Ever have one of those surreal moments when the planets seem to align in a way you didn't expect? That happened to me recently when Dennis Kucinich said something that I actually agreed with 100%. What prompted this strange turn of events?
Thank Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
Two of the three top Democrat candidates for President were caught on tape talking about how they agreed that the debates should be limited to only so-called serious candidates. In a party where a former First Lady who can't perform under any circumstances that aren't heavily scripted and a former trial lawyer who spends more on his hair than Marge Simpson are two of the top three, they should be careful about judging who constitutes "serious candidates." Anyway, Kucinich heard about this and was understandibly upset. Granted, he would be one of the ones excluded in the debates if Clinton and Edwards got their wish, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was speaking out of a sense of personal integrity.
Limiting debate to only the allegedly viable candidates is a bad idea. Sure, people like Mike Gravel or Ron Paul don't really stand a chance of getting the nomination, but they do provide a service in that they give people an alternative to the standard cookie-cutter candidates both major parties seem to put out there election after election. Also, a diversity of opinions gives a much better view of different issues and can bring light to issues that the major candidates may not approach that often, if at all. Who wouldn't want an intellectually diverse candidate for President? Besides, America was built on a foundation of free speech. Limiting it on the basis of the perception of viability is weak, at best.
Oh, and there's one more reason I think it's a bad idea. Because Sean Hannity advocated the same thing that Hillary and Edwards did.