We All Lost Last Night

I realize this is a competition for the Democratic nomination, but I am very disappointed in the three candidates in the debate last night.  They had an opportunity express what democracy is all about and why it is the best form of government we have these days and they didn’t.


I’m referring to their silence on the subject of excluding Dennis Kucinich from the debate  last night.  Yes Kucinich makes them look bad at times and yes he is not doing well in the polls, but he is a legal, viable candidate in this race.  He has many ideas that are in tune with the democratic party as well as the American people as a whole.  By excluding him from the debate last night, the American people lost a chance to hear another set of ideas and compare and contrast them with the three sets that were on display.

This hurts democracy and I think it would have served the candidates well last night to acknowledge that.  They all have to know that Kucinich does not prove to be viable threat to any of them in the election process, and while they might view him as a nuisance, that should not stop their support for his right to be heard.  So far I have liked the way the candidates have been cordial to him on the stage and listened and debated with him in professional manner (as opposed to the republican’s handling of Ron Paul).  But I think they could have done themselves and the Democratic party good by addressing this form of censorship.

In order for democracy to be most of effective, there needs to be a large arena of ideas shared and the strongest one emerge.  When voices are silenced and ideas censored, final decisions are weakened. The Bush administration is lesson #1 in this as they have eliminated all “outside their box” voices until the only conclusions are unsubstantiated and disastrous.

I don’t think the consequences to the democrats is overly great, but I think they missed an opportunity to show the country that they welcome debate and resolution.  They aren’t afraid of a voice that might be different from their own, because their principles are strong enough to withstand the challenge.  Without dissent and discussion democracy loses.

•  He'd have wasted his time attacking Edwards

  period.

  by Salo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:49:30 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    I like Kucinich and he's had a fair chance to voice his positions, but the reality is the nominating process is really getting serious and he's just not a viable candidate. It's paring down and zeroing in time now.

    by phoenixdreamz on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:55:11 AM PDT

    •  Viability...

      Must extend to those who have single digit percentages.

      If this is not the case, then the term loses all practical meaning. Give the nature of primary politics, anyone who meets a stricter criteria than that is more or less tied for first place anyway.

      Compound this with the media's propensity to fabricate frontrunners where no support exists (easier to see on the republican side this year, but easy enough to see in both just recently), and you're setting yourself up to only be able to choose from two options of the "same as always" bullshit.

      Kucinch isn't some kook that's getting 5 votes statewide, 3% of a state means tens of thousands of supporters, even millions across the country as a whole.

      Given the nature of debate venues, they affect viability a thousand times more than they measure it.

      by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:56:40 PM PDT

  •  While I agree that Kucinich would have

    attacked Edwards, and I am an Edwards supporter, I was concerned that he was left out of the debate.  My complaint as an Edwards supporter has been that the media has blacked him out.  I can't fairly complain about that and also approve of the exclusion of Kucinich, who I agree with you is questionable in his motives.  But Edwards is a fighter, he could take on the Keebler elf.  

    by ceenatoli on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:59:52 AM PDT

    •  that is my point

      Thank you for seeing it

      by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:04:36 PM PDT

•  Wow, hard to take you seriously about this

  I thought our candidates all did a great job, and made the Republican contenders look like a bunch of juvenile pretenders by comparison.

  by phoenixdreamz on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:50:45 AM PDT

  •  well, not all

    Unless you saw Kucinich debating himself in a laundromat and thought he also did a good job.

    by Marcion on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:52:38 AM PDT

    •  I was at the laundromat

      and Kucinich had an off night.

      by Mia Dolan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:10:32 PM PDT

      •  did some bullies put him in a dryer?

        by memofromturner on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:30:01 PM PDT

  •  I agree the candidates

    on the stage were great!  I'll vote for any of them, I just thought that democracy would have benefited from having Kucinich there.  he is a candidate.

    by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM PDT

    •  a candidate with 2 or 3% support in his own party

      That's no longer a viable candidacy.  He had his shot at building support in the summer. It didn't happen, for whatever reasons.  NBC was wrong IMO to extend the invitation in the first place, but I will say they shouldn't have rescinded it.  In that, I think you're correct. But, it was rescinded and we ended up with a good debate that even managed to piss off the network that hosted it (not enough contention and fireworks).  I like that.

      by dougymi on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:00:38 PM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    Why does anyone who can get only a few percent of voters in real elections, not polls, have a "right" to participate.

    He has been in more than a dozen debates prior to this; he drew little support.  At some point, it is legitimate to say "time up".

    by seeker on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:55:42 AM PDT

    •  How about we apply this to Edwards too

      What's he thinking, he doesn't have a shot, right?

      by Marcion on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:11:16 PM PDT

      •  Edwards is getting well above 10%

        of real wotes, and shows the possibility of getting more.

        Dennis is stuck in the low single digits and going nowhere.  Big difference.

        by seeker on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:40:21 PM PDT

        •  I agwee

          by hormiguero on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:56:30 PM PDT

      •  At 27% in Nevada, statistically equal to Clinton

        & Obama, Edwards is competitive by any rational measure except that of other candidates' enthusiasts.

        by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:24:03 PM PDT

    •  do you think NBC should make that call?

      by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM PDT

      •  Was it NBC or

        the various sponsors?  I do not know.

        by seeker on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:41:21 PM PDT

•  Wow! I Think You Are Seriously Mistaken...

  ...or a Republican!

  Purity troll or concern trolls all look the same to me because they have the same effect...

  I hope you are just having a bad day.

  Get better soon!

  by InquisitiveRaven on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM PDT

  •  I am fucking sick

    of being called a troll on this site.  

    by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM PDT

    •  What's Kucinich polling at in Nevada?

      by JeffLieber on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:56:51 AM PDT

    •  I can understand

      your frustration but most of us have a problem with the idea that Kucinich being left out of the debate is an outrage or a loss for America.  Look at this quote from your diary.

      Yes Kucinich makes them look bad at times and yes he is not doing well in the polls, but he is a legal, viable candidate in this race.

      The problem is, while he is a legal candidate, he is not a viable one.  He has yet to win a pledged delegate in the first two races. He polls in the low single digits everywhere.  He has no significant fundraising to speak of.  Those all point to the fact he is not viable.

      There are only three viable candidates left in the field, HC, BO and JE.  

      The purity troll charge has a bit of reason to it.  Clearly you believe your position is more pure than the rest of us who believe the debate decision last night was fair and reasonable.  Dennis Kucinich has had numerous opportunities to bring his message and beliefs to the American people as the process began about a year ago.  He failed to win many converts.

      We shouldn't be crying now that he has been removed from the discourse.  We as Democrats lose if we lose focus on who can win this thing.  

      by Nick A on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:52:11 PM PDT

      •  I don't think any kind of troll applys here

        I have argued my point as best I can because I do believe that the more voices, the better.  Perhaps the debate was better without him, perhaps it allowed certain policies not to get challeged. I don't think I was crying, but I thought it deserved a bit of recognition.

        by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:31:33 PM PDT

•  I don't agree, I think

  Dennis Kucinich, while he is well-intentioned, comes across as just too far out there.  I don't see it as censorhip either.  At some point, the field has to be narrowed in order to allow candidates more time to talk.  I don't see what is gained by Kucinich being in attack mode.  I found the debate to be substantive (well, more so than any other I've watched in recent history) because it seemed candidates had time to answer, and the three of them looked so much more impressive than anything the Rethugs have going.

  by Cat Whisperer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:53:40 AM PDT

  •  Also,..

    Kucinich has repeatedly ran for President and his name-ID is well-known to the American public.  He has had many chances to expand his base, spread his message and sell his brand.  It seems to me that the amount of his support from the electorate/public decreases everytime he runs for POTUS.  His image is that of the creepy 30 year old football player that keeps returning to the annual hometown high school Home Coming dance in hopes of finally being crowned King!

    I have taken several of those "Whose Your Candidate?" polls and he consistently pops up as #1 or #1 on my list.  However, he hasn't proved himself viable.  If you don't MAKE any news (i.e., big fundraising totals, large crowds, goundbreaking legistlation, leadership, etc.) you aren't going to be IN the news (for the most part).

    His presence at last night's debate would have done nothing but take away from the time of the candidates that actually have a chance.  He's ran for President 3 times and he's never won a primary, let alone a district.

    It's time for him to move on...Sorry, but that is what I believe.

    by kipzoo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM PDT

•  I agree with one thing

  When voices are silenced and ideas censored, final decisions are weakened.

  However, the level of interest voters have shown in Kucinich means that their voices have not been silenced, but rather heard.

  He's just not going to be president, I know that's hard for some people to swallow but it's a fact. Move on.  

  by BoiseBlue on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:54:44 AM PDT

  •  that was my point

    he is not a threat to the candidates in anyway, but they should support his right to be heard.  This is America and he is a candidate.

    by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:56:26 AM PDT

    •  Can I get on the debate as well?

      Seriously? Why does he deserve to be there?

      by JeffLieber on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM PDT

      •  he's on the ballot

        if you were on the ballot, i'd support your right to be there, even if you weren't polling well.

        by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM PDT

        •  There were a lot of diaries about this yesterday

          You can go to those to find the list of people who are actually on the ballot.  It's a really long list.  You may want to reconsider supporting every person on the ballot being involved in a debate.

          by BoiseBlue on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM PDT

          •  no i shouldn't

            this is a representative democracy...if they can get themselves on the ballot, they should ve heard.

            by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM PDT

        •  You know how many people are on the...

          ...Nevada ballot?

          by JeffLieber on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM PDT

        •  Take a look at the "other candidates" named...

          ...on this list.  Every single one of them is on the ballot somewhere.  Does every single one of them deserve a lectern/chair at every single debate?

          Clearly the three front-runners are afraid of Lee Mercer.

          by mistersite on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:27:40 PM PDT

    •  There are a lot of candidates

      But only three viable ones.

      I don't see why the other candidates should have stepped in for him, either. And I don't think this is in any way a statement of the ills of our democracy. You have to watch the Republican debate to see those statements.

      by BoiseBlue on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:00:33 PM PDT

      •  I think when a corporation

        can exclude someone from a debate it does speak of the ills of our democracy.  And most of the republican talking points as well.

        by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM PDT

    •  what about the other 20

        or so candidates in NH? They are just as American, did they have a right to be on stage next to Obama, Edwards Clinton and Richardson?

      by usmeagle69 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:43:21 PM PDT

  •  He arguably harms the party

    by going on Fox News and chatting it up with extreme nutjobs like Neil Cavuto.

    And he defended Fox during the CBC debate fiasco.
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

    I agree in principle with Kucinich's views. I also agree in principle with the views of the "Don't tase me bro" guy, and all the other people who get up at the end of a lecture to ask a question in the form of a long rambling speech. That doesn't mean I find any of them less annoying.

    by sxp151 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM PDT

•  LOL.

  Last night, for the first time, we had a very enlightening and thoughtful debate revealing the overwhelming competence of the Democratic candidates on all the issues.

  I firmly believe that is because Dennis was not there.

  by Delaware Dem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM PDT

  •  he wasn't in the last one was he?

    by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:03:33 PM PDT

  •  Seriously.

    The diarist made a good point here:

    In order for democracy to be most of effective, there needs to be a large arena of ideas shared and the strongest one emerge.

    Kucinich entered the arena of ideas over the last year, and was resoundingly defeated.  See you in 2015, Dennis.

    by Pegasus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:14:18 PM PDT

    •  2015?

      You really think he won't try to primary President Obama or President Clinton in 2012?

      by mistersite on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM PDT

      •  I guess that'd get his face on TV.

        And that does seem to be his major goal every four years.

        by Pegasus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM PDT

    •  comparing Kucinich and Paul

      Ron Paul has fought his way into more of the Repug mainstream, on the basis of his message and voter base.

      Kucinich hasn't done this, because - really - nearly all democrats don't time wasted on a 'department of peace.'

      He has had his time, and he's down to a few percent at best.  Edwards has way more support than Kucinich, and is pulling in nearly 10 million dollars of federal matching funds.  So, it'd be a waste of our own money to kick him out.

      by hormiguero on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:00:46 PM PDT

•  The debate worked better, structurally...

  ...with three candidates than with 4.  Having said that, Kucinich certainly would have been a different perspective, and he would probably have questioned the ridiculous premises of the moderators' questions, which the others failed to do.  But Kucinich was included in earlier debates, and he didn't get more than trace amounts of support.  To suggest that he has a claim on being in debates until he formally leaves the race seems excessive to me, and would certainly create a precedent for people staying in the primaries solely to have a spot on debates for whatever reason.

  by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM PDT

•  ROTC question

  Their answers to the ROTC question is my loser of the night.  Aside from the discrimination against gays issue, universities should not be required to sponsor militarism on campus in order to get federal aid.

  by Paleo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:02:24 PM PDT

  •  exactly! you would have thought somebody would

    have made mrs clinton defend something like don't ask don't tell from the first two terms of her presidency. mr obama should have been asked what plans he had for 92,000 more soldiers & marines, especially since he says he'll pull the 140,000 that are in iraq out. i would like to know how a health care plan that subsidizes insurance companies fits into mr edwards plans to do battle with them. there are quite a few questions that didn't get asked & answers that weren't questioned last night, do you really expect tim russert to ask them?

    by rasbobbo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:44:25 PM PDT

•  I appreciated

  the chance for the three candidates with an actual chance of winning the nomination to present their views side by side.  Kucinich, while he might be technically right on some of the issues, has been unable to obtain enough support in any venue or among any substantial constituency to even remotely be considered a viable candidate.

  Kucinich's role now is to act as a spoiler, to antagonize and interrupt.  While I respect his take on some issuues, at some point it is hard to completely separate the personality from the positions.  While Kucinich may have some interesting ideas, his personality is really quite flawed, in my opinion and it seems in the opinion of 98% of the democratic voters out there.  He's taking the role of a child in all this, and it's not just an embarrassing thing to see, but it's bad politics.

  I'm glad we had a good solid substantive debate between three good candidates, without a petulant, childish spoiler vying for undeserved attention.  

  by ivorybill on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:02:30 PM PDT

•  I got to know Edwards last night

  specifically because he was the only one sharing the stage with the two "frontrunners," for lack of a more precise term.

  I was glad to get to know him better.

  by Jim J on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM PDT

•  yawn...

  Episode #3845 of the seemingly never-ending series "Dennis is a serious candidate for president".

  It flopped in the ratings four years ago, and it's even more of a flop this year.

  by N in Seattle on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:07:45 PM PDT

  •  this is also true for Edwards

    Speaking about flops from four years ago, when can we get rid of Edwards too and get rid of this pretense of open primaries once and for all?

    by Marcion on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:13:50 PM PDT

    •  No comparison.

      There's no comparison between the two.  Did Kucinich come in second in Iowa?

      by qwerty on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:36:46 PM PDT

      •  Are they both going to lose the primaries?

        Since we are now deciding who is irrelevant based on subjective opinions regarding who is going to win the primaries, I don't see why we can't discount Edwards, after all, everybody but the blogosphere already has.
        I'm not dissing Edwards, I'm just pointing out that weeding out hopeless candidates is an inherently subjective and unscientific approach that ends up allowing only those the media is interested in on TV.

        by Marcion on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:50:13 PM PDT

        •  I don't know that Edwards is out yet--

          We've had three states so far-- and he wasn't on the ballot in one.  I have to say, it's highly unlikely I would vote for Edwards in the primary, but top three is a respectful place to be, second in Iowa was highly respectable.  There's a HUGE difference between the kind of numbers Dennis gets and Edwards' numbers.

          by qwerty on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:57:36 PM PDT

        •  That's also part of the point

          I don't think that NBC should get to make the call, if the DNC wants to make the call, then fine, but what if were to keep Edwards out if he comes in third in Nevada and South Carolina?

          by mos1133 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:33:53 PM PDT

•  That's not true.

  Mike Gravel won last night, because not one of the other candidates was on his lawn.  He's been trying to get them the hell off his lawn for a year now, and they finally paid attention.

  by mistersite on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:24:28 PM PDT

•  Well I for one think that it is alright to

  exclude him from the debate based upon the actual vote returns, which show that he hasn't garnered 5% or more in any of the states in which he has competed.  I understand that we do need more voices and all of that, but at the same time, these folks who get the debates setup have to draw the line some where don't they?

  I mean according to Politics1 there are at least 26 people who are running for President.  Should we require people who put together these debates allow all 26 people to debate on the same stage?  I guess that would give each of them about 5 seconds to answer questions posed to them.

  So on this issue, I guess we must disagree.

  by bhouston79 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:35:07 PM PDT

•  This is Just Nonsense

  He was excluded because he has zero chance of winning, and including him would have done nothing but taken up time that the remaining legitimate candidates could use answering questions.

  by TooFolkGR on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM PDT

•  He is a legal candidate

    much like the other 20 something people on the ballot in NH.

    He is hardly a viable candidate. The man can't get 5% of the vote just among Democrats. He's not viable...at all.

  by usmeagle69 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:41:02 PM PDT

•  Without Dennis

  all the candidates agree on keeping our troops in Iraq - this is bad for the party and the country.

  But actually he joined the debate this morning:

  http://www.democracynow.org/...

  by forgore on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM PDT

•  Kucinich is a bomb thrower

  I was a Dean delegate in 04, and got a few Dean voters to switch to DK so his people had the 15% threshold, because I wanted his voice to be heard.
                                        but..he is now simply lobbing bombs at whoever he can get votes from--Edwards--who is THE LAST of the 3 he should be attacking.  DK just seems to want to play the Pat Paulson role in the Party.

  by Zacapoet on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:54:42 PM PDT