Debating Debates

Okay, I like Kucinich. He's not someone I think has a chance, but I think he's got some very good ideas. I'd hate to see him get frozen out of the debates (such as they are) because some of the things he has to say are things we need to hear.

That said, I've long thought the whole structure of most of the debates sucks donkey dick. It's another example of how the media controls the whole electoral process and the candidates, if they want exposure, are forced to go along with it.

It's not so much about the issues, and god knows there's a myriad of possible issues to bring up in any debate, as it is about personalities and personas. It's the same kind of bullshit as reality television--what I like to call "neo-reality." It ain't real, but let's all get together and pretend it is.

Half the questions are inane and meaningless, and too much time is wasted on trivia rather than on important topics. Freezing out the "fringe" elements, which, as far as I'm concerned includes the Libertarian candidates during the actual Presidential debates after the nominees are decided, is just another way for the media to control the process. Economically the Libertarians are as retarded as the Republicans, but at least they understand how stupid the Drug War is and aren't afraid to say it aloud. They're not afraid of being called "soft on crime."

Funny how it's only "crime" because someone makes it so.

This is my biggest bitch about this whole discussion. The playing field is being manipulated by the media, as usual, and they (particularly Faux News) has managed to maneuver two candidates into what appears to be a rather compromising position in order to use it against them. Which a lot of DUers have quite happily bought into.

What we need more than anything is public financing of elections, and DONATED national venues for a whole string of debates. In fact, maybe they should simply create another cable channel devoted to debates and similar political functions that is only active during campaign seasons and free of charge for both candidates and viewers. It's not as though they couldn't manage it.

The various "news" outlets invite certain people to participate in their sponsored debates, based on their own criteria, and stack the deck that way. It needs to stop. It unfairly influences the electoral process...the corporate media has long abandoned the old rule of journalism that says that it's their job to report the news, not make it. Playing favorites among the potential candidates is, by any measure, MAKING news.

I'm disappointed by what we've heard of what went on between Clinton and Edwards, but I also realize that the system itself is broken, and what happened is a symptom of that fracture. They have to fight for every moment of face time, and that's how the media wants it.

I'd like to see everyone with something to say, everyone with a position on any issue of interest, able to bring their particular set of issues to the fore, without the manipulation of the media making it more difficult. There are only a few ways to accomplish this, in my opinion, and I don't see anyone in power bringing that about.

One way it may be possible to shake things up a bit, and this is a long shot, is by coming up with a workable plan and forcing it to the fore in those states that still have the citizens' initiative process. Ban ANY sort of televised debate broadcast in those states unless it conforms to certain "progressive" rules and use the power of the ballot to kick the corporate media where it hurts the most.

There's constitutional issues involved in this, of course, but, then again, one can play all sorts of havoc with the notion of "free speech" when it comes to political discourse and the media's involvement. Not allowing every candidate equal time can be seen, from the correct angle, to be interfering with "free speech" as well. And, frankly, from a truly democratic point of view, citizens are entitled to that right...media conglomerates--not so much.

We could use something on the books that addresses the notion of corporate "personhood," but that's a deceased equine I've been pummeling for quite some time. I'm thinking if we can't get our legislators to address it (and, hell, it sure doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon) maybe we'll have to do it ourselves through whatever means available to us.

And here in Washington State, if Tim Eyman can dream up whatever stupid-ass anti-tax initiative that turns his tiny little crank every few years, maybe we progressives can get something worthwhile on the ballot every so often as well. Why should the RW dickwads have all the fun?

Riddle me that!

great essay you wrote here ...

it seems to me we have a two step process to get there from here ... the first is that we have to get a majority of people, or at least Democrats, to accept the premise that the "debates" we have today are crap. I've watched a few of the Democratic beauty pageants this year. In fact, I watched and listened very carefully for little morsels of truth. I'm sure many other DU'ers did as well.

Consider this: how many could tell you Hillary's position and reasoning on single payer health care? How many could tell you Obama's thoughts on nuclear proliferation? How many could tell you how Edwards would tame a runaway budget deficit? We don't know anything about these candidates and they don't offer anything tangible. Everyone is in favor of "making things better for Americans." We all like puppies. It's easy to target bush and point out the mess.

Here's another issue that many of us are very passionate about: corporatism. Many of us believe corporations are strangling our democracy. They are strangling our electoral process. They are strangling our legislative process. What is Hillary's view on the strangling of our democratic institutions by mega-corporations and how does she plan to address the problem? Yeah, you'll hear her answer that question in a debate. She will never even be asked the question. And then we wonder why so many don't vote? We are mystified with all these evil republicans that some Democrats vote for third parties? It's not just the media; it's our own party and our own candidates. They just are not "getting real" and We the People know it all too clearly.

A great leader would stand tall on the national stage and take direct aim at this corruption of our democracy. A great leader would make democratic reforms the centerpiece of his or her campaign. A great leader would likely find a tidal wave of support in doing so. The American people aren't stupid. They may not know the details but they do know the score.

I'm not quite as tolerant of the Clinton/Edwards flap as your post suggested you are. As I said above, I blame the candidates as well as the media. Solving the problems of crappy debate formats by allowing the best funded candidates to squeeze out the others seems to be adding to the media mess rather than addressing it.

There are probably all kinds of ways to allow candidates to speak to real issues. I really like the idea of having another C-Span channel that would provide a 24 hour a day outlet during the campaigns. I think to appear on the channel, candidates should agree to one-to-one debates where they get to ask each other questions. I don't need a silly "gotcha" moderator or wishy-washy corporate press sitting between them.

What really bothers me about much of the garbage we're seeing right now is that, if they really want to fix it, I believe the Democratic Party could make the changes we're seeking even absent changes by the media or changes in the law. We seem to say we're for publically financed campaigns and then, even in the primaries, we don't walk the walk. We let the big name candidates suck in all the money they possibly can from their puppetmasters on K Street. Raising money that can then be used in the general election is necessary if the republicans are still allowed to do it but spending it during the primaries, especially before any primaries have even been held, is blatantly hypocritical. Is this how we walk the walk?

Publically financed campaigns should be the Party's highest priority. Has it even been mentioned by the "leading" candidates? There is so much wrong and until we all see it and demand change, real change, the status quo will just keep rolling along until it finally destroys us all.