Should Kerry debate Edwards in a one-on-one debate?

[JohnLocke]

[Debi]

1. what an insult

to the other candidates still in the race

[Slice]

3. Agreed

[bigwillq]

2. No. DK and Sharpton

need to debate with them

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Yes but first we will need to give him a bit more botox and some froth at

the mouth or no one will hear his points...he needs to "shallow it up" a bit. (sarcasm on)

on edit: answered only to the point that it addresses the question posed in the title of the thread..not to be contrued as meaning that I favor Sharpton or Kucinich being excluded)

[Slice]

5. No

Include DK. Make it a three-man debate, and exclude Sharpton.

[NC_Nurse]

6. I would like

to hear from all of the candidates.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi NC_Nurse!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[The Zanti Regent]

7. Remember New Hampshire, 1980??????

Bush thought he was one on one with Reagan in a debate, then Reagan came in with all the other candidates. Bush pissed all over Reagan, finally he shouted into the mike "I'M PAYING FOR THIS MIKE, MR. BUSH!".

Bush who demanded the one on one ad had it backfire on him.

Edwards needs to remember that lesson!

[sweetcee]

10. Hi!

Is that you or your avatar talking? LOL; just kidding.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. Kerry needs to remember 1992 and the chicken suit, too. n/t

[DaisyUCSB]

13. yeah but that was all at a place where the other candidates were

the basic position of the no vote is that one is perfectly fine with there NEVER being a one on one debate or any debate between the serious candidates. Because it's clear that Sharpton and Kucinich don't give a crap that they are just using the precipus of a presidential primary as a soapbox and not an expection to win the nomination, and that they won't drop out until only one serious candidate is left

[AP]

8. I've seen Democrats make some crazy arguments in the last few months.

- governor's records should be off limits to prying eyes,
- the middle class doesn't need a tax break,
- Lobbying for defense corporations is a noble profession,
- Lawyers who represent people in suits against negligent corporations are bad.

I might have to add to the list "we have too many debates."

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. They don't seem too fond of the last illusory shreds of the democratic

process that remain. I would have thought more people would be at least somewhat loath to let those go.

I have also been surprised to discover that there is a very wide gap between those who dislike bush's policies and those who have no problem with the policies, they just dislike bush.

[AP]

14. Most people want to win the presidency so that we can undo those policies.

Some seem not to care about winning the election, so long as they make a point about something, even if it means that nothing will change (or that it will get worse).

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. The best way to be sure that nothing changes, is to elect a candidate

who will change nothing.

If you support the crusade, if you support medical treatment as a commercial product, if you are an imperialist and a feudalist by conviction, then have the courage to defend those beliefs honestly.

People may not agree, but they will respect you more, and more importantly, you will respect yourself more.

[OhioStateProgressive]

20. well

I don't think he is evil for representing people against corporations.

Just for becoming a millionaire from it.

[atre]

22. So...

I suppose gaining money through an inheritance or via a marriage is somehow more noble than the way John Edwards earned his money?

Does anyone else think it's a bit over the top to call ANYONE evil, especially a Democratic candidate? Isn't that the same sort of thing Bush does?

[OhioStateProgressive]

23. not at all

Kerry's money is just as sickening as Edwards, imo.

I think accumulating wealth is rather evil.

[sweetcee]

9. Using your word "should",

then definitely "yes". No disrespect to Sharpton and Kucinich; and I do think it's good for the party for them to continue in the race, but I would love to see a one-on-one between Kerry and Edwards because I believe Edwards would wipe the floor with him. I also believe more democrats and independents and newly unemployed repukes would be very impressed with Edwards.

[sistersofmercy]

15. No, there are still FOUR Democratic candidates in the race n/t

[JasonDeter]

16. Who's stopping Edwards from saying what he has to say now?

People listen to him compared to Kerry and support Kerry more. Deal with it Edwards. I think its a shame the media are doing the work of the Edwards campaign. Judy the media whore Woodruff show today was shameless in building up Edwards compared to Kerry. I'm wondering why? Could it be...the republicans WANT Edwards? I think so because they are afraid of Kerry and know they can beat Edwards.

[thetone]

18. A Kerry/Edwards Debate

We have two excellent candidates to replace Bush. They should not debate one-on-one. We do not need excellent Democrats bashing one another. We need them bashing Bush Administration policies. No good will come from such a debate. Democratic wisdom will prevail through the Primary/Party Caucus process to produce the best candidate to unseat Bush. Having such debate is unwise.

[AP]

19. They didn't bash each other in the last debate. Why would they start.

Debates of ideas don't have to be bashes.

That's what the rule changes at DU achieved.

[newyawker99]

27. Hi thetone!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[bushwakker]

21. This Kerry supporter says yes

[Zynx]

24. Yes. We need a debate among the two likely choices for the nomination.

They need as much time as possible.

[Leilani]

25. I would like a debate

Kerry or Edwards is going to be the nominee.

Neither DK nor Sharpton will be the nominee, & they have both been in every debate, & not enough Dems are supporting them.

I supported Clark, & do not know who to support between Edwards & Kerry. I have been to their websites, many times. I have listened to all the debates, & coverage of townhalls on C-Span, & I have listened to their supporters here at DU, & I'm still undecided.

That's why I would like a debate, covering international & domestic policy. And I want a REAL debate, with rebuttals, not just campaign speech sound bites.

Kerry & Edwards each has good pts & bad pts. If I could see them 1 on 1, I believe it would help make up my mind.

Also, it would be good for the Dems: free media, more exposure, chance to pick up more support.

[MaggieSwanson]

28. Not unless Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich drop out

of their own accord. As long as there are 4 candidates who meet the criteria to debate (10%) then they have the RIGHT TO DEBATE.
Dennis Kucinich will be in the race until the convention; he's in it to win it. Get used to it already.

[SangamonTaylor]

29. Dennis and Al should challenge Kerry to a 1 on 1 debate too

More debates is better! Why are so many people intent on having the nominee go against Bush as his first one on one debate? We need to see a real debate with the candidates going back and forth, listening to each other and responding to each other. Not funny one liners and a bunch of prescripted rhetoric.