Four at the Debate

wow (0.00 / 0)

a bold move, sorry to say it is probably a good thing

Hope > Fear

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:44:06 PM CST

What I would prefer (0.00 / 0)

On the one hand, I don't like anyone but the voters winnowing the field. On the other hand, eight candidate debates are unwieldy.

Hold a series of four-candidate debates on specific topics. Choose the candidates invited at random. Maybe you get Obama, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich on health care. Clinton, Edwards, Gravel and Dodd on energy.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:48:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

on second thought... (4.00 / 1)

Its not a good thing in the big picture... its too bad that more folks do not have a chance to be seen in NH on the eve of the Primary. It weakens our tradition a bit.

If there were more time after NH till the next contest we would be able to have more voices, and have the vote not the media/sponsors fiter for us. Results should do the filtering.

Hope > Fear

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:49:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The UL backed off sponsorship (0.00 / 0)

for just that reason, I gather.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:53:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Arbitrary restrictions are never a good thing.n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: hannah @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 14:25:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Very surprising (0.00 / 0)

Shocking really, after all the effort to keep New Hampshire first.

And no offense to Richardson, but there's no guarantee that he'll finish in the top four in Iowa.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 13:58:55 PM CST

Richardson gets in with >= 5% in recent NH polls. (4.00 / 1)

So yes, if Biden beats him for 4th in Iowa, there are five seats at the debate.

Of course, the lead candidates could demand that the debate be opened up.

This wouldn't be happening if both parties had not blown off the League of Women Voters.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 14:09:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LWV (0.00 / 0)

Of course, the lead candidates could demand that the debate be opened up.

That's interesting -- it's been assumed the large stage helps leading candidates, but I think it would be different on the eve of the vote.

Re: the League, you are absolutely right.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 14:19:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Worked for Reagan (4.00 / 1)

"I PAID for this microphone, Mr. Green!" [sic]

He was happy to fight to let GHWB in the debate - in a manner that made him look like much more of a leader than Bush.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 14:23:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's no guarantee anybody else will either. (4.00 / 1)

I am so very sick of polls.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 14:24:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Biden and Dodd (2.00 / 2)

I'm not supporting the candidacies of either man, but both Biden and Dodd are national policy leaders with first-rate reputations.  They may not have much of a shot on 1/8, but they deserve to be in the debate -- they will enrich it. . . . 60+ years in the Senate (much of it in leadership positions) merits AT LEAST that much.

I have no problem excluding Gravel -- he's a crackpot who is not running a serious campaign by any definable metric.  Am borderline on Kucinich.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 15:28:23 PM CST

me too exactly n/t (0.00 / 0)

standing on the sidelines looking for a reason to enter the fray.

---

by: smucci @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 16:00:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

dumbfounded... (0.00 / 0)

Wow, I am dumbfounded by the sheer ignorance of those comments.

You are clearly misinformed as to Senator Gravel's achievements.  As a two-term Senator from Alaska, he filibustered the end of the military draft, read the Pentagon Papers into the public record, ended Pentagon testing of obsolete nuclear weapons in the North Pacific, and secured the Alaska pipeline by one vote.  All in his FIRST TERM.  You can read more here:

http://www.gravel2008.us/legis...

Nixon told John Mitchell to "get that SOB (Gravel) in prison"... any man who draws that type of wrath from Tricky Dick is a hero in my book.  Nixon prosecuted Gravel to the Supreme Court for revealing the truth about Vietnam... paying attention yet?

And regarding Kucinich... I guess it's not "reputable" enough to have voted against the Iraq War, against the Patriot War, and every other disgusting blunder that our Democratic leaders have been complicit to.  

So you must define a serious campaign by serious compromise and serious mediocrity.  

---

by: Peace Czar @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:00:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Glad you recognized an new hero and an old one (4.00 / 1)

Both Gravel and Kucinich have gone it alone and waged couragous campaigns based on their beliefs.

Kucinich has given the admistration the direct confrontation they deserve. Kucinich's "power through peace" is advocating a positive 180-degree change in national direction. Can we get there from here ? Not if we don't talk about trying .

Gravel, my former Senator, accomplished so much as a maverick, that it is hard to believe he actually did it.
He has been giving lessons on how to stop a war from a minority position in several of the debates.

In 1972, just like today, he was derided as irrelevant, when he campaigned for the Vice Presidency on the floor of the Democratic National Convention, rather than let the Presidential nominee, McGovern, make the choice. McGovern picked Eaglelton. Bush picked Cheney. How ridiculous does Gravel look today ?  

---

by: fjm @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 18:30:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bullshit (2.67 / 3)

Please ask Mike Gravel why he ended the career of Sen. Gruening, a man so courageous that he was one of only two Members of Congress to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.  When Gravel challenged Gruening in the Dem primary in '68, he deliberately avoided taking a public position on the still unpopular war.  For that, he merits absolutely none of my respect. . . . Gravel turned against the Vietnam War when it was politically advantageous to do so.

I have raised this issue on BH before, but have received no response from Gravel and his supporters.  Until you do so, please avoid using words like "ignorance" and "misinformed."

But this is irrelevant to my main contention:  That he is "not running a serious campaign by any definable metric."  I'm sorry, pal, but any campaign with less than $20K in the bank, few supporters, no endorsements from elected officials in NH and around the country, no paid media, and less than 1% in the polls meets that standard.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:45:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bitter? Delusional? No... (4.00 / 1)

Was a member of the old guard like Sen. Gruening going to trailblaze an incredible string of achievements through the 70's like Gravel?  I doubt it.  Gravel lost re-election in the '80 primary by Gruening's grandson, so there's your cute little karmic circle.  

No poll should be taken seriously in which Gravel and Kucinich have gone unmentioned, which is very many I've heard.  And when Gravel's been excluded from debates since September, visibility is at a premium.  Were it not for some strongheaded supporters, he would've been excluded even sooner.  So until you're going to recognize the "metric" is thoroughly corrupt and biased, don't talk like a pundit hack.

Per your criticisms: It must have been "politically advantageous" to fight for the Alaska Pipeline against massive opposition.  Must have been "political advantageous" to work towards normalizing relations with the People's Republic of China.  And it REALLY must have been politically advantageous to bring the case regarding the Pentagon Papers to the Supreme Court, to protect his friends at Beacon Press.  Oh, ever heard the story about Nixon yelling at John Mitchell to "get that SOB (Gravel) in jail."  

So are implying that Gravel deserves "none of your respect" because he wasn't upfront about his opposition to Vietnam.  LAUGHABLE.  I guess ending the draft and releasing the Pentagon Papers don't spell it out for some people.  Nor does a plan to remove troops from Iraq in 120 days in make it a FELONY to remain thereafter.  Total opportunist moves, huh?

Ignorance is ignorance, so quit your whining.  And don't call me pal.

---

by: Peace Czar @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:46:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Guess Again, "Pal" -- Here's the Truth Squad (0.00 / 0)

* Insulting Ernest Gruening's "old guard" status is laughable.  The guy had the courage to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 -- which was backed by all 435 House members and 98 out of 100 Senators, as well as the Democratic President -- because of his principled opposition to the Vietnam War.  If that's "old guard," then I'll take that leadership any day.

* Oh yeah -- your candidate turns 78 in a few months.  I would be very careful when using the "old guard" analogy to criticize Gruening.

* When Gruening cast his vote on Tonkin, he knew full well the ambitious, scheming politicians like Mike Gravel would attack him for it.  That came to pass.  Gravel's campaign against Gruening was a disgrace, one in which Gravel using the older gentleman's progressive principles against him.  Gravel himself said of his approach to Vietnam in '68: "All I had to do was stand up and not deal with the subject, and people would assume that I was to the right of Ernest Gruening."

* Gravel was silent on Vietnam until 1971-72 -- when the country (and most of the political opinion leaders) had already turned against the war.  George McGovern, Gene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, and Ernest Gruening had the courage to oppose Vietnam before this.

* MIKE GRAVEL DID NOT END THE DRAFT.  THAT IS A BALD-FACED LIE.  He attempted to do so, but failed -- even in a Democratic-led Senate.  The Senate rejected his effort on 9/21/71, pushing through a two year draft extention.  Look it up. . . . Conscription ended when US involvement in the war ended two years later, and Gravel had nothing to do with it.

* I guess all the polls must be wrong.  Perhaps it's an international conspiracy.  Willis Carto -- the notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier whose group Gravel addressed in 2003 -- might think so.  But most of us realize that a candidate who is at 0% in the polls doesn't have a whole lot of support.  

You might disagree.  We'll find out the truth next week.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 13:25:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

gracious... (0.00 / 0)

Do you think politics is a forum for purists?  Now, considering Gruening was 81 in 1968, you think he was going to match Gravel's Senatorial achievements?

And don't invoke that shit about Gravel addressing Carto's group.  He was invited to speak about the National Initiative, and regrettably did not know the affiliations of the group.  He merely attended to share the ideas of the National Initiative.  Were it to be enacted, ALL citizens would lawfully be part of it, so don't come here like a hatchet man.

Clearly, your ignorance knows no bounds as to the fundamental fact I stated.  Many polls DO NOT include Gravel (or Kucinich, or perhaps Biden & Dodd).  A NY Times feature just this weekend featured 6 candidates, minus Gravel and Kucinich.  And considering Kucinich exceeds Dodd (and often Biden) in polls, that bucks any legitimate "criteria" or "media rubric".  Show me legitimate political coverage and I'll show you legitimate candidates.

Who are you shilling for?  Better yet, I'd LOVE to hear what you have against Gravel, and who you think is better.

---

by: Peace Czar @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 15:04:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Asked and Answered (0.00 / 0)

* I don't "shill" for anyone.  Unlike you, I have been on BH since last spring -- long before the primary fever kicked in -- and am a known quantity to people who blog here. . . . Believe me, if I were "shilling" for any candidate, I would not waste my time on a political nonentity like Mike Gravel.

* What do have against Mike Gravel?  I think I've made that perfectly clear.  He ended the career of a great man -- Sen. Ernest Gruening -- and did so by the basest form of ambition possible.  From the Gravel's own mouth:  "All I had to do was stand up and not deal with the subject, and people would assume that I was to the right of Ernest Gruening."  That's disgusts me.  

On a practical level, I do not believe that Gravel is running a serious campaign for the Presidency, for reasons cited previously.  And his participation in debates takes time (and attention) away from those that are.

* Oh, and since you raised the age issue, I would remember that your man would turn 80 soon after taking office.  And the presidency is a far more tiring job that the Senate.

* On the Carto issue. . . . Here's an idea:  Try Googling an organization before legitimizing it with your presence.  (Wouldn't be difficult -- Carto is the most notorious Holocaust denier in America.  See Wikipedia entry:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...  If Gravel is this naive, how would he hold up in a presidential campaign?  Not well.

* Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich have been in every poll that I've seen during the past six months.  Not Gravel -- a reflection of the fact that he has no money, no paid media, minimal campaign staff, and no hope of being elected President.  And, unlike these other gentlemen, he's been out of public office for nearly thirty years.

* I do not support any of the candidates -- am undecided between Obama and Edwards.  I do not work for any candidate, nor have I ever.  

But I am a student of political history, and I know Mike Gravel's legacy well. . . . While I admire your passion for your candidate, I believe it is severely misguided.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 16:13:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Primary historians? (0.00 / 0)

(I'm just old, I'm not a real historian.)

Jim, or maybe Bill Gardner, could weigh in?

Have the Dems had an exclusionary debate in NH before? The Republicans tried in 1980; Reagan decided to object.

(Like Bill I remember Ned Coll and his rat. There was some threshold adopted since then - Henry Hewes and Kenneth Capaldo don't appear in the debates, but nobody much complains.)

So: Is this action a precedent?

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 15:36:39 PM CST

I think it is important... (4.00 / 2)

...to mention that we have never had candidates campaigning for such an incredibly long time before the primary, either. No one may have been excluded before this, but I would be willing to wager a few of my New Year's Eve beers tonight that no prior set of candidates has had nearly as many chances to debate, either.

It is one thing to start a campaign in the fall and be excluded in the winter, it is entirely another to start a campaign in the winter and be excluded in the winter...a year later!

Just throwing it out there.

---

by: BTB @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:06:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

valid point, but... (0.00 / 0)

While that is worth considering, that does nothing to affect the actual time frame of elections.  The primaries and the elections are the days of reckoning, so why should anyone be booted prior?  And while candidates may have been campaigning early on, the great wealth of voters have not tuned into until much more recently.  Nor did nationally televised debates begin until late April.

There was never any harm in getting a leg up, but cutting someone off below the knees is a whole different story.

---

by: Peace Czar @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:43:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And to announce this before Iowa (0.00 / 0)

also seems a bit heavy handed and presumptious to me.  We'll never know, but I wonder if this news reaches Iowans before the caucus, does it do anything to change things on Thursday night?

I'm a HOPE monger.

---

by: Kelly Nordstrom @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 16:23:57 PM CST

Oh, they HAVE to announce beforehand! (0.00 / 0)

If they announce a rule after the results are in, they know whom the rule favors.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 16:26:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Disgusting, And Not "Democratic." (4.00 / 4)

The news media should play no role in limiting official candidates who have already participated in previous debates.  Nor should an educational organization. That's not what the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary is about.

Further, I could strongly suggest that the Iowa Caucus is NOT a real election -- it is a statewide collection of political party meetings where members publicly support their candidates of choice.  That's not what we do in November, when Americans go into the privacy of their voting booths to exercise their right to vote in our democracy.  New Hampshire's Primary is a real election.  Party members in Iowa should not be determining who may or may not debate the issues in New Hampshire.

I would give any of the candidates who are "chosen" to participate in Saturday's upcoming St. Anselm College debate a bow of respect if they stand up, as Ronald Reagan did, and insist the others be allowed to join the stage.  That would be leadership of the first order.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 16:43:39 PM CST

Do we have an Obama voice? (4.00 / 1)

Jim's for Hillary, I'm for Edwards. If we have an Obama endorsee who thinks the winnowing is wrong, they'll think it's a movement.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 16:48:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where... (4.00 / 1)

...were you guys when Gravel was excluded so many times? How about when the Kooch was left out in Iowa? Do they not count for democracy?

Is this all about Biden and Dodd? Or is it about Ronald Reagan? I sure have heard his name a lot on BH today. How convenient.

We've heard everyone's ideas before. If you want to hear them again, I suggest you talk to the Gravel people about an alternate debate..before it's too late!

---

by: BTB @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:00:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey, buddy: (4.00 / 1)

Fuck off.

I was defending letting everyone in form the get-go.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:06:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Taking it Kos (0.00 / 0)

Yahoooooooo!

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:09:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is why (4.00 / 1)

I quit front-paging. So I could be an a$$hole.

Sh!t! I can't even do that right!

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:16:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No Worries, (4.00 / 1)

Elwood, I was just being an asshole, too.

---

by: BTB @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:21:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't count - Masshole, but.... (0.00 / 0)

I like all the candies debating. There is always a gem to be had from each.

Since they stick to talking points most of the time, the only time I hear from "the less covered" candidates is during the debates.

I say line 'em up. It is the voters job to knock 'em down, not the press!

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:00:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I support Obama, but dont speak for him or the campaign, but.... (4.00 / 4)

      I think it is wrong to deny a voice to people who clearly are serious candidates before a single voter has voted. (not caucused, which is something quite different).
     We essentially allow private corporations to control who can stand on the soapbox to address their fellow citizens. Serious election reform would require media corporations to provide ample and equal air time for all candidates as a condition of being allowed access to public bandwidth. ( and as an  act of mercy towards the citizenry, perhaps it could be limited to a reasonable time preceding the election so we would be spared the never-ending election).
     

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 18:49:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The voters. (0.00 / 0)

That's who's being denied access to the candidates.

But then, it's not about the voters is it?  It's about a new media subsidy now that regular programming is turning viewers off in droves.  That the programming is the problem still hasn't sunk in.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:56:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Um, hello? n/t (4.00 / 1)

I'm a HOPE monger.

---

by: Kelly Nordstrom @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:40:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

An Obama supporter (0.00 / 0)

for having them all "debate". This is being way too run by big bucks and the MSM.

Obama more than holds his own. The more, the merrier.

I also resent that there is a "time" factor. Let 'em talk is my motto.

---

by: jbd @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:51:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the other candidates (4.00 / 2)

should refuse to participate.


NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:05:53 PM CST

Don't think you sharpen the debate by eliminating the most experienced debaters (4.00 / 2)

Reducing the field may mean only that a candidate gets to talk longer without challenge.  I feel not having Biden on the stage with Pakistan in the news diminishes the debate.

Debates are where ideas compete most directly. Our elections are giving too much importance to name recognition and fundraising. (Eg. George Bush. I rest my case)  This is another increment in that direction.

This election season, my first choice was Joe Biden, because, in this cycle, I believed the most important priority was for America to re-establish itself as a model of democracy and as an advocate for global peace and stability. I wanted a leader that could immediately add clarity and purpose to our foreign relations.

Biden approached the Presidency by demonstrating leadership on the job, hoping to be advanced to a 4-year tenure from an interim position. Many factors indicated he would not be a leading fundraiser. If he were to succeed, his leadership would need recognition by the press.

Not to be.  Early on, those that are not having fundraising success receive reduced press coverage. The media's emphasis on fundraising success influences fundraising potential. A candidate hoping to have his ideas or accomplishments generate support is overshadowed by the candidates who raise the most money or have the best name recognition or both.

Besides Biden, the second tier contains financially limited candidates who could govern as effectively, perhaps more effectively, than the first tier candidates. No matter how good your health care plan or inspiring your vision, you need to get it enacted by the Congress. LBJ passed JFK's unrealized agenda; Clinton was considered ineffective until Gingrich shut down the government.

I will not have difficulty supporting our nominee. I am proud that all the our candidates have developed agendas that will make America better. If the nominee is not the most experienced candidate, I'm sure those candidates returning to the Congress will give our new President their full support in passing a Democratic agenda.

Yet, I don't like the idea of silencing voices who contributed important ideas to past debates based on polling. Polls can be affected by the latest run of saturation advertising. In a highly volatile election, letting polls winnow the field is a bad idea.  That should be the job of actual New Hampshire votes. It takes more to go to the polls than to answer the phone.

As a Joe Biden supporter, I am offended that the debate managers could not give a seat on the stage to the Senator who has led the assault on Bush's foreign policy for the past year.

---

by: fjm @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 17:43:14 PM CST

Simply not appropriate (4.00 / 2)

to limit the participants at this point.  All should be included.

John Edwards - One of the most decent men I've ever met.

http://www.johnedwards.com

---

by: JohnMucci @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 18:26:45 PM CST

I'm for Hillary.... (4.00 / 1)

But this just isn't the NH way.  All or any one of those four in the debate should object.  They shouldn't tolerate limiting the debate, either. There is no way that a sitting member of Congress, or a sitting member of the Senate should be excluded - NO MATTER WHAT.  And I think it should be the same for former members, too.  But that's case by case.  Gravel isn't relevant, for instance.

I'd be very proud of Hillary if she said no way.

---

by: nhpoliticscom @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 18:45:40 PM CST

This is one of Ray Buckley's PRs.... (4.00 / 3)

Statement from NH Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley

Concord, NH - "New Hampshire has a long and proud tradition of serving as a level playing field and is the one state where each candidate can be given an equal opportunity to be heard by the voters. I would strongly encourage any NH media outlet holding candidate debates or forums not to eliminate a sitting US Senator or member of Congress"

---

by: nhpoliticscom @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 19:06:19 PM CST

Thanks, I just added it up top. n/t (0.00 / 0)

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 19:41:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

These are the words the media have decided (0.00 / 0)

you will not be hearing at the debate (from a Dodd release today):

Senator and Presidential candidate, Chris Dodd, issued the following statement in response to President Bush's reported veto of the Department of Defense authorization bill which included a measure authored by Dodd that would extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow the families of wounded servicemen and women to take time off to care for their loved ones.

"While the constitutionality of President Bush's veto in this particular case is unclear, I'm appalled that he would even consider it. It's shocking that this President who speaks with such fervor about supporting the troops, would put the interests of the Iraqi government over the interests of the brave men and women of our armed forces and their families."

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 19:42:53 PM CST

Not too encouraged that two of the four (4.00 / 1)

will be eager to insist that all be included, after I recalled this clip:

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 20:12:07 PM CST

Spread the word to Kos (4.00 / 1)

Is there any one here that could write a diary on Kos regarding Raymonds statement, ect?

wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

I just gave Kos a quick once over. Nada!

Build it and they will come.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 20:21:03 PM CST

Done (4.00 / 2)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/1/8554/92924

---

by: hannah @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:12:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rec and commented (0.00 / 0)

"All I hear is STAND,...
  but no one is on their feet!"

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

Still haven't figured out how the recommend is supposed to work.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:02:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Four at the Debate (0.00 / 0)

I voted absentee this afternoon because I will be spending the entire day in another town working GOTV for Hillary Clinton.  I'm sorry I didn't count the names on the ballot but there must have been at least 15 on the Democratic ballot.  

So where do you draw the line on debate participants? The League of Women Voters would probably draw the line tightly. Their interest is in bringing the most important information to voters -- so they tend to bring only the people who have any chance of winning. By their criteria, there might be only four or five people on the Democratic side.

I am torn about what is right here. I think I would have to come down on the side of serving members of Congress and the Senate along with the top four from Iowa. That would probably leave out Gravel and maybe Richardson if he doesn't place in the top four in Iowa.

It's a tough call but this is not a popularity contest -- it's an election for the Presidenbt of the United States -- propbably the most important office on earth.

People in New Hampshire should have an opportunity to hear what the most viable candidates have to say. It will be hard to do that if there are more than four or five people in the debate.

---

by: calvin @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 22:26:05 PM CST

It is our burden: (4.00 / 2)

People in New Hampshire should have to listen to just about EVERYONE. Or they should give somebody else the gig.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 23:00:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Eh, you don't know what you're talking about. (4.00 / 1)

The LWV invited all the candidates.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:45:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It is our burden (0.00 / 0)

Do you really want 15 people to be in the final debate before the New Hampshire election?

---

by: calvin @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 23:24:00 PM CST

Snapped this today (0.00 / 0)

There is no good reason the 7? that have been debating should not do so here this Saturday night.

Hope > Fear

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 00:36:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What I really don't want is results from another state to (4.00 / 1)

determine the edbate lineup in ours.

If candidates drop out post-Iowa on their own, that's fine.

But essentially banning them from contention after a year's worth of campaigning and raising money and people on the ground and delegates chosen in this state is appalling.

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:35:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Baloney. 8 != 15. (0.00 / 0)

So stop lying.

And yes, given the choice between letting longshots in, or letting big media rule them out, I want them in.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:47:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Absolutely disgraceful (0.00 / 0)

That is all I can say about it.  

Politizine.com

---

by: Tony Schinella @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:29:03 AM CST

Hillary statement will be coming later today (0.00 / 0)

As I posted on the other two diaries dealing with this, Hillary will be issuing a statement later today saying the excluded candidates should be allowed to participate. Given the schedule out in Iowa, I'm not sure when it will go out in a release, given how everyone is so focused out in Iowa with the caucuses the day after tomorrow, but equal access is important to me, as I know it is with you all, so I wanted to get the word out here at BH.

Energy and persistence conquer all things.
Benjamin Franklin

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 13:36:06 PM CST

Obama on the Upcoming New Hampshire Debate (4.00 / 1)

Statement from Senator Obama on the Upcoming New Hampshire Debate

MANCHESTER, NH-Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement on the upcoming debate in New Hampshire:

"The voters of New Hampshire deserve to hear all the Democratic candidates' views on who can best lead America in a fundamentally new direction, and that's why I urge these networks to allow full participation in this week's debate."

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:50:40 PM CST