Narrowing the field

Narrowing the field
: The NY Times editorial page says today, and I agree:

It is important that future debates be limited to only two or three people. The time for inviting hopeless hopefuls is over. Voters have had a long and weary experience with crowded pseudodebates featuring seven, eight or nine candidates. If the point now is to see whether Senator Kerry can stand up under assault, he should be asked to go head to head with a serious candidate, beginning with Senator Edwards.

  • Jeremy

    But who decides who the 2-3 or so major candidates are?
    Obviously, people like Kucinich have no chance.
    But the rest of the field actually had a shot, at least on paper.
    Gephardt was house speaker for a while (though perhaps it was a bad sign that Barbra Streisand didn’t know how to spell his name). Lieberman was VP candidate last election. IMHO, they have better credentials than Clark or Edwards, who have actually won states. Or Dean, who hasn’t won a state, and doesn’t seem to have any sort of experience except being a governor of the most Canadian like state. (Only much much tinier).
    And if the dems try to exclude Sharpton, he’ll cry racism. Though maybe not, Democrats are allowed to be racist (the Byrd rule).

  • http://lonewacko.com/blog The Lonewacko Blog

    Yeah, we should let the NYT decide who the top candidates are, and choose the one we like the best.
    But, seriously, they should give as many candidates as possible a chance to present their ideas to the voters. If they want to hold a few debates just between the front-runners, that’s OK as long as they also let people even further back than Kucinich or Bill Wyatt appear at least once or twice.

    Be sure to sign the petition: Let Janet and Justin perform at the Grammy’s: “Let Justin and Janet – America’s top and beloved Superstars – express themselves at the upcoming Grammy Awards free of hindrance, delay, or other restriction!”

  • http://kenwheaton.blogspot.com ken

    Doesn’t seem like a very blogger-like attitude, just having some arbitrary CW pick the “serious” candidates.
    It’s not the debaters who are at fault so much as the way the debates are framed. I’m still going to push my pen-and-paper test solution.

  • http://hubrisfortyros.blogspot.com/ Dan Herzlich

    I’m sorry Lone, I just hadda do it…
    Let Justin and Janet – America’s top and beloved Superstars – EXPOSE themselves at the upcoming Grammy Awards
    Hell, if I were a top and beloved Superstar, I’d wanna drop my drawers too. But I’m not, so I won’t.
    DH

  • billg

    We all know that those softball sessions they call debates aren’t, but….if it was structured as a real one-on-one debate, I’d pay money to watch an Edwards-Kerry match.
    Kerry woulnd’t stand a chance.

  • http://www.gapingvoid.com hugh macleod

    Until Dean did his scream I didn’t think the Democrats could win. Now, as the Dean campaign starts running out of gas I see their chances a lot more hopeful than say, a month ago.
    Can’t quite see Kerry as Prez, somehow.

  • onecent

    It’s time for Big Al of What Federal Reserve? and Little Dennis of the Pie Charts to take a hike.

  • chris b

    Gephardt was never House Speaker. He was House Majority Leader.

  • http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm Dann

    Jeff-
    I agree. This fall the only debates should be between the Libertarian and World Worker’s Party candidates.
    -Regards.