Our view on the presidential campaign: Every candidate in every debate? Fair but a mistake

Thu Jul 26, 12:22 AM ET
In mid-July, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina came under fire after being caught on videotape expressing a desire to limit the number of candidates in future presidential debates.
ADVERTISEMENT
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['WOlwE9GDJGE-']='&U=13a2el8su%2fN%3dWOlwE9GDJGE-%2fC%3d382523.9691265.10405559.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4476110';
Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot presidential candidate and a congressman from Ohio, expressed outrage at their effort to slim down the Democratic debate field, currently numbering eight. Some bloggers and political critics called their behavior collusive or conspiratorial.
It is certainly self-serving. But as time passes and fringe candidates such as Kucinich fail to attract any significant support, the idea looks more and more like a winner for voters.
There's nothing wrong with the political parties, media groups, or the candidates themselves devising plans for more focused debates. Handled properly, such events would weed out candidates running on vanity or waging single-issue campaigns in favor of those with a reasonable chance of becoming the next president. The survivors would then face more intense and sustained questioning.
Kucinich's support in polls is stuck in the low single digits despite months of campaigning and a 2004 presidential bid. Fellow Democrat Mike Gravel often registers 0% support — and still complains during debates that he is not given enough free air time.
The Republican field of nine candidates includes six who have had about as much impact as the proverbial tree falling in a forest. Their combined support is in the single digits.
Including all of these people means less focus on the candidates who matter. In Monday night's Democratic debate, for example, a question about the No Child Left Behind education law was not addressed by any of the three leading candidates — Clinton, Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
While hearing a large number of voices and perspectives is important, particularly in the early stages of the race, late July marks the midpoint between the time most candidates jumped in and the first primaries in January. It is not too early to start trimming.
In past years, the primaries themselves helped winnow the field and focus attention on the survivors. That's because the race played out gradually through the winter and spring. Those candidates doing well each week got more media attention and more financial support from donors. The converse was true of the underperformers.
But this time, states have moved up their primaries in an effort to have greater influence. Now both parties are likely to have their nominee on Feb. 5, when more than half of the voters go to the polls.
For that reason, the debates will play a greater role in focusing scrutiny on the leaders. All the more reason for these public contests to start slimming down.
Granted, the choice of whom to exclude can be problematic. Nonetheless, these decisions can be made easier by the fact that not every debate need use the same formula. Ideally, the sponsoring groups would make these decisions. But if candidates make them, it would hardly be a conspiracy. Ultimately, channels like CNN and Fox News that carry these contests would have to sign off on their usefulness, fairness and newsworthiness.
It's time to give the idea of focused debates — and the debates themselves — a thorough airing.