Random comments from the house party (now 8 strong) on the format:
It seems disjointed and the flow is disrupted.
I like debates that have a strong moderator and that can do strong follow up, and bring the correct candidate into play.
I like the theory, I like the concept, you know the whole “democratic thing”, but I think that it’s basically not that different because it’s the same old editorial process.
YouTube questions are more hard hitting. Some exceptional questions, but there is no follow up.
(They seem to miss Chris Matthews, even Wolf Blitzer. Anderson Cooper not cutting it.)
I like the idea, but I think it’s a little misleading. It’s a “democratic hearing the people approach” but it’s obviously being edited. Some candidates are getting tougher questions, that’s not working for me. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth — it’s an editorial process. It’s being packaged as democratic and open discourse. And it’s just not.
I’d rather have the journalists ask the questions and do a strong follow-up.
But some of the questions are fantastic — and that’s great.