Why can't guys like Richardson, Biden or Dodd break out of the pack?

[PlanetBev]

I'm so frustrated. I've met so many Democrats that swear that they'll never vote for Clinton, that they can't stand her.

I'm afraid that we're being railroaded toward another bitter, humilating defeat. I'll be 57 on Saturday and I'm starting to think that I'll never see another Democrat (let alone Liberal)
in The White House in my lifetime. ;(

[wtmusic]

1. In 1991 Clinton (Bill) was a dark horse

a lot can happen in a year.

[tekisui]

4. I hope a lot does happen in 49 days.

The first primary is right around the corner.

[Perky]

6. A year? It is 50 days to Iowa and 80 until we will likely know the nominee

come super tuesday

[gateley]

14. But I'm guessing he came up with lots of money to help move him ahead.

Correct me if I have the wrong impression.

[wtmusic]

22. No, you're absolutely right

the same money which is powering Hillary's campaign.

Apparently it's all about money anymore.

[gateley]

31. That's ALL it's about. America. Jesus. nt

[mike from ri]

51. yes, like clinton, richardson is an innovative governor from

outside of the north, indeed, from a fairly conservative state.

this is the type of candidate who starts w/o big name recognition.

[slipslidingaway]

64. "Bill Clinton was featured at a Bilderberg meeting while he was

governor of Arkansas

...Bilderberg meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. Bill Clinton went in 1991 while still governor of Arkansas, Tony Blair was there two years later while still an opposition MP. All the recent presidents of the European Commission attended Bilderberg meetings before they were appointed..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4290944.stm


"Sen. John Edwards' standout "performance" at the super-secret Bilderberg meeting in Italy last month may have been a key reason for his selection as John Kerry's vice presidential running mate, according to the New York Times."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39333


Mark Warner

November 10, 2005

"...Warner has been trying to expand his network of Democratic Party and national heavyweights. In May, Democratic elder statesman Vernon Jordan took Warner to the annual Bilderberg Conference, which brings together some of Europe's and North America's leading bankers, economists and government officials. ``He did very well,'' Jordan said.

Fourteen years ago Jordan took another young southern governor to his first Bilderberg Conference. His name was Bill Clinton."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=alzoQPiW_xxc&refer=us


Maybe these appearances helped and maybe they did not, Kucinich will never be invited.

:shrug:

[El Supremo]

2. No sex appeal. n/m

[skyblue]

67. Biden and Richardson both have sex appeal. nt

[Tejanocrat]

3. For me, it's Richardson's stand against federal habeas corpus relief in death penalty cases, Biden's

bankruptcy votes, and Dodd's opposition to the down-payment assistance program as the main hurdles.

[SteppingRazor]

9. Yeah, but you're obviously not most voters...

most of whom I sincerely doubt are even aware of those candidates' stances on those issues.

I think that it's a simple question of charisma, really. Clinton's got big name recognition, and Obama and Edwards have that je ne sais quoi that, while mostly useless as an actual president, is so important as a candidate.

[Tejanocrat]

16. But if even the activists can't get excited about an issue, there is no word of mouth buzz which to

interest people who don't follow politics as closely.

[gateley]

15. It's more to it than that. The Big Three also have issues that people find

fault with. It's the money.

[TheFarseer]

39. yes but remember

Howard Dean was not a money machine going into 2004. He created buzz and buzz creates money. Richardson, Dodd and Biden were never able to create enough buzz to be competative in money. Obama did. Dean did.

[gateley]

42. Hmm. Your point about Dean gives me food for thought. Let me think on it

a bit before I dismiss it because it doesn't further my "it's all the money" stance. :7

[Renew Deal]

5. Richardson's got nothing. Biden is OK, but not spectacular. Dodd is a nobody nationally

There's three BIG name candidates. It's very difficult for anyone to break through if they have nothing to offer. Those three have very little to offer.

[gateley]

18. And how did they BECOME big? nt

[Renew Deal]

23. Years of attention and mass appeal.

Hillary is obvious. Edwards ran for VP once. Obama has mass appeal.

[gateley]

26. So money has nothing to do with it?

EDIT - I realize that sounds as though I'm putting words in your mouth. I should rephrase - do you think money plays a part in their visibility?

[Renew Deal]

36. Money has a role too

But it's usually tough to raise money without raising your profile too. Not having money is a major problem. That gets back to what I was saying before. They need to stand out for some reason. Without that, they can't overcome the low profile.

[gateley]

40. Then, to be ugly, I can see why so much money came the way of Those Three -

A Woman, An African American, A White Guy in case the country isn't ready for the woman or black guy. The money came as a result of the donors wanting to back the 'winner' for obvious reasons, and hedging their bets.

I am so firmly ensconced in the "it's always the money" theme, that I know I'll just keep twisting it back to that. So thanks for your reply - nobody has a chance of changing my view on so I'm actually feeling a little guilty about soliciting a response from you! :hi:

[KoKo]

71. The Media chooses the candidate. The Media pumped Obama as a rock star...

a new kind of black man...a phenomenon... Most Americans never heard of him. And, it's the Media who turned his name into a catchy phrase "Obama" like "Hillary" are the marketed Brands.

Why are Hillary and Obama the leaders? Because the MSM and Money Backers wanted it to be so. What is the goal of the MSM? To protect their wealth and influence and to put the people they want in power.

Media can make a person a Rock Star or a Pariah. Look at the hounding of Brittany Spears. Look at the pumping of a Donald Trump into Media Mogul when he has faced financial problems over and over.

The Media picked Bush over Gore. They have the most influence. This time they picked people they can raise up and tear down again if Hillary and obama don't look like they can survive to do their will or buck up against them if elected. Or, they may just be teasing us when a Dodd or Biden is who they really want and by raising up Hillary and Obama and then tearing them down they get two seasoned, financially controllable Democrats who are well aware of how the "system" works. Dodd worked with Lieberman to help deregulated the SEC..loosen Banking Laws which helped create Dot Com Bubble and now Hedge Fund, Bank, Mortgage fiasco. Biden's biggest backer was the Credit Card Industry which has ripped off the young the old and all inbetween since the 1990's. MSM would really love those two... :eyes:

[murbley40]

76. Did sombody put somethng in your KoKo?

[ginchinchili]

61. Right. We sure wouldn't want experience to get in the way of running the country.

"Those three have very little to offer." Are you sure you aren't talking about Clinton, Obama, and Edwards?

[hlthe2b]

7. because many may be still hoping for Gore?

Seriously, I wonder if some of the stanch support on the ground has wavered for all but the three frontliners... But, I can not allow myself to believe what you propose.

[dtotire]

8. Money Corrupts The System

With their experience,these three could step into the Presidency and do as good a job as Hillary, and would not get the venom that is being tossed at her. Hillary would make a good president, but when some people refer to her as a bitch, I doubt she could be elected. My preference now would be for Biden.

[Rabo Karabekian]

10. Not Different Enough

They started too low, and they're too similar to the front runners.

[gateley]

21. If we were given the opportunity to more fairly compare them with the front-

runners, I think we'd find there are a lot of dissimilarities. These people haven't been given a fair chance to be heard.

[napi21]

11. It's ALL the media coverage! Believe me, I think and talk politics

A LOT, and since there's only my hubby & I ere, he hears it most of the time. Last week, I said something like "I really like Job Biden, and it's wasso ironic when in the last he mentioned Pakistan as being our biggest problems and 3 days later Musharuff shut down the Supreme Court and arrested all the lawyers there!" My hubby said "WHO'S JOE BIDEN?" I could have cried! I know I watch cspan, CNN, MSNBC etc and he doesn't, but HErE IN THIS HOUSE he ddn't know who that was?????

It's mind boggeling what it takes to get Apolitical people to pay any attention at all!!!!!!

[gateley]

25. Agree - same with my friends. They will decide between those they are told

are the only choices.

It's heartbreaking that this is the situation.

[KoKo]

72. Does he know who Obama is? That would show the media influence for sure...n/t

[napi21]

80. He knows Obama, Hillary, & Edwards. On the Pub side, he knows

Rudy and that's it.

[gateley]

12. $$$$$ It's always my answer and it's true. You don't hear a story about the

candidates without mention of how much money they have.

When Ron Paul got that $4 million overnight (!) all of a sudden the press started paying attention to him.

We're in a crucial situation where we need to find the best person available to lead our country. We need to be able to choose from all the viable candidates -- and viable in the sense of their experience and what they can deliver. Not viable in a monetary sense.

This is America, but the current situation just makes me feel as though I'm reading of a country elsewhere where those with the big war chests are rolling over and eliminating those who may be even better qualified, but can't fairly compete because of lack of funds. We'd be outraged as outside observers.

This disgusts me and makes me feel dirty.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I'm afraid that we're being railroaded toward another bitter, humilating defeat.

The data suggests otherwise:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[wtmusic]

20. Within 5% suggests Giuliani will win

as Democrats are less likely to show at the polls. Same as last time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. How

Gore did a couple of points better than the polls indicated and I have never seen an election where the pollsters were off a whopping five points...That being said I will concede it's 11/07 not 11/08...

[BlueStater]

17. Richardson's been running a rather lackluster campaign

His weak debate performances haven't helped him at all.

I don't know about the other two though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Richardson Looks Good On Paper

But so did President Glenn in 1984...

[mike from ri]

52. interesting comparison but off the mark

richardson has worked up detailed substantive positions which will eventually shine through. also, as a gov, richardson has advantages glenn lacked. the presidency has generally gone to governors.

[amandabeech]

58. Richardson wants Great Lakes water to be piped to his state.

He won't be popular in some of those square states up north.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. John Glenn Was An Authentic American Hero

John Glenn was an authentic American hero... He was the first man to sub orbit the Earth...There was a book and a movie, The Right Stuff, made about his exploits...He also flew scores of successful bombing missions during WW ll... He was a centrist from a populous state... Many insiders felt he would be the perfect match for Reagan...

[JCMach1]

62. Richardson is running for VP

[Carrieyazel]

85. You've bought the MSM line that he's had "weak" debate performances.

He did great in the ABC Sunday morning debate. Hillary sucked there. He also was fine in the CNN/You Tube debate. He had the best line of the night as I recall. (No child left behind). He's also done well since his mediocre early performances.

And Hillary's the one running the lackluster campaign. Nearly all frontrunning campaigns are.

[XemaSab]

24. I suspect Biden is going to break out of the back pack

and come in either third or a close fourth. :)

[Think82]

28. Press = $ , $ buys more press.... vicious cycle. But I hope Biden breaks out.

[PlanetBev]

29. I appreciate everybody's input

At this point, I'd be happy just to have a candidate that will hit back and won't bring a knife to a gun fight. I'm still not over the Kerry Swift-boating.

I don't think Hillary will roll over for that shit, but then again, I didn't think Kerry would either.

The thing I like about Biden is, he gets real pissed off.

[gateley]

35. Just one of the MANY reasons I support Biden is that I feel he would get more

support for the Dems as a result of his debates with the rep nom. He's FAR the best - just imagine each of our candidates individually in the ring with Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee. I don't think any of them would do as good a job as Biden -- and I say that sincerely and as objectively as is possible for me.

[Dr.Phool]

30. Who are these guys?

Never heard of them. I do know that Hillary and Obama are running. And something about some guy named Edwards. Yeah, Paul Edwards. That's him.

[gateley]

32. I believe it's Edward Scissorhands (they just keep mistakenly adding the "s" to

his name).

[SaveElmer]

33. Biden might...

Richardson is very poor in the debates...Dodd just hasn't done anything to distinguish himself...

[bigwillq]

34. I hope they do, as well as DK.

The "lower tier" is 100 times more qualified than the "top"

[Superman Returns]

37. my take

Richardson has a great resume but lacks effective speaking and debate skills. He doesn't have that presidential vibe and comes off too clownish and self-deprecating.

Dodd is just not unique. He's a long-serving senator but unlike the others he has no charisma, no narrative, or even an interesting biography. If he really wanted someone who has the most experience, then it wouldn't be Dodd it would be Senator Byrd. He just doesn't stand out.

Biden has the most chance of being a top-tier candidate, I believe he is the John Kerry of 2008 - not in terms of personality, but the fact that he has the resume and personality to break out of the pack as the surprise candidate everyone had already written off. I believe he connects well with the average, middle class voter. The big difference between 04 and 08 is that the former was fluid with a long shot gone front runner who seemed destined to collapse, while 08 is seen as a Democratic year dominated with big name, celebrity type candidates. It may be a bit tougher.

[TheFarseer]

38. here's my take

Richardson is such a bad debator and campaigner that he can't expect to build any momentum. I think he's a smart guy with alot of good ideas but having trouble communicating them.

Biden feels like an also-ran. He's been in the Senate so long that there was never any buzz on this.

Dodd was getting made fun of right out of the box. He doesn't feel like a real candidate, something like Kucinich.

[ecstatic]

41. Boring old guys...

They never get too much traction on our side. We like new, hip, and fresh.

[gateley]

44. New! Fresh! Hip! Inexperienced! nt

[faithfulcitizen]

43. Perhaps because Richardson, Biden & Dodd are all in it?

I think the media is just obsessed with the "sexier" story line, rather than the most qualified. I too know SOOO many people, including Dems, who can't stand Hillary. Sorry.

I guess the only consolation is that if she gets it and eeks it out in the GE, many repubs will probably have heart attacks. (Just kidding God) :)

[Mike03]

45. I've no clue

Biden fan here.

I don't believe it's just some media conspiracy, because my parents are highly educated and shun television, and they have preferences other than Biden or the other candidates you mentioned.

[seasat]

46. First it's the initial media attention for the top three

Clinton has it because of all the media attention on her by attacks from the right and the fact that she was first lady. She inherited the fund raising network and personnel from her husband and has built on it. The media has been speculating about her running for president since she first ran for the NY Senate. Obama has it because of the hype about his 2004 speech, his fantastic grass roots organizing, and the media loves the "new sensation" story. Edwards has it because he was a VP candidate, has been campaigning nonstop since 2004, was the "new sensation" in 2004, and has a great organization in Iowa. The top candidates attracted a lot of endorsements and support right out of the start because they leveraged their existing name recognition and had organizations in place.

As it was, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd started way behind out of the gate. Bill Richardson had a chance to play closer but some bad early debate and interview performances set up a media talking point that he wasn't a great speaker. While he'll never be as good as the senators, he has greatly improved his performance. He would probably be closer but still below the top three if he was performing as he is now. His performance now is good enough to win the general election. Just look at the performances by the dingleberry in office now that was elected to two terms and see how much emphasis the general public puts on a polished debate performance. Richardson's main campaign forte is the small group retail politics.

Richardson did get an initial spark based on his very clear policy of complete withdrawal from Iraq with no residual forces. However, the top candidates have moved their positions closer to Richardson's and the media is playing up that the surge is working. These shifts have resulted in lower enthusiasm for his no Iraq policy.

Richardson is one of the most liberal on civil liberties, the environment, education, immigration, and foreign policy. He has a record to back up his rhetoric. However, he is moderate on fiscal policies and crime with a conservative view on gun control. While that fits his record as a Western Democrat, it represents a smaller constituency within our party. While I agree with most of his platform and like most of his record, he doesn't represent the liberal laundry list of ideas that most folks here on DU support. His views are well on opposite sides of the fence from each other. He'd probably had higher support if he'd reinvented himself as either a pure moderate or pure liberal Democrat. However, his positions will play very well in the general election and he does have a large amount of support from independents so if he does get the long shot chance, he'll beat the Repug.

Biden and Dodd, unfortunately, started way behind in getting their campaigns up and running. Both also suffer from preconceptions about their views due to both being regulars on the talking head TV shows. Based on the polls, both of them started off with high spreads between their favorable and unfavorable ratings. Their long Senate careers have been used against them since invariably, as a legislator, you'll end up having to support something for political reasons or your state constituency that can be used against you. Heck, even the late great Paul Wellstone voted for the DOMA. Personally, I'm fine with Biden's record, even though I disagree with some of his votes such as the bankruptcy bill. Dodd and especially Edwards are the only two candidates whose voting records bother me.

Richardson and Biden still have a long shot at the nomination. IMHO, Richardson is playing the nice guy hoping that Obama and Edwards score some points against Hillary and he can then pick up some of her supporters. He needs a big performance in one of these last debates and needs some attention getting mechanism. He has to use some of the humor that he uses in his local speeches. He does come up with some memorable lines. Richardson is also trying to emphasize the 2013 troop withdrawal statement by the top three but the media hasn't picked his comparison with them yet.

Biden has to continue his strong debate performances and get in some good sound bites. I suspect that Dodd and him might have an agreement (no evidence, just a feeling since the only one Dodd hasn't attacked is Biden plus they're friends.). Dodd, who has done decent in fund raising, can attack the upper candidates sort of acting like a full back blocking for Biden. I think that if it comes down to the wire and it looks like either Biden or Dodd is pulling out of the pack, one will throw their support behind the other and drop out at the last moment. As it stands, Dodd does not have a lot of appeal to the voters and he'll probably continue taking shots at the upper tier with Biden being the beneficiary.

For Richardson and Biden to have a long shot chance, they need to finish ahead of Hillary in Iowa and go on to win another state. That's why both of them have really concentrated their efforts in the state recently. Richardson looked like he might have an inside track in Nevada but it appears that Nevada doesn't really behave like a typical Western state. The majority of Democrats in Nevada are in Las Vegas and are West coast transplants. They tend to lean more towards Hillary than the typical Western democrat like Richardson. He'll probably do well in the rural areas but he'll need some sort of serious bump from Iowa to take Vegas. Biden will need to finish above Hillary in Iowa plus a win in New Hampshire for his long shot chance.

That's the way I see the race now.

[gateley]

48. EXCELLENT and well presented opinion! Thank you!! nt

[seasat]

55. Thanks for the props.

I hope either one of the long shot candidates we support are able to pull it off.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. I like Dodd.

I know, it's lonely out here.

[gateley]

49. I like him too. I'm thinking he MIGHT get Kennedy's endorsement - that would

be amazing.

[rockymountaindem]

63. Me too

In the sense that I wish he would get more traction. I think he's a voice who needs to be heard right now, and it's a shame he's getting the brush off from everybody.

[enigmatic]

65. Dodd's my pick, too

I think he'd make a helluva President.

[dugggy]

50. Because they have less name recognition, so less money coming in

followed by less message getting out, followed by even less money coming in.

If you notice Bush-43, Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, etc all had high name recognitions.
So they won nominations. Most voters just don't get on DU or like forums.

[mike from ri]

56. clinton in 92 had low name recognition

but people gravitated to him becasue he was a hands-on gov. the same applies to richardson.

[dugggy]

57. Clinton & Richardson are like night & day in Charisma

Billy jefferson Clinton can run circles around Richardson when
it comes to smooth talk, persuation, charm, etc.


If Richardson had half the charm and charisma of Bill, he would be
nominated and win in GE. Don't get me wrong, Richardson & Biden are
at the top of my personal preference list.

[mike from ri]

68. have you met richardson in person?

i realize that that is not the test in this tv/internet age but his personal warmth will serve him well in iowa and nh.

[Carrieyazel]

84. Yeah, but Richardson has FAR more charisma than the stilted Hillary.

That's what counts this year.

[mike from ri]

53. it is merely this this point in the voting cycle

the fist appeal is by celeb candidates (clinton) and cult candidates (obama, kucinich).

other candidates have staying power but take longer to catch on.

gov's, especially, blossom late.

[mike from ri]

54. re: Richardson; Govs are late bloomers

govs -- e.g., carter in 76, clinton in 92 -- are always late bloomers 'cause they lack nation-wide exposure. But 67 per cent of the voters in the state of new mexico (that was richardson's reelection percentage in the bellwether state of NM) can't be all wrong -- richardson will break out when it matters. Typical of governors, Richardson has staying power.

[Carrieyazel]

83. Very well said. Richardson is the candidate that keeps these Repukes awake at night.

I cannot see how the Repunklican Party stops him. They know he's the best national candidate of the bunch. And he's poised to score an upset in Iowa. Not that far behind "the Senators".

[BootinUp]

59. Because Clinton

is the strongest in a campaign.

[jillan]

60. Because for all of those that listen to the msm, they don't even know that anyone else is running

besides Hillary and Obama.

I agree, the 2nd tier has a better chance of winning in the GE.

[whirlygigspin]

66. The art of the possible--

Of all the candidates, I still can't figure out why John Edwards is running.
I mean, I don't know of anything he's actually accomplished in his political career.

Ok George Bush had a track record, ...of bankrupting companies, and he did the same thing with America, looted all he could for the war machine bosses. Gas sky high=happy Texas, So I get that.

Hillary wants to be the first woman President, I get that
Obama wants the same kind of thing...
but again, what have they ever accomplished? (politically speaking)

and more importantly, after the honeymoon is over;
Who will have the 'juice' to actually get things done???
By that I mean the ability to get majorities in congress to work with them?

I love Dennis Kucinich but c'mon--i'm sure 'works well with others' was never written in any of his report cards; so I don't think he'd have a very cooperative congress to work with, and John Edwards! smooth move, threatens congress before he's even elected??? (taking away their health care)

So I chose Joe Biden, only because I think he can get things done, more so than the others. Not because I 'like' him more but because I think he can actually get more progressive things passed.

--As Bill Clinton once eloquently said "high minded ideals are very nice, but of no use if you can't actually implement them.


P.S.
Dodd I get, but i'm still mad a Connecticut for giving us Bush and Leiberman, : )
(sorry Chris)

[Froward69]

73. you and I think so much alike

its almost scary... not!!! The masses I have talked to don't realize their are more that two or three candidates. troubling to say the least. funny thing though. my repube friends know about Biden and don't like to talk about him much, the same as rudy g. they are relaxed in thinking Biden hasn't a chance. get nervous when I say Biden has momentum... then they send propaganda... I return to them, pics of rudy in drag... I don't here from them for a couple days... :rofl: :woohoo:

[ginchinchili]

69. It doesn't reflect well on us as a Party, or a nation.

I think it's a product of how Americans have come to think. I call it the shiny package syndrome, attracted to people and things for superficial reasons. We want the shiniest, the biggest, the newest. We're finding it too difficult to get past the packaging. Our best presidents of the past would not have gotten elected had their opponents had considerably more money and the means of communication on which to spend that money that we have today, not the way we're approaching things these days. It's not good. The best candidate becomes the one who can raise the most money.

[IronLionZion]

70. I like these guys, but

Biden and Dodd are very similar in that they are white-haired senators from the northeast although they are obviously different on some issues. Richardson is overweight and simply is not an exciting campaigner. I think we might see him as somebody's VP. All three are running less-than-exciting campaigns even though I'm backing Biden.

Let's faced it, the MSM is pumping up Barack for being young and black and Hillary for being the anointed one (the people who bet on elections are betting on Hillary winning it all) and a woman and a Clinton. The MSM is not pumping up Edwards but he did run for VP in 2004...plus he has time to campaign since he's not currently holding any political office.

[ginchinchili]

78. Biden is actually a pretty exciting campaigner on the stump...

and if he had a lot of money like the "top tier" a lot of people would think he is exciting. So much of it is the money, but you're right the characteristics you point out--youth, gender, and race. Not very strong reasons to vote for someone if you ask me.

[MLFerrell]

74. Why? Easy!

Because the media has deigned that Queen Hillary is unbeatable, and a small but extremely vocal contingent of Hillarites is helping to promote that lie.

"I've met so many Democrats that swear that they'll never vote for Clinton, that they can't stand her."

Yes, as have I. And that's to say nothing of Independents, or the fact that she is the ONE candidate who will bring out an otherwise demoralized Right in FORCE.

But hey, try explaining this to a Hill-shill. It will be with a somber expression that I will say "Told ya so!" to them when President Giuliani is sworn in on January 20, 2009.

[themaguffin]

75. Flip the debate speaking time and see what happens. Hillary doesn't like to answer questions anyway

[Debi]

77. They can - just look at Kerry/Edwards in November of 2004

This race is nowhere near over.

[Carrieyazel]

81. What makes you think one of them won't, when the first votes are actually cast?

Richardson definitely has a chance to break out, come Iowa and New Hampshire. The polls have limited value at this stage. Someone could come from way behind and score an upset in Iowa.

[Armstead]

82. THE MEDIA....Pure and simple

Whatever one thinks of these candidates, they deserved better than the complete snubbing given to them and DK by the MSM.

Dodd and Biden have vastly more Washington "experience" than HRC or Obama or Edwards. Richardson has vastly more experience than the front runners in terms of actual diplomacy and international relations.

DK has been right all along on issues like Iraq, and he has a clear answer to healthcare that many Americans would go along with -- if they were allowed to hear more than questions about UFO.s.

[kad7777]

87. AMEN!!!

The media have been pushing Hillary and Obama down our throats since January. They should be ashamed of themselves for doing such a disservice to the American people. Biden and Dodd clearly have more experience, knowledge, and command of issues that face our nation, but you'll NEVER hear about from our "media". Makes me ill. This isn't an american idol contest. This is THE MOST important election we've had in decades, and the media treats it like a weekly beauty contest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUC8LeZ1hM4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HcXkLbRIWw

[4_TN_TITANS]

86. Because the owners of the media don't want them.

good chance they would damage the web that corporatists have been weaving.