We should want ANYONE to run who believes their voices add to the Democratic debate.

[blm]

The Democratic debate that deals with so many issues that it NEEDS the input of many voices to formulate and then articulate the strongest ideas from knowledgeable, Democratic perspectives.

Ever notice that the nominee usually adopts the best ideas from other candidates when it comes time for the general campaign? That's one of the finest traditions of the Democratic primary races. And it is one that makes me proud to be a Democrat.


And to hell with all the so and so shouldn't run baloney.

[AlinPA]

1. Yes, and that makes for lively debates- audiences can get familiar with our issues.

[wisteria]

2. I totally agree! n/t

[NoPasaran]

3. What about those who believe the voices in their own heads?

I know a few of them and frankly debating their resolutions is torture.

[merci_me]

4. Absolutely!!!! n/t

[Cha]

5. So agree!

"They've had their chance"?!! That's the silliest freakin' thing.

I'm glad I don't apply that to my own life.

[TayTay]

6. This is more democratic

There are a lot of people who want to eliminate candidates now. I don't understand why. We should welcome anyone who wants to run. This makes the race more interesting and more diverse.

[mloutre]

7. Exactly. The whole thing is an Illuminati conspiracy

to narrow the field of possible candidates down to just a favored few when the election is still two whole years away already, sheesh. That way We The Sheeple will get so sick of hearing about the favored few by then that they'll vote for some malleable sociopathic pseudohick instead.

[NYCGirl]

9. LOL! NT

[blm]

17. heheh.... good one, mr. otter.

.

[IndyOp]

8. Good call! (n/t)

[merci_me]

10. The more candidates the more intense the primary......

which means primary voters will be going to the polls long past Iowa and New Hampshire.

We need major turn out through the last state. Otherwise, when we work our GOTV in the fall, a lot of states (mine being one) will be left with fewer and fewer people voting the primary and we won't know who our people are. Again, we have a fall election where we have to scramble to identify.

We had a decent Democratic primary in 1992, but that was the last big one here and in 2008, that will be FOURTEEN years! In 1996 we had Clinton and no primary, 2000 Gore was the VP and certainly a shoe-in by the time it got to us in March and in 2004, it was Kerry's by mid-March. We need to have at least four, really strong contenders, still debating the Democratic issues, on through early spring, 2008. Then we can really have our ducks in a row by summer and know who all the declared Dems are and start working on independents.

[welshTerrier2]

11. if we gave a damn about Democratic debate

we would impose meaningful spending limits and austere campaign finance reforms during the primaries ... it's nonsense that only the very prominent or very wealthy or very well connected to corporate money are given a voice ... the problem isn't bloggers saying this person should run or that person shouldn't; it's MONEY ... i'm all for "the more the merrier" but the current system is NOT the way to achieve it ...

it's also nonsense that we've already seen people "dropping out" ... what kind of crap is that ... the reason they're dropping out is because they've travelled around to the power brokers and big money boys and have been told they can't get there from here ... funny, i always thought it should be up to the voters to decide ... what a mess we've made of democracy ... and some of it right here in our own party ... it's disgraceful ...

we like to say we're for campaign finance reform but even during our own primary process we do nothing about it ...

[blm]

14. I'm hopeful public financing of campaigns will be an issue early next year.

.

[welshTerrier2]

16. me too but we shouldn't wait for the republicans to go along

this is something Dems could do on their own for the primaries ...

if we can get reforms for the general election, great ... but there's no reason we should cater to fat cats during our own primaries ...

[FrenchieCat]

12. Considering that we had 10 candidates last time, and only heard of two after Iowa.....

We may need 30 of them this time round, so we'll have at least 6 or so that "they" can report on after only one primary in one of the whitest state there is....and where caucus goers "make deals and grade on a fucking curve!"...."I'll raise you three Edwards in exchange for one Kucinich--Oh Brother"!!

Of course, knowing the media, they will still only choose to talk about two candidates no matter how many we muster up, and tell us to kiss their ass BTW. I believe it is in their nature to be the "deciders" as opposed to sticking to their "supposed to be jobs", reporting what's what!

Damn, I wish the Fairness doctrine was still in play.....that would really make a difference to our democratic process! :cry:

WESLEY CLARK SLAMS MEDIA CONSOLIDATION

"I don't think it is in the American public interest to further consolidate the media." Answering this reporter's question, the candidate said media consolidation "is damaging to putting out diverse opinions and fostering public dialogue. ... We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."
http://www.fradical.com/Presidential_candidate_slams_media_violence.htm

[blm]

15. We may be in some luck on the media front.....

The 2003 'ranking member' is now the Chair of the committee.

Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[derby378]

13. I'm all for that

2007 hasn't even arrived yet, and already we're supposed to determine who's gonna be our nominee? I thought that's what primaries and caucuses were for.

[Kahuna]

18. I agree. I believe the diversity of voices made our case in 2004..

so well that * only pulled it off by reaching into his bag of dirty tricks.

[oasis]

19. Going into 2008 we need at least a half dozen strong Dem candidates for the

corporate media to pick apart.