New Questioners, But Few New Answers
This analysis was written by CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs.
It may have been just one more in a growing number of debates and joint appearances for the Democratic presidential candidates, but Monday night's gathering in Charleston, S.C., provided solid evidence of the growing influence of interactive politics — and demonstrated the still-large gap between what voters say they want and what their candidates are prepared to deliver.
The eight candidates who took the stage at The Citadel fielded videotaped questions submitted to YouTube and selected by CNN, which televised the debate.
By turns entertaining, creative, straightforward and direct, the questions themselves were in many instances more compelling than some of the canned answers and political slogans provided by the candidates.
Some of the YouTube submissions were laced with doubt and cynicism as to the kind of responses expected, a theme introduced at the top of the debate by Chris, from Portland, Ore., who opened the event by challenging the candidates to "actually answer the questions that are posed to you tonight." Chris reminded them that "this is a format for you to actually speak to a majority of the voting public, as if you were sitting in our living rooms." It was a challenge not taken up often.
The first question, from Zach in Utah, was about how the candidates could assure voters they would accomplish more than politicians usually do outside of "all the platitudes and the stuff we're used to hearing?" The question went to Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who offered more of the stuff we're used to hearing, like his 26-year record of championing "bold" legislative ideas like the Family Medical Leave Act and explaining why "experience matters a great deal."
Will, from Boston, sounded greatly skeptical that his question would even be chosen and downright certain he wouldn't get much in the way of an answer, even if it was. Will wanted to know whether the candidates favored reparations for African Americans for the blight of slavery. "I know you all are going to run around this question, dipping and dodging," he predicted, "so let's see how far you all can get."
As it turned out, Will's was one question that got a direct response from two of the three candidates given a chance to address it.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who said he was not for reparations, went on to expound on instances of continued inequality between blacks and whites. Rep. Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate to raise his hand when the would-be chief executives were asked who would support reparations for slavery.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the only African American in the race, more or less skirted the issue, saying instead: "I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment — for example, in our schools."
Despite the unique format, traditional campaign instincts kicked in more often than not — as candidates took potentially uncomfortable questions and turned them around into safe answers. The phrase "on message" has been drilled into candidates to the point that it is a reflex, not a thought process.
One of the more jarring questions was about race and gender. When asked whether some may not find him "authentically black enough," Obama repeated a line he's used in the past about problems he has hailing a cab in New York City, before transitioning to a broader discussion of race.
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked about the focus by some on her gender and joked that she has no choice but to run as a woman. Before retreating to safer ground, she added: "I'm not running because I'm a woman. I'm running because I think I'm the most qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running in January 2009."
Stylistically, it's how most of the evening unfolded, with candidates looking for their opportunities to reinforce the messages they are running on. Moderator Anderson Cooper several times called on candidates to answer the question they had been asked and some of those whose queries were chosen ended up in the audience.
In one video, the Rev. Reggie Longcrier, a pastor from North Carolina, asked John Edwards about his faith and the role it played in his opposition to gay marriage. Longcrier wasn't just on tape — he was in the live audience — and he wasn't satisfied with Edwards' answer. Complaining that the question hadn't been answered "like I would like," he then got another 30 or so from Edwards on the topic.
Politically, there was little to change the underlying dynamics of the race. Clinton, as in previous debates, largely sailed through the event error-free and took advantage of the opportunities presented.
After a week of discussion about her toughness, she was asked a question by a soldier stationed in Japan about the potential willingness of Arab leaders to deal with a woman president. Clinton received a burst of applause when she replied, "I believe that there isn't much doubt in anyone's mind that I can be taken seriously," and added, "It would be quite appropriate to have a woman president deal with the Arab and Muslim countries on behalf of the United States of America."
Obama turned in a mostly steady performance but did appear to trip up at one point when asked about whether, as president, he would be willing to meet with the leaders of nations such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba. "I would," replied Obama, adding that "the notion that somehow not talking to countries as punishment is "ridiculous."
Given her chance to answer that same question, Clinton displayed a firmer grasp of the issue, saying that she would be willing to talk but would not agree to meet with leaders who might seek to use her for "propaganda purposes."
As has been the case in the candidate debates thus far, Edwards did not do much to break through the grip Obama and Clinton appear to have on the top spots in the campaign. Fresh off a "poverty tour" through some of the poorest parts of the country, though, he did give one of the most impassioned answers of the evening, on the subject of health care. "We have talked about it too long," he said. "When are we going to stand up and do something about this?"
Bill Richardson, who has been making inroads in fundraising and in some early state polling, also failed to do much to close the gap further. The New Mexico governor, who parts ways with his fellow Democrats on several issues, seemed flummoxed that he couldn't get that message across, saying at one point in a discussion about Iraq, "I'm trying to provoke a debate here, because there's a difference between the senators and me on when we get our troops out."
This was supposed to be a different kind of debate, giving ordinary Americans a chance to ask tough questions to those aspiring to lead them. As a practical matter, however, there was not much left to the imagination by the time things got started.
There were nearly 3,000 video submissions that had to be sorted through by editors at CNN and a limited time to cycle through all eight candidates. The questions were available for anyone to see over the past several weeks on YouTube — which meant there was plenty of opportunity for at least the bigger campaign organizations to see them and prepare for any major surprises.
The Republican candidates get their YouTube debate in September; they now have the added advantage of having seen the format in action. But anyone hoping for them to do a better job of actually answering the questions are likely to be as disappointed as they surely were in Charleston.
By Vaughn Ververs
