Judge Tells MSNBC, Include Kucinich or Cancel the Debate

A note to readers: I must admit, as has likely been clear, I have been quite taken with Congressman Dennis Kucinich and his stand on various issues. This blog was, as I explained in the summary at the top of the page, part of my attempt to make sense of who the options were and who I would like to support in whatever ways I could. That has placed me tentatively in his camp*, but I'm still thinking as I go here, and intend to offer more variety on the other candidates going forward. Now, on to the news:

As stated in the New York Times yesterday:

"A Nevada judge has ordered MSNBC to include Representative Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic presidential candidate, in Tuesday night’s debate in Nevada, the Associated Press reports.

The debate was expected to feature Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Charles Thompson, a senior district court judge for Clark County, Nevada, said he would issue an injunction stopping the debate if Mr. Kucinich is excluded."

The Kucinich campaign's press release on the subject begins in the following way:

"Less than 44 hours after NBC sent a congratulatory note and an invitation to Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to participate in the Jan. 15 Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas, the network notified the campaign this morning it was changing it announced criteria, rescinding its invitation, and excluding Kucinich from the debate.

NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign this morning that, although Kucinich had met the qualification criteria publicly announced on December 28, the network was “re-doing” the criteria, excluding Kucinich, and planning to invite only Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards.

The criteria announced last month included a fourth-place or better showing in a national poll. The USA/Gallup poll earlier this month showed Kucinich in fourth place among the Democratic contenders."

Another look at some of the details is available here, and a link to the court document here. MSNBC has appealed the ruling, and the hearing was supposed to happen at 4:30 this afternoon. MSNBC must not be very confident about their chances though, with the top story on the debate section of their website including details on how Kucinich will likely be included. Apparently some of the questions will be asked by the candidates, one to another, so Dennis could really spice things up if he's there. Nothing is finalized though, so we may just have to wait till the debate airs tonight to find out (it'll be on MSNBC and MSNBC.com from 9-11 pm EST).

* I am trying to consider if I will cast my vote his direction come the Virginia primaries. As mentioned here, on the Huffington Post's blog, with much stacked against him, Kucinich may simply be staying in it to influence the positions taken by the other candidates--a laudable goal for sure; if that's the case, I'll have to think through some strategy in terms of whether a vote for him would be better spent on another candidate that has a greater likelihood of being elected. Either way though, here's what the writer in that Huffington Post piece said about all this:

"Kucinich is not running to win the nomination. He knows he is not going to succeed...He is running to influence the political discourse within the Democratic party --- which is critically important. He is running to show the frontrunners what the full spectrum of Democratic opinions might be...in a real debate. We cannot elect the really "perfect" until we see it. Which is why Kucinich and his Democratic positions are so important. I know that history is on his side and his positions are the right direction for democracy. I can only hope that Hillary and Obama see it too. One day we will have universal medical care, we will ban corporate control and corrupt financing of the political process, we will legalize gay marriage, we will get rid of the Patriot Act, and we will stop fighting stupid wars. So thank you Dennis, for speaking truth to power. And you will have my vote in the primaries."

Update: Alas, the Nevada Supreme Court apparently just ruled tonight that Kucinich could indeed be excluded from the debate, overturning the above ruling.

Update 2: Kucinich discussed the ruling and his sentiments on it outside the debate while people protested his exclusion. At least for some of the night tonight, the video screening is available here: http://arqiva-dc-node-005.wm.llnwd.net/arqiva_DC_NODE_005 The debate was worth watching though, and did give a good idea of the other candidates; I'll see if there's a link at some point to add to the full debate (although I do still feel Kucinich would have added a lot, and brought a real challenging voice to the discussion).

Update 3: The radio/TV show "Democracy Now," carried on public radio and television, used a unique format the morning after the MSNBC debate to include Rep. Kucinich. They aired the questions and answers of parts of last night's debate, one section at a time, and followed each section with the answers of Rep. Kucinich (i.e., Kucinich was live on Democracy Now, and explained how he would have answered each question had he been included; he also responds to the other candidates' comments). Audio and video of the show are available here.

Update 4 (gotta be the last one): More links--1. Video by the Las Vegas Sun on the exclusion; and 2. Columbia Journalism Review article on the exclusion.

Do Obama and Clinton's Calls to "Include ALL in Debate" Ring Hollow?

If Obama and Clinton truly felt that Kucinich's exclusion from tonight's debate was an encroachment on the people's ability to choose, as they stated here, then it seems to me they could have refused to participate in tonight's debate (nevermind that Edwards did not call for this at all).

As a larger point, however, the basis for the ABC-WMUR exclusion of Kucinich, and any other candidate for that matter, is baseless. I say this because in a WMUR/CNN poll, conducted four days ago on Jan. 2nd, it stated:

"However, only 42% of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided who they will vote for, 27% say they are leaning toward a candidate and 32% said they are still trying to decide."

That statement, from one of WMUR's OWN polls, discredits their basis for excluding any candidate. I readily admit that ABC's reasoning is understandable: they want to, ostensibly, include the candidates whom voters are, according to polling, most demonstrably interested in--yet therein lies the question, do the voters know who they are interested in yet? And that question exactly is what, four days ago, WMUR, together with CNN, answered:

"...only 42% of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided who they will vote for, 27% say they are leaning toward a candidate and 32% said they are still trying to decide." (emphasis added)

Therefore, the question becomes, if only 42% of these New Hampshire Democratic primary voters have "definitely decided," how will the other 58% make up their mind? Well, one might think it reasonable that they would watch the final Democratic debates, held a short three days before the New Hampshire primary. Not only is that reasonable, but is it not likely that many were waiting for this final debate to make up their mind? And what conclusion might they draw after tuning into this highly publicized media frenzy? Might it slightly (read: almost entirely) make them think that the only real options are the four candidates participating?

Yet the elephant in the room is the fact that the 58% of undecided Democratic New Hampshire voters could still choose Kucinich, or Mike Gravel, who was also excluded. Yes, they could also not choose them, but there's the rub: many will feel the all-knowing media has presented them with the only real choices. Yet, with 58% still not certain, are there not enough in New Hampshire, not even counting Independents, to give Kucinich a strong showing? I'll just end with part of a recent Kucinich endorsement by Sean Penn, in which he stated:

"I’ve been torn lately, I’ve been torn by the allure of electability…here’s how simple it is. If those of us who truly believe in the Constitution of the United States, all of us, vote for Dennis Kucinich, he’ll be elected. Could we call him electable then?"

Please consider going here and here to express your discontentment with ABC's decision (and vote in my poll below as well)--a protest in the streets would feel more refreshing, but a flood of their inbox may be a good option in the meantime. By the way, the numbers I quoted above from the WMUR/CNN poll are available at the bottom of page one in their survey, located here.

more at twiigs.com...

Update: Here's a few key links related to this, with a video of Kucinich's speech outside the ABC/WMUR debate below, a press release by the Kucinich campaign and a link to singer Melissa Etheridge speaking out to the New York Times about Kucinch's exclusion.

Update 2: Lots of comments on this issue here, on Bill Moyers' PBS blog.

Register your discontent with the Register (Des Moines that is)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich at the December 4th NPR debate.

I decided to do this blog because, as I indicate with the name I chose, I feel it is important to understand our options; however, I feel the ability to do so was muddied tonight. This evening, the final Democratic debate was held before the all-important Iowa caucus in January. The Des Moines Register held the debate, and made the decision on who could participate. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, in his sixth term in Congress and second run for the White House, was excluded, along with former Sen. Mike Gravel. The legitimacy (or not) of the exclusion is the question, and apart from your stance on one candidate or another, one party or another, I think it is a sobering reality check to consider that some of the most important exposure for voters (if not the only) , is via the various television debates. There are no one-on-one conversations and handshaking with the candidates for most Americans, and so, apart from the internet, the debates are the closest we will get to those one-on-one conversations, the best sense we may get of their character and commitment, integrity and so forth. Therefore, based on the facts I outline in the below letter I sent to the editors of the Des Moines Register, I find it an encroachment on my right, and the rights of US citizens, to hear and consider the full swath of candidates, for an exclusion to take place on the basis that it did tonight (check here to read an overview that hits some key points from the Kucinich campaign on the exclusion). I would urge, again, no matter your stance or perspective, any who feel the basis of this exclusion inequitable, to write (or call) the editors yourself at:

Carol Hunter - 515-284-8502
chunter@dmreg.com

Laura Hollingsworth - 515-284-8041
Lhollingsworth@dmreg.com

You may also want to consider visiting this site to sign a petition to send a quick (or more detailed if you prefer) note to Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chair, and Mike Duncan, Republican National Committee Chair; the petition includes Rep. Ron Paul and former Sen. Mike Gravel in the language. Here is the note I sent to Mr. Dean and Mr. Duncan, which includes the longer letter I sent to the Des Moines Register:

---

Greetings, Mr. Howard Dean and Mr. Mike Duncan:

I sent the following letter to the Des Moines Register editors, Ms. Carol Hunter and Ms. Laura Hollingsworth. I feel it expresses clearly the issues with Rep. Kucinich's exclusion from the Dec. 13th debate (along with the related issues with previous exclusions of him, along with Rep. Ron Paul and former Sen. Mike Gravel). I hope you both will work to remedy this situation, perhaps by holding another forum prior to the Iowa caucuses, as our democratic process depends on voters hearing the candidates, particularly at such a decisive time when more and more citizens realize the primaries are almost here, and are naturally beginning to pay attention to the process. Here is the aforementioned letter:

Greetings, Ms. Hunter and Ms. Hollingsworth:

I am deeply frustrated that Rep. Dennis Kucinich was excluded from tonight's debate--the last debate before the Iowa caucuses. It is disturbing enough that elections ride so much on money, I cannot believe that this was done. This is untenable at a time when, to name one example of note, on National Public Radio, the Senior White House correspondent for Newsweek pointed out that the Democratic candidates' positions are beginning to drift towards Rep. Kucinich (albeit not in substantive enough ways; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16912151 ). This is still the only candidate that is proposing a not-for-profit health care system, among other stances which truly require courage to take. The answer should not be to exclude viable stances such as this from the discussion, if at all possible to include.

Further, numerous online polls have shown that Rep. Kucinich has noteworthy support. The ruling suggests that the decision-makers at the Register have lost sight of the fact that this is a national debate, and at a time when over half of the voters in important primary states have still not made up their mind (not to mention the rest of the country). And although he himself admits he is a long shot candidate, the idea of electability is, as Sean Penn pointed out in a recent endorsement of Rep. Kucinich, changing, else the democratic right to choose whom one will vote for is stripped. The American people deserve to hear and consider the voice of this serious, six-term Congressman who has functioned as a clarion voice in an otherwise overly cautious campaign season. I simply feel more equitable rules could have been formed if those in charge had more carefully considered the possible scenarios that could develop. I am less familiar with former Sen. Mike Gravel, however I think he may also have deserved to participate.

I hope a more thorough explanation and engagement with the true concerns of myriad Americans is published and made available to the public via the Register, and in a more thorough fashion than the short explanation currently available on the site (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/NEWS09/71213050/1001/NEWS ). According to the site, "Campaign officials say Kucinich's Iowa office is in donated space at the home of a Dubuque organizer. Register Vice President of Marketing Susan Patterson Plank said the campaign's explanation did not suffice. 'The decision by the Des Moines Register was that they needed to have an office, not in someone's home,' she said." The premise of this rule that requires a definite office in the state of Iowa in order to participate in the debate, is questionable in and of itself, particularly when there are clear campaign strategies that could encourage a candidate to focus more on other states. Furthermore, this rule (number 3 of those posted on your site), says "Candidates must have had a campaign office inside the State of Iowa as of October 1, 2007," yet there is no stipulation of the details on what the office should be. Are there further details on this? If so, they should have been sited and posted on the site, along with the basic set of rules I am referencing. However, given Ms. Patterson Plank's above explanation, it does not appear that the rules did stipulate between offices and home-based offices, as she seems to be stating that "a decision" was made after the issue with Rep. Kucinich's home-based office surfaced. Without clear stipulations beforehand, how should Rep. Kucinich's campaign know what type of office is needed? I respectfully ask for greater explanation, and if this decision proves unjustifiable (as it appears to be), another debate with Rep. Kucinich and perhaps former Sen. Mike Gravel in attendance--prior to the January Iowa caucus.

Regards,

Brendan

---

By the way, as a note to those reading my blog, if you got this far, you should really check out the text at the NPR link above, as it gives a good sense of Rep. Kucinich's place amid the current campaign (along with this bit on the NPR site with a slew of public comments on Kucinich). As I mentioned in the letter to the Register, he is certainly, by his own admission, a long shot candidate, but really speaks of vision and conviction and integrity from where I sit.

Update: I posted this in a section on the Des Moines Register site, where they allow you to start a blog. Check it out here, as there may or may not be some interesting comments that come around; and check here and here for their two (unsatisfactorily short) pieces on Kucinich's exclusion, as there are myriad comments, many of which are just various people who come across as sincerely bothered by this.