The natural inclination is to bash Clinton and Edwards for showing themselves to be elitists despite all their talk of inclusion, but they raise an interesting point:
Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton consider themselves among the top presidential candidates.
They were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.
Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."
We already know some of these candidates who will not become president -- Republican Ron Paul, for example, and Democrat Dennis Kucinich, and we can throw in Tom Tancredo and Mike Gravel while we're at it. Wouldn't the electorate be better served if there were more time to get more thorough answers from the candidates who do have a chance?
We've wrestled with this as an editorial board when setting up interviews for candidates for local office. We have a limited amount of time, so would we be better off being fair to all candidates or giving ourselves more time to interview the "serious" candidates by leaving out those with little chance like the Libertarians? Usually, after much discussion, we go the "fair" route based on the idea that if candidates take the time and effort to be involved, they deserve to be heard.
I would go that way in the presidential race, too. Even if candidates don't have a chance of winning, they add value to the debate. Their responses to questions can strike a chord with voters and force the top-tier candidates to go to rhetorical places they might never have visited. We've had a lot of third parties in this country -- Socialist and Libertarian in particular -- that have not been good at winning elections but have had great influence on the ideas of the major parties.
Comments
That is so very nice. Libertarians are great idea guys but we don't take them seriously when they run for office.
Heck, if we did notice them, they just might get elected and then where would we be????
It is always nice to know that Leo Morris of 'The News-Sentinel' of Fort Wayne Indiana discounts human beings based on their political affiliation. I wonder what other forms of bias the Newspaper editor has?
Also, considering that Rep. Ron Paul has more campaign funds than half those running for President combined, it makes me wonder if Leo Morris' crystal ball is vibrating to the tune of Duncan Hunter, Huckabee, T. Thompson, Biden, or Richardson?
Inquiring minds truly want to know.
Geez. I believe I said we ended up talking to all of the candidates, including the Libertarians, and that all the candidates should be featured in the presidential debates. For what it's worth, I was the editorial page editor in Michigan City in 1980, and our newspaper endorsed Ed Clark for president (that was back when there was a great Libertarian clash between moderates and radicals). Liking somebody's ideas doesn't mean we have to be delusional about his chances of winning.
Its funny how the media has already elected Hillary (or Guliani) depending on the slant of said media.
The bottom line is that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich strike chords with the people on any number of issues, globalization,illegal immigration, government interference in personal lives, taxes, avoidance of foreign entanglements and many other issues that truly represent the will of the people. Paul consistantly wins internet polls (some decidedly unscientific I'll grant) and is raising a good amount of dough.
What the real deal is the media ignores these guys because it forces them to re-evaluate the crap they promote in thier respective venues, heaven forbid you guys in the press might actually have to do your jobs.
If these guys are so insignificant - why are the so called "mainstream" candidates so afraid of them having their say?