Virginia Republican, George Allen, was caught making a racial slur at a funding raising event last week. A student caught the comment on tape and published it on YouTube. Let’s just say we won’t be seeing him in primary season. Lieberman was also repeatedly embarrassed by bloggers and videobloggers.

Ryan Lizza writes that YouTube is causing a major revolution in campaigning.

But YouTube may be changing the political process in more profound ways, for good and perhaps not for the better, according to strategists in both parties. If campaigns resemble reality television, where any moment of a candidate’s life can be captured on film and posted on the Web, will the last shreds of authenticity be stripped from our public officials? Will candidates be pushed further into a scripted bubble? In short, will YouTube democratize politics, or destroy it?

Lizza quotes a Republican strategist who said that because of this, candidates will stop experimenting with their message. Candidates will become more vapid.

Perhaps Lizza, whose New Republic has been under siege by bloggers, is overly worried about the impact of videobloggers. If Allen let a racial slur slip and we caught him, then GOOD. If it keeps other racists out of elections, then GOOD. That case isn’t about increasing democracy. It’s just a new way to improve the vetting process.

I refuse to believe that this catch is going to keep candidates from giving boring policy chats. Those speeches just aren’t going appear in the YouTube top 5, which usually includes spoofs of Britney Spears and Chinese guys lip-synching hiphop songs. People said the same thing about C-SPAN, which is only watched by a small geriatric population.