is donating $ to Sharpton or Braun's campaign a worthwhile investment?

I honestly can't see how it is.

Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit.

I'd say it is not.

But if you think they contribute something intangible to the process, then maybe it is.

show that stat :bounce:

It is really amazing, isn't it?

I realized, however, that BushCo doesn't send Rummy, Condi and Powell to NPR or PBS shows to "adjust the filter" with any frequency at all. I guess they figure only 3% of the population is paying attention to that outlet, so why bother?

So I sort of think it may have less to do how objective PBS is and more to do with the fact that there isn't the regime's scum lingering all over the place. If you haven't already seen it, the whole report is available at http://www.pipa.org

Is you spend the donation money on massive hate mail for the companies donating to the * crime family.

That would make a much bigger splash.

Sharpton can't drop out soon enough.

n/t

I think Sharptons witty remarks add a lot of humanity to the contest. Remember his remarks about Edwards in the last debate? It wasn't an agenda setting issue, but I think it helps voters connect with the party in general.

Our successful nominee should be paying some attention to the way Sharpton uses plain language to get an idea across. You could never accuse him of being "wooden", like other candidates have been criticized as.

Because he can't win, he can afford to say all the right things that fire up the hardcore dems and plant seeds of doubt (read TRUTH) in the minds of fence-setters who relate to Bush's "down-home", dumbed down message.

I hope he and Carol stay in as long as possible. I'll give them what little I can afford to send.

wouldn't you rather he be able to get his ideas across… since his ideas are the ones that might actually make it to the white house.

And I have considered the fact that the wide field is difficult for the debate format. It is a practical consideration.

If anyone has to go, however, I'd rather see Lieberman drop out because he REALLY doesn't contribute anything. Aren't Edwards and Kucinich polling behind Al and Carol? I've seen some polls where they have 4 or 5 percent and Edwards and Kucinich have 2 percent.

I'm pretty confident that Clark will be able to connect with the voters through straight-forward campaigning. Hand shaking, baby kissing, townhall meetings -- the whole sha-bang. How could any candidate get a substantial answer through the orally incontinent Judy Woodruff anyhow?

While it won't break my heart to see either of them drop out, I just disagree about the value of what they contribute. I think we can afford everyone having a little less time in debates that almost no one sees for the sake of Al and Carol's contribution, that's all. You're just more eager to get to the "meat of things" than I am. A Clark-Kerry-Dean-Edwards debate would be more substantial (Gephardt would have to go because he might make Dean hurt someone :))

But another point that supports your position is that the general electorate interprets the field of 9 candidates as a sign that the dems are confused and in disagreement. So maybe it is time for someone else to drop out to clear that up a little. Still, I prefer Holy Joe drop out.

Sharpton will have enough delegates at the convention that whoever gets the nomination will have to promise things to get his endorsement, and the votes he controls. Sharpton doesn't have to win to be effective.

I think he'll be out before the first (primary) vote is cast.

If you believe in what Al Sharpton or Carol Mosley-Braun fights for then all power to you. Braun and Sharpton I have a lot of respect for.

I honestly can't see how it is.

It does however provide an opportunity to make the obvious retort, for which I heartily thank you:

• Donate to Carol for Pres
  
  
• Donate to Sharpton for Pres

Thank you.