' The left of the left'......uh huh

Dennis Kucinich on Single Payer

Kucinich Drops Out of the Race, But....

Kucinich has announced that he is dropping out of the Race for the Democratic nomination for President. Although he was never a serious candidate, actually winning the White House was probably not his true goal. His goal was to try to keep the other candidates honest...or at least to the extent that he could. And in that mission, he did well. Once he saw how the media and certain candidates used the courts to block his participation, he may have felt that his mission was probably done.... at least in terms of being a candidate. Hopefully he will continue to highlight the lies of candidates in both Parties.

How would Kucinich have done in that Nevada debate? What would he have said? Since Kucinich was blocked from the debate, Amy Goodman from Democracy Now gave him an opportunity to take part in the debate anyway, and allowed him to say what he might have said if he had the chance.

Listen Here

Dennis Kucinich Speaks About His Exclusion from the Nevada Debate

Hear a brief interview with Dennis Kucinich, where he talks about his lawsuit against MSNBC.

He made some great points, despite silly questions from the host.

He pointed out the fact that media organizations should not be in the business of deciding who the President is going to be.

Kucinich Was Excluded from Nevada Debate Afterall

I had a feeling that this was going to happen. At the last minute, NBC appealed a lower Court judges ruling that Kucinich should be included in last nights debate. Just a few hours before the debate was to begin, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of NBC, which wanted Kucinich out of the way.

The other candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, were scared to death about the prospect of having Kucinich in the debate. I may have spoken too soon when I suggested that Clinton had not yet bought the State of Nevada. Clinton already has the mainstream media on her side (which is how she gained her frontrunner status) and has been their favorite all along. Look at the lengths that NBC and Clinton's minions were willing to go through to keep this man out of the debate. Unbelievable!

Kucinich tried to use the Civil Courts to get a temporary restraining order preventing NBC's effort to exclude him, but he ran out of time. Read up on how they hustled him out of the debate. Folks... I predicted this kind of nonsense before the campaign season even started. It's the same thing every 4 years.

Just another episode in America's False Democracy. If you thought that you lived in a free Country with an electoral system that is truly free & fair, then you thought wrong.

And the debate itself was pretty much recycled from many of the previous events. The moderators spent the first 45 minutes talking about trivial nonsense, attempting to fan the flames between the candidates in an effort to boost their ratings. I can understand one or perhaps even two questions...and then let's move on. But these hosts just didn't want to leave the subject alone. They didn't touch on any of the important issues that Americans are concerned about in the first hour or so of the debate.
_______________________

Related Posts

NBC Tries to Pick the Next President

Read more about the Kucinich Lawsuit

Dennis Kucinich Back On Lie Patrol - Judge Rules that He Cannot Be Excluded From Nevada Debate

A Nevada Judge has ruled that Dennis Kucinich must be allowed to participate in the Nevada debate scheduled for later today. This is a big victory for Progressives.

Although Kucinich has no chance of winning the nomination, his participation will change the whole atmosphere of the debate- just by his very presense. This will pose a problem for Hillary Clinton. She will not be able to float through the debate and lie about her record, inflate her qualifications, or distort facts. Too often, the moderators of these debates allow her to get away with her lying by failing to challenge her, simply because she is Hillary Clinton. This is where Kucinich comes into play. He may be key to keeping her on the Defensive. Unlike Obama, who doesn't want to really go on the attack or say anything that would be deemed as wrong or "too negative" about Clinton, Kucinich has nothing to lose and nothing to gain. Without the burden of "political correctness" weighing him down, he will be free to tell the truth. I am quite sure that the Clinton camp is scrambling to adjust their strategy as I type.

The Clinton Camp would have loved to see Kucinich banned from the event, just like in New Hampshire. I guess she couldn't buy Nevada in time for this one.

Report from the AP

Judge grants Kucinich entry to NV

LAS VEGAS - A Nevada judge said Monday that Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich must be included in Tuesday's candidates' debate in Nevada.

Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson said if Kucinich is excluded, he'll issue an injunction stopping the televised debate.

The judge sided with a lawyer for the Ohio congressman, who says debate host MSNBC at first invited Kucinich to take part and then told him last week he couldn't.

A lawyer for the network said MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

The judge called it a matter of fairness and said Nevada voters will benefit if they hear from more than just Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

The cable network and the Democratic Party are calling the 9 p.m. EST debate a chance to hear issues from Nevada's minority communities. Tim Russert and Brian Williams are moderating.

Presidential Debates Action Alert

Hat tip to the Hankster for this action alert:

ACTION ALERT: Tell the FEC to demand a fair debate process!
Ron Paul excluded from Fox Debate/ Dennis Kucinich excluded from ABC debate

ABC News and FOX News are trying to narrow the field of presidential candidates Americans get to hear just as the first votes are being cast. Here's the story:

First, FOX News has invited the Republican candidates to participate in a forum on Sunday, January 6, 2 days before the New Hampshire primary. But they have excluded Ron Paul, who has been climbing in the polls, and has raised $19 million in the last three months -- more money than any other Republican candidate in the quarter. And he received 10% of the vote in Iowa!

Congressman Paul is the only Republican who has come out strongly against the Iraq war, and who has challenged many of George Bush's positions. The fundraising and poll numbers show Paul's positions are resonating with the American people. FOX has not released its criteria for including candidates in the forum, so we are left to infer the reasons behind their decision.

Second, ABC News and WMUR-TV are sponsoring Republican and Democratic debates on Saturday, January 5. This week they issued criteria for participation: a candidate has to either 1) place in the top 4 in Iowa; 2) poll at 5% in NH, or 3) poll at 5% nationally.

ABC is arbitrarily deciding who the American people hear from. Given the Iowa results, and that Dodd and Biden have dropped out of the race, this criteria only excludes Dennis Kucinich.

By law, the debate sponsors are supposed to issue pre-existing objective criteria for who gets to participate in the debates. FOX News has issued no criteria at all. ABC only issued their criteria on Tuesday, January 1, for a debate taking place on January 5.

It seems the criteria is being used to shape the results of the election.

HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Where is the FEC? It is the agency charged with enforcing the limited fairness protections that have been enacted in our election laws. Send the FEC General Counsel's office a letter or call to urge her to take action! The NH debates are critical, as they are just days before the first votes are cast in the nation. The FEC should demand that FOX and ABC include all ballot-qualified candidates in the debates.

FEC Contact info:
Thomasenia Duncan
General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20436
tduncan@fec.gov
202-694-1650

Hear The Democratic Radio Debate From NPR

NPR hosted a great Democratic radio Debate earlier today.

Hear the entire debate here. This was one of the best debates so far.

Sparks flew on the subject of Iran, in light of the recent NIE Report on Iran's so-called nuclear weapons program.
Clinton supported the Bush Administration's effort to label part of the Iranian Army as a terrorist group, providing the Neo-Conservatives with all the approval they need to launch an attack against that Country. But Clinton bought into the Bush Administrations disinformation campaign on Iran far too easily, with little skepticism, just as she did when she voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq. When you vote in favor of an ill advised war once, you may be able to get away with calling it a mistake. However, when you do it twice in a row, there is a thing called "judgement" that has to be called into question.

Watch The Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum

Watch the Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum which took place over the weekend in Des Moines. The forum included grassroots organizations from across the spectrum. Participants got the chance to pose important questions to the candidates. The forum was open to both Republicans and Democrats... But not one Republican bothered to show up.

The event was moderated by TVOne's Cathy Hughes.

Read an overview of the event here and here.

Apparently Hillary Clinton was booed at the event. See Video.

See John Edwards's Segment



One of the best candidates was Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately he went last and was rushed through with the little time that remained.

Watch Entire Event courtesty of C-Span

(the c-span video may only be available for approximately 2 weeks after it was posted)

If the c-span video is not available, you can watch video of the event here. (be patient through the delay.... fast forward past the music if you can)

Another Look At The Democratic Debate In Philly

Hear a great analysis of Tuesdays Democratic Debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Is there a chink in Hillary's armor? Some think so. The On Point Radio program digs a little deeper and comes up with some interesting possibilities.

Some of the panelists believe that Edwards looked good on Tuesday and that Tuesdays event could be seen as a more defining moment in the campaign. Others believe that the other candidates did not do enough.

Jack Beatty was bothered by poll numbers that indicate that the public is beginning to support war with Iran. It looks like Bush & Co.'s war propaganda (and fear) machine is starting to reap some benefits for the neocons. We are seeing a replay of the kind of PR that took place before the invasion of Iraq. It appears that Bush & Co. is dead set on a military conflict with Iran and they are simply attempting to sell it to the public... But I don't believe that the American public really understands all of the consequences of an attack on Iran.

The debate focuses on the fact that Hillary Clinton does not stand by her decisions, and she can't seem to take a solid position on any major subject. Yet, she somehow remains the media's choice. The panel seems to suggest that Hillary should not get too comfortable. I am personally losing hope that any other candidate will have a chance, considering that she has been annointed as the media's preferred candidate. Other candidates are not getting equal time, yet they are critized by some of the pundits for not have substance of for not challenging Hillary. Perhaps if the media would share the camera and the mic... perhaps the other candidates would be able to compete.

The debate also drew respectable ratings for MSNBC.

Guests

· Julie Mason, national political correspondent, The Houston Chronicle
· Joe Klein, columnist for Time magazine and author of "Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid"
· Harold Jackson, editorial page editor, The Philadelphia Inquirer
· Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst and senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly

Listen To Program

Roundup of the Democratic Debate In Philly

The Democrats squared off at Drexel University in Philly tonight for yet another highly controlled debate event. I would rather see another Youtube style debate, or a debate where the audience gets to ask real questions (and where they are allowed to follow-up).

But that day will never come. Unfortunately we will have to settle for these staged PR events.

I knew that there was going to be a debate tonight...but I was not sure exactly where. When I saw the news clips, I noticed that they had my hometown in the background for some reason, even though they were in Philly. Wouldn't it make more sense for the City of Philly to be the backdrop...uummmmm since they were in Philly? I prefer Philly's skyline anyway (apologies to my hometown). Anyway... when I saw my city in the background I went into WT_ ... Hell mode. "There was a debate here, and I didn't know it?.... That can't be, as much as I keep up with the news".

But of course I figured out that it was at Drexel.

St. Louis will have its chance once the big dance starts though. St. Louis should get one of the major General Election Debates next year....as it has for the last several elections.

This meeting was more focused on domestic issues. It was also hyped as the moment when Hillary was going to be confronted by the other candidates. However, they did not seem to put together any meaningful attack against the media's chosen favorite.... despite the fact that there were plenty of things that her opponents could have thrown her way.

Here is a play by play of the festivities from a NY Times liveblogger: (scroll down and read from the bottom up).

Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants 10:58 p.m. Interesting discussion on whether illegal immigrants should be able to get drivers’ licenses, as New York’s governor has proposed. Mrs. Clinton had said two weeks ago in New Hampshire that it made “a lot of sense,” but tonight gave a pretty indecipherable answer. She said that “what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.”

Mr. Dodd said a driver’s license was a privilege and to extend it to illegal immigrants was “troublesome.” Mrs. Clinton came back to say that she didn’t say it should be done, but that she recognized what the governor was trying to do. She and Mr. Dodd got into a spat about what she had said. She dismissed it as a “gotcha” question.

Both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama called her on what seemed to be a shift in her statement. Mr Edwards said, “Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago.” And Mr. Obama uttered a devastating phrase for anyone who remembers the 2004 campaign: he said he couldn’t tell if she is “for it or against it.”

Alternative Minimum Tax 10:39 p.m. The final third of this debate is considerably less intense than the earlier portions. The audience tends to drop off as these things go along, and reporters tend to turn their focus to preparing their stories for looming deadlines. So the moderators try to bring out any “news” early on.

Still, Mr. Russert tries to nail down Mrs. Clinton on whether she supports proposal by Representative Charlie Rangel to eliminate the alternative minimum tax and institute a surtax on those with higher incomes. (The alternative minimum tax was created to prevent millionaires from using loopholes to avoid all federal income taxes, but it can hit people with incomes as low as $50,000.)

Eventually, she says, she will not campaign on Mr. Rangel’s plan, but on the way to saying that, she noted that she and Mr. Clinton had never expected to be in the nation’s top income bracket, that it was a new experience and one she wasn’t entirely comfortable with.

Mr. Obama also said he would not campaign on the Rangel plan, but here he made a smart tactical move, turning the discussion to problems faced not by the richest people in the country but by struggling single mothers.

Social Security 10:13 p.m. Mrs. Clinton is getting a tough grilling tonight from Mr. Russert and she’s being very assertive, very adamant, in making her points. She spurns a suggestion that she has had one position on raising the Social Security payroll tax that she discussed privately with a voter in Iowa and another that she stated in public. In saying she won’t advocate a “specific fix” for Social Security, she reveals a little of her own strategy: “I’m not going to be repeating Republican talking points,” and says that to act like Social Security is in crisis is a “Republican trap.” Mr. Russert quotes Bill Clinton saying that Social Security is in crisis and asks if that was a Republican talking point.

Mr. Obama says he agrees that everyone is against privatization of Social Security, but then raises his bigger objection to Mrs. Clinton, which is an inclination to “muddle through and give convoluted answers” and says Mrs. Clinton “hasn’t been truthful.”

Mrs. Clinton says “I don’t see a difference here,” and that she supports a bipartisan commission on Social Security.

Biden on Giuliani 10:03 p.m. Mr. Biden rises above all this and says he’s not running against Hillary Clinton and turns on …. Rudy Giuliani! As he did in the last Democratic debate, Mr. Biden says Mr. Giuliani is “the most uninformed person” on American foreign policy, adding that all of Mr. Giuliani’s sentences, he says, consist of “a noun, a verb and 9/11.”

On Second Thought 9:44 p.m. Bill Richardson suggests that the candidates should not be going after Mrs. Clinton: “You know what I’m hearing here, I’m hearing this holier-than-thou attitude toward Senator Clinton. That it’s bothering me because it’s pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need.”

Christopher Dodd raised the question of Mrs. Clinton’s electability, but also adds, “Look, at the end of this process here, we need to have a Democrat in the White House come Jan. 20, 2009.”

Releasing Documents 9:43 p.m. After the break, Mrs. Clinton says that in a “perverse way,” the Republican obsession with her means they think she is “communicating effectively” about what she’ll do as president.

Mr. Russert asks her whether she will let the National Archives release her documents from your years as First Lady? She says the archives is releasing documents “as they do their process.” Mr. Russert notes that Bill Clinton had written a letter saying that their private communications should not be made public; would she lift that ban? She says it’s not her decision.

Mr. Obama steps in here, which is a place where he makes a clear distinction with Mrs. Clinton. Not releasing these records, when she is making the claim that her years as First Lady are the basis for her experience, he says, is part of the problem. “We need to rebuild trust,” he says and that means being open and accountable. He adds that the Republicans are obsessed with her because it’s a fight they’re comfortable having, and that means she can’t change things. Mr. Edwards continues along these lines. Mr. Richardson urges his fellow Democrats not to bash her, even as he notes his own differences with her. “We need to stay positive,” he says.

‘Tell-the-Truth Mode 9:38 p.m. John Edwards’ experience as a trial lawyer shows, making his case very clearly to the jury. He suggests that Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iran resolution because she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. “Our responsibility should be in tell-the-truth mode,” he said. Mrs. Clinton calls this a semantic difference.

Pledge 9:31 p.m. Interesting exchange when Tim Russert, the moderator, asked Mrs. Clinton to “pledge” that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons on her watch. She said she pledged to “do everything I can” to prevent Iran from doing so. He notes that she’s not making a full pledge. She repeats that she pledged to do everything she could. Whether this works for you probably depends on your definition of pledge. Mr. Edwards will also not make an air-tight pledge, but says, “What I will do is take all the responsible steps that can

be taken to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”
Mr. Obama says, “I think all of us are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons,” and adds: “I think there is a larger point at stake, Tim, and that is we have been governed by fear for the last six years, and this president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now.”

Iran 9:11 p.m. Mrs. Clinton is asked why she voted for the measure declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. She’s certainly not defensive about it. She says her vote was an expression of support for using economic sanctions and “vigorous diplomacy,” not a rush to war. Will this be enough to quell her critics? Mr. Obama says the resolution doesn’t send the right signal to the region and weakens our capacity to influence Iran but does not draw a clear distinction with Mrs. Clinton (he missed the vote himself). Mrs. Clinton, in her clarity of her position, also blurs the lines with her fellow Democrats, saying everyone on the stage “agrees” that President Bush has “made a mess” of the whole situation. Mr. Edwards again is the one who picks up where Mr. Obama left off, saying the resolution “looks like it was written by the neo-cons” and gave Mr. Bush everything he wanted, playing on the idea that Mrs. Clinton is a hawk and part of the Washington establishment.

Out of the Gate 9:02 p.m. Barack Obama is given his chance off the bat to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton. (And to make the first “Rocky” reference.) After a long wind-up, he says Mrs. Clinton has been on both sides of Nafta, torture and Iraq and says, “I think what we need right now is honesty with the American people about where we would take the country. That’s how I’m trying to run my campaign.”

But wow, if that was his opening shot, it was pretty soft. Mrs. Clinton got the signal and goes after the Republicans, not Mr. Obama. But John Edwards picked up the baton from Mr. Obama and also starts in on Mrs. Clinton and says, “I think it is crucial for Democratic voters and caucus-goers to determine who they can trust, who’s honest, who is sincere, who has integrity.”

The Fight in Philadelphia 9 p.m. Hi everyone. We’re watching the Democratic debate in Philadelphia tonight from South Carolina. This one goes for two hours. All aboard!

_____________________________

See another live blog journal from the USA Today.

The John Edwards Healthcare Plan Falls Short

I was reading through John Edward's healthcare proposal recently, and I realized how much it left the private (for profit) structure in place. Private, for profit health insurance companies, employers, drug companies and hospitals will remain in control of our healthcare. Is this Edward's idea of Comprehensive Universal Healthcare coverage? Edwards doesn't seem to understand that the fundamental underlying problem with the American healthcare system is the concept of for profit entities making healthcare decisions rather than doctors. When decision-makers stand to make windfall profits, the best interests of the patient takes a back seat.

The Edwards plan appears to be a fancy way of maintaining the status quo. His "Universal Healthcare" does not = a national system that we need. The Edwards plan keeps the HMO's in the drivers seat. Over time, they would be able to wiggle out of their responsibilities, through their lobbying efforts in Washington.... and within a few years, we would right back in this same position again. As savvy as the insurance industry is, I don't think they would have a problem gaming the system for their own advantage. See the Edwards Healthcare plan (pdf). The Edwards plan would still require workers to have money deducted from their wages for part of the premium costs and there would still be some out of pocket expense.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate that I know of who has a truly Universal, National Healthcare plan that would take the control away from the private, for profit health industry - an industry that is primarily concerned about making money rather than the health of Americans. The Kucinich Plan more closely mirrors the health systems of Canada and Europe.

Kucinich is the co-sponsor of House Bill H.R. 676, which would create this National healthcare plan. The Bill is currently circulating through Congress and has considerable support. The Kucinich plan puts patients and Doctors in charge of making healthcare decisions. There would also be little out of pocket costs for hospital/office visits. This would be a taxpayer supported system, like the systems that exist in the UK and Canada, but such a plan would eliminate the vultures from the system, making services more efficient. More of the money that is spent would go towards healthcare instead of filling the pockets of a middle man. The U.S. already spends twice and three times the money on healthcare as other countries that have better not-for-profit systems. If they can do it, why can't we- the richest nation on earth?

It is unfortunate that the man with the best Healthcare proposal doesn't have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination, let alone a General election. American voters are motivated more by style than substance. Ignorance about the issues and about the candidates has become a way of life for the American voter.

Unfortunately, despite significant support in Congress and from medical professionals, the Bill stands little chance of becoming law. The lobbyists who work for the insurance companies and the drug companies are working overtime in an effort to kill the Bill. And even if it passes in the House, it will not likely get through the Senate. If it ever reached Bush's desk, it is no secret that the Bill would be vetoed.

Watch as Kucinich briefly discusses his health proposal.