Scipio

The campaign is rounding second base right now. We're not quite to the home stretch just yet, but we're certainly over the hump. The conventions are over, and the money is even and limited. Current polling trends indicate a move back towards the incumbent. How large that move is depends on who you ask, and on what direction you lean.

Consider that an introduction. Here's what I think about the question at hand.

Kerry's campaign has been plagued by two main problems. One, they have been continually distracted by small battles over news stories and issues, and have neglected the overall war to get into the White House. The Swift Boat Vet fiasco is only one extreme example of this. Two, the campaign has been spoiled by having too many chiefs, and not enough indians at the top. This is a byproduct of the wide field in the primary, and of the transition from a divided party to a unified party.

So, what does Kerry need to DO? He's already shaken up his campaign leadership. I don't think it would be wise for him to do it again before the election, so may or may not have already solved problem number 2. We'll find out soon enough. Two, he needs to get a message, or a line of attack, and hammer it home every day until the election. The message needs to be simple, political, and endlessly repeated. It must be short, free of nuance, and sharp. Three, he needs to get his message out through surrogates. John Edwards needs to start going on television. Every loyal democratic official, pundit, candidate, etc. needs to be out there spouting that simple message.

Kerry needs to tie Bush to the deteriorating situation in Iraq. That seems to be his strategy for the home stretch. Hopefully, he'll refine that message and stick with it.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

james t kirk

Well, since I belong to the ABB party, it pains me greatly to say this.

But Kerry is finished.

Kerry has sunk his own boat really.

The only thing that will kill Bush right now is a major sex scandal. Bush needs to have his version of the blue dress come forward.

Other than that, I can't see Kerry overcoming this. Some polls have him on the wrong end of 54 / 40 percent.

God, 4 more years of that moron.

gcbrowni

Wrong.

That message appeals to the Kerry core, and not everyone believes it. (I, for one, think the Iraq situation is ok.) He needs to appeal to the undecided voter and to the marginal Bush voter. Once message will do that. John Edwards has pushed it a little:

"Let me say this in the simplest possible terms: When John Kerry is President of the United States, we will find al-Qaida where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people," Edwards said.

I would modify that to "terrorists." That message will appeal to everyone (except the guys who think Afghanastan was wrong. There's no hope for them.)

__________________
From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.

powerclown

Kerry is in a tough, tough position.
To beat a President who led the country through a hostile foreign attack of the magnitude of 9/11 is probably not likely to happen. It is a Democratic candidate's worst nightmare, I would think.

In saying that, I think Kerry's only choice will be to keep on doing what he's been doing and continue to characterize the Iraq War - Bush's strongest platform - as a fiasco, quagmire, needless, costly, ie., every buzzword they can think of. He's been speaking to domestic issues some, such as health care, economy, etc. but not too much. His overriding attention has been on US foreign policy. The Repubs have home-court advantage in this election.

Bush has sex?
Oh yeah, those daughters...
(Adopted?)

shakran

I agree completely. I watched his daughter (Vanessa - the med student) speak several weeks ago and wish she was running instead of her dad. She gave a powerful speech and came straight out and accused Bush of wrongdoing. Much more passionate than her dad, and much more willing to fight.

Kerry's been avoiding a fight for far too long. Even if he adopts a good campaign strategy (um. . fight BACK for chrissakes!) now, I don't think he can catch up to the momentum Bush has gained with his attacks on Kerry.

Stare At The Sun

Yeah, Kerry comes off as a huge puss. He never seems to really go on the offensive or fight back.

Maybe if he does rather well in the debates, he could pull it off. I just don't see him winning though.

rukkyg

Every poll about Iraq recently is the question "Who do you think can handle the situation in Iraq Better?" A lot of the talk on CNN is about who can fix the situation in Iraq. Things like "Bush caused this mess" or "This is Bush's Problem" or "Kerry would inherit the war and have to deal with it" are said all the time, every day.
How can anyone think the situation in Iraq is ok. The report came out saying the BEST outcome by 2005 is a tenuous stability, worst is civil war. HOW IS THAT GOOD?! 1000 americans dead, many times more wounded. Forces stretched thin, reservists over there. American civilian decapitated earlier today. HOW IS THIS GOOD?

A poll on Paula Zhan Now a half hour or so ago on CNN showed 78% people think that Kerry can handle the war in Iraq better than Bush. I think this is a direct result of Kerry's speach midday today. Kerry finally laid down his plan for Iraq, and a lot of people have responded. I'll be very interested to see a more diverse poll result in the coming week.

Scipio

I think you guys are doing two things. One, you're forgetting how quickly things are going to happen in the final weeks of the race, and two, the question wasn't "can he win?" it was "what does he need to do in order to win?"

Sure, some polls have Kerry down 14 points. They're called "outliers." There are other polls that have Bush up by only 3-4 points (Zogby, Investors Daily/CSM, Pew, Harris). There have been questions about Gallup's methodology, which seems to greatly overstate possible Republican voter turnout. So, perhaps the polls are more of a wash, though they do show a trend.

So, Bush has some momentum, and the polls are moving his way. The same thing happened to Kerry two weeks ago. Like I said: we've got quite a ways to go yet, and things are going to happen fast.

For those reasons, I don't think Bush is home free just yet. Iraq is looking worse and worse by the day (and anyone who denies it needs a reality check). When Robert Novak speculates that Bush plans a unilateral withdrawl after the election, you know things are pretty grim.

So that brings us back to Kerry. On the premise that he can still win (which is quite plausible, no matter how easy it is to imagine a Bush landslide at this point in time), what mix of rhetoric, strategy, and tactics will give a victory in November?

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

maximusveritas

On this very same day 4 years ago, Gallup said that Al Gore was leading George Bush by 10 points. A little over a month later, a couple weeks before the election, they claimed that Bush was leading Gore by 13 points. In the end, Gore won by a small percentage. It's not over til it's over.

As far as the stuff about Kerry not going on the offensive, I'm guessing you didn't see his speech today. Read it hear:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=36502

I think Kerry could do a better job of utilizing the media. He needs to settle on a talking point or attack and repeat it until it sticks. There are so many ways to attack this president, its easy to get into the trap of just listing all his mistakes. This doesn't play well in the media though.

I think the debates are where Kerry can really do some damage to Bush. This is when he can force President Bush to answer the questions that the media doesn't want to ask.

SecretMethod70

If only that were true. The way the debates are currently, they are carefully crafted so that each candidate knows every question ahead of time and so that there is little more than opportunities for sound bites for each of them.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

djtestudo

I think that Kerry needs to destroy Bush in the debates to have a chance. And I don't think he has that ability. Bush will be ready to go, and isn't a slouch when it comes to debates from all accounts.

If that doesn't happen, then some sort of major defeat in Iraq on the order of being pushed out of Baghdad and other places by militants. Basically, a disaster for our military.

Finally, some internal scandal, such as discovering he really didn't serve in the ANG, or knew 9-11 was coming, something like that would be needed.

Outside of those, I can't see Kerry coming back like he needs to in order to win.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Paq

what doesw kerry need to do to win:

Show up...
seriously, this race is giong to be too close to call when the time comes....

and i'm still predicting a 'problem' in ohio or florida or both...

the other way kerry can win: kill bush totally joking

but seriously, this race is just going to be close based on the hatred and love for bush. You could have bush vs an untrained chimp and this race would still be too close to call until election day....

and it is sad that the only way bush would fully lose ahead of the election is to have a sexual affair....Human lives don't matter so much, but someone, somewhere having sex with someoen else, somewhere else....that's just heinous..

__________________
Live.

Chris

Boo

Unfortunately Kerry is not a strong contender against Bush. He needs to appeal to the middle and upper class, have a viable jobs iniative, a terrorism solution and an exit plan for Iraq. Right now he can't decide what color his sky is.

I really do wish we had a true leader running for president.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

shakran

Well that's the problem right there. He can decide. He does decide. But Bush has convinced the sheeple that Kerry flip flops.

He doesn't flip flop any more than Bush, first off. Second off, Kerry's pretty clear on his position on the war. He voted to give Bush the AUTHORITY to go to war if NECESSARY. Bush took it and ran with it. Kerry says he wouldn't have gone to war. That's not a flip flop.

Scipio

It's a sad day when the position: "I gave the president the authority to go do war if necessary, but I disagree with the way he ultimately did it." is too complicated for the media to comprehend.

However, Democrats shouldn't dwell on this fact. As much as I hate stealing tactics from the GOP, we should have started attacking the media years ago. Now's not the time to start. The only goal that Democrats should have right now, at least when it comes to national rhetoric, is getting Kerry's message and counter-attack out there.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

Boo

This sheeple is convinced that neither one of our candidates is a true leader. I have also decided that it is my unfortunate duty to join the herd and vote for the "best" person based on my personal preferences. I am waiting for Senator Kerry to APPEAL to me and he is falling short (mainly due to the reasons I stated in the above post which was aimed at the question at hand "What does Kerry need to do.")

Kerry is not in my face telling me how he is going to handle the problems ahead. He IS in my face crying about how President Bush is incompetent and that makes me angry. You can make suggestions, you can disagree, but he need not call our president incompetent in public (especially in times like these when our leaders need to be looked up to by the world, but that is another thread). What this sheeple gets from Kerry is "I don't know how to fix anything but I do know how to point fingers"

And do the other sheeple really believe that a president that is granted the AUTHORITY to go to war won't?

Must stop now........... graze...........graze...........BAAA

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

OpieCunningham

Sure. But on the other hand, you have a President who is telling you he's going to keep on keepin' on with things which are failing - all the while, he tells you how good it all is.

Neither one of them have solutions - but what's the sense in voting for the guy who denies the reality of his failed policies?

onetime2

Kerry needs to get traction on one or two topics. The argument about going to war under the wrong pretenses is a loser (unless substantial new revelations are uncovered about Bush's absolute, undeniable knowledge that the reasons given were false). Talk about the failed analysis of the post invasion situation (it's been touched on but never really pushed). Talk about the fact that not being able to capture Bin Laden or Al Zarqawi does not inspire confidence when looking into the future at the terrorist leaders who are making plans as we speak. Talk about problems that everyone deals with every day from crappy healthcare from your doctor because he sees a thousand patients a day and tie that to a screwed up medical system. Stop talking about Vietnam, the National Guard, Cheney and Bush's ties to big business, etc. People almost expect politicians to have their hands in the pockets of industry/unions/the wealthy/whoever. If they don't people think they must be crappy politicians.

Personally, I think the thing that is hurting Kerry the most is the flip flopping (whether you will admit it or not he has held far too many positions during this race). Much of it was political necessity to get his party's nomination but he should have had a firm message to go out with that didn't change once it was clear he was getting his party's nod. Kerry doesn't need to really push for the votes of the "left leaning" as many of them will vote for him because he's the only one with a shot to "get rid of Bush". His focus should have been on getting those who are more moderate and even more "right".

I won't say it's completely over for Kerry as there's still plenty of time left. But he needs to go in a different direction from the "Iraq was wrong", "Bush lied", "I'm a war hero" crap. Those lines have convinced all that you're going to convince. Rather than focusing on the "undecideds" he needs to get those who are only slightly committed to Bush. If he gets them many of the "undecideds" will get caught in the nets too.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Ustwo

Kerry is going to stick to one message now which is Bush fucked up in Iraq.

Bush will need to stress the flip flopping Kerry has had on Iraq.

If the debates give any room to point out the flip flopping Kerry is done.

If they don't then you will see a very tight race.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

The Phenomenon

I would like to know who the tight-assed dick-face is that came up with that moronic term "flip-flop" so that I can kick him (or her) in the teeth.

Its the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and it seems to be Ustwo's favourite word for some reason.

I wonder why that is.

__________________
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice - which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction - which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

roachboy

i think that the election will not be a close as people imagine, and that kerry is in a strong position---that because i see almost no movement in positions--and the press has an interest in creating a horserace--and i think the opposition to bush is larger and stronger than the right would prefer.

if you look at the campaign as it stands now i am pleased to see kerry finally going after the iraq war fiasco, after bush directly, in ways that i do not see the bush campaign being able to counter with the usual thick screen of bullshit.

it is still a bit strange trying to make a conherent statement about the general state of things outside my range of direct experience on this, however. if the space in which i operate is any indication, bush is cooked---if the spaces in which my friends operate who live in cities is indicative, bush is cooked. but frankly i have no idea what is happening in the suburbs (who does? anyone?) or in rural areas (i suspect this would be easier to have a sense of).....and i wonder if what you will see is an even deeper split between urban and non-urban polities coming out of this elections.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

gcbrowni

You've made my point for me; we don't agree on the situation in Iraq, so Kerry harping on it won't help persuade folks like me to vote for him. Your position only appeals to those who are already voting for Kerry.

Focusing on the war on terror will appeal to everyone. Bush hasn't caught the big bad wolf, which leaves an opening for Kerry. All he has to do is push that adgenda and the moderates and centrists will be all over him on election day.

__________________
From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.

Ustwo

Perhaps you are unware of the 'new tone' in politics as posted.

Lets do a search..........

Flip flop Ustwo

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=40 (Jan 30, 2004)

Whats ironic is I think that was before the whole Kerry the 'flip-flopper' was part of the lexicon. At the time it was more 'waffles'.

So maybe 'I' came up with it, and I hope I did, and I'm sorry you don't like it but I would recomend sticking with the issues and not personal flaming.


Thanks

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ARTelevision

roachboy, in a word, yes.

The split between suburban/rural and urban is vast at this point in our history. It is a pivotal distinction to draw. Perhaps more than distinctions of class. Why that is so is an interesting point in itself. I'd simply suggest that your references to your spheres of contact do dictate some significant filtering of experience. There is quite an opposite sense of the political one gathers from suburban and rural mindsets these days. In some ways this election will offer a comparative measure of these significant differences.

__________________
create evolution

Superbelt

I think mentioning the words Flip-flop, waffles, [texas air] national guard, vietnam in relation to presidential candidates or anything that happened more than ten years ago that involved either men should be grounds for immediate temporary banning in this forum until after the election
(And I am completely serious about this too. )

Onto the question, this election will really come down to Iraq, we all know that. Mostly a referendum on how Bush is handling it, and What kerry will do to right it. Kerry needs to use his time now to get the message out to the American people what he will do to make it better and what Bush has done to get us where we are.
Beyond that a development in the Valerie Plame case, with indictments of high ranking officials would work wonders to blow the race wide open for Kerry.
Overall I believe Kerry will be the undeniable winner in the debates. The Democrats have a new language expert, George Lakoff to help Kerry begin to frame his messages. Positive framing is something we have been lagging far behind on for too long.
The second debate especially where the candidates have to field questions from the audience I think will be the one where Kerry really pulls ahead as Bush has proven himself unable to think on his feet. He will hold his own in the two where he can work on message though.

jb2000

As for the presidential debates, I am making one commitment, and encouraging others to do the same: Watch the debates, live on TV, or on replay if you can't tune in at the time, and then don't watch any of the post-debate coverage, but instead spend some time yourself or with others who are watching it with you analyzing the questions and responses before giving the talking heads an opening.

Far too much of the information we base our decisions on comes not from the candidates but from others filtering the candidates' messages. Think about it. Count all the info you've taken in about candidates and the race. From the candidates, their officials, supposed allies, supposed enemies, media commentators and reporters, your friends and other associates, humorists, this forum, the list goes on. I try and pay attention to direct information from the Kerry and Bush campaigns, but even I would have a hard time figuring that more than 5-10% of all of the info I've heard is from the candidate or even their campaign directly.

Often you hear swing voters ask when the candidates are going to get to the issues. They haave been talking about issues, but for example, Kerry can spend 45 minutes at a union hall talking about his economic and health care plans, take 3 minutes to refute an attack ad, and the headline is "Kerry Speaks to Union; Attacks New Ad: Kerry spoke before Union people today, and strongly rejected claims by *** about *** and attacking his ***. Senator Kerry's *** has been questioned by the *** repeatedly over the last six months....... and so on. The fact he elaborated on other matters is mentioned on page B12. Bush is faced with similar treatment.

The debates is an opportunity for all to hear directly from the horse's mouth, so I feel the best way to do it is to keep it clear of those commentators who can't wait to get back to the filter and spin after the closing statements: 'Would these guys just get done so we can get back to telling the people our version of what they said?'

SecretMethod70

I, for one, will be watching the debates, but only doing so <a href="http://opendebates.org/theissue/drearyformat.html">reluctantly</a>. I don't expect to get anything out of them.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

jb2000

Unfortunately, Badnarik will not be present. I'm not one of his backers, but I do want to see Libertarian views given a platform.

KMA-628

-From a staunch Bush supporter.....

Kerry's direction is wrong and doesn't have mass appeal (plus, Kerry himself isn't really appealing).

Everybody seems to have forgotten the pre-9/11 days when Bush's presidency was failing. 9/11 saved him. Prior to he was getting in trouble left and right and pissing both sides off (myself included).

You want to see Kerry take a bounce in the polls? Have him take up real issues that real people are concerned about. However, he needs to avoid Iraq and any discussions of Kerry making America more secure - both are losers for him.

There are many other topics he could go after that would attract a portion of the conservative base, he just isn't.

Here is an example: My wife is a card-carrying Republican (I am not kidding on the "card-carrying" part, either) and she hates GW. However, Kerry has no appeal to her either. If Kerry's camp could figure out these "issues" that have caused a loyal Republican to become disloyal, he could pull enough votes from both sides to win.

Kerry's team needs to examine the Bush presidency from inauguration to 9/11/01 and go after those points. That is where Bush is weak. Trust me on this, Bush has some real weaknesses that have yet to be exploited.

If Kerry and his team continue on the path they are on, I highly doubt we will see a Democrat in the White House (excluding reporters) come November.

/side note: I am really looking forward to the VP debate. I have seen both men answer questions "from the hip" and Cheney will eat Edwards alive. In an impromptu scenario, Edwards comes across like Quayle. Love him or hate him, Cheney is a pro. Personally, I think this will be the debate to watch.

Superbelt

For the VP debate, I couldn't disagree more. This also will be a win for the democrats. Cheney comes across as scary, while Edwards exudes Clintonian charisma. He will not get eaten alive. The guy cut his teeth as a trial lawyer. You don't get as successful as him without being able to think analytically and be able to impress upon your audience your views.

SecretMethod70

Yes, on that I agree. Cheney will get chewed up and spit out.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

KMA-628

I don't argue his success as a trial lawyer.

I am referring to how he answers questions "off the cuff". I have watched/read it a few times and I wasn't kidding about it being Quayle-esque. All kidding aside, it was embarassing watching Edwards juggle questions.

We will have to watch and see, but I don't see this arena as a forte of Edwards.

Ustwo

Edwards rank emotionalism he uses to get juries to award outragous damages against innocent doctors won't work on questions about national security or health care. Edwards will be destroyed. He isn't half as good as you hope he is. There is a very good chance he won't even be re-elected in NC.

Cheney is a boring speech maker but very good off the cuff.

I'm far less sure about Kerry vrs Bush then Edwards vrs Cheney.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jb2000

Shouldn't the 'winner' of the debates be the voters - who should get 'from the horse's mouth' information on where the candidates really stand, and what they are going to do as President? I know the more jaded folks might be looking at me askance for that question, but I ask in all seriousness, what can we do do make the debates less of a sporting event, and more of a help for voters and the democratic process?

Ustwo

Personally anyone still waiting for the debates to make up their mind hasn't been paying a lot of attention. As such it is not the voters who win but the candidates as they try to coax the wishy washy voters and the mostly disinterested to get those 5% which will determine the outcome in most states.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

KMA-628

I shot myself in the foor by adding the side note.....20/20 hindsight, eh?

Back to my main point.

There are issues/talking points that Kerry could address that would attract votes from the middle/right. He is missing them. Until he figures these out (and the clock is ticking) then his chances of winning are slim.

Hell, there are things that Kerry could address that might even appeal to me. Slim chance, but still entirely possible.

He has got to realize that the path he is taking is not working. He is not appealing to the "masses".

Here is a hint for him: Overtime and the recent changes in the law regarding who gets overtime and who doesn't. This is a real issue that affects real people that will vote. What changed in the rules? Who is affected? etc., etc.

KMA-628

jb2000-

good idea for a topic to discuss, why don't you start a thread on it? I have already detracted enough so I won't comment, but I might in a different thread.

Superbelt

Rank emotionalism, outrageous damages, Innocent Doctors? Le sigh.

He didn't make his millions just batting his eyes at juries. The guy can talk well, is photogenic (very important now a days), can think quickly (necessary for responding in cross examination) and is a highly intelligent man.
I'll agree with you, he won't win his seat in NC back again. Course he isn't running there anymore and write ins rarely pile up to a successful campaign.
Cheney is intelligent and can make for a good discussion but he will just be outclassed, and every grimmace he makes where he shows off his lower teeth only (a favorite of his) just sends shivers down americas spine. In 2000 he seemed like a rock who would steady the underqualified Bush, now he is America's ogre. He is a liability, America doesn't like him. The repeated trial balloons flown by the Republican party of him being replaced towards the end of this term are evidence to that.

I know several people in my office (Pa) who are waiting for the debates to make a solid decision about their vote. They are disregarding the campaigning and actually counting negative advertising against the candidates. But for the most part they are planning on weighing the issues through the debates.

Ustwo

Thank you John Edwards!

I now return you to John Kerry.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jb2000

Edwards got 'outrageous damages' from 'innocent doctors'? That'd be news to me which case(s) was it?

Regardless, I don't think its silly to wait for the debates to finalize your decision. Some like myself and apparantly Ustwo have already pretty firmly made our choice and are ready to vote today. But traditionally, Americans didn't make the choice so early, and I hold those who remain investigative about their choice to this point in high respect.

As I stated before, the vast amount of information/views/perspective that has been put out thus far has been from sources other than the candidates and their campaigns. We hear a lot more from others describing what the candidates are than we hear from the candidates themselves (not for lack of trying).

The choice of who to hold the most influencial single seat in our government is not a decision that should be taken lightly, and we should look forward to the opportunity to make it a more informed decision by following the debates. The fact that so many have made their mind up already is depressing, not encouraging. It is such an unenlightened process, where a few interested parties choose up sides early on and the rest of the voters are swayed by bombardments of hearsay, alarmism, and rhetoric into picking sides along with the true believers, or getting frustrated and simply bowing out of the process all-together. This is certainly good for a lot of folks in power, and most of the true believers on either side can convince themselves its good for them, but I don't think it is good for the country.

Unfortunately, there isn't that much candidates can do about it. 95% of the election-related content out there doesn't come from them, but from the idealogues and the media. The candidate becomes more prominant as the election approaches, and the debates are where the candidates themselves can tap in directly to a wide audience unclipped (at least in the first run through) and unspun. That if nothing else, to me gives the debates value.