If nothing else, the barring of Kucinich from the debate today

[question everything]

should end Iowa determining the candidate for the rest of us.

Yes, this "first in the nation" has a major economic impact on Iowa. But to bar Kucinich for not spending enough money in Iowa is extortion. Would make Tony Soprano proud (I think, have never watched this program :evilfrown: )

As I have posted before, we need to urge all the candidates to stick around for at least through "Super Duper Tuesday" Feb. 5. We are talking 33 days and voters in other states, that have not seen a whiff of a candidate should have their say.

We, and the candidates, may be surprised.

[Inspired]

1. Kucinich isn't really running a campaign in Iowa.

I wonder why Kucinich decided to bypass Iowa. It isn't an expensive state to set up an office or buy advertising. I believe that is why he wasn't invited by the host of the debate.

[killbotfactory]

10. Too busy locking up the Hawaii vote.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/for-dennis-kuci.html

I think he placed second in Hawaii last time.

[Renew Deal]

2. You're not a serious presidential candidate if you don't have at least one office.

And the sooner people realize that Kucinich is not a serious presidential candidate, the happier they will be.

[question everything]

3. Less serious than Alan Keyes?

He is not my choice, but I think it is up to the voters, not the Des Moines Register, to determine who is a candidate.

Similarly, Gravel is not my choice and, yes, fewer candidates allow for more time for each - more or less - but it bothered me that he was kept out of recent debates.

Perhaps we need to change the debates format. I think that it gets interesting when they go back and forth among themselves rather than waiting for a moderator to "call on them."

(Of course, I don't like it when candidates in Minnesota promise to "abide" by the party's endorsement and drop from the race if they don't get it, making the primaries a rubber stamp event).

[zalinda]

4. There were rules in place

Kucinich knew the rules and decided it didn't apply to him. Don't we have someone in the White House now who thinks the same way? Look, I don't care who broke the rules, if it would have been Edwards, I would have the same feeling. We have rules for a reason, and breaking them when we feel like it just doesn't cut it.

Alan Keyes must have an office in Iowa, or he would have been excluded too. Rules are rules. Now if you find out that Alan Keyes doesn't have a store front office, then by all means blow a gasket. But until then.........

zalinda

[MGKrebs]

5. self delete.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Keyes doesn't. He doesn't even have one staffer. I've completely changed my position on this.

[zalinda]

9. Then by all means blow a gasket

Write and call the paper. Ask the them the reason Keyes was included.

zalinda

[AZ Criminal JD]

12. The Des Moines Register said this morning that Keyes

met their criteria. A candidate had to get 1% in their Oct poll and have at least one staffer and one office. Keyes got 2% in their Oct poll (although nothing in their Nov poll) and they claim he has an office and a staffer. Who knows about that.

[GreenArrow]

14. he met the rules

The rules did not require a storefront office, merely an office.

It was arbitrary bullshit.

[KansDem]

8. "...waiting for a moderator to 'call on them.'"

I for one would like to see moderators from local colleges and universities ask the questions. Select from political science, economics, social sciences, history, business, etc. I just don't understand this penchant to include celebrity "journalists" who wind up asking inane questions and don't follow up when it's obvious the candidates are way off base on their answers.

I know it hurts the feelings of these "journalists" to say this, but they are not omniscient, no matter how much they like to think they are!

[cyclezealot]

13. when you are not happy with the other options

there is no other option. We will be happy for him to just represent our issues, to the very end- I hope.

[redqueen]

7. Agreed. Iowa should lose their privilege for this.

What a frickin joke.

[onenote]

11. I didn't realize Iowa "determined" the candidate for the rest of us

If it did, why are there other primaries?

Fact is that, since 1972 (and excluding 1996, when incumbent President Bill Clinton was unopposed) the leading vote getter in the Iowa caucus has gotten the nomination 5 times and has not gotten it three times. You could even argue that its really a 50/50 split since in 1976, the leading vote getter was "uncommitted" (wit the eventual nominee, Jimmy Carter, in second, nine points behind uncommitted).

[question everything]

15. Dole and Gephardt won the Iowa Primaries in 1988

neither got the nomination.

Watch and see how many will stay in the race after Iowa - of both parties - and you will see what I mean. This is why I hope - had another thread about it - that all the candidates will stick around for the Super Duper Tuesday Feb. 5. To let people in, say, California, express their opinions. Of course, the candidates did not campaigned much outside the first four but who knows?