Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Test TubeThe Democrats' YouTube debate is surprisingly entertaining.

By John Dickerson
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2007, at 8:31 AM ET
CNN/YouTube Debate. Click image to expand.

One of the old tests for presidential candidates used to be whether voters could imagine watching them on the television in their livings rooms for four or eight years. At the CNN/YouTube debate, where voters videotaped questions at home, the living room came to the candidates. And so did the bathroom, and the breakfast nook, and the little room off the hall where the luggage with the broken zipper is kept. One young woman taped her video sitting on a bed, and when it appeared on the big screen, it looked for a moment like we were going to have an entirely different kind of evening altogether.

The highly hyped experiment in user-generated content worked. In the privacy of their homes, people were at ease, and their videos reflected that. They sounded human. Had the same people been standing in the auditorium at the Citadel in Charleston, S.C., asking questions, they would have frozen up or tried to sound too polished.

Sure, some of the videos were so washed-out, it made you want to dial 911 to report a hostage-taking. The whimsical videos were also not good: A talking snowman, two rednecks, and a heavy-metal ditty about No Child Left Behind were awful in that special embarrassing way usually reserved for parents who try too hard to show their children they're hip. But what the majority of the nearly 40 YouTube videos provided was authenticity, which is usually as hard to find in presidential debates as humility. It's one thing to ask in the abstract about gay marriage. It's another thing to have two women asking why they can't marry each other. In one powerful question, a woman being treated for breast cancer removed her wig. In another, a man asking about ending the Iraq war noted the three folded flags over his shoulder, which had been on the caskets of father, grandfather, and oldest son.

The informality seemed to bring out a little more emotion in the candidate responses, or perhaps the authenticity of the videos put their answers in a more valuable and human context. Here's how the individual candidates came across:

Hillary Clinton: She's like a machine. (I mean that in a good way.) In four debates, Hillary Clinton has been commanding and made only small mistakes. She had her facts lined up on the big issues—like the speed of redeploying troops from Iraq—but she was also able to handle the smaller, unpredictable questions like whether she considers herself a liberal (she prefers progressive) to whether she could really offer change when her election would mean two families had been in the White House for up to 28 consecutive years. For the latter, she offered not only a crowd-pleasing anti-Bush joke but a pro-Gore follow-up before pivoting to make the case for her own merits.

Clinton's advisers like to say you can't cram for the presidency—a dig at Obama—and that's what comes across in the debates: She's prepared and never rattled. Her performances are not risky, but they match her larger narrative that she'll be ready on Day 1 of her presidency. (Memo to Clinton's image-makers: Like Gov. Richardson, Hillary looks angry when she's thinking. More than just miffed, she looks like she's plotting retributions.)

One of the strong moments of the night came when Clinton differed from Barack Obama on how to handle presidential-level negotiations with Cuba, Iran, and other rogue regimes. Obama said he would negotiate and gave a seemingly powerful, full-throated endorsement of diplomacy. Hillary was more cautious and noted she wouldn't want any negotiations to be used merely as propaganda. It was a judicious answer. Would the two of them have any operational difference in the way they handled those countries? Probably not. Obama wasn't advocating getting on the plane to Tehran tomorrow, but Clinton's answer was more measured and thoughtful. It's one thing to talk about experience, but Clinton demonstrated it. The answer was substantively correct and theatrically successful. Even if voters don't reward her for this, it was a sign of how on her game she is at these debates.

Barack Obama: This was perhaps Obama's best night of the four debates so far. He gave solid answers and seemed more decisive and declarative, something that has been missing in previous forums. He was funny and knew how to pivot in his answers, which is one way candidates convey a sense of command to voters. In three different instances, he took personal questions—about whether he is black enough, whether he'd work for the minimum wage, and whether he sends his daughters to public school—and turned them effortlessly into responses to larger issues.

If Clinton is not going to make mistakes, Obama has to take her on. That's a high-risk strategy for a candidate who talks so much about changing politics, but in the only instance where he tried, he did it effectively. During a discussion about the Iraq war, he noted that Clinton's recent efforts to pressure the Pentagon amounted to too little, too late. "The time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in," he said, referring to her vote to authorize the Iraq war.

Perhaps more important for Obama's long-term political growth is that he also showed that he could be disciplined in the quirky debate format. One of his advisers told me this week that when his aides have tried to get Obama to be more precise in his answers and to deliver set-piece lines, he has bristled. He thinks it's phony. The problem is, if he doesn't, his answers can look meandering and fuzzy. Tonight he hit his marks. He'd not used the expression "special interests" in previous debates. In Charleston he said it four times, repeatedly showing voters how he will translate the new kind of politics he talks about so much into something that works for them and not the lobbyists. The special interests line also links back to his career as a state senator, which highlights his experience, an area his opponents point to as a weakness.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at .
Photograph of Sens. John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama at the CNN/YouTube debate by Stan Honday/AFP/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

Clinton and Obama were pretty slick, which is why I don't trust them. Seeing them up there I came to hate them both, as their answers always seemed to conceal some loophole. They were the most professional, which is to say, they were the most untrustworthy. They both blew hot air but made sure it had a sweet enough scent that nobody would notice they didn't exactly answer the question. Not only that, Obama's "no special interests" talk doesn't answer the question posed by that loony guy they let on stage. These two are bad news. Why does it seem that I'm the only one that sees this?

Of the others, only Edwards and Joe Biden really stand out. Both of them seem to have real goals as to what course the administration should take, and Edward's progressive talk seems to have some sincerity behind it. Joe Biden was the only one who glued his answers to earth and reality. I didn't like him for every minute, but I would be willing to trust him. What he said about Dafur counts for a lot to me as well; diplomacy takes time and in some cases that time just doesn't exist. I think his answer to the gun lover's question will go over well in the coastal cities, but it's actually a blunder elsewhere... In any case, though perhaps both of them have the wrong personality to become president, both of them seem to have a real personality. Clinton and Obama are ciphers. Their real personality is somewhere else, their real views are hidden.

--Adamatari

(To reply, click here.)

I thought the clear winner in last nights debate was the format. For a first go at this type of exchange between The People and the candidates, my impression is that this is a great forum for Us to get to know these would be presidents a little better. The questions were at times funny, others passionate, personal, and usually smart. There was one or two "silly" questions slipped in for entertainment purposes, I don't think it took away from the overall event. Even professional press corps ask dopey questions sometimes.

Hillary seemed polished and professional, answered every question without stumbling and came out with a slim lead over Obama. She included every candidate on stage with a statement of praise while simultaneously getting a dig in on "the current administration", which the audience supported. That was a prime moment.

Barack continued to improve his stature in the race. He is getting a reputation as a capable speaker, and again last night, when he spoke, it was with steady confidence and a tone that would not be an uncomfortable voice to listen to for the next four year term. If his policy can match his stage presence, I feel he will rise to the top. (I have a criticism: he kept referring to Us as "ordinary Americans". I in no way consider myself ordinary, nor do I consider politicians extraordinary. That raised my condescension meter.)

John Edwards can't seem to rise above Clinton or Obama. Last night was not an exception. While he didn't make any gaffes, I don't think his performance would sway a voter that was not already leaning his way.

Kucinich is an excellent democratic candidate. He is unwavering left on all issues, and passionate about his platform. I like Dennis Kucinich as a candidate, unfortunately .....he's kinda funny looking. Too bad, because he seems grounded, smart, has conviction and even a sense of humor. He definitely got off the best exchange last night when he said to Anderson: I notice you didn't put anybody to the left of me..." to which Anderson replied: "we couldn't find anybody!"

Joe Biden could be a good president, but proved last night that we need to settle somewhere between the $10 he spent, and $400 Edwards doo, on the amount we will accept a candidate spend on his haircut.

I thought Gravel was great. His answer to every question was: "Follow the money, you want to see who you're voting for, just follow the money....." All while pointing his finger at the frontrunners. That was great!! The scary part about Gravel, what he says is probably the closest thing to the truth that any one of them will speak, so the mainstream candidates will try to minimize his voice by allowing him to come across as a little strange. His message, like Paul, is that the eventual winner is going to be beholden to special interest.

--NorCal

(To reply, click here.)

Okay, I give up: Who was the silver-haired geezer blurting shit out to no one in particular? Is he a candidate, or did he just wander in from the street like it's open mic night at Laugh-A-Lot's in Des Moines? He was like going off on Obama about $136,000 dollars in campaign funds from some shady corporation or something. He was hysterical. He brought just the right amount of surrealism and watching your grandpa listen to the radio and talking to it to the festivities. Highly reminiscent of Ross Perot's running mate, who's now dead.

Last night, blazing on weed, Hilary looked presidential. (Okay, me blazing, Hilary presidential.) She also looked like she was in the middle of anaphylactic shock. How much makeup does one need for high definition TV? It made me hungry for pancakes.

Dennis Kucinich. How can you not love this guy? He's like this woodland creature who just stumbled out of the enchanted forest to tell people exactly what they don't want to hear, namely, the truth. He can do this, obviously, only because there's no way in hell this country elects an alien space pod-dweller from another planet president. Yet.

--switters

(To reply, click here.)

(7/26)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
Topic A | Political experts weigh in on McCain's running mate.
Meyerson: Pure Identity PoliticsCapehart: A Hail Mary Pass
PLUS » Froomkin: The Anti-Bush