So there is a lot of teeth gnashing in the Right Blogs about the now unlikely to happen Republican You Tube Debate. I am sympathetic to a part of the complaint. I thought CNN made a joke of the Democratic You Tube Debate. I hated it. Jeralyn and just about everyone else loved it and Democrats got great press for it. Clearly it was successful for Democrats. And there is the rub for Republicans as Patrick Ruffini describes:

At the end of the day, the issue is not YouTube. The YouTube debate snub is the symptom, not the disease. If Republicans fret about a simple debate format, which is really just the modern version of the 1992 townhall debate, how in the heck are we going to be make the really bold, gutsy decisions to transform our campaigns so we can raise over $100 million online and recruit millions — yes millions — of volunteers over the Internet?

Ruffini points to this from Trippi, discussing the You Tube Debate and the pitfalls for Republicans and the Internet (starting at 2:30 or so):

More.

Mitt Romney attacks?

But Romney showed some unfamiliarity with the Internet when he discussed the problem of sexual predators and children. "YouTube is a website that allows kids to network with one another and make friends and contact each other," Romney explained. "YouTube looked to see if they had any convicted sex offenders on their web site. They had 29,000."

Actually, YouTube is the popular site that allows Internet users to upload and watch a variety of videos. The web site, which is owned by search-engine behemoth Google, also was a co-sponsor of the Democratic presidential debate held on Monday night.

The web site MySpace is the one to which Romney actually was referring. MySpace, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said this week it had found 29,000 registered sex offenders who had submitted profiles to its site and removed them.

Ooops.

So say Democracy Corps poll:

A major, multi-mode survey of America’s young people recently conducted by Democracy Corps shows young people profoundly alienated from the Republican Party and poised to deliver a significant majority to the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.1

The political stakes with this generation could not be higher. In 2008, young people (ages 18-31) will number 50 million, bigger than the baby boom generation. By 2015 they will likely comprise one-third of the U.S. electorate. While participation among young people still lags well behind other generations, turnout increased two election cycles in a row and, in 2004, jumped nine points (to 49 percent).2 In 2004, younger voters were the only generational cohort outside of the World War II generation to support John Kerry (56 percent). In 2006, younger voters supported Democrats by a 60 – 38 percent margin, the highest of any generation.3

The looming disaster Republicans face among younger voters represents a setback that could haunt them for many generations to come. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead Rudy Giuliani—the most acceptable of the Republican offerings among youth—by significant margins, assembling a diverse coalition of support and leading the vote among independents.4 Exploring attitudes toward the parties themselves, young voters’ reaction to fundamental issues and their perceptions of the GOP suggest a fundamental alienation from the Republican Party, a crisis that will not leave with the Bush administration.

Today the Clinton and Obama campaigns demonstrated who is playing checkers and who is playing chess. I will not go through the full overblown silly brouhaha again, but rather fast forward to a desperate seeming Obama calling Sen. Clinton "Bush-Cheney Lite." Senator Clinton responded, and I think in devastating fashion:

SEN. CLINTON: "Well, this is getting kind of silly. I've been called a lot of things in my life but I've never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly. We have to ask what's ever happened to the politics of hope?

Now I have long ridiculed this phony Politics of Hope as silly nonsense that bore no reality to the politics necessary in today's climate. But for Obama to so abruptly abandon the "high road' to attack Sen. Clinton when he has been reticent to be "partisan" in defending Democrats (or critcizing them) smacks of desperation. Obama began with a political (not a substantive) gaffe in the debate and now compounds the error. It further strengthens my view that he is not yet up to a serious run for President.

about this:

"I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

He is considering not participating in the GOP CNN/You Tube Debate.

Unlike Jeralyn, who thought it was the best debate, I strongly disliked the CNN/ You Tube Debate mostly because it was a particularly silly exercise where attention seeking gimmicks like snowman, costumes and singing were the order of the day. Moreover, the actual questions were, a t best, badly phrased routine questions we have heard a million times. Can you believe there were no questions on the Supreme Court? But what really annoyed me was the conceit that CNN's slections represented some type of consensus view of "what the people wanted to talk about."

I am opposed to impeachment of the President for the many reasons I have explained here, but it would be silly of me to argue that there is not a strong contingent of Americans, particularly Democrats, who do want the President impeached. Susie Madrak points to a question that was soberly presented and did speak to an issue ignored by the Media that is very much on the minds of Democratic voters.

For the You Tube debate to have lived up to its billing, questions like that one should have been presented. CNN's conceit about this awful debate is badly misplaced.

I wholeheartedly agree with A.J. Rossmiller:

Fundamentally, this is an example of establishment thinking versus normal thinking. Establishment thinking says, you don't meet with or talk to Crazy Bad Guys like Castro/Kim Jong Il/Chavez without doing tons of prep work, making sure it's on a track, there are specific goals and benchmarks met, etc. etc. Which is actually essentially true. But in answering the question "would you negotiate with these guys" the normal thinking goes, not negotiating with them is idiotic, so of course I would!

I don't think Obama was saying, "I'll sit down with Castro on day three of my presidency," I think he was saying that negotiations with bad leaders are theoretically possible in an Obama administration, whereas they're not even a consideration for the current one. Clinton, in a pretty savvy move, intentionally misinterpreted (I'm guessing) his answer to take a jab and imply inexperience and naivete. Which has worked to some extent, at least among the political insider class and the press. And she thought fast enough to specifically disdain Castro and Chavez, which probably helps her in Florida.

In the end, I don't think voters really care, and his answer probably helps in the primary whereas hers may benefit her in the general. His sentiment is absolutely right, but he can't afford to be careless; Clinton is too good to pass up an opening like that. Despite the generally congenial tone the Democratic debates have taken thus far, they are, after all, debates, not joint press conferences.

Still, on actual substance, it's not anything worth criticizing Obama for, and it's pretty disingenuous to hammer him on it.

But this is politics, not beanbag. Maybe Obama will wake up now and realize that what Clinton did to him is nothing to what Republicans will do to him. HE needs to stop his "above it all" nonsense or he will be eaten alive. Right now he simply is not ready for prime time and has not shown the political acumen or chops to be seriously considered as our Democratic nominee. Maybe that will change now.

As TalkLeft noted here, Rudy Giuliani has feverishly promised, if elected, to appoint "strict constructionist" judges in the mold of Justice Scalia. Yesterday he went so far as to argue that judges who are not "strict constructionists" threaten American democracy.

There are at least a couple of serious flaws in Giuliani's argument. First, Justice Scalia disagrees with him. From Justice Scalia's writings:

I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be.... A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.

Second, adherents to the "strict constructionist" philosophy do not typically believe that the Constitution protects the right to make a decision about abortion without unwarranted governmental interference. So how does Giuliani reconcile his desire for "strict constructionist" judges with his belief that the Constitution protects that right? He doesn't.

He was asked at the news conference to explain how he could support reproductive rights but at the same time promise to install justices whose strict constructionist views could threaten the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to an abortion.

He never answered directly.

Markos writes:

Hillary Clinton Communications Direct Howard Wolfson will go on O'Reilly's program (8 p.m.) to debate him on YearlyKos. . . . Hillary appears invested in the netroots, which is a great thing for all of us.

Peter Daou is the Clinton campaign's internet communications director. One of the folks who get it. It seems clear that Peter has had a voice in the room on this issue. And clearly the Clinton camp listened.

This is simply, imo, a brilliant move by the Clinton campaign. To get into a fight with O'Reilly defending the Netroots? To defend partisan Dems, the progressive base, against the noxious O'Reilly? Whatever you think of the Clintons, NO ONE can doubt for a moment their superior ability at the art of politics. And that matters.

John Edwards had the best candidate video I've seen so far.

What did you think about the non-Iraq issues covered?

I would have liked to see something on immigration reform. I don't think there was a single question about crime policy.

There's was lots about race, health care, global warming, gay marriage, foreign relations.

Who impressed you? Who let you down?

What did you think of the questioners' videos? You can view them all here. My favorite was this one.

More..

It starts in about 10 minutes. I changed my mind on one point. I will watch the questions on Iraq because of the poll finding Jeralyn highlighted, Hillary "has a 51 percent to 29 percent lead over Obama among those in favor of a complete, immediate withdrawal." Of course now all the candidates favor this approach and all voted for Reid-Feingold.

As I have stated for a while, Obama has licked away the Iraq issue by his timidity on ending the war through use of the Spending Power. There is not a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Obama on the issue now. Dodd and Edwards have not gained any traction on the issue but Obama had a natural advantage, he opposed the war. All the candidates including mine, supported it.

Obama needs to move decisively on ending the war through the use of the Spending Power imo. I am interested to see if he will.

More...

John Roberts of CNN, doing a standup for tonight's CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential Candidates' Debate makes a "bold" (READ idiotic) prediction - we will all be talking about Mike Gravel tomorrow.

Unless he pulls a Cheney (and I don't mean an 'f you' Cheney; I mean a 'shoot someone in the face' Cheney), I am confident Mike Gravel will not be the name on everyone's lips tomorrow.

Is Roberts trying to act as if he gets the blogs? Gravel had his night. Months ago. I also predict that I will not be watching the first sanctioned debate (the fourth actual debate). I'm sick of them already. My gawd, there are like 10 to go before Iowa. They will be all the same questions, all the same nonsense. Who started this thing so early anyway?