Would you rather have debates all the way up to the first primary with a lot of candidates

[1932]

who are fighting to make their two minutes of air time pay off by hurling zingers and at each other, or would you like a few debates in the fall with only three or four candidates where they really have get into the issues a little deeper than they have so far?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. BO, HRC, JE, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Gravel have kept these 9 out of the debates

:grr: How evil of them? Notice how those who decry a false conspiracy theory regarding HRC and JE have no problem with these candidates not being included in debates. The real question is what is the definition of a legitimate candidate?


Laura Davis-Aaron (Tennesse)

STATUS: ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE. Except for the fact that contractor Laura Davis-Aaron filed paperwork with the FEC to run for President, little else is known about this 2008 Democratic hopeful. She lost a 2005 special election primary for an open State Senate seat (9th place - 1%), then filed for an open Congressional seat in 2006 but quit well before the primary. No website yet.

Michael Forrester Michael K. Forrester (Colorado)

STATUS: ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE. Except for the facts that Michael Forrester has filed FEC paperwork to run for President in 2008 and has launched a campaign website, we cannot tell you much about this candidate. The website is filled with lots of photos of the candidate but the bio section is without any info. His platform is also rather sparse: repeal the "No Child Left Behind" law, raise the minimum wage, and guarantee health care for all Americans. Related link: Michael Forrester for President.

Dan Francis Danny M. "Dan" Francis (New York)

STATUS: EXPLORATORY CANDIDATE. Dan Francis served 20 years in the US Marine Corps -- rising from private to first lieutenant -- until his retirement in 1979. Over those years, he served two tours in Vietnam, was wounded three times in combat, and was awarded the Silver Star. Since leaving the Marines, he earned AA, BA and Master's degrees in education and has worked as a teacher. He was previously a candidate for Congress in 1992 and 1994. Related links: Dan Francis for President (campaign site), Defining Leadership 2008 (Francis' campaign blog) and MySpace: Dan Francis (official site).

Alfonzo Jones (California)

STATUS: ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE. Except for the fact that Alfonzo Jones filed paperwork with the FEC to run for President -- just as he did in 1996, 2000 and 2004 -- no other info was known about this 2008 Democratic hopeful. No website yet.

John Joseph Kennedy John Joseph Kennedy (Georgia)

STATUS: ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE. John Joseph Kennedy was a registered write-in candidate for President in 2004 in Georgia, Indiana and Texas. On his campaign website, he describes himself as "an outstanding community leader, humanitarian, champion of children's rights, environmentalist, motivational speaker, entrepreneur and a man of extraordinary vision." Kennedy is a freelance writer, marketing executive and former model. He explains his motives for running on his campaign site: "I have now been called to serve God and my country as the TRUE DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE for the Presidency, to right the wrongs of America!" Kennedy sees the 9/11 attacks as an "inside job" directed by the Bush Administration as a pretext for launching the war on terrorism ("It's an inside job! At the highest level on down, I will see that those who are really responsible for the insidious acts of terrorism in our country, and around the world, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of all domestic and international laws."). In 2004, Kennedy went so far as to blame Bush policies for hurricanes and other natural disasters. "I will stop the Bush family's manipulation of the elements of nature (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes) which have wrecked insurmountable havoc on our environment and disturbed the natural-flow of all life on this planet. They (especially Bush Sr.) have done this for personal, political and financial gain and greed," explained Kennedy. Related link: John Joseph Kennedy for President.

Karl Krueger Karl E. Krueger (South Dakota)

STATUS: ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE. Long haul truckdriver and Vietnam War veteran Karl Krueger is running for President on a platform of promoting energy independence for the US. "I intend to put this nation on a course to be energy independent within 10 years of my election. After all, John Kennedy took us to the moon and back in 10 years with technology that didn’t exist when he began, it should not be too difficult for us to become energy independent in the same amount of time using technology that we already have," he explained. Krueger was previously a Democratic nominee for Congress in Wisconsin against a GOP incumbent in 1988. Related link: Karl Krueger for President.

Sal Mohamed Sal Mohamed (Iowa)

STATUS: ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE. Chemical engineer Sal Mohamed lost Democratic primary contests in Iowa for Congress in 2004 and Governor in 2006 -- but he does start the race with some minimal name identification in that early contest state. Mohamed's primary campaign tactic in his past Iowa runs could be described as low tech/low cost: walking around wearing "sandwich board" signs and waving signs at busy intersections. He launched his Presidential campaign just one month after losing the '06 gubernatorial primary. Mohamed's campaign theme is "Human Decency will Prevail," which is backed by his call for having millions of US consultants held promote economic development of poor nations, place US national interests ahead of personal interests, narrowing the gap in the US between rich and poor, developing an exit strategy for Iraq, and "taking politics out of our lives and putting science in." Unfortunately for Mohamed, he was born in Egypt and became a naturalized US citizen in 1983 -- meaning he is constitutionally barred from being President. Related link: Sal Mohamed for President.

Jim Prattas James J. "Jim" Prattas (Hawaii)

STATUS: ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE. Campaigning under the slogan of "Love is the Doorway In," Jim Prattas describes himself as "a poor ignorant soul who is just an artist, healer and disabled combat Vietnam veteran living on a stipend ... uneducated and ignorant a compared to most of my fellow citizens." His unusual campaign website is decorated with his original art works throughout the various pages. His autobiographic story -- from his 2000 campaign site -- told of near death experiences (including meeting God and seeing angels), meeting celebrities, his fights with the US military after being wounded in Vietnam, death threats against him by the Hawaiian Mafia, a plot by President G.H.W. Bush's friends to have him arrested when he wanted to challenge Bush in the 1992 race, his past use of marijuana, his divorce, and more. "If you have a son or daughter in Iraq or in Afghanistan fighting this crazy oil war. If you are not outraged with what is going on in America today, and in the world and in our White House, Senate and Congress, then you are not an American, and obviously you are not on the same page in American family life, who has a heart, soul, or spirit for your own people and country," wrote Prattas. When he ran in 2000 as a Republican, he did not qualify for any primaries. In 2004, as a Democrat, the same thing happened again. He's back for a third run in 2008, and this time he thinks he may be able to qualify for at least one primary ballot. Related link: Jim Prattas for President.

Ole Savior Oloveuse O. "Ole" Savior (Minnesota)

STATUS: ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE. Ole Savior, an eccentric artist and poet, has been a frequent candidate in Minnesota over the years for many federal, state and local offices. He usually finishes around the back the of the pack with 1% -- but he keeps running year after year. His top three concerns were a "nuclear-free world, world hunger, and better education for all mankind." His favorite movie is The Terminator, his favorite TV show is X-Files and his favorite book is the Bible's Book of Revelations. If elected, he promises to "create a new and more peaceful world for the next generation of children." He previously filed FEC paperwork for the 2004 race, but failed to qualify for any Presidential primary ballots. He filed paperwork in 2006 to make a second White House run. Related link: Ole-Savior.org.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-dems.htm

[noamnety]

2. I would like to have them all in the debates.

The media, and polls that can be manipulated by republicans, should not be allowed to replace our primaries, which is, in effect, what I think you're suggesting. Not legally, anyone can still be in them, but in reality the media and those polls would determine who we get to vote for.

[1932]

3. Neither extreme works. If you have a lot of people, then soundbites and not ideas are

driving perceptions of the candidates, and it's even easier to for the mediators (the MSM) to manipulate perceptions with soundbites.

You need to have a broadly viewed forum for evaluating the candidates in which you're really having back and forth on ideas.

Having said that, you can still see in, for example, the Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry debates how the media has little problem calling night day even when there are only two candidates on the stage. However, at least a very talented speaker would have a fighting change if they were given more time to engage in discussion.

[noamnety]

4. So do two debates, in place of each one.

And pull the participants from a hat for each, so we don't have clusters of the ones we're supposed to vote for, and the ones we aren't.

That's how it would be handled in a democracy.

[welshTerrier2]

5. we need real debates

I start from the premise that all candidates have constituencies. Those constituencies have a right to be represented during the primaries and in the debates. Failure to do so is undemocratic it hurts the eventual nominee.

Also, certain candidates are more mainstream and propose ideas that reflect the status quo while others represent change and may be presenting ideas that are new to many voters. New ideas deserve a full and honest hearing in the marketplace. To achieve that, we should seek formats that ensure that all ideas from all candidates will get a full airing including responses from all candidates.

Here are just a few ideas of ways we might do better. There just is not enough time, especially given the number of candidates, to adhere to the more common formats. One or two minute responses do a huge disservice to voters. Let's do away with that format completely. You're also not going to be able to hold 4 or 8 hour long debates. Something else is needed.

What I'd like to see is one topic a month. Let's say this month the party chose health care for example. And then I'd like to see a sort of round robin taped for the internet of each candidate spending 1/2 hour with all the other candidates, one at a time. So, for example, if there were nine candidates, any given candidate would sign up for 8 1/2 hour sessions for a total of 4 hours a month. That's a whopping 1 hour a week of debate time for each candidate. That should be easy to arrange. This format would then yield every possible combination of candidates on every topic selected. It will never happen because the "high name recogition and big money" candidates don't want to give voice to less mainstream ideas. There's not much to be gained going up against a lowly rated candidate. The downside risk is much greater.

That's the way or at least the goal I would have. There are probably an infinite number of combinations and permutations that could approach some of these objectives. One thing's for sure, the current system stinks. Even lowly Mike Gravel deserves a real response to his ideas. Right now, he's just ignored. I'd like a response to the question he posed today: How can we expect candidates to really make the changes in health care policy we need when their campaigns are financed by Big Insurance. It's wrong to allow the others to just ignore him. Many of us would like an answer to that question.

Finally, to directly answer the question in the OP, YES, I would like to keep all the candidates to discuss as many ideas as possible on as many topics as possible. Debates, even later in the campaign, should be about an ongoing discussion of ideas. All ideas. They should not be a narrow discussion between the two best funded candidates who receive most of their money from the same lobbyists. We won't learn anything useful from that.