If the "lower tier" candidates are excluded from future forums,

what important issues will be discussed more fully?

Going by the time she's already spent on the topic, will Hillary propose to debate the proposition,"My campaign theme song is better than yours"?

would be discussed more in-depth with fewer people in the debate. It simply gives more time to the ones who ARE there.

I guess it's true, it's lonely at the top. :rofl:

he just happened to be in the way, I guess. He's down to ten percent or so, so there aren't enough people to stick up for him anymore.

Wait till the end of summer.

(unless I do my own research ;))

Either all candidates should be at forums/debates or none should be there.

Just MHO..

Except maybe someone will be forced to discuss their plans, rather than creating diversions by lobbing grenades at everyone else's.

Of course, I don't know from that little snippet of discussion what Clinton and Edwards were talking about. The audience? The questioners? Some future swingers party? The number of corporate donors they will accept cash from? Maybe we should ask Kucinich, since he was there for part of the discussion, and neither Clinton nor Edwards seemed to hiding anything from him. Has there been an official explanation of anything?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x40560

It is totally unclear what Clinton and Edwards are talking about -- FOX JUST SAYS THEY ARE CONSPIRING TO EXCLUDE the other candidates/

Fox has a history of misrepresenting democrats.

insulting, and totally premature, but the outcome was purely unlistenable drivvle that is far less than inspiring.

Let's see. . ."You and I". . .wouldn't that reinforce the separation of the "self" from the "we". . .? hmmm

The fact that she only deigned to solicit our opinions on her marketing strategy was beyond the pale.

Impeachment. . .withdrawal. . .habeus corpus. . .torture. . .treason. . .our voting technology. . .?. . .nada.

Then I guess it is fairly ironic that she ended up just getting muzak.

I'm getting to the point where I'll only vote for someone who chooses "American Idiot" or some tribal drumming for a theme song and they choose it on their own.

Sheesh

not even know any candidates just yet. There is enough
time,IMO, for all the candidates to continue to get their
voices heard.

Just asking, do certain candidates make them (top tier) uncomfortable?
Example: Gravel and Kucinich making statements regarding Nafta???

While Kucinich will not win--he serves a great purpose at this
point in the campaign. Kucinich is a REAL DEMOCRAT and when he
puts forth his ideas, the observant audience might just see the
difference between Centrist DLC Democrats and real Democrats.
This can be a plus or a minus and possibly could be a source of
discomfort.

Dodd and Biden just might be able to pull up if given a chance.

IMO, it is better for them to remain than to go. There is time.

the war, education, disparity of wealth, economy , etc.? How about giving each candidate 10 minutes to give his/her stump speech, or to answer the question, "Why are you running?"

and I think there needs to be something on record that says a candidate must meet a certain criteria by a certain date to be included. I don't really know what that criteria should be, I hate to say money, but money does prove, to an extent, how supported a candidate is on a national level.

Until something like this is put into effect, I think it is wrong to exclude a candidate that has already proved that they are running an organized and supported campaign.

That's what Biden wants. I think it's the answer.

can be more tightly controlled and scripted.