Lieberman asks Democratic rivals for monthly debates

Apparently pleased by the results of the last debate to feature the Democratic primary field, Joe Lieberman’s campaign is suggesting the presidential candidates meet once a month.

The Lieberman campaign, more specifically campaign manager Craig Smith, contacted each of the candidates’ camps late yesterday with an email proposal — monthly debates at “neutral” forums starting in July.

“On behalf of Senator Lieberman, I would like to propose that all of our campaigns agree to one nationally-broadcast, media-sponsored debate a month for the duration of the campaign,” Lieberman said. “For practical scheduling reasons, we suggest that these debates begin in July. If we all agree that the Democratic primary should be one of ideas, let’s all agree to appear regularly before the voters on television in media-sponsored, neutral debates that have the potential of reaching the widest possible audience. Doing so would not only help ensure that the voters hear our voices but that the Republican Party is not permitted to dominate the political debate with its fundraising resources and with the media power of the presidency.

“I urge all of our campaigns to accept this challenge and to work together to make this happen,” Smith added. “We hope to be able to work with you, with the media and with sponsoring organizations to organize these monthly debates.”

I’m a big fan of these kinds of events, so naturally I think the proposal is a great idea, even if it does come from my least favorite Democratic candidate.

It’s too soon to tell if the other campaigns will agree, though I suspect no candidate wants to be the only one to say no to the plan. Assuming the candidates can agree on a schedule for the debates, who wins? As near as I can tell, nearly everyone.

The lesser-known candidates, anxious to break through, need these kinds of events to raise their profile. This means candidates like Howard Dean, John Edwards, and Bob Graham, all of whom are taken seriously by party officials but remain largely unknown on the national stage, can take advantage of these debates, boost their name recognition, and reach voters directly with their campaign pitch.

The strong-but-underfunded candidates will be particularly excited about the prospect of so much free airtime. Strong candidates with weak Q1 fundraising totals, such as Lieberman, Dean, and Dick Gephardt, would love the opportunity to share their message to a television audience without having to spend a penny.

The “third-tier” candidates, largely dismissed as irrelevant by the party and the media, would really benefit from these events because it allows them to share the stage and spotlight with heavy hitters (mixed metaphor? Oh well). The more folks like Dennis Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun get to stand next to John Kerry and say, “I’m just as much a presidential candidate as my rivals,” the more their stature improves.

Perhaps the biggest winner is the Democratic field itself. It gives nine candidates a chance, hopefully, to highlight the failures of the Bush administration and a chance to explain how things could be better under their leadership. Right now, few Americans know who these candidates are, and fewer still are prepared to vote for them. A New York Times poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of voters couldn’t name a single Democratic candidate. Not one. Monthly debates, and the media attention they would generate, could help to turn that around.

But as I said, this is a brand new proposal, and the other campaigns have not yet responded to Lieberman’s request. I’ll let you know what I hear about the responses.