Four-Eight-Four [dot org]

I am writing to express my disappointment in the decision that WMUR and ABC News have made to exclude certain candidates from the televised debates to be held on Saturday, January 5, 2008. Although I am a supporter of Ron Paul (whom you are not excluding), and I have already made up my mind to vote for him in my state’s primary, I am nonetheless unhappy to see candidates such as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich and others denied an opportunity to participate in the debates for their respective parties.

It is at this time in the primary process that many potential voters across the country look to Iowa and New Hampshire to see how the candidates may fare in actual voting, and many voters are only now beginning to pay attention to the process at all (as unfortunate as that is). As a result, I firmly believe that it is vitally important that each candidate, regardless of poll numbers or apparent support, be allowed every possible opportunity to communicate his or her message and platform to the public, so that he or she can have the widest possible exposure. Restricting access to only those candidates who have polled well to date (or fared well in the Iowa caucuses) does a disservice to those candidates who may not have the financial resources to mount a full-fledged advertising campaign to promote their messages. Surely you would agree that the amount of money a candidate is able to spend on advertising does not have any correlation to their actual ability to lead and govern.

I understand, of course, that the candidates you are excluding have fared poorly in the polls, and may not even be on the ballot in all fifty states. However, it is my belief that each and every one of them brings valuable insights to the primary process, and in many cases, their contributions in the debates result in the introduction of topics that might otherwise be overlooked, forcing the “front-runners” to respond. I believe that exchanges such as these are exceptionally valuable to those individuals who are still uncertain about which candidate they will select come Election Day. For instance, my own favored candidate, Ron Paul, has forced the discussion of both foreign policy (as a result of his opposition to the occupation of Iraq) and sound monetary policy. I believe the latter issue is of vital importance to our nation, yet when was the last time it was discussed during a presidential election cycle? I cannot remember it being discussed in any of the campaigns since I reached voting age in 1993.

Furthermore, I believe that your decision to exclude candidates who do not finish in the top four in Iowa (if they also fail to have polled at 5 percent or higher in New Hampshire or national surveys) also does candidates and viewers a disservice. The nation carefully watches the activities Iowa and New Hampshire to see which candidates are the front-runners, but it seems short-sighted to believe that voters in other states … New York, Florida, Texas, California, Hawaii, North Carolina, Washington, or even New Hampshire, for instance … vote or think the same as voters in Iowa.

If the whole process were up to me, I would offer each candidate the opportunity to participate in any debate or forum until the last primary vote is cast. This, I think, serves the best interests of both the candidates and the public.

Thank you for your time.

Cordially,

Jeremy Clifton

—
Jeremy Clifton
j.clifton@four-eight-four.org