WTF is Going on in the Democratic Party?! There was no fucking debate last night!!!...

[Indi Guy]

The MSM asked questions & interrupted at will, while the field of "debaters" excluded Kucinich (who's voice needs to be heard, whether or not he's "electable."

The questions were narrowly programmed by the corporate owners of the MSM, so as not to call negative attention to themselves. Even Edwards knew not to attack the MSM directly (but you could tell he was tempted to).


Edwards stood out. He's the only "top tier" candidate who actually seems to have a grip on what's really going on in the world of cesspool politics in DC.

Why was Edwards allowed to speak, while Kucinich was excluded? (I've never worked for Dennis)?

I think I know, but I'm far more fascinated with opinions other than my own.

'Splain?
Why do you think that Kucinich's voice was stifled in the NH debate?

[regnaD kciN]

1. More to the point, why was DK excluded by Richardson included...?

Nothing against either candidate, but it seems to me that, if ABC wanted to only include candidates with a good shot at the nomination, they'd have made it a three-way debate. If they wanted to expand it to more than just the three who got 97% of the Iowa caucus vote between them, they had every bit as good a reason to include Kucinich as they did Richardson. I don't see how the latter is a "viable" candidate while the former is not.

:wtf:

[MH1]

14. Richardson came in fourth in Iowa AND

in many observed caucuses, was close to the 15% needed for "viability." So in a regular vote his percentage would have been closer to 10 or more.

Richardson did win some delegates in Iowa.

Did Kucinich even win a single delegate in Iowa?

On edit, never mind - I just saw Kucinich wasn't even on the ballot in Iowa. That combined with dismal national polling means it is reasonable to exclude him. Last night's less than stellar performance notwithstanding, before the debate there was some possibility Richardson could still pull into competition.

[OzarkDem]

18. Kucinich isn't included in most polls, either

So its difficult to say how much support he has. Its fairly obvious there's a concerted effort on both sides to keep him out of the race.

They don't include him in polls and use that as an excuse to say he doesn't have support.

[WilliamPitt]

2. "Why do you think that Kucinich's voice was stifled in the NH debate?"

Lefty-Progressive answer: because when he's on his game, he is the dead-bang best political sniper in the business...and that's not alowed on national "Shhhh-News" television.

Assbag political hack answer: because they know he's out of money and won't win more than 100 delegates, if that, depending on whether or not he makes it to the 2/5 Primarapalooza without bouncing rent checks for the campaign headquarters...yeah...dirty business.

Etc.

Both those answers are correct. One answer is right. The other answer is true. Which is what? And in the end, does it matter?

Yes. Of course.

This we call The Suck.

I type...you decide. :(

[pnwmom]

3. Edwards was in 2nd place in Iowa, Kucinich wasn't on the ballot

since he decided not to have any presence there.

How could the MSM justify excluding a 2nd place finisher from the debate? Kucinich was a whole different story.

With regard to the debate, Edwards did stand out, and he did speak his piece, which basically defeats your argument.

[cyclezealot]

4. Richardson allowed to debate

and Richardson's Iowa result was little different than Kucinich's. Reason , Kucinich's ideas don't fit into permisable corporate speak. And to the Democrats shame. The New Hampshire Republicans demanded Ron Paul be allowed to speak in the Fox debate or else the state GOP would not help sponsor the debate. NH Republicans seems to respect diverse opinions more thanthe New Hampshire Democratic party.

[Buns_of_Fire]

5. God, I miss the League of Women Voters handling the debates. :-(

I halfway expect product placements prominently displayed on each desk/podium pretty soon. "And now, here's your moderator for the debate, Billy Mays..."

[Selatius]

6. His economic positions are a danger to entrenched power interests that sit on Wall Street.

The corporate news outlets serve the corporations that sit on Wall Street. Anybody who talks about corporate accountability and smashing trusts and progressive taxation for social investment necessarily threatens the very power base of the industrialists.

The last person who made Wall Street pay a dear price for its mistakes and its greed was FDR, and they kicked around the notion of overthrowing him and rendering him a puppet.

[sendero]

7. Because Edwards..

... has 25% of the Democratic voters voting for him and Dennis does not.

Is this really all that hard to understand?

[madrchsod]

8. is it really hard to understand that we own the airwaves?

i know that concept has all but forgotten in this country but it is still true. since dennis has not pulled out of the race he should be entitled to be heard. what has happened is that dennis was silenced by the media corporations because they do not like what he has to say. it is censorship by exculsion. everyone on that stage said nothing about dennis not being there and they all went along with the censorship. great choice of leaders who will not stand up to censorship...sad day for the party and the citizens of this country....

now back to brit and her handgun saga.....

[Political Heretic]

9. Cool so anyone who wants to run for president should be in the stage right?

Regardless of how many supporters they have? Let's have a debate with 350 candidates! That would be productive.

If Dennis wants to be in a debate Dennis needs to carry some voters. I would say the exact same thing about John Edwards if he failed to get 1% of the iowa caucus or national support. I would be sad about it and frustrated, but I wouldn't think he was "entited" to be in the debates during the primary season.

[Telly Savalas]

11. I agree, but the debates are better with Kucinich in them.

It's too bad the guy doesn't have the organizational savvy to muster up more support to give himself a place in these things.

[Political Heretic]

19. I agree with you there.

[WA98296]

10. As a former Kucinich supporter, I feel he blew it strategically caving in BEFORE Iowa.

By suggesting that his suppporters vote for Obama in the second round. That said a lot, about what he thought his own chances were, and that he would promote a candidate whose views are not all that close to his own. That is where he lost me, and I became a Edwards supporter.

I also think that DK's voice helped to move our remaining candidates toward more populist ideals.

[KharmaTrain]

12. This Was Probably One Of The Best Debates

No...I think Charlie Gibson's a total tool and there were your usual talking point/gotcha questions, but I found this debate more informative than past ones for several reasons. The format where the candidates could go at it with one another was a good start...claims didn't go unchallenged and we could compare the top three candidates side by side.

Regarding DK...alas, his time has come and gone. This is his second run and it appears he's done worse this time than the last time. Unlike Edwards who kept most of his organization together and had operations ready to go on the ground the day he announced, DK started from scratch...as if he was going to surprise people again.

Last summer I sat in on a debate...all the candidates were there and had a good chance to see and meet Kucinich...and I appreciated some of the topics he brought to the debate, but while others attempted to discuss the issues, he was trying to play the room. While I admire his stands on issues and will never question his heart or credentials...the time has come to narrow this debate and focus on who will be the best nominee of the party this year.

[watercolors]

13. I agree ,

we thought it was one of the best by far, it is still a hard choice among them! I will be proud to have ANY ONE OF THE TOP THREE AS MY PRESIDENT!

[MH1]

16. I agree, this format was better

and it wouldn't have worked if there were a dozen candidates there.

[KharmaTrain]

17. We're Down To Brass Tacks

I'm an uncommitted voter and in about a month it'll be my time to pick whomever remains in this contest. While I salute Senator Dodd for standing up to the FISA bill and Senator Biden for his years of being one of the truly good guys in the beltway and Governor Richardson has a great future in the party in a variety of capacities, but now it's time for some serious evaluation...compare and contrast and take a close look at all these candidates. This debate helped in doing that as we got more elaborate answers and give and take...this wouldn't have happened with 8 bodies on the stage.

Also, right now I'm watching the poise of these candidates. Their abilities to manuever in this obstacle course of primaries and debates shows us who can play the system and win...whomever comes out of this process will be a stronger candidate for having gone through it.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Ooops...Nevermind