Would this change your opinion of a Presidential Candidate?

Well, I don't know that I can fault them for not getting on YouTube, since it's a format that is still considered new technology to a lot of people (at least in Guiliani's age range). That's not to say all, but a lot of people are still technology challenged. I think the idea is awesome, but I don't know that I can say that they're arrogant or unwilling to participate because they don't want to answer questions from the general public. That, in fact, might be the case, but.. it also might be due to the technology as opposed to the people participating.

And, btw, just as a side note.. I'm very liberal or left wing in my views, so I did just try to be very fair to several republican candidates... of course, I'm not going to cry if it hurts their campaigns, honestly.

I would much rather have an older president with more experience under his belt. Than an Obama that has no experience.

Obama is NO JFK. If JFK were running the Dems would hound him like they do Lieberman. Are you kidding me, JFK was a raving conservative in today's world.

Remember, "Ask NOT what your country can do for YOU, ask what YOU can do for YOUR country"

Those are fighting words to todays Dems, they all believe the Government should take care of everyone and entitlement rules the day.

You find a JFK to run on the Democratic ticket and I will vote Democrat.

I think perhaps your interpretation of that quote is different than other people or perhaps even JFK intended, especially given the speech from which it was quoted from. However, that's neither here nor there, but I did want to say.. there's really no reason to make comments like that about democrats. That's an extremely confrontational, arrogant and snide comment from you. And, truly, it wasn't even close to the original topic.

Lookingglass, I don't think it particularly dates them. I don't think that I would make my choice on who would most effectively fit the job based on whether they're technologically inclined or not. I don't really see that technology is part of their job, given that they've got so many advisors and staff people that are there to know the technology for them. The only thing I personally see as an issue there is that it's a missed opportunity. I think candidates should be more personally involved with the public, whether they're democratic or republican. This country should be about the people, considering it's, in theory, a democracy and I think that being more personally involved with communities and the general public gives a candidate a better idea of what he needs to represent our country properly.. whatever that is, and completely aside from my personal viewpoint on politics.

Anyway, I think that their ideas, whether or not they're challenged by technology, are what makes them right or wrong for the position (subject, of course, to an individual's interpretation of what's right or wrong).

I think you have grossly misaligned what context those words were made in and what they actually mean.

I also love this line in the speech
"remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside. "

and this one as well...

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. "

Oh I see, let's spin JFK's words now to mean something different. Sad, very sad. He was a good President.

I think it's you who is spinning the words here...What exactly do you think those words mean?

And yes, he was a good president...Even if he slept around

I think they mean exactly what they say as all words do in a speech given by a POTUS. And no one even mentioned his sexual escapades.

And yes, I am fully aware of Bush's numerous faux paus's.

Ok, side-step the question then...

I did.
(to make a point....but never mind).

It also says, "we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves"

which, IMO, is an AWESOME statement.

I just went and read the entire speech. It was, maybe, the best Inagural speech ever given. It is timeless I think.
JFK mentioned God and the prophets at least 3 or 4 times, that would never go over today probably.

I wish politicians were more like JFK today.

I personally wish the candidates hadn't started campaigning two years before the election... *sigh*

As for the YouTube debates, the internet and other non-traditional media are going to be far more important to Democratic candidates than Republicans. I think Guiliani and Romney have chosen who they want their base to be, and know that it will be much more effective to do the traditional hand-shaking baby-holding stint in the heartland than do a debate on YouTube, which may very well come off negatively to the people they want to persuade, ie, they will come off like they're doing something experimental to try to be cool, and it will hurt them.

Democrats are more likely to consider their candidates to be finally catching up with the times, so it is unlikely that any potential votes will view their internet shenanigans negatively.

That said-- I know it's not gonna change my opinion. I wouldn't be voting for either one of them anyway.

(for a note, I did read all of this thread, I just wanted to respond to the OP)

I got your point. The difference is that he didn't lie about it under oath in a court of law.

Would it change my opinion? Nope, not one bit. There are plenty of other debates where we'll get to hear what they have to say about the same issues raised there in the YouTube debate.

I'm still writing in Ellen DeGeneres for president

And she is an animal lover Skippy.

Same here.

Personally, perhaps its my age being between young and "old", but if either of these two don't debate on YouTube I'm not going to cry about it or change my mind towards them. In fact those that do go on YouTube won't change my mind.

As long as their points are consistent and well dictated in the traditional format (TV, radio, newspapers, web sites, etc) then they have their basis covered for everyone of all ages.

Though I have found a few things I like on YouTube, I personally think its a waste of internet space...or at least 95% of the stuff that gets posted on there.

Besides, what's next? Are the campaigners going to text message 18-20 year olds:

i hope that does mean he gets shot in a limo in dallas, hmm i think they closed the book store there.

anyway, i never saw jfk as being that good. People liked him sure. you had the bay of pigs,and missile crisis. Both of which failed. later russies just put the missles back.

hmm anyway, i think they shoudl do the utube think, i watched the one the next day, i kinda like the format of it. But will it change my mind? nope.

IMO I would not judge a candidate solely on whether he/she was in a debate. I want to see "in writing" where they stand on important issues before I choose.

There are certain candidates that I know I would not vote for - haven't figured out who would be the best for president yet.

I find it very interesting that young people are asking this. I was a young person when JFK was President. So I noticed right away that Obama's mannerisms and speaking style very much mimic JFK's. I have to ask myself if this is intentional, and is he taking on these JFK mannerisms and style in order to be more appealing as a candidate? In order to appear to be this generation's JFK? And if he's doing this, is it being disingenuous and deceptive on his part?

I had a bit of a debate this past week with a radio talk show host about this issue. After me another listener called in who said he was from Illinois and has been watching Obama's political progress for some time. He said that as far as he can recall, Obama's had this JFK style as long as he's been in politics. So I guess at least the partial answer to my question is that he didn't take on the appearance of being a JFK just to run for the presidency. Oh, I'm sure at some point he decided he wanted to model himself after JFK. But if he's been doing this for some time now, I really don't think it's that big of a deal any more.

That leaves the question: IS he this generation's JFK? That remains to be seen. Personally, I think JFK's presidency is very overrated. Who knows what it might have been if he hadn't been assassinated. But be that as it may, I think that yearning to have another JFK is misplaced expectation. Obama will better serve himself and the country (if and when he's elected) by being this generation's Obama, not this generation's JFK. You're always better off being the best yourself than being an image of someone else, not matter how much they're revered.

I believe the world in general would be better served if people were just simply honest about who they were and didn't spend their lives trying to appease others, whoever that may be.

The problem is that the general nature of politics lends itself to being disingenuous. This is, however, at least partially understandable. In order to get somewhere in politics, to further your agenda, to accomplish what you think is right (of course, subject to interpretation by individuals)... you have to be what people want you to be. This begs then the question of whether it is better to be disingenuous (at least to some degree) and potentially accomplish great deeds, or to be genuine and (potentially) get nowhere if your campaign doesn't widely appeal to the broadest category of people.

In any case, I think it's entirely possible to be disingenuous and still be a great president, and be effective in politics. (And to tie this back in...) I think that the republican candidates not participating on youtube are most likely being true to who they are... whether that is someone who doesn't readily understand and embrace new technology or whether that is someone who simply can't be bothered.

I won't judge a candidate by a speech or a debate, no matter how eloquent or bumbling. I want to see the 'record'. How has the candidate actually voted on the issues in the past? What kinds of statements did he/she make in committee hearings and other places the press usually doesn't hang out?

I don't want to see a presidential candidate who is a reincarnation of a past president in actions or demeanor. Personality is lovely but I want to see his or her quality. Now if a candidate is similar to a president in exhibiting optimism, dedication, or drive, that WILL get my attention.

On the subject of JFK, I think he's known as a great president as much because he and Bobby were assassinated as anything he actually did. Yes, there was the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his famous sound bytes. But would he have been as well remembered if he had served his full term, besides being the youngest president and the first Catholic president?

A very astute observation....and perhaps a rather sad comment on the American political process.

On Obama -- I think he's got potential -- I just don't think it's his time quite yet.

On participating in debates -- I think serious candidates do themselves a disservice if they bow out of debates for whatever reason.