i'm trying to figure out who to vote for between Clinton and Obama and take my vote very serious.. .i dont have time for this nonsense.

Kucinich has no money, no network, and his wife running his campaign. it isn't a serious campaign.

Give me a break NBC, let the man debate.

I know only Obama and Hillary have a chance, and they are the only ones who have ever really had a chance, but what I'm saying is, they oughtn't inconsistently apply the rules. If they had excluded all 8th tier candidates at a certain point then, well, whatever. But I'm sure if Richardson was still in, or Biden or Dodd, they would be allowed to be there, just like Richardson was allowed at the last debate. It is total crap to arbitrarily decide Kucinich (or Gravel for that matter) aren't worthy of being at the debate. Kucinich had just as much chance at winning as Richardson, Biden or Dodd (=no chance in hell), so trying to draw a line separating them into worthy or unworthy categories is impossible. Besides, Kucinich has contributed more to the debates than the other 8th tierers if you ask me...at least he is promoting a REAL universal health care package, instead of this modified pro-private crap that everyone else is unfortunately sticking to (granted this could be because they actually want to get elected, and not because they are against not-for-profit healthcare on principle). He has also talked about impeachment, which is another important issue.

So let him stay, quit sucking media, haven't you learned your lesson?

I prefer that the views of candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich be heard along with the corporate-sponsored candidates. Otherwise the only opinions we will hear are those palatable to the corporations. Since the mainstream media is largely owned by large corporations we have few enough chances to hear dissenting views.

Savvy - you may want to take a look at actual history before you minimize the role LBJ played in civil rights legislation. I recommend Caro's The Master of the Senate - it's fascinating, and that's just the pre-1960s side of things.

There were a lot of leaders in the Civil Rights movement. There were very few people in positions of power who could actually ensure that change happened.

It's almost surely sad but true that if we never had Dr. King, we'd still have had a strong civil righs movement. You can question LBJ's motives or what created the political climate for change, but without LBJ... we might still be fighting for legislation passed in the 50s and 60s today.

What Donal said. I so agree.

It is funny that Hillary Clinton is touting the importance of LBJ to the civil rights movement, when she was a hardcore supporter of Barry Goldwater, the racist conservative Republican who was running against LBJ. Hillary actually campaigned AGAINST LBJ. If she had had her way, LBJ would have never even been in office. Gotta love Hillary's historical revisionism!

and colonpowwow, to answer your question, the "election fraud" issue is in the process of being examined. Kucinich has initiated a recount in NH, which will begin tomorrow, so we can get to the bottom of what happened (or maybe didn't happen) in NH. And I give him props for standing up to make sure democracy is protected. More people should take possible voter fraud more seriously. If there is any reason to believe (and there are many reasons here, from pre-polling, exit polling, data irregularities and documented unsecure voting machines) that voter fraud took place, it should be investigated, no matter who would benefit.

grover_rover:

There is a big difference between the sober analysis of possible voting fraud that should be watched for and investigated if warranted, like you advocate (and I agree) - and having savvy and Richard Adloff, within hours of the vote, ranting that the Clintons had fixed the election and that's how she won.

Viva la difference!

Grover Rover, you're a hate-monger as well as an uninformed fool. Hillary was about 16 years old in 1964 raised in a conservative household, and underwent a thoughtful reevaluation in attending college that led her to deeply held progressive ideals and effective action. Civil rights pioneer Vernon Jordan recalls meeting her and being impressed at a League of Women Voters meeting in 1969 in Colorado. What's your problem?

I think Kucinich is absolutely in the right here. If, as alleges in his complaint, NBC said their standard was the top 4 in a national poll, then there's no basis for excluding him. Obviously, they wouldn't have excluded Richardson if Richardson hadn't dropped out, no matter how low his polling numbers might have been. NBC's switch is pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination.

That said, I don't think shoehorning Kucinich or Paul into a debate here or there does anything to address the underlying problem. As a number of other commenters have noted, it's deeply problematic to let corporate MSM have complete control over who gets to attend. Solving that requires some external criteria -- not just "let Dennis speak." That's an ad hominem solution to a systemic problem. If we don't want the MSM to set the rules, someone will have to come up with better ones. I would support a baseline of having an active campaign in the state holding the debate and polling outside the MOE in either a state or national poll in the previous month. (FWIW, I'm strongly opposed to Kucinich's reliance on on-line polling as evidence for his national standing.)

I DO think there's value to having more time to hear from candidates. I'd much rather give Obama several minutes to explain the drivers' license question, than have it be part of a 30 second lightning round. Throwing up your hands and saying "exclude no one" has real costs.

savvy: A trio of washington outsiders against the ultimate insider HRC.

All are current or (Edwards) former members of Congress, therefore "Washington Insiders."