Kucinich booted from Iowa debate

The Hill is reporting that Kucinich will not be participating in tomorrow's Democratic debate. here's the article
Kucinich-booted-from-iowa-debate

I don't understand how "bug eyed"  Keys gets into the Republican debate but Kucinich is not allowed.  The rational is that Kucinich does not have a dedicated Iowa office.

Sorry for the short diary but figured I'd stop the Obama, Hillary war for a moment and give the floor to the Kucinich supporters

•  Wonder

  If Kucinich had an office in 2004

  by Kitty on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:14:02 PM PDT

  •  That would be a great way

    to flesh out this diary--go do some quick research on whether or not Kucinich had an Iowa office in '04, and if so, was he or was he not allowed to participate in the process then.

    Awesome questions deserve answers :)

    by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:25:28 PM PDT

    •  OT - friendly Kucinich/impeachment funding req

      My latest diary: Contribute  on Dec. 15th to electoral + impeachment efforts!

      by ImpeccableLiberalCredentials on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:25:37 PM PDT

  •  Just plain wrong.

    I don't know the technicalities involved, but Kucinich is a serious candidate.

    by emmabrody on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:26:31 PM PDT

    •  the 'technicality' is limited to renting a

      damn office in the damn state, and the K-man didn't.

      by PhillyGal on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:28:48 PM PDT

      •  But, you see, such things cost $$

        not all of the Candidates take campaign donations from every Tom, Dick and Rupert that comes along, and they have to watch every expenditure.

        To exclude a legal candidate from a debate, on the grounds of "how they choose to spend their campaign funds" is dishonest, pathetic, and about as "against the Constitution" as BushCO is.  

        by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:39:06 PM PDT

      •  Technically, he must have done so by Oct. 1

        Which seems a bit arbitrary to me.

        They should definitely let Dennis in the debate.  His views are a breath of fresh air, and as others have stated, are as truly progressive as you will find.

        However, while Dennis has great principles and a great perseverence and sense of justice, he is not a good manager.  Until he becomes a better manager, he should not be President because he'll set back the progressive cause for years.

        by maxschell on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:39:36 PM PDT

•  But Gravel will be included???

  Wow.

  by Brainwrap on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:16:21 PM PDT

  •  I don't know

    if Gravel will be included? The article didn't say. Does he have an Iowa office?

    by Kitty on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:17:45 PM PDT

  •  wow - Alan Keyes will be permitted

    to participate in the Register's GOP debate today.

    I didn't even know Keyes was running.

    by Hprof on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:29:11 PM PDT

    •  the GOP thinks it proves they aren't racists

      and seems to be their only alternative to Obama. Kinda sad really...

      by tony the American Mutt on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:52:54 PM PDT

      •  They thought that in 2004

        And didn't Obama win?

        by Brad007 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:13:33 AM PDT

        •  did I say they were smart?

          ;p

          by tony the American Mutt on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:07:19 AM PDT

      •  actually I think

        they want to be inclusive of wack-jobs and Keyes fits the bill.

        by ratador on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:15:52 AM PDT

  •  I don't think so.

    I don't think Gravel has an office here, either. I know at the time of Harkin's steak fry, neither were invited.

    by operculum on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:37:32 PM PDT

  •  No Gravel, either--and Barb's link down below

    explains this

    by begone on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:39:24 PM PDT

    •  Whatever the excuse, the real reason Gravel

      has been excluded ever since the interview with PBS on the News Hour has been what he said in that interview: AIPAC is/was behind the drumbeat pressing Congress on war with Iran.  Can't have any candidate say that kind of thing.

      Now they've found an excuse to exclude Kucinich too, because the anti-war and anti-Bush things he says make the other candidates look bad.

      by lysias on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:56:32 PM PDT

•  Kucinich Preparing 50-Page Bush Impeach Article

  Frustrating news.

  Admit it kossacks - he is the only real progressive in the race. If all those who agreed with him voted for him he would win.

  http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/...

  by forgore on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:17:42 PM PDT

  •  Thank you

    I'd laugh whenever I read things like "I really like Dennis's ideology, but I can't vote for him, because he's not going to win"--except idiocy just isn't funny when it comes to stuff like this.

    by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:23:00 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely

      If those who agreed with him would just vote for him instead of worrying about electability he'd freaking win.

      Huckabee's rise certainly shows the Republicans aren't thinking like that.

      by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:26:25 PM PDT

•  I think its an insult

  looks like the DLC and the corporate MSM has already decided who they want...they are rooting for either Obama or Hillary....they even fail to mention Edwards most of the time....we need another party....the other two stink and show no interest in a real Democracy.....that should be obvious...will we ever get to elect our own President again...?

  by chabuka on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:18:59 PM PDT

  •  What makes you think that the DLC wants Obama?

    by echatwa on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:35:09 PM PDT

    •  Oh I don't

      Think they want him in there at all, but Obama does have quite a few Big Money Backers, so he will have their push. However, from all I have seen in reports, many many many in the establishment do not want him at all.  Clinton will ensure them 4/8 more years of Bush.  So will Rudy. Obama, not so much :)

      My main problem with Obama is that he wants us to remain in Iraq indefinitely.
      It isn't an option.

      by OregonDonor on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:12:55 PM PDT

      •  Not true about Iraq

        Obama has stated that he will withdraw all combat troops in 16 months. Eventually, according to him, there will only be enough troops to guard the embassy, which is a normal function anyway. I don't see how he wants an indefinite presence in any way.

        by echatwa on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:23:44 PM PDT

  •  As long as BigMedia is allowed

    to trample all over us.  Here is an interesting site- please take a look at it, it is facinating.
    http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/...
    Why the Media Hates Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich

    1995 (Clinton) - Murdoch's Fox Network became the object of scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), when it was alleged that News Ltd.'s Australian base made Murdoch's ownership of Fox illegal. The FCC, however, ruled in Murdoch's favor, stating that his ownership of Fox was in the public's best interests. In the same year, Murdoch announced a deal with MCI Communications to develop a major news website, as well as funding a conservative magazine, The Weekly Standard. In the same year, News Corp. launched the Foxtel pay television network in Australia, in a partnership with Telstra.

    1996 (Clinton) - Murdoch chose to enter the world of cable news with the Fox News Channel, a 24-hour cable news station. Following its launch, the heavily-funded Fox News consistently eroded CNN's market share, and eventually proclaimed itself as "the most-watched cable news channel."

    1996 (Clinton) - The Walt Disney Company acquired Capital Cities/ABC, and renamed the broadcasting group ABC, Inc., although the network continues to also use American Broadcasting Companies, such as on TV productions it owns.

    1999 (Clinton) - Viacom made its biggest acquisition to date by announcing plans to buy its former parent CBS Corporation. The merger was approved in 2000, bringing cable channels TNN (now Spike TV) and Country Music Television (CMT) under Viacom's wing, as well as CBS's production units and TV syndicators Eyemark (formerly Group W) and King World. CBS's production unit and King World (which has since absorbed Eyemark) operated under their own names; however, TNN and CMT were merged into MTV Networks almost immediately.
    Is that argument that Reagan was so powerful that years after he was out of office, Clinton and the Democrats were so weak that they couldn't counter his influence? That seems to be the current mythology - that Clinton meant well, but he was ineffectual to do good in the world. People only want to believe that because it's easier to believe than the reality - that Bill Clinton is a ruthless, mean, competative SOB. Winning is important to him, and if he couldn't win doing something good, he'd find something he could win at; triumphing over poor single mothers, Iraqi children, outsourcing jobs overseas, turning criminal justice over to the prison industrial complex... the list goes on and on.

    by OregonDonor on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:09:57 PM PDT

•  Hip Hip

  Hoooraaayy!  Just follow the little green men, Dennis.

  by Prince Georges for Obama on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:19:08 PM PDT

  •  Get out troll...

    by chabuka on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:19:55 PM PDT

  •  He is a fine man

    ET's may well exist, and this was unpleasant. Surprised at the uprating as well.

    by anotherCt Dem on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:48:09 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      Valtin, Mehitabel9, NearlyNormal, NonnyO, Cali Techie, slowheels, Cassandra Waites, o the umanity, journalschism, Groucho Marxist, and forgore have no sense of humor.  Lighten up lol.

      by Prince Georges for Obama on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:51:57 AM PDT

  •  sometimes it may be better

    than following little green pieces of paper...

    by debedb on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:50:39 PM PDT

    •  Alway a 4 for an reference to Douglas Adams

      by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:55:26 PM PDT

  •  Hip Hip Hooray

    For the candidates that follow the little green paper bills... millions of them... from munition manufacturers, from big Pharm, from Big Oil, from Wall Street, from insurance companies, etc. etc.

    (snark, in case the congenitally concrete don't get it)

    by Valtin on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:08:35 PM PDT

•  Because He Dares to Fight the Status-Quo

  "The Iowa caucuses have been portrayed as having national implications, and if the Register has decided to use hair-splitting technicalities to exclude the leading voice of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, then the entire process is suspect," the campaign said in a statement about the "arbitrary and unreasonable exclusion."

  Give 'em Hell, Dennis.  

  by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:20:01 PM PDT

•  I think they're afraid of him

  Despite the MSM portrayal of Kucinich as kooky, he makes more sense than any of the others and he is certainly much more consistent on the issues at hand than the three front runners.

  by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:22:56 PM PDT

•  I support Edwards, but Kennis should be

  on the bill.  He has legitimate credentials that should be taken seriously by any truly "democratic" nomination process.  I hope this decision gets panned thoroughly and he is allowed to take part in this event.

  by NearlyNormal on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:23:02 PM PDT

•  I would really love to vote for Dennis

  because he has the most progressive platform.  But he's a terrible candidate.  It reminds me of John Connally.  The guy had so much on the ball.  But he was the worst candidate ever.

  Fred Thompson is running a close second.  

  by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:23:06 PM PDT

  •  What makes him the worst candidate? n/t

    by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:23:53 PM PDT

    •  You don't say you want to meet Ron Paul

      Ever.

      by journalschism on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:25:46 PM PDT

      •  Non Sequitur n/t

        by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:27:05 PM PDT

        •  that's all they have n/t

          by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:31:25 PM PDT

          •  Pathetic isn't it? n/t

            by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:37:02 PM PDT

            •  PATHETIC???

              I'll tell you what's "pathetic." Dennis Kucinich wanting to meet with a guy who espouses this bullshit.

              by journalschism on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:18:10 PM PDT

              •  Paul isn't interested

                So it's not going to happen.

                Non sequitur.

                by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:42:43 PM PDT

                •  Okaaaaay...THAT'S relevant

                  At least Paul has his priorities straight.

                  by journalschism on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:00:52 AM PDT

                  •  There's no association

                    Therefore your argument is a non-sequitur. Wanting to talk to or otherwise engage someone else is not an endorsement of that person's views. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy and you've fallen into it up to your neck.

                    by Cali Techie on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:36:15 PM PDT

          •  You don't say you want to meet with a man

            Who thinks that 85% of black men are born criminals.

            Is that better, a**hole???!?!?!

            by journalschism on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:47:05 PM PDT

            •  TR'd

              No need to call anyone a**hole.

              by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:46:34 PM PDT

              •  I called you an a**hole

                because you can't objectively look at your candidate.

                If any of the other candidates said they wouldn't mind meeting with a blatant racist, you'd be crying bloody foul! But I guess if it's Saint Dennis, it's okay. Hypocrite.

                Guess that's what you can expect from a guy so desperate for attention he gladly appears on Fox News as their resident dancing Dem monkey.

                by journalschism on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:06:05 AM PDT

                •  Unfortunately, though,

                  you TRd Calitechie in retaliation for his/her TR of your post. That is TR abuse, and is a violation of the rules.

                  by LynneK on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:02:23 AM PDT

                •  That's no reason to call anyone names

                  I can certainly look objectively at candidates, much more so than you appear to be doing. I have a system by which I'm choosing who gets my primary vote. I reward good behavior - when a candidate stands up to Fox News, takes a stand for the Constitution, submits articles of impeachment against Cheney, etc. that results in a donation from me to that candidate. So far those who have received donations from me are Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and Kucinich. The one who reaches into my pocket the most gets my vote.

                  You on the other hand want to go flying off the deep end calling people a**holes because they don't agree with the way you do guilt by association even if that association is fleeting. Hardly an objective stance if you ask me.

                  by Cali Techie on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:30:19 PM PDT

              •  Uprated to counteract TR abuse. n/t

                by sbdenmon on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:41:17 AM PDT

                •  In defense of racists

                  I've now seen it all on DKos.

                  by journalschism on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:38:08 AM PDT

                  •  Uh-huh.

                    Quit with the retaliatory TRs.

                    by sbdenmon on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:45:16 AM PDT

                    •  Stop defending racists

                      "Uh-huh" that.

                      by journalschism on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:59:18 AM PDT

                      •  Dude, you're off the rails at this point.

                        Log off and take a walk or something. If you keep claiming that I'm defending Ron Paul about anything, I'll start tossing donuts at you, myself.

                        by sbdenmon on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:39:21 AM PDT

                  •  No one is defending any racists

                    As I pointed out just because someone wants to engage someone doesn't constitute an endorsement of that person's views. You can't convince someone to change his/her mind without engaging him/her.

                    You keep going the direction you're going and pretty soon sharing the same planet will constitute an endorsement...

                    by Cali Techie on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:26:27 PM PDT

          •  I'm sorry, did I say 85%?

            I meant to say 95%!!!!!

            by journalschism on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:19:44 PM PDT

            •  Still a non-sequitur

              Paul isn't interested.

              by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:48:01 PM PDT

            •  And I'll add

              Being willing to talk to the guy doesn't mean it's an endorsement of any of his positions. Besides, how do you change people's minds if you're not willing to engage them?

              Also if Kucinich was really serious about Paul as a running mate there would have been talks between their campaigns instead of Paul's campaign dismissing it outright.

              It's a stretch to the point your outrage has a definite aroma of being manufactured.

              by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:34:37 PM PDT

              •  Oh please

                You don't change Ron Paul's ideas and that's NOT why Saint Dennis wants to meet with him.

                It's sad that it's the scumbag Paul that maintains the integrity of his party's ideals to dismiss Kucinich.

                by journalschism on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:12:56 AM PDT

                •  Whatever

                  Your outrage is manufactured out of thin air.

                  by Cali Techie on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:33:40 PM PDT

    •  Things he can't help - like the quality of his

      voice and his kind of ultra-dweeb appearance.  And things like being at Shirley Maclaine's for his child's christening, or something, when he saw the UFO?  

      Dennis Kucinich speaks with conviction but he has never been able to make people take him seriously as a candidate.  

      by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:26:00 PM PDT

      •  All superficial reasons

        Nothing about where he stands on the issues, only the narrative from the MSM.

        by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:27:49 PM PDT

        •  That's what I said.

          Things he can't help. But real things nonetheless.  But the question was, why did I think he was a terrible candidate -- not a bad person, or a bad thinker.  

          by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:29:34 PM PDT

          •  He's only a terrible candidate

            because the MSM has made him out that way. They don't want him to win because he represents real change. The fact people can't see beyond the MSM narrative is what is killing our country.

            by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:36:28 PM PDT

          •  perhaps relatively terrible?

            Frankly, there are requirement for a succesful Presidential run that do not apply to other offices.

            The hight under 5'8'' (my own) while totally adequate for my professional carrier is insufficient in Presidential politics -- unfair but true, although slight allowances can be made for women (5'6'' minimum?)

            Other lookist requirements have to be met too.

            Unless you are a war hero (like gen Eisenhower) three-syllable name is a no-no.  At least Kucinich is not as funny as Huckabee.  Obama has very short syllables, so he can squick-in, but he got some grief on the account of his name.

            Kennedy had a three-syllable name, but (a) he was a war hero, (b) he was much, much better looking than Nixon, (c) he barely won, in spite of (a) and (b).

            All and all, Kucinich should have a decent chance against Huckabee, he is looking as funny and has a funny name.  Guliani looks like Skeletor, has three syllables, but somehow he is a war hero.  Still, he is sinking.  Serious contenders are Thomson, very tall, two syllables, Romney, handsome, two syllables, McCain, 1.5 syllable, war hero, Paul, crazy like a bat, short but with one syllable.

            Once you have such a baggage, people start noticing that you have funny views on some things, like UFO.

            by Piotr on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:19:16 PM PDT

            •  You were doing great until that last word

              the letter U stands for "Unidentified".

              It's only baggage when people keep carrying it around.

              by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:27:35 PM PDT

            •  Well

              Of course the candidate must be:

              a)White
              b)Male

              So let's start with those two. Unfair? Yep, but that's how it goes.Right?

              by allmost liberal european on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:29:20 PM PDT

            •  Well, there's Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt,

              Roosevelt, Kennedy...

              Unless you are a war hero (like gen Eisenhower) three-syllable name is a no-no.

              Or did you mean four?

              by perro amarillo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:01:25 PM PDT

      •  That's because the Popularity Crowd

        dismisses him out-of-hand.

        Kucinich speaks with conviction because he believes in what he says. People with real principles tend to do that...

        by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:28:17 PM PDT

        •  For goodness sake's

          It wouldn't cost that much to rent an office for two months in Iowa.  He doesn't have that much money, but he could do the minimum and show he is serious.  Probably $5,000 would give him an office and a field worker for two months.  

          He has to have SOME strategy if he is serious.

          by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:39:13 PM PDT

          •  "Serious Strategy" has nothing to do with this

            what it has to do with is more arbitrary exclusion of certain candidates by those who really should know better.

            by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:45:46 PM PDT

      •  yeah, he speaks with conviction

        unfortunately, some of those convictions ...

        Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends, to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: one with the universe; whole and holy; from one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental; we -- the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

        perhaps fine for some of y'all

        but America ain't ready for this

        by wystler on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:59:06 PM PDT

        •  That's one of the reasons

          a President has a "Press Secretary", is it not?

          by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:00:26 PM PDT

        •  America ain't ready for the recently discovered

          ...magnetic "ropes" that bind the earth and the sun, either, but they exist... today we are awash in a solar wind stream flowing from a coronal hole.

          we are connected to - that universe thing. And we have a common origin, us and it.

          Find love - try. Really.

          by ImpeccableLiberalCredentials on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:18:57 PM PDT

        •  How's that any different from

          God told me to invade Iraq?

          by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:45:09 PM PDT

        •  Wow I am impressed

          Dennis has taken the hell fire and brimstone written in texts like say The Bible and created poetry of his own.

          "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

          Yeah, we don't need any of those dirty hippie artsy fartsy types, they suck, please give us the hellfire and brimstoners only thank you. :) Atheists and Agnostics eat that shit up. :)

          by OregonDonor on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:50:40 PM PDT

          •  UserID#143253

            your Republican stripes are showing:

            Yeah, we don't need any of those dirty hippie artsy fartsy types, they suck, please give us the hellfire and brimstoners only thank you. :) Atheists and Agnostics eat that shit up. :)

            So you have a problem with nonbelievers too?

            I think you missed the Ron Paul exit, stage right.

            by tecampbell on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:48:03 PM PDT

            •  Since you got me nutted

              I will respond again.
              I am an agnostic, borderline atheist. How in the HELL could any "God" put us through this hell we are in and the hell we refuse to walk out of? How could he let that happen?
              
              The post was a snark. I am WELL aware that Dennis is very poetic and linguistic and has a lot of creative talent. This is exactly what makes him so absolutely unique and special, and very important. History will look upon this man with much much admiration and respect. Mark my words. It will be the ones who didn't listen to him and his message that will look foolish.
              He is one of the only good Democrats left in this crumbling party.
              Save yourself. Please. Stop trying to shut us up.

              by OregonDonor on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:11:04 AM PDT

              •  You

                were 'nutted' long before I got to this diary, you 'nut'.

                You just added insult to injury with me.

                This is officially the last thing I say to you tonight.

                Feh.

                by tecampbell on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:28:12 AM PDT

      •  Jimmy Carter claims to...

        ..have also seen a UFO.

        by InStride on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:44:33 PM PDT

        •  No, he doesn't.

          by brenda on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:20:21 AM PDT

          •  i know it is late and no one is here

            to read this, but thank you for killing this canard.

            by ETinKC on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:41:17 AM PDT

      •  I take him seriously

        by Cheney on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:55:09 PM PDT

  •  We'd all be a lot better off

    if people would stop basing their votes on the quality of a candidates "candidacy" and start basing their votes on the issues.  "Kucinich isn't electable!" you say, over and over and over again, and then when he gets low numbers or gets booted from a debate or otherwise treated as irrelevant, you say "It's not my fault!  I'm just sayin', is all!"

    You are helping to create our collective reality.  So, thanks for that.  Except, you know, not.

    by Mehitabel9 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:48:05 PM PDT

    •  It has been ever thus.

      If you think the American people are going to suddenly start voting on the issues, I'm afraid you're dreaming.

      But I wish you well anyway.

      If someone with the candidate qualities of, say, Edwards, were giving voice to Kucinich's platform, I do believe he'd be doing better than 2 percent.

      by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:51:21 PM PDT

      •  So it is said

        If you think the American people are going to continue falling for downright K Street-worthy spin, I'm afraid you're dreaming.

        You must be at risk of having to find other gainful employment, were the current status-quo to actually change...

        by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:59:17 PM PDT

        •  O

          perish the thought.  I havent been gainfully employed in many, many years.

          by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:09:23 PM PDT

      •  You're one of the American people, aren't you?

        It's never too soon to lead by example rather than just following the herd.

        by Mehitabel9 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:08:12 PM PDT

        •  Again, I'm not to blame for

          Dennis Kucinich's shortcomings as a candidate.  With such a great progressive agenda, he should be doing better.

          by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:10:08 PM PDT

          •  You haven't paid attention to

            anything I've said.

            That was five minutes of my life I'll never get back.

            by Mehitabel9 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:11:03 PM PDT

            •  Certainly I have. But it seems you want me

              to choose my candidate based entirely on what he thinks.  Not on the whole package, including personality.  Superficial or not, these are real considerations and people do not just vote their intellectual agendas.  See the non election of Adlai Stevenson, twice.  Voting strictly on positions without regard for other qualities of a candidate has never been done, not ever, not in any American presidential election.  But you seem to want to blame me for pointing it out!

              So sorry to waste your 5 min.

              by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:14:25 PM PDT

              •  You sound like Katie Couric.

                "People" do this and "people" say that.

                YOU have the choice to vote for someone who champions a progressive agenda and whom has given us every reason to believe that he'd actually deliver on that agenda if elected.  Make of that choice what you will, and if you decide to vote for someone else because you don't think Kucinich is an appealing enough candidate, then OWN your fucking choice and stop blaming it on others.

                by Mehitabel9 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:18:45 PM PDT

                •  Yes

                  sir!

                  by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:22:29 PM PDT

                  •  Ma'am.

                    Now drop and give me twenty, maggot.

                    by Mehitabel9 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:27:56 PM PDT

                    •  Um,

                      I'm sticking with "sir," sir!

                      by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:32:42 PM PDT

          •  He is doing better than is reported in the media

            He is doing better than is reported in the media you choose to consume - winning the DFA pulse poll, the Progressive Democrats of America poll, winning a straw poll on Minnesota's Iron Range while still pulling 15-16% with cynical DFL party regulars in sinful, consumeristic, disco-crazed Minneapolis, where only Obama his visible offices, staff and organization.

            He might win this state.

            by ImpeccableLiberalCredentials on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:23:00 PM PDT

            •  can you imagine????

              the polls being shown to be the sham they seem to be????

              by jj24 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:35:48 PM PDT

  •  Like Al Gore was seen as a Terrible Candidate?

    People noted his monotone voice, his wonky speaking style, etc.  

    "Lockbox."

    Need I say more?

    Perception changes, and perceptions can be changed.  What remains solid is the right stance on the right issues (Kucinich has it!), commitment to doing what's right (look at Kucinich's voting record), and the vision to lead for the long term (read what he's got to say about long-term possibilities for energy policy, peace, poverty, etc.).

    by MsSpentyouth on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:27:24 AM PDT

•  Damned near everyone..

  ..I've talked to agrees with Kucinich's plans, but because he's "unelectable", he's forgotten.  People only want to vote for those who are popular, nevermind if they like what they're saying or doing.

  I'm kind of tired of the people who bring up the UFO thing as grounds that he's mentally instable.  I've seen shit I can't explain.  I've even seen shit in the sky that I couldn't explain, so I guess I've seen a UFO too.  That might not mean that Kucinich is unstable (as I've been called a crazy f*cker from time to time), but it does prove that along with his platform and beliefs, he is enough like me that I will support him.

  by nomadchad on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:25:25 PM PDT

  •  The question is, if you had seen something

    in the sky that you didn't understand, and you were thinking of running for President, would you tell everyone, including Shirley Maclaine, about it?  

    There are some things you just don't do or say if you want to be taken seriously in our society.  "I saw a UFO" is not on the good list.

    by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:28:43 PM PDT

    •  Sure why not?

      Openness is a good thing.

      by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:29:26 PM PDT

      •  Then you,

        like I,

        will never be elected President.

        by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:30:24 PM PDT

        •  So what?

          Why can't we vote for our values instead of superficiality? Our failure to do so is what is causing the downfall of our democracy.

          by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:31:50 PM PDT

          •  Look, it's not my fault that Dennis

            is at 1 percent or 2 percent in the polls.  Don't blame me.  I was just pointing out a few reasons why.

            by Kevvboy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:35:39 PM PDT

            •  No one is blaming you

              we're blaming the Corporate Media, who, by the way, is sponsoring this un-Constitutional joke of a debate.

              by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:47:23 PM PDT

            •  Not your fault

              except to the extent that you buy into it and won't vote for him because of it if that is indeed the case.

              by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:32:23 PM PDT

    •  in your opinion n/t

      by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:30:34 PM PDT

    •  blah fucking blah.

      don't be an asshole.  other pres's have claimed it - if you can't see that this is media slanting toward making him appear to be mentally unstable, or you're willing to perpetuate it anyway, then you have problems of your own.

      by jj24 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:38:01 PM PDT

    •  I did...

      ...tell anyone who would listen.  At the end, my friends and I stood around pointing at it and saying, Whut thahell is that?

      by nomadchad on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:00:05 PM PDT

•  The fact we hear so little of his positions

  and he is ignored by the MSM means only one things -- they dare not support him campaigne because we might all vote for the guy who wants National Health Care and an end to our troops fighting in Iraq and a Department of Peace.  Oh, and that impeachment.  Last time he ran it was the same story.  Democratic Party even distances itself from Dennis.  I am suprised he does not have the support of Marcos, since this site wants democrats elected.  Most citizens also want national health care, troops out of Iraq, and peace.

  by Silverbird on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:26:51 PM PDT

•  I support including Kucinich 100%.

  He's probably polling no worse then Dodd, nationally. He polls as well as HRC here, an important segment of the Democratic side of the politics. There is no way that is justified. Kucinich should raise hell over this.

  by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:27:47 PM PDT

  •  Sure why not include him

    I think he adds something to the debate.

    Unlike Gravel who I have become seriously allergic to.

    by mattinjersey on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:29:39 PM PDT

  •  I also believe he should be there

    although I am supporting Obama.  I believe all candidates should have an opportunity to speak on their positions to a national audience.

    I definitely admire Dennis for his candor and integrity, but being the President involves much more than this.

    To be an effective president, you must be a natural leader and strong in your convictions.  I'm sorry, but with his persona, it's hard to get behind and follow him.

    by rockwilder on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:36:20 PM PDT

•  FWIW

  Why is Keyes debating, while Kucinich and Gravel are not at tomorrow's Democratic debate? According to Iowa Public Television spokeswoman Jennifer Glover Konfrst, Keyes met the criteria to participate; Kucinich and Gravel did not.

  The criteria include: 1) an FEC statement of candidacy; 2) having an Iowa campaign staffer and Iowa campaign office as of October 1; and 3) registering at least at 1% in the October Des Moines Register poll.

  link

  by BarbinMD on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:30:47 PM PDT

  •  The sole criteria of things like this

    needs to be:

    Are you a lawful candidate for the Democratic Party of President of the United States of America?

    No more. No less.

    by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:33:24 PM PDT

    •  Thats so easy

      so straight forward ,
      understandable .
      Can't have that now can we ?

      by indycam on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:43:49 PM PDT

    •  that's silly

      Look, I think the reasons given for excluding DK are ridiculous, but a private entity like the Register can invite or not invite whomever they want--it's their dime.

      I don't see why they should be obliged to provide a platform for the many vanity candidacies out there--I'm not counting DK by the way, but I do count Alan Keyes and Mike Gravel.  

      by Hprof on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:46:42 PM PDT

      •  This is NOT about "public" vs "private"

        If the Des Moines Register is going to pump themselves up as The News Organization Sponsoring a Great Presidential Debate, then they need to include all the lawful candidates, period.

        If they don't have the means or motivation to provide a platform to ALL of the lawful candidates, then they have no business hosting or sponsoring this event.

        by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:52:03 PM PDT

        •  Based on

          If the Des Moines Register is going to pump themselves up as The News Organization Sponsoring a Great Presidential Debate, then they need to include all the lawful candidates, period.

          what statute, FEC rule, FCC mandate, what?

          In every Presidential election, there are dozens of candidates. Porn stars, cat ladies, militia nuts, you name it. The Register has every right under law to throw out those candidates it deems unserious, and Dennis Kucinich, without even an office in Iowa, is unserious.

          He ran a semi-real campaign in 2004, not that anyone really cared. This time around, all he's doing is showing up at the debates. Fine, then throw him out of the debates and force him to work for it.

          by MBNYC on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:59:43 PM PDT

          •  Is Kucinich legally on the ballot?

            That is the law that matters for the purpose of this discussion.

            If a campaign donation is "protected speech" then how a campaign spends those donations should not be grounds for arbitrary exclusion from a forum that helps bring that message to The People.

            I also find it laughable that the so-called sponsor is supposed to be an arbiter of the Public Trust. What a joke!

            by o the umanity on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:09:37 PM PDT

            •  Fine.

              Then let Dennis bring a suit at law.

              Oh, that's right, there's no supportive case law and he's broke. Maybe the local public defender can handle it until he gets laughed out of court.

              And meanwhile, the rest of the country can listen to a debate with candidates that have not considered Ron Paul as a running mate. Me, I'm looking forward to it. No Gravel, no Kucinich - just real, actual Democrats who are actually running for President.

              No, thank you, Des Moines Register. I'll make sure to watch this time.

              by MBNYC on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:32:41 PM PDT

            •  Getting on the primary ballots legally is

              different state by state and the criteria often includes a fee which can range up to $35,000 (South Carolina Republican primary). The criteria is determined by the parties.

              It is not unusual for campaigns with limited funds to pick and choose which states they file in.

              By your argument, such candidates are arbitrarily excluded from those states because of how they spend their donations.

              by Over the Edge on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:41:08 PM PDT

        •  All the lawful candidates?

          Do you have any idea how many candidates there are out there you've never heard of?  Most of them totally nuts?  If all the candidates were on the stage, they wouldn't get much past introducing them all.

          by MissLaura on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:48:37 PM PDT

      •  It is not their dime