Not presidential material, but a surprising number of my friends are very aware of her and think she's great. She has a following... Perhaps, by many non-voters. Thus far, I appreciate her voice.

Upon edit: I heard that she may be an anti-vaxxer... And, of course, I feel like that position is offensive.

And why on earth would she want to help equally goofy Mike Gravel?

If only $1 counts as an individual donor it's too easy to artificially inflate a candidate's popularity. It's almost like a GoFundMe campaign and it doesn't really reflect a candidate's actual viability.

The corporate media conglomerates are masters at artificially inflating a candidate's popularity or message and tearing them/it down.

problem.

to ask for a dollar donation to help her qualify for the debates.

It was fine to have lots of candidates for the first one, but it's time to narrow the field a bit to be more effective.

but the voices are important and the people should hear them.

As long as dingbats like Williamson and Gravel are taking up debate time it's that much less time for the serious candidates.

the cost of empire.

and other vanity candidates taking up air time just to jump up and down and squeak "Me too!"

not just among candidates but the corporate media conglomerates as well.

All of our candidates are critiquing that.

Literally tens of millions of Americans have been losing ground at least since the days of Reagan, the rich have become phenomenally wealthier while the middle class has been hollowed out and the poor have become even more destitute.

The corporate media conglomerates have inherent conflicts of interest to any serious change that threatens their bottom lines, their parent corporations, oligarch owners and major commercial buyers.

They set the parameters of debate, what's covered and just as importantly what isn't.

Just one small tidbit of their propaganda as pointed out by The Nation.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287186526

The main street economy means nothing to them so long as the stock market does well and employment numbers (never mind long time stagnant wages and actual inflation) are low.

They cover actual substantive news or information critical to the American People on the most superficial basis or not at all while keeping a magnifying glass on the "horse race" to start flames and set their own self-serving frames.

They have been manipulating the American public for decades and I don't expect them to change now.

They knew Trump's business history in 2016 but nonetheless gave him billions of dollars in free advertising, no matter how inane his statements just because they also knew his false economic populism would drag from Bernie.

Trump is a symptom of the status quo, not the disease and if these 40 year dynamics aren't seriously altered, there will be future Trumps and they will be worse because he has expanded the envelope of what can be expected if not accepted.

Thanks for the post.

Gigantic and galactic, pure and essential love