Who should Debate? Thoughts from Liberal Values Blog

[illinoisprogressive]

Liberal Values wrote a very thought provoking article on the subject. I said I was not going to post anything and have for the most part ignored alot of the arguements on this subject.
However, this was very well said and written. It is a must read on this subject and something to ponder:

Fox News might have gotten their revenge on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton for not wanting to debate on their network as their microphones picked up Edwards and Clinton speaking of limiting those allowed to participate in future debates. While there is no doubt that the current debate format is horrible, limiting the candidates which can particpate is not the solution.

The problem comes down to where one draws the line. If we limit the debates to the front runners months ahead of the primaries we are creating a self-fulfilling prediction. The front runners may remain front runners because other candidates don’t get a chance to be heard. Not only would they be denied coverage at the debates, but I bet that the media would use this as reason to reduce coverage even further of the other candidates.

Sure, there are candidates who have no chance. If Al Sharpton had been excluded from the debates in 2003 it wouldn’t have affected the outcome of the race, but the debates would have been a lot less fun. If we excluded Al Sharpton, should John Kerry have also been excluded in the fall of 2003 when he trailed Sharpton in the polls?

Looking at this year’s race, there is strong reason to argue that only Clinton and Obama have a real shot, so perhaps even Edwards should be excluded. Some might even argue that Clinton has already clinched it, and we should just have Hillary talking to herself for ninety minutes. I’m certain she could handle arguing both sides of the Iraq war.


http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1819