Breakdown of ABC News Debate "That is a travesty to the Democratic process"

[leftchick]

I have to say I agree...

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/dennis-kucinich-mike-gravel-unequal-time-abc-debate.html

We took a look at the entire ABC News Debate transcript from 8/19, parsed the file, and counted how many words each of the candidates were able to speak. The two candidates with the least amount of words were Kucinich and Gravel. Obama and Clinton as you would expect dominated in how many words they were able to speak.

The total number of words spoken at the debate was 14,528. Stephanopoulos spoke 1907 words and Yepsen spoke 197 so a total of 12,424 words were spoken by the candidates. Here is how it broke down.

Candidate Words % of Total
Barack Obama 2462 19.8%
Hillary Clinton 2399 19.3%
John Edwards 1644 13.2%
Joe Biden 1415 11.4%
Bill Richardson 1319 10.6%
Chris Dodd 1230 9.9%
Dennis Kucinich 1059 8.5%
Mike Gravel 896 7.2%


But the biggest discrepancy comes when you only look at the first half of the debate. If you only looked at all the words spoken up to the half point, Word # 7264, here is how it broke down.

Candidate Words % of Total
Hillary Clinton 1465 25.2%
John Edwards 1093 18.8%
Barack Obama 953 16.4%
Joe Biden 758 13.0%
Bill Richardson 680 11.7%
Chris Dodd 548 9.4%
Mike Gravel 325 5.6%
Dennis Kucinich 204 3.4%

So what happened was Kucinich was practically ignored during the entire first half of the debate and at the end of the debate (garbage time) the moderators tried to make it a bit equal. Too much emphasis was given to the top tier candidates. In fact, even Chris Dodd got more air time than Kucinich which is ridiculous because Kucinich is beating Dodd in the majority of state polls. So if the emphasis was on giving the most time to the leaders in the polls, then what was Dodd doing speaking more than Kucinich.

I have noticed that the lower tiered candidates tend to struggle at these debates because they are always talking out of fear that they might be told to stop speaking by the moderator.

That is a travesty to the Democratic process.

[soothsayer]

1. Obama got 14 mins, Hillary 13, Edwards 12 or 13 I think. Kucinich got 5

and had the best line of the night when they asked him abotu praying to a personal god and he said "I've been praying to God for the last 45 minutes that you'd call on me" to much applause

[Faux pas]

2. "They" are working awfully hard to keep Dennis quiet. Makes

me root for him even more. Go Dennis.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Tune into Ed Schulz Wed. Sept. 12

Kucinich has the microphone for the whole show, and can do whatever he likes with it. Big Eddie has extended the same invitation to all the candidates, but Dennis is the only one to take him up on it.

[peace13]

4. Yes it is a travesty.

Add to it the fact that they spin the event however they want afterward. Why not just pretend to hold a debate and tell us how it all worked out? Peace, Kim

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. if people wanted to hear what Kucinich had to say

he'd be polling better and raising more money. People know who he is.

Tommy Thompson didn't get much airtime either. He knew he wasn't going to win, so he dropped out.

Kucinich and Gravel and Dodd all know they're not going to win, but they'll stick it out because it's face time on tv. Which is the only reason they're participating.

Frankly, more time for them means less time for the candidates who will actually win.

This isn't little league where ever kid on the team should get a chance to play. This is the majors where you play the best players and the one's who cant cut it get cut.

[JuniperLea]

7. Boy oh boy...

You've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. it, being?

what, that Kucinich has no shot at winning, never polls above 3 or 4 percent and is running his second vanity campaign in 4 years?

I'm not saying I don't agree with what he stands for, I do. I think he's a good congressman.

He's just not a legit candidate. In fact, if you took Clinton, Obama and Edwards out of the race he'd still probably only poll in the 4 to 5 percentile.

[JuniperLea]

12. I can only reiterate what I said elsewhere in this thread...

WE let them. WE are going to relive history because WE didn't learn from it. WE are drinking their Kool-Aid and begging for more!

I'm beginning to feel like Donald Sutherland in The Body Snatchers... I'm seeing so much pointing and screaming! ARGH!!

We are being fed polls (Kool-Aid)... we are being fed phony debates (Kool-Aid)... we are being fed only the voices THEY want us to vote for (still more Kool-Aid). And if you point to the people who are suffering from Kool-Aid poisoning, they will point their finger at you and SCREAM!!

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. so what you're saying is

that when Hillary draws 2000 to hear her speak and Obaman draws 4000 to hear him speak...and good, hard working Americans take money out of their pockets to donate to their campaigns at rates exponentially higher than those given to other candidates...

that those are just kool-aid drinkers and the only true clear-headed folk are the 3 or 4 people out of 100 that would vote for DK or Gravel or Dodd?

[JuniperLea]

19. Can you tell me how many hard-working Americans...

Donated, as opposed to how many lobbyists?

Clear-headed people will vote their conscience. Kool-Aid swillers will vote with a "yay team!" mentality... only for who they think will win.

[THUNDER HANDS]

23. and by that you're implying

that voting your conscience does not equal voting for Obama, Clinton or Edwards. The "YAY-TEAM" as you called them.

[Subdivisions]

32. You are wrong. This election, as have others before it, is

being shaped for us. They are telling us who we should be considering. They control the frequency. If they showed more of Kucinich, more people would know of Kucinich and they could just as easily drop the novelty of Clinton and Obama if they wanted to. The media frames the candidates and the debate and they frame us in the process.

[JuniperLea]

34. You're right! They're in total control!!!

Don't drink the Kool-Aid! I'm surprised we have to say that!!!

[Jax]

85. Great post. Spot on.

:thumbsup:

Your pictures and quote in your sig line are OUTSTANDING!!! (and heartbreaking).

Alyce

[JuniperLea]

33. Can't answer the question, huh?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. If that is your conscience, go for it. All I'm saying is you shouldn't vote for either one if you are doing it ONLY to be on "the winning team". I'm not convinced they are. I'm being force-fed that idea by the media, but I'm not swallowing.

[THUNDER HANDS]

38. well, i assure you

I don't like kool-aid, grape flavored or otherwise.

And I supported Kerry in 2004 long before he was ever the frontrunner, or even close to it.

In a perfect world, all tv advertising for elections would be free, thus there'd be no need to raise $200 million.

In a perfect world, the media would focus on issues and not the game of elections.

But this is not a perfect world. And I don't think the media is forcing my candidate on me. Nor do I think they're stunting Kucinich's popularity.

If, after running for president and being on who knows how many debates over the past 5 years, voters - especially Democratic primary voters - don't want to support him, it's his fault, not the media's.

Personally, I liked Bill Bradley in 2000, but I didn't blame the media when he didn't beat out Al Gore for the Democratic nomination.

Sometimes a candidate just isn't good enough. Sometimes their opponents are just better.

[MattSh]

94. And sometimes a candidate just IS good enough:

"Sometimes a candidate just isn't good enough. Sometimes their opponents are just better."

Do you believe for a second that the media wouldn't take a candidate out in a second if the rich and powerful wanted it so? That maybe they're just leaving Kucinich, Gravel, Obama, Edwards, etc in the race just to feed the illusion that this is a working democracy? If you believe that, study the Dean campaign of 2004. The took the a front runner and made him look loony tunes in under a week. Think they can't do that to Obama too?

And Kerry in 2004. Think he didn't have help from the media? If I recall correctly, he went from nowhereville to locking up the nomination in under a month, without saying or doing anything different. Oh, and Bush. Who but the media could have possibly convinced enough people that his competence level was above that of village idiot?

The media has no role, or just a minor one in the popularity of a candidate? Pleeeese.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. I get tired of saying this BUT...

Kucinich polled higher in areas where he had volunteers who were able to overcome the media BLACKOUT on his campaign. He did well in Minnesota, Hawaii, Maine, Utah, Washington, and New Mexico. He actually won a couple of precincts in Iowa, including most of one county that was "adopted" by the Minnesota volunteers.

If you don't believe me, go back to 2003 and 2004 issues of the New York Times, where they give everyone's campaign schedule EXCEPT his, or when they devote a paragraph each to the positions of all the candidates on healh care, the Middle East, or what have you, and then dismiss DK in one sentence.

How DARE the networks and the MSM determine who's a serious candidate before a single vote has been cast?

You KNOW--don't you?--that the only reason Hillary and Obama, who have done nothing but mouth meaningless platitudes so far, are the "frontrunners" is that 1) They're getting their pictures on the front pages of weekly news magazines, and 2) The corporate donors see that they're not going to make the kind of substantive changes that this country needs, so they are showering the campaign funds.

Let's have a real level playing field. Let's give DK and Mike Gravel and Christopher Dodd equal time with the alleged frontrunners (anointed by the MSM and the corporate donors before a single vote has been cast) and see how their poll numbers do.

What are you and all the other anti-DK types afraid of, Magic Rat?

Afraid that if DK and the other alleged "minor" candidates get their full say, they'll expose the "frontrunners" as the bloodless, pussyfooting, corporate-sponsored, Bush-appeasing wimps that they are?

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Absolute nonsense.

Have you wondered what the polling would be like if each candidate was actually granted equal time? Dennis WON the AFL-CIO debate, despite having gotten half the time of the 'leaders'. If people are not given a chance to hear the candidates, how can they know if they like them or not?

I can't support any of the conservatives, but if I did I'd go for Biden because of his solid experience which far outstrips any of the others, he concise answers (sometimes he rambles, but more than occassionally he answers a straight question with a simple "Yes" or "No". So why isn't he up there with Hillary and Obama? Because the media chooses to relegate him to the 2nd tier. Most people don't know where he stands because he isn't given the opportunity to talk. It puts all the non-top tier at a disadvantage for the non-junkies, whose only exposure to the whole lineup is in these debates.

Quick, without looking it up, how does Dodd feel about medical marijuana?

Does Biden think NAFTA can be fixed?

??

[THUNDER HANDS]

20. i think the people have spoken with the only tool they have

their wallets.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards are their favorites.

For some reason, nobody wants to give money to Kucinich or Dodd or Gravel or Biden.

Maybe it's because they think they won't win. Which, last time I checked, was the point on an election.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Despite what the common perception is

lobbying groups and corporations AIN'T people.

Money is not the be-all and end-all of public approval.

Now, if we were to have 100% public financing, with no candidate allowed any more money than any other, eliminating massive corporate donations and getting the bribery out of the system; and, equal time debates which allowed each candidate time to get his message out, THEN I'd have some faith in the polls showing x to be 10 points ahead of y.

Right now, we are buying a well-dressed pig in a corporate purchased poke.

[JuniperLea]

35. I think you confuse "people" with "lobbyists"

There is a HUGE difference.

[Pawel K]

61. Wow!

You've been here since 2002, how can you be that naive? What happens when you put up 2 of the same products side by side, only difference between them is the label. Product A gets hours of free advertising time in all the major newspapers, tv networks, and radio stations. Product B gets none. Which do you think the average Joe will buy in to, product B?

You have clear cut evidance of the media picking favorites in this thread. And this doesn't bother you one bit? What makes Obama a better candidate than Kucinich? The answer is media hype, if you can't see that or comprehend that you haven't been paying much attention over the last 5 years that you have been here.

[Selatius]

70. I would have to strongly disagree

You don't donate money to somebody whom you've hardly seen. You are more likely to donate to somebody you've seen often, such as Hillary Clinton. She's a known quantity. People know her, but people don't know Kucinich. Kucinich has never enjoyed equal air time with the likes of Hillary. That's the problem. Donating money does not operate in a vacuum without air time. The two variables affect each other.

[mmonk]

50. Idiotic.

Put the cart before the horse. Fine for you and this crooked system.

[Ino]

75. Most people don't know who Kucinich is!

My sister is fairly knowledgeable, though not obsessive, about politics. Staunch democrat. She donated to & worked for McCaskill's campaign. I sent her this to see which candidate she most agreed with
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/

She emailed back, "I agree most with Kucinich. Who is he?!"

He's being shut out, and it's a shame.

[ScottytheRadical]

93. Right, because election campaigns should be about who can raise more money!

"if people wanted to hear what Kucinich had to say he'd be polling better and raising more money."

That right there demonstrates the farce that is bourgeois democracy. Elect people to rule over you every two years, and even then elect the people who can raise the most money from the rich. People don't have votes, dollars do. Look where this great system has gotten us!

If Kucinich doesn't get the nomination, then I won't be voting in the Presidential race, because he's the only Democratic candidate that even comes anywhere close to what I believe in. And I know that if certain candidates win the primary, the Left in this country will abstain from voting in droves...because ya know what? I don't believe in compromise or "middle American values". I'm a revolutionary, and proud of it.

I think Kucinich or Revolution! makes a fun campaign slogan, actually :P.

[JuniperLea]

6. All the more reason to vote your conscience

NOT because you think someone has a chance of winning!

Clearly, some candidates who, we are told, are losing in the polls, are in reality a much greater threat.

We all need to vote for whomever it is that more closely believes as we ourselves do, and no other criteria should enter into the decision!!

I swear! We are being led around by the nose just like the Kool-Aid Kids!

[leftchick]

8. it is 2004 all over again

the media is in total control of who the candidate will be. Because we let them. :(

[JuniperLea]

11. You are so right, chica!

WE let them. WE are going to relive history because WE didn't learn from it. WE are drinking their Kool-Aid and begging for more!

I'm happy to see someone else who understands this! I'm beginning to feel like Donald Sutherland in The Body Snatchers... I'm seeing so much pointing and screaming! ARGH!!

We are being fed polls (Kool-Aid)... we are being fed phony debates (Kool-Aid)... we are being fed only the voices THEY want us to vote for (still more Kool-Aid). And if you point to the people who are suffering from Kool-Aid poisoning, they will point their finger at you and SCREAM!!

[NoPasaran]

57. Vote your conscience?

Save that for American Idol.

In real elections, vote for somebody who can win.

[Jim Sagle]

90. Real citizens vote for whomever they goddamn well feel like.

They don't fall for the inevitability okey doke, either.

[Laughing Mirror]

9. Why aren't all candidates given equal time?

I have asked this question before and nobody seems to know the answer.

[leftchick]

13. read post number 11

very well said.

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. because not all candidates deserve it

just because you're a democrat and you say you're running for president doesn't mean you should get as much airtime as someone polling 20 points above you and that raises more money in a week than you do in a year.

I have yet to see the huge grass-roots support for DK or Gravel or Dodd that would lend me to believe they're worthy of the same time as Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

All candidates in an election can't be given equal time. There are 20 something candidates on 20 something different parties each year for president. All 20 aren't allowed in a debate because it would just be insane.

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Guiliani, McCain, Romney or Thompson is going to be the next president of the United States.

Your beliefs, my beliefs, are irrelevant.

All that matters is who's polling better, who's raising the most money and who has a legit shot at winning.

This election is too important to waste time on candidates who show up to these debates because of an inflated sense of self-imortance.

If Kucinich really wanted to be president he'd run as an independant, since he knows he's not getting the Democratic nomination.

It's about ego. And it takes more than a big ego to get equal time at a debate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Now that is some elitist bullshit.

Money = worth.

Isn't that what our party is supposed to stand against?

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. no

money = support. right now it's the only tangable way to measure support. Not just in overall dollar amount, but number of donors as well.

[Laughing Mirror]

22. That doesn't sound very democratic to me

In France all the candidates get equal on-air time. It's the law. If it works in France, why can't it work in the US? Too afraid of a real democracy?

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. are they publically-financed campaigns?

that makes a difference.

[Laughing Mirror]

29. yes they are

why aren't they in the US?

[JuniperLea]

37. It used to be that way here too...

Until the RWNutJobs got the law changed.

[MonkeyFunk]

78. that was never the law here

[JuniperLea]

36. Such bull!!!

That smacks of the RW propaganda that got the laws changed so we COULDN'T hear equal time from every candidate! Honestly! Do you hear yourself???

[MonkeyFunk]

87. repeating it doesn't make it true

there was never a law requiring equal time in debates for all candidates for the nomination. Also, the equal time rule never applied to cable broadcasts, and every debate so far has been shown on cable TV. In fact, I doubt the broadcast networks will ever air a intra-party debate.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. because they don't deserve equal time

all candidates are not equal. In fact, there are dozens of declared candidates for the Democratic nomination that aren't even included in the debates at all.

[Laughing Mirror]

24. But we are all supposed to be equal, aren't we?

Somebody must have changed the rules of the universe without informing me.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. you think the universe

ensures equality in all things?

How absurd.

[Laughing Mirror]

30. "we hold these truths to be self-evident ..."

All men are created equal is the cornerstone of American society, isn't it?

[MonkeyFunk]

39. That says nothing

about the issue at hand. "Created equal" doesn't guarantee equal treatment by everybody.

Why don't I get as much airtime as Barack Obama? Why don't the SF Giants pay me as much as they pay Barry Bonds? Why don't I get laid as much as Warren Beatty?

Do you think the media should give equal attention to each of the 6 billion people on the planet? Personally, I'm a lot more interested in what the President did today than what you did.

[Laughing Mirror]

40. Whoever has the most money gets to be president

The "debates" are rigged, but that seems to be fine with a lot of people.

We do not have an functioning democracy, it is clear.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. You didn't answer my question

do you think each of the 6 billion people on the planet deserve equal media attention? Do you believe every candidate for President does? (keep in mind, there are dozens of declared, official candidates whom you've never heard of.)

Do you think that being created equal means we all deserve equal treatment by every possible entity?

[Laughing Mirror]

43. Yes every candidate deserves equal media attention in a functioning democracy

If presidential candidates are given equal time in France (and presumably other democracies), why not in the US?

We have only a handful of presidential candidates deserving media attention, not 6 billion. It is the job of the political party to narrow down the selection of the candidates from the party for media attention.


I am sitting here in the great beyond conversing with Thomas Jefferson. He is quite surprised reading your posts.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. again

there are dozens of official candidates for the Democratic nomination - you've only heard of a few of them.

Should they ALL be given equal media attention? How would you enforce that?

And Thomas Jefferson would be more offended by any attempt to enforce such a rule on a free press.

[Laughing Mirror]

45. It would be up to the Democratic (or Reublican) party to narrow down the selection

Why can't you have a 2-hour real debate giving equal time to, say, 6 candidates, rather than a 2-hour debate given most of the time to 2 or 3 candidates.

How would you enforce it? The same way you enforce any rules of debate.

A press is not free if only people with the most money are the ones getting the press.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. the only way t enforce it

would be through law. And the government can't tell the media what to do.

Why aren't you upset about the dozens of people excluded from the debate altogether?

[Laughing Mirror]

47. The FCC can deny broadcasting licenses (or impose fines) for broadcasters that break the law

That is, if such a law mandating equal time existed. So yes, the government does regulate the media, not the other way around.

I am not upset about those aspirants who might not have made it to the presidential candidate debate team. We do not all get the job we want, but we should all be given equal consideration if we are qualified for the post.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. so you want to make a law

that requires the news media to provide equal coverage?

And you have the balls to pretend to speak for Jefferson? It's laughable.

on edit: Also, so far, NONE of the debates have been broadcast on any network subject to FCC jurisdiction.

[Laughing Mirror]

56. Ever wonder why half the voters don't bother to vote?

They figure what's the point. There's nobody representing them.

Yes, an equal time in media law is what is needed to correct the inequality.

But if you are content with the inequality of the current system, based on money, then the system that is in place is fine. If a corrupt political system is what you want, then that's what you'll get.


Thomas Jefferson tells me to tell you that, after all, the men he was talking about as being created equal were white male property owners, that he never even thought about the others. They didn't exist. So basically, nothing has changed much since then.

[MonkeyFunk]

80. I'm more concerned

about how the government would be able to tell the media what to show.

You ignore all the big points I've made:

1) there are literally dozens of people running for the Democratic nomination. Does each one deserve equal time? Do Ole Savior, Bob Boyer, Wrendo Godwin and all the rest deserve attention equal to Clinton and Obama?

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-dems.htm


2) How do you propose to get around the First Amendment? NONE of the debates to date have been broadcast over the air - the only form of broadcast the FCC can control. How would you craft a law that doesn't violate the First Amendment?

[JAbuchan08]

67. Uh, the airwaves are a natural resource

that have existed since prior to our discovery of them, but we want to pretend that certain corporate entities "own" them and should be able to define what is on them through the narrow prespective of what is "popular" or to state it another way, most effectively marketed?

[MonkeyFunk]

79. And none of the democratic debates to date

have been broadcast over the airwaves. They've been televised on cable television, over which the FCC has no direct control.

[JAbuchan08]

95. whoops! i feel quite stupid now.

:blush: :blush:

[treestar]

91. Everyone on the stage in the same debate deserved equal time

If ABC had those candidates on, they should have treated them all equally.

Ignoring some may even have backlashed and given Dennis more attention. After that comment, many in the audience could be wondering why he's not getting equal treatment.

Not everyone in the audience "knows" who is polling the most and who has the most $$. They just see that this number of candidates are included. So they have to wonder at the attempt to minimize some of them even though they are on the stage.

Time for the American people to wake up and see how they are being manipulated.

[Selatius]

72. You get no air time because your support is less than 5 percent of the people polled.

Thus, you should be eliminated. The 5 percent rule is a test of viability, one could say. If your idea can get to that threshold and beyond, you may have an idea worthy of national discussion, but the debate wouldn't be honest if the person at 5 percent with idea A doesn't get the same amount of time as the person at 10 percent with idea B. The point of the debate is not to allow candidates to test each other's rhetorical ability. The point of the debate is to present ideas. The ideas should be weighed independently of poll numbers beyond a certain percentage, such as 5 percent.

[treestar]

92. At what point? A person could always be at 5% now and yet

still win. The election is that far away.

If they have those candidates on one stage, they ought to treat them equally. If people heard the candidate, they could change their minds. This is a way of trying to stop them from doing that.

[Selatius]

71. I think if you can get 5 percent or better, you should be included in the primary debate.

Most of those dozens of declared candidates, guess what? They don't reach that threshold. Kucinich does.

[MonkeyFunk]

81. well that's rather arbitrary

and I don't think Kucinich has ever polled as high as 5%.

But why 5%? Why not 10%? 8%?

To use the argument expressed here, the dozens of other people don't poll that high because they're ignored by the media. That, or the "powers that be" are terrified of them.

Ole Savior - he must be stopped. His ideas are too dangerous to the oligarchy.

[Selatius]

83. Well, it's the threshold you need to get public financing in a general election

But since we're talking about the primary system and not the general election, then I think it's apt that it also be set at 5 percent for Democratic primaries. If you can poll 5 percent or higher in Democratic primary polls, you should be included in debates. The same 5 percent standard appears in several states that utilize public financing of state campaigns, namely Arizona and Maine and several other states attempting public financing. That is, if you can collect X number of, for instance, 5 dollar donations where X is equal to 5 percent of the number of registered voters in your district, you get full financing by taxpayer dollars, but I digress from the original issue of primary debates.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

54. Because the debate would be six hours long. n/t

[Laughing Mirror]

59. If you mean 1 hour for the debate and 5 hrs for commercials & punditry

You're probably not far from the truth.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

60. It's unwatchable as it is.

This format sucks. It's totally impossible to get anything but sound bites with that number of people getting equal time.

[rucky]

17. Kucinich got the least time and the highest viewer approval.

Sometimes less is more. :)

[leftchick]

31. imagine if he had 14 minutes!

like the corporatists would ever let that happen. :(

[Jack Sprat]

42. It has looked as if the media has tried to choose

the nominee in the last several elections. They know how much power they wield. It isn't accidental.

[HeeBGBz]

53. The more they push that hyped up bullshit

The more determined I am to fight for the ones they stifle.

[LeftCoast]

49. If he can't handle the MSM now, how could he ever handle it after he won the nomination?

I'm certainly no fan of the MSM, but stamping our feet about it isn't going to change the reality of the situation now. Our 2008 candidate had damned well better be able to handle the MSM or we're going to see a repeat of 2004.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. That's what he's trying to do, and the MSM are yawning, because

they KNOW that only the corporate-sponsored candidates will be able to afford to buy air time from them.

[althecat]

51. Kucinich is being deliberately sidelined...... most of those candidates are only there as spoilers.

Biden Richardson and Codd are Clintonista place holders... they are there to give the networks the ability to sideline Dennis and make it look not so bad.

It is worse than disgraceful.. but it is also all too typical.

It would be great to see the behind the scenes memos which go into this sort of manipulation.

[upi402]

52. This happened with the NAFTA "debates" too. Old trick.

Pundits for NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA.
And airtime was even more lopsided and frontloaded.

We need a media.
We need counted votes.
We need an opposition party to make it happen.


kick/recommend

[ChairmanAgnostic]

55. yo, leftchick, good post, but what about the quality of questions?

I could not believe some of the shit that little Stephie tried to pull. He managed to be both boring and irritating at once. He asked inane questions, and transparently, pointlessly and patentely obviously tried to create a "story of strife" between the candidates. His had to be the worst debate format and style I have yet seen.

[leftchick]

58. I agree they suck

these debates need to be taken totally out of the Corporate media control. Someone suggested yesterday a college style debate which I would love to see. Imagine a university or college where the students ask the questions with no prepping for the candidates! Not that it would ever happen, but it would be the most honest and fair way of seeing a candidate's real self. Not that polished and prepared BS we saw from the "top tier" the other day. :puke:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. I heard former German Chancellor Helmuth Schmidt speak in 1992

For one thing, he was more articulate and intelligent in English, his second language, than most of our politicians are in English, their first language. (I'm sure someone that bright could never get elected in this country.)

But anyway, he thought our debate setup was stupid. He said that we ought to have unscripted debates with open mikes in front of varied audiences, including farmers, military personnel, teachers, union members, and others.

Let them hear the questions that people actually want to know the answers to.

"But," you say, "what if some crazy person takes the mike and starts asking the candidates what they plan to do about the moon sending out death rays to kill us?"

Simple. How well they handle the crazy person will be a test of how well they think on their feet. Furthermore, unexpected questions will show their general knowledge of how the country works.

[in_cog_ni_to]

64. ASSHOLES! PRAVDA at work The MSM WILL choose our candidate for us, whether we like who they choose

or not! The system is corrupt from the top down and inside out. Democracy is DEAD in this country. It's nothing but a show now.

[BeHereNow]

73. I'm afraid you are right.

Bye-Bye Miss American Pie...

It's all REALLY depressing, isn't it?

BHN

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. Depressing as hell.

It would be semi-tolerable if our Democrats in Congress were at least fighting back against these thugs, but they aren't. At least we would have some hope of seeing things change when they take over in '08, but their kowtowing to this regime has made me lose all hope of that ever happening....unless they found some balls while on vacation and come back ready to fight. I really doubt it though.:(

[BeHereNow]

77. I'm sure they will come back with more bullshit...

Gay marriage rights, abortion, increasing the amount of apples
in school lunches and such...
You know, things that REALLY matter to the corporate
thugs who are in the process of pillaging this country.

BHN:sarcasm:

[leftchick]

84. absolutey correct!

and sad as hell. :(

[ShaneGR]

66. Kind of odd how it breaks down almost exactly to their polling... nt

[mzmolly]

68. Not good at all. Do our candidates have to start protesting the MSM period?

Geeze.

[Beelzebud]

69. The more Kucinich speaks, the higher his poll numbers go. The Gatekeepers don't like that.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

74. The media picks our Presidents....

n/t

[lovuian]

82. Yes these Debates are scared at what the candidates

are saying

first it was Edwards trying to knock out Kucinich
Now its Debaters trying to quiet Kucinich

the More you Oppress the more the rebellion

its happening

Kucinich wins because they are afraid
Hillary and Obama can have 2000 minutes but if what they are saying isn't what we want to hear then its wasted garbage
but it does its purpose of trying to drown out the real message we want to hear

[MonkeyFunk]

88. Dodd gets almost no attention, eithe

Are they afraid of him?

The idea that the powers-that-be are "afraid" of any candidate and that fear can be measured by their lack of media attention is just silly.

Are they scared of Tom Tancredo? I've never once seen candidate Ole Savior on TV or mentioned in a news story - they must be REALLY afraid of him!

[leftchick]

86. Shocking Update: "ABC News denies Kucinich campaign's bias complaint"

:sarcasm:

http://therawstory.com/

ABC News Executive Director Andrea M. Jones told the campaign via e-mail that ABC did not crop Kucinich from the photo, which was taken by an Associated Press photographer, and she pointed out that Kucinich appears in several other photos on the site, according to a copy of her comments obtained by RAW STORY.

The campaign says Kucinich took a "commanding lead" in the online poll asking, "Who won the Democratic debate?" sometime Monday afternoon before ABC replaced it with another poll later that day. Kucinich again took a lead in that poll and it was removed from ABC's Web site, the campaign said.

A link to the poll is still available within ABC's report on the debate, but it's results are not prominently displayed. As of early Friday, Kucinich had received more than 15,100 votes in the unscientific poll, giving him a wide margin over Barack Obama who was running second with about 9,200 votes.

Jones also said ABC did not attempt to hide the poll, but she did not address the fact that it had been removed from ABC News's front page. Its results were not reported because the poll is unscientific, she said.

Supporters also claimed Kucinich was ignored for much of the debate, and a statistical analysis released Friday shows Kucinich spoke less than any other candidate except former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who registers virtually no support in opinion polls. For the first half of the debate, Kucinich said only 204 words -- about 3.4 percent of the speech up to that point, according to the USA Election Polls analysis.

[superkia]

89. I see alot of people saying hes not electable but

I think the big machine is afraid of that little man! So far, if the vote were today, he would have my vote!