CNN allowed the eight Democratic presidential campaigns to vote: Should CNN
continue to place its preferred candidates together in the center of the
stage in order to keep the candidates it ignores off camera at the edges, or
should it follow the model PBS used last week and choose candidate positions
on the stage by random drawing? Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich were joined by
Hillary Clinton in opting for the random drawing. Edwards and Obama were
joined by Richardson and Biden in opting to stick Edwards, Clinton, and
Obama in the middle. The vote was four to four. What to do? Appeal to the
public? You're kidding, right? CNN cast the deciding vote itself and will
stick with the podium positioning that suits its stance of choosing our
elected officials for us.
The PBS debate at Howard University last week chose candidate positions on
the stage by random drawing and sent a video of the random drawing to each
campaign. It also gave the candidates equal time and respect, and asked
them all about the same topics. Not exactly rocket science, but a pretty
stunning breakthrough for a presidential campaign debate. You can watch it
at
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/video.html
How stunning was the Howard debate? Let's put it this way. It is not
uncommon at debates and forums, nor was it four years ago, for Congressman
Dennis Kucinich to win more applause than the other candidates but then go
entirely unmentioned in the subsequent media coverage. Well, PBS and Howard
not only held a fair debate, but they also polled a focus group during the
debate and recorded, for example, who had the best received line. PBS
brought on a Republican pundit who chattered about Clinton's second-highest
response line, but PBS released the data, so it is possible to find out that
Kucinich had the highest single moment with a line about how if Darfur had
oil, we'd already have occupied them.
http://tinyurl.com/yp2x3b
In addition, Tavis Smiley & PBS were running an electronic poll, before and
after the debate, in which Kucinich moved from 2.5% before the debate to
13.3% after--the biggest percentage jump by far (>5 times!), and the second
biggest in raw numbers (11% gain). Edwards went up about 12%, which doubled
his score. Both Obama and Clinton went down.
http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com
Kucinich moved from 2% to 13% in one debate??!! Is it any wonder CNN
prefers to run its debates in a manner that shuts out the candidates who do
not support its corporate agenda? Imagine where Kucinich would be in
national polls if all the debates were run in a strictly fair manner!
There are forums, like Monday's in Philadelphia run by ACORN
http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=11875 at which the participating
candidates are treated fairly. But there are others, such as a recent forum
run by Sojourner's, at which organizations go CNN one better and exclude
certain candidates entirely. For now, CNN can only dream of such things.
For now, it is stuck with having to place its preferred candidates in the
center of the stage, ask them 80 percent of the questions, and ridicule
their opponents. Considering CNN's record of political reporting, the
center of its stage ought to be a place of the highest dishonor. Maybe
that's why Richardson and Biden sided with a scheme that does not favor
them. More like, they're just Democrats, and that's what Democrats do.
