History Case Study: Guerilla Warfare

The following is an excerpt from Robert Kee's The Green Flag: A History of Irish Nationalism, the definitive work on the subject, originally published in 1972:

Anything short of [the IRA's] total annihilation by the Crown forces was going to leave [the IRA] in a position of advantage. For the government to negotiate with them at all was to undermine much of the attitude it had adopted towards them throughout, to recognize at least some substance in what they stood for and acknowledge them as representatives of the Irish nation. To this extent, though Sir Hamar Greenwood might talk manfully as late as May 1921 about fighting on 'until the last revolver had been plucked from the hand of the last assassin', the government were engaged in a losing battle...

Militarily, the British Army, by a series of large sweeps and the use of flexible columns of their own, were proving increasingly troublesome to the IRA's flying columns, who were also short of arms and ammunition... The essential truth of the time, militarily, is that thought the IRA did not have the same control of parts of Ireland they had had in the middle of 1920, they were now more experienced and better organized, and to have beaten them would have required a far greater military effort than any yet seen in Ireland.

Subsequent experience of regular forces with guerrilla movements enjoying support from their own people - in Palestine, Cyprus, and Algeria - suggests that a military victory is never possible in such circumstances. Once such guerrillas have been able to establish themselves effectively at all there can only be a political solution. British public opinion in 1921, deeply disturbed about the violence in Ireland and the apparently inevitable lawlessness of Crown forces in the prevailing conditions, would have been most reluctant to see further repression on the inevitably gigantic scale required. In this sense the IRA won a victory by forcing political negotiation.

Although all guerrilla war situations differ in some way or another, the unifying characteristic between the Irish case and the "war on terror" is "guerrilla movements enjoying support from their own people." The support of the people doesn't have to have existed from the beginning of the movement - the 1916 Easter Rising was extremely unpopular with the Irish people to the extent that the arrested participants were booed by crowds as they boarded ships for transport to England. What began to turn Irish public opinion was the subsequent executions of the leaders of the rising, who were turned into martyrs in the Irish tradition. It created a clear division between Irish and British. The Irish saw the situation as the British executing Irishmen instead of the government executing rebels.

Even in light of the executions, successive IRA activities, such as the murders of Royal Irish Constabulary officers, British government officials and Irish people suspected as "spies" for the British government, were not met with acceptance - in fact, they were harshly rebuked, especially by the Catholic Church. It was only when the RIC officers and Auxiliaries began committing acts of reprisal on the common people that Irish public opinion turned forever towards the Nationalist cause. The IRA manipulated the people into compliance, but that was not the important point. What was important to the Irish was that Irish people were being killed by representatives of the British government. The mythology that the IRA clung to, of the Irish physically suffering under the arms of the British, became reality - there was finally a war between the Irish and the British.

Now we must pose the question: Why has al Qaeda attacked the United States?

1. They want to kill all Americans;
2. They want the US out of the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia and Israel, and they thought that attacking the US would make us pull out;
3. They want the US out of the Middle East, ultimately, but they know that they won't be able to accomplish this without the popular support of the people of the Middle East; thus, they hoped for reprisals from the US which they could use as a rally cry to their cause.

My money is on 3. In a video broadcast on al Jazeera in December 2001, Bin Laden is clearly using recent US bombing campaigns as a rally cry to his cause:

It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam. Those who lived under continuous US raids for the past months are aware of it. How many villages have been destroyed and how many millions have been pushed out in the freezing cold? These men, women and children who have been damned and now live under tents in Pakistan, have committed no sin. They are innocent. But on a mere suspicion, the United States has launched this fierce campaign... After they (the Americans), for no reason, bombed entire villages to scare the inhabitants, the defense secretary said it was the United States' right to exterminate the peoples since they are Muslim and since they are not American.

While Bin Laden has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American civilians, nowhere is it stated that the ultimate goal of the movement is to kill all Americans; rather, the killing of Americans is a means to an end as well as a cleaver in the distinction between Muslims and Americans - ALL Americans are enemies of ALL Muslims. This, again, is a rally cry to his cause.

But a rally cry to what? In February 1998, Bin Laden and al Zawahiri issued a fatwa which detailed a few grievances: US troops in Saudi Arabia, coercion of leaders of government in the Middle East, and the support of the Israeli state. These are valid grievances, though I do believe that the leaders who are propped up by the United States do not serve totally unwillingly, for they know that without US support they would not be in power.

This is part of the problem. While the IRA represented a nation insofar as they were backed by elected officials, al Qaeda does not represent a specific nation nor a specific people, although they wish to represent all Muslim people. They know that this is not the case - that average people would rather live their lives in peace than to fight and be subject to abuse for a cause which is quite foreign from their everyday existence. That is why they had to make al Qaeda's cause an issue in the everyday existence of the average Middle Easterner; that is why they have provoked the United States into open war. They, like the IRA, are manipulating their people into a struggle they would otherwise not get involved in.

The leaders of our government have been perpetuating the notion that there is no precedent for the terrorist activities of Islamic extremists but we have seen that this is simply not the case. There may not be perfect matches between current events and historic - this is a universal truth - but there are similar cases available to use as reference points for current policy. Thus, given the relevant historical case studies for our current situation in the Middle East, specifically the case of Ireland, here are the possible logical conclusions we may draw concerning the mentality of our leaders:

1. The leaders in government are not aware of these historical cases;
2. The leaders in government are aware of these historical cases but have chosen to ignore them;
3. The leaders in government are aware of these historical cases and have chosen their policy with these lessons in mind.

Many people would like to believe that 1 is the case either to feel superior to their leaders or to protect themselves from the alternative, but I believe that is simply ridiculous. 2 is tempting, but I believe that this case can only be adopted if 3 can be shown invalid, so let's try to reason 3 to absurdity:

History tells us that when a group with guerrilla movements has the cooperation of the civilians in a location, one must either kill or disarm all of the guerrillas or come to a political solution. A political solution is ruled impossible; thus, every guerrilla must be killed or disarmed. Killing or disarming every guerrilla will take a tremendous amount of troops, time and resources, but as time goes on the guerrillas become more experienced and more guerrillas are imported or made by the cause, thus making it nearly impossible to clean the country out. If it is impossible to kill or disarm all of the guerrillas and the only solution is to kill or disarm all of the guerrillas, then we have a perpetual war.

Unfortunately, this is a valid argument, though perhaps it gives the government too much credit. Why would the United States want to get involved in a perpetual war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Let's return to the Irish situation. The British didn't want a perpetual war; they wanted the Irish to acquiesce to their authority. To the British, preserving the empire was the top priority, for that meant control over the trade and resources of that land and places to house their vast military operation.

The object in the US-Iraq situation is also control - over resources, most notably Iraq's oil reserves, and over the area, a strategic military position in the center of the politically volatile Middle East. The difference between this and the Irish case is that the US has no claim whatsoever to Iraq, which is a sovereign nation. Thus, if there were some sort of peace in Iraq, the US would be forced to relinquish control of it to its people. Since there is strife, the US is able to maintain military and administrative control. A perpetual war allows the United States to continue its presence in Iraq until a political agreement is reached, it is forced out by insurgents or forced by world or domestic public opinion to abandon its enterprise. As a result, the US has to secure that none of these situations come to fruition before the government decides that it is no longer in need of Iraq. The current administration will never acknowledge the terrorist parties as political, nevertheless negotiate with them. This in and of itself would be considered, they would claim, a victory for the terrorists and a major setback for the United States. Additionally, while the US doesn't actually have the resources to continue this war, it does seem willing to mortgage the nation to continue the fight for as long as it deems necessary. Finally, the propaganda machine has been working overtime to quell negative public opinion with pearls such as, "they attacked us because they hate our freedoms." The same argument can be run on Afghanistan.

Thus, each side is manipulating its people into compliance. But where does it end? The lessons of history have shown us that the only solution is a political one. But in the case of al Qaeda, how does the United States negotiate with a group that does not represent a clear political body? And in the case of so-called "terrorist" groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, how do we combat the doctrine "thou shalt not negotiate with terrorists"? It is apparent that the continued use of military force will only rally more Muslims to the insurgents' cause; but, perhaps, that is precisely what U.S. policymakers want.

My Primary Vote: Barack Obama

Super Tuesday is just around the corner and I, along with voters from 24 states around the country, will be casting my ballot in the 2008 Presidential Primary.

Unfortunately, the person that I was planning to vote for dropped out of the race recently. As it stands, only two candidates remain. Thanks, American Primary System and Mass Media!

Since the two remaining candidates are almost identical to one another in their professed policy concerns and I believe them both willing to "play the game" (even though Obama claims he wouldn't - there is a reason why he is still in the race), I have chosen my candidate based mostly on image and an abhorrence of dynasty.

Yes, I choose Barack Obama - and I have prepared a defense.

As concerns professed policy, like I said, they differ slimly. For instance, neither of their health care policies are truly universal, neither removes the ridiculous link between health care coverage and employer (although they claim to be portable, without expanding the tax exemption on health care premiums to non-employer-provided policies, almost everyone will still be tied to their employer's insurance) and both merely wish to patch up holes in a leaky roof that needs to be replaced - Obama's plan does not include a mandate for adults and has provisions for children's health that Clinton's plan does not mention: more physical activity (as in gym class, because a lot of inner city and poorly performing schools lack this standard) and a healthy cafeteria menu.

Obama is also not hostile to the idea of a single-payer system - he just doesn't have the guts to run on it. His reasons for promoting his plan are pretty much bullshit - he doesn't want people to have their lives disrupted too much? We already have a system, so we are stuck with it and we should just try to improve what we have? That's just private-insurance/pharmaceutical industry propaganda. People should support a single-payer system - they are infiltrated with bull from the media about "lack of choice" Canada didn't always have a single-payer system - they changed their infrastructure to allow for it! Which is what will be necessary in the US. I am hoping that Obama is running a mainline campaign in order to get into the White House and then allow for the "change" he keeps yapping on about. I hope, but I will not hold my breath.

But, like I said, it comes down mostly to image. I do hate to admit favoring someone because of their image, people around the world judge the members of a nation by their leaders. Thus, the image of a President is not necessarily important to those at home; rather, it is a strong signal to the rest of the world, letting them know which way we wish to take our country.

Many nations around the world have already elected women to their highest posts - most of these women were members of dynasties from which male relatives had ruled in the past. Thus is the case with Hillary Clinton. If she is elected, by the end of her first term, two groups of people will have ruled the nation for 32 years - The Reaganites (Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like) and the Clintons. I do not like the precedent that this sets.

Barack Obama is a member of a minority class in this country, he has no political ties in his family and he is a master orator. On top of that, his name, Barack, or baarack(a), means "blessing" in Arabic! You must think that would have some impact on the Arabic world's perception of the United States. To elect a fresh-faced, self-made man who has proven inspirational to some would set a new precedent much more attractive than the alternative.

Now, his supposed faults: the popular media has perpetrated the idea that Obama's major faults are his lack of experience, related to that, his ineffectiveness in the Senate and his willingness to talk to leaders of hostile nations.

Let us first tackle the experience question.

I'm amazed that no one brings this up, but Obama's experience is very similar to another former Illinois State legislator turned President - Abraham Lincoln.

While Abe vied for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, he won only one bid - for the House of Representatives.

Yes, that's right: before becoming President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln spent one sputtering term - that's two years - in the U.S. House of Representatives - the rest of his political experience was in the Illinois State House of Representatives.

Obama has spent four years as the junior Senator from Illinois - not only has he spent more time in federal office, but he has played a more influential part in the Upper House, mostly because Lincoln shot off his big mouth and made enemies of the big men.

The two have even more in common - they are both great orators, both are progressive thinkers, and both have been viewed as a new face either to a burgeoning political party, in Lincoln's case, or a dying party - and nation - looking for a revival.

I don't mean necessarily to say that Obama will be the modern Lincoln - that has yet to be seen. I mean that he should not be discounted merely on his "lack of experience".

Concerning his effectiveness in the Senate, I must admit, he is a bit lacking, though not in comparison to his rival - Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama sponsored 66 bills and 86 amendments in the 109th Congress and he has, so far, sponsored 63 bills and 50 amendments in the 110th Congress for a grand total of 129 bills and 136 amendments. 120 bills did not make it past committee, six were enacted and only one is actually effective. For a good laugh, here are 5/6 of the bills Obama has been able to get passed:

S.RES.133 - A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 - A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
S.RES.291 - A resolution to congratulate the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship.
S.RES.516 - A resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of the Senate that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.
S.RES.529 - A resolution designating July 13, 2006, as "National Summer Learning Day".

Apparently, National Summer Learning Day is a cause close to Senator Obama's heart.

This is the policy-oriented bill that passed:

S.2125 - A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, has sponsored 354 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 307 haven't made it out of committee, and only 2 effective ones have been enacted. That's one more than Senator Obama, plus she has served four more years than him in Congress. GovTrack even gives Senator Obama a better same effectiveness rating relative to peers than Senator Clinton- so why is Senator Obama's effectiveness constantly brought us as an issue in comparison to Senator Clintons? There seems to be no reason beyond libel and propaganda.

Senator Obama has also able to get passed 21 amendments in the 109th Congress and 18 so far in the 110th - almost all of them actually affecting policy. He even managed to get six of his amendments ruled out of order by the chair - two when trying to hinder former congressmen's ability to obtain lobbyist positions, and four when trying to regulate hurricane contracts. That's promising.

What I think is important here is not his success rate - obviously his bill success rate is nothing special, although his amendment pass rate is pretty good - but what sort of bills and amendments he is sponsoring. He has been willing to push the envelope in the past, as is proven with the out of order rulings. He has also sponsored bills concerning the same issues he has been campaigning for: energy efficiency, government transparency and anti-corruption, implementation of Information Technology for the sake of health administration efficiency, etc.

The final major "problem" with Obama's candidacy is his desire to convene a meeting of leaders of the Middle East to ask the question: what is your problem with the United States and what can we do to aid our relations?

Many people think that the president needs to be strong and resolute and, thus, not speak to leaders of countries that want to hurt us unless they are willing to submit. Well, let's see: that's been our policy for the last half-century or so and look at what it's got us!

Ever since September 11th, we have been told that Muslims attack us because they hate our freedoms. That has always sounded a bit illogical and chaotic to me - if they merely hate us, then they will never stop killing us until either they kill all of us or we kill all of them. That, of course, is what the current administration wants us to think - it makes an everlasting war on the Middle East necessary.

But the people of the Middle East do have valid grievances against the United States - hell, 90% of the world does! Western Europe has been ravaging the rest of the world ever since they were able to jump on ships and travel huge distances with relative ease. The US was a late-comer to the imperialist party - by that time imperialism had to dissemble itself in the raiments of economic development, free trade and democracy promotion - but I believe the country has made up for its tardiness with the intensity of its avarice. Constant medaling and a need to control everything has made the US - and, unfortunately, common Americans who don't realize the extent of the atrocities of its leaders over the past half-century - hated around the world. It is time to try to rectify the situation and showing that we are willing to listen to others is a step in the right direction.

Thus, I have made my decision to back Barack Obama. While Clinton will surely perpetuate the status quo, Obama offers a fresh-face to American politics abroad and a new, more attractive precedent.

The MTV/Myspace Debate: Best Forum this Season?

Who would have guessed that the network most famous for covering the exploits of horny twenty-somethings would bring us arguably the best Presidential Forum to date?

I mean, it doesn't take much to compete with the CNN/YouTube debates - or, for that matter, any of the debates that aired on mainstream networks because of their extreme bias to the "major" candidates - but wow. It wasn't until the end of Huckabee's segment that I realized one, Huckabee is kind of making sense here, and two, I am probably watching the best Presidential Primary coverage I have seen - and it's on MTV.

Now, most of what Mike Huckabee said in his segment he has said in previous debates, but he came off very well and I think he was able to sum up the positive notes of his campaign very nicely. He obviously has a good sense of humor - his previous appearances on the Colbert Report are a testament to that. He also has some good ideas, like repairing our infrastructure and eliminating of the IRS, although there are some kinks to the latter proposal. Are businesses going to pay the same taxes on goods and services as the average consumer? If not, what keeps businessmen, executives and such who already write off or attribute a good deal of their personal expenses to their companies from avoiding more taxes than common people? And if businesses are supposed to pay the same amount in taxes on goods and services, then won't they merely pass along the expense to their own consumers and employees, just as they do now?

The most distinguishing mark of this forum was the ridiculous - and by that, I mean equal - amount of airtime Ron Paul was alloted. I don't think that he has been allowed to speak even half as long as this in any other major telecast. Apparently, he wasn't even invited to the forum at first. So either the push from his supporters, many of whom are young, or the lack of a second Republican candidate willing to appear, or a combination of both propelled MTV/Myspace to finally invite him.

Ron Paul did not field his first question very well. He was asked how he would deal with the Darfur situation. As he is prone to do, he referred to the constitution - which does not allot for the US government to get involved in these sorts of conflicts, no matter how humanitarian. He did, however, say that the UN - if the UN ran the way it ideally should - should get involved, or a humanitarian effort outside of the government, likely funded privately, but not the government using US tax dollars. He does have a point but this particular point does not rub well with idealists who oft are young.

Ron Paul also hangs onto the constitution a little too strongly - he sometimes comes off like a Christian who reads the bible literally. Ron Paul - ever hear of an Amendment? Those were encouraged by the founding fathers, you know. As times change, so must the constitution.

But I am with him most of the way. I admire the fact that he has read the constitution, understands the foundations of its law, and allows it to govern his stance on issues - it's sad, but he is unique in this manner. I especially like how he brought up the section on how to deal with pirates in relation to how we should deal with terrorists. Since the terrorist witch hunt began, we have had people feeding us bullshit that the fight against terrorism was unprecedented and that we must go from country to country smoking them out and, oh, disposing a few dictators here and there and murdering a large portion of the populace - and here comes Ron Paul with an analogous scenario in the constitution!?! I need to look this up - in fact, I am committing right now to read the entire constitution and write a commentary on it. Stay tuned.

I must say, a while back, I would have thrown all of my support and campaigned for Ron Paul. He is the sort of Republican I used to be back before I realized how greedy and conniving people are - quite frankly, they are assholes, for the most part. This lead me to the realization that markets are not efficient, de-regulation will not make the market work better, it will only allow people to manipulate it even more - to sum up, the people cannot be trusted to be ethical enough to allow a free market system to work. This is why I am no longer a Republican. But in an ideal world where people weren't complete garbage I would be a Ron Paul Republican.

The Democratic half of the forum was, as could have been predicted, pretty boring. There were only two things worth mentioning: one is that I felt that there was a bias in favor of Obama. His questions were easy - they were flattering more than anything. On the other hand, all of Clinton's, besides perhaps the first, were scathing - she was able to deflect, for the most part, but then again, she is a politician.

Lastly, Clinton's first question concerned student loan debt and the runaway cost of college tuition. She talked about getting rid of the private lenders and making college lending an entirely government-sponsored program so that all students - not just those whom FAFSA claims need it - can enjoy loans at a low, 3% rate. She also talked about loan payment programs, such as those that some law school graduates already enjoy - if you take a low-paying job in the service of the community, the program will pay your loan payments as long as you are in the job, or you pay a low percentage of you salary. The latter could be bad if you are just making minimum payments on your loans - this will mean that you will owe a hell of a lot more later because of the continuously accruing interest. But the former is, like I said, similar to programs that some law school grads currently enjoy and would, I believe, be a great incentive for people bogged down in debt, such as myself. The best idea, though, is for universities to reign in their expenses and stop charging ridiculous amounts of money.

I also loved how she called the new college grads who have a lot of debt and who take on a job they hate as "indentured servants" - that's the exact terminology I use! Actually, that's pretty sad.

The Democratic Primary Debates: A Close Examination of the Data

In this post I am going to examine the data from this election season's Democratic presidential primary debates.

There are 21 Democratic Debates listed on the wikipedia Democratic Primary Debates page - surely there may be more, minor forums, especially ones where only one candidate was highlighted, but these have been excluded. The most important data here is for the debates on major networks because these have the greatest visibility and, thus, audiences. Out of all of these debates, 6 were sanctioned by the DNC - one of which was canceled due to the WGA strike. The sanctioned debates are marked with "DNC Sanctioned".

I added ratings information where available (apparently you have to be a "qualified journalist" in order to access the full Nielsen Ratings). I also noted which candidates were invited, which attended, and if there were any exclusions, on what basis and the candidate's response to his exclusion.

Let's take a look at each of these. Debates on major networks are in red:

April 26, 2007 - Orangeburg, South Carolina - MSNBC
Candidates:
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del.
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio
Former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

June 3, 2007 - Manchester, New Hampshire - CNN
Ratings: 2.8 million
Candidates:
All

June 28, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - PBS
Candidates:
All

July 12, 2007 - Detroit, Michigan - NAACP webcast
Candidates:
All

July 23, 2007 - Charleston, South Carolina - CNN/You-Tube Debate - DNC Sanctioned
Ratings: 2.6 million
Candidates:
All

August 4, 2007 - Chicago, Illinois - YearlyKos webcast
Candidates:
All except Biden, who was at Congress for a vote

August 7, 2007 - Chicago, Illinois - MSNBC
Candidates:
All but Gravel, who failed to submit a written questionaire by the deadline.

August 9, 2007 - Los Angeles, California - Logo (LGBT) Network
Candidates:
All except Biden and Dodd, who had scheduling conflicts. Gravel was not invited originally because he didn't meet a fundraising threshold, but because of ardent protest from his supporters, he was finally invited.

August 19, 2007 - Des Moines, Iowa - ABC - DNC Sanctioned
Candidates:
All

September 9, 2007 - Coral Gables, Florida - Univision (Spanish Network)
Candidates:
All but Biden

September 12, 2007 - Yahoo! and Huffington Press "mash-up" posted online
Candidates:
All

September 20, 2007 - Davenport, Iowa - PBS, AARP
Candidates:
All but Obama, Kucinich and Gravel. Obama declined his invitation, citing that he was limiting debate appearances organized by special interest groups. Kucinich and Gravel, on the other hand, were excluded because they did not meet AARP's criteria: a campaign office in Iowa and one paid campaign representative. Kucinich cited special interest bias on the part of AARP.

September 26, 2007 - Hanover, New Hampshire - MSNBC - Official
Candidates:
All

October 30, 2007 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - MSNBC - DNC Sanctioned
Candidates:
All but Gravel, who failed to meet the requirements set for invitation: 14 visits to New Hampshire and/or Iowa in the last year, polling at 5%, or $1 million raised. Gravel ardently argued against his exclusion. Political director for NBC, Chuck Todd, called Gravel's claims "ludicrous." Gravel staged a counter-debate across the street from the NBC venue. When Kucinich was excluded from the MSNBC debate on Jan 15 and complained that the three other candidates didn't mention his exclusion, Gravel called him out for not mentioning his exclusion from this venue.

November 15, 2007 - Las Vegas, Nevada - Nevada Dem Party/CNN - DNC Sanctioned
Ratings: 4.5 million
Candidates:
All but Gravel, who was again excluded. Controversy flew when it was suggested that the "ordinary voters" who gave questions were planted and their questions censored. This is a given, I thought?

December 4, 2007 - Des Moines, Iowa - NPR "radio only"
Candidates:
All but Richardson, who was attending a funeral for a Korean War casualty.

December 10, 2007 - Los Angeles, California - CBS - DNC Sanctioned - CANCELED
Canceled because candidates refused to cross picket line.

December 13, 2007 - Johnston, Iowa - De Moines Register/Iowa Public TV
Aired on: Iowa Public Television, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, C-SPAN 3
Candidates:
All but Kucinich and Gravel, both excluded because they did not have a campaign office in Iowa, and Gravel did not have a full-time staff member in-state. Kucinich fumed at the exclusion. At this point, journalists took this opportunity to bring up the fact that Kucinich often refuses to debate candidates for his congressional seat.

- Jan 3 - Biden and Dodd drop out of race due to poor showings in Iowa.

January 5, 2008 - Manchester, New Hampshire - ABC/Facebook
Ratings: 9.36 million; 1.4 million when re-run on CNN
Candidates:
Top four showing in Iowa: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson. Kucinich, again, issued angry remarks.

- Jan 9 - Richardson drops out of race due to a poor showing in New Hampshire. From here on out, the "Big Three" will refer to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

January 15, 2008 - Las Vegas, Nevada - MSNBC
Candidates:
"Big Three". Kucinich and Gravel excluded. The current controversy.

January 21, 2008 - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina - CNN
Ratings: 4.91 million
Candidates:
"Big Three". Kucinich and Gravel excluded.

- Jan 24 - Kucinich drops out of the race.

- Jan 30 - Edwards drops out of the race.

January 31, 2008 - Hollywood, California - CNN
Candidates:
Obama and Clinton. Man, no one saw THAT coming.

From this data we can see that the first exclusion of a candidate occurred on August 9, 2007 - five months before the first primary ballot would be cast. Regular exclusions began on September 20 - this was the beginning of Gravel's perpetual exclusion. On December 13, Kucinich began his perpetual exclusion - two weeks before the first primary.

Most of these exclusions were made on a financial basis - either not having a campaign office in-state, a full-time staffer, a fundraising floor or a combination of these.

Now, this is considered weeding out the inviable candidates. Sure, Gravel was polling poorly, but Kucinich was polling well in certain straw polls and less scientific audience polls. And even if these candidates weren't "polling well", haven't we seen from New Hampshire that polls can be wildly off? Not to mention the positive feedback loop that polls create with the voting audience looking for the "most viable candidate".

It's also fairly obvious that even when all of the candidates were invited to a debate, the "Big Three" were given the most air time, and out of those three, Clinton and Obama have been considered the front runners and Edwards the solid third-place candidate. Even the candidates joked about it on-stage! The candidates who remain have been selected from the start.

But why these candidates? Why Clinton and Obama?

A future post will attempt to tackle this question.

Kucinich Exclusion Sparks Question: Is There a Better Way?

As has been widely noted, Dennis Kucinich was barred from participating in the NBC Democratic Debate on January 15th.

A little background: NBC publicly announced its criteria for inclusion in the debate to be a fourth-place or better showing in a national poll, which Kucinich met by placing fourth in the USA/Gallop poll earlier in the month. NBC sent him an invitation and then, less than 44 hours later, rescinded it, stating that it had changed its criteria for inclusion to limit participation in the debate to only three candidates. In response, Kucinich sued NBC in Nevada for breach of contract, a lower courts judge filed an injunction to prevent the debate from going on if it excluded Kucinich, and then NBC appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada to have the ruling overturned. Needless to say, NBC won, and the debate continued without Kucinich or much debate, period.

In any case, Democracy Now! gave Kucinich the chance to respond to some of the debate during their daily broadcast. You can watch it, listen to it, or read the transcript here. Skip about 25 minutes in to get to Kucinich's part.

But why did NBC wish to exclude Kucinich from participation in the debate? Kucinich claims corporate bias. Sure, Dennis, the big bad corporations are out to get you, just like the aliens in their UFOs. Poor, funny looking man.

Thankfully, NBC News correspondent Kevin Corke cleared up everything and explained the network's position on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show:

"We were expecting to have the three major candidates. Why? Well quite frankly, because those are the probable candidates. That pool is the most viable pool. And truthfully, most people want to hear what Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama have to say. After all, those are probably the three they’re going to be picking from."

How right you are! Why should we want to hear the views of a candidate who has no chance of being elected because no one knows much about his ideas?

As if he couldn't dig himself a bigger hole, Corke continues, addressing Kucinich's presence at the debate:

"I’m not so sure it serves the voters that well, but certainty there’s a feeling here that every voice needs to be heard."

This brings me to my point: why are private corporations allowed to have this much control over our presidential election?

Now, I am not of the opinion that every news source and television station should give equal air time to each political party, as there are enough competing sources that bias to either party to allow people access to the full spectrum of popular ideas. I use "popular" to denote mainstream major party candidates or ideas because, let's face it, those are the only ones you are ever going to hear about in the mainstream media, even with an equal air time mandate.

Presidential primary debates are a different matter. Many Americans get most of their information about candidates from the debates. The debates are also the biggest outlet for the "minor" candidates' views - they do not have big budgets to saturate the media with ad campaigns and they are certainly not mentioned often by newscasts and panel shows. Lastly, only one debate airs at any given time, sponsored by one network and/or one special interest group, thus presenting one "slant" on the matter - whether it be through outright physical exclusion of candidates from the debate or a symbolic one by focusing on the pre-selected, "most viable" choices.

What is most disturbing is that every network - and every special interest group that has had its debate aired on a major network - has shown the same bias to the same candidates, namely Clinton and Obama, and to a lesser extent, Edwards.

It is this homogeneous showing that leads to the question: is there a better way? In the next few posts, I will take a closer look at the debates, making my focus first on the Democratic presidential primary debates as they have had the highest frequency of exclusions.