The article highlights the positive uses that have been used during the campaign, then moves onto the negative side (at this point, still hadn't mentioned anything other than YouTube and the Liberal Leadership Race):
On the negative side, one video shows a series of unflattering pictures of Ignatieff coupled with alleged policy flip-flops - like his recent musing on Israeli "war crimes," and his announcement that he would absolutely run in the next election after saying he might not.
There's also a video that compiles some of Dion's mistakes in English and challenges his command of his second language.
The level of debate is not always very high.
There's a comments section underneath each video posting, and some of the witticisms could find an appropriate home on the wall of a public restroom between the scribbled phone numbers and gangsta graffiti.
Then all of a sudden...
Take the video, for instance, that shows Prime Minister Stephen Harper promising in the last election not to tax income trusts. He reversed his policy last week out of stated concern for public finances and the country's economic competitiveness.
"Lyin scumbag," was the reaction from one Harper critic.
One fan said: "For those of you who thought that Harper was all about sucking up to the corporate world . . . what do you have to say now?"
The full potential of YouTube may only become clear at election time.
... a jab at the PM. As if the income trust fallout had anything to do the leadership race. A question for the author:
Why didn't you use comments from a video about THE LIBERAL LEADERSHIP RACE?
Interestingly enough, when you search Liberal Leadership Race on YouTube the first comment is:
Find out the story on the author Alexander Panetta at smalldeadanimals.