"Why don't they put all the candidates in one debate instead of separating Democrats and Republicans?"

John IMs me that question from his bar review class in Ithaca. More IMishness:

whoever wins is EVENTUALLY going to be pitted against someone from the opposite party....

shouldn't we want to see what they seem like in contrast with their eventual opponent?...

we're having all these 1.5- and 2-hour debates with 8 or 10 people. Why not have a couple 2-hour debates with 18 people each?...

I hope the argument is not: "we'd lose track of the candidates." I don't think most people who are watching the segregated debates can keep track of who Hunter, Gilmore, or Dodd are!...

It would lead to more disputes between individual candidates (say, Edwards and McCain get into a squabble, or whatever), which is always the thing that gets the most media attention, because it's the most memorable and makes the candidates stand out.

And the objection can't be: "They're never done it like that before." We've never been in this situation (open field for both parties in presidential primary) in the TV era.

And don't just give a knee-jerk no, no, we can't do that. Open your mind to a new possibility.

ADDED: The candidates could agree to do this if they wanted. I wonder in whose interest it would be to show their stuff head-to-head with a potential opponent. I'll bet Hillary does not want to be seen debating with Giuliani until it's too late for Democrats to back out. Maybe some of the minor characters to bring some excitement by matching up with guys from the other side. Have Dodd and Kucinich debate Paul and Tancredo, for example. No one cares about them now, but put all four together, and it's an exciting new show.