Posted on 10/25/2003 2:07:31 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — Their nearly weekly debates have been the biggest events of the season for the Democratic presidential candidates. They build their travel schedules around the televised encounters. Their aides devote hours to coming up with catchy retorts. And the forums draw more press coverage than anything else the candidates do.
Even so, many of the top candidates and their aides are at their wits' end over the televised jousts. Some openly contend that the events are simply a waste of time.
"I think the crowded field allows the most shrill, conflict-oriented, confrontational voices to be heard," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said Thursday in Iowa, "and not necessarily the person who might make the best candidate or the best president."
"They're very superficial," he added.
The heart of the problem, officials at many of the campaigns say, is that a debate of nine people hobbles candidates from standing out above the amusing wisecracks of stragglers in the polls like, say, the Rev. Al Sharpton. They have so little time that the only way they can win notice is to level a direct, nasty attack — and even that does not always work.
Compounding the candidates' distress is that the television audiences are not that big to begin with. The debate in Detroit scheduled to be shown on Fox News Channel on Sunday night may end up competing head to head with a seventh game of the World Series.
Mr. Kerry should have the least to complain about, at least given that in the 90-minute debate on CNN two weeks ago, he got the most speaking time: 10.5 minutes, according to two networks' counts. Most candidates spoke for five to seven minutes each.
But the campaigns fret that they have no way to escape the conundrum because the alternative — viewers spotting an empty chair in their stead — is politically untenable.
Moreover, winnowing the debate field would be a particularly tricky proposition for a party that preaches inclusiveness. This is especially the case when two of the stragglers, Mr. Sharpton and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, are African-American. (The other candidate at the back of the pack in the polls is Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio.)
"You want to give candidates a chance to talk about the issues that are important to Americans," Senator John Edwards of North Carolina said. "But you would run into the difficult decision on who can and can't attend."
Donna Brazile, the head of Al Gore's campaign in 2000 who is herself African-American, said the party needed to start coalescing around a front-runner sooner rather than later — and that should trump any other considerations.
"It's time for the rubber to hit the road," Ms. Brazile said. "It's time for some of the candidates to stay home."
Ms. Braun said she would do no such thing. "The Democratic Party, of all parties, should stand for the big tent for real, and not something determined by how much money you have and how many ads you can buy," she said. "I'm in it to win it."
Mr. Kucinich said he was in it for the long haul, too. Mr. Sharpton did not respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman, Rachel Noerdlinger, said he had "no intention of withdrawing under any circumstances."
It is no surprise that the three are not about to cede the spotlight. For the underfinanced, less popular candidates, participating in the debates is a key to attention and perhaps, later fame. In 2000, Alan Keyes, a lesser-known Republican candidate, established himself as enough of a television presence to land his own show on MSNBC after the election.
For all the criticism, Democratic Party officials defended the debates, saying they provided increasing national exposure for Democrats while giving them a forum to go after their ultimate target, President Bush.
"It's been a powerful way of delivering a tough critique of Bush and his administration," said Jim Mulhall, a communications strategist for the Democratic National Committee who has helped organize and negotiate the party's sanctioned debates.
Gosh. I wonder why.
I think it is because ALL of them have peaked early. Things ain't gettin' better for 'em folks. The President's approval ratings are getting better. The economy is growing. We're not in a quagmire: we're killing terrorists left and right. And on a personal level, people like G.W.--even if they are worried about his policies.
So the fear in the eyes of the 'rats is real: and it should be. They offer nothing to America but despair, anger, and paranoia.
I'm very glad to be a
Recovering_Democrat.
"I think the crowded field allows the most shrill, conflict-oriented, confrontational voices to be heard," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said Thursday in IowaWhat iz ya jivin' about, Frenchy? All o' y'all iz shrill, conflict- oriented an' confrontational. None o' y'all gots uh monoply on dis here. you know das right!
Technical help come from here ^.
The heart of the problem, officials at many of the campaigns say, is that a debate of nine people hobbles candidates from standing out above the amusing wisecracks of stragglers in the polls like, say, the Rev. Al Sharpton.THAT is a racist remark. And the is The when you're writing about a reverend.
Of course. And if there was a candidate in the democrat party who had a schred of self respect they would have skipped these silly debates. I remember when Dubya skipped the first of the GOP debates. Some people complained but the reality was that people like Gary Bauer and Pat Buchanan (before he broke up the Reform party) had no chance of getting elected. So why demean yourself on a stage with Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton?
Their nearly weekly debates have been the biggest events of the season for the Democratic presidential candidates.... Their aides devote hours to coming up with catchy retorts.
And now we know why their ratings are so low: Forum over Substance. As the poster suggests, the candidates are afraid to debate issues and are trying to mimic Dean, even if they have to contort their own positions and records to do so.
Even so, many of the top candidates and their aides are at their wits' end over the televised jousts. Some openly contend that the events are simply a waste of time.... But the campaigns fret that they have no way to escape the conundrum because the alternative — viewers spotting an empty chair in their stead — is politically untenable.
They used to call this "an empty suit" and viewers are spotting nine of them -- little wonder why so many Democrats cannot name a single Democrat hopeful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.