It is not up to Edwards or Kerry if there is a 1-on-1 debate

[ShaneGR]

Guess what? Edwards can't force a 1-on-1 and Kerry can't really duck a 1-on-1. And neither can claim they they kept out the other two or kept them in.

You know why?

Because the media gets to decide. On Feb. 26th CNN and the the LA Times own the rights to the scheduled Democratic debate. To date, this debate will rank as the most important debate of the primary season. It is already excpected that the debate will be heavilly watched. But, the problem is that a 1-on-1 debate adds a little extra spice to the event, and the two groups can promote it as that. The first 1-on-1 debate of the primaries. And what does that mean? RATINGS And what does the media love? RATINGS

So I'd expect CNN to announce that this will be a 1-on-1 over the weekend or at the latest on Monday.

And Kerry can't back out of it because his strength/electability strength will be destroyed. It would be seen as a weak move and weakness isn't going to work against Bush.

[arewethereyet]

1. unscheduled debate, silly

they can probably find someone to sponsor such a thing

[onebigbadwulf]

2. Here's how the debate would go

Kerry- "blah blah"
Ed- "I agree but blah blah"
Kerry- "I agree and blah"
Ed- "I agree to that"

The debate will show us that they are clones are each other, except Edwards is more attractive and charismatic.

[ShaneGR]

3. Actually, I think Edwards will finally tear into him

He's been waiting like a shark in a bloody tank.

[spooky3]

5. I disagree. Doing that would make him look like a hypocrite.

He's maintained consistently from the start that he will not engage in sniping because of who he is (rather than because it's a game plan).

He can, however, point out differences with politeness and charm.

[spooky3]

7. ps I think the shark teeth will come out if he gets a chance against

Bush. There is no reason not to attack Republicans, whereas there are very good reasons not to attack your fellow Democrats, with whom you have far more in common.

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. You're right, and it won't be pretty.

He'll tear Sen. Kerry not one, but SEVERAL new ones, too!

[Taeger]

4. Bull ...

They own the rights to DNC sponsored debates. Kerry and Edwards could pick any old theatre or lecture hall in the nation and have a debate. The press WILL be there. C-Span WILL be there.

[revcarol]

8. If they don't refuse the media ploy, they obviously don't want our

DK and AS votes in the general election,should either become the nominee.

I would hope, FOR JUST ONCE, that they do not allow the MEDIA TO MANIPULATE OUR SELECTION, whether or not they would benefit.

Of course, neither of these guys is for media reform, but just this once, GET SOME BACKBONE AND STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY!!

Time to tell the media, " NO. WE DON'T PLAY YOUR GAME!!"

[Mairead]

11. Exactly, Carol. If they try 'oh but we HAD to', it should be clear to us

all how little either cares about democracy.

Anyone at DU who supports such a deeply anti-democratic move should be banned, in my opinion. And if Skinner et al. won't ban them, then they should be ostracised by everyone here who does care about democracy.

If winning is everything, why not vote for Bush and be done with it?

[bigwillq]

9. All four remaining candidates should debate

Don't take away our right to choice the best possible candidate out of the four still actively in the race. I would be fumming if I were DK and AL and couldn't debate. What a joke the media is trying to pull.

[MidwestMomma]

10. What happens if none of them show up?

I think that our candidates and Party need to start standing up to the media with THIS debate. CNN and LA Times own the rights but they have to have participants to have a show. As my potential nominee, I expect Kerry and Edwards to refuse to let the media decide who the voters get to hear.

It's time to start taking a stand folks.

[Mairead]

12. Right on, MM. Well said!

'What if they gave a war and nobody came?'

[QuidditchFan]

13. If I'm Edwards, I'm not sure I want this...

This is not meant to flame Edwards. For a long time, he has been my second choice behind Kerry for the nomination.

Perhaps Edwards' supporters are pushing for this because there is really everything to gain and nothing to lose, as he is way behind in delegate count, etc. But I also sense that some believe that Edwards would "win" a debate with Kerry, and I just don't see that happening. I think that Kerry will expose Edwards for being a rookie in International Relations. There are many knocks on Kerry, but even his bashers have to concede that he is second to none when it comes to issues. Particularly in the arena of foreign relations, I think that Kerry would make Edwards look like a child. Once again, this is not an assault on Edwards, just a recognition that Kerry has been dealing in international relations for an awful long time. Domestically, also, I think that Kerry would best Edwards, particularly on issues regarding the environment, energy independence, his medical plan, etc.

The DNC and party self-preservation will strongly discourage these candidates from personal attacks. The debate will be on the issues, and Kerry has a much better handle on the issues.