WSJ : Sticking Up For 2008's Long Shots

Sticking Up For 2008's Long Shots

By RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR. | The Washington Post | August 23, 2007

Long-shot U.S. presidential hopefuls may not get elected, but they do tend to grow on you -- especially when they're being marginalized, insulted and picked on by everyone else. With the first primaries about 150 days away, the front-running candidates and the media elite no doubt prefer to simplify things by getting rid of those who are given no chance to win.

And I thought the job of thinning out the crop of candidates went to voters, not to the powerful and the powerbrokers.

Try telling that to George Stephanopoulos. In a recent interview with Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, the host of ABC's "This Week" asked the candidate for his definition of success. Mr. Paul predictably responded that it was to win. "That's not going to happen," Mr. Stephanopoulos informed him. The candidate asked the host if he was willing to bet "every cent in your pocket" that Mr. Paul couldn't win. Without hesitating, Mr. Stephanopoulos said, "Yes."

Ouch.

Then it was Mike Gravel's turn for a reality check. In an interview, Mr. Stephanopoulos asked the former senator which Democrat he intended to ultimately support. "I'm going to vote for myself," Mr. Gravel responded. "But you're not going to be president," Mr. Stephanopoulos told him.

Double ouch.

On Sunday, Mr. Stephanopoulos moderated the latest debate among the eight Democratic candidates -- which, apparently, by his count, is about six candidates too many. For Mr. Stephanopoulos and others in the media, the contest is a two-person race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And to prove it, Mr. Stephanopoulos kicked off the debate in Des Moines with what he described as the "two questions that have really been dominating this race so far."

"Is Barack Obama ready to be president, experienced enough to be president?" he asked. "And can Sen. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, in part because of your experience, bring the country together and bring about the kind of change that all of you say the country needs?"

Wow. I know those were the questions on my mind. Not the candidates' positions on issues or strength of character or leadership qualities, but the horse race narrowed down to two candidates.

Apparently, not even John Edwards needs to apply, despite the fact that he usually comes in third in polls behind Sens. Clinton and Obama. In fact, in an extra dose of humiliation, Mr. Stephanopoulos introduced the candidates with their standing among Iowa voters in a recent ABC News/Washington Poll. Mr. Obama had 27%, while Ms. Clinton and Mr. Edwards each had 26% -- statistically a dead heat.

Some candidates were so hungry for airtime that they actually took the bait and offered opinions about what sort of president Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton might make. It was painful watching most of the other candidates -- including two senators, a governor, a congressman and two former senators -- degrade themselves by morphing into political analysts. It was as if they were all conceding they would not get the nomination and so why not tell us what they think of someone who actually has a chance to win.

Only Rep. Dennis Kucinich had the character to refuse to play along. He blasted the debate as "insufficient" and scolded Mr. Stephanopoulos for "trying to polarize people out of the race." And, Mr. Kucinich insisted, Americans should have a real choice, not one based on polls.

Bravo. This will all sort itself out. But what's the rush? The field will be winnowed down soon enough. So why speed up the process? It's not fair to the candidates, and it's not healthy for America's democracy.

That's the message we hear over and over again from the long shots. And by spreading it, they're making a valuable contribution.