Have you ever been asked to come in on a job interview but you have an important committment at your current job at the same time? Most people would tell you to meet your obligation to the current employer and ask the prospective employer if you can reschedule. And if they're sensible, the prospective employer will understand this. The way you act now about your obligations to your current employer is a sign of how you'll act in the future about your obligations to the prospective employer. When you're working for them, they don't want you to go skipping out to a new job interview, leaving your obligations undone.

I don't know what efforts were made behind the scenes between the NAACP and the candidates to make alternate arrangements (such as speaking on a different day, or speaking via satellite or phone). But I do know that Kucinich at least had a valid excuse - he had to take part in a House vote on Medicare. An obligation of his current job.

I also thought that the NAACP could have handled it in a much better way. Just about every campaign event so far has at least one candidate missing. Those groups don't say things like "their political capital is like Confederate money" or call them "persona non grata" or demand that the candidates grovel when they do appear, as happened to Kucinich when he offered an explanation but not more than a polite apology for missing the event.

I fear that this may prove counter-productive and work against the NAACP's interests in the future.

I agree. I thought Mfume's reaction was way over the top. This "get your ticket punch tour" can get a little ridiculous. The "pandering" criticism makes it more trouble than its worth.

BTW, MaxSpeaks has joined in the criticism.

The NAACP convention runs for a week-- if a candidate says that the NAACP is less important than everything else for a week, that's message of disrespect that the NAACP has the right to be pissed off about. And considering that Gephardt, for example, missed a critical vote on overtime to be out campaigning other places, he doesn't get much sympathy for being tied down.

And yes, this was an assertion of power by Mfume, demanding respect and making the candidates crawl. And it's good to get it out of the way now, so it won't come up later. Mfume did the Dems a favor by making them instruct their staffs not to blow off a major event without checking to make sure an absence was acceptable.

And let's be clear-- the NAACP is not "some political group." For the Dems, blowing off the NAACP and the AFL-CIO national exec meeting should be considered the equivalent of political suicide. Any candidate stupid enough to skip the event loses serious credibility just because it betrays how stupid they are.

I knew this about Gephardt, given his incompetence as majority leader, and Lieberman, and it just reinforced my sense of Kucinich's flakiness, which is sad since I love his political positions the best. But he was an idiot and deserved to have his ass handed to him.

The serious candidate-- Dean, Kerry and Edwards -- all showed up. Before this event, they were the only ones I took very seriously in any case, but now it's just been confirmed. Edwards is fading, so after the NAACP event, it's really just a two-man race between Kerry and Dean.

Luckily, they have the brains to not piss on their base.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

Al-Muhajabah -- With that kind of attitude, you'll put the blogging world out of business :)

Good call, Nathan

Shit, I agree with everyone. I think it is absurd that the candidates didn't clear their calendar, since the convention is booked months in advance; ad I think that the NAACP was pissed (understandable) and acted pissed (problematic).

But that is not why I posted. Dean v. Kerry, huh? Do you see even a flicker for Edwards, or is he over?

A few months back, I thought that Edwards would emerge as the ABK (Anybody But Kerry) candidate, for a dramatic two-man finish. Now I agree that it will be Dean-Kerry. Graham, Lieberman, Gephardt - out.

A wagering chap such as yourself will like this site, especially when you get to the Politics section. There, it is a Dean-Kerry matchup, with (overvalued) also-rans. Hillary! is a longshot.

Kucinich was in DC, voting on the House Medicare/Prescription Drug bill. It passed, accordoing to Kucincih's campaign, by one vote - I haven't seen the news stories on it. I believe Gephart was there voting, as well.

I think everyone here will agree that the house bill is exceptionally bad. They made a good choice in staying to vote (especially considering how close it was), and it wasn't something they could control (what would they do? Ask "Um, excuse me, Mr Speaker? I'd like to postpone the vote for 24 hours so I can make a campaign apperance in my attempt to run for President against your party.")

LOL. OK, I'll argue with you after all. You may be wishing I didn't because I have a lot to say and that's why I initially balked. I don't want to turn your comments section into my own personal blog. Here goes.

I don't think (and I don't believe I said) that the NAACP is "just some political group". However, I found Mfume's behavior rude and over the top. When somebody is rude and confrontational, they can often turn people off from what are otherwise very good complaints they have.

As I understand it, the NAACP is having a week-long meeting but there was originally only one day scheduled for the candidates forum.

We do not know exactly what happened between the NAACP and the candidates. Did they offer to appear on a different day or by satellite or by phone? Did the NAACP offer this to them? Did they reject such an offer? We simply don't know. None of the news stories about this have even discussed the question.

If it turns out that Kucinich, Gephardt, or Lieberman did not bother to make such an offer or, worse, that they turned down such an offer from the NAACP then they deserve our condemnation and they really would have blown off the NAACP. But there is no evidence of either of these things. The NAACP has not attempted to claim that either of these occurred.

Keeping that in mind, the story as it appears to me is that the three candidates were unable to make a debate on a specific day and a specific time. No alternate arrangements were made. Apparently it was then or not at all and in person or not at all.

As I said to start with, I feel that Kucinich at least has a reasonable excuse. Representative John Conyers has confirmed that Kucinich would have missed the vote if he had attended the candidate forum and he spoke in favor of Kucinich to the NAACP.

It was only at this point that the NAACP (which had declared the three candidates persona non grata) decided to allow them to speak at a different date and time after all.

The other question that's being raised is "why didn't they clear their schedules?" My question in return is why did this story only break a few days before the forum? If the three candidates had turned down the invitation when it was originally offered (presumably several weeks or months ago), why didn't the story break then? It would be just as damning against them as the actual story. I take from this that the candidates had already given an at least provisional acceptance and then cried off at the last minute.

I can't speak to Gephardt or Lieberman's reasons for crying off, but I don't think Kucinich knew too much in advance exactly when the Medicare vote would be. It appears that when he found out that it directly conflicted with the candidate forum, he said that another obligation had come up and he wouldn't be able to attend after all. You may think he's a "flake" and an "idiot" for putting a House vote against privatizing Medicare above a campaign appearance but as I said in my original comment, I don't.

I should also note that before this, Kucinich had to miss a candidate forum by the League of Conservation Voters because of a House vote, as well as a Democracy Rising rally with Ralph Nader. So he hasn't singled out the NAACP at all; he's cried off from other campaign appearances if his job in the House required it, including ones that are relatively important to progressives even if not as important as the NAACP.

In any case, as I said in my first comment, I think that Kucinich had a defensible reason for being there. He has made no secret that he puts his duties in Congress first even at the expense of his campaign (OK, maybe he is a flake). He did not single the NAACP out for this treatment but followed the same procedure as with the League of Conservation Voters and Ralph Nader.

There is no evidence and the NAACP is not attempting to claim that Kucinich turned down the invitation or cried off at any time before the Medicare vote was scheduled. There is no evidence and the NAACP is not attempting to claim that Kucinich failed to offer alternative ways to appear. There is no evidence and the NAACP is not attempting to claim that Kucinich rejected the NAACP's own offer of alternatives.

So as far as I can tell, Kucinich acted in a straight-forward manner. He didn't yank the NAACP around or blow them off arrogantly. He didn't single them out for a snub. He acted in a manner that is consistent with his previous actions and with his stated beliefs about his priorities. Maybe he's a flake and an idiot to have priorities like that but he's honest. That is something that counts for a LOT with me. I can respect people whose views or decisions I don't agree with if I think they're being honest in their words and actions.

Now, I'm a Kucinich supporter. I even have a Kucinich blog. So you can dismiss what I've written as a feeble attempt to spin this story into something favorable for my chosen candidate.

But I'm really wondering about Gephardt. Gephardt is an experienced politician. He knows who the Democratic base is and what groups he needs to work with to win. I find it hard to imagine that Gephardt would blow off the NAACP. I really do. Not like this. I'm not familiar with his history so maybe he has had bad relations with them in the past that I don't know about. If so, I hope someone will inform me of it.

If it was just Kucinich, that would be one thing. I personally think it's unfair, but that's just me. But how did Gephardt get into this mess?

My feeling is that this was meant to be a lesson primarily to Gephardt and Lieberman, not so much for missing the candidate forum but for not campaigning enough to blacks overall. I think that is a valid complaint on the part of the NAACP. But I don't like the way it was done. Not only is it rude but it almost seems like it was set-up to be as hard a lesson as possible. The hapless Kucinich got caught in the middle.

The NAACP's strategy is also very reckless. What if Gephardt or Lieberman is the nominee? (no, I don't expect Kucinich to be, however much I might like it). The only way the strategy makes sense is if blacks ARE going to walk if Gephardt or Lieberman is the one. Otherwise, they'll eventually have to back down and vote for someone the NAACP declared "persona non grata", and hope that he doesn't have a long memory.

If they know that Gephardt or Lieberman definitely won't be the nominee, I'd like to know about it! If they're going to walk, I say "more power to you". I would love to see the Democratic party shaken up that way. It's time and past time that it happened.

But I fear that this scenario is no more realistic than Kucinich being the Democratic nominee. And in that case, it looks like the NAACP just cut off its nose to spite its face.

One final thing (yes, I do go on and on, don't I?). There was a different story at first. A story that I think deserves more press instead of getting buried because of the "name and shame" that occurred at the forum.

Originally, there were five not three who were going to miss the forum. The other two were Kerry and Edwards. Edwards initially claimed a scheduling conflict but Kerry put up more of a fight: Kerry's aides said the Massachusetts senator initially refused to take part in the forum to honor a verbal agreement quietly reached with three of his rivals - Edwards of North Carolina, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Under the agreement, the candidates would not share a stage other than during six debates being organized by the Democratic National Committee.

In my opinion, it's Kerry that ought to have been "handed his ass" by the NAACP not Kucinich. And if the name and shame was really in response to the little agreement cooked up by Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman, then Kucinich had nothing to do with it and it was blatantly unfair to treat him like that for something he didn't do.

So that's my 2000 cents' worth

The "OK, I'll argue with you after all" was addressed to Nathan, not JoeF. It took me so long to type that lengthly screed up that JoeF posted in between.

I agree with him by the way.

Nathan, I'm not sure you're giving enough credit to (a) the agreement the candidates had beforehand not to show up as a group (regardless of whether it was right or wrong), and (b) that Kucinich (and Gephardt?) missed in order to make a vote in the House.

Overall, though, I'll stick to my original position: the candidates should have shown up since the NAACP is an important group, but Mfume's reaction to their absence was way over the top. And the treatment of the three when they did show up on Wednesday was simply childish.

I have to agree, the NAACP did deserve a fair shake at the candidates, as do many other constituencies.

We should always remember who are friends are.

The NAACP should look at who will be it's best friend and not spit in their face. Acting like a spoiled special interest group just turns off many americans. If they want this country and the world to be a better place to live, they will support Dennis Kucinich.