Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSome principles are worth fighting for: like the cherished right of television networks to decide who is and who is not a legitimate candidate for president.
NBC Universal Inc. is a major media conglomerate. And major media conglomerates have traditionally been able to police the parameters of presidential politics. Any affront to this order of affairs is a threat to the ability of corporations to define the American discourse.
That's what is at stake as NBC fights to limit the amount of information Nevada Democrats have available to them before they caucuses on Saturday to choose delegates to the Democratic National Convention. So the network has announced that its crack legal team will work through the night to overturn a judge's order that Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich be included in the last pre-caucus debate between the Democratic presidential contenders.
On the day after the New Hampshire primary, when New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was still in the race, Kucinich, Richardson, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards were invited to participate in the debate scheduled to be televised on MSNBC from 9 to 11 p.m. Tuesday.
Debate organizers wanted Richardson in the forum and knew that they could not exclude Kucinich, who was running ahead of the New Mexican in several national polls. So they grudgingly contacted the Kucinich campaign, which participated last week in initial planning discussions for the debate.
But when Richardson dropped out of the race on Thursday, the network yanked the invitation to Kucinich, who has stirred up past forums -- and distinguished himself from Clinton, Obama and Edwards -- by calling for the rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, advocating for the impeachment of members of the Bush administration, and even discussing the damage done to the political process by media monopolies.
The Kucinich campaign sued NBC over the network's decision to conduct a closed debate. And Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson ruled Monday that the congressman must be allowed to participate. Arguing that Nevada voters -- and, by extension, the Democratic nominating process in which they are playing a high-profile role -- would benefit by hearing from more than just NBC-favored contenders Clinton, Obama and Edwards, Judge Thompson said, "I don't think that just deciding that just three is good enough for the state of Nevada is a legitimate basis (for dropping Kucinich)."
"Had it been established at the beginning that they'll only take the top three for the debates, I wouldn't have any problem enforcing it," the judge explained to NBC's lawyers. "I'm somewhat offended that a legitimate candidate was invited to a debate and then uninvited under circumstances that appear to be that they just decided to exclude him."
How offended? Judge Thompson told the network's lawyers that any move to exclude Kucinich would lead him to issue an injunction to stop the televised debate.
This threat to its ability to police the discourse was an affront that NBC would not let stand. "We disagree with the judge's decision and are filing an appeal," declared Jeremy Gaines, a vice president for MSNBC, who announced that the cable channel's parent network would demand an immediate hearing before the Nevada Supreme Court.
Kucinich's lawyers will battle to preserve Judge Thompson's ruling, and the candidate's right to a participate in the forum. They have fewer resources, but are possessed of one commodity that the broadcast and cable network seem to lack: an understanding that democracy is best served by free and open debate.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I hope Kucinich wins. I think he, along with Obama, adds more authenticity to the debate than what you would get with just Edwards or Clinton. it would also even out the debate a bit with Obama and Kucinich being the true progressives capable of uncovering and exposing Edwards' and Clinton's centrism on a number of important issues to the Democratic base like Iraq, the Patriot Act, Iran, universal healthcare, and crime and punishment.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/15/2008 @ 01:03am
Whatever the eventual outcome in terms of restoring our badly broken system of government to something vaguely resembling a "democracy", the level of discussion and debate at this juncture of our storied American experience is not too bad on several counts.
Whatever can be done to maintain the pressure, and ratchet up the intensity of the ferment ought to be attempted. Let's hope for a strong performance from a couple of the prominent shit disturbers of late, John Edwards and especially Dennis Kucinich, in the Nevada debate.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 01:21am
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/15/2008 @ 01:22am
Four words: Power matched Lincoln-Douglas.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/15/2008 @ 02:02am
thank you, john, for covering this story. i know you think kucinich should be running a different type of campaign, but obviously allowing him to simply speak, to utter words, is a tremendous step for our democracy. obviously, if kucinich prevails, it will be a triumph for anyone who gives a shit about our country. i hope that obama and edwards supporters realize this; even if kucinich will go on TV and challenge them. please help kucinich out however they can, give NBC a call now: 212 664 4444. ask for the comment line. and call the DNC, call howard dean, invoke paul wellstone, call anyone who gives a shit about the democratic wing of the democratic party, call them: 202 863 8000, and ask if keith olberman really means anything when he goes off on those rants asking the nation to do exactly what kucinich does every day. GROW SOME BALLS. or OVARIES.
Posted by Ryan444 at 01/15/2008 @ 03:47am
How many times has this loser run for President, and he STILL only gets 1-2% of the vote, while remaining in the race until the very end?
Someone in his inner circle would do well by Dennis to explain to him that just maybe his views are not that popular, rather than insulating his fragile ego.
Now there's a guy that I don't want anywhere near the Federal Treasury.
Posted by Sliver at 01/15/2008 @ 06:53am
I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but how can anyone believe that Barack Obama is an actual progressive? If anyone wants to answer that, please include his healthcare plan, his plan of action in Iraq, and the comments in his books regarding corporate globalism. Thanks.
Posted by akeba at 01/15/2008 @ 08:09am
Now there's a guy that I don't want anywhere near the Federal Treasury.----Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 06:53am
Gosh, you mean Dennis as President might do something like...
run up $300 Billion deficits and spend "off the books" 3/4ths of TRILLION dollars on a boondoggle of a war!?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 08:54am
Gosh, you mean Dennis as President might do something like...
run up $300 Billion deficits and spend "off the books" 3/4ths of TRILLION dollars on a boondoggle of a war!?!?!?!
Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 08:54am
Of course he wouldn't do that. He would probably ignore it (like #42 did) and the following attacks would cost us more in the long run. No major attacks in over 6 years...worth it or not?
Any idea what 9/11 cost us?
Posted by Sliver at 01/15/2008 @ 09:00am
Any idea what 9/11 cost us?
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 09:00am | ignore this person
any idea what 9/11 has cost the Iraqis?
no major attacks? it defies logic to assume that a war against a country that did not attack us, is responsible for a lack of attacks by Saudi dissidents.
Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 09:13am
NEWSFLASH -- NBC
NBC has decided to replace Dennis Kucinich with Britney Spears in tonight's Nevada debate. Network officials also announced a surprise musical guest will perform during half-time festivities.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 09:17am
i guess grey is the only colour left in the NBC peacock.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 09:18am
no major attacks? it defies logic to assume that a war against a country that did not attack us, is responsible for a lack of attacks by Saudi dissidents.
Posted by MCQ 01/15/2008 @ 09:13am
Of course. And it's perfectly logical that somehow doing nothing about terrorism (Cole, Khobar, WTC'93) is responsible for a lack of attacks by Saudi dissidents.
Posted by Sliver at 01/15/2008 @ 09:18am
Any idea what 9/11 cost us?----Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 09:00am
So by WASTING a TRILLION DOLLARS, we'll "make up" what we lost on 9/11?
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 09:20am
Of course he wouldn't do that. He would probably ignore it (like #42 did) and the following attacks would cost us more in the long run. No major attacks in over 6 years...worth it or not?
Any idea what 9/11 cost us?
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 09:00am
iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 09:21am
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 09:18am
Always curious about this...so besides arresting the leadership of the groups that carried that domestic attacks out, Bill Clinton should have invaded Iraq??!?!?! (So as to not be accused of "doing nothing"?)
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 09:22am
Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 09:22am
and iran.
SQUISH THE TOWELHEADS!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 09:39am
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 09:00am
No major attacks in over 6 years...worth it or not?
Implicit in your comment is "in the U.S." Can you help me with one detail though? Can you tell me how many years it was since a major attack before 9/11? Might that reveal something wrong in your logic here - such as we could have done nothing and had the same results?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/15/2008 @ 09:45am
Voters who like what the 'major' candidates are saying should like Kucinich even more, for what he's done: voting against the chickenhawks' war and against funding for the war, introducing a resolution to impeach the traitors in the White House etc.
A combined Repub-Dem forum would be an even greater opportunity for the voters to see that they actually have a choice. Dennis could not only confront the other Dems for not stopping the traitors, he could confront the Repubs for openly supporting them: challenging the Repubs to declare whether or not they believe Iraq to have had anything at all to do with 9/11.
It's no wonder that the war profiteers at General Electric and their subsidiary, NBC, are so apprehensive about giving Dennis a platform after they've so scrupulously ignored him.
Posted by samcrossett at 01/15/2008 @ 09:49am
Frosty...in case you didn't know. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And I never said that it did.
Posted by Sliver at 01/15/2008 @ 10:00am
SLIVER, ask again...
since he "did nothing" (except arrest the leadershp of those who attacked the WTC in '93)....
what SHOULD Bill Clinton have done...specifically?
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 10:04am
BTW, back on-topic, how about THIS for a deal for Dennis....
He gets to be in this one last debate, but NO MORE...unless he actually places 3rd or better in a primary (except Michigan where he and HRC are the only candidates).
If he places 3rd in South Carolina...he gets to keep being considered a "real" candidate. If not, he's free to campaign, but not free to waste time that we could learn more about the other candidates who WILL actually get the nomination.
This isn't a debating society meeting where ALL the kids who want to get to join...sooner or later, we're picking the Dem nominee and likely President...and unless he can ACTUALLY WIN SOMETHING (I'm just talking a 3rd place)....Dennis is a distraction.
His supporters aren't really that big either...or don't REALLY care. The man only raised $131,000 from his "money bomb" back on December 15th, while Ron Paul raises millions. So they're either a lot of BIG TALK about Kucinich...or not that great in numbers anyway!
BTW...he looks like "Dondi" not "Spock". [toonopedia.com]
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 10:28am
What is the critera for letting someone in a "debate" or as they really are, talking point moments, since no one ever answers a real question or debates anything.
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/15/2008 @ 01:15am
I agree, MaaschMan...
Hello from Idaho!
Posted by bjkron at 01/15/2008 @ 10:33am
Debate is not about who has raised the most money or who is most viable. Having registered as a candidate and drawn even a single vote, Kucinich's voice deserves to be heard as long as he chooses to remain a candidate - as does Gravel's or Ron Paul's. Bringing the TRUTH to the debate is not a distraction - it's a public service, and we should all be thanking Dennis for having the courage to withstand everything that's been slung at him.
Posted by jlsolley at 01/15/2008 @ 10:47am
jomamma-Your definition of progressive includes Bush and the GOP.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/15/2008 @ 11:19am
Democrats should be pressuring Clinton, Obama and Edwards to pressure NBC to let Kucinich in the debates. We should hold the leaders accountable for assisting or failing to assist in the democratization of American politics.
Posted by kenburnsidelj at 01/15/2008 @ 11:33am
Posted by JLSOLLEY 01/15/2008 @ 10:47am
Okay, then WHAT qualifiers would you place on someone participating in a debate?
Any? Or anybody that wants to can get up on the stage and say they're running for the Dem nomination?
Be specific now...and explain why the sponsors of the debate can have YOUR set of qualifiers, but not theirs?
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 11:56am
The first debate should be open to anyone who has raised some funs to run. Then after that it becomes who is still getting voted for throughout and still running. Democracy is supposed to be a forum where the ideas of even the servants are heard.
If we let NETWORKS choose who gets to debate then all we are doing is allowing corporations to run our government even more. The debates shouldn't even be controlled by the networks in the first place. The networks should not have any say in who gets to debate.
Dennis brings some good points to the table and forces the other candidates to answer for things they wouldn't normally have to. I would think people would appreciate a candidate who gets up there and forces the other candidates to answer some of the more difficult questions instead of just rattling off prescripted responses to mostly one-dimensional questions and trying in the most subtle or sometimes not-so-subtle ways to diminish each others characters. For instance I would like to see if Dennis jumps at Billary's support of the fact that people are trying to take the ability to vote away from a group who has primarily said they would support Obama because I know no one else on that stage will.
Dennis continues to debate so that he can bring new ideas to the table and make people answer questions. I don't think he thinks he still has a chance of winning. I think he doesn't because he wants to retain some of what is the democratic process.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 12:27pm
...WTC'93) is responsible for a lack of attacks by Saudi dissidents.
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 09:18am | ignore this person
you are ill informed. the perps of the first WTC have been tried, sans torture, and are in federal custody.
Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 12:28pm
Sliv, what did Reagan do about the barracks bombing?
he withdrew the troops, just as Bush did after 9/11. has Bush caught and brought to justice the attackers of 9/11?
Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 12:31pm
you are ill informed. the perps of the first WTC have been tried, sans torture, and are in federal custody.
Posted by MCQ 01/15/2008 @ 12:28pm
Yes...the perps are in the pokey, but it appears that they didn't act alone from the success of the 2nd attack. The organization was well known throughout the 90's and talked about publicly. Could something covert have been done to disrupt this organization? Would freezing their financing be a place to start? Could all-out warfare been avoided had the problem been dealt with in the early stages? -This is in no way defending Bush or slamming Clinton. All that I'm saying is that with the benefit of hindsight, I can't understand why it is that the one who goes to lengths to make an attempt at curbing terrorism is villified, while the one who didn't gets a complete pass. Fair?
Sliv, what did Reagan do about the barracks bombing?
Mistake in my opinion. At least symbolically. But given the state of affairs at that time, I'm sure that the Lebanese/Syrians were bush-league, compared to dealing with the Soviets.
has Bush caught and brought to justice the attackers of 9/11?
Didn't have to...they're all dead.
Posted by Sliver at 01/15/2008 @ 1:07pm
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 10:00am
You're a funny guy. The government hasn't spent nearly as much money in Afghanistan as it has in Iraq. So you're arguing we should have gone into Afghanistan. I would agree we were hunting criminals. What you are arguing is not what everyone else is arguing. Trips like the one into Iraq are what cause things like 9/11. Terrorists don't become terrorists for no reason. No matter how malevolent we think they are. There tends to be something to spur them into that career choice. What we have done to the middle east in the past is what spurred them into that choice. Not because we didn't go on a globe trotting war.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 1:08pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/15/2008 @ 1:08pm
post that again!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 1:26pm
Trips like the one into Iraq are what cause things like 9/11. Terrorists don't become terrorists for no reason.
So, which "trip" caused 9/11 then, since we "tripped" post-9/11?
OK...I'll use your logic. Which action is more likely to breed terrorists? A.) Iraq Invasion B.) Invasion of Somalia
Posted by Sliver at 01/15/2008 @ 1:31pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 1:26pm
You're a funny guy. The government hasn't spent nearly as much money in Afghanistan as it has in Iraq. So you're arguing we should have gone into Afghanistan. I would agree we were hunting criminals. What you are arguing is not what everyone else is arguing. Trips like the one into Iraq are what cause things like 9/11. Terrorists don't become terrorists for no reason. No matter how malevolent we think they are. There tends to be something to spur them into that career choice. What we have done to the middle east in the past is what spurred them into that choice. Not because we didn't go on a globe trotting war
At the behest of Frosty I have posted it again.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 1:32pm
The first debate should be open to anyone who has raised some funs to run. Then after that it becomes who is still getting voted for throughout and still running.---Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/15/2008 @ 12:27pm
Define "some funds" (spelling corrected). Give me a figure.
Define "still getting voted for". Seven people vote for Howard Stern in the New Hampshire primary, Howard gets to be in the debates before South Carolina? Give me a figure.
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 1:32pm
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 1:31pm
SLIVER, you have me on Ignore now? Or just don't want to answer the question?
What specifically should Bill Clinton have done, that he didn't?
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 1:34pm
Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 1:32pm
Fund's meaning a realistic amount to run for president. We all know it isn't cheap to run for president now-a-days. Still being voted for meaning through the primaries you garner at least 1% of the vote. It seems the upper 1% of this countries opinion matters more that the other 90% so why shouldn't a percent be enough to be heard.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 1:40pm
So, which "trip" caused 9/11 then, since we "tripped" post-9/11?
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 1:31pm
well, kermit roosevelt, jr. took a trip to iran in 1953, if i remember rightly. sure made some folks hoppin' mad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt%2C_Jr.
and didn't mr. rumsfeld visit saddam in 1983. they sure look happy. but people under saddam's thumb sure weren't happy.
and let's see.............
i suppose the cluster bombs marked "made in u.s.a." that israel showered* over the south of lebanon so that little kiddies could play soccer with them makes people upset, too.
*cluster bombs dropped in the final days of conflict, when an armistice was imminent. reeks of genocide. or greed for the water of the litani river.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 1:45pm
And notice the continue killing in Iraq. I guarantee you there are more terrorists planning more excursions into the US right now. We just don't know about it yet or the government hasn't told us. We have created plenty of people in Iraq who hate us and I'm sure some of those people are joining terrorist organizations.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 1:50pm
Oh an silver maybe they haven't come after us but they sure came after our supporters I harken back to the bombing of the train station in Spain.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 2:09pm
Didn't have to...they're all dead.
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person
you are so full of shit. Osama? not dead, sending messages to rub our noses in it.
Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 2:13pm
akeba,
there is no answer to that. he's not. i think that can of worms needs to be opened up as wide as possible.
Posted by Ryan444 at 01/15/2008 @ 2:20pm
Fund's meaning a realistic amount to run for president. We all know it isn't cheap to run for president now-a-days. Still being voted for meaning through the primaries you garner at least 1% of the vote.----Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/15/2008 @ 1:40pm
Okay, so if HOWARD STERN was getting a "realistic amount" of funds (or self-funding)...and getting JUST ONE PERCENT of the vote in any caucus/primary state (that could be as few as 3500 out of 288,058 votes in New Hampshire)...
he should be in the Democratic Debates before Nevada and South Carolina? And continued to be considered for any future debates as long as he kept some cash and a 1% support base...until the last primary?
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 3:05pm
Posted by MCQ 01/15/2008 @ 2:13pm
SLIVER's view is probably "Any terrorist that blows themselves up...gets credited to Bush and put on his kill score for the GWOT, since they're no longer around!"
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 3:08pm
Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 3:05pm
I would say yes because there are enough people out there who want to hear his views on the debate stage. Your argument is pointless though because Howard Stern isn't nor does he have the money to run. If he got the money to run and placed with enough votes his message must be considered worth hearing by some. You are using a fictitious argument to try to attack mine but you need to pull up an example of someone ridiculous who has run and managed to stay in the running unfairly.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 3:24pm
If Howard Stern ran he would neither get enough monetary support to be realistic NOR would he be viable to stay in debates. So this hypothetical is pointless.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 3:27pm
So according to my argument he would be filtered out of the system by the fact that he would be ridiculous while people who some do want to hear from like dennis kucinich and ron paul would stay in. Even Richardson made good points the problem with richardson was he wasn't charismatic and not a very good speaker but he brought some good points to the debates.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 3:33pm
I would actually contend that in ways the people who are debating with no chance of winning the race have more reason than the ones who do to be there. That may sound crazy but hear me out. The ones who have no chance of winning are there to debate the issues, to make sure that the important issues are heard about. The ones who are there because they are in the lead have proven time and again that they are there to look pretty and spew more rhetoric while taking subtle pot shots at their opponents, how is that constructive?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 3:37pm
If Howard Stern ran he would neither get enough monetary support to be realistic NOR would he be viable to stay in debates. So this hypothetical is pointless.
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/15/2008 @ 3:27pm
colbert would!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 3:53pm
If Howard Stern ran he would neither get enough monetary support to be realistic NOR would he be viable to stay in debates. So this hypothetical is pointless.----Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/15/2008 @ 3:27pm
No? In 1994, Stern was considered, by the NEW YORK TIMES, as a viable candidate under the Libertarian Party banner for Governor of New York....or how about this?--
www.radio.about.com
Dateline: 7/16/04
During the past few weeks, the Radio site at About.com has been conducting an informal poll of site visitors.
The question was asked: If Howard Stern Asked You To Vote For John Kerry, Would You?
Here are the latest results, as of this writing:
70% say they would vote for John Kerry.
22% say they would not.
2% say they might vote for John Kerry.
4% of the respondents say they do not listen to Howard Stern.
Surely AS, if not MORE influential and drawing more supporters than a lone Congressman from Cleveland.
You REALLY think that Howard Stern couldn't get 3500 New Hampshire voters to vote for him out of 288,000????
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 3:53pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/15/2008 @ 3:53pm
Yes and that other candidate's is spelled "Hell-ray".
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 3:54pm
colbert would!----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 3:53pm
Colbert is less into lesbians and dwarves, but ...sure, use him as an example.
Think he couldn't muster 3500-4000 votes in New Hampshire....go onto the Democratic Debate (under the CCCOMFO plan) and get to do his Bill O'Reilly send-up as a "serious" candidate versus Her Nibs, Obama, Edwards???
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 3:53pm
Well considering Mask that that poll has been taken by a total of 2000 people on a highly trafficked site.
About Poll
If Howard Stern Asked You To Vote For John Kerry, Would You?
Yes (1586) 72%
No (445) 20%
Maybe (61) 2%
I don't listen to Stern (107) 4%
Total Votes: 2199
And he still couldn't get more than 1500 people on the entire internet. I am going to go ahead and say no.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 3:59pm
THEY SHOULD LET ANYONE WHO IS ON THE BALLOT INTO THE DEBATES, you JERKS!!!! (Actually, the party should demand that anyone on their ballots get into debates.... of course, the DLC would love to exclude DK and anyone like him. Then again, the DLC do not represent DEMOCRATS anymore, at least not my Party)
As to the "money primary" for the "2nd tier" candidates... You should always look at how many and who donated to the candidates, not how much- or do you buy into facism/M$M? Kucinich supporters have things against them- they are poor, they are stubborn but are steadily loosing belief in their party and participating less. Ron Paul is invoking a 'traditional' wing of the republican party (the economic conservitive that Reagan lied about being) and is motivating people who say "this is where the republicans were Supposed to go! Kucinich is promoting the progressive social movements his party should be focused on, yet he gets nowhere. (I can only guess 'no programs, no taxes" are much less complicated (though less beneficial to the majority) then "more programs, different taxes". That and fear and predjudice usually win out against inclusion and tolerance, at least on an impersonal tv basis- less in the face to face. Yes Paul is getting more support, and that's great- I'd love to bring the real republicans back!- and he's also had some bigger contributors, but mostly becaus just has managed his campaign better. (I for one likes sme one who has focused more on issues.... who would you pick, all things being equal, a better salesman or a better legislature writer.... and don't give me any crap about none of those bills passing- read them, they are brilliant and help the majority, its just that the rest of congress has sold out a long time ago.)
DO NOT LET BigMedia PICK FOR YOU!!! The judge had it absolutely right, if "top3" were a rule when this debate was formed, then those are the rules (then it becomes a problem with NBC, but that's not the focus here). It is blatant DOUCHBAGGARY to exclude Kucinich after richardson drops out. And A CLEAR INSULT to the american people. I'm sorry but if you don't get that you're an idiot. Don't buy into the numbers game you fools!!!!
Not to mention, that the whole nomination/primary/caucus on both sides is extremely rigged. If all things were equal, you'd here a lot more about the people at the "bottom". If you don't mention names, the vast majority of democrats agree with Kucinich's positions, the rest of the moderates would be more Biden people, the republicans would be split between Huckabee and Paul. But none of those people are frontrunners' are they? WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU!!!
SEND MONEY TO KUCINICH!! I am. And Have. $5 is fine. More is better. I don't care if you vote for him or not, just that you realize that your democracy is under siege and this is ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT!!! Lawyers cost a lot, and if he is cut out of this debate that could stem the trickle of real progressive issues still in the debate.
If you want the debates to be in anyway interesting, if you are tired of the same ol crap from the networks, shut up and put out!
Posted by dustinchicago at 01/15/2008 @ 4:00pm
As you can tell, I'm pretty pissed at some of the commentors here.
Posted by dustinchicago at 01/15/2008 @ 4:01pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/15/2008 @ 3:59pm
Don't have the Arbitrons in front of me, but fair to say that out of a half million New Hampshireites that, maybe, 6000 people listen or listened to Howard Stern?
Fair to say that maybe 3/4ths of that would vote for him in primary....even as a lark? (Or especially if they didn't particularly like Obama or Edwards or Hillary?)
That's 1%....YOUR figure for qualifying for debate.
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 4:34pm
SEND MONEY TO KUCINICH!! I am. And Have. $5 is fine.---- Posted by DUSTINCHICAGO 01/15/2008 @ 4:00pm
Given how his www.december152007.com "money bomb" fund-raiser went...apparently at $5 a pop, DK got 26,200 donors.
Ron Paul got 130,000, and of that 100,000 new donors in the 4th Quarter of last year.
The people voted with their money....Kucinich lost. And everything but "He wasn't popular"...is a lame rationalization.
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 4:37pm
Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 4:34pm
I think that's just too generous of a number to say would vote for him on a lark. Maybe you are right maybe not. Suppose we will never know.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 4:41pm
you are so full of shit. Osama? not dead, sending messages to rub our noses in it.
Posted by MCQ 01/15/2008 @ 2:13pm
You just made my original point. Thanks.
I'll show you:
you are ill informed. the perps of the first WTC have been tried, sans torture, and are in federal custody.
Posted by MCQ 01/15/2008 @ 12:28pm
-So during Clinton, it was the perps and not the leadership
has Bush caught and brought to justice the attackers of 9/11?
Posted by MCQ 01/15/2008 @ 12:31pm
-And during Bush's term, it wasn't enough to just get the perps, but the leadership was what was important. BTW...alot of them are dead too, but Osama remains, true.
So...why the double standard?
Posted by Sliver at 01/15/2008 @ 6:00pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Sliver
you still don't know what you are talking about. the mastermind was caught and tried. now let's talk about scale. the first WTC attack, how many dead? second WTC attack, how many dead. mass murder vs what was basically a failed attempt.
but are so stupid and so ill informed, it's like shooting fish in a barrel to demolish you. it's getting tedious alas.
Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 6:03pm
SILVER are you kidding, no new attacks, well then what killed all those dead Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Posted by estherc at 01/15/2008 @ 6:08pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/15/2008 @ 5:45pm
Because in the history of america if you are any percent black you are all black. It goes back to the time of slavery. When even if you were 15% black 75% white they considered you black because your blood has been tainted. That mentality has carried through.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 6:25pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Cccomfo1
one drop of nigra blood was the expression. those were the good old days of the Founding Fathers.
rape played a huge part in slave master relations. see Thomas Jefferson. but remember they ALL did it.see George Washington.
Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 8:16pm
DUSTINCHICAGO speaks the truth. I second that post.
Posted by kusturica at 01/15/2008 @ 8:19pm
Posted by MCQ 01/15/2008 @ 8:16pm
Ahh the good old days. When I would have been hunted down like a dog and put to good work.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 8:22pm
I don't care if Kucinic is part of the debate. he is no longer a serious candidate.
Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 8:22pm
Kucinich is the only serious candidate. NBC's actions, and now the actions of the Nevada Supreme Court, are so blatantly anti-democracy, I can't express in type-written form the outrage that I feel, and the other actual humans here feel too. Frankly, no matter who you are for, no actual Democrat should vote for Edwards or Clinton in the primary for their part in this censorship during the primaries. Remember now, it's the Democratic PRIMARY. Only Democrats are to blame. The Democratic Party. The "liberal" party. Democratic. Democracy. Choice. The Party of Choice. The Party of the People.
Posted by kusturica at 01/15/2008 @ 9:06pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/15/2008 @ 8:42pm
FRANK, you REALLY don't realize it, do you?
You REALLY don't get that all these questions and subtle "digs" at Obama for being called "black" or "African-American"...
all show that Hillary's supporters like you, are willing to use race to help her win....just as much as some Republican would in the South (Remember Rove using McCain's adopted child as a smear that he had an "illegitimate black child"?)
Keep it up...you might win the nomination for her, she might even win the Presidency....but the TAINT of using race to win will ruin her Presidency and she'll NEVER overcome the resentment among a BIG hunk of America...not just "Afro-Americans".
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 9:11pm
Kucinich is the only serious candidate.
Posted by KUSTURICA 01/15/2008 @ 9:06pm
Then why could he only raise $131,000 from his website www.december152007.com....
when Ron Paul raised millions?
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 9:12pm
MCQ...are you seriously THAT delusional?? The mastermind was caught and tried? Without some external support, planning, financial assistance?
From Wikipedia: Ramzi Ahmed Yousef or Ramzi Mohammed Yousef (also transliterated as Ramzi Yusuf, Ramzi Youssef) (Arabic: رمزي يوسف), birth name possibly Abdul Basit Mahmoud Abdul Karim (Arabic: عبد الباسط كريم) and also known by dozens of aliases,[1][2] is a Kuwaiti of mixed Pakistani and Palestinian descent who was one of the planners of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He was arrested at an al-Qaeda safe house in Islamabad, Pakistan in 1995 and was extradited to the United States. He was tried in New York City in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and along with two co-conspirators was convicted of planning the Oplan Bojinka plot. Yousef stated, "Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government."[4] He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Yousef's uncle is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior al-Qaeda member.
Posted by Sliver at 01/15/2008 @ 9:21pm
HEY!
WHERE'S DENNIS?
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
let's see how it's going on american idol.........................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 10:35pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/15/2008 @ 8:42pm
You're not black are you? Being half black is just as bad as being full. I'm only half, doesn't change the fact that I get followed around by security guards and verbally assaulted by the most outright of racists.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 10:38pm
Posted by SLIVER 01/15/2008 @ 9:21pm
Why wasn't Osama I think HE was the ultimate mastermind sliver. Considering his face was onthe Ace of spades right?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 10:40pm
Mask, get serious yourself. There is more to being president than raising money to buy air time from networks who are doing everything to block your campaign. What are the networks afraid of, if he's such a loser? Get serious and answer that.
Posted by kusturica at 01/15/2008 @ 10:46pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/15/2008 @ 10:38pm
c'mon up! it ain't perfect here, but this was the terminus of the underground railroad. here's a small sample of "foreign sounding" members of parliament:
Alghabra, Omar
Bains, Navdeep (Hon.)
Bevilacqua, Maurizio (Hon.)
Chong, Michael (Hon.)
Chow, Olivia
Dhaliwal, Sukh
Dosanjh, Ujjal (Hon.)
Faille, Meili
Khan, Wajid
Obhrai, Deepak
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 10:58pm
when Ron Paul raised millions?
Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 9:12pm | ignore this person
Paul is not a serious contender either.
Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 11:01pm
Posted by MCQ 01/15/2008 @ 11:01pm
Only reason paul isn't is because the media hates him I think. If he can raise that much money he must have something going for him. Just the media doesn't seem to want him heard.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 11:07pm
I wouldn't mind it you guys have whistler and I have always wanted to go. I don't speak any french though so I would have to avoid certain places.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 11:08pm
My Comment Published In The NY Times now
Posted by Naturboy at 01/15/2008 @ 11:15pm
My Comment Published In The NY Times now
Caucus Blogs Live Debate Coverage:
101.January 15th, 2008 10:44 pm This debate, and NBC & ABC must be boycotted.
They changed the rules in mid-stream solely to exclude Kucinich, and fought tooth and nail to keep him out, and clearly committed enough graft and peddled enough influence to prevail in their sham. It is pointless to split hairs over the nonexistent differences between the warmongering antics of any of these remaining candidates.
Hillary and Edwards teamed up a while back to reduce the field (remember ‘open mike night'?). NBC has it's own agenda, as the large arms producer and mass polluter, to keep out the ‘peace candidate' from saying his piece.
This entire election, therefore, is once again a sham. The people allow this, they are responsible, and I don't excuse the idiotic electorate of this land one bit.
Can somebody PLEASE explain how it could come to pass that candidate's debates are run by private enterprise and not PBS under strict federal laws about the criteria for participation?
The fact that the US electorate once again sucks up this kind of malarkey means they are one and all simply daft. Which would not be a problem except for the pollution, violence and war they gluttonously and unapologetically foist on the rest of the world.
So THIS is the kind of ‘democracy' you want to export to the world, the one which your brain-dead military so blindly fights for, the democracy where elections are decided by planted supreme-court judges and corporate media? This is why your soldiers fight, kill and die?
Americans are more stupid than even the world realizes. It's time for the world to band together and fight back america's aggressive militarism and aggressive faux ‘democracy', and force them to keep their bloodthirsty antics to themselves.
-- Posted by JS.
Posted by Naturboy at 01/15/2008 @ 11:17pm