Well, well. Last night's debate for the Democratic Presidential potentials alerted me to a couple things. One, I'm not sure if a debate with eight candidates is the most effective means for all, but the top candidates to get their message out. Obama, Clinton and Edwards seem to dominate the proceedings, from questions to answers. Which leads to point number two. The limited chances for those candidates not seen at the top of news polls have to make their case in a sound bite or else.
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's position that the Democrat were more to blame for the Iraqi war than President Bush. This type of statement, while allowing the candidates to state firmly held beliefs and at the same time get "face time" could serve to undermine whichever Democratic nominee comes out of this process. Senator Clinton's tack of minimizing differences between the Democratic candidates while pointing out the disparity between the GOP and the Democrats is a sound one and one that Mr. Edwards and Senator Obama might employ in as insistant a way as Senator Clinton.
If the candidates at the low end of the media radar need to ravage those at the top, it will only damage the Democratic chances in a general election, strengthening a GOP which, at present time has no clear front runner. The small gang of GOP candidates participating in tomorrow night's debate face similar issues due to the size of the proceedings. No clear front runner has emerged and despite the emergence of Romney and McCain's steady hold on the public consciousness there are too many voices to get a strong sense of individual plans and belief.
So I propose a new paradigm in Presidential debating. Identify, through official polls and popular sentiment the top three candidates from each party, Democrat, Repubican, Green or Independent. All other candidates have debates to see who gets to the main stage. Of course there will be issues with fair access to media time and the like, however, it is far from fair for the American public to be given a smorgasboard of candidates that is high in calories, but low in value.
No comments:
Post a Comment