CNN/YouTube debate: the verdict
Updated on 24 July 2007
It was designed to be groundbreaking - 30 video questions from all corners of the world wide web, a group of would-be presidents. So who won?
The real winner was the format.
As the eight Democratic presidential hopefuls faced questions from (kinda) real people via the free-for-all medium of Youtube - the debate actually got interesting.
Not this time the stilted to-and-fro of the traditionally moderated floorshow, where no-one is allowed any comebacks or follow up questions.
But whatever the political focus groups end up deciding - the internet has surely sealed its place as the future of political discourse.
Despite fears that the controlling hand of CNN would neuter any sponteneity, the candidates really did manage to spar with each other, and even come out with unscripted answers they may later come to regret.
Barack Obama let slip that he would talk to leaders from America's least favourite countries, like Iran and Syria - during his first year in office.
Hillary Clinton was quick off the mark on that one - revealing, perhaps, her long years of experience - "I wouldn't let myself be used like that," she said. Then Obama got his own back, needling Clinton about her early support for the war in Iraq.
But this was a debate where everyone found a different winner.
John Edwards won praise for coming across as a passionate politician who'd stand up for what he believed. Senator Clinton - for her calm, confident responses. Obama for continuing his charm offensive. Even Denis Kucnich
In fact the candidates were pretty nice to each other - they couldn't even find anything bad to say about their rivals, apart from a little banter about Hillary's fashion sense. That won't last long.
But whatever the political focus groups end up deciding - the internet has surely sealed its place as the future of political discourse.
No more stuffy television anchors weighing down the debate with heavy handed direction. No more scripted answers, and prebuttals prepared by BlackBerry-toting campaign aides hours in advance.
Instead, something lively, direct - and above all - open to all to take part.
Although here's the kicker - straight from the New York Times - "Most of the video questions ... were more memorable than the answers, proving that novices can ask good questions, but not necessarily elicit better answers than professional journalists."
That's OK then. We're not all out of a job, just yet.
