What if Dennis Kucinich/John Edwards got the kind of airtime that Hillary and Obama got?

[Selatius]

How would that affect the race? Would they offer stiff challenge to Hillary and Obama? Or would Kucinich/Edward's concentration on working class issues hurt them with American voters?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. In my informal survey

I've found that people from all walks of life like what Kucinich is saying, especially on the war and on health care. Mine is a small sample, but includes professionals, working folk, liberals and conservatives.

[leftchick]

2. it would be a cold day in hell?

the corporate owned media always pick the candidates.

[superkia]

14. Look whos sitting next to Chris Matthews after the debate.

[eleny]

3. Sure

I like them both and don't like seeing them marginalized. But let's face it, Clinton and/or Obama would be great for ratings and revenue. And that's what the networks care about first, last and always.

[LSparkle]

4. I think Edwards should start to form a bond with some other candidate

Whether it be Obama or Kucinich or someone ... The only chance ANY of these guys may have to avoid Queen Hillary is to join forces (even if it's just with a wink and a nod).

[Colobo]

6. Obama and Edwards should join forces.

[LSparkle]

10. I almost think they're telegraphing to each other ...

by complimenting each other's responses and almost showing how their approaches are similar. I think Edwards/Obama or the reverse would be a GREAT ticket. The only problem is who would go first and who second ... One of them would have to pull out and agree that they'd serve as the other's VP or else they'll split the votes ... but I wish there were some way they could make it happen.

[Donnachaidh]

18. Edwards and Kucinich -- THE dream team!

Both men are on point for what middle class american wants. THAT would be awesome!

[pop goes the weasel]

5. people are hungry for working class issues to be addressed

The failure of the mainstream candidates to give a damn is at the root of the national political apathy that keeps blue collar people at home on election day.

[MessiahRp]

7. Kucinich needs more than the airtime they get, he deserves the respect they get...

When the media labels you the way they label that guy, it's nearly impossible to shake such ridiculous preconceptions.

Rp

[AndreaCG]

9. Perhaps the AFL-CIO rank and file just didn't ask enough questions of him

But Olbermann should have asked more to make up for that. I don't think he asked him one in his final 15 minutes of questions.

[OzarkDem]

11. Kucinich has done more for organized labor

than any other candidate running. It would be a disappointment to see them give him short shrift.

[mopinko]

22. barack has a labor background

he was well received, and sure did have the home field advantage. but he does have creds.
i think that people enjoyed hearing dk, but i am sorry, he is goofy looking. having clothes that don't fit doesn't help.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. That would change everything. :-)

[lonestarnot]

12. Yeah what if he fucking did.

[jsamuel]

13. Edwards had to TAKE his air time.

[Superman Returns]

15. agreed

I don't like how on Hardball the other candidates don't get their campaign staff interviewed.

[superkia]

16. Looks like MSNBC is HRCNBC? And I thought Fox was bad!

[Bitwit1234]

17. Well people pushing their so called feud gives them

a lot more time. Why don't Dennis and John E. start one then the focus would be on them.

[Donnachaidh]

20. now I'd love to see E & K comparing notes

That would be great TV.

[rucky]

19. What if David Swanson or Will Pitt had a half an hour with Tweety

after the debate?

[ecstatic]

21. Kucinich's problem is not his message- it's his appearance, unfortunately. nt

[rucky]

23. is that how you vote?

[MonkeyFunk]

24. the news networks

don't give away airtime for fun. Obama and Clinton get a lot because they're the frontrunners.

If Edwards got the numbers Obama or clinton did, he'd get airtime. Same for Kucinich, although I think more airtime wouldn't necessarily help Kucinich.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Unless you're really not paying attention, you know that they're considered

the "front runners" ONLY because they're better at raising corporate cash, which gives them "credibility" in the eyes of the MSM.

Note that there's very little about their actual policies in the news coverage. It's all polls and stories about who has raised more money.

I've talked to people who seriously thought that Hillary and Obama were the only ones running this year, and it would be easy to get that impression from the MSM coverage.

How can anyone be a real "front runner" before a single vote has been cast?

It's just that Hillary and Obama are the least threatening to the rich and powerful; hence they get the money from the fat cats and the publicity from the media owned by the six corporations that own almost all the media in this country.

The establishment types don't want anyone who will rock the boat.

Unfortunately, this country has veered so far to the right that only rocking the boat will get it back into an upright position.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. they're the front runners

because they're polling the best.

Kucinich gets more attention than he deserves, given his poll numbers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. How can anyone else poll well if only Hillary and Obama get the big

news stories?

Where are the Newsweek cover stories about the other candidates?

[MonkeyFunk]

30. the media

don't owe all candidates equal time. The notion is silly.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were relative unknowns who won the presidency - it can be done.

If a candidate can't get any press coverage, then he's a lousy candidate.

[Selatius]

32. Isn't that rather an absolutist statement? That they're lousy candidates?

Are you saying that there is a zero percent chance that it might be because of their policy decisions that angers the owners of NBC (like defense giant General Electric)?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. So you trust the media to choose your candidates for you?

:wow:

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. That would be another country, not this one

if there is something my cynical me has learned is... we don't choose anybody... it is all an ilusion

[wildbilln864]

29. They'd be superstars!

politically that is! lol

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. It would help them immensely.

Kuch and Edwards are talking pocketbook issues. That is what wins elections.

The economy is down the tubes, unemployment is far higher than the guvmint will admit to, and the answer is NOT "go back to school and get more training".

The economy is going to hell because of Reaganomics continued.

Check out SMU economics prof Dr. Ravi Batra. He says that extreme inequality in wealth distribution (such as we have now, destroying the middle and poor classes) leads eventually to revolutions.

He is dissed by other economists but his predictions are quite accurate. I read "The Great Depression of 1990". It hasn't hit yet because Clinton dug us out of a deficit and into a surplus, but we're back on the downhill slide.