Is Edwards going to have to ask Clinton if he still has the chicken suit?

[AP]

Remember the chicken? It followed Bush around, challenging him to debate Clinton.

[Dookus]

1. I would hope

he wouldn't lower himself to such a cheap stunt.

[AP]

3. It made Bush look stupid. It was a great "stunt."

[Dookus]

7. I presume you're talking about

using against Kerry. It would be a cheap stunt, and unworthy of Edwards.

Any attempt to portray Kerry as a coward will fail, both in the campaign and here on DU.

[AP]

13. What reasonable explanation could Kerry give to explain why he wouldn't

accept the challenge other than that he was afraid of losing?

[Dookus]

15. Here's a very reasonable explanation...

the frontrunner has nothing to gain by letting the guy in a distant second place appear to be on equal footing.

That is true of all candidates in all races.

Kerry has no obligation to promote Edwards' candidacy.

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. Bwaaaaak, bwaaak, bwaaak...cluck, cluck, cluck...

If it walks like a chicken, and sounds like a chicken and ACTS like a chicken... :shrug:

[Dookus]

19. Nice adult response

to my point.

C'mon, you can do better than that.

Kerry is no coward, and I'm embarrassed for people who try to say that he is.

[Cuban_Liberal]

21. If he's not a coward, he should debate.

That's exactly how America will see it, like it or not.

[Dookus]

22. Nonsense...

Kerry haters here on DU will see it that way.

Kerry has already debated many, many times and he will debate more.

And you still haven't addressed my point that NO frontrunner is obligated to boost the candidacy of the distant second-place candidate.

Unless "baaawk baaawk" is an argument.

[Cuban_Liberal]

28. You haven't addressed my argument, either, so why should I?

Sen. Kerry will be perceived as afraid to debate Sen. Edwards.

[Dookus]

You're mistaken

I did address it. I said that perception would occur among kerry haters here on DU.

The implication of that is that it would NOT be perceived that way in the real world. In fact, since the race is likely to be over in a very short time, it won't matter at all.

[Cuban_Liberal]

38. No, you're mistaken.

That's exactly how it was perceived in the 'real world' in 1992, and it's how it will be perceived again.

[Dookus]

42. I said you were mistaken

in response to your claim that I hadn't addressed your question. I did.

Now tell me why any frontrunner has an obligation to prop up his opponent's campaign?

[Cuban_Liberal]

45. And I said YOU were mistaken.

"Do you still beat your wife?". If you think I'm going to answer such a ridiculously obvious leading question, you don't know me very well...

[AP]

30. "Kerry haters"??? I don't hate Kerry. I like Edwards more.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

63. Ummmmm well.............

That's kind of how the media is playing it too. Been hearing all day Kerry needs to debate Edwards one on one.

[rock]

46. Wait! I know the answer to this, I've heard it before.

It's a duck.

[Cuban_Liberal]

48. What gave it away?

Was it the furious spate of rationalizations?

[AP]

20. That sounds vaguely like Scalia's logic in Gore v Bush.

After WI, I don't think you can say that. And what's good for the leader isn't always good for Democracy.

This is an election. Nobody is entitled to first place by virtue of being in first place. Everyone should be willing to air out their ideas and let people make the decision.

In Bush v Gore, Scalia said that counting the votes would jeopardize the perception that Bush was the winner. Do you agree with that logic? Is democracy supposed to be about protecting the guy who's perceived to be in first place?

Kerry has an obligation to allow us to compare and contrast himself with the other candidates running, especially at this stage of the campaign, and given what happened in WI.

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. I'd hope Sen. Kerry would show that he has a real set, and debate, too.

But we don't always get what we hope we will, do we?

[Dookus]

10. the implication

that Kerry doesn't have a "real set" is just plain stupid.

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. Then he needs to debate Sen. Edwards 1:1.

That would eliminate any doubt on the issue, wouldn't it?

[Dookus]

18. hold on

just a few days ago, you were practically apoplectic about the idea of excluding Sharpton and Kucinich from the debates.

I'm glad to see you've changed your position.

I think Kerry should certainly keep any commitments he has already made to debate, no matter who else is included. Should he make NEW commitments to debate Edwards? No. No frontrunner is obligated to boost the candidacy of his opponents.

[AP]

23. If Kerry says he'll only debate if Sharpton and Ku do too, fine.

Schedule the debate. But if they can't show up, Kerry shouldn't back out.

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. I haven't changed my position at all.

This is about a mano a mano, not some network-sponsored pseudo-debate.

[Dookus]

27. nonsense.

in that thread *I* was arguing for the usefulness of a debate between Kerry and Edwards, and you were indignant at the thought of it.

It's OK to change your mind. Really it is.

[AP]

33. Are you changing your position now?

You're now saying Kerry and Edwards shouldn't debate?

What changed?

[Dookus]

37. please read carefully

I didn't say that.

I said Kerry should certainly keep any commitments he has already made to debate, regardless of who is included.

I said he has no obligation to commit to FURTHER debates purely to prop up Edwards' campaign.

[AP]

47. So you agree that further debates would only help Edwards?

I feel that way. But I still feel it's important to have debates, and lots of them.

[Dookus]

52. Nope.. I didn't say that either

But I'm getting out of this thread now because it's just become a silly flamefest.

Furthermore, the thread's premise is an unfounded rumor. Kerry, as far as I know, has not said he refuses to debate Edwards.

[AP]

54. I don't know if Kerry has refused, but his people dodged the question last

night on two programs (according to a post here last night) and Edwards has been talking about this all day today. So it's relevant.

And there's no premise that Kerry has refused to debate. That's not part of my argument at all.

[Cuban_Liberal]

34. Nonsense back at ya, bro! In that thread *I* was not.

That was a network-sponsored faux debate from which YOu wanted to exclude Kucinich and Sharpton. I am talking about a mano a mano debate NOT sponsored by some network.

Nice try.

[Dookus]

Well

that thread, as far as I recall, wasn't centered around one single debate. It was about the idea that fringe candidates should be excluded at this point IN GENERAL. It wasn't about the CNN debate per se. It was about the broader picture.

You were absolutely apoplectic that anybody could even suggest having a debate that excluded Kucinich and Sharpton.

Now you've come around to my way of thinking, so I guess we have nothing to argue about. Congratulations.

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. No, I was apoplectic that Kucinich and Sharpton would be excluded...

... from a debate for 'Democratic candidates'.

[Dookus]

49. A distinction without a difference

Dookus: Kucinich and Sharpton should be barred from future debates

Cuban_Liberal: Edwards and Kerry should debate one-on-one.

Since the only candidates are Kucinich, Sharpton, Edwards and Kerry, there is absolutely no difference in the outcome.

None whatsoever. Zip. Nada. None.

Furthermore, I'm a little surprised at your quick turnaround - you didn't just disagree with the idea - you were quite strident about it. But as I said, we agree now so there's little reason to argue over it.

[Cuban_Liberal]

51. A legitimate distinction.

I've NOT 'come around', nor do I agree with you. I have made it crystal clear what the difference is.

[leyton]

2. Could Bush get away without debating Edwards?

My mom seems to think so. I disagree, especially if Bush's credibility remains in the toilet.

[AP]

6. It's not only Bush I'm talking about.

[lancdem]

5. I do remember that

Brings back old memories of '92, which seems like eons ago.

[Meldread]

8. Hahaha!

Good idea. Someone should rent a chicken suit and do it. That would be great.

[Skwmom]

9. I doubt if it would be a debate.

The corporate *hore media would attack Kerry ruthlessly (like they did Clark in the Fox debate) and prop up Edwards.

[AP]

11. So you're saying they shouldn't debate?

Don't you think that would give Bush the argument that he shouldn't have to debate Kerry if Kerry gets the nomination?

[Skwmom]

32. Kerry would be crazy to go along with this.

It's a setup by the corporate *whores like Tweety who have been pushing for this. I don't think it will give Bush an out. Kerry has participated in all scheduled debates.

[AP]

35. Set up? It's Edwards asking for it, and I don't see that he's got a lot of

fans in the media or in corporate board rooms.

[elperromagico]

14. Well, it gives Edwards or Kerry an issue if Bush refuses to debate.

"Throughout his administration, President Bush has consistently refused to meet with the press and answer tough questions about his policies. Now, he's refusing to debate with me on the issues which matter most to Americans. What is the President afraid of?"

It could be very effective if Bush chose not to debate; it could be used to paint him as a coward who runs from any challenge.

[LoZoccolo]

17. It would be disrespectful to the other candidates...

...and their supporters, and could turn those supporters off to both candidates in the general, if the debates were held like that. Plus it's not like there are still nine candidates.

And you should have thought of that.

:hi: :nuke:

[AP]

26. OK, let's invite the other candidates. But if they can't make it, Kerry

can't back out.

[LoZoccolo]

36. So you admit...

...it's way to early for the "chicken suit"?

Not good to make unfounded accusations...not good.

[AP]

39. Didn't say that. But I am liking the idea of a duck suit.

[Cuban_Liberal]

41. Quack, quack!

:P

[ShaneGR]

31. We have already had over 15 debates and over 15 primaries

If the message of the two candidates has not gotten through to the public yet, then unfortunately I would think CNN is going to smell a ratings spike for 1-on-1. So it won't be Edwards or Kerry's fault, you can all hate CNN.

[ShaneGR]

25. New challenges call for new strategies, no chicken....a DUCK

Quack Quack.

[elperromagico]

29. Having picked up your real meaning, I have this to say:

As much as I would like to see a one-on-one debate between Kerry and Edwards, Sharpton and Kucinich are still part of this race. They may not have a snowball's chance of winning the nomination - but they are still candidates. Let's not exclude them.

[AP]

40. OK, invite all of them. But if any don't show up, Kerry can't back out.

[elperromagico]

44. Fine with me. But I doubt Kucinich or Sharpton would miss a debate.

Especially Kucinich, who stands to pull a pretty considerable chunk of the vote in CA and NY now that there are only 4 candidates. Sharpton might perform well in NY as well (his home state, after all).

[LoZoccolo]

50. WARNING: before getting fumed about this thread...

...you may want to check out this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1116929

This has been a public service announcement.

[AP]

53. And don't miss this one either:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1137080

[LoZoccolo]

55. This actually fits what you were talking about before.

The exclusion of the only African-American voice in the race could be construed as racist, could it not? That's much more likely than people seeing the two stories on the news one after the other and coming to the conclusion you think is being pushed there.

NOTE: This post contains an ironic observation designed to make a point. No actual accusation of racism on the part of the person I am responding to, nor the candidate they are supporting, is being made.

[AP]

56. Where have I said Sharpton should be excluded? I'm saying that Kerry

should debate Edwards more than jut once before Super Tuesday.

[LoZoccolo]

60. You didn't say that in your original post.

The headline that's going around is that Edwards wants to debate one-on-one with Kerry.

[LoZoccolo]

62. Actually, from post #13:

What reasonable explanation could Kerry give to explain why he wouldn't accept the challenge other than that he was afraid of losing?

"The challenge" he put out today was for a one-on-one debate.

You'll find some way to try to argue around this, but it'll just paint you into further into a corner in front of everyone else. And that's really who these posts are for.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

71. This is the second time you've falsely accused me of being a racist...

...and the second time I'm gonna be like:

:hi: :nuke:

[AP]

74. This isn't about calling people racists. It's about crediblity.

You cited that thread for, you've claimed, at least three different reasons. The first had to do with a claim that it was racist to exclude Sharpton from the debate.

I merely pointed out that the thread you cited shows that I'm concerned about racism and that you thought I was overreacting.

You introduced this evidence, not me. What you wrote in that thread is every bit as relevant as what I wrote.

It's fair for me to point out that you're being inconsistent. This cuts both ways.

[AP]

75. For the casual reader, I just want to point out that this post says ...

... basically the same thing as the two posts that were deleted.

[AP]

57. BTW, tell the truth: you don't agree wth what I was saying in that thread.

Why would you care about race now, and then support your argument about race with a thread discussing an argument about race with which you disagree? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

And where is there a discussion about race in this thread? Nobody has said anything about excluding Sharpton.

[LoZoccolo]

58. Nice try.

:hi: :nuke:

[ShaneGR]

59. That's an odd thread to link to, what point were you making?

I don't understand, in those threads he's pissed because he views his newschannel to be racist. So he's pissed about racism. What's the problem?

[LoZoccolo]

61. Because it's a disingenous accusation.

That's why.

On edit: chose "disingenous" as a synonym for another word.

[AP]

67. Disingenuous? Do you think I would have taken that thread to 200 posts

if I didn't believe what I said was true?

And what does this thread have to do with race?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

72. ...

...

[LoZoccolo]

64. Because they won't just delete your post, I'll respond.

That's an unfair accusation to say I don't "care about race", based on my disagreement with your point in that other thread - and I invite everyone to go see it themselves. It's tantamount to calling me a racist.

I think my argument sense. It was that you see a secret agenda in the ordering of news stories, but excluding Sharpton in favor of a one-on-one debate (something that Edwards proposed, whether or not you support it) would probably be seen as racially insensitive much more easily than this thing about he ordering of the news stories, and that's ironic. No, I'm not accusing you of being racist, I just wonder why you'd think the CBS affiliate thing was some conspiracy while not thinking that the one-on-one debate would not at least get his supporters angry by excluding the voice of a civil rights leader.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

73. Third time.

:hi: :nuke:

[tobius]

65. I remember the guy in the cigar suit that followed Clinton. nt

[mmonk]

68. be careful what you wish for.