The internet showcased how much it has changed politics and elections last night when Anderson Cooper moderated the first ever CNN/YouTube debates. The format was new...for the first time average citizens were able to ask the questions via video submissions through YouTube. But were they really? Not entirely...CNN still acted as gatekeeper and picked which questions would address the candidates. However, the change in format did make for a new and fresh approach to presidential debates. While the format was new, the questions were old. The candidates, for the most part, still addressed the questions that they were used to dealing with Iraq, health care, and gay marriage. However, there were some questions that were new and interesting...such as asking Senator Barack Obama whether he was "black" enough and whether Senator Clinton was feminine enough. There were also some questions that were new and not so interesting...such as who was your favorite teacher? Sorry, but I felt like that was a bit of a waste of time.
Now for the winner of the debate...the format! The new format giving viewers the opportunity to ask the questions was the real winner. None of the candidates really won the debate because they all performed well and even though the format was new...a lot of the answers we received still felt extremely scripted. Of course, that won't stop any of the campaigns from declaring victory (Senator Obama's campaign crowned him king as did Senator Bidens) For once I noticed that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Senator Chris Dodd were given equal, if not more, time than the top tier candidates. With that said, the candidate who I felt performed the worst was Governor Bill Richardson and that's only because he started off shaky. He recovered soon enough and performed well. I almost must say that Mike Gravel is insane. He's very passionate and angry about the issues but he is too much of a loose cannon and combative. I do love his presence at these debates because you can always count on him for entertainment and to put the candidates in their place. My personal favorite, other than Mrs. Clinton of course, was Senator Joe Biden. I really feel that, if Hillary Clinton were not running, this man would be the best choice for president. He really knows his foreign policy and I think he would set a good domestic agenda.
While many media and pundits predicted that the candidates would attempt to bring down Hillary Clinton last night, I found that most of the attacks were towards Barack Obama. Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel called Obama out for saying he does not accept money from lobbyists and Dennis Kucinich attacked Obama for saying that he never voted for the Iraq War. He made it very clear that Barack Obama never had the chance to vote for the Iraq war since he was not in office at the time and that Kucinich was actually the only candidate who had not voted for the war. I was pleased to hear Kucinich make this point because I'm tired of Senator Obama using this point when it is not entirely valid.
The big issue being discussed about last night's debate is the difference in answers between Senators Clinton and Obama regarding whether or not they would promise to meet with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. in their first term. Senator Obama answered first and said he would make that promise to meet with the leaders and Senator Clinton answered next saying she would not promise to meet with them because she would need to make sure that it wouldn't be used for propaganda. While it may sound like they answered completely differently, they did not. Hillary, like Obama, said she would seek diplomacy but she just didn't say she would go into it without thinking about it first. While I have no doubt that Obama would also not jump into talks with the leaders without investigation and thought, Hillary's answer came across far more experienced and thought out. It made Obama's answer seem very naive and, amateur. My friend and Washington D.C. intern Ashlee Tran says "Her response to the Iran/N Korea/Venez/Syria/etc. ques was measured, poised and exemplified her experience." This, to me, just showed how excellent Hillary Clinton is in the debate format and how Barack Obama is not quite there yet. Today, in regards to those responses, the Clinton camp is attacking the Obama camp for being naive and the Obama camp is attacking the Clinton camp for being a flip flopper and supporting the Iraq War. Yes, they are still using that argument. When all else fails...Obama's camp tries to hide behind Iraq.
One question I have to personally comment on is whether African-Americans should receive reparations for slavery. Only Dennis Kucinich said yes. I could not agree more. I mean no disrespect when I say that unless you were out there in the fields picking that cotton or doing other slave labor, then there is no way you should get any reparation for slavery because, guess what, you were not enslaved.
In closing, while all the candidates shone last night, Hillary Clinton looked and sounded the most presidential. This woman knows her stuff and she has the experience (and I'll dive further into this later because you know I can't let Kevin's post go unanswered). Anderson Cooper did a great job moderating. Ashlee Tran says Cooper "pushed the candidates and continued to probe for answers. One of the best moderators thus far. Plus, he knows when to cut Kucinich off and when to bring Gravel back to...earth." I very much agree. There is a lot more I could say but, perhaps, one of my other Green Room members will choose to analyze the debate further. All in all, a pretty entertaining and informative debate.
Image Courtesy of MSNBC.com
