A Smarmy End For The YouTube Debate Format

YouTube debate outing continues unabated this morning at Free Republic and Michelle Malkin.

First was the gay general who supports Hillary. Then the "abortion girl in blue" who is an Edwards supporter. (Picture courtesy of michellemalkin.com) The Log Cabin Republican questioner is an Obama supporter. The lead toy questioner is a union activist and Edwards supporter.

Is this an outrage or simply the end of the YouTube debate format?

Most definitely an outrage is the chatter going on at Free Republic where the outting of the "abortion girl in blue" is getting quite creepy, with her Internet guts getting spread all over the blogosphere with info like this:

Blue Girl's Profile:

she listens like spring and she talks like june View all userpics
Name: cold as fire, baby, hot as ice
Text
Message: Send likespring a text message
on his/her cellphone/pager.
Website: website
Location: Arlington, Texas, United States
Birthdate: 1988-09-21
E-mail: ******* @ gmail.com [all addresses censored by C-SM]

AOL IM: ***** (Add Buddy, Send Message)
MSN Username: ******* @ hotmail.com

Bio:
******* @ l i v e j o u r n a l . c o m
journey. yes, that's her real name. female. 19. arlington, texas. liberal. vegetarian. feminist. lesbian. has an inexplicable teeny crush on joey
fatone. attending the university of texas in arlington. hoping to transfer to ut-austin in 2008. political science. aims for law school. enjoys good food. finding a great new book. watching glbt movies. and lots of shopping. was a princess in another life. future president of the united states of america.

Yes, of course Likespring opened the door to this exposure by becoming a public figure with her question, and she should know her cyber-fingerprints are easily lifted, but digging into her personal info like this seems a bit like cyber-stalking -- and with her various cyber-contact addresses now posted for all to see, she's probably in for a long bout of ugly inbox.

That's unfortunate because she probably had every right to ask the question. Nothing in the rules of the YouTube-CNN debate says questioners must be of the party that's debating that night, so there may well have been GOP questioners in the Dem debate.

"Abortion girl in blue" did not misidentify herself; she merely failed to identify her candidate of choice -- and being a GBLT supporter of the most feminine of all the Dem Prez wannabes isn't a crime. If, however, Likespring works for the Edwards campaign or cooperated with the Edwards campaign in designing and submitting the question, then it's another story. And it's a story that may turn out to be difficult to document one way or the other,

Also another story is the Log Cabin Republican questioner because he created the sense that he was a gay Republican by the way he asked his question. He is a political trickster, scum, persona non grata.

As is Gen. Keith Kerr, who, if he were an honorable man, would have stated his position in the Clinton campaign.

CNN has no excuse for not ID-ing Kerr. I traced his background in a couple clicks last night, and even this morning after his exposure, the Clinton news release listing him as a member of her GLBT task force is fifth from the top on Google:

HillaryClinton.com - Media Release
It includes people like former US Assistant Attorney General Eldie Acheson, ... Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., US Army; retired Brigadier General, ...
www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2196 - Similar pages - Note this

The most cursory review by CNN staff would have turned up this news release, so either they were entirely too cavalier in their screening of questioners, or someone at CNN knew full well who Kerr was and to whom he was affiliated.

This should, I hope, spell the end of YouTube debates. As refreshing as it has been to have real people ask real questions, the system is simply too easily corrupted by unreal people asking unreal questions. Winnowing out the Kerrs is as easy enough job, but tracking down the political affiliations and sexual orientations of people like Likespring infringes on their rights and chills the political process.

With YouTube so problematic, the format simply must be dropped. We then are back to the awful format of pundits asking preened-up questions of wooden, overly trained candidates, all to the detriment of the American people, who deserve a better way to evaluate their candidates.

I propose as an alternative a round-robin kind of debate, where two candidates are selected at random, then given five minutes in proper debate format to pound back and forth on a question from a list prepared by a neutered (not neutral) body, i.e., questions worked out by the party that's debating in concert with the media outlet that's sponsoring the debate.

Then another two candidates would get the opportunity, until every candidates has had at least two opportunities to give detailed responses under the pressure imposed by the responses of the other candidate.

It's compact, challenging and intelligent. It'll never happen.

Hillary Plants A Question In YouTube-CNN Debate?

Hillary, much criticized for planting questions (here, here), apparently succeeded in planting one tonight in the YouTube-CNN GOP debate.

The question, on the candidates' position on gays in the military, was asked by retired brigadier general Keith Kerr, who lived in the closet throughout his 40-year service to the country.

Kerr is much more than a YouTube video submitter who got his question about the candidate's position on gays in the military on tonight's debate.

He's even much more than being, to my knowledge, the only non-candidate, citizen advocate of a radical position to be given the microphone for several minutes during a nationally televised debate -- not to answer or ask a question, but to harangue.

What Kerr really is is an official part of Hillary's team, having served on her lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee. The CNN news release attempts to gloss over this scandal in the making, saying only:

A retired brigadier general Keith Kerr, who is gay, asked candidates if they thought U.S. military personnel were professional enough to work with gay and lesbian troops.

CNN later learned that Kerr served on Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.

Note CNN refers to Kerr's role on the task force in the past-tense, "served," but a news release dated June 2007 shows Kerr as a member of the task force as recently as less than six months ago. If indeed Kerr is no longer a member of the task force, is it because his question was selected, so he temporarily stepped down? That would be Clintonesque.

The CNN release also says the network learned of this affiliation "later," but doesn't bother to explain how they learned of it or when. Does "later" mean after the debate aired? Before or after they handed Kerr the mike?

Who know what when? It's probable, with all the gays, lesbians and probably transgenders employed at CNN, and with the support Hillary gets from highly placed CNN execs, that there would be awareness of her GLT task force in CNN's news room. Therefore, I'd like CNN to support its position that they found out "later."

Update: Instapundit reports,

"MORE: An on-air apology from Anderson Cooper, saying that CNN didn't know that Gen. Kerr was on Hillary's steering committee: "If we had known that we would have disclosed it before using the question, if we used the question at all."

So perhaps it was an innocent mistake by CNN -- but was it a deliberate plant by Hil's campaign?

This episode reveals a weakness in the YouTube debate format. Clearly, more policing is needed, and just as clearly, we can't trust the MSM to do it.

It's worth continuing to work to improve the format, because it is superior to the sorry excuse for what passes for debates today. Because the media has cast itself as the moderator, directing what will be asked of whom, in what order, the debates are fatally flawed by the preening peacocks who stink up the process with their cheap-cologne-like egos, and not-so-hidden biases.

In the YouTube debate, Anderson Cooper's on-camera role is simply that of celebrity host with a bit of traffic cop thrown in. That's a massive improvement of format -- but with this revelation of Kerr's background, we see that Cooper's off-camera role of selecting which 30 or so of the 5,000 submitted videos (up from 3,000 in the Dem debate!), it's obvious CNN has too much power, and that the network obviously is not capable of handling that power responsibly.

CNN -- and the Clinton campaign -- have some tough questions to answer.