?
• YouTube and CNN made a big deal about this being "the people's debate." So it was a pretty big shock to see a question from Grover Norquist, uber Conservative advocate and tax lobbyist. Why didn't they just get Bush, Cheney or Rove to ask the questions?
• Thompson almost had a breakout moment when his campaign bucked the trend with their 30 second video. Most campaigns air uplifting bio vids or humorous shorts, like Edwards, Dodd, and Giuliani have done. Thompson instead used his time to attack his two biggest competitors. It was interesting because it jolted the debate off-script. Cooper had to delay a commercial break to let Huckabee and Romney respond, and it briefly put them on the defensive and gave Thompson control of a supposedly uncontrollable debate. Too bad Thompson isn't nearly as good as his campaign. He seemed asleep the rest of the evening and failed to capitalize on this.
• Apparently only three black people in America care what the Republicans think, and only two were willing to sit in the audience and allow CNN to carry on the long-standing Republican tradition of using a few black folks as props to highlight their committment to diversity.
• Finally, how could I not mention the gay Brigadier General. Republican heads across the nation exploded from cognitive dissonance over that one. A few points to make here - this was geniunely the best question of the evening, and the General shamed every candidate on that stage with his rebuttal. I was shocked that the audience booed the general - I guess they don't support the troops. I loved Duncan Hunter's response, which boiled down to "our young men and women in the military are all conservative (not true, particularly among enlisted men and women), and they're bigotted, so we can't allow gays to be out in the military." Second point - this was the only substantive follow up from a questioner. Again, I thought this was the people's debate? Third point, I don't want to be a tin foil hat guy, but what's up with his mic getting cut? Fourth and final point, CNN failed to disclose that the General was an active volunteer in the Clinton campaign. Is it me, or does CNN really really suck at this debate thing?

Overall, this was a step backwards from the Democratic debate. Less hard hitting, less participatory, and the CNN editorial filter did an even poorer job of vetting the questions and moderating the discussion. I give the evening a D. These debates can't even hold a candle to what MySpace and MTV have been doing with their candidate "Dialogues." Speaking of which, John McCain is on deck for Monday . . . that should be interesting. It will give us the first chance to see how a Republican fares against the Flektor live polling, and, because of McCain's views on Iraq, we may actually see an information feedback loop from question to poll to user-generated follow-up that really pushes back on what the candidate is saying.