YouTube to Host Presidential Debate

skotte writes "Wired is reporting that July 23 at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina, Anderson Cooper will host presidential debates in which debaters are asked 20-30 questions culled from a specially designated section of YouTube, where the voting populace can post questions directly. You and I (assuming you're American, probably) can ask questions ourselves, not just a reporter in a crowd. Candidates won't know which questions they are being asked, and the video selection process will remain a complete secret. Interesting, but also the slightest bit scary."

Comments

fantastic idea

[j00r0m4nc3r]

0b4m4, u r like totally teh r0x0r! U r in my computerz stealing my votez!!

Re:fantastic idea

[b100dian]

In computer or not, one thing concers me:

Candidates won't know which questions they are being asked.
Is that also true when they are formulating their answers?

I thought so..

Re:fantastic idea

[Miseph]

Actually, it's Diebold that does that.

The Republicans currently have them on bankroll, but if the Democrats gave them a better offer, don't think for a second that it would stay that way.

Been done before

[Harmonious Botch]

Ok, video is new, but this has been done before with more traditional formats. We've seen questions from the audience - sometimes even live - to presidential candidates before. The problem has always been not the questions, but the answers. Ask any question you want, but there is no way to compel the candidate to really answer it. Most don't.

What they do is speak about the topic with prepared mini-speeches...

Voter: Sir, does the right to free speech mean I can burn a flag?

Candidated: Let me tell you, I stand second to none in my love for the flag or this great country that it stands for. That flag represents all the people who have risked their lives and died to save her...

And after ten minutes of posturing and spouting non-sequiturs, he still will not have said yes or no. But for some reason, most people do not seem to notice the fact.

What we need is not a new way of asking questions, but a new way of getting answers.

I personally favor the rack.

Re:Been done before

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally favor the rack.

So you're voting for Hillary?

Re:Been done before

[Timesprout]

Exactly what I was thinking. Even the rotweiller interviewers on the BBC's NewsNight team frequently can't even get a yes or no answer from their political interviewees to simple direct questions. Is it embarassing for the politicians? Yes, but no where near as damaging for most of them as opening their mouths to demonstrate just how incompetent they are. Most politicians are accomplished media actors these days and highly adept at taking 5 mins and 6 thousand words to say absolutely nothing of any meaning or relevance to the question they were actually asked.

Re:Been done before

[geekoid]

The moderator person should ask "Was that a yes or no on the previous question.".

The canadate should have 4 choices:
yes
no
refuse to answer
leave

But it must be exactly on of those, nothing else.

Re:Been done before

[Mr. Bad Example]

> And after ten minutes of posturing and spouting non-sequiturs, he still will not have said yes or no.

This is one of the reasons I started to support Howard Dean back in 2004. He was being interviewed on TV, and he was asked a question--I don't remember what it was, and it's not important now--and without even pausing, he answered "No, and I'll tell you why."

A straight answer from a presidential candidate. The sound of my jaw dropping could be heard for several blocks.

Re:Been done before

[stinerman]

It's quite obvious why they don't answer the question directly. They aren't sure which side of the issue 50%+1 of the populace is on. Furthermore, if you don't answer the question directly, you don't run the risk of alienating some people who might vote for you.

This is one reason I like Ron Paul. He and I don't agree on everything, but he's not afraid to say what he thinks. He's authentic, and I think that is why people are gravitating toward him. They know that no one wants to abolish the Depts. of Education, Homeland Security, etc. because he thinks it's going to get him votes. He does so because that is what he truly believes.

I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.

Re:Been done before

[drinkypoo]

But it must be exactly on of those, nothing else.

I think yes, no, or refuse to answer should be the opening of their answer, and be Required to be so, but I still want to hear the justification for their position.

Re:Been done before

[Harmonious Botch]

You are letting them off too easily. The candidate should have 3 choices:
1) yes
2) no
3) Oh, God, nooo!!! Please don't turn that crank again!! I'll answer the question!

Re:Been done before

[u-bend]

Can't they nominate a better rack?

Re:Been done before

[griffjon]

American politics has been stripped of the shades of gray enough as it is - how would a moderate republican who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother respond to an "Abortion: Yes or no?" question adequately? Fine, require a "straight" answer of yes or no, but don't prohibit explanations of why they hold that position.

Re:Been done before

[kabocox]

The canadate should have 4 choices:
yes
no
refuse to answer
leave

But it must be exactly on of those, nothing else.

Um, that wouldn't be very good no one would ever show up for a "debate" if they only allowed 4 canned answers. A debate should be a bit more indepth than yes, no, i don't know, or I don't really have a position on that subject.

Re:Been done before

[Angostura]

So presumably, you think that all questions on - say - Slashdot should be answerable with one of those answers?

Re:Been done before

[Captain Splendid]

A straight answer from a presidential candidate. The sound of my jaw dropping could be heard for several blocks.

Yeah, and we all saw what the media did to him. The reason we don't have have straight-answer-type pols is because the media's decided they're silly. Sort out the media, and you'll be good to go.

Re:Been done before

[Rude Turnip]

I don't know...are any of the other candidates overweight in the right places?

Re:Been done before

[halcyon1234]

Tags: Yes, no, maybe.

Re:Been done before

[Dan Slotman]

I don't want a President who walks the party line, but I've also had enough of a President that does whatever the hell they want without regard to other's opinions. I want to see a President who has things he or she wants to get done, but who doesn't just talk about them to the press. I want a President who actively encourages legislators from both sides of the aisle to know one another as people, rather than opponents.

Re:Been done before

[kabocox]

I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.

I'll take the poll switchers over the true believers any day.

Re:Been done before

[G27 Radio]

That's what it really boils down to for me too. The rest are just going say what they think we want to hear, then do what their funding sources want them to do. I just finished a little rant about this. It went something like this:

Don't wait for the mainstream media to pick your presidential candidates for you otherwise you'll be voting for the lesser of two sell-outs. Voting in November 2008 alone is not going to get us out of this mess. If you want a change you need to start doing your research now so you can vote in the primaries. There are good candidates that aren't hard to find if you look. Remember, the candidates with the most funding are the candidates that will get the most air-time. And, the candidates that are getting the most funding now aren't being funded by organizations with America's citizens' best interests at heart. Just some food for thought.

Re:Been done before

[Red Flayer]

Sort out the media, and you'll be good to go.

Sure... right after I shave my pterodactyl.

Sorting out the media is impossible; the media is bigger than any of us because it answers to the LCD of the population. It's a vehicle for selling products to the gullible and little else. Get the media to stop chasing ratings, and hence advertising dollars? Good luck with that.

As far as I'm concerned, the best thing to do if we want better leaders is to prohibit visual likenesses of them in the two years leading up to the campaign. No video, no photography. Spoken and written word only.

Re:Been done before

[AnotherBlackHat]

Ask any question you want, but there is no way to compel the candidate to really answer it. Most don't.

When most questions asked are of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety, I don't really blame them for not answering.

We need better answers and better questions.

-- Should you believe authority without question?

Re:Been done before

[shma]

I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.

I think 8 years of 'true believer' government is quite enough. I'd rather go with a politically savvy candidate willing to change his mind than someone who will hold fast to the wrong ideas even as he witnesses their disasterous results.

Re:Been done before

[bdjacobson]

American politics has been stripped of the shades of gray enough as it is - how would a moderate republican who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother respond to an "Abortion: Yes or no?" question adequately? Fine, require a "straight" answer of yes or no, but don't prohibit explanations of why they hold that position. You can tell a lot about a society when they're willing to kill living tissue that _will_ one day become a human being, simply because of a minor inconvenience. "It's the womans body, she has the right to do with it what she wants"--> nevermind a). using a condom.

Re:Been done before

[theuedimaster]

"And after ten minutes of posturing and spouting non-sequiturs, he still will not have said yes or no. But for some reason, most people do not seem to notice the fact."

Actually, quite a lot of people do. We've just all given up on trying to get anything better.

Re:Been done before

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.

So when are you planning on moving to Iran? They're full-up on true believers over there.

Re:Been done before

[TheoMurpse]

It's quite obvious why they don't answer the question directly. They aren't sure which side of the issue 50%+1 of the populace is on.

Is that necessarily a bad thing, though? I mean, isn't the president supposed to lean more towards the side of the Math.floor(50%+1)?

Re:Been done before

[aichpvee]

What they need is some kind of a lottery that gives out seats on an ejection panel. There will be a different one for each question asked. Maybe 100 people on each panel. When the candidates give their answers the panel votes on if they gave a complete answer (though theoretically not if the voter approves of the answer) and then for each candidate that fails three times they're dropped through a hole in the floor. What's in the hole will increase in painfulness in each successive debate. So the first debate it'll just be another floor, second it'll be like a 12 foot drop to a regular floor that someone might twist an ankle falling onto, and so on. I propose that the final debate have a 50 foot drop onto spikes in a pool of water filled with leeches and piranha. But not just regular piranha, these ones will have head-mounted lasers.

Of course there will need to be some research done into how to get fair and accurate panels. Most likely it'd require educated and informed voters, which is the one thing we lack most in the United States.

Re:Been done before

[Captain Splendid]

because it answers to the LCD of the population

That's an assumption, and a faulty one at that. Who's to say people get sex & violence because they like it, not because that's all they get?

Re:Been done before

[guspasho]

Exactly one of those? How exactly would one leave and not have also chosen one of the other three?

Re:Been done before

[Robotron23]

I wouldn't go for McCain - word is he left all his campaign song CDs in A rack; surefire loss then.

Re:Been done before

[Yoooder]

no no no. the rack is just a phonetic mistake for Barack

Re:Been done before

[Vo1t]

Maybe the questions should be also 5 mins long? Don't stop asking such long questions until he gives a short, accurate answer. For each manipulation there is a defence or reaction.

Re:Been done before

[Sancho]

Poll switchers are paying lip service in order to attain power. You can't trust that what they say is what they'll do, and if they're lying, you pay for the mistake of electing them for four years before you get the chance to do anything about it. True believers, hopefully, have a position that they'll stick with if they're elected, so at least you have an idea of how they'll set their policies before you vote. However, they're highly unlikely to match all of the beliefs of any significant segment of the population, so they'll never get elected as long as the flip-floppers and smooth talkers keep running.

I think the problem is that the federal government is simply too powerful. The federal government is supposed to have a few specific, limited powers as granted them by the Constitution. Everything else is left to the states. There are 50 of them. It's pretty likely that you can find one that fits you pretty well (even if not perfectly). Except that these days, the differences between the states are mostly trivial little things like speed limits, age of consent, etc. and issues which are directly tied to budgets, such as education. Everything else has been taken by the federal government by stretching the bounds of the Constitution until it's nearly broken. This means that the president of the USA has an immense amount of power--more power than a person representing slightly more than half the population should have.

Re:Been done before

[ajs]

Sisko > Picard > Kirk > Archer > * > Janeway ... joking of course ...

Here is exactly the kind of question we should be posing to candidates. "Who was the best captain on a Star Trek show." There are three possible results:

* You say "Kirk," and some people agree, and thus you win their vote.
* You say "Picard," and some people agree, and thus you win their vote.
* You say something which demonstrates you have no right leading round of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat," much less the United States executive branch.

Problem solved. ;-)

Re:Been done before

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a whole lot easier than that....

Ask this:

"Can you answer yes, no to a yes or no question?"

Will their head then become a black hole and subsequently suck in the entire Universe?

Re:Been done before

[Sancho]

So, have you stopped beating your wife, yet?

Re:Been done before

[drinkypoo]

You can tell a lot about a society when they're willing to kill living tissue that _will_ one day become a human being

Something like 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually without the woman's knowledge that she was ever pregnant.

There is also substantial disagreement as to when life begins. You obviously do not share the view that it begins at conception, as you said "will one day become a human being" (hint: Slashdot allows a subset of HTML and you can use underlines, you need not use the underscore character, this ain't 1990 and this ain't a BBS) so I am curious, after what date do you believe there is a person in there?

Not to mention that there are lots of things that can end a pregnancy in progress and prevent a live birth from ever occurring - and I'm talking "natural" causes here (man-made toxins unintentionally introduced into the body must be counted as "natural" for the purposes of this conversation.)

simply because of a minor inconvenience

Minor to you. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're male...

Re:Been done before

[drinkypoo]

That's an assumption, and a faulty one at that. Who's to say people get sex & violence because they like it, not because that's all they get?

Saying that it's all they get is frankly a big load of shit. There's a reason PBS ain't the most watched network in the US and it's not because people can't pull the signal in.

The average TV watcher has spoken, and what they have said is "duhhhhh"

Let's face it, people who like to use their brains comprise a small niche market on this planet.

Re:Been done before

[tknd]

You've just made it even easier. Now they have a 1 in 3 chance of guessing the right answer.

Re:Been done before

[corbettw]

This is one reason I like Ron Paul. ... He's authentic, and I think that is why people are gravitating toward him.

Replace "Ron Paul" with "Fred Thompson", and you might be on to something.

Re:Been done before

[corbettw]

Something like 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually without the woman's knowledge that she was ever pregnant.

Every life ends in death. Does that make murder OK?

There is also substantial disagreement as to when life begins.

That's about the only argument that makes sense: aborting non-living tissue is just a medical procedure. Killing a child is murder. At some point during a pregnancy, a line is crossed. We as a society just have to determine where that line is (and maybe move it one way or the other later, depending on how much more we learn about such things).

Re:Been done before

[Loadmaster]

Bill has already served two terms.

Swi

Re:Been done before

[AshtangiMan]

"Senator Clinton, Have you stopped beating your husband?"

Re:Been done before

[AzureWraith]

1. Allow all candidates to watch a short debate of experts -- with a fraud or two thrown in -- and ask them to evaluate what they just heard and why they reached the conclusion they did.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevoluti on/2007/05/how_to_improve_.html

I personally like this.

Re:Been done before

[stinerman]

I beg to differ that Bush is a true believer. It pays to remember that he ran on a platform that included "no nation building" or "policing the world".

Re:Been done before

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference with bush and ron paul is ron paul would take notice and listen to peoples problems. Bush would ignore them and continue to be an asshole.

Bush should be impeached!

Re:Been done before

[Groggnrath]

Introducing the iRack! It holds all your iItems, the iPod, the iPhone, the iMac, it can even carry an iTune. Of course it gets unstable when you place all those things in it. No worries, clearly the solution is to add more iItems to the iRack.

If the iRack should fail to hold your iItem surge, just use the iRan to escape the falling iRack.

Re:Been done before

[stinerman]

Fred Thompson likes to fancy himself a staunch federalist, but his idea of federalism isn't in line with what my idea of it is.

Thompson is a marked improvement over Guiliani, McCain, and certainly Romney, but I don't think I'll be voting for him unless the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton and the minor party candidates are non-existant.

Re:Been done before

[erareno]

I thought that was what websites/youtube videos/ blogs were for?

I will say that if the mainstream media (looks at my tv I hardly watch anyway) would move on to something OTHER than horse-race and soundbyte politics, there might be a netter chance for candidates to give the straight dope on their actual positions.

Now that I'm thinking about it too, I might also mention party platforms while I'm at it. Since candidates have their own personal platforms that stands beside the party platform, and sometimes they don't mesh completely together. Just keep in mind that about two thirds of what's in the winning party's platform gets done to some extent.

Re:Been done before

[HobophobE]

I think the intention of that suggestion is that the candidates wouldn't be able to weasel out of giving an answer to questions as they always do. Always. In the recent CNN debates Wolf Blitzer said it was a rule that the candidates stay on topic of the question presented to them, and he'd often follow up and reiterate the question when they strayed, but most of the time they'd still never answer it.

I agree that if they were forced to answer questions they'd simply not debate, but then maybe we'd see some candidates that recognized the exposure they got and their ability to point at the ones that didn't was valuable. We're supposed to have competition for public offices and when even one candidate shows they have integrity and consistency of their positions the rest have the choice of exiting the market or changing to be competitive.

Re:Been done before

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty damn sure that no voters prior to 2000 knew that Bush stood for multiple never ending wars, "preemptive" invasions of sovereign nations, dismantling of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, justification of torture, replacing the Justice Dept. with cronies, etc etc. Considering no voter I know knew that at the time he was elected, I don't see wtf your comment has to do with Bush or Ron Paul, frankly.

Re:Been done before

[bdjacobson]

You can tell a lot about a society when they're willing to kill living tissue that _will_ one day become a human being

Something like 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually without the woman's knowledge that she was ever pregnant.

There is also substantial disagreement as to when life begins. You obviously do not share the view that it begins at conception, as you said "will one day become a human being" (hint: Slashdot allows a subset of HTML and you can use underlines, you need not use the underscore character, this ain't 1990 and this ain't a BBS) so I am curious, after what date do you believe there is a person in there?

Not to mention that there are lots of things that can end a pregnancy in progress and prevent a live birth from ever occurring - and I'm talking "natural" causes here (man-made toxins unintentionally introduced into the body must be counted as "natural" for the purposes of this conversation.)

simply because of a minor inconvenience

Minor to you. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're male...

This inconvenience I'm talking about is her using a condom or making the guy use a condom, or, God forbid, her waiting to have sex until she's in a stable relationship that can handle a third party. But no, she should be allowed to have sex and murder the person-in-development at a whim if she wasn't prepared (no condom) and she gets pregnant.

As for life, saying it starts any time but conception is a non-sequitor. What else do you call tissue developing on the way to become a [what society calls] human being? Just tissue? When you abort the baby (er, "tissue") you're removing a person that would one day be in the world. There's simply no getting around it, and us lying to ourselves that since it's not in the shape of a baby, therefor it's not a person, is disgusting. Even more-so that people _actually_ believe it.

Not to mention all the problems that would be solved if it weren't for abortions. We wouldn't have a Social Security crisis or need illegal immigrants if there were an extra 1.3 million people entering the workforce every year.

I'm sure you'll say something to the effect of "ya that's great, we'll have an extra 1.3 million unloved, unwanted children coming into the world every year". So we should just murder them instead? You better be glad your mother wanted you. It's a shame we can't ask all those children whether or not they wanted a chance at life. And don't even begin to presume you are allowed to speak for them: "I know I'd rather be killed than not loved or wanted by one or two people in the world". If you seriously would say that about your own life then you and anyone else that says that is either lying to themselves or a lunatic (I think we've already established the latter in your case). Never mind the other 6 billion people you could find love among. Or hey, maybe some of those 1.3m new others every year would be looking for love too.

What this boils down to is the disgusting fact that we kill 1.3m children every year because it's too inconvenient for us to use condoms. And that we let ourselves off the hook by telling ourselves they're not human. And that we defend these 1.3m homicides under the guise of "rape victims" or "incest".

You disgust me.

Re:Been done before

[Petey_Alchemist]

Hey thats a great idea! Take a soundbyted, media driven exchange of ideas and make it even more worthless by removing any semblence of intellectual discussion of the question at hand! Fantastic!

You moron.

Re:Been done before

[Fireflymantis]

You disgust me. What about rape?

I'm sure the girl that just got molested will be happy to know that you are disgusted by her because she didn't get the person who raped her to wear a condom.

You disgust me.

Re:Been done before

[bdjacobson]

You disgust me. What about rape?

I'm sure the girl that just got molested will be happy to know that you are disgusted by her because she didn't get the person who raped her to wear a condom.

You disgust me. And exactly how many women is this? So, for say 1000 women every year who are raped, assuming 1/4 get pregnant, how do you justify killing 4000x that many? Or, as this site puts it, those million rapes are from current or former male partners.

So we should allow the murder of 1.3m children because the one or so million women weren't mature enough to pick a good partner that isn't going to rape them during, or after, the relationship? Oh I remember. Two wrongs make a right, yes? You know how many families have considered the un-expected child a blessing, and are glad their daughter _didn't_ have the child aborted?

You have no one to be disgusted at but yourself.

Re:Been done before

[shma]

To me that only shows that he is both politically savvy and a liar (your arguments are from 2000, but he presented a fake 'softer side' in the 2004 presidential election as well). In my view, whether or not you are a 'true believer' is determined by your actions, not your words. And while his posturing and justifications for his actions may have changed, his actions have remained consistent. Don't forget, the people in his administration that were the most adamant about attacking Iraq (contrary to the campaign pledges you cite) were brought in from day one.

Re:Been done before

[Triv]

Voter: Sir, does the right to free speech mean I can burn a flag?

I don't know about you, but the candidate who answers yes. to that and says nothing else, gets my vote. Or at least gets my respect. I'm sick of the equivocation.

Re:Been done before

[Breakfast Pants]

Will this thing be creative commons licensed? Come on Google--don't be evil.

Re:Been done before

[rtb61]

The better option is to take old world media out of the equation. Surely something like this can be better handled at congress for example. Where existing congressmen could publicly ask potential presidential candidates questions and those would be publicly answered under oath (could also be extended to other major government positions) as there is more than one side represented in congress there would be aggressive thought provoking questions as well as lame duck set ups.

The congressional library could them stream the questions and the responses and leave it to the public to gauge the value of both the congressmen that ask the questions and the presidential candidates that answer them. They could even produce DVD compilations and send them out to citizens upon request.

It seems crazy to get away form old world TV network and newspaper control of presidential candidates and just hand it over to CNN and Google two new world B$ marketing companies, hint, that's what they sell, that's what they are. It is high time to get 'your' democracy out of their grip and put it back under public control.

Re:Been done before

[stinerman]

I understand completely the pro-life argument. It is logically sound, but it totally falls apart if you allow for any type of exception except for the life of the mother. If the "tissue" is a person, then it is totally innocent. It did not ask to be the product of a rape. Killing it (since it is apparently "alive") would be murder.

When you make an exception for rape or incest, then you are saying that abortion is ok in certain circumstances. Since abortion is supposedly murder, then you must also believe that murder of an innocent person is ok in certain circumstances.

I'm pro-choice to an extent. For one, I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned as abortion is quite obviously a state issue. After that, I'd think any abortion past the point where the fetus can feel pain should be banned.

So we should allow the murder of 1.3m children because the one or so million women weren't mature enough to pick a good partner that isn't going to rape them during, or after, the relationship?

Ah yes, the "blame the victim" strategy...

You know how many families have considered the un-expected child a blessing, and are glad their daughter _didn't_ have the child aborted?

Probably very many. Whoopty shit. Do you know how many are really glad they didn't have to drop out of college and go on welfare? Probably very many.

Re:Been done before

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent flippin' up!
How's that redundant for crying out loud?
Not only did the parent summarize the GP, he also put it in a sarcastic yet realistic way to indicate the GP's post is a pipe dream. And it's all still politics, presidents etc.!

I'm going to start meta moderating again to help get rid of this crap!

Good post AC, I'ma AC too

Re:Been done before

[FJGreer]

Sort out the media, and you'll be good to go. okay, I'll see the results of that attempt when Satan starts wearing mittens.

Re:Been done before

[pipingguy]

Maybe there could be canned laughter also.

Re:Been done before

[LingNoi]

Forgot questions and answers, debates, etc ,etc

Just give me a spreadsheet of what the different candidates want to change and how they are going to do it before I am about to vote.

You can ask BS questions about where people stand on global warming or their character but it makes no difference because one candidate could be for "investing more money into free energy" but the money has to come from some where so what they won't tell you about is the money they're decreasing in school funding, etc, etc.

I'd like to just see a list of changes and where they're getting the money from to make that change. That would be a fair way to judging who is the best candidate.

Re:Been done before

[General Wesc]

Do you think we should continue our entirely justified military presence in Iraq instead of running away like a bunch of cowards?

I get annoyed when the candidates don't answer the question, but the questions are often asked with a bias and are always surrounded by the context of the controversy. (Why else bother asking?) A simple 'yes' or 'no' will result in a huge amount of assumptions being made beyond what you actually said, and if you're running for president, you can't afford to say screw the stupid assumptions most of the viewers will make if I give a straight-forward answer'.

Re:Been done before

[Copid]

You mean the wealthy lobbyist who has, in past elections, driven a red pickup truck that he rented in order to shore up populist credentials? I have a hard time believing that any of the candidates are authentic, at least in the sense that they're not simply pretending to understand the plight of the common man. It never ceases to amaze me that the media will present one or two candidates as "rich and out of touch" when the fact is none of them are "genuine common men" and haven't been since Founding Fathers. None of them actually clears brush at his ranch or drives a red pickup truck or likes to mow his own lawn. It's all theater, and amazingly, even the political pundits go along with it. I certainly don't begrudge the fact that our candidates are all wealthy "elites" who live comfortable lives. There's no reason to think that having a white collar job and being good at it means that you can't understand the human condition. I am, however, offended when the media tries to call out one or two of them for being rich and "out of touch" while others successfully play dress up to convince us that they're just like everybody else.

As for who is "genuine" I would have to give Ron Paul the nod (even though I don't particularly want his policies enacted) simply because he clearly knows that he has no chance at getting the nomination so he says what he really thinks. When everybody else was dumping on him for pointing out that maybe our foreign policy was agitating some people abroad, all I could think was that he was the only viable leader on that stage, and it's too bad he's also a bit crazy.

Re:Been done before

[Copid]

This inconvenience I'm talking about is her using a condom or making the guy use a condom, or, God forbid, her waiting to have sex until she's in a stable relationship that can handle a third party.

You seem to think that birth control is 100% successful and that anybody who gets an abortion would rather go through an expensive and uncomfortable medical procedure than pop a pill every day. Those don't sound like particularly sensible assumptions.

Re:Been done before

[Captain Splendid]

There's a reason PBS ain't the most watched network in the US and it's not because people can't pull the signal in.

No, it's because it's a drop in the bucket against NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW, MYN, PAX, TNT, TBS, MTV, VH1, HBO..the list goes on.

Re:Been done before

[kalirion]

When you abort the baby (er, "tissue") you're removing a person that would one day be in the world. There's simply no getting around it, and us lying to ourselves that since it's not in the shape of a baby, therefor it's not a person, is disgusting.

Guess what, using a condom can also prevent a person from being brought into the world. Lying to ourselves that just because it's in the shape of an egg and a sperm, therefor it's not a person, is disgusting.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not even close to being a person until the first thought or feeling crosses its mind. That should be the cutoff line. Until that point, it's all potential and nothing more.

Re:Been done before

[bdjacobson]

When you abort the baby (er, "tissue") you're removing a person that would one day be in the world. There's simply no getting around it, and us lying to ourselves that since it's not in the shape of a baby, therefor it's not a person, is disgusting.

Guess what, using a condom can also prevent a person from being brought into the world. Lying to ourselves that just because it's in the shape of an egg and a sperm, therefor it's not a person, is disgusting.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not even close to being a person until the first thought or feeling crosses its mind. That should be the cutoff line. Until that point, it's all potential and nothing more. Difference between the condom and abortion is obvious. In one case life hasn't started. In the other you're taking away what has. Don't you see that?

Re:Been done before

[kalirion]

Difference between the condom and abortion is obvious. In one case life hasn't started. In the other you're taking away what has. Don't you see that?

Sure, but the life in the "abortion" case is just an unthinking lump of cells, at least in the beginning. It may become a person some day, but it doesn't deserve the rights of one until then.

Re:Been done before

[drinkypoo]

This inconvenience I'm talking about is her using a condom or making the guy use a condom

I cannot use condoms; they are not compatible with my plumbing and they break every time I try.

I would explain in more detail but it would be TMI.

Suffice to say they make my anteater unhappy. And I have already explored the alternatives.

In any case, condoms are at best 99% or so effective. So they are not a complete solution.

or, God forbid, her waiting to have sex until she's in a stable relationship that can handle a third party.

This is not realistic, for a wide variety of reasons that have to do with human nature. But if you can wave a magic wand and fix this, be my guest.

But no, she should be allowed to have sex and murder the person-in-development at a whim if she wasn't prepared (no condom) and she gets pregnant.

How do you feel about women who are raped and become pregnant?

As for life, saying it starts any time but conception is a non-sequitor.

Ah, so you're a religious fundamentalist. I got it.

I believe that the time when life begins is when you are a thinking being. Until then you are just a lump of cells.

You disgust me.

Back at ya.

A question for Hillary

[sfjoe]

You voted in favor of the Iraq war. If you can be mislead by a bungling fool like George Bush, how can we trust you as President to deal with world leaders who are actually intelligent?

Re:A question for Hillary

[WrongSizeGlass]

If you can be mislead by a bungling fool like George Bush, how can we trust you as President to deal with world leaders who are actually intelligent? That's easy ... just get me elected as the leader of some other country and they can deal with a leader who isn't actually intelligent. ;-)

Re:A question for Hillary

[ArcherB]

You voted in favor of the Iraq war. If you can be mislead by a bungling fool like George Bush, how can we trust you as President to deal with world leaders who are actually intelligent?

I believe that question has already been asked during the CNN sponsored debates.

Re:A question for Hillary

[pluther]

Yeah, that was in one of my letters to her that her staff never bothered to send me even a form letter response for.

"You say you were mislead about the war. I wasn't mislead. How come you were? A significant part of your job is to research these things yourself and keep yourself better informed than I am. What were you doing instead?"

Re:A question for Hillary

[Khaed]

Careful, you might get labeled as part of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" by daring to ask her a question that, y'know, isn't approved by her staff first.

Seriously, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, how is she going to debate anyone on the Republican side? Bush isn't running again, so it's not like she's going to get served up a moron. She says far too many stupid things -- like John Kerry did. And when you lose a race -- basically because you say stupid things -- to George W. Bush that's the first sign you say too many stupid things.

It's like losing an ass kicking contest with a one legged man. People just stare in awe and wonder, How did he fuck that up? It was a sure thing!

Re:A question for Hillary

[guspasho]

What makes you think George W. Bush is a bungling fool rather than simply an evil, manipulative, deceptive liar?

Not to start whole other debate which I realize I run the risk of doing, but Bush knew damn well before we went to war that there was no basis for it. By that point, all the inspectors and intelligence except what was ginned up by the White House had found nothing - Bush claimed this was evidence Saddam was hiding his capability rather than evidence Saddam had destroyed his capability. The only ones that said Saddam was dangerous were in the White House.

Anyone who wants to act in good faith will be misled by someone who intentionally abuses that faith, as Bush did. This says nothing about Hillary's ability to deal with intelligent world leaders, except for those who intend to deceive and take advantage of us.

I'll leave it up to you to decide whether that includes everybody or almost nobody :)

Re:A question for Hillary

[WrongSizeGlass]

Flamebait? Flamebait?

I use self deprecating humor to call myself someone "who isn't actually intelligent" and some chuckle-head with mod points thinks I'm flaming myself? Maybe I should tag myself as a Foe. That would teach me. Oy ... someone cash in your mod points and buy a fukcing sense of humor.

Re:A question for Hillary

[frdmfghtr]

It's like losing an ass kicking contest with a one legged man. People just stare in awe and wonder, How did he fuck that up? It was a sure thing!

This is quite off topic, but listen to this clip from Dave and Carole, the morning team at 96.5 WKLH:

Mort has a case of road rage The relevant part starts about halfway through the clip.

Background: 'Mort Snotlocker' had both legs amputated some time ago (true story...he really did)

It'll just get reposted

[Hoi Polloi]

It'll just end up getting reposted with some god awful hip-hop soundtrack and clips from Halo.

Re:It'll just get reposted

[mastropiero]

And the questions will be spammed out into oblivion with posts like: "In 1923 a little girl called mary was found dead with the word yram in her back. You have been cursed now. Now your daddy will get clamydia unless you repost this in 74 more videos"

Sounds interesting, but Anderson Cooper?

[R2.0]

I mean, couldn't they get anyone else?

Anybody at all?

Re:Sounds interesting, but Anderson Cooper?

[deftcoder]

Stephen Colbert would make an interesting host

Re:Sounds interesting, but Anderson Cooper?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have an impartial host.

Yeah, but they're using Cooper anyway.

Re:Sounds interesting, but Anderson Cooper?

[moosesocks]

Personally, I'd like to see him grill the republicans.

All the better if he brings up gay marriage.

I hope they ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... edit the video so it has one of those cats that falls off the TV or a jackass doing a Jackass stunt or a fake video blogger faking their video blog or something. I mean please, they have to do something to make it interesting. If they don't it'll just seem like the same answers & message over and over and over ... kind of like watching the Weather Channel on TiVo or listening to your wife remind you what a schmuck you are.

Re:I hope they ...

[Clockworkalien]

Yeah, because there's nothing more boring than the future of our country.

Re:I hope they ...

[thelastquestion]

wait a second... someone on /. has a wife?!?!

*brain explodes*

Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they don't allow Ron Paul on this. Ron Paul would be a disaster for socialism, internationalism, and government sponsored murder and tyranny in this nation and around the world. We cannot allow this man to speak. He is a terrorist.

Re:Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, Rudy "America's Mayor" Giuliani appears to be an ignorant, bafoon ready to rush headfirst in to the next quagmire that even looks like it would "fight terror" next to him.

I mean here we have Ron Paul, a long shot candidate that is clearly more in touch with reality than any of the front runners. Then we have Rudy Giuliani who seems like he would be better suited to a roll as a "news" reporter for Faux News than as a President, but is considered a top tier candidate.

It's almost like the Republican party is for proudly ignorant fascists with their collective head in the ground. Oh wait. It is. Nevermind. Ban Ron Paul.

Re:Ron Paul

[Copid]

Aww..that's so cute, a Ron Paul fan lashing out because Rudy OWNED his sorry ass last month.

Yes, just like in Internet debate, there's nothing more impressive in a Presidential debate than responding to a well thought out critique with, "You're stupid!" Rudy is such a manly man.

Re:Ron Paul

[Reverend528]

The crossdresser? He's running for president?

Re:Ron Paul

[bit trollent]

Oh you mean this? It looks like Rudy got owned to me. Ron Paul even won the instant message poll on Fox News. For some reason the Faux News commentators didn't see it the same way. Heh. Seriously, watch the linked video above to watch Ron Paul wipe the floor with Rudy Giuliani and Republican style ignorance.

Ron Paul is the only one telling the truth about Iraq. The other Presidential candidates are lying to our faces, and anyone whith half a brain can plainly see it. It's both funny and tragic i guess.

Ron Paul should be banned because nobody is going to vote for him, simple as that.

Ahh, Repubican style "democracy". Can't you just smell the fascism?

Re:Ron Paul

[Homr Zodyssey]

November 2008 headline:
Rudy Giuliani Wins US Presidential Race in what Experts call the biggest Mercy F@#$ in History."

Re:Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul is getting owned at the polls, simple as that. Funny how the only guy telling the truth can't draw flies. An elephant shitting in a parade as a bigger following than Ron Paul.

Ahh, Repubican style "democracy".

Well yes, because a guy polling at 1 percent is little more than white noise in the debate.

Re:Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a year before the election, and the debates should be a big part of what people base their decisions on support on. Not who has enough money for TV or the candidate who is conformist enough to end up on TV alot.

If it wasn't for the fact that I happened to be channel surfing during the Republican debate I would have thought that Ron Paul was just another also ran. Now I know there is a Republican candidate who will fight for freedom, uphold the constitution, and not kill thousands of people in yet another undeclared war.

I know that the Republican leadership would like to keep as few people as possible from being exposed to a real conservative, but banning Ron Paul from any debate where there is any candidate polling lower than 5% is clearly undemocratic. The Republicans already tried to get him removed after the linked debate, but had do abandon their plan in the face of public opposition.

Re:Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking of RuPaul. This election's cross-dressing candidate is Giuliani.

Re:Ron Paul

[FunWithKnives]

The only thing that makes me more uncomfortable than the democrats or republicans is the burgeoning popularity of libertarianism. Libertarianism is fascism cloaked in the garb of "personal freedom." The fact that these people honestly believe that having no market regulation whatsoever will result in more freedom for the individual is laughable. Corporations already have way too much sway in politics and worker's lives. How exactly is doing away with the few remaining market regulations going to result in anything good? As a country, we should be, economically speaking, moving toward the absolute opposite end of the spectrum. Deregulating the market will only lead to corporate fascism and an even worse oligarchy than the one that is currently developing. To top it all off, the class disparity, which is extremely bad as it is, will be positively astounding.

Social libertarianism is a good thing. I am a social libertarian, and everyone should be. Homosexuals having sex and marrying one another doesn't hurt you or I in any way, abortions are no one's decision but the woman who is considering one, and your right to practice your religion and its corresponding "morality" ends where my civil liberties begin. All of this I agree with. I think that this is actually one of the main reasons that otherwise rational, left-leaning, liberal people are getting caught up in it. The economic side of things is just disgusting. The Ayn Rand objectivist, social Darwinist, selfish ideas that these people have will not make our country a better, more egalitarian, and equal place for everyone. And make no mistake, that is exactly what these people don't want to happen. The last thing they want is equality or egalitarianism. Food for all people, equal healthcare, social security, subsidies, handicapped-accessibility, homeless shelters, soup kitchens? Many of these aspects are certainly lacking in our country right now, but in a libertarian world, we would have none, unless it was specifically in a private corporation's self-interest to provide.

I make it a point to inform everyone I know who is on the fence about libertarianism about everything that it entails, and I encourage others to do the same. It is not a path that our country should follow. It will only result in the citizens, as a whole, being worse off than we are now.

Re:Ron Paul

[The One and Only]

The only polls that matter start in January, fool.

Re:Ron Paul

[bit trollent]

I actually agree with you about how dangerous economic Libertarianism would really be to society. Then again if it were up to Ron Paul and other libertarians the states could set up whatever government they want libertarian or not. I would assume he would want to live in a libertarian state and I probably wouldn't. Anyways, I still see him as better than any Republican candidate, In my mind McCain is right up there with him, representing the best of mainstream Republicans.

I'm probably still going to vote for a Democrat anyway. Obama!

Hmmm

[El Lobo]

Wouldn't be fun if people from all over the world could vote in the american elections? After all, the whole world is affected by the USA president (read, wars, bombs, prissions, naval bases, etc). So let me elect the next bomberman.

Needs more Slashdot

[OctoberSky]

"Senator Obama, which do you prefer? Anarchy, Socialism, Communism or CowboyNealism?

Maybe a good question...

[u-bend]

"Mr. or Mrs. presidential hopeful, from which tube do you think this video question came?"
Potential answers:

The tube connected to your house (R).
The tube down which our country has gone (D).
Why, YouTube, of course (I)!

Re:Maybe a good question...

[u-bend]

I forgot:

Ewetube, you sick sonofabitch (R)!

Just a nit or two...

[HellYeahAutomaton]

It absolutely annoys me in the mainstream (Democratic and Republican) debates that all of the candidates don't get to answer the same question.

During the Rep. debate that just occurred, but was also annoying was that the candidates were not self-policing their own timers, as well as talking over the moderator who wanted to interrupt them. This makes both the moderator and the candidates look like amateurs. Perhaps the idea is to shut off their microphones when they run out of time.

Please people, get your point across, and do it in a timely manner.

Re:Just a nit or two...

[Adult film producer]

Well, it seems to me that there are too many candidates on the stage (for both parties.) There were 10? at the last republican debate... 8 IIRC at the democratic debate. The moderator uses up 35-40% of the official time of 90 minutes asking questions .. all of the candidates are in a frenzy to make their trademark soundbites before the buzzer.. it's a fucking gameshow.

Luckily it's still early but some of these guys like Gravel, Tancredo, Thompson have all gotta go, just get them off the stage.

Re:Just a nit or two...

[eln]

Perhaps the idea is to shut off their microphones when they run out of time.

Electrical shocks. Send them steadily more powerful electrical shocks until they shut up. At the very least, it will make the debates more entertaining.

Re:Just a nit or two...

[moogle001]

Heaven forbid we expect that discussing solutions for our problems in Iraq, with immigration, health care, and so on might take more than one minute. Those really complex issues might even take a whole ten minutes! Good thing we have the media to ensure our attention span remains short and we focus on those soundbites which take 10 seconds.

Re:Just a nit or two...

[loganrapp]

Around The Horn needs to be converted for use in a political format.

Re:Just a nit or two...

[__aailob1448]

That is fucking brilliant man! You are the savior of politics! It would also weed out candidates with weak hearts who can't handle the stress.

Re:Just a nit or two...

[Jon Abbott]

Bingo. I think that rather than having a short televised debate, they should pre-record it and let the debate run for hours or even days. No question would go unasked to each candidate. Let candidates take as much time as they need to answer the questions (within reason). Then post the whole thing online in segments so that anyone can watch any part of it, random-access style. For example, if you wanted to know more about a candidate, you could watch a video that combines all of the segments where he or she speaks. If the debate took a day, there would be a good couple hours of the person explaining their views and qualifications. That would help to prevent all the canned responses and "me too" answers. Having each response in its own segment would allow the website to allow the viewer to enjoy the debate in as short or as long of a format as they desire. I think we really need something like this to expose the candidates that are unfit for command.

Unrelated, but... Check out this presidential selector... It asks for your views and opinions and it tells you which presidential candidates are the closest match.

Re:Just a nit or two...

[kalirion]

Just for fun, get average Joes off the street to administer the shocks and see if you can repeat Milgram's results.

Presidential Debate it's very boring

[aurgo]

I think anybody wasn't see the Presidential Debate, it's very boring, YouTube don't have a lot of traffic because of this

Anonymity?

[HTH NE1]

the voting populace can post questions directly. You and I... can ask questions ourselves, not just a reporter in a crowd. Candidates won't know which questions they are being asked, and the video selection process will remain a complete secret.

So the questions will be presented in video format....

Can I ask mine while wearying a Guy Fawkes mask?

Re:Anonymity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing so would only prove that the movie butchered the graphic novel.

Re:Anonymity?

[Anonymous Coward]

It happens. It was still a good movie. Get over it.

Re:Anonymity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing so would only prove that the movie butchered the graphic novel.

Have you read the graphic novel? The movie was almost exactly the same. Ok, so they had computers in London and Evey wasn't a prostitute. Other than that, the plot remained intact.

Re:Anonymity?

[Oktober Sunset]

except for the setting. In the book it was set in a post nuclear-war world, where Britain was the last remaining western power that hadn't been nuked. The country was on the brink of utter collapse, which made V's actions more questionable as a collapse of government could have meant a collapse in the country's infrastructure and mass starvation. The film was a much more stable world, where a revolution was definitely a positive thing and the grimness and unpleasantness of the country was a purely government manufactured state, just as the chaos in the rest of world was due to ongoing conflict, not due to apocalyptic devastation.

Anyway, the graphic novel was a work for the 80's, the future it portrayed is anachronistic, the film was far more fitting for the 00's

Commission on Presidential Debates

[Dogtanian]

Do a Google search on "Commission on Presidential Debates"; you might be interested in what you find. Or you might not. :-/

Re:Commission on Presidential Debates

[hitchhacker]

I'm not too interested in the main alternative either. The Citizen's Debate Commission (CDC) had a lot of support running up to the 2004 election, but when it came time to organize the debate, they excluded every party except for the Democrats and Republicans. Not to mention they were completely ignored by the only two parties that they were allowing. These two parties have a monopoly over the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) considering it was a bipartisan secret agreement that created it in the first place.

-metric

uh oh

[resignator]

"Interesting, but also the slightest bit scary." _________________________________________________ Seriously, reading user comments at youtube makes me physically ill. It is beyond depressing.

Not looking forward to this

[Guanine]

Has anyone read the comments on YouTube? I've never seen a more putrid cesspool of thoughtless idiocy. Why does anyone expect the questions for the candidates from the community to be any better in quality than the comments?

Re:Not looking forward to this

[FooGoo]

I've never seen a more putrid cesspool of thoughtless idiocy.
I guess you haven't watched a presidential debate before. You sir are in a real treat.

Re:Not looking forward to this

[WrongMonkey]

I've never seen a more putrid cesspool of thoughtless idiocy. Sounds like a good match for the candidates. Have you watched the debates?

Re:Not looking forward to this

[Argilo]

http://xkcd.com/c202.html

Re:Not looking forward to this

[Creepyguywithastick]

The comments section is a noman's land. The video bloggers themselves are actually capable of intelligent communication. Sometimes. But not all the time.

Re:Not looking forward to this

[Anonymous Coward]

I know we don't read the article around here, but you might want to read the summary.

Re:Not looking forward to this

[prator]

I've never seen a more putrid cesspool of thoughtless idiocy.

I can't believe no one has said it yet. You must be new here.

you're American, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that is what the people at the passport office have been telling me for the last two months. But it doesn't help out much with the trip for my vacation.

Scary for Whom ?

[mbone]

Scary ? Doesn't scare me a bit. If it scares the candidates, good. If we're lucky some of the bozos will crash and burn. (I remember well that Reagan couldn't field questions from a bunch of high school academic acheivers; pity they didn't run the 1980 debates.)

Re:Scary for Whom ?

[Clockworkalien]

I doubt that high school academic achievers are part of the YouTube demographic.

Here's an idea

[JamesP]

Whenever a candidate starts complaining about net neutrality and saying the market should regulate itself, we start dropping packages. After all, "his speech is cloggin' the tubes"...

Al Gore's chance to win!

[SpinyNorman]

Al Gore should respond by posting a video of himself using a fart fire to light a candle - excellent way to get the write-in vote without even running!

You might be onto something there...

[StressGuy]

"I personally favor the rack"

Yup, bring out an intern with a nice enough rack and he might just tell her anything she wants to know

or is that yet another non-sequitor?

A Question for the Voters

[Greyfox]

You voted for that idiot. Twice. How can we be sure you're qualified to determine which (if any) of the candidates is actually competent to lead this country? I mean shit, several thousand of you could not even figure out how to use a fucking ballot the first time around!

Re:A Question for the Voters

[drinkypoo]

You voted for that idiot. Twice. How can we be sure you're qualified to determine which (if any) of the candidates is actually competent to lead this country?

Bush never won the popular vote and if he even got the electoral vote the one time he supposedly fairly got that I'll eat my pants.

But maybe you're kidding, so I won't call you names.

Re:A Question for the Voters

[Greyfox]

I'm mostly kidding but the kernel of the question is rather serious. How do we prevent the debacle of the past 8 years (by the time it's time to vote again) from happening again. How does a C-Earning*, Coke snorting, draft dodging yahoo like that get to run the country**? How does Congress -- ALL of Congress -- get behind his petty need to prove that he could do the job that Daddy didn't***? How does Congress, even now, allow themselves to be outmaneuvered by that? How the HELL do we make sure it NEVER happens again?

And if the election was indeed stolen and we did NOTHING then we all (myself included) have a lot more to answer for. Being a bunch of fools who just elected in one of own**** would really be much more comforting.

* Gentleman's C I've heard. Judging from his speech and mannerisms I suspect he didn't spend a lot of time on coursework.

** Not that the guys the Democrats were offering up the second time around came across a lot better.

*** Of course the Elder Bush was the head of the CIA and knew that Iraq would fall into chaos without Saddam there to keep all the various factions in line with his iron-fisted rule. The younger Bush simply saw getting 20 miles to Baghdad and then not capturing Saddam as a failure. He's fond of saying "Would you rather have Saddam back in power?" HELL YES I would! Saddam was an asshole, but he was an effective asshole and he wasn't at threat to us. The number of people who suffered under his rule was miniscule compared to the number of people suffering now under ours. Al Quieda wasn't IN Iraq before we created a power void there. Our actions in Iraq have turned that country into the threat it was made out to be before we invaded!

**** Well, 40-ish percent of us anyway. Don't blame me, I voted Dem and I'm a goddamn registered Republican*****.

***** And IMHO Ron Paul is the only REAL Republican in the running for the next election too. Shame he doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting on the ticket.

It's Too Early to Say

[Anonymous Coward]

Candidates won't know which questions they are being asked

For those wondering how they're supposed to answer a question if they don't know which one they're being asked - don't worry, most of their answers are so vague that they could use them for just about any question that's put to them!

Too late

[the_kanzure]

Any question to which we do not want the prefabricated response might have to be asked before the major debates. Of course, I have little idea as to how to be kept up-to-date with all potential candidates as we find them, so this is really challenging for those of us only with internet connection and not Washington presence. How do we find the superheroes out of the set of possible political candidates?

It would be interesting to see politicians citing references and other guys to go talk with, rather than dodging bullets in questions. It would show that they are in fact connected and maybe slightly informed.

Old political maxim

[phonicsmonkey]

"Don't answer the question you were asked. Answer the question you wish you were asked."

Interesting...

[Notquitecajun]

Someone is going to get their 15 minutes of fame out of this by asking some poignant and unanswered question that people are going to view over and over. What WILL be answered are "blah" questions offered by clean-cut "respectable"-looking folks, half of which I could easily believe are plants. Crazy people/conspiracy theorists/tattooed whackos/Green Party folks won't get airtime.

Re:Interesting...

[corbettw]

Crazy people/conspiracy theorists/tattooed whackos/Green Party folks won't get airtime.

Oh come on, some of those people will be up on the stage!

My question for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the first time you've been asked a debate question from a libertarian wearing no pants?

Frightening?

[DefenderThree]

The only thing frightening here is that this debate might encourage YouTube users to get politically involved. I mean really, seriously politically involved.

Picture this scenario: The fate of the US presidential election, and perhaps the free world, rests in the hands of the YouTube community.

Re:Frightening?

[Pojut]

I don't know about you, but I would trust the fate of the world with youtube people before I would trust it to the people who's hands it currently rests in.

At least the youtube folks are entertaining without causing anger that rivals the size of a whale penis.

What is "how to reach disenfrancished voters",Alex

[kinglink]

Seriously I've seen Obama reaching out to youTube and I've heard all the others reaching out to the internet, but seriously who believes it? Do you really think Obama even looks at youTube for anything other than the stupid funny moment of the night? I know I don't and I have more time than him.

In America we have a problem, the voters are realizing that puppet number one or jackass number two isn't going to really change the country. Many of us are losing interest in politics, and those who are still interested only care about a few key issues. This "outreach to the youth generation" is just a political maneuver. Did Bill Clinton actually care about kids when he went on MTV? No he cared about votes, he won the election and became the same style of bureaucrat (admittedly a more charismatic version than others).

I'm not saying "boo" but I'm at least reminding people that meaningless political maneuvers that will only last until the person gets voted in shouldn't sway you to vote for X candidate, actually learn who the candidates are and more importantly who they represent, if you're instead.

BTW, if you aren't convinced yet this is yet another political farce, the line "video selection process will remain a complete secret." should have tipped you off.

Sorry that you can't be entertained 24 hrs a day.

[KingSkippus]

In case it wasn't obvious, the Presidential Debates aren't there for your amusement and entertainment. They're supposed to give you an idea of where the candidates stand on important issues and what they're going to do if they're elected to the office. I'm sorry you find that boring; I don't.

I don't know if you're kidding or not, but people with attitudes like the one expressed here frustrate me. Because of their constant demand for entertainment over information, we have a media that caters to the sensational and a woefully uneducated electorate. You're the reason we only get these horrid "sound bite" candidates and office-holders instead of people of real substance. And believe it or not, when a candidate does give "the same answers & message over and over and over," well, even that is a good thing and serves a purpose. It shows you how important they feel that thing is, or depending on what those answers and that message is, how shallow they are.

So if you're being sarcastic, ha ha, you pegged the typical politically ignorant American pretty nicely. If you're not, you need to sit your but down and watch the debates in spite of (gasp!) having to suffer through a few dull moments now and then. You've seen what happens to a country when all of its voters are watching Jackass instead of making well-informed choices at the polls.

Answers

[Quila]

This is cool, but how can we force them to actually answer the hard questions they'll get? They're so used to scripted responses that I don't think they'll know how.

presidential debate

[Enigma1625]

fake.

Bait and switch

[guspasho]

The Politico, a right-wing news site, ran this same scam ahead of one of the GOP debates a few months back. They held a contest to have the most popular question submitted be asked during the debate they were sponsoring.

This questions topped the heap at the end of the contest.

* Should the President have power to imprison U.S. citizens without charging them with a crime and without providing them a judicial forum in which they can contest the accusations against them, as the Bush administration did to American Jose Padilla?

* Do you think the process of waterboarding -- where the U.S. takes prisoners, straps them to a chair, and pours water on their face so they are in terror of drowning to death -- is a practice consistent with America's moral credibility in the world?

* A recent worldwide poll showed that under the Bush presidency, America has become the third most unpopular country in the world -- right behind Iran and just ahead of North Korea. Why do you believe that has that happened?

The winner never got asked, nor any of the other top vote-getting questions. Instead we had them asking inane questions about whether the candidates believed in evolution and a bunch of cheap shots at Bill Clinton.

am i the only one tired of ass-quality video

[pyite69]

Now that a significant number of people in the country have HDTV and high resolution monitors, why are we seeing an explosion of videos that are embarrassingly low quality?

Re:am i the only one tired of ass-quality video

[Anonymous Coward]

Because while I have a 52" HD TV, I have no access to HD channels through...

AT&T (My cable provider)
DirectTV (contract with AT&T for my complex)
Dish (separate contract with AT&T for my complex)
Over the air (I'm in North Fort Worth, apparently underneath an anti-digital airwave satellite)

So I must stick to low quality while I wait until the end of the year for them to put a "HD receiver" on the satellite receiver which powers my cable connection..

The one bonus?
I'm paying 30$ less a month through AT&T than I was through my previous provider for the same channels and a slower internet connection and no DVR.

Re:Sorry that you can't be entertained 24 hrs a da

[drinkypoo]

In case it wasn't obvious, the Presidential Debates aren't there for your amusement and entertainment. They're supposed to give you an idea of where the candidates stand on important issues and what they're going to do if they're elected to the office. I'm sorry you find that boring; I don't.

The reason it's boring is that they are full of shit. They stand up there and disseminate in the most useless fashion possible until their time is up. And as others have said, if a candidate actually comes out and says something, then the media rips them a new arsehole and they have no chance whatsoever to make a serious bid.

I'll give one tenth of one shit about the debates when they become worth watching.

Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

The MAJOR problem is how the hell do you upload a video? I suspect that the number of people who actually participate in Youtube is tiny compared to the millions who simply watch, like myself. It's like not being able to drive a car - you're stuck.

I can see it now...

[ktakki]

Moderator: Senator, this next question is from YouTube user Daxflame. He asks "Do you think my girlfriend GreenTeaGirlie is really a robot or not?".

k.

Re:I can see it now...

[neminem]

"The pool is closed. Desudesudesudesudesudesudesudesudesudesu.

...

Do a barrel roll!"

i can see

[recharged95]

a lot fo fake videos of the the CNN debate posted. or a least a nice digg revolt

Let the mudslinging begin

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why Obama is hot!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KWru9o1cDnw

Here's my question

[u8i9o0]

I'd love to ask why the featured candidates keep stating that the US has not suffered from a terrorist attack since 9/11/01. Are we to understand that the anthrax attacks was not terrorism?

At the very least, /.ers will read this and more people will correct the assertion.

I should also note that after over five years, an attacker has yet to be identified for that. This state of affairs makes the laws that were created to investigate terrorism look like they only burden the honest citizen instead of being applied toward apprehending actual terrorists.

America

[Oliver_Etchebarne]

You and I (assuming you're American, probably)

Yeah, but in Perú (South America), we don`t care so much about it.

sounds familiar

[Smoke2Joints]

isnt this more akin to the current political climate?

Candidates@Google

[Barraketh]

I now these are not full on debates, but Google has a "Candidates@Google" program where they bring out various presidential candidates, interview them, and then let the audience ask questions. So far we've had Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and John McCain. The cool thing about this is that everyone except for Hillary stayed to answer questions from the audience for at least half an hour - sometimes longer. While some of the answers were definitely "politicized", I thought those talks were a pretty good resource for getting a handle on what these candidates think.

The videos are all on youtube:
John Edwards
John McCain
Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton

For my taste, I was really impressed by John Edwards - he gave good justification for a quick pullout out of Iraq (as opposed to Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton), he's very enthusiastic about foreign aid, and he also favors campaign finance reform, which I think is a major flaw in the system today, giving far too much power to special interest groups.

Mu

[vain gloria]

I have never beaten my wife.

Genuine artificial semblance of democracy

[smchris]

Who gets to pick the questions that the candidates won't answer?

It is telling that the questions won't be picked by the number of times viewed.

Questions?

[Guppy06]

"where the voting populace can post questions directly." /ahem

"Why the fuck should I care when it's still the middle of 2007, and even when November 2008 rolls around we'll be stuck with the two candidates that got on the general ballot by pandering to their parties' extremists, resulting in the umpteenth election in a row where only a slim majority of the registered voters (who themselves are less than a majority of the enfranchised) bother to show up at the polls?"

Alternatively:

"Do the candidates appreciate the irony that they are running for an elected office where the majority are all but guaranteed to vote 'none of the above' by staying home?"

Alright, toning down the flippancy...

"The people don't care. Do you plan to do anything about it?"

Easy one

[Guppy06]

Did you threaten to overrule him?

90 minutes...

[taxman_10m]

Why do the 24/7 news channels that host these debates feel the need to impose a 90 minute time limit on a debate with 10 participants?

Re:90 minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

90 minutes is all the ad-free time such channels will allocate to the democratic process.... :P

It's a gameshow as one /.er put it...

Against Abortion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't have one.