Quick reactions to Lieberman’s debate proposal

As I mentioned yesterday, Joe Lieberman has proposed monthly debates for the Democratic presidential field starting in July, events that I argued would be beneficial to nearly everyone.

Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley Braun immediately expressed enthusiastic support for the idea, which makes perfect sense in light of their position in the polls.

While several national political reporters speculated as to why Lieberman would be taking the lead on the debate issue, the Boston Globe’s Glen Johnson highlighted what could be the leading motivation for the Lieberman campaign: taking the power away from the party’s liberal base.

Several of the “candidate forums” have been organized and hosted by liberal groups with a liberal membership — groups such as the Children’s Defense Fund, NARAL, and AFSCME have already held events for all the Dem candidates. Events scheduled for the near future include forums hosted by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the League of Conservation Voters, and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

What’s wrong with this? Nothing, unless you’re Joe Lieberman and the party’s liberal base sees you as a Republican in Democratic clothing.

Lieberman’s proposal for monthly debates at “neutral” forums, moderated by prominent political journalists, would establish a more favorable playing field for the Lieberman campaign because he’d be away from the traditional progressive base that inherently distrusts him.

Howard Dean’s staff, for example, which believes it is well positioned to gain support from the interest groups hosting the forums, offered support for the Lieberman idea but worried aloud about the plan undermining other worthwhile events.

”We would not be for something that said if we go this route, there is not [a League of Conservation Voters] debate or other debates,” said Joe Trippi, Dean’s campaign manager. “We would not be for that.”

John Edwards’ campaign expressed a similar sentiment. ”We wouldn’t do it to the exclusion of other debates,” Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards’ campaign spokeswoman said “We think that if you could have a nationally available forum where you have all the candidates talk about the issues once a month, that’s good for John Edwards and all the candidates.”

Dick Gephardt’s campaign, meanwhile, seemed to like the idea, if for no other reason to add a semblance of structure to the campaign calendar.

”There are just too many requests [for candidate forums] to be able to do all of them,” said Erik Smith, a Gephardt spokesperson. “You want to bring some organization to the process.”

One of Carpetbagger’s most loyal readers, whom I fondly call Dr. Who, emailed yesterday to suggest Lieberman’s proposal would probably help several candidates, but would undermine the “strong-and-well-funded candidates.”

“[A]ny candidate that believes he has the ability to reach a well-funded level without the debates would be giving his opponents a lot of visibility by agreeing to the monthly debates,” Dr. Who said. “Seems that such candidates would rather wait and watch most of the lesser funded candidates fall off and give up, while raising more money of their own. Then they could spend the money to get the advertising/publicity they need to push them to the top of the heap.”

It’s a good point, except it’s hard to say at this point if any of the candidates qualify for the “strong-and-well-funded” category. The only person who comes close is John Kerry, perceived as a front runner by many, though he does not lead in any national poll.

But Dr. Who’s point is valid. When a candidate is in the lead, he or she usually resists debates because they raise the specter of performing poorly and losing some or all of their frontrunner status. Strong candidates, in other words, have nothing to gain from debates (they’re already ahead) and everything to lose.

With this in mind, I half expected to hear Kerry’s camp come up with a creative reason to oppose Lieberman’s plan. Instead, the campaign offered a vague response that was hard to decipher.

”It’s an interesting proposal,” said Jim Jordan, Kerry’s campaign manager. “Like every campaign, we have concerns about the proliferation of debate invitations…. We welcome our obligation to speak to as many interest groups and outside media outlets as possible, but the travel requirements can become onerous.”

I’m not quite sure if this means the Kerry campaign likes or dislikes the idea; I suspect they’re still mulling it over.