In tomorrow's NY Times Kerry Blasts Debate Format

[DJcairo]

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: October 25, 2003
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — Their nearly weekly debates have been the biggest events of the season for the Democratic presidential candidates. They build their travel schedules around the televised encounters. Their aides devote hours to coming up with catchy retorts. And the forums draw more press coverage than anything else the candidates do.

Even so, many of the top candidates and their aides are at their wits ends over the televised jousts. Some openly contend that the events are simply a waste of time.

"I think the crowded field allows the most shrill, conflict-oriented, confrontational voices to be heard," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said Thursday in Iowa, "and not necessarily the person who might make the best candidate or the best president."

"They're very superficial," he added.

[PassingFair]

1. Absolutely

...no damn argument from me on this one...

[DemDogs]

6. Kerry's got a point

There has got to be a better way.

[killbotfactory]

2. I agree

And Kerry can help narrow the feild by dropping out.

[DJcairo]

3. Except that a recent Zogby poll had Kerry doing the best against Bush

The president would outpoll any of the current leading Democratic contenders if the election were held today. He would earn 46% of the vote against retired General Wesley Clark’s 37%; would beat former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean, 47% - 39%; would poll 45% against Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s 41%; would win over Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt 47% - 38%, and would beat Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, 46% - 38%.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=747

[dsc]

4. Would that be the same Zogby you called delusional?

Why do you care what a delusional person's poll says?

[pocoloco]

10. Fortunately the election was not held today!!!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Haaaa! If Dean had his way it would be just him and Kerry

The way he marginalized Kucinich in that new ad- and boy would that make Dean a deer in the headlights.
Damn the wishful thinking for a "clear way" to the WH is so naive.

[LuminousX]

7. Wasn't it Kerry who asked for the one on one debate with Dean?

That would have effectively eliminated Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun from the campaign.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Just a tad presumptuous.

Just a tad.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. Just A Tad Presumptuous

"I wish he'd say to my face what he says behind my back," Dean said before disappearing behind the door, a grimace on his face.

Kerry had obviously gotten under his skin.

"I just wish he had given me a chance to respond to all that stuff -- the zero experience on foreign affairs, the NRA stuff, the tax cut stuff," Dean said.

"I would have liked to have responded to that in person," Dean said, relishing the thought of getting mouthy with Kerry.

http://www.heraldsun.com/nationworld/elections/16-388697.html

<>

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Getting under the skin?

Prime Example

[MrPeepers]

20. How so?

I think it's not all that presumptuous to say some of the nine are not fit to be President. Because some of the nine aren't. Out of the nine, I'd say Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Kucinich are fit based on experiance. I'd say Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, and Edwards are fit based on electability. I'm starting to see some names that aren't coming up. The fact is, some of those people in the debates are not going to win, do not have a chance of winning, and know they are not going to win. All their presence is doing is taking away from the time people like Dean and Kerry have to address questions. I'm not trying to bash peoples candidates, I'm just pointing out a reality. If they have a good message to present, there are other ways to go about that beyond the debates. The debates should be about picking the best candidate to face President Bush, and right now that function is being inhibited by the sheer numbers of the candidates.

Peepers

[Thomas Jefferson]

9. Just so long as they give them equal time next time

I'm tired of having the moderators try to pick our candidates.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

12. I agree

The moderators have been pretty bad.

I don't like the format much either, because there is so little time for each candidate, but not sure there's any good way to resolve it with such a crowded field. It is what it is.

[mikehiggins]

13. It's all nonsense

The "debate" cattle-calls must have looked enticing as free screen time for all the Demo candidates, but why haven't they figured out yet what should be obvious. There is no way to have a debate between nine candidates. It is impossible.

Why can't Dean and Kerry meet somewhere and debate on their own? Why do they have to invite anyone else to participate? Surely some bar or something will make a venue available, and it can be sent over the 'net to MeetUps all over the USA.

Meanwhile, the rest of the field can do the same amongst themselves, or just spend the time working on their campaigns in the states being contested.

If the nine candidates can boycott FLorida's convention because of the proposed straw poll, they can also boycott the debates. The NAACP debate wound up with Clark standing on stage all by himself for a half hour. The world didn't end. The republic didn't fall.

Just my opinion, of course, but it would save all of us a lot of time if we could watch something else, or maybe go out instead and organise.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. It would be interesting to find out who he thinks is

"shrill," "conflict-oriented" and/or "confrontational."


Worse than "Bush-lite?" :shrug:

[babzilla]

16. what ARE you insinuating?

You should know by now that Kerry would never be so low as to accuse his opponents of being unqualified to be presidential-like.

Nevertheless, if you have a moment, how would you answer this question?

If an unnamed presidential candidate (who if he were named, might rhyme with Doward Mean) were shrill, conflict-oriented and confrontational -- would you be MORE or LESS likely to support them?

JFK's just wondering, not that there's anything wrong with it.

[ModerateMiddle]

18. I didn't see him as accusing any ONE person

but the coverage the next day, and in the punditry that night sometimes, the focus is on who "attacked" whom. Kerry is right. The focus isn't on policy matters or differences on issues. It's on who dissed who.

[CWebster]

17. He should talk...

With each passing day my estimation of Kerry sinks.

Clark is by far a superior candidate, more personable, less pompous, quick on his feet, less contentious and more outspoken and confrontational than the vascillating, cowardly Kerry.

I was impressed with Clark last night on "Hardball". I am just still not sure he can be trusted and often the more reactionary nature of so many of his supporters don't help to offset that suspicion - I want to see more than a personality cult and a deeper investigation into his positions. Ideally I would like to see Dean-Clark, because they are a good balance between domestic and foreign expertise during a time of war. I would rather see some of the establishment connections that Clark has consolidated with Dean's grassroots appeal. It is a surefire winning combo.

[blm]

19. The shrillness of the questions come from the MODERATORS - Judy Woodruff

George Stephanopolous, the CNBC thugs.

[burr]

21. every candidate needs to be heard...because all will be on a ballot.

What needs to change are the debates themselves. A two-hour debate is plenty of time for all nine candidates to discuss in depth a single issue. We should demand that the DNC holds debates on each of these issues healthcare reform, education, democracy in America, foreign policy, consumer rights vs. corporations, and environmental policy.

In a 90-minute debate each candidate usually has a total of around 12-6 minutes. If debate time is increased to two hours then each candidate will have closer to 15-10 minutes. And if the debates are limited to single issues, each candidate will be forced to discuss the details of the issue rather than giving the same one-liners for each question.

On democracy..candidates would address issues like campaign finance reform, IRV, term limits, the future roles of the FCC and FEC, recall elections, and their positions on abolishing the electoral college. On consumer rights candidates would discuss their positions on privacy rights from insurance companies, whether personal info should be exchanged by financial institutions without a person's knowledge, what role the feds should have in regulating utilities, and what privacy rights should people have from their employers regarding health and other matters...

If we have a set of debates which focus on single issues only, then the details will come out. Rather than seeing petty personal fights, we will then see real policy differences...which is what true debates are suppose to reveal!