YouTube debate, tonight on CNN. We'll see how that goes.

I'm reporting an article on tech and politics, and I caught up with Joe Trippi today as he drove down to Charleston for the debate. The guy is just so into it all, such a believer in the power of the web that it's impossible not to get caught up in his enthusiasm and start thinking yes, yes, exactly, that's why Dean won!

But then I remembered, oh, wait, nevermind, and we had a really interesting and productive conversation about what tech can do, and can't do, and how far along we are into this new era of politics.

Good stuff. Now I've just got to go write the story.

UPDATE: The debate worked a lot better than it might have. Many of the questions were good, and the video format wasn't cloying -- I preferred it to the usual lugubrious journalists and nervous audience members. And although the short answers didn't allow for a great deal of depth, the candidates seemed both a little looser and more honest than they sometimes do in these events.

Hillary was strong, Obama's a contender, Edwards held his own (and made a nice cut at the hair issue).

Gravel and Kucinich should be in every debate, for any party, along with Ron Paul.

Comments

[Fec Stench]

Mike Gravel looked like Roy Williams' uncle.

[Anthony]

Yeah, that Edwards "hair" video was pretty good, but it didn't convince me that he'd be a fun guy to go get a beer with...

[drfranklives]

If I never hear that old shibboleth again it will be too soon. I think the country should learn its lesson from this disaster of an administration and stop electing the guy yo wouldn't mind watching sportscenter down at the pub with.

[Joe Killian]

I know I came into this late (I had the vote for the first time in 2000) but when did we decide we wanted an average Joe for the most important job in the nation? And for God's sake why?

[John Hood]

Well, not-so-average-Joe, you make a good point.

As for the debate, I'd have to say that of the contenders, Clinton is the only one who sounds in debates like she is ready to be commander-in-chief. Obama and Edwards, who are otherwise accomplished individuals, are simply not in her league when it comes to having the sense and experience to be president. Obama was appalling, actually.

[Ed Cone]

I'd lean more toward "callow but charismatic" than "appalling," but Hillary looked a lot stronger.

[John Burns]

Yes, if recitiation of inside the beltline excuses for why things can't be done is your cup of tea, then she is outSTANDing.

[Undercover Urbanist]

I missed most of last night's debate, but have seen some of the others. John Hood is wrong and Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden are all capable enough to be President. Beyond that, in this administration, we had Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld demonstrate for all of history that experience is no substitute for discernment and judgment.

As for the other Dems, Bill Richardson is a study in platitudes and problem avoidance, Kucinich is a sideshow, and Gravel is an embarrassment.

Looking at the Republican side, only McCain, Huckabee and Tommy Thompson are smart and sane enough to be President. I think that Rudy actually is, too, though he's pretending not to be the latter in order to distract the Republican base from his differences from them on social issues. This says a lot about him. Anybody who called Bill Clinton a waffler would probably call him the rock of Gibraltr compared to Romney. Brownback seems like a nice guy who should go back to Kansas and become a pastor. Hunter/Tancredo aren't fit to lead a multicultural nation like ours. Fred Thompson's primary attribute is "I'm not the other guys." Ron Paul is vastly superior to Gravel as the GOP fringe candidate, but he's not getting elected.

[Bubba]

"I'm not the other guys."

.....which, in the general election against any of the Democrats listed, would be a tremendous asset by itself.

[John Hood]

I'll stick by the term "appalling" to describe Obama's idea of offering personal presidential conversations with world thuggery. Clinton properly rejected the idea as dangerously bonkers, and also sounded like an informed grown-up about Iraqi withdrawal.

[Ed Cone]

Eh. Hillary and Edwards answered the question more thoroughly, but I didn't hear a "dangerously bonkers" promise from Obama so much as an attempt to turn a simplistic question into a way to discuss returning diplomacy to our toolkit. He didn't word it well, but I think "appalling" and "dangerously bonkers" are just a bit overboard.

[Roch101]

Taken literaly, Obama's answer indicated that he would personally hop on a plane and head to North Korea or Cuba as soon as convenient. People know that's not what he meant and recognized that the crux of his answer was as Ed describes above. Obama's goof was in not recognizing that John Hoods would distort a less than precise answer into something sinister.

[Ed Cone]

Actually, Obama did incredibly well. Just read this email I got today: "Barack Obama’s performance stood above the competition in last night’s debate as he continued to show the qualities that will make him a strong Commander in Chief."

It's from the Obama campaign.

[John Hood]

Good one, Ed.

Look, Roch, debates are not about what "people know" a candidate meant to say. They are largely (as is unfortunate) about revealing utterances that become talk fodder and campaign bait. The Clinton campaign understands that, it understands the power of words, and she is a highly controlled and more-effective candidate as a result. Obama is a mess. He's still extremely likable (Clinton is not) and shouldn't be counted out, but in my book Clinton is the only one who sounds like she is ready to be president (of the major contenders, I mean).

[Roch101]

John, in theory, I'd like to think I agree with you. The election of the inarticulate Bush proves us wrong. People willingly look past the precise interpretation of a candidate's words to find what they think he means (or what they want him to mean.)