Do YOU Want Dennis Kucinich In The Debate Tonight

[THUNDER HANDS]

Poll question: Do YOU Want Dennis Kucinich In The Debate Tonight

Yes or No.

[LisaM]

1. Yes

Though possibly at this point, he has become a distraction (that and his NH recount).

[MrCoffee]

12. what is he distracting you from? the Obama/Clinton circus?

Kucinich is getting so much national coverage that you have no clue what Clinton or Obama are up to?


horseshit.

[LisaM]

23. No, I didn't mean that

I just meant that he's liable to bring along a bunch of people who will stamp and cheer whenever he's called on, which will distract from the issues.

Believe me, I am not in on the Obama-Hillary circus right now.

[redqueen]

25. The people who cheer for him in debates are his supporters?

He brings them with him?

Is that what you're saying?

[LisaM]

44. I'm saying, with all this brouhaha (and I think Kucinich should be included)

That I can anticipate that if he is (rightfully) included, I'm going to expect his supporters (I don't mean an entourage that he PHYSICALLY brings with him) are likely to cheer loudly when he's introduced or when he's called on. And I think that if they play sound bites later on, that's what they'll show and the issues are all going to get swept under the rug. I'm tired of all the sideshows. Do I think Kucinich should be included? YES. Do I anticipate that his presence at this point will cause some members of the audience to be vocal about it? YES, again. I just want to hear about the economy, all the indicators for recession that have shown up recently.

[redqueen]

46. I disagree that it's only HIS supporters that cheer for him.

I also disagree that the media will play sound bites of him AT ALL, and if they did... what do you think he'll be talking about? Non-issues?

*sigh*

[LisaM]

52. Of course not. I think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion

I don't really know why you are trying to distort what I'm saying. I support Kucinich being there. I have no idea why NBC is fighting it so hard, unless Kucinich is an inconvenience for them because he doesn't fit into the script of their questions which are probably at this point all about Martin Luther King and LBJ rather than anything that's relevant to the economy, Iraq, and health care. It's my GUESS that people who like Kucinich will either 1) make a lot of noise, if he's there, whenever he's introduced or called on; or 2) chant his name if he's not included. It's like the whole Nader thing in 2000. People who supported Nader or thought he should have been included made a ruckus. I would prefer - FOR ONCE - to see a solid debate, with all the candidates.

[redqueen]

56. Not twisting your words.

I'm forcing you to clarify your thoughts.

My apologies. I'll stop.

[LisaM]

68. Well it sounded as if you are twisting my meaning

I just don't want anything to distract from the substance of the answers, and I'm pretty sure we both agree on that!!!

[redqueen]

70. I'm sorry... I really did not intend to do that.

Perhaps a more honest poll question would be:

Do you think Kucinich distracts from the (small amount of) substance during debates, or adds to it?

[rodeodance]

2. YES--KEEP SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH SYSTEM-ALIVE!!

[MrCoffee]

3. hell yes!

[NC_Nurse]

4. Other.

I don't care. Maybe he'll add something, maybe he won't. I doubt it will make all that much difference.

[rodeodance]

5. AND A reC

[AnOhioan]

6. Definately yes

To those who voted no...why are you so set against him? What on earth is wrong with opposing viewpoints being heard. The election is more than just 'The Hillary and Barack Show"

[goodhue]

7. Yes!

And I'd also like him to get some of that valuable time that the No vote references. But I'm not holding my breath since he never got much time in the debates he was previously included in.

[Hydra]

8. We should at least get some polite fiction of working democracy, IMO

Otherwise, we might get the idea that we're supposed to pick from the 3 corp-ok'ed candidates!

[ProgressIn2008]

98. Heh, good answer. A toast to the polite fiction of democracy! eom

[Hydra]

110. Hey, if you don't have polite fiction...

...you have Stalin.

:evilgrin:

[flvegan]

9. Definitely.

I'm hoping he gets some actual airtime, too.

[Kucinich4America]

10. Looks like we have 8 people here who hate democracy so far

But none willing to explain themselves.

[2rth2pwr]

21. 30. nt

[redqueen]

29. 36 now.

weeeee.

[2rth2pwr]

30. keep it goin. nt

[redqueen]

39. Now there are 46 who would rather the inconvenient candidate disappear.

Yay democracy! Yay for fair play!

... and the votes just keep rolling in.

[2rth2pwr]

55. 52! C'mon guys, let's make it triple digits! nt

[rudy23]

11. Yes--because he met the requirements that MSNBC and the candidates had agreed to

I see many trying to twist the argument that not EVERYONE should get to debate, and we should draw the cut-off line based on likelihood of victory.

The requirements had been met, Dennis doesn't have to reprove himself just because MSNBC rewrote the rules at the last minute.

[ShadesOfGrey]

13. Yes!!! n/t

[taught_me_patience]

14. No

he has not put in the effort to make a serious campaign and has no shot at winning.

[MrCoffee]

17. .

[MelissaB]

15. Yes!

[elaineb]

16. Yes.

And if the Kucinich-bashers think that a majority of the voting public is already well-informed of Kucinich's positions (or even existence!), then they are tacitly acknowledging that the American public is already well-informed of the other candidates' positions, and therefore they should be arguing against the necessity of any further debates, not the exclusion of one candidate. I'm still waiting for any of them to explain that contradiction in their argument.

Unless we are selecting our nominee at this moment in time, based on this minute's latest poll numbers, then anything can change, and any calls for Kucinich to quit are purely and without question undemocratic.

[PATRICK]

18. He represents

voters who want a voice in the presidential debate, nomination, administration policy. Delegates earn that voice at the Convention and it is as important ANY of the eventual "losers" no matter what the esteemed odds-makers say. Do bookies run the debates or is for the party formation of a presidential campaign in totum?

[rocktivity]

19. Kucinich met MSNBC's criteria. He was invited.

MSNBC re-wrote the criteria. He was un-invited. Not fair. And not in public interest--this IS an election, after all.

:headbang:
rocknation

[bunnies]

20. Candidate to candidate questions. Damn right I want him there! nt

[killbotfactory]

22. He met the debate requirements, so they changed them

That's bullshit, he should be allowed in.

[elaineb]

24. Could someone voting "No" please respond to this question?

If you vote "No, He's Not Going To Win and He'll Take Valuable Time Away From The Others", then you are suggesting that Kucinich has been adequately heard by the American public. If that is the case, why haven't the others been adequately heard by now? Why is there a need for any more debates at all?

[THUNDER HANDS]

32. i don't think he's a credible candidate

I don't think he believes he can win. I don't think he's tried very hard to win. I think he wants a national stage to present what he believes are important issues. No matter how much I agree with him on the issues, there are more important things to consider -- like viability.

Kucinich is not viable. And we're at the point now in the campaign where Democrats are deciding who they want their nominee to be. They want to see both Hillary and Obama (and to a lesser extent, Edwards) face off against eachother.

There's no need for Kucinich to butt in. The other candidates are going to ignore him. The media is going to ignore him. The only people who won't ignore him are his hard-core supporters, who he's already won over.

So what's the point?

Tell me, what's the practical point?

People are trying to make a decision between three candidates, and Kucinich is not one of those. He's not one of those by a loooooong shot.

He's not a serious candidate, and he never was. He's got no credible field organization. He has no money. He has, according to the polls, no support. He should not be participating, and if he cared as much about the party as he does his own ego, he would stand down and let Democrats across America get the debate they really want to see. Not the Dennis Kucinich look-at-me-here-I-am show.

[redqueen]

33. He has support. You just ignore it.

Amazing.

[THUNDER HANDS]

35. support from WHO?

the 1% of democrats who vote for him?

[redqueen]

36. Exactly. I guess to you they don't count. (nt)

[THUNDER HANDS]

43. so anyone who can get someone to vote for them should be included in the debates?

If I put my name on the ballot and could get my family and 50 of my friends to vote for me, should i be up on stage with Hillary and Obama and Edwards too?

This isn't a game. There are serious issues at stake here and there's two hours to cover a lot of stuff tonight. Kucinich and his ZERO chances of winning should not be taking up any time that could go to someone who might actually have shot at winning - or at least, a shot at getting people to vote for them.

[redqueen]

45. I didn't make the rules, I expect MSNBC to abide by them, not change them at the last minute

once they've realized they don't like who met the requirements.

As for your ridiculous question, it makes absolutely NO SENSE as YOU don't meet the criteria, nor did the others that others are cracking wise about... but KUCINICH DID.

This forum is a waste of fucking time.

[THUNDER HANDS]

50. well, i can see we're going to be banging our heads against the wall on this

You think it's insane that he wouldn't be included. I think it's insane that he would be.

Let's just agree to disagree, okay?

No hard feelings. :hi:

[redqueen]

54. I think rules have meaning. (nt)

[elaineb]

49. What you think about his "credibility" as a candidate matters not one whit

And no matter how your poll turns out, the desire of a majority of us to see him included in this debate matters not one whit either, because it all comes down to a court decision at this point, and some of us have seen this game before (it used to be played a lot against us by Republicans, once upon a time, when we didn't trash each other's candidates or try to shut them out of the democratic process).

The only thing I was attempting to get an answer to was not anyone's PERSONAL opinion of his viability as a candidate or his intentions for running (whether "look-at-me-here-I-am", which you believe, or whether because he wants to serve as a strong voice for tens of millions of progressives across this country, which I believe). The question to which I wanted an answer is why so many of his bashers on DU claim he's "obviously" a non-viable candidate because his current polling supposedly reflects his level of support among an already well-informed public. So the bashers need to make up their minds: either his message hasn't reached everybody and he should be in the debates (he's a declared candidate, you know) or it has reached everybody and therefore no more debates are necessary for any of the candidates. If his message HAS reached everybody, then I would agree with you that his poll numbers can't improve, but then the same would hold true for the other candidates, and we shouldn't need any more debates.

Obviously, I believe it's an absurd notion that the American public is well-informed about Kucinich and his positions (I don't think a majority even know who he is), and I imagine you would have to admit it's an absurd notion also. Therefore, as long as he wishes to remain in the race and has the funds to do so, he should obviously be invited to each debate. It's not that complex a notion, and it's wholly democratic.

[THUNDER HANDS]

59. does Kucinich run ads?

I mean, I'm asking you. Does he run tv ads? Does he try to win the states he competes in?

Is he trying to be known by America in any way?

Or does he just want his "voice" to be heard?


I don't see why you feel that if his voice has been heard, and dismissed by America, that means there's no real need for any other candidates to have debates.

People have made up their mind on Kucinich. He's been in all the other debates. People have seen him there. They've looked at him. They've dismissed him as a fringe candidate.

Obama and Hillary and Edwards are the three people America wants to get a better look at. They deserve a debate with the people they're throwing their support and money behind.

[elaineb]

82. Oh, there we go with the money thing again!

Yes, some other DU'ers said they've seen ads running in the states that previously had primaries. Yes, I believe he tries just as hard as any other candidate to win the states he competes in. You do realize that as of 9/30/07, he had about $2 million to Clinton's $91 million, Obama's $80 million, and Edwards $30 million? Which comes first: the donations or the votes? You first have to have a lot of "seed" money to buy ads, develop a fundraising machine and campaign organization, and fly around the country making those all-important one-on-one appearances. How do you get that first seed money, do you suppose? Those initial donations are EVERYTHING. If you don't accumulate a significant treasure chest from the get-go, suddenly the media (and a small, but vocal proportion of DU'ers) starts in with the "unelectable" label, which means that an "unelectable" candidate's natural supporters very quickly begin turning instead to the candidates who've already got the "anointing" on them, because nobody wants to waste their money or time on an "unelectable" loser. In the case of our current "front-runners", those all-important initial contributions (the seed money) came rolling in because of name recognition (Clinton and Edwards) and a showcased, starmaking speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Do you understand the concept of campaign finance reform and the "small d" democratic goal of public financing of campaigns? Is it an important goal, in your mind? If you support the idea, could you please state why you think it's important? If you don't think it's important, then I cede the field to you. I will have nothing more to say, because you and I would fundamentally disagree about something pertaining to this whole debate controversy.

[THUNDER HANDS]

102. how do you explain Ron Paul then?

He's arguably the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. Yet he's polling much better than Kucinich, has raised more money than any republican, and gets attention.

Why him and not Kucinich?

Because Paul connected with people. Maybe not enough to win, but enough to be noticed. Kucinich doesn't connect with enough people to even be noticed. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be on stage with the last three democrats.

[cascadiance]

65. Was Jesse Jackson "viable" when he ran?

There IS such a thing as a candidate running to carry through a message that the major candidates aren't dealing with to the convention. If that candidate has strong enough support, that helps that person that much more lobby it to be part of the party platform. That's why I support both Kucinich and Edwards staying in it to the end, or at some point when both one of them and their constituency feels that another candidate is addressing the issues they are championing sufficiently.

So far, that other candidate championing progressive causes hasn't emerged yet to justify them leaving us progressives high and dry without representation for the concerns we share with them.

[THUNDER HANDS]

69. I'm not asking Kucinich to drop out

I'm asking that he not try to include himself on stage next to people that Democrats - 99% of whom, are going to be voting for.

People are split right now about who they want to go with, and they're not split between Kucinich and Edwards or Kucinich and Obama, or Kucinich and Clinton.

[cascadiance]

84. Including himself on the stage is EXACTLY how his message is carried on!

And as I noted before, even if many want to vote for someone else (myself INCLUDED), I want to hear voices like his continue to give the American people more food for thought to think about when they re choosing amongst the other candidates. Without him there, like I said...

"Out of sight, out of mind!"

[THUNDER HANDS]

101. that's a fair point

but it's a moot point, ultimately.

Nobody wishes more than me that Kucinich's ideas would be taken more seriously. But him being in the debate is not going to change that. He's not going to be taken seriously, no matter how many debates he participates in.

You have to be practical about it. There's only three democrats who are going to be the nominee. The public deserves a lively, in-depth debate between those three.

Kucinich had numerous debates to get his message out and gain traction with the public. He failed to do so. Dodd, Biden and Richardson did also, they too failed, and did the honorable thing and stepped aside to give the others an opportunity to fight on uninterupted.

He should do the same.

[cascadiance]

108. Do you HONESTLY think they'll get a "lively in-depth" debate without him?

I seriously DOUBT it!

Without him, there's more and more questions and topics that won't hit the radar screen.

[bigwillq]

26. YES!

Yes. :bounce:

[redqueen]

27. Yes.

Anyone who says no... I just want some of whatever they're smoking, so I can think everything's all hunky dory too.

[goodhue]

28. the seven votes that make a difference . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3141415

[Maribelle]

31. Yes. He is qualified.

And delightful.

[THUNDER HANDS]

34. just to make my point about why I feel the way I do

This is a national debate over who could potentially lead the nation as it faces two wars, an economic crisis and various other major looming catastrophies.

It's not little league baseball where everyone on the team should get a chance to play.

[redqueen]

37. How ugly, ignorant and dismissive.

No one is saying "everyone" gets a chance to play. Kucinich met the fucking criteria, or are you choosing to ignore that fact as well?

Sickening. Fucking sickening.

[THUNDER HANDS]

48. well...

A. I don't know, nor do I care, what the criteria was. If he met the criteria, he just barely made it. If he could make the criteria, then Richardson, Dodd and Biden also made the criteria - but they dropped out because they knew they weren't going to win and knew how serious this election was and wanted to give America the opportunity to see the three most credible candidates go up against each other.

B. Kucinich is not going to add anything to the debate. The other candidates ignore him. It's one thing if the media ignores you, like they do with Edwards, its another thing if the other candidates pretend like you don't exist when you address them directly. That should tell you something about how serious the other candidates think Kucinich is.

C. You are saying that "everyone" should get a chance to play. If you're going to let in Kucinich, who is, by all objective standards, the bottom of the bottom tier, then you can let in anyone. You're saying as long as their name is on the ballot, then they should be allowed to participate.

If Kucinich has shown the ability to generate support, or money, or AT THE VERY FREAKIN' LEAST - V O T E S - then I'd say, fine, let him in. But he's done nothing that shows me his candidacy is anything serious.

He's got a laundry list of issues on a website. Big whoop. Anyone sitting at home at a computer can do that. Does he have an organization. Does he have a staff. Does he have a strategy to win?

Does he have ANYTHING besides the belief that he should be included in the debates because he was included in the other ones?

[redqueen]

53. You don't know nor care about the rules. Got it.

You don't think Kucinich adds anything to the debate. Got it.

I didn't say that... stop lying. I said MSNBC should follow the rules THEY set themselves, not change them at the last second.

I don't care to play this stupid fucking game with you any longer.

[THUNDER HANDS]

61. look, get past the "rules thing"

I don't care what rules ABC or NBC or whatever had in place. I'm talking about the principle of him being in debates from here on in at all.

This issue is larger than this one debate.

For the record, I think NBC or whatever should not have changed the rules on him, I think that was a bad thing to do. Regardless of that though, I think Kucinich himself should not be trying to squeeze himself into these debates.

[redqueen]

66. This "issue" isn't larger than the end of tonight.

For the next debate, the rules they set will matter.

As for your grandiose ideas about who should or should not be trying to squeeze themselves into debates, good luck with that. I'm happy to see it's not too popular a sentiment, though. Very.

[onenote]

71. I think NBC shouldn't have changed the criteria for this debate

But I also think that they, or any other organization sponsoring a debate, should have broad flexibility in setting the criteria for debates that they sponsor (and broad flexibility in how they conduct the debate).

If you disagree, I'm curious how you would define the criteria for inclusion/exclusion. If its anything other than everyone who is legally qualified to be on the ballot, what objective and/or subjective criteria would you use for determining who is in/out and who should decide those criteria.

[redqueen]

74. I would define it as "Let the LWV do it" and stop allowing

corporate entitites to run the whole frickin show.

[onenote]

77. I generally agree that it would be better

if the debates were not sponsored by news organizations but rather were sponsored by third parties and were open to be covered by the news media as a news event (so there would be no exclusive coverage by one network or another unless all the networks but one opted not to cover a debate).

That being said, I'm not sure how you get to that point constitutionally. FOr example, if a newspaper wanted to sponsor a debate, I wouldn't have a problem with it so long as it was open to being covered by any news outlet that wanted to cover it. And if a newspaper can do it, I'm not sure why a network can't -- again, I would argue that it should be treated as a news event and opent to coverage by all.

But even that raises its own issues: certainly a newspaper could choose to submit questions to a selection of the candidates (but not all of them) and then publish, side by side, their answers, without triggering some legal obligation to ask and print responses from any other candidate.

[redqueen]

79. How you get to that point? We'd be going BACK to that point. (nt)

[onenote]

109. Broadcasters weren't prohibited from sponsoring the debates before

Again, I'd prefer that we get back to how it was done before, but I don't see how you could force it legally -- it wasn't mandated before.

[THUNDER HANDS]

75. I think it should be at least a legit shot at winning

Maybe 10% - something like that. If you can't convince one out of 10 people to vote for you, no matter how many other candidates are in the field, you don't have much of a shot at winning.

You should also have field offices in every state. At least give the appearance of being a candidate who's trying to win.

[no name no slogan]

63. In other words: there is no room for debate

Instead your choices are royal blue, navy blue, aqua.

[THUNDER HANDS]

73. in other words, you want your laundry list read on the air

well, I know what Kucinich stands for. I've heard him before. Anyone who even knows who he is knows what he stands for.

I'd like to see Clinton and Edwards and Obama because those are the people who will be our eventual nominee. And this is a race to pick a president.

This is a debate tonight. It's not a forum for Kunich to give his stump speech standing next to other candidates who are actually trying to WIN the nomination.

They're not going to be debating him. They're going to be debating eachother and ignoring him. Just like the rest of America will be doing.

[no name no slogan]

76. You have-- but many others haven't (thank you media)

MSNBC does not stage debates for YOUR benefit. Sorry, cupcake, but other people want to watch them, too.

Why are you so afraid of a guy who supposedly has NO support? Are you afraid that people might actually hear his ideas and possibly support them?

Are your candidates' positions really so weak that you're afraid of them to be debated.

Wow.

[THUNDER HANDS]

80. I'm sorry, did Dennis Kucinich just drop outof the sky last week?

He's been "running" since 2004. He was in all the debates 4 years ago. He's been in all the debates this year.

People who watch the debates know who he is. And they aren't moved by him.

He's never had a Howard Dean-like insurgency movement. Never had a Ron Paul-kinda nutty, but wow-he-raised-a-lot-of-money movement.

He's just...well...there. For reasons I can't understand since he adds nothing and gets nothing out of it, at least in terms of support or money, anyway.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

92. I see it as a very dangerous slippery slope for the media to make this decision

You are right that Kucinich has only a small group of die hard supporters, although his message resonates far more powerfully than his actual numbers show. But he initially qualified for the debates. The other minor candidates were allowed to make their own decision as to whether to drop out or not.

What bothers me are the questions of when a candidate is supposed to drop out and who makes that decision. Do they get forced out after one debate? After five? Who makes the call?

I prefer the way political campaigns are run in Europe. If someone initially qualifies, then all the candidates get to continue until the very, very end. It's a matter of principle.

No media entity should have the power to arbitrarily and according to their own internal yardstick select the finalists. This is an election, not a TV programming matter.

[elaineb]

106. You can't be convinced that only a minority knows anything about Kucinich

Here's a link:

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

If you'll click on the AP-Yahoo poll of 12/14-20/07, you'll see that as of mid-December, 17-22% of those polled did not "know enough to say" what their opinion was on Barack Obama. 20-25% did not "know enough to say" what their opinion was of John Edwards. Does that mean anything to you? I don't know how Kucinich would have polled on recognition because it wasn't even seen fit to include him in a poll asking about such a significant question (I wonder why?). I would think, considering the amount of time Fred Thompson was in the news at the time he entered the race, he would be somewhat comparable to Kucinich. At the time of the poll, 42-52% didn't "know enough to say" what their opinion was on Fred Thompson. I imagine Kucinich, if he had actually been included, would have fared even worse. So you can trot out all the reasons you want that you believe Kucinich should be excluded, but please stop trying to pass off the laughable notion that he's a known candidate among the majority of Americans. He's not.

And, by the way, if you want to dismiss this particular poll, I'm sure a week ago I ran across another poll on that page that surveyed general recognition of the candidates (on that one, Kucinich wasn't included either, but you'd be surprised at some of the numbers on some of the other candidates who've received much greater coverage in the media). I'm off DU for the rest of the evening, but I'll stop by tomorrow, if you want me to find that similar poll for you.

[anamandujano]

38. God Yes! /nt

.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

40. Why not limit the debate to just one person - the front runner?

Seriously, where do you draw the line? Obama and Clinton do not own the stage. They are not elected yet, although the media seems to have unofficially elected them already as the only voices we need to hear.

[sniffa]

41. Yes, he should be in it.

I wish my candidate was in the debate, but I'm resigned to the fact that the media will continue to ignore him.

[AlCzervik]

42. of course!

[sniffa]

88. Another Lee Mercer supporter

:hi:

[AlCzervik]

94. Huzzah!

:toast:

[Lou Syffire]

47. I Think Dennis should be EVERYWHERE

spreading his particular brand of joy. It does my heart good.

[stimbox]

51. Why do 33% of you HATE Democracy????

Must be the Right wing of the Democratic Party.

Hey Bluedogs and DLCers, Eat shit and DIE!!!!!

[Zorra]

60. Too many years of sitting in front of a television getting brainwashed.

You might call them "Fox News Democrats".

Most likely, many of them are former republicans, so I'm glad that they vote Democrat sometimes, but their RW leanings are preventing the Democratic Party from being a force for significant postitive change.

[THUNDER HANDS]

67. I'm neither a blue dog nor a DLCer

I'm as liberal as they come.

I'm also practical and like to live in reality. You know, that place where real people live and work and will eventually vote for one of three people for president - none of which will be Dennis Kucinich.

[stimbox]

72. So you like the Corporate media picking your candidates?

I see by your avatar that you are.

[THUNDER HANDS]

78. no

I like Democrats picking my candidate. I like actual voters. I like people who give a shit and go out there and knock on doors for their candidate and make phone calls and canvass the neighborhood and donate money to buy ads on tv and make a real effort to reach people.

I don't like people who just want to get into the debates so they can be noticed, when they make no other effort at any other time to actually run a campaign.

[redqueen]

81. "when they make no other effort at any other time to actually run a campaign."

You just showed you have no idea what you're talking about.

Kucinich doesn't just show up to debates. He campaigns HARD.

Unfortunatley, too many US citizens have been brainwashed into thinking that:

- war is good and anyone who's anti-war is "loony"

- short people can't be president

- people who don't look like sales reps can't be president

- people who don't have LOTS and LOTS of money aren't "serious"

- etc., etc., etc.

[THUNDER HANDS]

90. he campaigns hard?

really?

harder than Clinton?

harder than Edwards?

harder than Obama?

After Iowa, was he out in New Hampshire at 6 a.m. giving speeches?

If he flying across the country going to rallies, meeting with potential supporters?

I check DU every day, I never hear any stories on his campaign activities except when debates come up.

Surely the Kucinich supporters would mention it, if it happened. I mean, I'm sure that news would be on his own website at least. Right?

Well, I just looked. He had one campaign stop in Reno, Nevada last month. That was the last campaign stop that was listed. Then he has some videos up from Detroit that are posted on Youtube. Which is odd, because Michigan was disqualified from the primaries and thus, there are no delegates available to be obtained.

So, I'll ask again. Is he really trying to win?

[stimbox]

91. I guess you are hoping that things don't change much.

You're another status quo voter.

[THUNDER HANDS]

93. i guess that implies

that 99% of Democrats are status quo voters.

[redqueen]

96. 99% of people are unthinking automatons who don't question SHIT.

[THUNDER HANDS]

97. well, at least you're not elitist

;)

[redqueen]

99. That was hyperbole.

Duh.

[THUNDER HANDS]

103. i know

:)

[redqueen]

95. He was at Detroit Univeristy four days ago.

What's the point of this game? Why are you doing this? You're obviously not serious.



And why would his supporters post a DAMN thing here? So a bunch of fucking assholes with overblown egos could post a bunch of snarky bullshit?

[stimbox]

87. Dennis runs the campaign he can afford to run.

Sorry it doesn't meet your corporate standards.

[Skittles]

100. WORSE

WHY DO 33% DO WHAT THE MSM WANT THEM TO DO? :puke:

[2rth2pwr]

105. Wow, that appointment in the Dept of Peace has just slipped thru your fingers. nt

[2rth2pwr]

57. How many times do we have to hear the UFO story?

I'm pretty much over it.

[redqueen]

58. Is that all he talks about in debates?

Wow... guess I wasn't missing much.

:eyes:

[orleans]

62. wouldn't have to hear it at all if those fuckers would stop making fun of him n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

64. None, if a media stooge doesn't ask him about it

[David Zephyr]

83. Dennis should be in the debate. Excluding him is just another reason voters get turned off.

The answer is yes.

[KingOfLostSouls]

85. You mean the guy who'd lose all 50 states?

nah.

being told anyone who doesn't like him isn't a "REAL DEMOCRAT" only to have rush limbaugh and his ilk replay his comments tomorrow isn't a necessity.

[Pastiche423]

86. YES! YES! YES!

I am for Democracy. I am against the MSM telling the American people who to vote for.

[cyclezealot]

89. If he is not in , I'm out.

I find the rest trite and boorr-ing.

[Robeson]

104. Does a bear shit in the woods?

[Bread and Circus]

107. Yes.