| Even if it was not supposed to be public, I am glad that Democratic candidates are starting to voice frustrations with existing debate formats. Edwards is apparently leading the charge:
An angry Dennis Kucinich lashed out at John Edwards today, saying his Democratic rival showed "a consistent lack of integrity" by suggesting fewer candidates should participate in presidential forums and then trying to explain his remark to reporters.(...)
Kucinich's comments came after Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton were overheard Thursday discussing the possibility of limiting the number of participants in future presidential forums.
In an exchange captured on camera and open microphone by broadcasters after an NAACP forum in Detroit, Edwards approached Clinton onstage and whispered in her ear.
"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said, and Clinton agreed.
"Our guys should talk," Clinton said, complaining the format had "trivialized" the discussion.
Considering that Kucinich has agreed to a "debate" on right-wing propaganda outlet Fox News, I am not particularly moved by his claims about "integrity" when it comes to debates. However, considering the struggles of lower-tier candidates for media attention, I can also understand his desire to make an issue out of this. So, I don't plan to get angry at him over this, either.
No matter how it may end up being portrayed in the media, I think Edwards is right to try and seek new debate formats. The established format of having eight candidates on a stage at the same time providing 60-second answers, in random order, to questions that generally lack focus simply does not work for anyone. Voters do not learn much about candidates. Issues are not discussed in depth. There is no meaningful exchanges between candidates, and candidates themselves have little chance to offer more than sound-bite insight into their ideas for America. These formats are so awful, that even a political junkie like myself can't watch them. We need something better.
So far, I think the most compelling candidate forums have been produced by MoveOn.org. By giving each candidate 5-10 minutes of interrupted time to answer questions on a focus issue--first Iraq, and now global warming--Democratic primary voters can actually learn useful things about each candidate. For example, back in April it was during the MoveOn.org forum on Iraq where Bill Richardson began to receive real traction for his "no residual troops" proposal for Iraq. That was useful. That was insightful. Watching Mike Gravel ask Barack Obama who he wanted to nuke was not useful, even if it was a little funny.
The candidates themselves, including "lower-tier" candidates such as Kucinich, need to start engaging in more pushback against the format of the televised "debates." It would be a mistake for Kucinich to cling to existing debate formats simply because it puts him on stage with the other candidates. What we all need are forums where every candidate is able to go more in depth on focused areas of political ideology and public policy. I don't know if his suggestions are the best way to go, but at least Edwards is thinking about new possibilities (from the same article linked above):
For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly.
"The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us," he said.
Kucinich called Edwards' explanation "disturbing" and said he planned to contact Edwards and Clinton immediately to demand an apology.
By immediately demanding an apology for even suggesting that we change an awful debate format, Kucinich reminds me of otherwise progressive Democrats who join in calls for immediate apologies whenever anyone even questions AIPAC's right-wing approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. No matter who poorly the status quo may be working, for some reason changing debate formats, much like changing American policy in Israel, is something that you are not even allowed to talk about, much less openly support.
Kucinich is better than that, and instead of demanding an apology, he should work with Edwards and Clinton to find a debate format that actually works. Right now, our debate formats just plain suck. Chris Dodd, another "lower-tier" candidate, has even shown that, in terms of candidate talk time, existing formats are more unfair to candidates like Kucinich than MoveOn.org style debates. If Kucinich wants to maintain that sort of caste system, it is his prerogative. However, I think it would be better for everyone if we came up with some new ways to conduct these debates.
Right to Respond: Dennis Kucinich |
