Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

NH Progressives call on all candidates to debate

By

Once a report by the Nashua Telegraph’s Kevin Landigan made it to NH’s progressive blog, Blue Hampshire, NH activists quickly became disgruntled over the reported exclusion of presidential hopefuls from the upcoming debate, sponsored by ABC-TV, WMUR and Facebook, this Saturday night.

Fare well in N.H., Iowa, or no TV

by Kevin Landigran

Unless there’s a mega-shock in Thursday’s Iowa caucuses results, this will be the lineup of candidates invited to the pivotal debates that ABC-TV, WMUR and Facebook are sponsoring Saturday night on the campus of St. Anselm College.

Democrats: Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.

Republicans: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

Who is left out? Joe Biden, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

Collectively, we’re talking about 120 years of elective service in Congress, which is two and half times longer than Obama has been alive.

Since this is live television and the stakes couldn’t be higher, all decisions can change. But the sponsors have crafted a comprehensive and controversial set of criteria for candidates to qualify.

-snip

The ruckus began to grow on:

Four at the Debate

by: elwood

Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 13:03:11 PM EST

And one of Blue Hampshire’s Admins, Dean Barker blogged this statement from the Chair of the NHDP:

Update by Dean: Ray Buckley just sent this out as a release. Thank you, Chairman.

“New Hampshire has a long and proud tradition of serving as a level playing field and is the one state where each candidate can be given an equal opportunity to be heard by the voters. I would strongly encourage any NH media outlet holding candidate debates or forums not to eliminate a sitting US Senator or member of Congress”

A vocal component of the progressive community in NH is calling on the Democratic Presidential Campaigns to join together and ensure that each campaign is duly represented.

Please join us.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Gravel is a candidate in name only, but Biden and Dodd have every right to be there (and for that matter, a good argument can be made for Kucinich).  A bit early for the media to decide who deserves to continue in the race.

    • Mike Gravel?  He has no rights?  He’s the only reason I would watch the debate.  Are his supporters (albeit a very low percentage) any less valuable than those of Dodd or Kucinich? He is a declared candidate and as such is no different than any other declared candidate.

      • And everyone else who says they’re a candidate.  We include Caroline Killeen, Heather Harder, Bruce Daniels, and everyone else who calls themselves a presidential candidate.  Not a debate that we’ll get anything out of.

        • So what is the standard a candidate must measure up to?

          <

          p>Electability? Seems several highly qualified candidates (on the D side) stand little to no chance of winning.

          <

          p>Sanity? This would exclude Larouche and perhaps Gravel and Keyes (still amazed he’s actually running).

          <

          p>Rational thought? Take your pick of who to exclude (everything from taxation ideas to creationism, etc.)

          • A lot of people have come to assume that he should be in this debate because he was in others.  Other than that though (or that he was a senator before some voters were born), it’s tough to figure out where to put the line so that Gravel is on on a different side than Larouche.

              • having been elected to the House or the Senate.  That, it seems to me, should qualify you on its own merits.  

                <

                p>If that’s the case, Gravel and Paul are in as are Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and whoever else is polling low on the Republican side who holds national office.

                <

                p>The second sort should be polling numbers and viability.  When that’s applied, the other assorted crackpottery are out.  

                • Completely different times but this would have prevented Abraham Lincoln from joining in debates, wouldn’t it?

                • Clinton (William), Reagan, Carter, and Eisenhower.

                  <

                  p>They must conduct a significant cull in order to make the debate anything like a useful enterprise.  The criteria ought to be reliable polling, and be set at a level to cut the debate field to a manageable number. The debate is not an opportunity to get your message out, it is a forum for those who have already gotten their message out.

                • … assume you have a crowded field of 9 or so.  Say its really only a 2 hour debate so you’d really like to pin it down to 5 at absolute maximum for a debate event.  (Too many candidates at one forum does indeed water down the debate not to mention cheats the candidates in terms of what they can say.)

                  <

                  p>So if the last 5 candidates from which you need to choose one to cut are these:

                  <

                  p>3 term congressman poling at 1%
                  1 term governor of a large state poling at 3%
                  Radio talk show host polling at 2%
                  2 term governor of a medium state poling at 3%
                  Former high ranking military officer polling at 2%

                  <

                  p>Assuming its not very early and that the context of the poling is that these candidates have had at least some time to get their message out, I really can’t see not cutting the congressman.

            • Gravel is one example.  Being a veteran, being a former Senator, have meant nothing.  The fact is that he makes the top tier Democrats look terrible on Iraq.  In a debate he will keep hitting them on that issue again and again.

              <

              p>On the right, Ron Paul is another example.  FOX is excluding him from a debate next week because he isn’t doing double digits in national polls or some such thing.  Doesn’t matter apparently how he’s doing in the state where the debate is taking place. Doesn’t matter how much money he’s raised.  He makes the top tier look bad on Iraq among other issues.  If he were double digits in national polls but had no money, you can bet the line would be drawn to exclude him on that basis instead.

              • So you’ve demonstrated that lines can and are drawn arbitrarily but what SHOULD the lines be?  

                • If you hold or have held office as a Congressman, you get in.

                  <

                  p>If you are a governor of a state, you get in.

                  <

                  p>If you have some sufficiently large polling numbers, you get in.

                  <

                  p>If your fundraising shows that you have broad support, you get in.

        • Gravel, then someone who has served this country as a Senator will no longer be able to represent that experience in national debate.  That’s fairly extreme.  The reason why this bothers me so much is that it is arbitrary and potentially harmful for future candidates who may very well add value but no longer have a voice.   I’m not claiming to have an answer here, but I think media already has too much power in determining what we get to hear.  I don’t think Mike Gravel deserves the sliming that he has been subjected to.  I don’t think he’s crazy, unless he’s crazy like a fox.  I detects whiffs of agism in all of this as well.  

          • He’s angry.  The question is, why isn’t anyone else angry?

            <

            p>We are coming upon 4,000 dead American soldiers in Iraq.  That should get the blood boiling of anyone that cares.

            • anger.  That’s the key.  We as Democrats are not allowed to be angry (even when we really are and should be).  Why is that?  Why are we not allowed to display anger over thousands of meaningless deaths?  Since I’ve recently been attacked for displaying “harshness” in response to fear mongering, is that where the line should be drawn?  Anyone who steps over the line is immediately disqualified and loses their voice, even when it represents reality?  Did Teddy Roosevelt ever display anger?  Lincoln?  Edwards?  Clinton?  Obama?  Is it realistic and appropriate to never display anger?  

    • Their tenure in Congress isn’t entirely relevant, nor should it de facto guarantee a candidate air time this late in the campaign.  This late?  Sure.  We’ve had dozens of debates, and they’ve been stumping for a long while.

      <

      p>Why shouldn’t Gravel be invited?  He hasn’t had a (non-fund raising) event of any kind since December 12th — check the  WaPo Mike Gravel presidential tracker.

      <

      p>Gravel isn’t really running.  He’s jogging at best.  He hasn’t been having events, and this has been this way for a long time.  An Oct 4 post by kos pointed out that up to that point, excluding fund raisers, each candidate had attended the following number of public events:

      <

      p>Edwards: 345
      Obama: 331
      Clinton: 284
      Richardson: 356
      Dodd: 225
      Biden:177
      Kucinich: 171
      Gravel: 35

      <

      p>Now you want to tell me Gravel belongs?  Hogwash.  Biden and Kucinich?  They’re polling weak, but at least they’re making a freaking effort.  Dodd’s been in the news quite a bit lately, so he might deserve a bit more time.  Richardson’s a bit higher on that ladder, and then we’re at the Big 3.

      <

      p>The field is too crowded, and the bottom third-ish is full of those who aren’t trying very hard or have been working at this for a number of POTUS cycles and still aren’t getting traction.  There’s only so much air time, and narrowing the field will allow deeper conversations with those candidates who remain.

      • is the only reason I watch debates (granted mostly for amusement when he comes out with something that floors the others).  I’m sure I’m not the only one who won’t bother listening at all if someone is excluded.  My point is that it’s not the media’s job to make those decisions about candidates, it’s the voters and the primary process.  I don’t think it’s relevant how many times someone speaks at events as long as they do.  

  2. Statement from Senator Obama on the Upcoming New Hampshire Debate

    <

    p>

    MANCHESTER, NH–Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement on the upcoming debate in New Hampshire:
    “The voters of New Hampshire deserve to hear all the Democratic candidates’ views on who can best lead America in a fundamentally new direction, and that’s why I urge these networks to allow full participation in this week’s debate.”

Archives