so if clinton and edwards are trying to exclude people from the debates what does that say?

[still_one]

I tell you what it says to me, I want Al Gore

If this is what the Democratic party has become, afraid to talk issues, then is it any wonder why we are in the situation we are in today

[Ghost in the Machine]

1. Kucinich has challenged them both to one-on-one debates...

Later Friday, Kucinich sent letters to both Clinton and Edwards challenging them to one-on-one debates, the Kucinich campaign said.

"If you are truly seeking debates where there are fewer participants and where there is more meaningful and serious discourse, this is a great opportunity for us to join together in an open discussion on behalf of the American people," the letter said.

http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?bfromind=7816&eeid=5302903&_sitecat=1504&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=1&ck=&ch=ne

I'm just really liking Dennis Kucinich. People say he's irrelevent and not a serious candidate, but he's more upfront than any of the rest of them. I would support him, even though I'm a gun owner and he supports a ban on handguns. I think he is one of the few that takes his service to the public, meaning We, The People, seriously. He's not in government service to sell out his soul to the corporations and get rich in the process.

GO DENNIS!! IMPEACH CHENEY!

[MADem]

2. So if Dennis Kucinich is making a mountain out of a molehill, what does that say?

That he'd rather issue a whining, screaming, OUTRAGED "press release" to get TV news bookers to line him up for airtime, than actually do a little fundraising amongst his supporters?

That he is pretending faux outrage (that you don't see when the cameras come on--he's suddenly "Charlie Charm") to GET free airtime?

Kucinich needs to CAMPAIGN if he wants to get his message out. What he's doing is "parasiting"--glomming on to an issue, whining about it, and then pushing it aside and trying to press his platform when he goes on TV ostensibly to talk about this.

Screw him. He needs to do the hard work if he wants to be one of those "serious" candidates.

[still_one]

3. Why should he be eliminated from the debates? Kucinich is no nader

what are they afraid of?

[MADem]

5. He is an attention seeking grandstander who has no intention of running to WIN

And if he isn't running to win, he isn't SERIOUS.

He should stop wasting MY time. If he wants the job, he should fundraise. Campaign. Get out there. Sell yourself. Don't sit on your LAZY ass, Dennis, and pontificate...like you're too good to get down in the mud like the rest of the poor bastards.

If he objects to the system, put it in his platform. But that IS the system--so if you can't play ball, get off the goddamned field. This election is TOO serious for bullshitters who don't really want the job.

He has less than five percent support. I want to hear from the crowd that's gonna actually produce a LEADER, a winner. If I wanted hot air, I'd listen to Bush.

I explain my rationale more in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3375919

There's rare enough opportunities to hear from the candidates, thanks to the corporate media. I don't want these rare opportunities to be taken up with CRANKS who aren't really interested in winning, but run to "make a point." Fuck that. They can send out an email if they want to make points.

[book_worm]

4. It means that they are pragmatic politicians who think that it's not very

probable that Kucinich or Gravel will be nominated, and so they want to leave the debates to people who actually do have a shot at being nominated so that they have more air time for voters to evaluate them. Of course their position is not very politically correct and they will ultimately backdown not so much because of DK or Gravel but because Dodd and Biden, for instance, don't seem to have much support in the polls either, but they are influential senators and if there is some kind of threshold in who is in the debates or not they could also be disallowed to participate--and they would raise a stink.

[aquart]

6. It says you're beating a dead horse.

Which is not a nice thing to do. But can't hurt the horse.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. were you upset

about the dozen or more registered candidates who have been excluded so far?

[still_one]

8. I am not for Kucinih, BUT I AM FOR KEEPING THESE PEOPLE HONEST

Clinton and Edwards were NOT honest when they voted for the IWR

You can make any excuse you want, but as a life long Democrat I suspect 2008 will be the last election I vote as a Democrat in

I will probably be changing my party to non-partsan

[Eagle_Eye]

9. This is an indication we are picking the nominee way too soon

There has not been enough time to settle on three maybe four top notch candidates. With the primaries all at once, and too far in the future from the actual election, this is what we get.

What we have here is our best Democrats debating each other over procedure, rather than debating the republicans over issues. This is not only hurting Democrats, this is hurting the whole country.

[last_texas_dem]

10. What does the allegation that two candidates

are trying to exclude people from the debates have to do with what the Democratic Party has become? It's a bit of a stretch IMHO to imply that a couple of lines of dialogue between two candidate overheard onstage after a debate have anything to do with the status of a national political party with millions of members.