Kucinich's letter to Hillary and Edwards....challenging each to one-on-one debates

[TeamJordan23]

The Edwards letter is the same except for the salutation.


Friday – July 13, 2007

The Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator,

Now that it has become abundantly clear to the American people that some of our colleagues prefer to shut off debate about the crucial issues facing the next president of the United States, I respectfully challenge you to a formal public debate.

My proposal is that we engage in a direct one-on-one debate on the most critical issues facing the American people: the war in Iraq; healthcare, trade and the environment.

Rather than a mere forum restricted to 60 second answers that must avoid any critique of the history and positions of other participants, I am challenging you to a debate in the classical style. With America's constitutional democracy shaping and defining the essence of our government, the American people deserve no less.

If you are truly seeking debates where there are fewer participants and where there is more meaningful and serious discourse, this is a great opportunity for us to join together in and an open discussion on
behalf of the American people.

Thank you,

Sincerely Yours,


Dennis J. Kucinich


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Kucinich_wants_to_go_mano_a_mano.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. This is the style of debate we should have!

Only it should be one on one with all the various candidates. THAT would make for much more interest and understanding of candidate's positions.

[Selatius]

2. We should have a system of one-on-one debates anyway.

It allows each candidate more room to enunciate their platforms rather than be pigeonholed into 1 minute sound bytes.

[CitizenLeft]

3. okay, now wait...

I like Dennis Kucinich, he used to be my mayor, and he's my district neighbor (my rep is Stephanie Tubbs-Jones).

But this smacks of just what he's accusing them of doing, in a different way. One on one with him? So, each of them gets one shot at a debate, and he gets two... will he complain if they debate each other?

I understand where he's coming from, I do... but I'm not crazy about his reaction to what happened. For that matter, I'm not crazy about what happened. If I were either of them, I would decline unless he agrees it's okay to have a Clinton/Edwards debate, an Obama/Clinton debate, and on and on. He's opening the door, here, to something that may be worse for him, not better.

Ideally, we'd have 2-hour issue debates... aren't they already scheduled? Two hours for Iraq, 2 hours for healthcare, the economy, education, foreign policy, etc., etc... where each candidate gets, say, 10 mins. to make an opening statement and get their "plan" or position across, and go from there. Unfortunaly, add that up, and it's already 80 mins. Then have TWO debates on an issue, or shit, just go as long as it takes! I'll watch it, I'm a political junkie - political junkies would love it.

[qazplm]

4. instead of debates

how about simply one on one, one candidate, one moderator, an hour or two, ask questions, town hall, televised.

We'd learn a LOT more about EACH candidate.

[CitizenLeft]

13. Totally agree!

That completely removes the need to stand-out, embarrass your opponents, or get into one-upmanship to be "remembered." Oh, I wish.

[GeorgeGist]

20. Doh ...

what harm could one-on-one debates do to you?

[CitizenLeft]

22. "doh?" - think it through, if at all possible

What do you think the networks will focus on, a Kucinich/Clinton one-on-one debate, or a Clinton/Obama one-on-one debate? What happens to a Kucinich/Gravel debate? Would that even get televised? If all were guaranteed to get equal coverage, sure, fine. But if they continue to give the frontrunners more attention, he'll lose with even that strategy.

I'm not against Kucinich - which is irrelevant - I just added my opinion to the mix. As is my right, in case you don't get that concept.

Btw, The "doh" was unnecessary and childish.

[MGKrebs]

5. I don't think anyone would watch that.

Most Americans don't want to get all that deep into the policy nuances. They watch the debates (to the extent that they do) because all the candidates (well, most of 'em) are there at the same time and they can get a gut feeling about them all at once in a relatively level playing field environment. It's like a beauty contest.

Anybody who really wants to get into the wonky bits can easily do so. There are books, websites, interviews, videos, CSPAN, pundits, newspapers, and magazines. The debates do almost nothing to further the discourse on policy. It is all about personality and charisma (and not just of the moderator!). Undecided viewers will rationalize supporting almost any candidate position if they come to feel they can trust that candidate.

Front-runners try to look Presidential and capable and other candidates try to make an impact by being confrontational and/or extreme in some way to draw attention to themselves, and a one-on-one debate would be the same thing. Few potential mainstream voters will sit through a 2 hour one-on-one full of 12 minute discourses on things like the various aspects of different health care proposals just to get to the fun part when they can just see the highlights on the Today Show or YouTube the next morning.

That's my perspective anyway.

[welshTerrier2]

15. "Anybody who really wants to get into the wonky bits can easily do so."

here's the problem with your argument: thus far, most candidates, certainly Clinton, only give their standard pitch on any given issue. For example, you could probably get a sense of Hillary's health care ideas (maybe) but you could not hear her thoughts about single payer which Kucinich endorses. I don't just want to hear some script written by a speechwriter; I want to hear how supportive or unsupportive she is of new ideas and I want to see how receptive or unreceptive she is to ideas I support.

Here are a few issues I care deeply about. I have absolutely no idea what Hillary's positions are.

1. What is her position on the Iraqi Oil Law? Should we impose privatization on the Iraqis?
2. What are her thoughts about single payer? Moore's new movie suggests the only fix for health care is to remove the profit motive. If Hillary disagrees, what argument can she make against single payer? Thus far, she never even talks about it.
3. Corporate money being pumped into campaigns and into legislative lobbying has valued big corporations over average citizens. What does Hillary propose to address this problem?
4. The last Energy Bill the Dems passed called for higher CAFE standards and greater use of renewables. The problem is both fall very far short of the significant reductions in CO2 output we require. Conservation, i.e. mandatory reductions in auto use, are the only way to address the problem. If Hillary won't agree to these harsh measures, what's her proposal to address the severe risks global warming poses?

The problem I see is that the current "debate" formats offer us nothing. If you go looking for the answers to the above, I'd bet you wouldn't find much if anything. Hillary doesn't want to address these issues. She wants to put on her tiara and wave to the crowd.

If we allow the process of democracy to remain a dog and pony show, you can expect more of the same. Nothing will change. The dangers we face are very real. We'd better fix the mess while we still have the chance. Whether only the wonkies really care about issues may or may not be true. One thing's for sure though, if we all don't start demanding real answers to real problems, we're in big trouble.

[MGKrebs]

16. I've come to believe that policy positions that are that detailed are pretty much

useless. It is impossible to predict future conditions, presidents don't have the power to pass laws anyway let alone write them, and the large majority of the electorate is fickle and not so concerned with details anyway. They want to know if they can trust the candidate to be what they expect. No surprises. If the candidates can outline a general direction they intend to go in, that seems to be good enough for most voters. Candidates actually get punished for being too detailed in their proposals since the more detailed you get, the more you open yourself to criticism. We want vision, leadership, and judgment, not thesis writers.

Face it, you have a pretty good idea of where each candidate will go with each of those issues. Clinton is a mainstreamer in most ways. She will try to forge compromises and will make incremental progress on each. I suspect she will try to find some sort of international consensus on Iraqi oil. I would bet she supports single payer, but would not jump right to that. Clinton is unlikely to be a leader in campaign finance reform. And I think it's reasonably safe to say that Clinton will be an advocate for progress on the environmental front, although not as forceful as most of us would like to see. As is said so often, it is easy to say what you are going to do, but getting it done is another story. We each have to judge whether we think what the candidates are saying is realistically doable, because if it's not, it's just bullshit anyway. More important to me is how the candidate will act regarding the things we DON'T talk about much. What will Clinton do if North Korea spins out of control? What will Kucinich do if Putin tries to test his willpower? Can Obama stand up to China?

[Cameron27]

6. It will be interesting to see how they respond.

[jillan]

7. Kudos to Dennis for winning the upper hand in this.

He is not my candidate BUT he has gained mountains of respect from me.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. Where was Kucinich a month ago when he had a chance to debate Edwards?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3376264#3376534

[Tellurian]

9. Exactly!

Kucinich is becoming unbalanced. His ego is feeding his self-importance to the detriment of country and party. Why doesn't he debate Romney or Thompson? He has more in common with them, being they are at either ends of the spectrum! Hillary or Edwards would destroy him and possibly hurt the Democratic Party. Kucinich has become a RW Tool.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. Notice how Dodd, Gravel, Biden, and Richardson are all silent on this?

If they believed such a conspiracy existed they all would have reason to believe they were targets as well (Richardson is strong in Iowa and NH but is low in the national polls. If he were paranoid he would think he was targeted as well). What is really happening is Kucinich is grandstanding in order to get 15 minutes of press coverage. This is exactly what he--and he alone--did when he went to bat for Faux Noise and attacked the top three for backing out of the Faux debate. It is sad. Kucinich says a lot of things that need to be said and brings a lot to the race but he acts like an attention whore--even if it comes at the expense of attacking fellow Democrats--at times...

[ncabot22]

24. Dodd HAS spoken out

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070715/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail_10

[CarolNYC]

12. Except, in spite of what you're trying to peddle....

no one here knows for sure if Kucinich was even invited to that debate. Perhaps if he wasn't invited he should have crashed the event?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Folks, do you want to believe Mario Cuomo or a DUer with an ax to grind against Edwards?

Contrary to Carol's distortions, Mario Cuomo--who organized the event and series (unless Carol's real name is Newt Gingrich she does not have the same level of knowledge about the Cooper Union Dialogue Series as Mario Cuomo)--has said that every presidential candidate was invited to the event. If Kucinich wasn't he would have surely taken the opportunity to get some camera time...

[Mojorabbit]

11. I like it that he

is scrappy. More interesting than the blandness of the others. I still have not made a choice btw.

[paulk]

14. why would Edwards or Clinton waste their time

debating someone who pulled 3% in the 2004 election cycle and is doing even worse this time around?

Dennis is grandstanding.


--------------------------


And no, I doubt this is going to hurt any of the front runners - being railed at by a guy who 99% of America think is a flake is not going to hurt them.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. So Dennis wants to exclude

Dodd, Biden, Gravel, Richardson and Obama?

[rinsd]

18. Bingo!

[donsu]

19. I'd watch those debates!

go Kucinich

[zulchzulu]

21. Game Set and Match to Kucinich

There is no freaking way either Edwards or Clinton will do this...even though that's what they apparently said they wanted.

Another $25 going to the DK campaign...