CNN sets debate criteria 1% above Kucinich's latest poll results, campaign files complaint with FCC

Source: centre daily times

CNN sets debate criteria 1% above Kucinich's latest poll results, campaign files complaint with Federal Communications Commission

WASHINGTON — ...

On Wednesday, the campaign was notified by CNN that its criteria included a showing of 5% or better in a national poll. In two polls completed earlier last week by CBS News/New York Times and by the Pew Research Center, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored 4%.

"The CNN criteria specifically exclude the diverse and anti-war voice of Mr. Kucinich and his grass-roots supporters," according to the complaint. "The exclusion of Mr. Kucinich undermines the purpose of the (Federal Communications) Act and is a blatant violation of the Act, including its equal time provisions." Also, "Mr. Kucinich is a successful candidate because of his anti-war message and strong criticism of the American healthcare system, issues that are not championed by his presidential primary opponents. In these and other policy issues, his opponents share very similar policy platforms that differ from Mr. Kucinich."

The filing also points out that Kucinich was invited to participate in the upcoming South Carolina debate by the Congressional Black Caucus, which is co-sponsoring the event. The invitation, which he accepted on May 20, stated, in part that Kucinich "will be guaranteed a rare opportunity to present your message to millions of voters unfiltered by any political organization or by any news organization."

The complaint also argues that the Monday event "is not a true presidential primary debate without including all credible candidates. Instead, it is effectively an endorsement of the candidates selected by CNN" and is a breach of the federal requirement "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance."...



Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/business/story/343883.html

NT

5% of Americans are aware that Kucinich stands for them.

Imagine where he'd be polling if Americans were given the same opportunity to become aware of his message as the other 3?

Don't use the low poll numbers to justify this censorship. It's because of this censorship that he has low poll numbers.

the amount of time as the pre-ordained choices in any debate?

4% (and when we're dealing with numbers this low the difference between 4 and 5 percent really does matter) of *Democrats* are for Kucinich. I can only imagine where he registers with everyone else.

Don't give the man too much credit.

you'd get about as much air time as kooch has, next to none. my mom is a life long dem and i asked her the other night what she thought of him....she said "who?"

And for the same reasons, too.

Yet, it must be asked then why Democratic primary voters and anti-war voters (who make up a majority of the party primary voters) have not yet flocked to Kucinich. He's been consistently running for president since 2003, and has been in every pre-primary debate. It's not like he's a stranger to people.

After the debates the photos in the press actually cut Kucinich from the picture. If you think that people who do not follow closely know his views with out media coverage you are kidding yourself.

comments on their site about the debate regarding kucinich. they literally took anything good posted about him off.

focus on the "horse race" qualities of the election, e.g., poll results, latest political tactics, and very little on the issues. I consider myself relatively well informed and today I would be hard-pressed to tell you the exact differences between Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Kucinich on health care, beyond a general awareness that Kucinich is the only one who backs single-payer universal health care.

I would also be hard-pressed to explain the differences in each candidate's policy towards Iraq, the Economy, Justice\Civil liberties and the environment.

I watch the Lehrer Newshour every night and, even with the one-hour format, the Petroleum Broadcasting Service (or Pentagon Broadcasting Service) tends to downplay policy at the expense of the 'horse race' qualities I alluded to above.

I plan to support Kucinich in the Feb 5 California primary and I also plan to protest his probably exclusion outside the Kodak Theater on January 31 when CNN sponsors a debate featuring the leading 2 or 3 candidates. (This is a demonstration called by the LA chapter of ANSWER.)

The problem with this ruling that 5% doesn't seem on its face necessarly aimed at Kucinich. As arbitrary numbers go, it seems somewhat reasonable.

I wish he were at 5% and they had set it at 6%.

In any event, CNN shouldn't be making the call. The whole system sucks.

Why are they setting the guidelines?

How about the federal government? Are you comfortable with the government taking an increased role in determining content of TV programming, especially news?

making themselves look culpable to justice and freedom of speech which they should hold dear

next it will be 6%

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

I am going to CRY MYSELF TO SLEEP every NIGHT!!!

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

With this kind of conduct corporations have earned the overwhelming wrath of the American people.

At this point, the vast majority of Americans have extremely low opinions of large corporations (in this case, the media corps). The momentum is building to take them down, and their conduct guarantees the public opinion that corporations must inevitably be reined in and controlled (for example, yearly renewals of incorporations by boards of public review).

The more egregious the conduct, the more swift and terrible the public reaction.

subscription to the war-mongering Los Angeles Times (owned by Tribune Corporation). (Specifically, when the Tribune bean-counters got rid of op-ed columnist Bob Scheer, I said 'sayonara' forever to the LA Times. They will never get another penny from me and, furthermore, if I know a company is advertising with them, I deliberately go out of my way to shop elsewhere.)

After George Will red-baited John Edwards on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous by calling him the Democratic "Trotsky" a couple weeks ago, I am no longer watching ABC.

After NBC excluded Kucinich from the Las Vegas debate after having first entered into a contractual relationship with his campaign in inviting him and seeing the craven cowardice of the Nevada Supreme Court, I am no longer watching NBC.

I make a point of bad-mouthing these media outlets in public every time I can, especially if I think someone who advertises with them might be listening. The only language they understand or appreciate is the language of greed, the almighty dollar. Since that's a language I've never learned nor care to learn, I doubt they really care much what I think.

This is in your face, "Fuck you. We choose who you get to vote for."

in their blackout of Kucinich, it's insulting to those of use with a brain. The rest of the country seems to buy into the MSM propaganda and support whoever the media pushes. As a staunch Kucinich supporter, I'm so upset!!! I usually like at least dinner and a movie before I get fucked!!!:grr:

They're not even pretending anymore.

who here supports such a thing? Shameful....

Recommend this so more people can see what's going on in this country.

granted they are the same 3 who bash Dennis every chance they get.

wow. just wow. on a Democratic website even.

might as well just cancel cable. there's nothing on anyways.

Consistently leaning rightward and corporatist....

makes ya wonder doesn't it?

:puke:

blatant campaign to silence him, I'd say that a lot of people support such a thing. And yes, it truly IS shameful.

Yet in the next breath they decry the M$M's meddling in the political process.

Guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored...

As I've said before, someone has to challenge the media and their selection process for the debates, especially if it gives the impression of an endorsement or one or two candidates, as these past couple of debates most certainly do. If the argument is that having a stageful of candidates becomes just too unweildy for a practical discussion, then scrap the idea of debates so early in the season, or better yet, just hold a series of presidential debates once the two candidates are anoint-- -- oops! -- nominated.

"Reality vs. perception management: the tinfoil controversy" (1-6-2006)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x71919

It will take a few days to get through all of these.

Manuel Valenzuela's writing is particularly gratifying, as I was never, even for a second, fooled by the Bush Administration's propaganda outlets and lapdog media.

My thanks.

I mean c'mon. If THEY don't know his message then it's hopeless.
Sam Brownback has raised more money in Cleveland that DK. In fact, 12 other candidates have.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/presstatetots.asp?State=OH

Not that it's all about money, but that's his home district! Doesn't that kind of take the media bias out of it?

Isn't it 3 terms?
That says more than your lame attempt at a smear.

1. Little support from his home town.
2. No discernible national appeal.
3. Non-mainstream message but no non-mainstream strategy.
4. It's not like he gets NO attention. Especially early he was given significant attention.

The networks are tired of flogging his candidacy when he won't do anything on his own. I like DK, but he is not a serious candidate for president. There are a lot of ways for him to advance his agenda without having to be POTUS.

That's serious enough. You've laid out the corporate (dlc) line regarding his exclusion.

I think it's misguided to blame his lame-ass campaign on the media. Just face it: Either he isn't running an effective campaign, or we progressives have a LOT of work to do (or both).

DK is like a measuring stick of where we are as a progressive movement. About 5% of the people are buying that version of our message right now. To blame that on the media is failing to accept responsibility. The other people who are voting Dem are voting for lots of different reasons, but they are definitely avoiding DK's message and/or personality. Maybe a different candidate with the same platform could do better, but in any case, we still have a lot of work to do before we have built a constituency that will support a candidate like Dennis Kucinich.

We can see where you are coming from.
I think the poster in thread #10 said it best,
"Don't use the low poll numbers to justify this censorship. It's because of this censorship that he has low poll numbers."

and spare me the whining about his not getting the same "face time" during the debates. An analysis of the April 2007 debate shows that he got more time than Biden or Dodd, and almost as much as Richardson. And what happened? In the polls that followed that debate, Dodd was up one, Biden stayed the same, Richardson was down one and DK either stayed the same or went up one point.

Plus, to the extent folks think that there is a massive pro-impeachment movement out there, how come DK doesn't do better, unless its that even people who support impeachment and almost certainly are sympathetic to DK on that, still don't think he's the best candidate to defeat the repubs in November.

They (the party and the msm) shut him out starting in Iowa so of course he's not going to do well.

:eyes:

Let's say you're right. The media is blackballing him. What are you going to do about it?

I lived in NE Ohio when Dennis was mayor of Cleveland.

If you think Dennis is capable of being president, you are out of your freaking mind.

All Dennis does is get re-elected in his safe urban Democratic district and say any damn thing that coffee-shop liberals want to hear. And whore for attention.

He couldn't run a hamburger stand.

incumbant, right? You knew that, right?

You also know that he was the sole democratic challanger to beat a Repo incumbant that year, right?

You didn't know that? Well now you do.

First off, he beat a one term incumbent - an incumbent whose only claim to fame was being less corrupt than his predecessor. The district is traditionally very Democratic. Kucinich supporters usually cite Clarence Miller´s long tenure as rep from the 10th to support their assertion that the district is traditionally conservative without realizing that the 10th Miller represented WAS NOT THE SAME district as the one Kucinich represents. The old 10th no longer exists. So please stop spouting this bullshit about Kucinich getting elected in a Republican district. Cleveland is the most liberal / Democratic area in Ohio.

Repo incumbant who beat his other two Democratic challangers (1n 1992 and 1994) rather handily.

Reapportionment occurs every ten years, taking place the year after the census. So the district Kucinich won from the two term Repo had been reapportioned in 1991.

I suggest you read up on the facts of the matter so as not to appear clueless. And so you aren't responsible for spreading mis-information. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio's_10th_congressional_district

And I understand reapportionment. It makes no difference to my argument, which is that Cleveland is a Democratic stronghold, not a Republican stronghold.

What is a surprise is supposed Democrats supporting the decision.

Even gleeful about it.

:puke:

From the decision:

According to the complaint, CNN applied the following criteria for candidate participation in the debate: (1) finishing in the top four in any of the early primaries or caucuses and (2) polling five percent or more in a recent L.A. Times California poll or five percent in any of approximately ten recent national polls. Kucinich has not shown that CNN’s criteria are
unreasonable, nor does he maintain that they were chosen to promote the candidacy of a particular candidate.

Although the Commission has expressed concern that a candidate who, “based on objective criteria such as polling results,” could demonstrate that he or she was a “major presidential candidate” not be excluded from a debate,8 Kucinich has not presented objective evidence sufficient to demonstrate that he is a “major presidential candidate” under Commission precedent.9

---

The network does not have to provide a soapbox for a vanity candidate like Dennis to spout his coffee-shop liberal crap.

We're trying to pick a president here, enough with the damn sideshow.

Go cry yourself to sleep, Dennis backers.

why all the abuse? what's it costing you if people want the media to treat Kucinich better?

why would I not conclude right now that you are an asshole?

a CABLE "news" network of any kind to "sponsor" a debate. They aren't doing it for the good of the American public - they are doing it for their own profit. And there is a certain arrogance in media organizations which attempt to dictate WHO the American people are allowed to listen to - the criteria for participation in a debate should be EXACTLY what the CONSTITUTION says is the criteria for holding the office. Otherwise, it makes me wonder why the American people cannot file a complaint against the network AND the DNC for contracting with an entity which does not use the public airwaves and clearly is disinterested in serving the American public.

Last time i looked, newspapers were profit making entities too, or least were trying to be. If a newspaper sent questions to three of four candidates so it could run their answers side by side, should the party bar the candidates from responding? How exactly would it enforce this prohibition. And what if the paper solicited responses from all of the candidates but decided it only wanted to run the answers from three. Do you think that the party, or the excluded candidate, should have some legal recourse?

And, as the courts have consistently found, cable networks don't use the public airwaves like broadcasters do.

They excluded him from the people's airwaves. Whats your legal opinion on that one??

Even broadcasters have first amendment rights. And god help us if that was to change. The law in this area has been clear for 25 years: broadcasters can sponsor debates and they don't have to invite everyone to participate.

And even if the exclusion of DK rendered the debate something other than a bona fide news event exempt from the equal opps rule, it wouldn't mean he gets to appear in the debate. It only means that he would be entitled to free time for a period equivalent to the time given the other candidates.

If not his inclusion?

clever answer btw.

de consolidate. ressurect Anti-trust protections from the ashes of the Great Deregulator's slash and burn.

To defend a fully consolidated media's right to free speech over the public's interest has got to be the least democratic action anyone could take.

Since this one true free citizen (Corporate Media) has its silence bought by advertisers, the public interest CANNOT be served, whether on the airwaves or the Cable COMMONS.

DEMILITARIZE the media.

Which other media companies are major military contractors?

If they had to, theyd just sell it to another Arm.
Look at the Capital Cities takeover of ABC and then handing it over to
(premiere propagandists)Disney?
When did that actually happen, what year? I know Cap Cities was formed by Casey and picked up ABC back in 86, was it? Id love to see analysis of their central American coverage over those years, but the results are more than predictable.
The citizens need to demand a media that is seperated
the way it used to be from its own network as a seperate division.
Newspapers that do the sort of critical and thorough reporting that you can
find anytime you pick up a vintage newspaper from the 60's, from ANYWHERE in the country.
Compare, contrast, cry.
Multinational war criminals buy endless silence by advertising or purchasing the outlet outright.
Deregulation was such a clever catch phrase for what they were
actually doing to us.
The original threat by Gen. Westmoreland to CBS News has been carried out,
across the board.
We are owned.

Cap Cities was formed in the mid-1950s when Frank Smith and Lowell Thomas purchased television stations serving Albany and Durham -- "capital" cities. It grew over time, maxing out the number of stations it could own and acquiring newspaper, magazine and cable system interests. William Casey wa an investor and member of the board, but was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company, which fell to Tom Murphy and Dan Burke. Cap Cities modus operandi was to purchase underperforming properties and to give local managers a free hand to turn things around. Its de-centralized management approach was considered pretty unique in the media business. In 1985, it purchased ABC for approximately $3.5 billion, which required it to divest itself of certain broadcast properties to stay within the FCC's limits and also to sell off its cable systems, which it did. William Casey died in 1987

About a decade later (in 1996) Disney acquired Cap Cities/ABC for $19 billion -- an offer that Cap Cities literally could not refuse (its shareholders would've sued its directors had they not taken the offer).

Anyway, if your question is about Cap Cities coverage of central america during the pre-abc merger era, the answer is going to be that the cap cities stations were all network affiliates and presumably their international coverage was essentially what they received from the network (mostly ABC). And casey was dead a year after the merger and nine years before Disney took over.

All of which leads me back to my question: when was the golden era?

why should citizens accept a consolidated medias censorship as the greatest expression of free speech?

I see by your subtext that having the hand of a particularly dastardly head of the CIA openly sticking itself up the sock puppet of media was nothing to be concerned about.

and I've worked on several free speech cases. I also had experience dealing with many broadcast companies, including Cap Cities. I never saw any sign that Casey had the slightest impact on the content of the their stations. Again, Cap Cities was a station owner, not a network, while Casey was alive and their stations coverage of national/international news was what they were fed by the network. You want to explain how Casey influenced that?

And to return more directly to the topic: how does separating the ABC network from Disney or separating CBS from, well, from CBS I guess work? ANd how does it alter how they operate? Do you propose making all broadcasting "non profit"? What about cable? What about newspapers? What role do you think the government should play in directing the content of television news?

Slogans are easy. Reality is hard.

Radio is over consolidated, that's for sure. But its also de-consolidating and the development of satellite and internet audio services is quickly fracturing that aspect of the media marketplace.

Until the late 70's, television was controlled essentially by three networks: abc, nbc, and cbs. While they had fewer "owned and operated" stations than today, they still had a coast-to-coast network of affiliates that broadcast what they were fed. CBS, for one example, was a diverse company, with a broadcast radio and television network, individual broadcast and television stations, a record company, music instrument companies, a baseball team (Yankees), home video interests, even a toy company.

Even with consolidation, there are more outlets for news, information and entertainment today than at any time. What existed that was analogous to DU in the past?

When exactly was the golden era of "free speech"?

why dont you break down the historical differences between media ownership regulations in the previous decades versus what passes for regulation now? Free speech in full flower when one conglomerate can increase its market share WELL PAST previouos limits?
The FCC has become an even more vicious joke, unleashing full restrictions against smaller broadcaser opportunities like internet broadcasting, pirate and low power stations. They arent exactly leveling the playing field.

There wasnt gonna be no golden era once the National Security State was started.

Local stations cover local news. Back in the "old days" all televised national news was filtered through three national networks: CBS, NBC and ABC. CBS was the dominant of those three and it was a multifaceted company with radio, magazine, sports, record company and other interests.

I have said all along that there is too much consolidation in radio. Not because it impacts news reporting, but because it makes it harder for new voices to be heard. In the case of video programming, my biggest concern isn't consolidation, its the power given to broadcasters in 1992 to demand compensation from cable (and later satellite) for the right to carry what are supposed to be "free" local television stations. That power has been used to force cable/satellite to carry a host of new channels owned by the broadcasters (FX, SoapNet, etc). As a result, other voices are squeezed out.

Realistically compare any earlier period of time to today, where there are dozens of national cable channels, where CSPAN gives those who want to take it, the the opportunity to watch Congress debate, where there is a seemingly unlimited number of websites, blogs and other destinations on the Internet that provide news, information and enterntainment. There is no comparison.

both in pulp or online, or in a library without subscription. And the submission of questions of individual candidates is most certainly not the same as a "debate". Your example doesn't contend that CNN solicited responses from ALL candidates and then only decided to include answers from THREE - they arbitrarily decided not to allow any answers from other candidates. Moreover, their decision is based on "polling". . .which we all know was wrong in New Hampshire.

You also made my point - CABLE networks aren't using the public airwaves; therefore they are not providing a PUBLIC service but are carried at the discretion of a corporation which sells subscriptions to the "news" channels. This is a nomination process for president of the United States, not the head of a cable network, so when CNN makes decisions about who is worthy of participation, they are effectively attempting to use their ownership of the means of communication to dictate the viable candidates. Our Constitution is rather clear about the qualifications for running for this office - it is supposed to be up to the public to make decisions about the messages and the messenger among candidates. As a professional "news" organization, their job isn't to decide FOR us, but to report what WE decide.

I suggested two situations: one where questions were put to all candidates, but only some candidates' answers were run AND the situation where only three of the four candidates were invited to participate.

And so what if newspapers are accessible in pulp and online or in a library. Transcripts of the televised debates are available online, too. And oftentimes, there is streaming video of the debates.

And you just made my other point. Because cable networks aren't using the public airwaves, the courts have recognized that, for first amendment purposese, they are more like newspapers than broadcast stations. And when the NY Times gives unequal coverage to candidates -- which they unquestionably do -- you could argue that they also are "attempting to use their ownership of the means of communication to dictate the viable candidates". So I put my question back to you: what government mandates, if any, should newspapers be subject to with respect to their coverage of and participation in the political process?

Not 4%.

4 votes.

Which chooses delegates to the state convention. But not having reached 15%, he won't get any pledged delegates.

we truly are living in "idiocracyhell." The American people are too brainwashed by MSM and too idiotic to research the best candidate for the American people, Dennis Kucinich. He's the only candidate that hasn't sold his soul to corporate America, and the only one offering a not-for-profit universal healthcare plan. He's the only candidate to vote against the Iraq war and it's continued funding, and the Patriot Act. He's the only candidate with the foresight and courage to seek the impeachment of Cheney before we're taken into a war in Iran. So if Kucinich isn't getting more support from the American people, it's just a sad reflection on the lack of intelligence and morality in our society.

policy positions.

Capable leadership, effective organizing skills, things like that.

you can't really believe that! The issues are front and center in any election. The MSM has manipulated and undermined Kucinich from the beginning, and the American people have bought into their agenda.

The Presidency is not just a position for making policy.

Americans are looking for, Dennis Kucinich has proven to have more integrity, courage, foresight, and perseverance than any other candidate, which is EXACTLY what we need in a leader.

And even if you're right, it STILL isn't going to change unless WE do something different. Someone isn't going to come along and wave a magic wand and make the MSM act responsibly or make the "American people" suddenly have a V8 moment. We have to do it. You can complain, but if it isn't followed by an acceptance of responsibility, it has little chance to be helpful.

I understand about blaming the MSM only so much, because at the end of the day, it's the voters who decide. I've accepted my part in helping the Kucinich campaign, I'm just disillusioned and frustrated that the democrats keep voting for Bush-lite regardless of our alternative efforts. That's what makes me feel the majority of those supporting CEO, are being spoon fed their choices from MSM, instead of researching Kucinich in the blogosphere.

Edwards isn't running any less of an anti-corporate campaign and he's got like 4 or 5 times the support.

There are ways to do these things, and ultimately, "not playing by the rules" just becomes an excuse. You have to have a Plan B.
Nothing wrong with any of that except that some people get all wrapped up in him being a hero, and then they get disillusioned. It happened to me (not with DK, but another candidate). It's a tough thing: He can't come out and say he's just "checking the temperature" of the electorate, but some people get burned out along the way because he doesn't. We have to find reasons to keep fighting and not give up. I have the privilege of occasionally being around people who have worked in the civil rights fight for 50 years. 50 years!!! And they haven't given up, they haven't stopped participating. That's my inspiration.

I am looking forward to a Bobby Kennedy Jr. campaign someday.

from his universal healthcare plan. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate willing to take the insurance industry out of the healthcare equation, thereby costing them hundreds of billions in lost revenue. Is it any wonder he was excluded from the Iowa debate that was sponsored by AARP? Look at the amount of ads run by various insurance companies during the debates, and you'll see a powerful industry looking to hold onto their profits, and heavily investing in the frontrunner's who will INCREASE their already obscene profits with their universal healthcare plans.

Kucinich is the real threat to the corporate elite, so he must be ridiculed, undermined, and marginalized. It's disillusioning to see the American people fall for the MSM anointed ones, and pass over the only candidate that doesn't accept corporate donations so he can be free to represent the peoples best interest.

I don't know much about Bobby Kennedy Jr. other than his environmental work. I look forward to a president that is a consistent defender of our Constitution, and who hasn't sold his soul to corporate America. We have that candidate in Dennis Kucinich, but for some reason, the American people don't see it.

If DK knew he was going up against a powerful industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people and accounts for something like 4% of the GDP, what is his strategy for getting enough support for his different idea? Of COURSE they are going to resist him. Did he not anticipate this? What did he think would happen? That his message would be so compelling that people would flock to him?

Didn't work. Need a new plan.

the American publics intelligence and sense of morality. Kicking out the insurance industry from the healthcare crisis they've created is the moral and ethical thing to do. The savings from eliminating this sick-profiteering industry will cover every American, and that's the right thing to do in a civilized society. Unfortunately the insurance industry has become a cancer in our democracy, infiltrating Congress and the presidential candidates. We need campaign finance reform, and we need to get rid of lobbyist and special interest groups who buy politicians at the expense of what's best for the public.

We need to move OUR presidential debates to PBS so the MSM can't poison our constitutional right to a free election process. As for plan B in the Kucinich campaign, I don't see Kucinich compromising on an issue of morality like not-for-profit healthcare, so I guess he'll just keep hammering his message through the bogosphere in hopes that one day the public will catch on.

http://www.pnhp.org/

"Of all forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The issue of universal coverage is not a matter of economics. Little more than 1% of the GDP assigned to health could cover all. It is a matter of soul." - Uwe Reinhardt

...even get >me to support him. He seems too arrogant and self-righteous, unwilling to listen to anyone else, thinks he's the only one who's right. Turned even me off right there. If his own district can't support him, well, that says a lot about the messenger, too.


edited for html correction.

I'd hardly call that not getting support from his district. You perceive him as being arrogant and self-righteous, while I view him has having sound ethics and a moral compass. I don't see him compromising on his integrity, that's apparent with his unwillingness to sign an oath in Texas to support any democratic nominee. We need a man with his character and perseverance in the White House. Kucinich is the only candidate that represents the people not corporate America.

Sorry, but that's just TOO DAMN FUNNY.

elections in America. Look it up. Money is the single most important factor in who wins elections in America.

...out early on. The only way to give all a fair chance is to change the rules regarding financing sources, length of campaigning, the whole electoral system, etc., among other things, to give less moneyed candidates a chance, but unfortunately, that's the reality of the US elections today. Why can't campaigning be limited to, say, three months, and have primaries on one day, etc. So many things about this election process need to change. The system has become so unwieldy, much too long and complicated, but who'll call for the changes? When? How?

and it serves a sound purpose. The question is, always, who collects the info to determine the 5%, and how?

Even the Citizen's Debate Commission, organized to counter the party leader controlled Commission on Presidential Debates, would rely on the 5% threshhold (caveat: This is for the general, not primary contests).

come on.

But that wouldn't help Kuicinich's case very much either.

for us.

Again.

You gotta respect the man. He doesn't give up. He just keeps fighting! That's why he is truly the most courageous and strong candidate. Screw the rest of em as they are afraid to let him get on stage with them.

The problem is, Denny has never been a credible candidate.

When the best candidate has a snow ball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.