How about limiting the debate to these folks...

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden

The next one to drop from debates would be one of the second tier (Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, or Biden)...whichever one shows the least growth.

Trying to get support for your "Kucinich has established himself as a joke" post.

My suspicion, although I don't know for sure, was that his objective in running was/is to pull the debate to the left, not to actually have a chance of winning.

It's basically the same "triangulation" strategy Bill Clinton used, except that he's doing in for other people.

Dennis Kucinich doesn't want to be POTUS as much as Hillary does? I would hazard a guess that you are 100% wrong on THAT. Dennis appears to be "going for the gold" every day in this campaign so far. So, I must respectfully disagree with you.

TC

I didn't say that he doesn't *want* to be POTUS.

I do think that either a) the objctive of his campaign is something other than his becoming POTUS, or b) he's incredibly stupid.

As b) appears not to be the case, I think it's a fairly safe bet he has some ulterior motive.

He never supported the war from the start. Not many of those so called top tier people can say that. He not ruled by every political swing out there. His votes are consistently on the progressive side.

in the debates. Besides, at this point it would seem that polling results would be the main way of making this determination, and we've all seen how much fluctuation there can be between this time of year and once the primaries are actually under way.

At this early stage of the game? No way. This early on, EVERYBODY'S message should be heard. EVERYBODY'S. What is said could help shape the debate in the run-up to the primaries... about a solid YEAR away.

We need the non-corpoartist/anti-war voices to keep the corporatists'/warmongers' messages from taking over amd dominating the debate.

The elections are over a year away. Why are you so anxious to pare down the field?

TC

Those folks aren't going to get my vote. Not in the primary, and most don't have a chance in the general, either. Limit the conversation to them, and you just scratched my name off the potential votes to be earned in '08.

Is that the goal? To close the door on those of us who won't vote for your "top tier?"

You are a relentless voice of clarity and integrity on this board. I appreciate that.

TC

It is too hard with all these candidates! MY person does not get to talk because the others get a chance too. That is no way to debate, it is not a debate just one minute platitudes.

Solution...get rid of those "others" so we can all have a debate about how much we all agree on our corporate agenda, supporting Bush** in his war or how we might make a little difference in the strategy now in place. Yes that is the ticket. We could all agree so that the American people will all hear that we are on the same page, UNITY folks! Then we as citizens would all be free to decide based on who would look the best with other world leaders, who has the nicest wardrobe and sweats the least under pressure. Whoever has the most expensive haircuts had better watch out. That will become one of the most important issues that people will use to decide. What else is there when you take away all the different policy and philosophical ideas?

Most of them are the same with only a different way to state it. All bought and paid for. I guess we should all be happy with the same people the corporations are happy with, after all, who keeps this country ticking? Ask the media, they will be happy to let you know.

First of all, they may be top tier now, but who knows what could happen in 3 months. :shrug: We're a democracy and the more people the better.

B A D. :rofl:

TC

We have no idea in July what the first or second or third tier will be in January. Cutting off discourse in the primary race is absolutely the wrong thing to do for our democracy. If they want to get "serious" let them do as Biden has suggested, limit the debates to a single issue at a time instead of this spreading oleo real thin as in the current format. Now that would change things for the better. But, wait! They might have to actually answer to the American people for their IWR votes and the rivers of blood that followed.

This little collaboration apparently was initiated by Edwards and then Clinton agreed. Whatta team. Go Cledwards!

I love it!

It's a play on "Clobama" which is used repeatedly in negative Obama threads. I never would have thought of either, I confess :)

While I agree that these are the candidates most likely to get the nomination, debate should be open to all of the candidates. I personally feel that debate from the entire spectrum, be it far right or far left, is worthwhile.

Unless that candidate is above a certain number, e.g., 15%.

Edit: Content.

It might be better than letting corporate money decide... :sarcasm:



Note: I was appalled to find that the wiki entry for american idol is the longest I've ever seen. How sick is that????

And we definitely need public financing of campaigns, the First Amendment be damned!

to the table and the debates is sometimes the only place the american public will ever get a chance to hear them. Yes i admit with so many people debating at once it can be frustrating but on the other hand why not extend the time of the whole debate 2 at least 2 hours? the networks should think of this as a public service and just do it.

When a primary is held and say Dodd, Gravel, DK poll low...then I have no problem with sponsors choosing to deny those candidates from participating in a debate.

Let's wait for the people to decide in an actual vote before the media or sponsors dictate to us which choices we have.

Not the candidates who are suppositely "top tier".

In fact, the idea is quite disgusting!

The top tier was promoted and massaged by the media.....as the media decided who got the free press, and therefore, who ended up with the "buzz" and therefore is polling best long ago (and yes, Edwards is part of that group promoted by the corporate media, and is not as "feared" by the media as many of his supporters want to imply....because he certainly has NOT been ignored). Hillary and Edwards along with Obama have all been trumpeted by the media relentlessly which is how they arrived at where they are. Now these same hand picked candidates are going to limit who gets to speak? I don't think so.

Neither one is a serious candidate. Of all the candidates you listed, the only one with an ounce of sincerity is Obama. And he is never going to beat Hillary Clinton. She hasn't even put any real effort into the campaign yet.