After seeing this video, I can understand why NBC didn't want Dennis involved in their debate. He would've stirred up some serious sh*t. He looks at our country and the political system through a lens that sees the larger problems, and he isn't content to offer up half-cooked solutions that simply patch up leaks. He understands we've got to go down to the boat dealership and throw out our old raft.
It's important to note that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are much more alike than their posturing might lead one to think. They are, of course, bought and sold by the corporate interests. They are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization leading the charge to create a North American Union that would erase our national sovereignty as such. And while I could point out more similarities, I haven't really got the time.
Dennis is truly a symbol of the kind of change this country needs but will doubtfully get. Still, he has my vote.
Thanks for posting this, Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We should keep this fully honest.

Unless I have misheard, the Las Vegas debate was shown on MSNBC.

MSNBC is not aired on the public airwaves (RF spectrum), it is carried by all major cable and satellite companies on their networks.

MSNBC should therefore have every right to air whatever it wants on its own network even if we disagree with it.

The solution is to boycott them, something most Americans would probably be unwilling to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone looks at MSNBC as a giant faceless corporation and therefore has no qualms in having the government regulate their speech.


What happened to principle?


Should every webcaster now have to give equal time to all the Democratic candidates and Republican candidates?

That is what we are talking about isn't it, Equal Time?


I am one of the first to state that the television media has an iron grip on our electoral process largely corralling the public into picking the candidates they approve of.

But is the solution really to require all video broadcasters to give equal time to all candidates?


I do not want to start down that road where we require every newscaster to publish speech they don't necessarily approve of by force of government law.

We need to move away from an authoritarian society, not closer to one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need a whole new Constitution to make a real democracy.
We never really had a democracy in the first place. Since this is a
many-book-length topic, I can only give starting references:
"How Democratic Is the American Constitution?" by Robert A.
Dahl
"It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush"
by Joe Conason, 2007
"Failed States" by Noam Chomsky

Two problems that need to be corrected are:

Corporations are treated as persons. This is wrong.
Corporations are quasi-governments. Corporations govern what
people see on TV, just like totalitarian governments.
Corporations regulate what it is possible to purchase, just like
totalitarian governments. [See http://ebooks.ebookmall.
com/ebook/225201-ebook.htm] Corporations govern what
people do at work, just like totalitarian governments.
Corporations govern where people can work, just like totalitarian
governments. Corporations govern peoples' incomes, just like
totalitarian governments. Freedom of speech applies to persons,
not corporations. The above commenters fail to recognize this.

The Internet, once the security bugs are worked out, should enable
every citizen to vote on every issue. Representation and congress
should be a thing of the past. Direct democracy is now possible
regardless of distance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And, therefore, should be entitled to no rights of persons despite rulings of the Supremes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A friend of mine and I were talking recently and we thought of this. They're similar in many philosophies and both have a small, but mighty support base.

Both seem to be the red-headed step-children of their parties. But together they just might be two Davids that can slay whatever Goliath that AmeriCorp wants to throw at us. Let's face it: neither party nor those in them are all that happy with the current choices. Paul even said he thought Kucinich would make a good choice for his Veep....

Your thoughts.....??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to roughly paraphrase Rachel Maddow ("Ask Dr. Maddow!")...

"
if you believe PARTY will solve our problems, you'll vote Clinton.
if you believe PERSONALITY will solve our problems, you'll vote Obama...

if you know PLATFORM will address our problems, you'll vote EDWARDS or KUCINICH
"
~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
"ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why didn't Obama, Clinton and Edwards demonstrate some solidarity with Kucinich, some support for free speech, and some opposition to corporate
influence on elections by refusing to take part in the debate unless Kucinich did too?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why didn't Obama, Clinton ans Edwards demonstrate some solidarity with Kucinich, some support for free speech, and some opposition to corporate
influence on elections by refusing to take part in the debate unless Kucinich did too?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can’t see how in any way this is government abridgement of corporate speech. If MSNBC wants to exercise its free speech it can do so. If Kucinich (or anyone else) says something with which the corporation disagrees, the corporation is free to contradict him or her.

But the First Amendment says only what governments, federal, state or municipal, CAN’T do and the Bill of Rights is concerned with INDIVIDUAL citizens’ rights, not corporate rights. To say that corporations are the same as individuals is to agree with partisan, activist, business loving judiciaries. The government can, does, and has restricted the rights of the media in many ways. It seems as though it’s only when these restrictions are applied to things to which conservative Republicans are enthralled that they complain.

There are two things applicable here: That corporations have rights is only insofar as they do not trample on INDIVIDUAL citizen’s rights. These INDIVIDUAL rights include the right to free speech, but even here the government also must weigh that right against another of its responsibilities: To provide protection for the polis, i.e., the community. So, there are laws that protect individual citizens from the tyranny of the majority (prohibiting slavery or the establishment of a state religion) and laws that protect the majority from the irresponsibility of any particular individual citizen (shouting “fire” in a crowded theater or calling for the violent overthrow of the government). Preventing Kucinich from exercising his free speech falls under the former condition and, unless he shouts “fire” in a crowded MSNBC studio, they cannot interfere with his free speech; they cannot interfere with his pursuit of happiness and the government has every right and responsibility to provide this protection.

Second, The government’s job it to protect the civil and human rights of individual citizens, in particular from BIGNESS: Big oil, big auto, big insurance, big health care, big military, big coalitions of foreign governments and, yes, big government itself. The paradox is that ONLY big government can do a proper job of providing that protection. Those who advocate small to no government, deliberately and sneakily (or else dumbly), are stripping away any possibility for the little guy to be able to redress his grievances, as guaranteed by our Constitution.

This is a favored ploy of the Republicans and it’s commonly called “divide and conquer.” The usual rationale (when they bother with such a thing) is the call for state’s rights and it’s simply a way to apply the pressure of BIG partisanship on the relatively smaller state governments so as more easily to take control over their law-making processes. Witness what great success conservatives have had with this strategy in infiltrating boards of education around the country. The most obvious evidence of this is the fight still raging over creationism. This in spite of the fact that the Scopes’ trial was 83 years ago and the Supreme Court ruled against teaching Creationism 49 years ago.

MSNBC is BIG business and to claim that its free speech rights may not be abridged is nothing more than the kind of obfuscation we can expect from them and their puppets in political office. Their free speech rights are NOT unfettered. They cannot show sexual activities during certain times of the day, whether these are sent over cables or through the air. They may not commit slander, libel or defamation of character nor can they tell lies (that they do so on a regular basis, especially during political campaigns, is a shame and disgrace to this country). That they continue to do so is an indication of the march to oligarchy that parades through the streets of American life today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I almost forgot: Not too long ago a law was enacted that guaranteed equal access and equal time for people to reply to anything that was broadcast on radio or TV. I think it also may have applied to print media as well. Fox News notwithstanding, it's intention was to maintain honest, fair and balanced reportage. I remember the law was quashed under Ronald Reagan (who else?).

A vestige of the law was resurrected during the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry, I think, but the conservative Supremes said it was no longer applicable and the vestige was killed too. I'll have to check this out to be sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has anyone tried to download the show? There's no video ipod link. It doesn't show up in itunes either. Don't tell me that someone destroyed the tapes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]