My quick take: This "debate," like last summer's Democratic CNN/YouTube debate, made for lively television. I'm sure it got a big audience, in part because the Republicans hadn't "debated" in a month and in part because of audience curiosity about the YouTube element. The infighting among the Republican candidates certainly made the event even more interesting. But was this a breakthrough for the internet's role in politics?

Not so much. Yes, when a question comes from a civilian rather than a professional journalist, it can pack an unexpected emotional punch. A couple of questions included in tonight's debate did that--like the one from the retired Brigadier General who asked about gays in the military (turns out he may be a Hillary Clinton supporter, which CNN should have disclosed). But while CNN managed to include 34 questions from YouTubers in this event, almost as many as in the Democratic debate, fewer of them seemed to hit that mark.

Also, where were the questions on topics like the economy, jobs, health care, the fall of the dollar, trade, political reform (beyond pork), the environment, or energy? Could CNN have thought those were "Democratic hand grenades." Strange, given how much time they gave to topics like immigration, guns and the Bible. If I were a Republican, I'd wonder if CNN's stated willingness to bend over backwards to make this an inside-the-party conversation ended up caricaturing what Republicans care about. When you look at the questions that were submitted to YouTube for the debate, you'll see plenty in the top 40 most viewed that touch on energy, the environment, health care and political reform. Very odd that these were not included.

And what the heck was uber-lobbyist and Jack Abramoff-crony Grover Norquist doing up there with a YouTube question? If CNN was touting the YouTube element as a way to democratize the questioning process, why give 3% of the your scarce airtime to one of the best-connected Republicans inside the Beltway?

Like this summer's Democratic YouTube event, this debate only managed to include two of the questioners in the live audience, where they had an opportunity to follow up on their question. In that respect, it was once again less interactive that a live townhall-style event, though Anderson Cooper, in his role as everyman, did a decent job of trying to follow up on some of the questions.

My bottom line? I love multi-candidate forums (could we have one for the general election?), but I'm tired of how compressed they are. None of the candidates appearing tonight got more than a 90 second soundbite, or a 30 second rebuttal bark. This is no way to interview the candidates for President. This is the Internet Age, folks. We don't have to put up with the constrained world of television. Enough already!