Okay, kill me now. Re: the upcoming debate

[eileen from OH]

I really wish that DK and Sharpton would excuse themselves from the debate or not be able to make it or something. They have had the opportunity to be in a bahgillion debates, but this is crunch time.

Sharpton hasn't made a some of the debates already and, while he's great for comic relief, that's about all he adds TO THE DEBATES. Others may talk about what he adds to the overall picture, etc., but as far as realistic chance, puhleeze.

DK. Dennis, Dennis, Dennis. I've watched all the debates and he has made his points over and over again. His voice HAS been heard - in the debates. And he ain't gettin' the votes even though his message IS getting through to anyone who has watched previous debates and is receptive to it. It just ain't happening for him.

I'm all for democracy and letting all voices be heard and all that, and actually this runs totally counter to what I would normally feel or say. Except. . .

I really, really, REALLY want to hear just Edwards and Kerry this time. (NOTE: if we could get a separate debate with just the two of them, I'd gladly cancel this request.) It isn't because I want to hear something new from Kerry or Edwards, but I DO want to see how they handle themselves one-on-one. Whoever our eventual nominee is, they won't have Sharpton or Kucinich up there when they debate Bush. I want to see how they stack up in a two person debate. A lot of people who tune out everything else in the general election, WILL watch the debates. Whoever our nominee is, they have to be able to win against Mr. Glad Hander. You will remember that a lot of us thought that Gore would mop the floor with Bush-the-syntax-mangler, right? Big mistake. Lock box. Moving in Bush's space. Disaster.

We MUST have some indication of two-person debating skills before we choose a candidate. And we can't have that with Sharpton and Kucinich on the stage. This doesn't mean that I discount what either (especially DK) brings to the national discourse. But this IS an election and neither of them have a shot and for them to use the debate as yet another forum is unfair. It's unfair to the candidates who DO have a chance and it's unfair to the people who want to judge those candidates.

Again, this is something I would ordinarily never even suggest. Except there HAVE been a LOT of debates that have included candidates who haven't a chance. I'd just like this ONE to be for those who DO.


eileen from OH

[BurtWorm]

1. Kucinich has earned a spot at any debates while he's a candidate.

Same for Sharpton. To exclude them would be to make an arbitrary statement about their electability. Who's to say--if debates are really so important--that Kucinich or Sharpton won't say something utterly convincing, or make either of the other two say something quite the opposite, about their respective "electability?"

[eileen from OH]

5. I don't think it's "arbitrary"

to say that if you haven't gotten above 2% so far in a primary that you have an electability problems. I never would have suggested this at the beginning, or after a few contests, but we DO have some primaries under our belts, we DO have an idea of who can realistically can win, and we HAVE had debates in which they could participate.

If you think that either of them can say anything, at any point, at any place, in front of any audience, in any debate, that would significantly alter their chances, I'm wondering a) what the hell that could be and b) why haven't they said it yet.

eileen from OH

[BurtWorm]

9. Dennis came in third in at least two.

He earned his spot. It would really piss me off if he was dropped because the DNC decided Kerry and Edwards should duke it out. What could be more arbitrary than that, than your party decreeing in media res that you suddenly don't qualify for national airtime. Especially on the verge of the most crucial primary day of the calendar!

[eileen from OH]

16. Again (sigh) it's not a matter of "earned"

it's a matter of a)realistic chance b)why? and c)who does it benefit/hurt?

a) Dennis does not have a realistic chance. Period. That ain't arbitrary, that is truth.

b) Why? To give airtime to get message out. I think we're past that at this point. I'm not saying shut him down, or shut him up. But there is nothing he can say or do that will change his chances. It isn't a matter of saying that he doesn't qualify for air time, just that he doesn't qualify for this debate.

c) It doesn't help him significantly, at least as far as his chances to win are concerned. But it DOES hurt Kerry and Edwards and it does hurt the people who need to choose between these two.

Again, one of these guys are going to face Bush. We need to see them in a face-to-face debate (or what passes for a debate nowadays.) And, again, NOT because they need to get THEIR message out but because they (and we) need to see them in the same kind of forum in which one of them will face Bush.

eileen from OH

[BurtWorm]

18. Whose "realistic" are we talking about here?

Why should Edwards have any more of an advantage than Kucinich or Sharpton? Why Edwards in particular? Because a critical mass of pundits have said he's "electable?"

[eileen from OH]

24. No, it's that pesky math thing

with a dash of momentum thrown in.

eileen from OH

[OhioStateProgressive]

42. who cares if it hurts Edwards and Kerry

Dennis has met the debate threshold rules...a candidate must earn at least 10% in a binding primary or caucus...Dennis earned 16% in Maine, so he is eligible...end of story

[Cptn Kirk]

12. Do you really believe that?

Or are you just intentionally spreading a lie? DK has gotten 16% before, and Al has gotten double digits twice.

[eileen from OH]

17. Can either of them

in any possible mathematical equation or scenerio, at this time, win the nomination?

eileen from OH

[spooky3]

29. The delegate count supports you, eileen.

Sharpton has 16 pledged and unpledged. Most of these were earned in South Carolina. Kucinich has 2 pledged and unpledged. In contrast, Edwards has nearly 200 and Kerry more than 600.

Yes, it is still mathematically possible for them to win by immediately winning most of the states on Super Tuesday. And both may be helped by the departure of Gov. Dean from active campaigning, though his name is still on the ballot and his supporters may stick with him. But there is no evidence that the results from those states will be radically different for Sharpton and Kucinich from the results from the other states. The main point is that if they have been unable to win more than a handful of delegates in the 17 contests to date, there is a sound, non-arbitrary reason for treating them differently in one debate from the two candidates who have much more consistently won delegates.

[Guaranteed]

22. YES. He HAS to be there.

He's the chaperone. SOMEONE has to keep these guys honest.

[greatauntoftriplets]

31. And it is undemocratic to exclude Kucinich and Sharpton.

n/t

[RetroLounge]

59. an arbitrary statement about their electability?

This whole campaign has been about an arbitrary statement about electability...

[x-g.o.p.er]

2. No flame here, I agree

It's not that I don't think Kucinich or Sharpton need to be silenced--they don't and they haven't been. But let's face it, t hey are not going to get the nomination. It seems that the only two who have a legitimate chance at the nomination are either Kerry or Edwards, and a one on one debate would help a lot of undecided voters (me specifically, lol) decide. I am leaning towards Edwards because I really like his populist message, but a good debate by Kerry one on one could persuade me to change.

[anarchy1999]

3. I really want to see an honest debate!

I want all candidates running to be asked the same question and the opportunity to hear from each and every one of them.

The debates up to now have been nothing short of an absolute farce. There was no debate. Just entertainment. Personalities asking questions to one or two and then moving on. There has not yet been one single real substantive debate.

I'm pissed. I want to see Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, Sharpton and anyone else get on stage and answer every question. Let us make up our minds then.

Edwards and Kerry only, my ass!~

[eileen from OH]

14. Okay. . .

Well. . .

1) This debate will not ask all the same question of all of them so it won't be any different than what we've seen thus far, so why would you care that it doesn't include Kucinich and Sharpton?

2) If the debates this far have been a farce, what makes you think that this one will be any different? None of them are real debates, and this one won't be either. So why would you care if Kucinich and Sharpton aren't there?

3) Your being pissed about the format of the debate won't change the format of the upcoming debate or the forum of the Presidential Debate. You and I may want that but we ain't gonna get it.

And you seemed to have missed my point. I'm not nearly as concerned about ANSWERS or giving candidates a forum for their ideas as I am at seeing how the two realistic candidates handle themselves one on one. One of THEM will be going up against Bush and I want to see how THEY handle themselves in that same kind of situation.

The Presidential debates won't be "real" debates either. The "forum" or how questions are asked, etc., is besides the point, EXCEPT in the context of how the candidates can think on their feet.

And whatever format they are, a helluva lot of people will watch and be influenced by the Presidential debates. It IS gonna be Kerry or Edwards, no matter how much you may want someone else. And we owe it to them, and ourselves, to judge how well they can handle it.

eileen from OH

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. After Super Tuesday, I might agree

But we have yet to get to the more populous states and if someone is IN the race and is a REAL Democrat (unlike La Rouche) they should be included.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. That's completely impractical

The contest is NOW. This is like the third day of Gettysburg.

If Edwards is still kicking after Super Tuesday, he's in seriously good shape; the next contest (after American Samoa, that is...) is a four state date the following week: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. For him to be standing at that point would mean that Kerry had lost momentum. Edwards would had gained the initiative, just as he steps onto the hospitable front porch of Dixie without any pesky spoilers to distract from the showdown.

Maybe it'll be such a marginal squeaker that it's still a toss-up, but I'd say that Edwards has the serious upper hand if it's still at issue then.

Super Tuesday is the shooting match here; it's High Noon and a coast-to-coast brawl. Let's get some more publicity out there before that.

It's a tough one; ethically, I feel it's wrong to exclude Kucinich and Sharpton, but if REALITY means anything, and we have any respect for the voters (remember THEM?) we should want them to see in stark contrast just what their true choice is. Politeness and decorum are important, but the primary season is a RESOURCE; it's where we learn from each other who has the greater appeal, who can take it and who can hack it in the clutch. What with top-loading and a last minute candidate who was well funded and hyped, we are cheating ourselves of really listening to each other within the shakedown cruise of a real primary season. It's shades of '84, except worse.

Me? I wouldn't dis-include the other two, but I wouldn't go on an ickyfest (not that you did) against those who'd suggest or orchestrate it.

(I just know Edwards shines more the more people see him.)

Maybe we should just add a few more debates in here...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. I hate that you are so persuasive

I'll give it another look.

BTW, I DO want to see Kerry debate Edwards and DON'T have a fear of it. I really have great faith in Kerry and I know Edwards is more seductive in overall charm and all that happy horseshit, but I'm also pretty confident of my guy's debate skills and ability to win votes. He thrives under pressure.

[eileen from OH]

19. But by Super Tuesday

it may be too late. That's kind of my point. Right now we have a super frontrunner - Kerry, and a possible-pull-it-off - Edwards.

TWO - mathmetically, we have TWO. Right now. There is no conceivable scenerio by which any other candidate can pull it off.

And the debate is the ONLY time they can do a one-on-one BEFORE Super Tuesday. And I don't want to go into Super Tuesday without knowing how they will do in a two-man debate.

eileen from OH

[no name no slogan]

62. How do you figure that?

How is Edwards more viable than Kucinich? Edwards has won exactly ONE more state than Kucinich-- the one in which he was born, BTW.

There are still 75% of the delegates to be awarded yet. NOBODY has a clear lock on the nomination. CA and NY, two of the biggest states in the union, haven't even gone to the polls yet.

And to say that either Sharpton or Kucinich has gotten their "message out" via the debates is questionable at best, laughable at worst. Kerry has gotten more time in the last debate than DK received in ALL the debates COMBINED. Neither of them, although proven candidates, has barely been given the time of day during these "debates", much less had a chance to discuss their issues.

Keep the debates open. Unless we want to prove that we're really not the party of democracy, that is.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. Be serious, will you?

Kerry got more time in the last debate than Kucinich did in all the others combined? That's so beyond ridiculous that it defies response.

Kucinich did fairly well in Washington and Maine. Edwards took South Carolina by 15 1/2 points. He lost Oklahoma by less than a half a percent, missed second in Delaware by 26 votes, missed third in New Hampshire by less than 2/5ths of a percent, and has consistently risen in the polls. (Yes, Clark slowed down the acceleration quite a bit, but he's gone now.)

In the most recent CNN/Gallup national poll, Kerry beats Bush by 12 points and Edwards beats Bush by 10. Ten points; that's significant.

I like Kucinich, but even if he was a viable candidate, I would still have some problems with some of the platform. He certainly walks the walk, and that's to his credit. It's also to his credit that he likes Edwards as much as he does.

In most primaries and caucuses, Kucinich can't even get above 5% of the vote, whereas Edwards is generally in double digits. I know you're sincere in your support, and your guy's a good guy, but you're absolutely wrong.

[Leilani]

6. I agree completely

Sharpton & DK have had every opportunity to get their message out.

I want to see Edwards & Kerry in a real 1 on 1 debate.

[On the Road]

7. There Would be Howls of Racism,

but I think Sharpton alone should be excluded on the grounds that he's not a serious candidate. Kucinich IS. Even though he doesn't have the votes, he has municipal and national political experience, an extensive platform, and a lot of hard-core support from the base.

[spooky3]

32. Sorry, I think howls of racism would be justified.

Sharpton has more delegates than does Kucinich, and the voters have had many opportunities to judge the candidates' backgrounds. While you may believe Sharpton is unqualified based on an analysis of their backgrounds, others will legitimately argue that the voters have judged Kucinich to be unqualified also.

Further, there would be criticism that excluding one but not the other does not accomplish the goal of having a one-on-one between two candidates who have a realistic chance of winning. They would argue that you either have to exclude both to provide this opportunity, or exclude no one.

[On the Road]

70. It's Not Because of Delegates, It's Because of Qualifications

Kucinich is a congressman and former mayor.

Sharpton has no qualifications. It's just a podium for him. Might as well include Lyndon LaRouche.

[spooky3]

71. I understood your argument, but I am trying to show you its

weakness. Someone else would say, "why do YOUR subjective judgments about Sharpton's vs. Kucinich's qualifications matter more than the objective number of delegates each has received thus far, or in other words, the subjective judgments of hundreds of thousands of voters? When the voters were given the opportunity to evaluate whose qualifications were stronger, they did not agree with you that there were big differences in the two. Why should your voice and opinion matter more than theirs?"

And I agree with them. In a democracy, the number of votes/delegates count in the primary system, not the reasons for the votes, and no one has the right to substitute his/her judgment of qualifications over that of the majority. In this case, there is no legitimate basis for saying no to Sharpton and yes to Kucinich because it would be contrary to the will of the people.

[ShaneGR]

8. I agree, btw, Go Buckeyes!

:yourock:

[Awsi Dooger]

27. A Trojan and a Buckeye can finally agree: John Edwards!

I can't wait to see a debate from my old campus, USC. I'm sure it will be at classy Bovard Auditorium, in the heart of our little campus. Tommy Trojan is smack outside and Doheny Library straight across.

Come to think of it, the only packed speakers bureau events I ever saw on campus were for politicians, Ted Kennedy and Gerald Ford. Whoops, a Wolverine. Sorry.

[efront]

69. Yikes. And a Wolverine agrees with you

as well. Who says Edwards isn't a uniter? :)

[megaplayboy]

10. I think the standard should be...

that when it becomes mathematically impossible(or even just extraordinarily unlikely) for a candidate to win enough delegates to get the nomination, and the probability of a brokered convention is low, that candidate should drop out, and if they don't, there's no particular reason to include in the debate, since they won't win enough delegates under their best case scenario to do more than negotiate platform planks at the convention. It's a nominating process, not a traveling soapbox act.
they've had their say, and will be heard at the convention. It's not yet impossible for them to win, but after Super Tuesday it certainly will be.

[Kanary]

11. To heck with democracy, eh?

Know how many states have voted so far?

Know how many people still are making up their minds in order to vote in upcoming primaries?

Think maybe some others would like to hear something you have no interest in?

If your whole decision is predicated around hearing just the two Johns together, then.... that's very little to go on, eh?

Kanary, who knows this will earn Dennis more donations, so go for it........

[eileen from OH]

21. Yes. . .

I DO know how many states have voted this far and I think it absolutely SUCKS that primaries and caucuses that probably won't go Dem anyway get to pick the candidates. I'm from Ohio, remember? We haven't had a say in actually choosing a candidate EVER, even though they all wet themselves trying to win our state after that. Trust me, you don't have to give me any lectures on how the entire primary process totally bites the big one.

Ohio and other states that have late primaries have ALREADY lost their voice in choosing a candidate. CA, NY, OH and other big states have ALREADY been cut out of the process and asking candidates who don't have a chance to step down from a debate ain't gonna change that.

But I'm dealing with reality here, in this election, right here, right now. And, once AGAIN, it ain't what the candidates - any of them - have to say, per se - it's how they handle the debate, dammit. It is not, no matter how you choose to interpet it, a slam at DK or Sharpton. It's that the two candidates, one of whom WILL face Bush, need to show their stuff.

eileen from OH

[Kanary]

51. We talk a lot about how candidates come across in debates

And sometimes we need to look at how we, ourselves, come across, also.

I don't know you, or what your philosophies are. However, I can say that from what I see of your writing here, you are coming across as quite closed to any other opinion, and quite.... well, harsh. I don't sense any opening with you at all, so I have to conclude that what I think or feel or want is of no interest to you.

ONe of these days you may understand exactly what it is that Dennis Kucinich is bringing to the process, and then wish he had had more of an opportunity.

It's your loss.

Kanary

[MuseRider]

39. Aloha

and good morning! I just got your Warm Fuzzy story. Thanks.

[0rganism]

13. It's ONE debate between here and March 2 -- less than 2 weeks away

Chances are, you'll get your wish after March 2, at least twice.

Why push it now? Don't worry, the bulk of the time will still go to your DLC buddies Kerry and Edwards, just like before. Sharpton will have a little time for witticisms, and Kucinich will be marginalized as usual.

The "big tent" party can afford to be magnanimous for another two weeks.

[eileen from OH]

23. Because by Super Tuesday

it could very well be wrapped up, without anyone seeing which one of these guys will stand up best under the pressure-cooker of a two-person, national debate. There is a time, and the time is now.

You may not have "lock box" nightmares, Organism, but I do.

As far as my "DLC buddies" go, they haven't spoken to me in a year, right about the time I started sending money to, and supporting Howard Dean. Hahahahahaha - me and the DLC. It is to laugh.

eileen from OH

[0rganism]

28. The Lock Box Nightmare

Oh, I have them alright, and they have ZERO to do with the debating skills of the candidates. Kerry's been a congresscritter for quite some time, and Edwards is a seasoned trial lawyer; I'm quite confident they both know how to present, promote and defend any arbitrary position they wish. You ought to be far more concerned about how they handle the pressure cooker of negative press, because starting from the point where someone has a lock on the nomination, that's all we're gonna see.

Perhaps you don't remember. Al Gore WON the debates, just like he won the popular vote and the vote in Florida, when the ballots were counted. Forensic teams have scored the debates, and Gore won on the merits of his arguments. Thing is, it didn't matter.

"The Lock Box" really meant something, and the media was too shallow, fatuous, and dedicated to a bush win to COVER what it meant. Instead, we got "he sighs too much" or "he changed his suit" or "he says he invented the internet", and in the middle of that, "the lock box" got turned into a big freaking joke. Not because Al Gore was a weak debater, or incapable of describing an idea, but because he was marked for a loss.

If you supported (DLC member) Howard Dean, you ought to be quite familiar with media character assasinations by now. The same thing can be done to Kerry and Edwards, no problem. By narrowing the field earlier, you just give the media whores that much more of an excuse to focus on John Kerry -- cos let's admit it, he's their primary target now that Dean's gone.

And if the media whores successfully scrap John Kerry before March 2, you'll want more than one candidate left on that stage.

[TheWhitneyBrown]

25. Agreed it should be 1 on 1 - But how to do it?

The only way it could be done without a big fight is for the sponsoring organization to set the rules.
Sierra Club, LWV, or something like that, or the CNN debate in California, says this debate is limited to those who have won at least one state. Winners only. It's the playoffs, after all.

[rucky]

33. Bush vs. the Nominee

n/t

[ThirdWheelLegend]

26. Ted Koppel has more influence than I thought

TWL

[Skwmom]

30. So we help the media further marginalize these candidates? n/m

[Kanary]

53. That seems to be the poster's agenda. n/t

[MuseRider]

34. You know

one of the things I really dislike about the Republicans is their penchant for acting like this. The pat on the head and the patronizing, "don't worry your little head about it, we will take care of it." In other words you all want us to STFU, go home and you will call us when you have it all under control? That is what this feels like, what it sounds like. Personally I feel that if Kerry and Edwards have not been able to distinguish the differences between themselves by now that is their problem. It certainly could have nothing to do with the tiny amount of time and attention given to DK and Sharpton. Personally I think this looks bad for the "big" boys because I think given the tiny amount Al and Dennis have had they have been very clear about their differences. So what is the deal with Kerry and Edwards needing more time?

Democracy is not a democracy when one side gets to change the rules every time it fits their purposes.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. I'm so tired of this anti-democratic sentiment

Is it really difficult to comprehend? Sharpton and Kucinich are candidates - they have a chance to win - they have already won delegates. Why do you want to exclude them - other than that you don't support them?

If we start excluding candidates now, why would Bush even bother to debate our candidate? Are we going to give him an excuse not to?

If Sharpton or Kucinich are excluded from the debates, I won't vote for the Dem nominee. Too bad, so sad. If the Democratic party isn't democratic - why the hell should I bother?

[GreenArrow]

36. yeah, exclude 'em

alienate the left even more. Get rid of the only two candidates that are telling the truth point blank on the issues. That's a good strategy to take, when so many are advocating ABB.

[Mairead]

37. Please stop and *think* for a moment about how ugly your

lack of respect for democracy looks to the rest of us. (And by 'your' I don't only mean you, Eileen, I mean everyone who's so eager or even willing to silence people whom the corporate media have already done their best to exclude and silence.)

Your elitism does you no credit, people. Quite the opposite.

[Desertrose]

41. I agree with you Mairead...isn't this the big tent party?

So why do some feel the need to kick others out of this tent?? ....and why does anyone wonder about folks who feel their only choice is to go third party.

for crying out loud...there will be MORE than enough tim enow that there are only 4 left to debate....Kerry & Edwards are not gonna say anything new....they get planty of face time on all the news.

Dennis & Al- yeah, YOU hear them at the debates....we all do cause we follow them- what about the folks who are tuning in for the first time? They should be able to hear ALL the candidates.

I am very tired of people on this liberal board trying to cut out 50% of the candidates from their to speak....bad enough I will probably get stuck with a candidate that does nothing for me or the people or the party beyond continuing the same corporate elitism already firmly in place.....maybe slow the rush to the cliff my a few mph if we are vigilant.

This is supposed to be Democratic UNDERGROUND people...

DR

[GreenArrow]

38. Let's exclude Kerry and Edwards

I've heard all I need to hear from them. I've heard the tired bromides, am bored with their visonless visons, their stale anecdotes about m-16's and mill working, their advocacy for the status qup, their lame promises and pandering, whose only interest in the position of Presidency seems to be the padding of their resumes and the gratification of their egos. Talk about vanity candidates...

Everyone knows that one of these two clowns is going to be the nominee; why throw out the only two candidates who are talking about the issues in something other than cliches.

Note: I'll vote for one or the other of the two clowns in the general election. I'd prefer Kerry; Edwards is a cipher.

[MaggieSwanson]

54. Couldn't have said it better myself

Very nicely put, GreenArrow. Those who want a clear choice will NOT get it with a Kerry/Edwards debate. Want a clear choice? Put either of them up against Sharpton or DJK.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. All right! $70 for Dennis!

Keep those dismissive posts coming, folks.

You can't make DK or his supporters go away by being high-handed and snarky, and you SURE won't win us over with that attitude.

[revcarol]

47. Sorrry I proposed this game....ROFLMAO

Dennis is going to have to wait for next month to get this $5.00.

Keep the anti-democratic threads comin', y'all. It only enthuses the Dennis Kucinich supporters and makes them work harder.

Too bad about alienating us. We happen to think that the party should listen to new ideas, and not just be a corporatocracy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. Well, I'm keeping a running tab for my March contribution

Otherwise I'd be sending $5.00 or $10.00 off every day. :-)

[Paulie]

49. Play the game for Dennis to WIN

Confirmation
Your Contribution Information

02/20/2004 07:18 AM (PT)

Kucinich For President

Paulie

Thank you very much for your contribution. Your dollars are crucial to the success of our campaign.

Kucinich for President
http://www.kucinich.us

The following summarizes your contribution:
Total Contribution Amount: $100.00
Reference ID: 542xxxx


Kucinich For President contact information:
Email Address: [e-mail]

If you have technical questions regarding this website, please submit them here.

You will receive this confirmation via email.

[LWolf]

43. Here's the thing, Eileen.

When you call to exclude my candidate before I get the chance to vote for him...whether you are calling for him to be silenced or to drop out, or any other sort of exclusion...you are excluding me. Plain and simple. The message I get is that you, the voice of your democratic party, don't need me to stick with you. That you support exclusion, which means that I can't support you. Or your candidate. Exclude me, and you've lost me. Is that really what you want?

Understand this. Please.

Thankfully, the voice of the party is not united for the call to exclusion at this point.

[IrateCitizen]

44. I think it should be Kerry and Edwards who are excluded

Here's the reason why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=367821

Enjoy!!!

[RichM]

45. BWAHaha - "I'm all for democracy and all that -- except I'm not!" --

That's your position. If it sounds like a bit of feeble self-contradiction, that's because it is.

"Sharpton is great for comic relief, that's about all he adds ..."
- Are you serious? Sharpton and Kucinich are THE ONLY ONES who address deeper themes at all. Without their presence, we'd have two boring agents of the status quo on stage, both trying to prove something that's manifestly false: that their minimal differences from each other, and even from Bush, amount to more than a few limited tweaks in a general direction that's headed for disaster.

You clearly don't realize it, but by focusing entirely on who has a realistic chance, & seeking to exclude the others, you're expressing an idea that's antithetical to democracy. You are saying, in effect, "Please make our political system even less willing to talk about real issues in an honest way."

[Tinoire]

46. If that happens, I will excuse myself from the Democratic Party & go 3rd

because democracy will be as dead as a door-knob in the this new democrat party- not just stay home and not vote but go third and actively work to rebuild something to replace what will, in that case, be a party so rotten that it's not even worth wasting another minute trying to fix.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=357860

[dweller]

50. You will not be alone n/t

[Desertrose]

55. amen .....and ditto n/t

.

[Kanary]

66. It'll be a parade!

Cuz I'll be right behind you, and so will many others. :hi:

Dang, this democracy thing is a real stickler, eh? :)

Kanary

[Paulie]

48. It's a LONG time before the Convention

There are quite a lot of things that can happen between now and then (knock on wood). Who would have thought in December that DEAN would not be the front runner?

You want math? If Canidates A and B are not around by the convention, wouldn't it be nice to have a Canidate C around??? Or are we just going to pick someone else who got NO votes at all in any primary?

[Iverson]

52. "unfair"

I am intrigued by your understanding of unfair, in which an audience apparently cannot handle more than two candidates in a primary.

The desire to exclude the left-leaning voices is surely the most astonishing coincidence, the farthest thing from anyone's mind.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

63. That's my exact concern about excluding them

But I might add, they have been present at almost all the debates. ONE thing that would be interesting (given that everyone claims this is down to two men even though the MOST POPULOUS states where the most liberal voices reside haven't voted yet)would be to see whether EITHER candidate carries ANY water for the voices that were present with them prior on the stage. That alone makes me want to TEST them.

[Iverson]

74. careful

If you publicly advocate the inclusion of left-leaning voices, people may denounce you in threads and make funny little jokes about bringing a rope to your hanging.

These things happen.

[MoonAndSun]

56. I believe in democracy, I believe in the people's right to hear

all the candidates who are still actively campaigning. It is our right to examine all these men who are still in the race.

I do not mean to be rude, but I can't beleive that this thread was even started.

[bobthedrummer]

57. I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the Wisconsin Primary

While we didn't get him some delegates here, why deprive other voters from hearing his views?

Dennis isn't quitting his campaign.

He deserves to be part of the debate.

I'm sick of the entire behind the scenes machination to deny him a place in the debates-he is a loyal Democrat with a great vision of the future.

He is the best on all issues IMO.

on edit:I'm ABB in November.

[funky_bug]

60. The Super Bowl doesn't take place until all the other teams have a shot

Like it or not, there are still other candidates in this race. They have campaigned for the right to participate.

As for this assertation that Kerry is "ducking" and/or "hiding" from Edwards, the frontrunner does not have to acknowledge the requests from other candidates, nor should he. Why give someone else a platform? That's like battling for a new job, and giving the other guy a ride to the same interview.

Edwards has every right to ask, but Kerry is under no obligation to help the competition.

[Mairead]

64. "Why give someone else a platform?"

In general terms (not in the context of a 1:1), one might say: for the sake of a level field. I can't help but think that the people who treat the whole thing as though they're playing for points are in it mostly for themselves, not for the People. Because wouldn't someone who's in it for the People and who genuinely believes s/he's the best choice ...wouldn't such a person want everyone to have a fair go?

[Slice]

61. Let DK stay

Let DK stay, and kick Sharpton out.

I'll say this over and over again until someone gets it:

Sharpton does not deserve to be in the debates. Sharpton is a fringe candidate just like Lyndon LaRouche and he adds nothing to the debates. If this was fair then Sharpton would have been kicked out of the Democratic Party a long time ago, because of his racist, anti-semitic views.

I would never vote for Sharpton. EVER.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. The African America voting block has been the most loyal democratic

party voting block where the democratic party is concerned. While I DON'T THINK Sharpton speaks FOR ALL Democratic party voting African Americans, I think he raises issues MANY of them want to be heard. The Mighigan debates was quite telling.

For you to claim that the man on the stage raising THEIR issues (whether they vote for him or not) is fringe is completely unacceptable.

Furthermore, there is NO comparison to the issues Sharpton raises and the insane issues La Rouche raises ala quarantining HIV positive people and the "queen of England" crap.

Finally, I have never heard Sharpton claim the AA race was superior to the causcasian race...therefore, by definition, he is NOT a racist. IF you have a cite for this vitriol, I would be happy to consider it depending on your sources.

[revcarol]

67. Who said: " The President LIED to the American people!!"?

NOT EDWARDS
NOT KERRY

Dennis Kucinich: the man with "The Eyes That See Through the Lies"

And WHO elaborated on the theme to the delight of the nation?
NOT EDWARDS
NOT KERRY

Al Sharpton

Since we're gonna be restricting the speech of these gentlemen, why not invite Bush instead? He can "put food on your family." That way you can say you're for free speech. Can't have any truthtellers on the stage.

[Kanary]

68. I like the way your mind works...

'Tis a wonder to behold. :)

You're beginning to rival Al with your insights!

:toast:

Kanary, who knows a brain when she sees one... :hi:

[DebJ]

73. What a snoozer that would be! At least DK and Sharpton add honesty

[MurikanDemocrat]

75. After reading the whole thread, I think you make a good case

I think you make a most reasonable case for wanting to compare Kerry and Edwards one-on-one. Say, for example, a special debate set up for the two of them, before Super Tuesday.

I don't think that will happen though. Edwards has backtracked on his one-on-one challenge and agreed to stick with the 4. Saw that yesterday.

I am opposed to a blanket exclusion of Sharpton and Kucinich from all future debates. As long as they are candidates they should be included.

The one thing I find offensive in this thread are the suggestions to only exclude Sharpton. What an absolutely politically tone deaf idea guaranteed to cause a shit storm and guarantee cries of racial bias. And rightfully so.