NBC petitions to overturn order including Kucinich in tonight’s debate

[BuyingThyme]

NBC petitions to overturn order including Kucinich in tonight’s debate
By Geoff Dornan
January 15, 2008, 10:32 AM


NBC has filed an emergency petition asking the Nevada Supreme Court to immediately overturn a Clark County order that Rep. Dennis Kucinich be allowed to participate in tonight’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas.

...

“NBC is not aware of any legal authority that would support such a brazen violation of a news organization’s First Amendment rights,” said the petition filed by attorney Donald Campbell.

...

The complaint was filed 10:02 a.m. and the motion for an emergency order by Kucinich at one minute before noon. The hearing was held at 1:30 p.m. and the judge ruled form the bench.

...

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080115/NEWS01/814265844/-1/rss01

[DURHAM D]

1. I hope DK is included.

The more men piling on the better. It pisses women off.

ITS THE PILE ON STUPID!

[mikelgb]

2. uhm

[MrCoffee]

7. what?

are you saying that pissed off women = a bump for Hillary Clinton, or are you saying that pissing off women is good in general?

[DURHAM D]

9. Ask your sister or your mother - they can explain it. n/t

[MrCoffee]

13. i'm asking you, since it makes no sense

if you don't want to answer, that's just fine. i doubt my mother or sister could interpret your post, either.

[DURHAM D]

20. Ok - this will be brief.

Surprisingly (to most) Hillary won N.H. Not because she had an emotional moment but because the men piled on, misrepresented what had happened and made fun of her. It pissed the women off.

When Edwards and Obama played as a doubles team against Hillary at the N.H. Saturday night debate it was a pile on and it pissed the women off.

After Obama won Iowa the male dominated media, pundits, journalists, surrogates, etc carried Obama forward with flying wedge protection. Hillary was pronounced dead. It pissed the women off.

And, previously her numbers jumped in the polls after the debate where Tim Russert and all the male candidates attacked her in mass. That debate pissed the women off.

I could go on for hours but I have a meeting.

ITS THE PILE ON STUPID!

[MrCoffee]

22. Susan Faludi said the same thing in the LA Times today

The last quoted paragraph below

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/15/6383/

The media, punditry and pollsters have been viewing this historic female candidacy, and the candidate herself, through the Madonna-Medea prism they’ve applied since at least the Victorian era to women who venture into American public life. In so doing, they have ignored a whole other model of womanhood that is central to female experience. If they are determined to think of Hillary Clinton in stereotypical female terms, at least they should get the stereotype right.

That ignorance was on prominent display after New Hampshire, as analysts groped to explain the primary results and came up with explanations that were as offensive as they were phantasmagorial. One theory, admittedly far-fetched but avidly promulgated, held that Clinton’s unexpected surge of support came from lower-class voters who were secretly (that is, un-poll-ably) racist. Some pundits acknowledged that there might be a gender dynamic at work but allowed for only one possibility: Female voters were easily manipulated saps who’d let a few girl tears muddle their political sense. Pundits debated whether Clinton’s tears were “real” or “manufactured” — that is, whether she was some weak sob sister who couldn’t hack the rough-and-tumble of a man’s world, or just a power-grabbing witch who would do anything to hang on to her broomstick.

A few, such as San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci, offered more cogent appraisals. She pointed out that female voters didn’t seem to be responding to Clinton’s tears so much as to their outrage at men’s reactions to those tears (in particular, men in the media).

Thank you for clarifying, by the way. I really didn't understand your original message.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

23. The only thing that pisses a woman off is an assumption like that.

This is the 21st Century, not the 19th... :shrug:

[LeftyMom]

15. That's not how debate works. This may surprise you, but we gentle feminine flowers do know that.

:eyes:

[TahitiNut]

16. Poor Hillary.

[DURHAM D]

21. She could easily kick your ass.

Is that a problem?

[TahitiNut]

25. Wow! That's so ... so... so ... REPUBLICAN of you!

Gotta love that hairy-chested, penis-measuring, "Might Makes Right" ass-kicking Texas attitude.

Please, take to the local long-neck guzzle-and-puke where it belongs! OK? Thanks. :hi:

[MrCoffee]

3. this is a moderately interesting case, from a legal standpoint

Dennis should, of course, be allowed to participate. The NV Supreme Court is kinda funny, though. I'll be interested to see how, or even if, they rule in time.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. thing is, they invited him

and then changed their own rules. That's why I don't think "freedom of speech" is involved here. More like "freedom to stifle speech".

[Marie26]

5. Their First Amendment right to censor speech? nt

[MrCoffee]

8. freedom of the press, perhaps?

[Marie26]

14. Looks like they're relying

on a jurisdiction claim. They say the NV court doesn't have jurisdiction to issue the order.

"He argued case law is “an unbroken line of legal authorities holding that district courts — particularly state district courts — lack jurisdiction to decide complaints brought under the Communications Act of 1934.” It says exclusive jurisdiction over those issues belongs to the Federal Communications Commission."

So it's not really about freedom of speech at all - NBC just argues that the FCC should have jurisdiction over this issue. Hmm, wonder why they want the Bush-controlled FCC to hear the case? They should just drop it & let Kucinich speak at the debate.

[MrCoffee]

17. The jurisdictional argument is just something to file

The substantive issue is much harder to prepare. Jurisdictional arguments are easy. They probably used that (the jurisdictional argument) just to get the filing in to the NV Supreme Court, and will amend the appeal in the next couple of hours.

[Marie26]

19. I just don't get why they're fighting this so hard.

What do they care if Kucinich is in the debate? Maybe they're waiting to file a substantive argument, or maybe they don't have one & want this to be dismissed on a jurisdictional technicality.

[MrCoffee]

24. That's the big question, right there

There are any number of theories, all of which have varying degrees of believability. Personally, I think NBC has decided how they are going to cover this election, and Dennis is not part of their coverage.

This seems like a misguided place to draw a line in the sand, however.

[New Earth]

6. PLZ EXCUSE MY LANGUAGE

BUT THIS IS SUCH FUCKING BULLSHIT
BULLSHIT
BULLSHIT
BULLSHIT

[BuyingThyme]

11. Which part?

[New Earth]

12. that they 'uninvited' him first of all

and now took it to the STATE SUPREME COURT. Why are they so desparate to not have him on? :shrug: :wtf:

[Pierzin]

10. They really don't want him in Cause he's Truth to Power!

Honestly,
why else would they want him out? Because he's the only one shining light where it don't shine!

[bdamomma]

18. I hope Dennis kicks shit tonite.

he will definitely have something to say about this tonite.

[LibDemAlways]

26. "a news organization's First Amendment rights?" That's

rich. A corporate entity pretending to be a "news organization" hides behind the First Amendment to keep a Presidential candidate off of a debate podium because they don't like his politics. That's one of the most bizarre statements I've ever heard.