Democratic losers keep talking but fail to answer big question: why?

[T_i_B]

Article about Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Dennis Kucinich. Make of this article what you will.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=479765

Three candidates who do not matter, running in a primary that does not matter, held a debate in Washington DC yesterday. They offered plenty of policy prescriptions, but not an answer to the real question: why are they competing for a Democratic presidential nomination they cannot win?

For America's political insiders, The Rev Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Dennis Kucinich are little more than irritants, demanding time at debates and space on news pages that would be better devoted to the six "serious" contenders with a genuine chance of victory. Apart from Mr Kucinich, they have not raised significant money. With the exception of the Mr Sharpton in South Carolina, their support is negligible. Yet they further clutter a field that, even limited to six, would be tangled enough. Their appearance at George Washington University was a symbol of their marginal status. In fact, it is the District of Colombia, not Iowa or New Hampshire, which is holding the first primary on 13 January.

The debate, devised to press the campaign for DC statehood, was been shunned by the Big Six, five of whom have even removed their name from the ballot. The primary is also non-binding, meaning that no actual delegates will be chosen for July's Democratic convention in Boston.

But, in separate ways, each of the three has a subtle influence on the campaign, and each has good reason to pursue their quest to a probably little noticed end. Indeed, low expectations and shoestring field operations mean they will probably survive longer than bigger fish such as Richard Gephardt, Joe Lieberman or John Kerry, for whom defeat in the early primaries would be financially disastrous.

[ClintonTyree]

1. I believe....................

that it's important for us to hear what these people have to say. Like they say, the Democratic Party is a "big tent" and these people represent a faction of our Party. To silence them prematurely would be a travesty, each individual nominee has a vision for America and that vision is important when hammering out a Democratic plank at the convention.
The herd will thin out soon enough. After Iowa and New Hampshire I believe that the attrition rate will cull out the also rans, but to say they should disappear before then, before one vote has been cast, is idiotic. Let them have their moment in the sun. They achieved the qualifications to be on the ballot to begin with, let them ride the crest of even their smallest wave.

[jujube2]

2. I've never understood why the two black candidates have been dismissed

from the very start. It's as if they already had it out for them.

[bearfartinthewoods]

3. in Al's case, it's because of his previous activities,

i love listening to him but he screwed his future with the brawley affair. and CMB also made some real errors that have handicapped her.
don't forget, DK has been dismissed as well and he isn't black. what he shares with the other two is a really let view and it's that position on the political spectrum that has marginalized them all.

[Cheswick2.0]

6. Bear you don't know what you are talking about with CMB

When Braun ran her last race she faced an opponent who consulted with Karl Rove. She was victim of a Rove smear campaign. She has been cleared of all charges of misdoing. I am sure people have posted the information for you to see before. I have no idea why you insist on continuing with your constant insistance that she did something wrong. Her big crime was being an actual threat to the right as opposed to the candidates you seem to like who suck up to the right and aspire to be more like them.

[T_i_B]

7. From what I read in the UK press

Howard Dean has stolen a lot of the attention and momentum from the Rev Al, CMB and Dennis Kucinich. It does annoy me when the press describes Dean as the left wing candidate as there are bigger lefties in your primary and Dean is does not appear to me to be as liberal as a lot of people make him out to be.

That said I do like Dean, and as for the three candidates in question, they do ensure that you lot have a wide range of candidates in your primary. Even if I don't agree with the likes of Kucinich on at lot of things that variety is good to have.

[Iverson]

4. It's an amazing coincidence, surely.

Same thing with liberal candidates.

I see that no one has commented yet on the way that the article was framed. That's a clue for you: people accept that they don't matter, and on a discussion board with a solid majority of Democrats, it passes without much notice.

[tedoll78]

5. They're all winners in my book.

They each bring something good to the table.

[ShimokitaJer]

8. This article borders on the offensive

The gist of it: These candidates were never contenders and their participation in a meaningless primary shows how little relevance they have

Conspicuously absent from the article is any mention of the issue of DC statehood itself, on of the largest injustices in the country. Some DC license plates read "taxation without representation" because DC residents, without voting representation in Congress, literally have no one to represent their interests on a national level. They are at our mercy.

And why isn't DC a state? Sure it's small, but its population is close to that of Vermont or North Dakota, and larger than that of Wyoming. The truth is that it isn't a state primarily because DC is strongly Democratic, and the Republicans certainly don't want two more Democratic Senators around. They are willing to allow DC voters to continue to be disenfranchised purely for political advantage. For the party that stole the election in Florida, this should come as no surprise, but shouldn't this be a hot issue for the Democrats? Apparently not. The DNC has advised the Democratic nominees NOT to have their name on the ballots and ACTIVELY discouraged local DC Dems from getting the vote out in the DC primary. Only these three candidates and Dean rejected this strategy had their names put on the ballot in DC as a token of their support, thought it gave them no political advantage in the primary.

So read the above article with a grain of salt. Clearly, like the more "electable" candidates who removed their names from the ballot in DC, all that counts to the reporter is who wins the nomination. But what we should be fighting for is the future of the party, and Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton's willingness to stay in the race despite their low polling numbers should encourage us. Their presence will insure that it is not only the politically expedient issue that are raised, even if those issue have to be raised over the objections of the party itself.

[tedoll78]

9. A-frickin'-men.

Two senators for DC. Our next President needs to use the bully pulpit to raise hell about this.

In fact, I'd go so far as to propose this:
There will come a time when we once again have a firm, firm grip on Congress and the White House. We should require ratification of a Representation Amendment before any federal funding goes to a state. We need to play hardball on this issue.. this is basically a denial of Equal Protection.