Candidate talk time in last night's debate: Dean first, Kucinich last

[AP]

Dean 14 min 07 seconds

Kerry 12 min 31 seconds

Clark 10 min 36 seconds
Gephardt 10 min 02 seconds

Lieberman 9 min 26 seconds

Braun 8 min 39 seconds
Sharpton 8 min 28 seconds
Edwards 8 min 00 seconds

Kucinich 5 min 09 seconds

This is from a Kucinich mailing, which is discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=57399#57739

[AP]

1. So, who do you think is getting the most miles per minute?

[RichM]

6. Probably Sharpton, who was also cheated on time, but who is so

overpoweringly witty that he still made an impact.

[mandyky]

2. Dean was allowed several rebuttals,

which bumped up his time.

[hedda_foil]

3. There's no way the figure for Dean is correct.

He was barely allowed to speak and had only one shot during the entire last half hour. He certainly did not have the time given to Kerry or Clark.

[Demobrat]

16. That's what I thought too.

I remember thinking that Dean was being deliberately shut out, and that they were showcasing Kerry, especially at the end. But I'm willing to accept that I was wrong, and that it only seemed like Kerry talked forever.

[DakotaDemocrat]

4. Really?!?!?!?!

Braun got 8 minutes?
Dean 14?!?!

I only saw Amb. Braun speak three times. Clark spent more time defending himself...

[AP]

8. Braun took a question from the audience, she jumped at the end

after a question for Edwards, which was the right thing to do, and I think she got a couple more chances elsewhere.

The mp3 is available in P&C, and if anyone thinks these numbers are wrong, please post the times for your candidate and I'll put them in a big spreadsheet and I'll post it. However, I'm not sure it's worth it. I doubt the Kucinich campaign is sending out information that, if untrue, would be so easy to debunk.

I did my own measure of talk time for Edwards and it was only off by 5 seconds, so I trust the way Kucinich is measuring this.

[RBHam]

5. Kucinich - least time, best vision.

He outlined his plan to disengage grom the Iraqi quagmire, get the UN in, change America from a war mongering nation to a peace-making nation and as he has always CONSISTENTLY advocated for the working poor and disadvantaged with universal health care and living wages.

Too bad the Democratic establishmnet, awash in Corporate bribery, will do everything in their power to allow the Reich wing media to paint him as Cleveland's answer to Fidel Castro.

[jpgray]

9. I agree--Kucinich got the shaft

Kerry and Dean had at least twice his talking time.

[JohnKleeb]

11. Dean nearly got 3X and Kerry about 2.5X

What a shame! This man represents in many ways what FDR did for the party, what RFK did, and what Paul Wellstone did. It will be a hard road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but it shouldnt be ignored.

[jpgray]

19. Kucinich is great! And for being an FDR Democrat he's "fringe"

:crazy:

[AP]

21. FDR was attacked for being too moderate when he was president.

Time changes, and people get different perspectives.

Anyway, it's funny that Kucinich probably sees the world much of the same way as FDR (at least in terms of well-regulated markets, social and economic justice, etc.) and Kucinich is thought of as a fringe candidate today.

[JohnKleeb]

25. sadly

and FDR is the most beloved democrat of the past century. Sigh I guess I wasnt made for the times.

[JohnKleeb]

23. I think he represents FDRs legacy well

Yeah JP he is great.

[JohnKleeb]

10. RB I havent seen you in a while but wanna drink to that

:toast: You are so right about the congressman, I met the guy recently and hes a great guy.

[joeybee12]

7. Dean and Clark are up there because of their rebuttals...

...the others (most) challenged them directly and so they were given time to respond. The others, by criticizing them are actually helping them.

[AP]

12. That's a very interesting spin, because the people who attacked him...

...also got a lot of time, while the people who didn't attack didn't get very much time. However, that analysis misses a big element of this. The moderators totally encourage discussing and attacking Dean because they know that helps Dean, I bet. I heard some political scientists talking about that very phenomenon a couple days ago.

I have no doubt that CNN wants to help Dean, and wants to encourage the Kerry-Dean spats. They did that in the Fox debate, and, with this fax thing, they did it again last night.

[Ripley]

15. Huh?

I think CNN's only reason for encouraging "infighting" especially between Kerry and Dean is not to "help" Dean, but to boost ratings by making it appear that the Dems are eating each other alive. If they wanted to help Dean, why did they show the only split screen of candidates (Dean and I forget if it was Gep or Lieberman) while the attacker was speaking in order to show Dean (hopefully for CNN) "lose his cool." Which he didn't.

In general the moderators had biased questions against all Dems and basically tried to tell them they couldn't attack Bush, but each other.

CNN is not propping up Dean.

[AP]

20. I heard a talk about how, when Dean gets attacked or

looks bad, he does even better with his consituents ... his poll numbers go up, his supporters rally around him, and he gets more money. This first happened after the Tim Russert thing. It makes it hard for Democrats to address him, but he's in first place, so they have to.

In any event, I think you really have to be closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying "la la la la I can't hear you" if, at this point, you still don't want to believe that the fascists think the best chance for Bush is to run against Dean.

I think this breakdown above is just another piece of evidence proving the obvious: CNN and Fox want Dean to be the nominee.

[Ripley]

33. You know I tried to be nice.

But once again I'm called an idiot child "saying "la la la la I can't hear you."

I give up trying to explain the way I saw this or any debate to certain people because you just attack me.

The fascists don't want any of the frontrunner to go against Smirk because they all have better qualifications. Kerry for his service, Edwards for his passion and charisma, Gephardt for the middle class.

Sheesh.

[AP]

35. Ripley, I totally agree with you.

The "you" wasn't meant to mean "you, Ripley". I meant the hypothetical person who just thinks CNN is being evenhanded and that random, non-nefarious circumstances are leading to the promotion of certain candidates and the muffling of others.

on edit:

oops, I just reread your post (I thought I was responding to a different of yours). I guess we do disagree. Like I said, I'm seeing a pattern in the debates, and I do think there's an obvious promotion of Dean. It's on Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson is doing it, the RNC is leaking memos that probably arent' true, etc. etc. And, really, the last two debates...it's like Deanapolooza. Everything is framed around an attack on Dean, which they know gives him more support in the primaries, and they give him a ton of time to get his message out.

[Ripley]

37. Uh, ok.

BTW is that Patricia Ireland's photo? Loved her book "What Women Want."

(edit: this is a response before you edited yours.)

[Ripley]

39. On the contrary the papers today harped on the "Attack Clark"

theme of the debate which I don't even think is true. Altho there were more people taking swipes at him than at Dean this time.

So, I guess we do disagree.

[AP]

41. I was surprised by that spin too.

I didn't think people were attacking Clark. I thought at one point CNN was attacking Clark, and I think some people referred to things he said to make their own points, but "attack" was severe.

[Cha]

52. And why did they have the slime tactics of the fax from "kerry's

supporters"...huh!? If they are so pro Dean?

[AP]

54. Because they know dean does better among primary voters when he's

attacked. And they knew it would hurt kerry more.

Kerry sits around wondering what the fuck he did wrong to go from frontrunner to being almost out of it. He should look at the media and think about how they're framing this battle between him and Dean and the way it lifts Dean up while it takes Kerry down.

[Ripley]

57. You have got to be kidding me!

Kerry is not wondering that I'm sure.

The media is not lifting up Dean other than saying he has a lot of support and raised more money.

Sheeshasheeshasheesh.

[AP]

59. How much more evidence of this do you need?

I'll concede that I'm only speculating. But the evidence is adding up.

Why do you think a guy who is associated with gay rights (which will never play in the south) and who is so fiscally conservative that he wouldn't be a big threat to what the Republicans really care about gets more time that the bottom two candidates, who happen to have a message that is the most threatening to what Republicans really care about.

In fact, if you look at the rankings, the more of a populist you are, and the more you "get" what's really wrong with the American economy, the less CNN and Fox (huge corporations benefitting from the things the populists attack) let you talk to America.

Note that Dean told the Cato Institute that they should really like them. That is NOT a threat for CNN. The only way Kucinich or Edwards would be anywhere near the Cato Institute is if their disembodied heads were on plates.

So, we have Rove at the parade. Rush. The RNC memo. Tucker's button. That stoopid NYTimes opinion piece about the justifiable privileges of our Episcopalian overclass. What more do you need to be convinced?

[Ripley]

61. All I can say is that you put more faith in the repubs than you do

in the American people who will vote in 2004.

Most Americans don't have a clue what RNC memo, Tucker's button, and all of the other behind the scenes crap you talk about even are. The people should be given the benefit of the doubt. You assume people equate Dean with gay rights. That is so passe. He stands for a lot more than that.

There are great candidates here, and Dean is no more of a threat to us losing than Sharpton is at this point...one year out from the election.

I agree the media has it in for ALL OF THEM. So quit picking up on the RW memos....they are such crap.

[AP]

62. I have two words for you: Bush. Arnold.

The media endorsed and campaigned for them too.

[Ripley]

64. I have two words for you:

Have Faith.

The best Dem will be chosen next year. Whoever that is out of this crowd will have enormous backing by the people and the polls will probably reflect that as well because I don't see any state's economy going gangbusters in the next year.

Arnold will be shown to have been a disastrous coupe and there will be calls for recall again.

:7

[AP]

66. It doens't matter if Arnold will turn out to be disastrous

He's in power. Same thing with Bush.

I still think the best Dem will be picked. But I think part of arriving at that point is going to be realizing that the candidate the media wants isnt't he best candidtate for Dems.

[KittyWampus]

13. Thank You AP, Edwards Did Well

With the little time he had.

And I'm glad you're pulling for him!

[AP]

14. I'm going to paraphrase something Amy Goodman said on Democracy Now

Goodman said that if she could control the media in America for ONE WEEK should could dramatically change opinion on Iraq.

If I could control the media so that John Edwards got 14 minutes of time each debate, and everyone else got 5-12 minutes (or, if I could turn this list on its head so that Kucinich got the most and Edwards the second most time) I could put Edwards in first place in all the polls and in the head-to-head match-up with Bush in one week.

I don't want to do that...I'd rather see everyone get an equal amount of time and then let Americans decide which message is the best...but if I could do that...one week...that's all I'd need.

[Ripley]

17. I didn't know you were an Edwards person...I think he was great.

In fact I have been extremely impressed by Edwards in all of the debates. And the fact that my relatives are tarheels, I would be proud as an offspring of that great state to vote for him if he gets the nomination.

[JohnKleeb]

18. I like that idea

of equal time for all. I dont care what their intentions are but it means that people like Edwards and Kucinich are being left out basically. Also AP their two times last night combined dont equal what Dean got. Just saying and thats not an attack.

[RichM]

22. Kucinich said good stuff in his 5 min, but seemed so disgusted by the

Woodruff-Greenfield horror show, that his delivery was even more brusque & angry than usual. So I think he didn't come off that well.

(I say this as an unwavering DK supporter, & as someone who fully believes that if you're not angry, you don't understand the situation.)

[jpgray]

29. Second that

Even so, his comments were very cogent and intelligently presented.

[morgan2]

31. agree but

most people are not paying attention. Thats Dennis's biggest hurdle to overcome. People see his anger and don't understand why.

[twilight]

55. one thing about DK supporters ...

They do not waver! DK is the best pick of the lot for he truly has a vision and he revealed his plan to get the UN in and the US out of Iraq. Dean when pressed, finally admitted he'd give * the $87 billion ... what a whore ... thats all I can say. He did not want to answer the question and tried to side-step DK's questioning of him. Finally, when DK said, "What is your answer, Yes or No?" Finally, Dean answered YES. :nuke: to you Dean you aren't getting my freakin vote Dr. Nobody but yourself! :nuke:

:dem:

[madfloridian]

24. If you look at the transcript......that is just not true about Dean time.

There is no way he got the most speaking time. Do a search for the word Dean on the transcript page, then Kerry, then Clark.

[AP]

26. If you want to listen to the mp3 (which is at P&C) and post the start and

stop times for when Dean spoke, I'd be happy to confirm the times, and put them into a spreadsheet and post the time here.

[Cha]

28. However much time anyone Got...I think we can all agree that

it was a bogus farce with Whiney judy at the helm who was passing Cheese,too.

Or did some DUers like the debate on cnn?

[AP]

30. I think the most important thing for people to keep in mind is that

there's probably a reason that CNN and Fox, stations which practically endorsed Arnold, and donated millions of dollars worth of air time promoting him, are consistently producing debates that show this distribution of talk time. This distribution happening once might be a statistically insignificant aberration, but now this is the second time in a row that we've seen this, and we've only counted time at DU twice.

What could that reason be? We can argue over it, but I think it's because the Republicans want to go up against Dean. I'm not saying this is the absolutely ONLY interpretation of these numbers, I'm just saying that people should be open to considering that this might be the case.

[FubarFly]

36. CNN, & FOX want Dean to lose his cool, explode, and destroy

his own candidacy. They are out for ratings, and nothing would make better entertainment. In short: conflict = money. I think if the Republicans really were to pick a candidate they could go up against, they would pick Joe Lieberman. Joe, I believe, would run a traditional, surprise-free, lackluster campaign, fail to energize his supporters, and lose handily to b*sh. Dean, Clark, and Edwards are all more worrisome to rethugs for different reasons. And yes, I think they are relieved that Edwards hasn't gotten more traction as of yet.

Overall, IMHO, I think you are confusing big media interests with rethug interests. Their goals frequently merge, but they are not always the same.

[AP]

38. But, he didn't do it last time on Fox. Why would CNN give him all the same

opportunities they gave him on Fox, which worked for Dean then?

It's all about air time. They know the more coverage they give him, the more he's the focus, the more support he gets.

Also, I don't think the media's interests have changed all that much since the whored for Arnold last week, and Bush in 2000.

[FubarFly]

40. No, the more rope they give him, the more he has to hang himself with.

I think Dean is a bit of a spectacle for the media. And while they might not want him to beat b*sh, right now, he's good television.
I don't think they could avoid him if they wanted to. They're watching Dean like a NASCAR race, just waiting for a crash which, IMO, will never come.

[AP]

42. I think the last thing CNN cares about is ratings, honestly.

As long as there is only Fox and CNN, I think they're more concerned with propaganda than ratings.

That's why they got rid of Donahue and replaced him with someone who got worse ratings. I don't think MSNBC is the only outlet thinking that way.

[FubarFly]

44. Ratings matter because money matters.

I think CNN would be much more balanced if they weren't getting killed by FOX. And I agree, idealogy does play a role, but only to the degree where it effects the bottom line. MSNBC was afraid of missing out on the patriotic boost in ratings that the Iraq invasion would bring. They also were afraid of the effects which would result from being branded as the anti-war network. So they went along to get along. IMO, they let their bias and cowardice keep them from taking advantage of an opportunity to fill a real niche among progressive viewers in the cable market. Nobody ever said they were smart.

[Cha]

46. WEll stated! Fubar!

[AP]

47. If they're airing a Democratic Debate, I think they're already conceding..

...to the fact that they ratings are going to suck. What they're doing is trying to set a tone they hope flows down from the pundits and the opinionocracy, which flows down into reporting in other media (local radio, newspapers, magazines, etc.)

[FubarFly]

56. I agree with that.

And I think they may also hope to benefit from the publicity and word of mouth that an "incident" during the debates would bring. I also absolutely agree that they don't have the best interests of the Democrats or democracy at heart. I am proud of all of our candiadtes for handling such an obviously biased format so well.

[Ripley]

43. Well said Fubar.

The media keeps leaking that Dean is "angry." Then they focus the camera on him in the debates and interviews hoping he will yell something like O'Reilly would. It never happens because his "anger" is his passionate words against Smirk.

[Cha]

45. Well, the repubs are stupid then if they want to go against Dean!

[AP]

49. they got Arnold and Bush elected, so it's probably unwise to dismiss this

issue out of hand.

I'd like to be as stupid as CNN and Fox.

[Ripley]

34. Actually zidzi I like the overall format...

The formal one, then the sitting down where they could walk around and talk one on one to average people.

But of course I agree Judy was a horror walking around on stage badgering them.

:hi:

[Cha]

48. A whining badger with cheese!

If I were judy and thinking about how the night went before I dozed off ..I would be horrified!

[AP]

51. She'll feel better when she gets her Christmas bonus.

What she did was so according to script, it's not funny.

[Ripley]

58. The most sickening thing is that I used to admire Judy.

She used to be a Frontline reporter. I always thought she was a good journalist. Then she went to CNN. Seemed ok. Then she went into hyper-pro-repub overdrive. What happened? Well, folks she got rich. The wealthy folks of this country always, yes always bring the line in for republicans. They benefit. They enjoy that second home on the beach in the panhandle of FL. It's comfy to be able to have someone fluff your hair like a teenagers when you are 55+ and tell you that you are sexy enough to take on all the men and one woman who want Bush and his tax cuts out. Her powerplay on this is atrocious.

[AP]

60. This is the story everywhere. You get a job with the big firm. You buy a

big house requiring continued income to pay the mortgage. You start getting accustomed to a few privileges. You get invited to all the best parties. You know you're off the A list when the job ends.

How many people are going to give that all up, like that, what's-his-name-Scud Stud Canadian?

There are so few people who will go back to accepting less just for the rewards of feeling like you did the right thing, which doesn't pay the mortgage.

[Cha]

65. The Devil and miss judy!

[info being]

27. Which makes it even more remarkable...

that Kunich made the best impression.

[Darranar]

32. Ahh, the blessed "liberal" media...

giving the radicals a real chance in speaking...

The media is our enemy.

[Cha]

50. "The media Is our Enemy"! And we should really do something

about it!

[no name no slogan]

53. Darn right, and here's how

go support FAIR (www.fair.org). They are one of the best mouthpieces for pointing out the bias in the media. Their Extra! magazine is a treasure, and well worth the subscription price ($25/6 issues-- one year). Since it contains no ads whatsoever, it can say whatever it wants and not have to worry about pissing off its advertisers.

:D

[Cha]

63. I get the "Fair Reports" but I mean we should something on

a Massive Scale like Huge Protests in front of cnn organized by People the caliber of the organizers of United For Peace And Justice!

It could be done! :kick: