So, only those who can raise enough money deserve to be heard? Also, Iowa and New Hampshire only represent a tiny number of the delegates; they're only important because the media insists they're important. You're buying into their spin, Kevin. As for 'actual candidates',wouldn't that involve excluding Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, etc.? For that matter, it seems certain Hillary is going to win, so, really, the others aren't 'seriously' running. Should she stand on the stage alone?

Now lets get rid of Duncan Hunter, Tancredo, and Alan Keyes.

Amen. I, for one, do not need any more crazy uncles this close to the holidays.

Why is he not seriously running? Is it because he's not "electable"???? Or is it because he failed to do some meaningless bullshit that NBC came up with as a phony standard?
Letting the media pick our candidates for us is the thing we will all look back upon with the most regret. And YOU, Kevin, are either part of the problem or part of the solution.

I'm shocked to find that on the same day I:
1. agreed (in principle) with Al
2. disagreed with BGRS
*Sigh*
Back to work.

Deprived of the only thing he craved, namely a spotlight, Gravel could redirect his efforts toward running for Virginia's open Senate seat.

I'm with Kevin. in fact, at this early stage, I barely care what the real candidates say.

The Virginia Senate nominee is a foregone conclusion. Gravel could run for Davis' seat in VA-11. But I doubt he'll go far with that, either.

Where was Lyndon Larouche???

How 'bout giving equal time to the serious candidates then? Does NBC have an algorithm that accounts for the percentage of questions directed to Clinton and Obama, then Edwards, and finally 'the rest?'

Mike Gravel wasn't at the Philly debate? Wait a second Kevin, the video Mike's performance in the October 30 debate is today's Campaign Video Of The Day. Happy Halloween.

Kevin, Am I missing something or are you really saying that Kucinich, Dodd and Biden need to be denied admission to the next debate.

Gravel wasn't even good at being a court jester. It was Hillary Clinton who got all the laughs at the Yearly Kos presidential forum with her line about how no one should believe she would actually be influenced by all the money she gets from Washington lobbyists (who, she says, just represent "ordinary people" anyway).

"not to give equal time to any crank who has a burning desire to mouth off to a national audience. That's what blogs are for."

thought that was what Talk Radio was for....

Gravel and Kucinich are the only two candidates in either party who unequivocally support marriage equality and a repeal of the Federal DOMA. If that makes him a crank, well, I'll take that any day, especially if it gets the three "serious" candidates--I'm looking at you, Senator Obama--to stop taking the GLBT community for granted while cozying up to the homophobes.

Since none of the other lower tier candidates get much face time it's hard to see where Gravel was a drag on the debates. If he wants to be there fine; let time, money and the voters weed him out. If you get in to singling him out than there are about four and a half others who should have been left on the editing room floor.

One thing Gravel did contribute was when he told Hillary that you don't throw your hands up and say we don't have the votes. You go out and grab them by the scruff of the neck. Call a quorum every day for forty days and you can end this war.

To me that's worth at least 5 more debate appearances. This from a guy who has no intention of voting for Uncle Mike.

http://www.connect2elect.com/

I did their survey and they tell me my candidates in order are:

John Cox
Mike Gravel
Duncan Hunter

Mike Gravel must be doing something right. Never heard of John Cox myself, but he's my main man!

I'm agnostic on the whole "exclude the fringe candidate" thing, but the simple fact is that Gravel is not actually running. As of early this month, he'd made about three-dozen campaign appearances - of all sorts - all year; in fact, about a third of those were in the debates. Similarly, although a direct comparison isn't the point, Gravel's fundraising to date is about a good day for the frontrunners.

By contrast, Kucinich (who I do not support, and who I think is anyone's definition of fringe and unelectable) has made hundreds of appearances, and while $2 million raised isn't earthshattering it's not chicken feed (and is probably mode than half the Republican field).

He was the only one with the integrity to say that the Vietnam war was a waste. Everyone else gave a shrink-wrapped bullshit answer about supporting the troops.

"There was no record that Gravel made more than five separate appearances in New Hampshire [and] Iowa, where the first caucuses will be held," NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd said.

While I don't particularly care if Gravel is in the debate or not, why is NBC News actively reinforcing the antidemocratic superdominance of New Hampshire and Iowa by counting appearances there specifically as part of the criteria for appearing in a debate?

You call that a debate? I'm old enough to remember watching the original TV Presidential debate almost 50 years ago between Kennedy & Nixon. I also watched the 3 between Gore & Bush in 2000. (Somehow the ones between Bush & Kerry weren't worth it to me) Those were debates. This was a sideshow, as have most, if not all, the ones previous to it this year. When the moderators act like attack dogs, it is not a debate.

I just read a few minutes ago where Hillary finally answered that she supports Spitzer's idea of offering driver's licenses to illegals, considering the spot he was left in because the Feds weren't doing their job. Sorry, Hillary. I liked your answer last night better.

When the moderators act like attack dogs, it is not a debate.
^^^^
Exactly. The profession of journalism (especially television) has descended to the level of Blackwater goons. There is no longer *any* civic responsibility of any kind-it is all about optimization of the value of "information products". That's it.

He's not seriously running and he never has been, and the point of the debates is to give the public a look at actual candidates, not to give equal time to any crank who has a burning desire to mouth off to a national audience.

What was that adviso the Mod here posted previously about putative "candidate trolling"? Seems our Mister Drum just violated that proclaimed "standard" in SPADES, and with utter impunity.

Oh, the irony!

I watched a few of Gravel's ads on YouTube. If you haven't already, go do a search. Watch the one where he just stares at the camera, or where a fire burns for several minutes. This man is a nut. Good riddance.

Not funny Kevin. Not nice. Not good. Not right.

Gravel brings a lot to the debate. He was the first to point out Hillary's yes vote on the Iran terror resolution. And he is very serious about about how our system of government is FUBAR, unless the voters do some repair work themselves by voting in a national initiative system.