BoobTube

Right off the top, I'm no fan of YouTube. I don't like it, I don't get it and I don't use it. For the most part, YouTube offers the web browser two choices. One, finely produced content from major media outlets convinced that the same old content is somehow hipper and cooler if it's offered/marketed online, from a grassroots, "viral" video community (owned by a multi-billion dollar corporation). Two, homemade, amateur content created by any Tom, Rick and Angie with a video camera and a computer. The first is just disingenuous. Clips of "America's Got Talent" and "Dancing with the Stars" are just as lame online as they are on television. The only difference is that online they can be lame over and over and OVER again, and on a smaller screen. The second smacks of narcissism and pathetic cries for attention. Why should I give a damn that some dude in North Dakota can fill out the crossword puzzle in less than two minutes using a pen stuck under his armpit? Who cares! Why is that important? Is my own life so mind-numbingly dull that I have time to waste viewing that? And yes, I'd feel the same way about this blog if I thought for a second that anyone was reading it. It's just sad. "Oh hey, why don't I film myself drinking milk through my nose and post it on the Internet so everyone and their dog can see what a jackass I am! I'll be world famous for absolutely no reason other than the fact that everyone now knows that I'm an idiot!"

So, that said, you'll forgive me if I didn't share the collective orgasm the media and the internet worshipers had over the CNN/YouTube sponsored Democratic party debate last night. To even refer to this dog and pony show as a debate is insulting. You could have stood eight marionettes by the side of the road with signs reading "Honk if you love apple pie!" and got the same result. Call me when we get down to two or three serious candidates and maybe I'll pay attention. But disregarding that, what is the big deal about having "the people" ask the questions? What is that supposed to accomplish that isn’t being accomplished by having reporters ask the questions? Does Phyllis from Tuscaloosa really have the same credibility as Anderson Cooper?

For those people who believe the people - through the new media will save politics, there is something you need to understand about politics. There are a limited amount of relevant questions to be asked of any candidate, and even fewer evasive answers a candidate will offer in return. Elections have been held in this country for over two hundred years. All the relevant questions have been asked, and all the evasive answers have been given. Repeating the same question in front of a camera in your basement doesn't add any validity, and doesn't change the answer. We already know that Dennis Kucinich approves of gay marriage, John Edwards wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, Barack Obama never supported the war in Iraq to begin with, and Hilary Clinton was married to some guy named Bill, who busied himself staining other women's dresses. A snowman asking the question about global warming, or a guy singing the question about taxes adds absolutely NOTHING to the political process. It doesn't give anyone cause to stop and think a little harder. It doesn't make anyone more likely to compromise to solve the difficult issues. I would be stunned if it actually convinced one more person to cast a vote. All it does is make stars out of people who probably shouldn't be captured on video, let alone be featured on television. And there are far too many of those already.