CNN this morning announced the format of its next two presidential debates, hosted in South Carolina and Florida with partners YouTube and Google.
Saying "This is the future," the cable news network detailed plans to allow everyday voters to submit debate questions via YouTube, and said organizers anticipate "thousands" will be asked.
CNN and YouTube said they are encouraging submissions, such as these be "compelling, personal and relevant" and be no longer than 30 seconds.
Producers will select 20 to 30 questions for each debate -- the Democrats July 23 and the Republicans September 17. Each candidate will have a flat screen television to view the video question, and debate organizers may post a Google Earth map of where the questioner is located.
The July 23 forum is the first debate sanctioned by the DNC, which lauded the format as groundbreaking.
"The Democratic Party is committed to helping usher in a new era in American politics that recognizes campaigns require a two-way dialogue between voters and their candidates on the future of our country," chairman Howard Dean said. "This historic partnership between CNN, YouTube/Google, and the South Carolina Democratic Party helps move political campaigns in that direction, and marks a new era in American politics."
CNN president Jim Walton said: "These debates take the bold step of embracing the ever-increasing role of the Internet in politics. The inclusion of the massive online community enables these debates to engage more viewers -- and potential voters -- than ever before."
The Washington Times is considering posting its own debate questions for both the Democrats and Republicans.
We'd like to hear your suggestions for insightful, thought-provoking questions for the candidates.
-- Christina Bellantoni, national political reporter, The Washington Times
Comments (3)
White House, OMB, & Congressional Budget Office assessments of the impact on 12 -17 million immigrants on the U.S. economy appear to differ sharply from the extensive studies of immigration by Heritage Foundation reports.
(According to Heritage statistics the loss to the economy will be one TRILLION $ in terms of services the illegals reap from citizenship because of the level of semi or unskilled worker taxes is too low to even balance what they receive.)
Question:
Why do you think the 1986 immigration reform bill failed, and how can the 1986 legislation can be fixed immediately to implement existing law?
Posted by POGO | June 15, 2007 5:03 PM
Dear Sir/Madam: From what I've read, there are already enough laws on the books to both protect the borders and regulate immigration, if our leadership were really serious about stopping the flow of illegal immigration. Both parties seem to be disinterested in this, except for a few notable exceptions. Tom Tancredo of Colorado comes to mind as representative of the few who really want border security. It's amazing to me how few of our leaders seem to take border security seriously, especially in this era of Islamic terrorism, when it would only take one "nut" to get in here and blow up a large part of any of our major cities, creating widespread panic and possible lawlessness, looting, and anarchy. The American people have had it too easy for far too long, forgotten about God (who needs God when you've got a big Mercedes and a 1 million dollar house---right?!), and because the military draft was killed over 30 years ago, our citizens are totally divorced from the military, don't even have any relatives in the military (most Americans), and don't care sufficiently about what happens to our young men and women who are putting their lives on the line for the sorry, lazy creeps who are driving around in these Mercedes and living in their mansions!
Posted by Ed Callison | June 16, 2007 10:21 AM
I consider the debates an important element of campaign and elections. Yes, with YouTube and the Internet, we political junkies see the beginning of a new era in how political information is disseminated. Nevertheless, interest in the debates will increase based not only on the questions submitted/asked but also the format.
Candidates should be allowed opportunity to go after each other so that we in the audience can better grasp their understanding of the issues. What we are seeing are well-rehearsed talking points being thrown back to us many times over. Without levels of drama, excitement and an opportunity for candidates to show who is " made of a sterner stuff" the debates will continue to leave some of us bored stiff with overused platitudes.
Collect the questions but also give us a format and moderator that adds the elements of style and articulation. Let's move the poorly informed to the end of the line. At this point, a meaningful debate which allows a candidate to hit the political jugular of an opponent will quickly help in clearing up the 'traffic jam' now commonly seen on the Road To the White House.
Posted by Vee | June 18, 2007 3:29 AM