An acid test for EVERY Democratic Presidential Candidate.

[tomreedtoon]

I've seen something more than traditional Democratic partisian bickering on DU. Anyone who dares to question the competency of a candidate for the office - especially the last two candidates that ran - gets swatted down as being "un-unified" or "doubleplusungood" or whatever. I have a simple acid test for anyone who wishes to run as the Democratic candidate.

Can the candidate debate Ann Coulter, one-on-one, for ten minutes and win?

The Republicans are getting ashamed of Coulter, so she could be hired. She is turning out to be the rabid pit bull that does the work of her masters, but who is now so insane that she's ready to attack her masters. The Repub's will let her go.

So I propose that DU hire her. She's cheap. Stick her in a room (perhaps chained to the podium by her anklet bracelet) and set every potential Democratic candidate at another podium. Let them talk together for ten minutes.

If any candidate can make Coulter shut up and allow his or her talking points to be heard, the person qualifies to contend for the nomination. If not, that candidate should retire to a university post and be allowed to write bitter, complaining memoirs of their political life.

My estimate: NONE of the current candidates will survive the test. Kerry will wind up nodding and agreeing with Coulter's onslaught. Gore will talk about global warming while Coulter screams that he was a partner with the 9/11 hijackers. Hillary Clinton will just stand there, a frozen smile on her face, as Coulter accuses her of drinking the blood of unborn infants. Edwards and Kucinich will expectantly wait for the moderator to give them time to speak, but there IS no moderator in this debate, just like there are no moderators in real life.

Nobody will succeed. We will have no candidate for 2008. But the party will have learned what it requires to win an election, and maybe there will be hope for 2012.

[LSparkle]

1. You forgot Feingold and Biden

Either one of would kick Mann's ass ...

[tomreedtoon]

2. I forgot them...because everyone else here has!

Yes, that is a snotty thing for me to say. But it's true. I didn't even think of them until you mentioned them. And this is the important part...voters won't, either.

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. Since when does the ability to argue with a psychotic guarantee a leader?

Just tie a plastic bag over her head and get to important matters.

[Kurovski]

4. I couldn't have said it any better .

[Nikki Stone 1]

5. I bet you could have found something even better. :)

:)

[Kurovski]

6. That's sweet, but you really said it all with your first sentence.

:hi:

[tomreedtoon]

12. Because she's who we have to run against, not Bush!

You don't understand that Kerry, for instance, didn't run against Bush. He ran against the Swift Boaters. He ran against Limbaugh and O'Reilly and the entire squad organized by Rove. Bush stayed "presidential" and stayed out of the frey. Coulter won the election for Bush.

As long as Democrats don't understand that factor, and start playing to win the same way Republicans do, they will lose elections.

[LaPera]

7. Owsley! How smooth!

[Toucano]

8. Give us a break!

A dirty dish towel to take on Ann Coulter one-on-one for ten minutes and win.

Have you seen Ann in a discussion forum? She's weak as water because she's intellectually inferior.

Did you see her reaction to the CBC interview when she was corrected about Canada's presence in Vietnam? She claimed Canada had forces in Vietnam and when she was corrected about this basic fact she could only say, "I'm pretty sure they did." It went something like this:

CBC: "No, they did not."

ANN: "I think you're wrong."

CBC: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."

ANN: "I'm pretty sure they did."

You're opinion might be based on the fact that you only see her on programs where hosts refuse to challenge her in the name of "fairness".

Coulter has no appeal outside politically obsessed wing-nut circles. Your average wing-nut doesn't even know who she is.

[tomreedtoon]

13. Yes, I chose Coulter for visibility and viciousness.

And also access. Limbaugh allows no debate whatsoever. He won't even appear on talk shows. O'Reilly shuts down debate with SHUT UP! when he gets in over her head. But Coulter is a pit bull. She is certifiably insane. She's also a publicity whore, which adds impetus to her attacks.

If a candidate can survive ten minutes with Coulter, he or she can survive nearly anything the right wing can put out. And it's important to recognize that none of the candidates recognize that the right wing talk machine is their true opponent, not the gimp the Republicans nominate.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Bad idea.

It's like trying to hold a debate with a rabid pit bull. It would be a completely pointless exercise and would simply serve to give her some legitimacy.

Our potential candidates would do better to make her an issue and force Repub office holders to take a stand, either defending her or disavowing her. It's the Repub office holders that need to be held to account, not some raving maniac who is given undue attention by the "librul" media.

[Bucky]

10. Well, that was a fun little fantasy. An equally valid test for the nominee

would be who could beat a midget in a jello rasslin' contest. Surely that would be just as spectacular and just as presidential as debating a mentally ill assclown like Coulter.

[tomreedtoon]

15. Or we can do it the way we did it in 2000 and 2004.

Give our candidate debating classes. Give him a nice neat list of ideas that he can speak in a televised debate against the Republican marionette.

Meanwhile, Coulter and her ilk will swift-boat the candidate with lies and innuendo. Which our bow-tied candidate will not be able to stop or counter, because it would be "rude."

And the Republicans win again in 2008.

Hasn't it occurred to you that this is the way the Republicans won their elections? It wasn't all Diebold and a packed Supreme Court, much as people might like to hallucinate that here. They won because they got proxies to fight for their side and we didn't fight at all.

[Clark2008]

11. Clark would kick her everlovin'-ass.

He's not afraid of the lion's den, which is why he took the Faux News gig: he's attempting to reach some of the 42 percent of "Democrats" who watch that "news" channel.

Clark not only withstands O'Lielly's lies and mischaracterizations and plows on through to his point, he can also make Sean Hannity look like a raving lunatic without breaking a sweat.

So, yes, at least one of the hopefuls would know how to debate her rude demeaner - and the only one with months of practice.

[tomreedtoon]

14. This is a positive sign. Now what is needed is a scheduled fight.

Clark has been a courageous candidate, but he's only known to Democrats. The public at large think of "Clark" as the guy who hosts New Years' Rockin' Eve.

He needs an event to show his opinions - and under fire. If he's truly faced O'Reilly, that's a good beginning bout. Now let's move him up to more dangerous opponents. Ones with greater visibility. Tweety. Hannity. Let him show his courage and get his name known.

[Biernuts]

16. I'm more often than not cynical and use a good deal of satire & sarcasm

But this comment is serious.

Other than for the debating team, I REALLY don't give a damn about anybody's debate skills. The presidency is not about winning debating points but about making decisions and communicating them effectively. When any president makes important decisions, it should be after getting the best counsel and ground truth available. Never behind a podium with a "moderator" more interested in
next morning's sound bite.

I'd pay good money for the press conference with journalists asking questions on Monday and getting meaningful, non-sound bite answers several days later, preferably in writing. Take away TV's gotcha moment and force people to read for a change.

Remember when the USSC issued it's December 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore? The TV press was stumped trying to explain it because they had to read the court's ruling. The MSM mavens had no clue what it meant at the time since nobody was explaining it to them.

[AlGore-08.com]

17. Umm... actually Gore called her remarks "cruel" on Larry King last week

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html

LARRY KING: A few minutes to go. What did you think of Ann Coulter's remarks about the 9/11 widows?

GORE: I mean, it's hard to imagine why somebody would say that. And to me, I guess it's even more troubling that there seems to be some kind of market for it. It's covered as if it's clever spin. And it's cruelty, really. And I don't want to feed it by talking about it because it's -- it's cruel.