Reply #3: Impressive [View All]

[Adjoran]

Kerry made several great points in a few minutes with Imus. We don't give enough time for thoughtful responses in these debates, they are geared to one-liners which, while bringing a good laugh or applause, don't really enlighten the voters as to what the candidate would really do.

Kerry's explanation of his federal funding plan for universal health care is the most practical I've heard yet, in the last ten years.

The real contenders in this race are Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Gephardt. They all have national campaigns with broad appeal. Edwards and Lieberman have outside chances, but only that. Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun haven't got a prayer in school's of winning the nomination.

In the long run, it would be better for the party and the country to have serious debates with extended response times for those candidates with a real chance to win. As the primaries progress, one or two more might be eliminated. But at least with a four-way debate, we would get to hear the sort of thoughtful exposition of ideas that we get from the transcript linked.

After all, this is a contest for Leader of the Free World, not America's Favorite Stand-up.

I mean no offense to the candidates I suggest excluding. They all have valuable messages. While a presidential campaign gives a great platform for getting a message out, at some point the debate needs to be between the real contenders.