Increasingly, new tools are empowering local "amateur" campaign staffers to produce quality content centered around local people.

I'm happy that the YearlyKos folks have made a place at the table for voting rights. Donna Brazile, the NAACP LDF's Debo Adegbile, the Brennan Center's Justin Levitt, TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, and I will be on the "Ensuring Every Vote is Counted" panel at 4 pm today (Friday), in 100a-c. I'll also be peddling my book Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression from 2-2:30 in the bookstall at S 103.

A significant number of questioners were people of color and/or addressed issues of race and class, and I was pleasantly surprised. Perhaps because of the digital divide, one might have assumed that this debate would have overlooked issues critical to people of color. That was not the case.

The health care videos were an outstanding and meaningful use of the YouTube debate medium. The health care videos showed that this medium is not just a gimmick--but can add nuance and substance to dry policy debates. The health care questions alone would have made this debate, and suggest that videos posted online should be at least one component of every debate.

When Hillary Clinton and other candidates look at the screen and say "Thank You XXXX, for the question," I'm split. On one hand, these are not live feeds, and it seems a bit artificial to talk back to the screen. Would any of us talk to the screen at home after watching a YouTube video? On the other hand, talking to the screen errs on the side of being respectful, and unlike those of us at home these candidates are watching videos of people who are probably watching the candidates on CNN. What is the proper protocol in this new context?

The gentleman with military flags from funerals of relatives used the medium in a powerful way.

On another note, a YouTube debate may be "cleaner" than a townhall debate with audience questions. Citizens who submit questions on YouTube do so in a comfortable area (often home), and can edit or reshoot their clips if they make mistakes. It is also possible that YouTube questioners are less intimidated by the celebrity of the candidates than live questioners.

Two quick observations:

1) More control by networks: Open Source politics is about more control for average people, and less control for traditional "gatekeepers." I wonder, however, if this format actually gives gatekeepers more control because producers get to pre-select questions among a library of 3000 questions. Granted, producers don't write the questions. But this debate, arguably, allows for more gatekeeper control than a townhall debate in which questions are asked by audience members.

2) Unease of candidates: A debate, I would imagine, is never easy for a candidate, because the candidate doesn't know what will happen, and what comments other candidates will make that require a response. That unease is good because it probably leads to some honesty. The new YouTube debate format probably prevented the candidates from knowing exactly what to to expect, which may have allowed for a little more unease. The question is whether more truth came out, or if the unease caused candidates to lean on talking points even more.

A question about Africa featuring African children is perhaps the first question that takes advantage of the medium--when you have to face an image of a person whose life is directly shaped by the policy.

On another issue, I'm watching on a big screen television, and the debate camera pans up to a large screen, about one-sixth of which is the YouTube screen. I can read the detail on the YouTube screen. I wonder if someone on a smaller television set can pick up the YouTube screen details. Perhaps CNN is opting for the smaller screen so as to dim any resolution/quality issues of the smaller image.

The pastor shows up! The pastor featured in one of the questions was actually in the audience, and was asked whether John Edwards answered his question. Unfortunately, the pastor didn't do the best follow up (he said he didn't hear all of Edwards's answer). However, having the questioner show up to speak is a neat way to make up for the lack of follow up that is inherent in YouTube postings.

I'm not in SC--but in front of my TV. I'm surprised that CNN/YouTube chose videos that seem rather typical--they don't seem to take full advantage of the medium (e.g., people asking questions about Katrina from NOLA). Granted, the lesbian couple asking about marriage and the African American man asking about reparations are interesting. The Anderson Cooper followups are valuable, and make up for the limitations of the medium (the inability to ask follow ups).