The self fulfilling prophecy

[penguin7]

A very strong argument can be made that anyone that contributed to a campaign for president before the first debates either had their heads up their butts or perhaps they were trying to buy influence. Before the first debates how could one know the positions of the candidates or the important issues of the campaign. How could one know if Gore was going to run or not? Perhaps Jesus Christ was coming down from the heavens to run in this campaign.

On Sunday a debate will be held by ABC in Iowa. If the past debates on mainstream media are any guide Dennis Kucinich will likely get 3 minutes 15 seconds to speak in the two hour debate.

The excuse will be that Dennis is second tier. The reason he is second tier is that a relative handful of people with more money than brains gave early to campaigns. Does anyone really believe that these early contributions were made on good information? How could that possibly be?

Should these early contributions made on vague and incomplete information be deciding this election?

[valerief]

1. It's all a dog and pony show anyway. nt

[napi21]

2. You're making the big mistake in assuming that the election is about

issues! It's NOT! It's about who do you think can win! Period! That's the real reason on both sides!

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Many people approach it that way, but it's awfully stupid.

Having 'your' side win means nothing if they don't do things that you consider good.

If we have a capitol full of traitors, taking our rights away, looting the treasury and getting innocent people killed, then it really doesn't matter whether they have R's or D's next to their names.

[napi21]

4. I agree it's stupid! But that's the way it is, and I don't see it changing

in my lifetime! Ask everyone you know "When was the last time you voted FOR the candidate you really wanted? Or did you vote AGAINST the other guy...or the one you considered the better of two bad?"