"Democracy at its silliest"

A friend alerted me to this piece which appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer. I think she's being pretty harsh, but she has a point.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070731_The_YouTube_debate__Democracy_at_its_silliest.html

The YouTube debate: Democracy at its silliest
The candidates - and the country - deserve better.
Kathleen Parker, columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group

The recent YouTube presidential debate - the oxymoronic event of history's longest political season - has been dubbed "groundbreaking" and "historic." Let's also add "ridiculous."
. . .
Not that it isn't important to know what each candidate likes and dislikes. In another taped question culled from about 3,000 submitted, each candidate was asked to turn to his or her left and say what he or she did and didn't like about that person. Brilliant. If you're 5.
. . .
Some questions were serious, including one about health care for illegal immigrants and another about Iraq - but too many of the 39 were beyond silly.

YouTube invites silliness, which is part of its appeal, but inviting so-called "ordinary Americans" to film themselves posing questions to presidential candidates does not advance democracy, no matter how much hoopla we manufacture.

What anybody can do, anybody can do. Anyone can make a goofy video and ask a goofy question, but the man or woman intending to lead the free world should resist dignifying the charade.
. . .
Even if the candidates were irritated by this faux show of democratic connectivity, they had no choice but to participate. If you refuse to play with the YouTubies, you risk being viewed as elitist and out of touch with Tha Peepul.
. . .
Arguments favoring the debate have circled around the notion that this techie-feely approach would attract the Young 'n' Restless - that hallowed demographic of 18-to-34-year-olds so coveted by advertisers, newspaper publishers and politicians. Turnout, alas, was less than spectacular. A total of 2.6 million watched the debate - 6 percent fewer than watched a more traditional debate from New Hampshire in June. Of those, 407,000 were ages 18-34, only slightly more than the 368,000 among the June audience.
. . .
Let's give the Democratic candidates applause for gamesmanship, but concede that playing buffoon to the masses is not a requirement for the presidency. If it is necessary to submit to anything demanded by anyone, then no one worthy will run for public office.