Based on a few recent experiences regarding the YouTube community, and specifically how the tool could help increase citizen participation in our upcoming general election debates, this post seeks to encourage the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the Old Guards if you will -- to truly embrace the Internet in at least one of its three scheduled debates.

Let's dig in...

This past Friday the Republican National Committee launched CanWeAsk.com - a platform which provides the RNC a powerful partisan tool to help it better engage Barack Obama early, often and dynamically. Of note, all lasers are trained solely on Barack, not Hillary. Natch.

The CanWeAsk.com platform provides both a place for the distribution of the RNC's opposition research against Barack (videos with scary audio over grainy black and white photos) but it also serves as a valuable utility for citizens to participate and ask Barack some very real questions. Snaps to the RNC for deploying the site before the Dems thought of it.

As you might expect, I joined the effort by asking Barack a question about health care. Disclosure, so you know, I've been working and focusing on the issue a lot with a few clients concerned about our health care system being run by the same folks responsible for the U.S. Post Office - bureaucrats.

My question to Barack which I hope he answers:

For those on their blackberry or working sans audio at work, here's the description/text of the video:

As a Republican and an employer who provides health care benefits to my employees, I have a question for Barack Obama.

You've proposed a health care plan run by the government. Won't the addition of a new government-run health care program resembling Medicare be a dis-incentive for employers to continue to offer health care coverage to their employees? Won't less competition only increase the cost of care, leaving the government trying to figure out how to cover the bill?

The coolest thing about this experience was that my video was featured on the FRONT-PAGE of YouTube.com this past weekend (or at least that's what two individual people have told me after stumbling upon my video). The video now has over 26k views and 335 comments.

Perspective: This video did not star a dancing cat or the Star Wars kid; it was a question to Barack Obama about a niche issue that could affect small businessmen throughout the nation. And the question wasn't being asked by Brit Hume or Charlie Gibson; it was being asked by a regular citizen.

In my mind, the popularity of the video underscores the notion that citizens are interested in being a real part of the democratic process beyond just casting their vote in November. It is my belief that only a true embrace of the Internet will increase citizen participation.

Internet Plays Valuable Role In Increasing Democracy, Freedom

As perhaps one of the only people who attended both the Democratic and Republican YouTube debates on my own dime, it is clear to me that citizens need to continue to be a part of the debate structure.

While I was extremely pleased to see Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin join efforts to help promote and announce an informal "Presidential forum" with YouTube this fall, that doesn't go far enough.

As a citizen, I have the right to insist that my candidates for President interact with me and answer the questions I have about their positions on the issues I care about. Like most Americans, I rely on the participatory power of the Internet to communicate with public officials. That is why I believe that the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to fully embrace the Internet in one of its three-scheduled *official* debates.

It Might Happen: Commission Opens Door To Possibility

The Commission has already committed in its second debate to including the Internet, we just don't know the details:

The second departure from past CPD formats will be the introduction of internet access to the presidential town meeting debate. Questions solicited by Internet will be included with those from citizens on the stage with the candidates.

Unfortunately, a true embrace of the Internet by the Commission is suspect.

In fact, as Politics Magazine reported on Friday, the Commission's executive director struck quite a snarky tone toward a format resembling the YouTube debate by cracking a (funny?) zinger:

"It's a matter of figuring out which [interactive] elements are helpful to viewers and actually add something to the discussion and which elements are just distracting. We're not Entertainment Tonight."

I actually had to Google "Entertainment Tonight" to try and figure out what she meant. Even after reading it's Wikipedia entry I don't really "get" how a YouTube debate equates to the "most popular and longest-running entertainment news program."

For sure, the YouTube debates were massively popular with the American public. In fact, the Republican Presidential debate was the most-viewed primary debate ever. That's a whole heckuva lot of people interested in a Republican discussion and that's good news to me as a Republican. And it's also good news for democracy.

Look, I don't know Janet Brown or anyone on the Commission. I doubt any of them are on Facebook, LinkedIn or have ever submitted a YouTube video. That's cool with me. Different strokes for different folks.

However, the fate of what could be a ground-breaking experiment in democracy should not fall at the hands of these few. If the Commission is serious about using the Internet and finding a good format -- they should surround themselves with folks who "get" it. I'm happy to be one voice - and perhaps writing this note serves as my contribution to the effort; but I can also think of dozens of people from both the Right and Left who could offer valuable contributions to the discussion.

Last August I wrote a short op-ed for the New York Times entitled "The People's Court" for a series of bipartisan voices detailing how technology might be better deployed to add to the debate process.

Most of the other contributors took the topic seriously and offered solid feedback; but not NBC News' Tom Brokaw. Instead of thinking beyond the box and adding value to the discussion, Brokaw embraced an elitist tone and sarcastic attitude which is likely dominant in editorial rooms across the country.

The opening in his piece is telling of the elitism that "old guard" media types bring to the table:

"If this is truly the campaign of the new media, candidates should be required to answer questions only on their cellphone, BlackBerry or other personal digital assistant, so we can size up their personal text message codes, ring tones and thumb-typing skills.

"The questioners could be sweaty fat guys muscling people aside as they get off airplanes, shouting loudly into cellphones: 'Rudy, I just landed. Can we talk?' 'Hillary! Hey! Mike here! Can you hear me? Hello? Hello?"

The ironic thing is that Brokaw was attempting to be humorous and sarcastic; he failed at both and instead stuck his elitist finger in the eyes of participatory democracy. That being said, he actually does have a good point if you boil out the BS. Citizens should be able to participate in the democratic process where ever, whenever, and how ever they want. After all, this is America.

Brokaw may speak for a number of different "generations," and I respect his contributions to his industry, but he doesn't speak for me or my generation.

Personally I don't think folks sitting in editorial news rooms sipping iced latte’s represent my perspective very well; (I prefer iced coffee instead.) I doubt they represent "your" perspective either.

And to be sure, it was perhaps that same elitism and liberal bias in the editorial process which plagued CNN's editorial decisions in the GOP debate.

Conclusion

The Old Guards who cloak their elitism and misinformation with sarcastic humor have their foot pressed firmly on the neck of the Revolution and it's time we breathe freedom.

Like you, I am optimistic in my belief that the Internet could serve a valuable role in increasing citizen participation in the Presidential debates. Unfortunately, even for an optimist like me, the signs are not looking very good for those being engineered by the Old Guards.

This is the first step, but I can't do it alone. A bipartisan coalition of concerned citizens could help convince the Commission to embrace the Internet for a debate and I look forward to working with you to do just that. Stay tuned.

[Cross-posted from TechRepublican.]