If the democratic party apparatus keeps seeking to

[mmonk]

not deal with Kuciich fairly, I'm not motivated to vote for their candidates.

[leftchick]

1. me either

nothing like corporate rule, eh? I had the most surreal argument with my freeper mom a while back. She was calling Hillary a "liberal"! I asked her if she even knew what the definition of a Liberal is because hillary is no where close to a liberal. She also had no clue that Ruppert threw a fundraiser for her. These are indeed very bizarre times.

[cali]

2. Nothing could keep me from voting for the dem candidate

in November of 2008, but I am really pissed with this business of shutting Dennis out. He should have the right to be included in every forum, just like all the rest. Shabby. Very shabby.

[EV_Ares]

3. I agree, Dennis has got a great message for everyone to listen to and

he speaks the truth about matters instead of just campaign yap yap. Unfortunately, you have your corporate candidates like Hillary with no change if she is elected. She will keep the troops in Iraq. Fortunately, John Edwards who is a good candidate, has the money to help himself in his campaign. He and Dennis appear to be the candidates that care for the working man and would be willing to try to restore unions back again.

[mmonk]

4. His treatment in Iowa is unconscionable.

He is being denied access to The Democratic Steak Fry why candidates polling lower were invited. He was also denied the function put on by AARP concerning heath care. For the first time in my life, I'm prepared to exact a price in a general election. I'll concentrate on local races and judgeships. I'm prepared to exact a price because that is the only path for change and is a question of fairness and morality.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Which candidates...

...who are polling lower were invited?

[mmonk]

6. Biden and Dodd.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Those with

offices and staff in Iowa - you know, the ones who are actually running there. Kucinich evidently has no office or staff in Iowa, and therefore, wasn't invited to the steak-fry.

But some polls have Kucinich at 2% and Biden and Dodd at 1%

[mmonk]

37. Dennis is running everywhere.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. but he doesn't have

an office or any staff in Iowa, and that was a requirement for being invited to this private event.

[mmonk]

42. My post # 38 should apply here in response.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. You can state is "having to pay rent"

but the reality is, one has to demonstrate that they're actually trying to campaign in Iowa.

Kucinich has not shown that he's actually campaigning there.

[Horse with no Name]

8. That's bullshit

Why is he being denied?
Dennis makes the corporatists look like the blood suckers that they are.
I guess I am surprised they let him play in the sandbox this long.:(

[mmonk]

10. I doubt a real appropriate answer will be given.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. sure one will

because Kucinich doesn't have an office or staff in Iowa, and evidently that's one of the conditions of being invited to Harkin's event.

[mmonk]

38. What about the other two events?

If the rule in Iowa is you can't run for president here unless you pay rent, state it.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. Which other two events?

the only other one I know of is the AARP one. You'll have to ask them what their criteria are.

But Kucinich is not making effort to run a campaign in Iowa.

[mmonk]

45. a Democratic Presidential Forum Thursday in Davenport.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. He wasn't invited because he hasn't even opened an office or hired any staff in Iowa

The candidates who were invited have done these things. If Kucinich won't take running a serious campaign, why shoud Iowa Democrats take him seriously?

[cali]

11. That's simply neither true or fair

He is running a serious campaign, with limited funds. And it's the public that's being punished by these games, even more than Kucinich.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Not true? Who is his Iowa staffer? What is the address of is Iowa campaign office?

:shrug:

[cali]

20. That's just a red herring.

An excuse to exclude him.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Why would Harkin go out of his way to exclude

Kucinich and Gravel? I read the rules were ironed out last summer - both candidates knew them.

If Kucinich isn't actively running in Iowa, why should Harkin be forced to invite him?

[mmonk]

33. Maybe it should be stated.

[mmonk]

13. It should be up to the democratic voters of Iowa.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. The Democratic voters are free to host their own forum

these were private events, and the hosts can set whatever rules they like.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. So, they should hold a primary in Iowa in 2007 to determine which candidates are serious?

:shrug:

[mmonk]

23. Caucus goers better?

[MonkeyFunk]

30. It's the Tom Harkin Steak Fry

he can invite anybody he wants. He chose to invite people who are actively campaigning in Iowa.

[mmonk]

46. Not just that.

[ShortnFiery]

12. Count me as "on board" with your suggestion.

:hi:

[mmonk]

15. This needs to stop at some point.

So far, I have contributed to Kucinich (and continue on a scheduled basis), Richardson, Edwards, and Biden. I'm also considering contibuting to Dodd for his work restoring Habeas Corpus. So I'm not being a rabble rouser.

[bryant69]

16. Kucinich is a no-hoper

What kind of special treatment do you think he deserves?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mmonk]

24. The same as your candidate.

[bryant69]

25. As near as I can tell he's getting the same treatment as Edwards n/t

[mmonk]

28. Not justified.

I agree with this:

"The whole purpose of the primary and caucus season is to provide voters with opportunities, not to enable a carnival of interest groups to subvert the process," Kucinich said. "When Party leaders and their allies pre-select which candidates they will allow the voters to hear, it's a disservice to the voters. Iowans deserve better than a rigged game."

Maybe I'm too democratic for the democratic party.

[bryant69]

29. Maybe Kucinich is throwing around wild accusations of discriminatory treatment

that aren't backed up by reality?

[mmonk]

32. Which would be?

[bryant69]

34. I don't know - i haven't heard him or you assert any specific injustices. n/t

[mmonk]

35. If keeping him out of the process pleases you, so be it.

Don't expect us to like it. This will get circular, so I'm bowing out.

[bryant69]

39. If you would make a specific accusation we'd have something to discuss

Without going in Circles - how is Edwards getting a leg up over Kucinich unfairly.

Bryant

[bigtree]

18. there are other ways to address this other than refusing to help advance our nominee

I don't think anyone who suggests sitting on their hands and refusing to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee deserves to be taken seriously about their opposition to republicans. If you don't vote for our party's eventual nominee, then you are doing absolutely NOTHING to stop the republican one.

[mmonk]

27. Read my post #4.

I'm loyal. It doesn't pay evidently. I'll vote in the presidential primary here and in the general if my vote will make a difference in that particular race.

[mmonk]

48. And I'd like something better for my money than thank you, now shoo.

[porphyrian]

26. You've already been discarded by them, except in your ability to donate money.

They've already redefined their base, and it ain't us any more.

[mmonk]

47. I'm finding that out.

[mdmc]

31. perhaps you should follow DK's lead?

He will support whoever the DLC tells him to.
Satan, get behind me!

[Individualist]

36. Kucinich is the antithesis of everything DLC stands for.

[mdmc]

44. but in the end, DK will endorse the Dem

:shrug: