They’ll Have the Questions in Advance
by Patrick Ruffini :: August 1st, 2007 12:36 amI wonder if the die-hard opponents of the YouTube debate aren’t operating based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the debate format. This is evidenced by Reid Wilson’s RealClearPolitics column urging candidates not to participate:
Some of the questions Democrats were asked were not anything a consultant could expect, and that leads to danger. If you want your candidate to stay on message, why would you allow them to face questions the likes of which you are unable to predict? (emphasis added)
This is along the lines of the critics who suggest the candidates could get “ambushed” by Swift Boat-like attacks at the debate.
No they couldn’t.
That’s because this is the first debate in history where every single question will be posted online in advance of the debate, for candidates and their campaigns to review and prepare for. That makes this possibly the most candidate-friendly format… well, ever.
Candidates wouldn’t sit down and personally review every submission, but the campaigns could isolate the 50-100 most potentially damaging questions and prepare responses. That enables candidates to put to rest some of the most serious reservations about their campaigns with answers well-thought-out in advance. In fact, I find this lack of surprise to be a flaw in the format — one that’s fundamentally inconsistent with the narrative that this is somehow the Wild West of debates.
There are two instances in which I believe Hillary Clinton was the clear beneficiary of this preparation, the first on the “How could you be taken seriously by Arab leaders?” question and the second on the “Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton” question. On the second, she absolutely hit it out of the park with a disarming joke about it being a problem that Bush was elected in 2000. In both cases, it was clear that she had been prepped specifically for those questions or ones like them.
It’s now clear that none of the candidates embrace the rather strident rhetoric adopted by some of my friends opposing a debate. Governor Romney, though critical of a single debate question, hasn’t said he is opposed in principle to participating and appears open to appearing in a rescheduled debate. Senator McCain, after some backtracking, is still eagerly participating despite criticizing the “snowman question.”
At the end of the day, the other members of Save the Debate and I are confident that one question from the previous debate won’t prevent a full and fair debate. Now let’s see the candidates step up and accept a rescheduled debate.
Tagged: debate 
savethedebate youtube
Comments (2) 
Trackbacks (0) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Okay, lets adopt, let the chips fall. Of course it will be played for shock and awe value - what isn’t in media? It will put the elite candies on guard. But let’s have a real primary, too — not a casting call.
I suppose what I don’t understand about this YouTube debate is why it is such a big deal to begin with? Does America really care what those who post on YouTube have to say? Is it worth letting CNN choose preachy questions that ring more of advocacy than quandary? How many people watched the Democrats, some two million? How many of these were regulars of CNNs audience? What percentage of young voters (a category I probably still belong to) would really be swayed to our side by the frontrunners responding to Snowmen? I know the last is somewhat of a cheap shot given the notoriousness of that particular question by now, but still– isn’t it valid? When you’re allowing questions in that assume something negative to the party (Iraq is failed, Global Warming is going to shrink all our socks) then doesn’t it only hurt us?