With last night's debate over, a few interesting things took place. Sharpton railed on about the perceived "bossism" attitude of the major candidates and their supporters who state that the other candidates should just do the party a favor and step aside. My questions.

1.)Are Sharpton, Moseley-Braun, Kucinich, Gephardt, and Lieberman(or add or delete any of the mentioned names) obligated to drop out of the race so that the eventual nominee can have enough resources to fight Bush?

2.)Is it elitist or undemocratic in nature, when other candidates are told to just drop it?

3.)At what point should a candidate seriously contemplate leaving the scene?

4.)Should there be a serious challenger to President Bush in the Republican primaries? Reagan ran against Ford in '76 and Buchanan challenged Bush '41 in '92. Why should this year be any different?

1) They should drop out they receive an inconsequential number of votes in the primaries. Debate season will end soon, so that will take them further off the stage anyway.

2) Yes, elitist. Clinton only got 3% of the vote in NH before winning. Go figure.

3) When they run out of money and supporters.

4) Yes, but the Republicans have convinced themselves that backing one horse will help them win more years in charge. Also, the money machine has already backed Bush.

I doubt any will drop out unless the rules allow them to do so and still be able to pocket the million from their campaign funds.

Amazing how not a single caucus or primary has occurred but yet we are talking about people dropping out. Hey, let us actually give the voters (not pollsters or campaign contributors) a chance to pick the Democratic nominee. I realize this is a radical concept.

Right you are on this one Hugo. I would like to see a good competition leading right up to the convention. That would be a great way to get people to talk about politics and ideas again. I don't buy the "we need to prep for the finale" argument at all. No one is entitled to the position, and this is not 17th century Great Britain! I'm glad that there are a wide range of candidates in the democratic wing. I find it truly shocking that all of the pundits, talking heads, and other "insiders" want to decide this thing before the first primary vote is cast!

We are only 40+ days away from the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Why should anyone drop out just because Ted Koppel and the national media are bored?

Hugo is right. The field will be thinned soon enough. Just because some Democrat fat cats and bosses wish the field would narrow doesn't mean it should.

And why pick on Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosely-Braun? Why not Lieberman, Edwards or Clark? They're not going to have to fill out any change of address cards for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue anytime soon either.

You've touched on something that needs to be discussed. You are absolutely right in stating that Lieberman and the gang have little to no real chance of winning the nomination. Yet, who is on "Face the Nation" at every turn? They're campaigns are flailing in the wind, and yet, because they are insiders, they get press. There isn't a reason why Sharpton or Kucinich shouldn't have the same advantages as these "insider losers"(loser meaning that they won't win the 2004 nomination, not as a slur) If you don't have the most money and the establishment talking heads and media don't like you, then I guess you're pretty much relegated to the screens of C-SPAN for the duration of your campaign.

It was reported tonight that ABC pulled their producers from the Kucinich, Mosley-Braun and Sharpton camps. ABC will no longer be carrying news from those camps. The media, as usual, is directing the election.

Koppel spent 40 minutes of a 90 minute debate asking questions about Gore's endorsement of Dean. Then he asked Kucinich when he was going to pull out of the race.

90 minutes divided by 9 candidates = 10 minutes each to discuss issues and Koppel concentrated on Gore.

Shouldn't he have been asking questions about issues?

Mosley-Braun and Sharpton's campaigns are knee-deep in debt, but somehow they will find the wherewithal to stay in the race. Now if Nader decides to join, that will add some more fuel to the fire!

Although Kerry is married to a member of the Heinz family, lordy...he is borrowing $850,000 and going to remortgage his Boston home to keep going!

How many past Senators running for President have won the Presidential election? I don't know the answer, but I am willing to bet there are more Senators that didn't make it than those who did. For some reason, the voters love them as Senators, but get cold feet when it's time to promote them during a Presidential Election.

Yes, the more nominees the merrier...although I believe the nominees can't wait until the tide turns and about four or five of their opponents drop out. It will be easier for them to get their message out against Bush instead of bashing each other which, at times, makes some of the nominees sound like they agree with Bush!

In my opinion Sharpton was just a tool to get the other candidates hyped about the issues. He is the added oxygen to the fire. So of course he is meant to drop out, or in this matter, burn out. Kucinich is not a likely candidate to win, which i think is unfortunate, because I really like the guy. If only he had a name that everybody could pronounce and didn't look so much like Ross Pero. It is also a real shame that Carol Moseley-Braun isn't doing better but she would make a valuable asset to any presidential administration and they would be fools not to take her. The candidates I think should drop are LIEberman, Gephardt and Kerry. Gephardt reminds me of Al Gore to much, he talks like him and bores the heck out of me. Kerry is too much of a good ol'boy sell out. LIEberman tries to be middle of the road too much when he ought to just come out of the closet and join the Republican Party.

I don't think it is elitist to request somebody to drop the race. That is the nature of competitive pressure after evaluating each candidate's prestige and popularity in the polls. I think it is elitist and undemocratic for a political party to choose their candidate out of name recognition regardless of other candidates' success in the polls.

I think a candidate should seriously consider leaving the scene once when something has been exposed that could complicate their ability to hold office. Otherwise, every law abiding citizen in the United States should have a fair shot at the presidency.

There really isn't much of a point to have another Republican candidate to run for president at this time. Bush is automatically the primary elect because he is the president running for reelect. Bush still has tons of support from the GOP, any Republican that wants to test the water at this time will find it to be a waste of money and would not be supported by the party. Mid elections are the perfect advantage for the opposing political party to introduce new candidates for presidency.

True, I liked it when Buchanan challenged Bush I, I think it shows that party is not bankrupt when it comes to ideas. I'd like to see an isolationist, libertarian style Republican take him on just to make a point. Perhaps Ron Paul of Texas, or Bob Barr. At least it would get things stirring on the GOP side. I was disappointed that more progressive democrats didn't try to move in on Clinton, it would'v been a good name recognition event and something to build upon. Reagan ran against Ford in '76 and that built up some momentum for him to take the white house later on.

In short, no one should drop out, we ned more candidates, especially on the incumbents side!