Yesterday I posted the excerpt from my interview with Tom Brokaw which dealt with the CNN/YouTube fiasco.  (The interview will play in its entirety on Tuesday.)  We circled back to the topic later in the conversation, when we discussed longtime Los Angeles Times reporter Carl Greenberg's dismay with the political rhetoric of 1968:

 

HH: Do you feel a little bit like Greenberg now when you read the Daily Kos, or the other virulent blogs of the left?

TB: No, I think…I’m still tracking the patois. He had not ever heard a speech like Al Lowenstein gave in California, when he was trying to organize the anti-war movement, within the party. Carl had grown up, you know, covering…I remember the story that Carl told me. In 1948, they were doing the winners of the Congressional election, to get them into the paper, and this man came up and handed him his card, and it was Richard Milhous Nixon. It was the first time he ever met him. And Carl was the one that Nixon singled out on that infamous news conference in which he said you won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore. And the only fair reporter, he said, was Carl. So you know, rhetoric did change. The politics didn’t operate within the confines of smoke rooms anymore. You couldn’t go to a few bosses and get the story. It was spread out across the landscape, and he was having a hard time keeping track of all that.

HH: Isn’t that, though, playing…I think that’s playing out again. I won’t put it as a question. I’ll put it as a statement, and have you comment. That’s playing out again as old media looks around, whether your colleague, Dan Rather, during the meltdown on the false papers about Texas Air National Guard…

TB: Yeah, right.

HH: Or last night’s YouTube debate. I just don’t think the suits at Rockefeller Center or in the other networks know how to deal with this new media environment. They’re scratching their head like Carl Greenberg did.

TB: I think everybody is going through that with all…look, we are in what I call the second big bang.  We’re creating a whole new universe out there, all of us. You included, by the way. And we’re trying to figure out which planets are going to support life, and which ones won’t, which ones will drift too close to the Sun. Who knows how long talk radio will be around, and before it becomes a medium that’s under assault as well. How are we going to marry all of these traditional forms of delivery together? I was at the Washington Post the other day, and in the lobby, they’ve got a great testimonial to their very modern, state of the art printing press. And I was reading it, and fascinated by the numbers that were there, about 75,000 copies an hour, and the automatic role of ink that goes in. And as I walked away, I thought, I wonder if in ten years, I’ll see that at the Smithsonian.

HH: How interesting. And Jim Brady is the editor of Washingtonpost.com. He’s got it. I mean, he’s figured it out.  I just think there’s a lot of Carl Greenbergs wandering around.

As Trochilus Tales points out, CNN is either incredibly incompetent or deeply deceptive given how its senior executives sold the debate:

As has been duly noted elsewhere, here is a CNN story, "Funny, poignant questions pour in for GOP debate" dated just this past Monday (11/26), in which CNN Vice President, David Bohrman made it quite clear that the specific intention of the hosts of Wednesday night's debate was for Republican questioners to ask the Republican candidates questions.

Here is exactly what Bohrman said on topic in the story, just a few days ago:

"This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates," said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN. "We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates."

Bohrman also told "The Caucus (ht: ProteinWisdom)," the blogger for the New York Times that they would weed out any "gotcha" questions.

Both claims were utterly and completely untrue.

More on the debate meltdown in the San Francisco Chronicle's blog, and across the new media.

A smash-up of this magnitude in other than a media corporation would result in heads rolling, but the peculiar defensiveness of old media about its infallibility is kicking in.  Confronted with overwhelming evidence of its premeditated mediocrity, the network plus along as though nothing happened, and its old media colleagues are happy to assist in the attempt to induce amnesia. (Glenn Reynolds gives a couple of examples.)

The Chron blogger Joe Garofoli wrote that I got Brokaw  "to pile on his mainstream media bros."  Brokaw's very mild observation of the obvious screw-up is piling on?

But of course it is viewed that way from within the beseiged towers of old media, where ad revenue is draining away, and the generation gap is as obvious as the sun in the sky.

Mark Steyn, as usual, put the arrow in the bullseye (the transcript of our conversation from yesterday is here):

HH: What did you make of that spectacle last night? 

MS: Well, I thought it was a joke. If we’re going to have gimmicky novelty debates, if politics is too boring that you can’t have serious, meaningful debates, I’d rather we just got the candidates to take part in Dancing With The Stars. I mean, that would be a lot more fun than these lame attempts to oomph up political debate, starting with that pathetic guitarist. It’s a sort of quintessential thing of what kind of square guys do when they’re trying to make something interesting. This guitarist who sang a novelty song about the candidates, with these insipid lyrics, a funny song that isn’t funny with just these lame lines about Tancredo wanting to build a fence, and Huckabee’s lost weight, they’re not even funny couplets. And it set the tone for it, pathetic, squaresville CNN producers trying to get hip with the beat, and just looking pathetic and demeaning, and degrading everything they touch. 

HH: You know, I think you’re right. It’s the Austin Powersization of cable network news, and they were looking pathetic as the night went on. But let’s get to some substance about this. It is so wrong to have Ron Paul invited to this debate, then put him in the corner for 35 minutes, and then ask him a conspiracy-nutter question. 

MS: Yeah.

HH: That is to me emblematic of everything that went on last night. 

MS: Yes, and I think in fact, CNN behaved disgracefully. I don’t know, I mean, you’ve been on CNN before. I find CNN a very tiresome network in part because when you, when they try to book you on something, they want to have these pre-interviews, which are big time wasters, and I never agree to do them, where they want to discuss your views for an hour beforehand, before you do your two minute on-air bit with whoever the host is. So it seems to me incredible on its face that for example, this gay general who’s supporting Hillary, that they couldn’t have done the minimal amount of work necessary to find out that this guy is not Mr. Undecided Voter, but he is in fact on the Hillary campaign, that the woman who asked the abortion question is not, you know, Little Miss Undecided Feminist Voter, but in fact an explicit John Edwards supporter. I simply don’t buy the fact that even the overmanned, deadbeat production staff at CNN simply were incapable of finding out the truth of this thing.

  

CNN is of course going to the mattresses, just as every MSMer does when the collision with their own bias and/or incompetence arrives.  But like Rathergate, the YouTube/BoobTube debate is already a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM. 

Powerline has much more.

From Charles Krauthammer's column this morning:

"If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." 
    -- James A. Thomson

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made "a little bit uncomfortable" by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity -- a "moral ayatollah," as Sen. Tom Harkin so scornfully put it.

Bush got it right....

Read the whole thing.

I asked veteran MSMer Nancy Gibbs, co-author with Michael Duffy of the wonderful The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham In The White House, and long-time Time Magazine writer, about last night's debate (transcript here):

HH: I think Rudy did fine, too. I’m going to the question of can you imagine a mainstream media journalist doing that, asking that question, even without the Bible, but even with the Bible in your hand? Can you imagine anyone in MSM doing that? 

NG: Well, you know, what we have seen, I think, are questions where religious belief directly enters into a political issue, how do you feel about the teaching of intelligent design in schools, you know, when you have issues that are religious in nature, but are also being debated in legislatures, and are matters of political discussion. Then of course you imagine any kind of journalist asking candidates where they come down on those political debates. You know, the stem cell debate has been infused…the abortion, obviously, the death penalty, these are all policy debates that for many voters and candidates, have a religious element to them. But what was fascinating about the question was it was a purely religious question about people’s personal theology and belief system. 

HH: Right. 

NG: And in that sense, no, I don’t think it’s something that a journalist would feel was appropriate or relevant to ask.  

HH: So if that’s the standard of journalism, let’s think about this out loud. Why is that the standard in journalism, Nancy Gibbs? 

NG: That, you mean, that that should not be asked? 

HH: Yeah, that a journalist would be uncomfortable asking that. Why would they, what’s behind that standard, because I agree with you 100%. You would never find a reputable journalist asking that question.  

NG: I think because, and this is where the whole YouTube format is interesting, is should there be different rules for what voters want to know, because I guess in a democracy, my feeling is a voter should be able to ask anything they want. 

HH: Sure. 

NG: A voter has the right to want to know anything about a candidate, and judge a candidate on any terms they choose to judge.  

HH: Agreed. 

NG: That’s, you know, how the game is played. So you know, the reason I think a mainstream journalist would not be as likely to is because probing the particular personal theology of a candidate on issues that are entirely independent of their conduct in public life for the office for which they are running does not seem to be relevant. I mean, there’s a whole list of issues that we think it’s not appropriate or relevant for journalists to ask, and I think that that question about do you believe the Bible to be literally true, do you believe in the Bible, with no political implication attached to it, is not an appropriate question.  

HH: And I think behind that is a sort of inherited belief that religious divisions are dangerous, and that they ought to be, that good journalism does not fan them unnecessarily. Sometimes you can’t avoid it, you’re covering a civil war between Shia and Sunni, you’re going to have to explore it. But this unnecessarily divides Americans across lines that we’ve always thought is useful not to be divided on.  

NG: Well, I would be tempted then to quote Galatians right back to the questioner last night, or to say the Bible itself says that you’re not to be sowing division and discord. And so there was something about, I think, the way the question was framed, that it’s exactly what you’re saying. It felt as though it was designed to divide more than to… 

HH: Illuminate. And given that, CNN exercised editorial judgment when they selected that question. I wonder, do you agree with me that they own that question? They made the choice. CNN asked that question, because they didn’t draw these out of a hat. A random selection would be different. But when you’ve got a total of twenty of these things, or twenty-five of these things out of 5,000, they thought it was important to put that question up there. Do they own the question, Nancy Gibbs? 

NG: Well, that’s a great question. I think you know, given the fact that by the end of the night we hadn’t had a question about Pakistan, even though we’ve all been watching that closely now for weeks, we didn’t have questions about Iran. There were so many topics that weren’t covered, it’s very easy to say how could that question make your cut when so many other very serious topics didn’t. I guess what CNN would say in their defense is that for a lot of voters, that question about candidates’ approach to the Bible is a very relevant and important one, and that exactly because it’s a question that is now, like we’re in the hall of mirrors, but because it’s a question that the mainstream media, as you say, or any journalist of any kind would be unlikely to ask, but one that a lot of voters might want to hear the answer to, that that’s precisely the type of question that the YouTube debate format allows to be delivered directly to the candidate. Now I don’t know if that justifies their doing it. I don’t…but I think it is precisely because in a traditional debate, where the questioners or journalists, you wouldn’t get that question, that they may have been, in many cases, in all these YouTube debates, been looking for questions that are precisely because they fall somewhere outside the normal parameters of debate questions.  

HH: Now have you been following the controversy about CNN all day today? 

NG: Oh, yeah. 

HH: And I just had Tom Brokaw on. I played it, I’ll talk to him for two hours on Tuesday about Boom!, but he blames Klein. He says Klein owns it, and that it’s a terrible thing to let plants get in there, and to have Hillary advisors there. You’re an MSM’er for a long time. A lot of people across the political spectrum admire your work. Aren’t you embarrassed by what happened last night?  

NG: Oh, and I think CNN’s embarrassed. I mean, you could tell first thing this morning that this was just hugely embarrassing for them, and they said, you know, that they had checked about who he had contributed money to, but somehow don’t come out with the fact that he’s a Clinton advisor. Given the fact, I guess what surprises me about it, I’m always disinclined to assume conspiracy theories, mainly because as you say, I’ve worked at a big news organization that owns CNN, along with a million other things. And I don’t think we’re capable of pulling off a conspiracy is one reason I never believe the conspiracy theories. But there is sloppiness, and a lack of rigor that I think this demonstrated.  

From my interview today with the president of the American Conservative Union, David Keene:

HH: [D]o you think Mike Huckabee’s a conservative? 

DK: No, he’s a populist.  

HH: Right. And so… 

DK: He governed as a populist, he’s got, his rise is the result of really three things. One is the demographic makeup of Iowa, where the social conservatives are more important. You remember, Pat Robertson ran very well in Iowa. 

HH: Yup. 

DK: Secondly, he is benefiting from the implosion of the Fred Thompson campaign, because Fred’s support was basically none of the above support. And with him gone, and the top three candidates, Giuliani, Romney and McCain not making the sale, or not closing the deal, those voters are parking somewhere else, and that’s with Huckabee. In addition to which, one has to say that Mike Huckabee is a heck of a campaigner. I mean, he shines in those debates, and he also is in a sense doing it the old-fashioned way in one state. He’s doing what Jimmy Carter and George Bush’s father did, which is essentially move into Iowa, and get to know everybody that you meet. And that works. Now the question in Iowa is whether or not the fact that all of these things have combined means he can translate the popularity that he’s developed into actual votes in the Caucuses. And that’s a tough thing to do. So I wouldn’t believe the poll numbers very much, but the fact is that as I put it to somebody yesterday, right now, a vote in Iowa for Mike Huckabee is in fact a vote for Rudy Giuliani for president, because Rudy has to stop the string of victories that Romney might build up before he gets to Florida, and to the big state primaries.  

But the cynics don't matter.  They are a small percentage of the American electorate.

My take on the YouTube debate, from July 26.

ABC News puts a knife into Rudy.  The mayor should be out and countering this tonight.

Just concluded an hour-plus interview with Tom Brokaw, mostly about his new book Boom, which I enjoyed a great deal though I have many criticisms of it which I discuss at length with the former NBC anchor.  The interview was very interesting and quite spirited though cordial even though he kept calling me Paul and even though he wasn't at all happy with my take on NBC's decision to show the Virginia Tech shooter tapes.

The full interview will air in hours two and three of Tuesday's show.  Here is part of what Brokaw had to say about last night's debate/circus:

HH: Since we are talking on the Monday, er, the morning after the YouTube debate last night, I was watching it, and I couldn't imagine you or Peter Jennings or John Chancellor or Walter Cronkite presiding over that carnival.  What did you think of that last night?

TB: Well, you know, its, its a whole different world.  I will tell you what I do think without going into one specific debate.  I think the country reeally is better off with the range of debates that we have had.  When I was a young reporter, you'd have one debate in a primary season and I remember Senator Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy got together in California, pretty spirited debate on Sunday morning before they ran against each other on Tuesday, and then there was nothing again.  That fall Humphrey and Nixon did not debate, so we are better off to take a long look at them.  I am not crazy about all the forms obviously, but if they are willing to play, you know, bombs away.

HH: Did CNN, though, when they let the Clinton campaign advisor ask a question and a bunch of other plants get through, did they drop the ball?

TB:  Yeah.  I think you have to be very careful on that, and I, that's something that is troublesome.  But you know we are living in what I call the wilderness.  We're in this whole new information age and there are so many ways to manipulate the arena online, on cable, on television, you have to be constantly on guard against that, otherwise it does become a wreck 'em derby, those old stock car races where the last car standing was the winner.

HH: When you were running NBC News, you were in charge of what made it on the screen.  Who do we look to at CNN for this?  I don't think it is Anderson Cooper, I don't think he has the same kind of authority that you had.

TB: No. Joe Klein. They  have got people who have come from CBS and other places, and when you are running 24 hours a day globally you've got a lot of different editors and producers, and I am sure that what they did was sit down, and, they have been determined from the outset during the campaign season to take a different tack on all of this.

Brokaw refers to Joe Klein, buyt he clearly meant Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/US.

The busted YouTube questioner was associated with Hillary Clinton's campaign and her ... though he says he's never done any work for the campaign.

Justin Hart, who we all know as the enterprising proprietor of MyManMitt.com, was actually a "Romney official" until recently, when he "resigned" his position of "Romney's Faith and Values Steering Committee."

What are these steering committees, and why do they seem to get the campaigns in so much trouble?

The truth is that most of the time, these groups are good for one thing and one thing alone: a press release. Campaigns release long lists of supporters in the hopes of demonstrating support in certain communities. They might hold a press conference announcing it. And if you're on the right list, being a regular supporter or activist can be enough to get you on.

The trouble is that these "steering committee members" rarely do any substantive work for the campaign. They may be called on to speak up on behalf of the candidate, but that's generally it. Campaign scut work, sure. But actually meeting and hashing out policy? Nah.

Recently, during the Mormon push poll controversy, Eye on '08 made a big deal about the fact that MyManMitt's Justin Hart (who talked to Western Wats) was listed on a press release as a member of the campaign's "Faith and Values Steering Committee." Most of us know Justin from his work as a supervolunteer for Mitt Romney, raising $75,000 for the campaign through his blog. But he's not a staffer. So to hear him referred to as an "official" initially took me aback, though it's technically accurate. Because of his involvement with the Western Wats story, Justin resigned his official position on the campaign, though you can rest assured he is doing as much for Mitt Romney today as he was before the resignation.

Campaigns open themselves to these types of criticisms by giving volunteers fancy, official-sounding titles and posting their names on official press releases. Though campaigns will typically vet members prior to joining, they are essentially free agents for the rest of the campaign, with little comprehension that most of what they say and do politically can be traced back to their candidate.

As an online operative, I've encountered numerous examples of campaigns being reluctant to host blogs and other interactive content because of the fear that negative content might become associated with their site. Everything must be thoroughly vetted, they insist. But these steering committees, both in the CNN and Western Wats cases, are examples of traditional campaign structures exposing themselves to questions that were completely avoidable.

I took to calling CNN "the most busted name in news" during the Eason Jordan meltdown in early 2005.  Since then it has grown addicted to Lou Dobbs' pseudopopulism while maintaining an hilariously lefty attitude towards most news.  The networks two best talents, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, are surrounded by a cast of agenda-journalists who, like Penelope unweaving her tapestry each night,  undo each day all the good work that Blitzer and Cooper attempt to accomplish.  CNN isn't a cartoon network, but a network of cartoon figures like Jack Cafferty and Dobbs pretending to be objective journalists. Now we have proof positive that the backroom producers are as biased as Cafferty and Dobbs.

Last night's fiasco was so thorough that it will take a while to settle in just how damaging it was to CNN's reputation as a news organization.  From the awful judgment displayed with the opening guitar serenade through the preposterous selection of topics and questions right to the stark reality that CNN either was easily and completely manipulated by the Dems with planted question after planted question or were totally complicit in the hijacking of a Republican debate designed to serve Republican primary voters about who ought to be the Republican nominee.  The network is either incompetent in a way no serious news organization should be, or wholly captured by agenda journalists of the left.

No serious anchor would want to be where Cooper is today, at the center of a vast train wreck which cannot be explained away as the inevitable result of the sudden appearance of big news in a difficult setting, as with hysterical Katrina coverage of bodies stacked in freezers and gun fights in the Superdome, or the result of the input of bad data, as with the early call of Florida for Gore in 2000.

No, this premeditated mediocrity. The network had months to  prepare and consider and execute.  But even with all that time, it lacked the minimal talent necessary to produce a serious debate about important issues using new technology. All it could deliver was a carnival of bad taste, trick questions, and full frontal left wing bias.

The backing of the leader of the American Conservative Union is a big deal among movement conservatives.

The WaPo's Chris Cillizza has the details.

The announcement builds on a strong performance last night, and reinforces the sense that conservatives have to choose now to back Romney or tacitly agree to a Rudy nomination.

And be sure to catch Powerline's Scott Johnson's recap of last night.

My Townhall.com column on the debate last night is here.

Patrick's enthusiasms for Governor Huckabee aside (what debate was he at?) the next 45 days are about whether Rudy or Mitt runs against Hillary.

David Broder calls it the race between Mr. Nasty and Mr. Nice, but it really about whether the GOP has the confidence to run on the future and on its social values, or whether it believes the only way to beat Hillary and to win the war with the jihadists is with the toughest guy in American politics.

I gave a speech last night to a group of serious conservatives who are also supporters of Hillsdale College.  The room was slightly pro-Romney, but only slightly.  Other than one hand in the air for Fred, everyone who wasn't for Romney was for Rudy.  That's where the party is generally, and if I had to bet the house right now, I'd bet that the desire to nominate a conservative wins out and Romney emerges as the nominee by mid-February.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder writes in a debate re-cap post:

Romney had a strong night, seemed raring to go, seemed to be willing to take on everybody, anybody, all comers, seemed to want to pick every fight possible. It’s as if Alex Gage whispered to Romney as he went on stage: “Governor, remember: you want the headlines to be “Romney Fights For Conservative Principles.”

1. Huckabee. He won this and it wasn't close. In past debates he'd try to be all folksy in his national security answers, which really deflated his gravitas. But the issue terrain was a target rich environment for him, from his strong rebuttal to Mitt on not punishing children for the sins of their parents, to his eloquent and authoritative answer to the ill-conceived Bible question to the quip about Jesus not running for public office. Though clearly on his game, Huckabee seemed to benefit from everyone else being off theirs.

2. McCain. His recipe for success: take his mallet and whack Ron Paul over the head with it. Then repeat. McCain's rivals practically ceded the national security ground exclusively to him. With the exception of Romney on torture, 90% of the red meat national security points were left to McCain. This earned him pretty much automatic applause each time he hit one of those, including from me. But I don't support McCain and was not particularly swayed by his performance; he was winning those battles by default.

3 (tie): Rudy. The one thing he needed to do with the "sanctuary mansion" offensive: muddy the waters. Not win, but muddy the waters. That he did, though it was ugly. In the end, Romney was totally incoherent on the issue: embracing the education and health care exceptions that were the essence of Rudy's "sanctuary city" policy. And one Rudy point rung true: Romney wants government to take extraordinary steps to expose and deport illegals, but if private employers do the same that is some sort of egregious invasion of personal privacy? Again: incoherent.

Rudy got too far into the weeds on the infrastructure and gun questions, and on the gun question, it hurt him.

Though personable, no real standout moments beyond the first few minutes of fireworks.

3 (tie): Romney. I was thoroughly unimpressed by Romney debating in person, and I have a theory why.

To me, he was a tall figure vaguely visible on the stage. I couldn't see his face, or experience his stage presence, just digest his words.

And lo and behold, there was nothing memorable. At other times, you could cut a knife through his wishy-washiness: his hedge on the gun answer (I have them, but my son owns them -- very similar to what Kerry said about his family SUV in 2004), his lack of sure-footedness on the Bible question (excusable, since the question was so bad), and his dodge on his past position on gays in the military.

5. Fred. It was like he wasn't there. McCain and Paul were fighting in their own corner. Cooper would always seem to call on Rudy, Mitt, and Huck -- in that order. And Fred seemed off in his own world. Every point he made about his conservative record seemed to go back to his eight years in the United States Senate -- as if the Senate was ever a proving ground for conservative ideals. Again, I'm fully willing to accept that I wasn't able to see him up close, which might have skewed my perspective.

A little after 1 a.m. eastern, CNN released the following statement to the press gathered in St. Pete:

Following the debate, CNN learned that retired brigadier general Keith Kerr served on Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.

CNN Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate, David Bohrman, says, "We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the General's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate."

Prior to the debate, CNN had verified his military background and that he had not contributed any money to any presidential candidate.

Following the debate, Kerr told CNN that he's done no work for the Clinton campaign. He says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself.

This of course is not the first time CNN has played games with the questioners, lobbing the tasteless "diamonds or pearls" question at Senator Clinton in the Las Vegas debate and failing to check the campaign affiliation of another "undecided voter" in that MSM debate. Their selection of "undecided voters" in their first New Hampshire GOP debate was laughable too -- and let's remember that was a traditional debate as well.

The case has been made against CNN's influence in this debate. But, YouTube format or not, there seems to be an endemic problem with CNN's screening process. Overall, the YouTube format seemed to reduce the tactical "gotcha" questions (it was left up to Anderson Cooper to ask Rudy about the Politico hit piece). Nothing as trivial as "diamonds or pearls" got asked -- though I found the Bible and Confederate flag questions pretty far afield.

Here's how it seemed to go down from the back rows of the orchestra.

After Kerr had continued his tirade for what seemed like close to a minute, he started getting boos and catcalls from the audience for his overstepping his bounds (and essentially repeating his question word for word, wasting valuable airtime). His audio was pulled. Anderson Cooper seemed to gesture that his mic be turned back on and pretended it was a mistake, though it was pretty clear what the control room was trying to do.

Ironically, an audience member had asked Cooper "How many Clinton planted questions here tonight?" during the pre-show.

UPDATE: Captain Ed offers his take on the debate. Read the whole thing.

The spin releases are excellent guides to who really won the carnival debate.  (CNN's reputation lost.  Again.) Mike Huckabee won on Ruffini's card.  Rudy Giuliani won on Kate O'Beirne's and Ana Marie Cox's cards.

Romney won everyone else.

From Team Romney:

WHAT THEY'RE REALLY SAYING ABOUT GOVERNOR

ROMNEY AT THE ST. PETERSBURG, FL GOP DEBATE – VOL II

National Review's Kate O'Beirne: "Romney's performance is his strongest in the series." (National Review's "The Corner," corner.nationalreview.com, Accessed 11/28/07)

Michelle Malkin: "So, who won? Quick and dirty reaction: Romney looked strong and energetic …" (Michelle Malkin, "Liveblogging The CNN/Youtube," http://michellemalkin.com/, Posted 11/28/07)

Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham: "[Romney] came across serious and conservative." (Mary Katharine Ham, "Who Won?," http://www.townhall.com/blog, 11/28/07)

The American Spectator's Philip Klein: "… I thought Romney got the better of that [immigration] exchange. It's one thing to use Romney's illegal immigrant lawn care workers in a joke, but it's another thing to try and base a serious criticism on that." (Philip Klein, "Sanctuary Mansion," The American Spectator Online, 11/28/07)

CBS' Vaughn Ververs: "In the opening minutes, Romney and Rudy Giuliani sparred over illegal immigration… Romney appeared to get the upper hand in the exchange, challenging Giuliani on his charge and the sometimes vocal audience sounded a note of apparent disapproval at the mayor's line of attack." (Vaughn Ververs, "Romney Battles, Huckabee Shines In GOP Debate," CBS'S Horserace '08 Blog, http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs, Posted 11/28/07)

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Romney gets the edge here, especially for beating Rudy Giuliani like a bongo drum on immigration." (Ed Morrissey, "CNN/YouTube Debate – CNN Wins," Captain's Quarters Blog, www.captainsquartersblog.com, Posted 11/28/07)

Morrissey: "Romney has this issue [of interrogations] exactly correct. We should not start defining these techniques on national debates for the reasons Romney said." ("Heading Right," www.headingright.com, Accessed 11/28/07)

Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Best performance: Mitt Romney." (Scott Johnson, "Best And Worst Of The Debate," Power Line, http://www.powerlineblog.com/, Posted 11/28/07)

Johnson: "Best line of the night: Mitt Romney, on abortion ('I was wrong')." (Scott Johnson, "Best And Worst Of The Debate," Power Line Blog, http://www.powerlineblog.com/, Posted 11/28/07)

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Romney played it straight and didn't over explain the abortion change. Seemed a wise and effective approach, especially in this format." (National Review's "The Corner," http://corner.nationalreview.com, Accessed 11/28/07)

Heading Right's Macranger: "Good answer [on life]. People do change." ("Heading Right," www.headingright.com, Accessed11/28/07)

The American Spectator's Philip Klein: "[Gov. Romney] showed more humility by saying several times he was wrong, that he isn't perfect, that he hasn't always made the right decisions. It worked a lot better for him." (Philip Klein, "Romney's Abortion Flip-Flop Answer," The American Spectator Online, 11/28/07)

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I agree with most of the posters at The Corner that Mitt is doing very, very well." (Townhall, www.townhall.com Accessed 11/28/07)

Former Secretary Of Education Bill Bennett: "Mitt Romney talked about education as the next civil right…Liberals have failed inner city blacks overwhelmingly in the last 30 years.  That's why the question from the father and son was so pertinent and I thought Romney did a good job on it." (CNN's, "Post Debate Coverage," 11/28/07)

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "… I grew up in the inner city, in public schools. The plight of those who live there is real, sad, and cannot often be solved by the Nanny State.  Romney focuses on families, empowerment, police protection in solving black-on-black crime, and invokes Bill Cosby. Well done. It addressed the question directly and treated the questioners' concerns with respect. It was a serious answer with real application, not a flippant appeal to the family values crowd that would have made him look disconnected, which it easily could have been." (Mary Katharine Ham, "Romney's Winner Answer on Black-on-Black Crime," Townhall.com, www.townhall.com, 11/28/07)

The American Spectator's John Tabin: "Romney's answer is pretty good; family's important, of course it is" (James G. Poulos, "Black On Black Crime," The American Spectator Online, 11/28/07)

and

WHAT THEY'RE REALLY SAYING ABOUT GOVERNOR

MITT ROMNEY AT THE ST. PETERSBURG, FL GOP DEBATE

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Romney had a strong night, seemed raring to go, seemed to be willing to take on everybody, anybody, all comers, seemed to want to pick every fight possible." (Marc Ambinder, "The Debate In Review," The Atlantic Online Blog, http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/, 11/28/07)

National Review's Seth Leibsohn: "This Is Mitt's Night." (Seth Leibsohn, "This Is Mitt's Night," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 11/28/07)

Bill Bennett: "I think that Romney stood out tonight.  I think he was loud and clear.  Conservative.  He was 'all-in' as you'd say in Texas Hold 'Em." (CNN's Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)

Bill Bennett: "I thought he came across very strong.  I think you guys are absolutely right.  That opening debate between Romney and Giuliani was, I think, the pivotal point of the evening.  And I think points to Romney.  Giuliani came across badly." (CNN's Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)

 ABC News Live Blog: "Romney is engaging very, very directly -- and dare I say he's getting the better of Giuliani in this exchange, funny accents and all." ("Live-Blogging During GOP Debate," ABC News' Political Radar, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar, Posted 11/28/07)

ABC News Live Blog: "And Romney gets the first applause by noting that illegal immigrants already broke the law." ("Live-Blogging During GOP Debate," ABC News' Political Radar, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar, Posted 11/28/07)

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "[T]his is Romney's best debate performance yet. He reminds us he has experience and outside of Washington, he's tackled difficult issues, and does not let his temper get the best of him with a New York bully (something that will come in handy)." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "So Far," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 11/28/07)

CNN's Bill Schneider: "A clever answer from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on farming. He says we need food independence like we need energy independence — keep the farmers on the farm. His reasoning: We need to be able to compete with other countries that support their farmers." (Bill Schneider, "Schneider: Romney Scores Points On Farming Answer," CNN's Political Ticker, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, Posted 11/28/07)

MSNBC's Domenico Montanaro: "While the sanctuary mansion line got good laughs, Romney's explanation and questions left Giuliani without an answer." (Domenico Montanaro, "Giuliani Flustered?" MSNBC's First Read, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Posted 11/28/07)

National Review's Rich Lowry: "Rudy let his temper get the best of him—clear winner of the exchange: Romney." (Rich Lowry, "Mitt V. Rudy," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 11/28/07)

National Review's Seth Leibsohn: "I'd be surprised after this debate if Mitt doesn't see national numbers looking more like his Iowa or NH numbers after tonight's performance.  Brilliant response to the black on black crime questions." (Seth Leibsohn, "Changing Times," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 11/28/07)

The New York Times' Katharine Q. Seelye: "But finally, a father-son team, from Atlanta, want the candidates to talk about black-on-black crime, and while Mr. Romney gets in a nice line about mothers and fathers and family values, none of the candidates really address the issue that the young son raised." (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Live-Blogging the YouTube Debate," The New York Times' The Caucus Blog, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/, Posted 11/28/07)

National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru: "So Romney did pretty well in the debate, and won the immigration exchange." (Ramesh Ponnuru, "A Good Day for Giuliani," The Corner Blog, corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 11/28/07)

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Mitt makes a good point that homeowners should not be required to check papers of workers hired for their and connects it to regular Americans by suggesting that that's what Rudy wants them to do." (Townhall, www.townhall.com, Accessed, 11/28/07)

The Plank's Isaac Chotiner: "Romney definitely got the best of Giuliani on their early immigration skirmish (which actually got rather heated). Rudy's line about Romney's mansion was cheap and silly. And Romney is more appealing when going negative than any of the other candidates." (The New Republic's "The Plank," Accessed, 11/28/07)

National Review's Kate O'Beirne: "Romney's reference point about how MA liberals reason is effective. Reminds us that he gets them and fought them." (National Review's "The Corner," http://corner.nationalreview.com, Accessed 11/28/07)

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: Romney and Huckabee had a good spar over giving better benefits to illegals for school than to citizens. Romney is absolutely 100% right on this issue. I hope Iowans realize that Huckabee may very well be worse than Bush on illegal immigration." (Heading Right," www.headingright.com, Accessed 11/28/07)

from Team Giuliani:

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein: “[G]iuliani was on strong ground defending his immigration policies in New York City …” (Philip Klein, “Sanctuary Mansion,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=9442, 11/28/07, Accessed 11/28/07)

• Klein said Giuliani gave “a great answer that mixes tolerance and toughness” on repairing the American image abroad. (Philip Klein, “Repairing The American Image Abroad,” The American Spectators “AmSpecBlog,” 11/28/07, Accessed 11/28/07)

The American Spectator’s Jennifer Rubin said Giuliani’s answer on cutting crime was “the best of the night.” (Jennifer Rubin, “Crime,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” 11/28/07, Accessed 11/28/07)

• Rubin said Giuliani gave “three good answers” on controlling government spending. (Jenner Rubin, “Spending,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” 11/28/07, Accessed 11/28/07)

The National Review’s Kate O’Beirne said Giuliani’s “sanctuary mansion” comment was a “good line.” (Kate O’Beirne, “Good Line,” The National Review’s “The Corner” Blog, 11/28/07, Accessed 11/28/07)

• O’Beirne: “Giuliani Gains” (Kate O'Beirne, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “Giuliani Gains,” 11/28/07, Accessed: 11/28/07)

The National Journal’s Jennifer Skalka said Giuliani’s campaign video was “the funniest.” (Jennifer Skalka, “‘Annual Snowfall Dramatically Reduced’ In NYC, According To Rudy Video,” National Journal’s “The Hotline” Blog, 11/28/07, Accessed 11/28/07)

ABC News’ Rick Klein: “[Giuliani] likes to bowl people over with statistics. A good answer to a tough question.” (Rick Klein, ABC News’ Political Radar, 11/28/07, Accessed: 11/28/07)

        Klein: “Rudy was ready for this question [on immigration] -- it's a substantive, detailed answer …”( Rick Klein, ABC News’ Political Radar, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/live-blogging-1.html, 11/28/07, Accessed: 11/28/07)

 

• Klein: Giuliani’s answer on the Bible “seemed like an excellent answer.” (Rick Klein, ABC News’ Political Radar, 11/28/07, Accessed: 11/28/07)

 

• Klein: “Rudy's got the best video of the night. King Kong! Hillary! Cutting snowfall! That's the spirit!” (Rick Klein, ABC News’ Political Radar, 11/28/07, Accessed: 11/28/07)

 

• Klein said Giuliani had “strong moments” during the GOP debate. (Rick Klein, ABC News’ Political Radar, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/live-blogging-1.html, 11/28/07, Accessed: 11/28/07)

 Time’s Ana Marie Cox: “Rudy sort of winning this one. This is Rudy the prosecutor, and part of me sort of loves it.” (Ana Marie Cox, Time’s Swampland Blog, “Liveblogging: The Shoutfest In St. Pete,” 11/28/07, Accessed: 11/28/07)