George,

I'm responding to your question about the media and their treatment of Kucinich and Sharpton -- also peripherally some Republicans' plans to vote for Sharpton "for fun."

First, I don't get any television reception (purposely) at my house -- all my news comes from the Washington Post, the Web, and NPR. But, in the recent weather, I ended up at my sister's house watching the news on TV. What a different experience!

It was interesting to actually see the candidates, as opposed to just reading about them and hearing their voices in clips on NPR. (But I was amazed at the triviality -- long shots of candidates shaking hands and eating bagels or flipping pancakes. Who cares about that stuff?) But the most interesting thing, for me, was to see the coverage of the New Hampshire primary the next morning. The TV media focused entirely on Kerry and Dean. Only after watching for quite some time did I hear who came in "third," and only later, the fourth and fifth positions. AND, I NEVER heard about Kucinich's and Sharpton's placings. In fact, in all the TV coverage Tuesday night and Weds morning, I never even heard their names so much as mentioned.

This is quite a contrast for me, since every story that doesn't focus just on one particular candidate in the Post or on NPR at least MENTIONS these two. On TV, they might as well not have existed.

I think it's very important that Kucinich and Sharpton stay in the race, and that they be taken notice of. They both represent important viewpoints and constituencies that need to be part of our dialogue in this campaign. Although I suppose Kerry's front-runner status and eventual win are inevitable, I don't think it should be made any too easy for him. If the Democratic party is going to win back the hearts and minds of the American people (sorry for that!) it's not going to be done by playing it safe and attempting to appear to be low-rent Republicans.

Dean may not be the front runner any longer, and he may not be the eventual winner, but the fact that he does not "play it safe" and has attracted so much attention -- the media can't marginalize him--means that he has brought a lot of Americans together around the concept that it's okay to not buy the republican line of goods. Unfortunately, since neither Kucinich nor Sharpton has been able to inspire much of a following, Dean is by default the one out there holding the "play it safe" crowd's feet to the fire--for the majority of Americans who get their news from TV. For this reason, I see him as the most important candidate, even if he's not the one I would necessarily choose to be the nominee. But Kucinich and Sharpton are important too.

I still don't know who I will vote for next tuesday. Clark appeals to me for a number of reasons. But I'll give at least some thought to joining the "fun" Republicans [have] in voting for Al Sharpton. Why? For one thing, I think it's too early to annoint a "chosen one." But mostly, because he deserves to be heard. In 1988, I couldn't decide whether to vote for Jesse Jackson or Al Gore, whom I wanted to be the nominee. But I thought Jackson should stay in the race. And I think Kucinich and Sharpton should stay in now.

So, even tho I don't think either of them has a snowball's chance of winning the nomination, and certainly don't think either of them could possibly win the White House back from GW, I think Kucinich & Sharpton deserve enough votes to stay in the race -- to keep adding to the dialogue, to keep representing those Americans who the TV networks don't seem to realize even exist, and to keep us honest. And if some Republicans want to vote for Sharpton -- well, good for them. They may think they're messing with us, but really, they're just messing with themselves -- by bringing us all closer to the day when we have an African-American Democrat for President!

--thanks!

Valerie L'Herrou (electronic mail, February 1, 2003)