With supposedly 5,000 questions to choose from, debate viewers were forced to watch a video clip of a questioner firing his rifle out in the open who then asked the candidates to explain their positions on the second amendment.  For emphasis, after cocking his weapon, he added: "you can answer however you like."  Sure . . . and those theatrics add exactly what as far as putting a useful context around the issue?  The logical follow up to that question came shortly thereafter as another citizen asked the candidates to "tell us what's in your gun collection."  

Of course, it wasn't just the Republican debate that offered up showboating gun control questions.  At the Democratic You Tube Debate in July, one questioner said he wanted to know if his "baby" was going to be safe under a Democratic administration - then he revealed his semi-automatic weapon, which he gently patted and added,  "This is my baby."  Joe Biden responded by saying, "If that's his baby, he needs help."  And if questions like these are supposedly the best way to introduce a discussion of gun control, then perhaps the debate organizers also need help.

Lost in the shuffle last night was the interesting juxtaposition of the suite of three gun questions.  The question immediately before it asked about the safety of imported toys, and the question after the gun trio asked the candidates to talk about what they would do to decrease black on black crime.  Numerous ironies are embedded in this path of questioning, and yet no one commented on them.  Children play with toy guns, they grow up owning the real things, and then wonder what's in someone else's collection. And, sadly, we know which devices figure all too prominently in black on black crime.

Roderick Hart's book "Campaign Talk: Why Elections Are Good for Us" offers several defenses of campaign debates.  Two of his claims, that debates add prudence and decrease campaign bombast, took a real beating last night.  Watching Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani quibble about whether or not Romney had hired undocumented workers in the mansion while he was governor trivializes an important and complicated issue, and it certainly doesn't offer an example of prudent discussion about the topic. The exchange, while a heated back and forth, tells us little about how either candidate would approach solving the problem were he to be elected.

Hart further contends that candidates in debates engage in fewer fantastic and over-embellished claims, which obviously explains why the You Tube debate treated us to the statement that there's apparently a plan to build a transnational highway through the United States, that it will be possible to build a 900-mile double-walled fence in six months, and that the IRS is the logical agency to eliminate in a move to decrease bureaucracy.  Of course, it's hard to avoid fantastic claiming in the face of the WWJD question that prompted Mike Huckabee to opine that Jesus would be smart enough not to run for public office.  If this was a reality show to pick American's next top political comic, I guess he wins.  How the question, or its answer, helps anyone better understand the candidate's credentials for being the next president is a mystery.

Hart also contends that debates give equal footing to all candidates; in his defense, he wrote that long before the first You Tube Debate.  In both the Democratic and the Republican versions, candidates did not get equal time to present their views.  In July, Obama had 19 turns to reply, Clinton 15, and Edwards 14 - and two candidates fewer than 10.  Counting turns is an imprecise measure, of course, because the length of time a candidate speaks in any one reply varies greatly.  How often did we hear the moderator utter "time, time" while the answer droned on?  Last night, Romney and Giuliani each got 14 turns to reply, Huckabee 11, and McCain 10.  The debate was over 30 minutes old before each candidate had had at least one chance to answer.  In each debate, there was only one question that all candidates got to answer.  In July, it was a request to say one thing about the candidate on your left that you like and dislike.  Last night, the question everyone answered was "will you oppose a tax increase."  Owing to the tendency to more blatantly ignore signals that time was up, the Republican candidates heard 28 different You Tube questions as opposed to the 38 queries that structured the Democratic debate.

One of the least fortunate aspects of last night's debate was the ground rule that the candidates stick to the question asked and not go back to comment on earlier answers.  Certainly, no one disputes the general value of having the candidate reply to the questions asked.  But isolating answers from refutation regardless of when it occurs lets candidates off the hook too easily.  Throughout the evening, a number of equivocal or nonsensical replies slipped by with nary a comment.  The absence of follow up questions was also a problem; one citizen asked how we might repair American's damaged image in the world.  Neither answer directly addressed the question's main point.  Focused follow ups might have pinned down at least an attempt at an answer.  On another occasion, one candidate said he'd sign a national abortion ban if there was consensus favoring it but that he'd leave it to the states to pass legislation if there wasn't.  Say what?

Finally, the application of the You Tub format has thus far involved too many "gotcha" moments.  After candidates have taken a shot at responding to some of the video questions, the moderator announces that the questioner is actually in the audience, and he or she is asked to comment on the answers and to tell whether or not they are satisfied.  Reminds one of the time when Woody Allen produced Marshall McLuhan in the movie "Annie Hall" so that he could comment on some theorizing about McLuhan's ideas that had been offered up by a character in the film.  Allen ends the scene by saying, "Ah, if only life was like that."  On CNN, it is occasionally.  Last night, one of the questioners talked for an extended time (and even through a microphone malfunction), taking precious time away from the candidates.  At the end of the broadcast, it turned out that this questioner might have been appointed to a committee or board of some sort by one of the Democratic candidates.

We should be open to debate format innovations and applications of new technologies designed to involve more citizens in the debate process.  Endorsing that principle does not mean, however, that shortcomings in approaches should be overlooked in the interests of progress.  While the first two You Tube Debates had their moments of high curiosity, it's hard to see how they made important and meaningful contributions to the campaign debate dialogue.  Hopefully, those in charge have learned something from the early attempts.