Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

YouTube to Host Presidential Debate

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jun 15, 2007 02:23 PM
from the bringing-dancing-cats-to-the-world-of-politics dept.
Government Media The Internet Politics
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

YouTube to Host Presidential Debate 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • fantastic idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by j00r0m4nc3r (959816) on Friday June 15 2007, @02:25PM (#19523225)
    0b4m4, u r like totally teh r0x0r! U r in my computerz stealing my votez!!

  • Been done before (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Friday June 15 2007, @02:27PM (#19523247) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Just a nit or two... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HellYeahAutomaton (815542) on Friday June 15 2007, @02:37PM (#19523389)
      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.

      • 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... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eln (21727) on Friday June 15 2007, @03:51PM (#19524549) Homepage
        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:Been done before (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2007, @02:39PM (#19523425)

      I personally favor the rack.
      So you're voting for Hillary?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Timesprout (579035)
      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
      • 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.
        • 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.
        • 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

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by shma (863063)
          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.
    • 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.
    • > 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.
      • 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.

        • 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 u

    • "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?

    • 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.

  • A question for Hillary (Score:5, Funny)

    by sfjoe (470510) on Friday June 15 2007, @02:28PM (#19523255)

    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?

    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pluther (647209)
      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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Khaed (544779)
      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 sig
    • 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!

  • It'll just get reposted (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Friday June 15 2007, @02:28PM (#19523259) Journal
    It'll just end up getting reposted with some god awful hip-hop soundtrack and clips from Halo.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mastropiero (258677)
      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"
  • ... 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.

  • Ron Paul (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2007, @02:31PM (#19523305)
    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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 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

        • 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.
    • The crossdresser? He's running for president?

  • Needs more Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

    by OctoberSky (888619) on Friday June 15 2007, @02:35PM (#19523347)
    "Senator Obama, which do you prefer? Anarchy, Socialism, Communism or CowboyNealism?
  • "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)!

  • Anonymity? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HTH NE1 (675604) on Friday June 15 2007, @02:37PM (#19523405)

    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 [amazon.com]?

  • Commission on Presidential Debates (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dogtanian (588974) on Friday June 15 2007, @02:41PM (#19523453) Homepage
    Do a Google search on "Commission on Presidential Debates"; you might be interested in what you find. Or you might not. :-/

  • Not looking forward to this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guanine (883175) on Friday June 15 2007, @02:43PM (#19523499) Homepage
    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?
  • 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.)
  • 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 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!

  • Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Notquitecajun (1073646) on Friday June 15 2007, @03:39PM (#19524345)
    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.

  • Bait and switch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by guspasho (941623) on Friday June 15 2007, @04:20PM (#19524909)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pojut (1027544)
      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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.