Is Gravel, then, out of the race?

[question everything]

He would not be my choice and I can see "weeding" the number of candidates in a debate to give each more time, yet it bothers me that the media is the one that decides who should attend.

[snowbear]

1. Who?

[MadBadger]

2. But is it really the media weeding him out if his poll numbers are the reason they exclude him?

[MADem]

6. I think they're basing it on polling. nt

[tritsofme]

3. Was he ever really in it?

This late in the process, I don't see a good reason why the just for fun candidates should continue to eat up airtime at the debates.

[davidinalameda]

4. pretty much

[napi21]

5. He asked a lot of good questions, but he knew he had no chance

of winning!
The same thing appies to Kuchinch. Both of them have some good ideas, but the're too radical to ever be elected.

[jgraz]

7. Which is why he should be in the debate

Now we have to count of Wolfie et al to ask the hard questions. "Diamonds or Pearls", anyone? :puke:

[napi21]

10. In a way, you're right. We as listeners have to depend on MSM

tp ake the questions we want to hear, a most of the time they don't. I don't see an alternative. The net seems to be the best option we have. Nobody has any influence on the people who post on the net, and we have to do nore to ,ake people aware of the truth!

[gateley]

8. You can see 'weeding' the number of candidates in a debate to give each

more time? Do you really think that's fair here in America? Not letting every candidate have an opportunity to present their platform?

[hfojvt]

11. what about these candidates?

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-dems.htm#aranjo

They have not even gotten as much air time as Gravel. Not even close.

[gateley]

13. If they could have raised the funding to participate as Gravel did and do whatever

a candidate has to do to register and get the ball rolling, they should have been considered and given equal opportunity, too.

Equal opportunity.

"Weeding out" to allow certain candidates more face time, and which a couple of our candidates expressed an interest in, doesn't feel very democratic to me. It sounds manipulative and something you'd hear about in another country -- and condemn. Plus at this point, all of our current candidates still have active campaigns running.

[Bicoastal]

9. Good riddance, frankly.

It always irritated me that he was so strident in challenging the recent decisions and voting records of his fellow nominees (remember "These people frighten me!"), yet the man's been out of office for twenty-six years. Sure, Mike, It's pretty easy to criticize when you've been sitting on the sidelines for more than a quarter century...but then why did you wait so long to get back into the game?

A sincere, intelligent man, but a viable candidate? Please.

[Colobo]

12. He was never in the race, really...

[cleveramerican]

14. He sort of reminded me of Kramer

in the sitcom of this election, he was definitely the kooky next door neighbor.