Except for YouTube. Politicians are acutely aware they have yet to co-opt the video sharing site. For every propaganda video they post, there are a dozen dissenting posts, not to mention videos that link them to totalitarian nightmares or spotlight their preening vanity.
And they are haunted by the political carcass of George Allen, the Virginia senator who became YouTube's poster boy for the perils of unguarded speech. Every candidate on Earth is now on notice: If you do or say something stupid, it will be online within minutes, and then endlessly replayed and dissected on cable news and radio talk shows.
So the candidates participate in the YouTube debate, hoping, like high priests tossing a virgin into a volcano, to appease a mercurial god.
Is YouTube's power good for democracy? Certainly I'm glad that the politicians haven't figured out how to game this system. Video-sharing platforms have become a vital forum for discussion and dissent. They give a much-needed voice to voters. And in last night's debate, the gimmicky questions sometimes forced the participants to abandon boilerplate responses.
But in the long run I'm also afraid YouTube will compel candidates to become more guarded, to cling more desperately to scripted speeches and focus-group-tested talking points. As the pressure of constant surveillance mounts, as candidates live in fear of a "Gotcha!" moment, we the voters will have less opportunity rather than more to understand what candidates actually believe.
Maybe it's not just candidates who need to be afraid.