If you believe that the media is following the people, when the previous post in this very blog reports that less than 10 percent of the public can name Kucinich, then I'd think twice about telling other people to get serious if I were you.

Give it a minute's thought, if you can. If people can not identify the guy, what interest does the news media have in covering him? He is, then, by definition, not news.

Have you ever worked in media?

Didn't think so...

I can tell you this with certainty: If there is no interest on the part of the public in something (or someone) there will be no coverage. Why are we drowning in Britney Spears? Because when shows put her on, and magazines and tabloids put her on the cover, people tune in, and buy the publications.

Did you know that it's possible to monitor news viewership down to the program "block"?

Didn't think so...

What that means is that any news director who hears from the ad sales folks (and trust me, they do) will know at what point in the 'cast people change the channel. More often than not, it's when the "serious" stuff - especially the foreign stuff - comes on, possibly excepting the "those crazy foreigners" kickers at the end of the show.

What that means, to recap, is that when there is no public interest in something or someone, there will be no coverage.

Q.E.D.

Maybe he doesn't reach outside his district because even in "liberal" media he is only covered when he is being ridiculed. If he got the coverage Clinton did (with the same respect) he would be among the frontrunners.

If he got numbers like Clinton does (disclosure: I am not a Clinton supporter) he would get coverage like Clinton does. The press is a trailing, not a leading, indicator.

And just to set you straight, on the off chance you are amenable to reason, I don't particularly care what either Tim tells me. I see a large number of info-sources in the course of a day, and am also capable of thought. And what I see is a guy who may have some interesting positions (I actually agree with a good number of them) who is not resonating with voters. Therefore, his candidacy is Quixotic, to say the least. One or two more and he can be the 21st Century's (Democratic) Harold Stassen.

Grow up, face reality, and learn something. Or not, as you choose...

The easy snark is that this could explain a lot.

The reality is that it doesn't matter. And for those who complain that Kucinich is being ignored, it's time to face some facts:

1) He's being ignored in great numbers by the American voters.

2) Outside his own district, he barely reaches statistical significance.

3) The lack of press is a reflection of that fact, not the cause of it. If he led the Democratic field, with 50% preferring him, the press would be on him like the proverbial (insert cliche here).

One of the best economics lessons I ever had was from a very good history professor.

He explained that the true purpose of an insurance company is the generation of investment capital. "Coverage", in this understanding, is simply part of the cost of doing business. As in, at best, an inconvenience.

To this end, as noted in the article and several letters, denial of claims is regarded within the insurer's walls as a business positive.

And the "mandated coverage" many are now proposing as a solution to America's health care crisis is little more than a thinly disguised welfare plan for the insurance industry. It's being sold as a "bridge" from where we are now to some form of universal coverage. That is false. It will be a dead end, as there is no incentive to move beyond such a plan once it's in effect. We need to move away from that notion, as it is poisonous to the real goal of universal coverage based on health care as a basic human right.

Universal Medicare is the only solution and that is simply that. Will it be easily achieved? No. Is it worth it? Unquestionably, yes.

Was Patrick Buchanan arguing for sympathy and understanding Bill Clinton when he was having it off with Monica Lewinsky?

Oh, riiiiight...Clinton was a Democratic president.

Everyone carries a set, some people more than one.

And do you remember Al Roker, in 2001, shortly after flights resumed post-9/11, having his clippers (?) confiscated, then going to the airport shop - past security - and buying a new set?

It's not about screening weapons, it's about making people tractable through a combination of fear and inconvenience. And it seems to be working, quite well, actually.

GPS does not have to be moving fast. All it needs to know is where it is. And if you can rig a unit to get a "contact closure" signal out, you've got a lot of potential trouble in a very small package.

Was Petraeus even nominated? And isn't that something of a requirement?

I do recall hearing, with some amusement, a right wing attempt to nominate Rush Limbaugh - I swear I am not making this up - and the would-be nominators had no standing to do so. Can Petraeus' "nomination" be any different?

Oh, wait, we import those. And someone with even a small amount of electronics talent could use them for some very nasty devices indeed.