Do Presidential candidates really need to be unified?

Someone suggested that our candidates should be focused on Bush and be unified at all costsand that it is way to early in the Primary Season to be sniping at one another.


I disagree. I want vigorous debate,,I want the candidates calling "Bullshit" when it happens. I want candidates to differentiate themselves from the pack by their gravitas and not simply by their haircuts and necklines or skin color or anything else that is going to come up over the course of the next 5 + month.


I have no problem with these folks going toe to toe.....What is the value in striving for unity? To fight Bush? As if that is going to make some great difference in the greater scheme of things? "Dem candidates united against Bush" Yeah ok??????

We don't need to have a circular firing squad. But we don't need to fake unity when we need strong voices and substantive debates.Doesn't unity at all cost muddle everybody's message?


I for one think the Obama-Clinton dust up was valuable and substantive and not nearly as superficial as some might think.


We need more of that give and take not less... As people make their candidate choices over the next few months and views harden we need to be prepared to back our choice to the hilt and we need to be able to be critical of the substance of the arguments others make.

False Unity for for the sake of a pretty picture on debate night seems silly...There is too much at stake... to wait.

To the extent I agave been to caustic for some....I apologize, I will try and focus on the substance of messages but others need to stop whining about the need for unity. There is no harm in vigorous and loud and public debate over substantive issues.

What do you think?

you're exactly right on all counts.

then we will have no real choice.

The Hilary /Obama spectacle is great because it shows how childish they are. John Edwards is traversing the country saying real shit about America and the direction we should take.

Fireworks are fine. Bombs are not. A wise candidate knows where to draw the line.

The repukes run in lockstep but they kinda got a cunundrum goin' on for them in this race..as in "how far do I go in comitting hari kari stickin' with the bushit?

I'm enjoying the Clinton-Obama "dust-up" as its showing the stuff both campaigns are made of. It IS an important question and as a non-committed, I'm interested in both their answers and their handling of the ensuing political circus. Plus I want to hear others...see how they feel about important, substantive issue. Many of us here are still "window shopping" and not sold on any candidate...more on the ideas. Whose got the best? Who can "play the game"...a skill that will be needed more than ever in the wake of the mess that is sure to be left behind by the booosh regime.

I do also feel the boooosh regime should be referenced regularly when things such as Iraq and accountablity are discussed. The Repugincans in general when it comes to corruption and obstruction. Since booosh isn't on the ballot in '08, you can't run against a ghost...but you sure can put that legacy along with the on-going messes on each and every Repugnican enabler. There's a vote they've made, a scandal they've been close to that should be put out there early and often. It's never too early to create our own image of the inept and corrupt Repugnican...with the boooshie albatross hung around his neck. But then Democrats need to close the deal by saying not what the Repugnicans didn't do, but what Democrats have and can.

Think of two managers in a corporation vying for the same VP slot. You both want the job. You focus on your ideas and accomplishments, and take an occasional swing at the competition when it's necessary. If you appear too full of yourself, or too negative, you could lose out - even if you're more qualified.

Make no mistake, these people want the job BADLY. It seems shameless sometimes the attention-getting stunts they pull. If I were the boss, I'd pick the guy with the best ideas - but that's just me. Other bosses may pick the one who's laser focused on bringing the Bushies to justice - which I'm hungry for - but he'll be out of office by then, so it really doesn't say what kind of president that candidate would make.

The kinds of debates I like to hear are policy. They don't have to put people to sleep (that's the leadership aspect - getting people behind your ideas). Candidates need to sell their ideas, or even the best ones will go by the wayside. It's healthy for candidates to debate the merits of each others' ideas. that's how we get the details and substance. if it's a gimmick (like most of the healthcare plans presented) a debate would expose that.

That's how campaigns should run, anyways.