Tuesday, July 24, 2007
YouTube marries CNN - debate update
My brush with CNN in the context of its media facilities New Hampshire Democratic debate has turned me into something of a CNN fan. Hence I was not surprised to see the news station recognising the Internet not only as a resource but as a media partner and creating the bright new phenomenon of a co-hosting arrangement with YouTube. In many ways, this was more significant than the South Carolina Democratic debate it embraced. It was media history.
Of course, a lot of secrecy and fuss surrounded the questions submitted to the Debate via you Tube. No one wanted to blow the pioneer partnership before the event - so the teasers told us of the quantities of questions submitted and the fact that they would be screened.
One has to note that YouTube now is a vibrant political playground. All the presidential candidates have posted video in YouTube and there is a mass of political satire and commentary available amid the piano-playing cats, pratfalls and teen showoffs on the video-sharing empire which, I may add, is only two years old and already is a household name which was sold to Google for something like $1.6 billion.
It is realistic to see YouTube as a player in the political progress - and a brilliant idea to encompass its global participating in the American political process.
It also made for a livelier and more interesting debate with video questions from all sorts of people all over the place.
So, the big and usual question: Who won the South Carolina Democratic debate?
Of course I am going to say Hillary did.
There in her vivid magenta in the line-up of besuited men, she was as much as visual stand-out as she was a political one.
The more of these debates they do, the more the New York Senator shines.
She never has to try. She is simply serene and authoritative, confident and ready.
One reads the ongoing polls and observes the public reticence which holds her back - the old baggage being carted around by those who are stuck in a time-warp of media negativity from the old Whitehouse days when she was cutting her teeth, so to speak. One by one, they come around as they have any direct contact with Hillary. That is all it takes. That is the transformative moment.
The other Democratic candidates realise this and are working hard to compete. It is a bit sad in some ways. They are an impressive lineup, exceptional politicians each and every one.
Barack Obama continues to breathe down Hillary's neck - and his media performance improves steadily.
He fronted well in the debate.
He did, however, look alarmingly thin. If he was lean and hungry before, he is a bit gaunt in front of the camera now. Not good. The stress showing? Perhaps he should have kept on smoking. I am disappointed that he caved in on the smoking thing.
John Edwards, as a Southerner, was in home territory in this debate and he was just as shiny and gorgeous as ever. A very telegenic man. He is handsome and comfortable in the medium and he fared well.
Very tellingly, both Edwards and Obama showed the face of their fear of Hillary by sniping at her and her policies. She sniped at no one.
Joe Biden always presents well in debate and he did so again in this one.
Bill Richardson, a particularly classy and worthy candidate, never seems to come over as well on the electronic media. He may be a better candidate than Biden, but he is always pipped on the television.
Chris Dodd seemed a bit stodgy - despite the airing of his own YouTube advertisement which is all about the qualifications of his thick head of white hair.
Mike Gavel might have been on the end of the line but he was in the forefront of the camera when it panned from the YouTube screen to the candidates - and he got a lot of visual prominence, if not so much in spoken word.
One of the reasons for the latter was the fairly peremptory way in which he answered the questions. He has taken gruff to the extreme. He is pouting and snarling like a rather jealous loser - which is a pity.
Dennis Kucinich is a regular loser in the presidential candidate stakes and he does the whole thing with panache and good spirit. He will never admit defeat - and he knows he has a lot of important egalitarian messages to convey and he will use the platform to keep the true left alive.
The more of these debates they do, the more obvious it becomes that there are really just the three runners - Clinton, Obama and Edwards, in that order.
Labels:
barack obama,
biden,
cnn,
democrat debate,
edwards,
hillary,
mike gravel,
youtube
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah, Yeah, I agree with you: last night's format represented a giant leap forward and upwards as far as setting a new standard for presidential debates. A crucial question is (remains) whose unseen hands select the questions as well as who moderates? Anderson Cooper did very well.
Yes, the downside is so few questions were given to the true truth-speaking Progressives, Kucinich and Gravel. This is demonstrated here.
The losers were Dodd and Richardson. The former is such an insufferable & self-absorbed windbag, he simply won't do even as a running mate; the latter is not a good campaigner but will make an excellent cabinet member.
Seems there was a mixed response to last Mondays CNN-YouTube debate. I watched a little of it online and thought it entertaining but somewhat frivolous, certainly not intellectual, as if driven by the masses. Hillary gave an outward appearance of seriousness delivering a seasoned performance. Obama performed well and was praised by some commentators and online voters.
On the plus side, the questions had a street or authentic feel unlike the scripted studio variety. However, given that the range of possible questions was culled, if some of the filtering were to be dropped, the inquiry would be even more real. For the Democrats there are, as you say three runners…
It seems that the Republican hopefuls are not as willing to engage the public in this sort of way; it is too early to suggest whether this will prove costly though.
In the latest poll coming out of Iowa, Mitt Romney has extended his lead (in Iowa) to 11 points over the rest of the GOP field.
The Results:
Romney: 25% F. Thompson: 14 Giuliani: 13 McCain: 10
Problem is, 25% is still too low and in his shoes, I would not be that comfortable yet. For Giuliani and McCain the news is bad more so, for the latter whose run is now on life support. Giuliani is running third in Nevada and could be doing better in New Hampshire. He cannot afford a poor start (0-3) especially if they go to Romney. Nevertheless, if he scores at least one it changes everything as New Jersey, New York, California and possibly Florida are in the bag for him.
Post a Comment