ONLY THE 3 "FRONTRUNNERS" will discuss their FAITH/VALUES on CNN tonight-IS THIS DEMOCRACY AT WORK?

[FrenchieCat]

This event will be seen on CNN this evening.

What do you think in reference to how our electoral democratic system is working. Is this inclusion of some/exclusion of others fair 7 months before any vote? Or is it that if one is polling in the single digits 7 months before the 1st primary, they don't count? Does anyone know if some of the excluded candidates were invited but optioned out of participating?

Leading Democratic Candidates Have Religious Forum Scheduled for June 4

Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton will be attending “Pentecost 2007: Taking the Vision to the Streets” forum on Monday, June 4 at George Washington University in the District of Columbia.

The event is hosted by Jim Wallis, author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It.

Here’s the press release describing the event:

Washington, DC – (Wednesday, May 16, 2007) Sojourners, the largest national network of progressive Christians, announced today that it will host a candidates forum on faith, values, and poverty on Monday, June 4, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. featuring the three leading Democratic presidential contenders: Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator John Edwards, and Senator Barack Obama. CNN has joined Sojourners as a media partner and has agreed to broadcast the forum live from the campus of George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Jim Wallis, the bestselling author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, and a founder of Sojourners, invited the leading Democratic candidates to participate in a substantive national conversation on faith and values, with a particular emphasis on poverty. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) have agreed to participate in the forum. The question and answer format will be used with each candidate, who will appear on stage one candidate at a time. Sojourners has extended an invitation to the leading Republican candidates for a September forum in Iowa.

The forum will take place during Sojourners’ annual Pentecost conference, which is a national mobilization of progressive Christian lay and clergy leaders, and will be co-sponsored by Catholics In Alliance for the Common Good, the ONE Campaign, Oxfam America and Eastern University.
http://2008central.net/?p=821

[Kagemusha]

1. What do you think this is, C-SPAN? No, CNN is not a democracy.

That is not news.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I realize that the media has no responsibility to us our democracy

in any way, shape or form, but I still think that the forum should have included others.....and if others declined, it should be noted. I don't believe that CNN is the one who determined who would be at this forum. Far as I am concerned, this stink. If this would have happened in 2003-4 primaries, Kerry would not have been included....yet he became the nominee.

[Kagemusha]

43. Okay, it was hosted by a major New Hampshire paper, right?

And the candidates showed up because it was hosted by a major New Hampshire paper and therefore had primary implications. Even though the paper (Manchester-Leader was it? I don't live there, I just hear it referred to in passing every 4 years) is a relatively conservative one.

So...

Was Wolf Blitzer even serving in a capacity as a CNN employee at the debate at all?

Edit: Bonus question. Is nothing more than a major state-wide newspaper part of the so-called "MSM"?

[rucky]

2. I'd like to decide for myself, thank you.

sheez, you'd think that with 24 hours of programming to fill, they could squeeze in a little equal time.

[Dinger]

3. Where Can we Blast "Em with E-Mail?

I'm READY!!!

[DemBones DemBones]

22. Just go to CNN.com and nose around until you find a "contact."

It's a little tricky to find the contact info on all the network pages but it will be there somewhere.

It's outrageous of CNN to do this. What's next? They do a poll and SCOTUS declares the winner president, saving us all from having to go to the polls?

:grr:

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Not a big deal.

They'll probably all agree with each other anyway. This isn't really an event where including the second-string is going to make a difference.

[Colobo]

5. Very fair; the others do not count.

[Clark2008]

14. Neither do the front runners.

They're not going to win, anyway.

(My opinion is just as valid as yours).

[FrenchieCat]

21. I hope that you were being "snarky" intentionally.......

as opposed to really believing that.

I don't think that being gifted with "Frontrunners" status 7 months before the fact of any votes being cast is representative of the type of system that I agree with. In fact, I find the preferential treatment a diservice to America. "They decide; we repeat!" it seems.

[Bullet1987]

6. They've been advertising this on CNN for about a week now

Seems like it'll be interesting...

[wyldwolf]

7. To paraphrase Tina Turner, "whoa oh oh! What's Democracy got to do with it?"

Sojourners is holding a private event and have invited three guests. CNN has opted to cover it.

[doggyboy]

9. And if they were all at the debate

some would complain about how they are all pandering to the religious right

damned if you do, and damned if you don't

[More Than A Feeling]

10. It isn't even a debate. It's a "forum."

They'll all be saying exactly the same things. I don't think we need it repeated more than three times. The only diversity would be if they invited Dennis Kucinich to expound on his left-wing catholic/New Age beliefs.

[FrenchieCat]

32. How do we know that "they will all be saying the exact same thing" IF

we don't get to hear them say it?

and if that is the case, why bother with any forums or debates?

How is what you seem to "not have a problem with" Democracy? :shrug:

[More Than A Feeling]

37. Because this one is about faith. Everyone except Kucinich is some brand of mainstream Christian

(and even he is Catholic, just with a lot of "New Age" mixed in, apparently. I'd agree that it would have been better to invite him too for a different perspective, but the others...eh) There isn't exactly a lot of religious diversity there. Maybe if there were some Jews,Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, or Humanists running, I'd be more sympathetic. I do think that there ought to be public financing with equal TV time, I just think that TV time is better spent on subjects other than people with common faiths.

[rinsd]

8. Are the other candidates attending this conference?

[FrenchieCat]

13. I don't believe so.....but I don't know if they were invited and declined, or what!

I doubt that Richardson, Biden & Dodd would have turned this down though.

I still think that the frontrunner shit was and continues to be determined by forces other than Americans; Name rec, amount of media coverage, and money raised seem to be the determining factors of who's on first, etc....

Media coverage appears to bring name rec, which in turn appears to bring increased poll numbers, which in turn appears to up fundraising abilities. So media coverage appears to be the catalyst of everything else. I don't believe that democracy was meant to work in this order. But maybe that's just me!

[rinsd]

16. They could very well have not been invited.

I was just wondering if all the candidates were going to be at the conference but not necessarily the forum.

[FrenchieCat]

23. And to me, that would be the tackiest.....if the others had simply not even been invited!

I mean.......what kind of shit is that?

I don't support anyone in the "below" the "top" tier, but I find this offensive, nevertheless.

[rinsd]

27. Weird for Sojourners of all people to do that though.

I think there is more digging to be done.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Agreed. I too believe that something is "not quite right".......

because I'm feeling somewhat "Hosed"!

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

12. In France, this would be illegal

Each candidate would get equal time.

Wish we'd have the same sort of fairness rules in place.

[FrenchieCat]

17. We did with Networks till 1987.....

and we had more say so over the cable companies until 1996.

After 1996, you will notice that media influence began to become much more pronounced in our electoral system. I really don't believe that this is the way our system is supposed to work. The media has way more power than they deserve. It is frightning. Meanwhile the 24/7 cable stations are reporting on Chavez' and Putin's manipulation of the media via media regulation that bodes badly for any opposition. I should say to Venenzuela and Russia; WELCOME to our world.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. At some point they are going to have to start focusing one the serious candidates

[FrenchieCat]

18. I still don't see how it is a few who determines what "serious" is.....

Again, media exposure is the catalyst to all other aspects called advantages in electoral politics. I don't believe that this is the way that it was meant to be.

If we, the people are supposed to be the ones to choose, then until there is a vote, all candidates should get similar media access. Of course that would be the case if we lived in an actual democracy, instead of a mediacracy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. So, you think that Randy Crow, Dan Francis, Karl Krueger, and

http://www.randycrow.com

http://www.citizendan2008.com

http://krueger08.com

the dozens or other candidates who are running should get the same media attention as the other candidates?

[Clark2008]

26. Some of them might actually be better than anything our side's

offering thus far.

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

30. But we'll never know, will we?

And hence lies the problem with this Media decides for us bullshit. 5 Corporate media giants get to decide who we are to pick from. Media was supposed to inform, not narrow our options based on what they determine.

I'm sorry, but when we talk about being a democracy, what are we truly talking about? I'm losing the meaning.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Well, I'm not into "extremes".....one way or another!

It appears that we have 8 candidates that I know about, and that are acknowledged generally......not three candidates.

If there are others, I really don't even know this. And yes, to some degree, I believe that it is the media's job to inform us as to whom is running; not pick out the top threes for us!

[jobycom]

19. This far out, the event won't matter any more than the single digit candidates anyway.

If one of the others start to catch on, they'll have plenty of events in the next seven months to be invited to. I don't understand some people's equation of "democracy" with "giving every single person who claims they want to be president an equal chance to be heard even if they have no ability to climb out of single digits in preference polls." I don't want a president I have to help get publicity, I want a leader creative enough to get it on their own. Otherwise, I have no reason to think they can do the job.

Frankly, I haven't watched a debate yet, and won't until a few candidates drop out. Any debate with more than four or five candidates, at the outside extreme, is just noise, anyway. All you can learn is who has the loudest voice and the best quip-writers.

[damntexdem]

20. Yep, this is it: the only democracy we have left at work.

Quick, watch it now -- while it's still large enough to be noticeable to the naked eye.

;-)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. DKos story that may interest others here

Frameshop: CNN Crops Out Candidates

[FrenchieCat]

31. Very apropos! Thank you for this.........as it glaringly evident--Yet even "Dems" here deny this!

an interesting question about the ethics of media intrusion into America's electoral process. Whether or not a candidacy truly has the money, organization and charisma to win a nomination and be elected, should private media corporations have the right to weed out candidates they decide are not going to win? In other words, once a candidate fills out petitions, gets him/herself on the ballot and legally enters a campaign--presidential or otherwise--should a private corporation have the power to, effectively, cut that candidate out of a debate? Should editorial or business meetings in private boardrooms have the power to declare a candidacy over?

Like the ability to crop out unwanted portions of a picture, last night's debate showed that CNN had the power to, effectively, crop 5 candidates out of the picture of the Democratic primary. Sure, the "bottom 5" candidates were on the stage and they got questions, but time after time the camera pulled back to a tight shot of Edwards, Clinton and Obama as Wolff Blitzer led those three candidates to challenge each other on touch questions.

Gravel, Dodd, Richardson, Biden and Kucinich spent most of the evening trying to push their way into what was structured visually as a three way conversation at center stage.

One wonders if CNN should have this power--the power to decide that, despite there not having been even one primary or caucus, certain Democratic candidates for President are simply not as important as others.

There is no place in our constitution, for example, where the framers gave to the free and independent press the power to choose primary candidates on behalf of the people. Not in there. Nor is there any amendment stating that, in a situation where there are many candidates for president, privately owned broadcast media shall narrow down the field on behalf of the public. That's not in there either.

So why does it happen and why isn't there more of an outcry this morning about the way CNN so arrogantly decided that it was bored with a field of eight Democrats and was ready--all on its own--to move on to a field of three?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/4/115011/0606

[FrenchieCat]

33. Mike Gravel was initially not supposed to participate in the debates last night.....

yet there must have been enough voices heard by CNN in order for them to change this, as he participated.

I was outraged about this as well, as evidenced by my thread on the subject at the time that I heard of his exclusion!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3164927

[GeorgeGist]

34. How enlightened...

to limit faith to christians. :cluster*ucks:

[OHdem10]

35. We continue to have our candidates selected for us

Perhaps when it is decided who our candidate is,
they will tell us. It appears it has already been decided.

In the meantime perhaps we better focus on getting
some Democrats in the House and Senate.

[LiberalFighter]

36. I will be pissed off at ANYONE that attends or any other media event

with the express purpose of talking about their faith and values related to their faith.

If they have to talk about it then the rest of their campaign is lacking in value.

Their so called faith doesn't necessarily mean they have a faith that makes them a good person.

[frebrd]

38. Is there any reason to assume

that the others are even interested in appearing?

I voted "I don't care" but that's not completely true. If a candidate whom I supported appeared on something like this talking up his "faith" I would feel very uneasy about his commitment to rebuilding the wall of separation between government and religion (a matter of great concern to me).

[Leftist Agitator]

39. It is unfair, but legal :(

Equal-time Rule

"The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who might request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same to another.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983 political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

[FrenchieCat]

41. And I think in 1987, this was done away altogether...Network or not.....

Networks were the ones that had to adhere to the equal time rule.....due to their operating on suppositely on "publicly" owned airwaves. Of course 1983 and 1987 was long before cable 24/7 news were birthed.

Cable is considered an entirely different animal...and since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, operates without any real regulations beyond those imposed by each cable networks own management. :(

[bamacrat]

40. This is total bullshit, the MSM is just trying to choose for us..

Which shouldnt come as a surprise that they are more or less leaving the puke field open but already narrowing ours down to the "safest" candidates. They dont want change and they are going to find a way to isure that.

[polichick]

42. Lucky for the others...

I, for one, don't wanna hear any of the candidates paying political lip service to their proclaimed faiths ~ gosh, is nothing sacred anymore??

[polichick]

44. I ended up accidentally catching the end of this...

Clinton's part ~ and it wasn't as awful as I imagined. Paula Zahn followed with interviews with the Catholic candidates.

Good that Dems are pointing out "moral" issues ignored by fundy right-wingers.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. CNN had Paula Zahn's show on the topic

of the Faith and Politics after the forum, and Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Kucinich all appeared.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. I suspect this is more about what will "sell" than anything else

If you can get the three "headliners", do you worry about the folks whose names appear well below the title?