The July 23 YouTube/CNN debate among Democratic presidential contenders was an innovative alternative. Having actual voters asking very direct questions on video, via the Internet, instead of polished journalists asking well-thought-out, methodical questions gave the debate a sense of freshness. It's the 21st century, and -- let's face it -- technologically speaking, that's the way to go. You have to reach voters through the Internet, on their cell phones or even on their iPods. But wait -- don't throw out the moderator just yet.

Anderson Cooper did a great job with his straightforward follow-up questions, keeping the candidates on track. Having been on the questioner's side of debates, I know how tough that can be; politicians usually stick to their prepackaged answers that have been prepared for predictable questions.

While some of the questions in the debate were certainly predictable, others were very original and brave, and then there were those off-the-wall ones that added a touch of humor.

The format, for the most part, helped the candidates to loosen up a bit and made for enjoyable TV watching, but it shouldn't necessarily replace the traditional debate format -- it should remain an alternative. There is something to be said for well-prepared moderators who bring knowledge and perspective to a debate, leveling the playing field with equal time for the candidates. 

Having said that, the YouTube/CNN debate should be a friendly reminder to us in the media that it is the voters we are working for. It is they who need to have the necessary information about the candidates and their points of view in order to make an intelligent decision when it comes time to go to the polls.

Voters should not be relying solely on the candidates' campaign ads, or on the opinions of pundits and political commentators, to decide who their elected officials should be. Therefore, it is the issues that concern the voters that need to be addressed in a more formal debate, even if it is moderated by polished journalists asking methodical, well-thought-out questions.

For my part, I truly was disappointed that missing from the interactive debate were more questions from Latino voters and discussion of issues that directly impact Hispanics. Latinos are, after all, the fastest-growing sector of our electorate. Yet there were no questions about the candidates' plans to fix our broken immigration system, no questions about the raids that are separating immigrant families. There were no questions about AgJOBS or the DREAM Act, or how to deal with the elevated high-school dropout rate among Latino students. The one question that did make reference to immigrants was whether candidates would extend health insurance to undocumented immigrants. None of them would openly commit.

When it comes to Latin America --where anti-American sentiment has increased in recent times -- the only mention was when the candidates were asked whether they would meet face to face with dictators around the world, including those in Cuba and Venezuela. Sen. Barack Obama said he would, while Sen. Hillary Clinton said she would not allow herself to be used for political propaganda. Whether we liked their answers or not, at least someone remembered that there are areas of conflict in our own hemisphere without having to go the Middle East or Asia.

Using new technology to reach the greatest amount of voters possible is a big plus for the political process. The more interest you generate, the more political participation you get. Allowing a forum for a direct dialogue between voters and candidates strengthens our democracy. Now the challenge for debate moderators will be not only to try to get straight, honest answers from the candidates, but to make sure their questions are the ones voters want to hear, in a format they'll want to watch.

***

(Maria Elena Salinas is the author of “I AM MY FATHER'S DAUGHTER: LIVING A LIFE WITHOUT SECRETS.” Reach her at www 
.mariaesalinas.com)

© 2007 by Maria Elena Salinas

Distributed by King Features Syndicate