A friend of mine sent a link to this excellent post at the American Prospect’s Beat the Press blog, tearing a NY Times op-ed for pronouncing, seemingly without evidence, that “minor” candidates like Rep. Dennis Kucinich should be barred from the presidential debates since no one cares what they have to say.

On the contrary, as Dean Baker points out, polls indiciate significant support for Kucinich’s positions on the Iraq war and a universal Medicare system. He’s deemed a “minor” candidate largely by press fiat, not by the amount of support the positions he gives voice to actually have.

Like Ron Paul who’s keeping the other GOPsters on their toes, Kucinich’s voice is sorely needed in a Democratic field where the leading contenders are at best lukewarm on the idea of actually bringing the troops home from Iraq. And I don’t know if a universal Medicare system is the best solution to our national health care woes, but I’d certainly like to be able to hear more about it.

Why is the press so intent on narrowing the debate to a pre-selected roster of “serious” candidates and for keeping it within the relatively narrow bounds they represent?