Kucinich questions Edwards integrity, Hillary involved...
 

In an MSNBC article Dennis Kucinich accused John Edwards of trying to rig the election, as well as 'reflecting a lack of integrity'.

Is Dennis looking to stir up the waters, or is he being unfairly shut out by the popular kids?

A recent video showed the alignment of sides, similar to a Survivor-like alliance.

Re: Kucinich questions Edwards integrity, Hillary involved...
 

Edwards and Clinton stupidly get caught mic'd up talking secretly about getting rid of any dissenting opinions from theirs and they want to be President? I like seeing Gravel and Kucinich calling out the top tier candidates. Gravel has called out Hillary on her Iraq war vote and Obama on not taking a nuclear first strike against Iran off the table ("Who the hell are we going to nuke! Tell me Barack, who do you want to nuke !!") If anything, censoring people from the debates will help the lower tier candidates. The Iowan Christian Alliance did this to Ron Paul in Iowa and it did nothing but help his cause.

Re: Kucinich questions Edwards integrity, Hillary involved...
 

This is one of the reasons why we need more spaced-out primaries. Once there has actually been voting in a few states, I think some candidates have a more legitimate claim to being "top tier" and and a better excuse to exclude candidates with no shot of winning.

It would be nice to get to hear a more in-depth discussion with just the top 3-4 candidates, without the distraction of people who really only add humor value. But before any voting has happened, I don't see how you can justifiably exclude anyone.

But now there will hardly be any time between the first primary and the bulk of delegates being awards in which such debates could be held.

Re: Kucinich questions Edwards integrity, Hillary involved...
 

so you're in favor of a top tier strategy to narrow the field. a point against the argument that a more in-depth view of the characters is needed/has-not-been-exposed is that through CNN, and other media sources online, an interested intelligible follower will have been able to form a deeper view of each candidate; the counterpoint being not many people are that interested, or possibly intellible at getting to the root differences between the candidates... most people have a snapshot view, oh I like him he said this.

So who would decide this, is there a national poll to see who are the top 3-4 candidates? why couldn't this be part of the political process? Just because historically the long shots don't recover the ground they lack they can be smite-ed-ed?