Though it is (something) to be included in corporate press coverage, if they are merely token mentions it only serves to paint the Greens as not ready for prime time.
Mainstream media has an inherent conflict of interest in that its business model depends on corporate ad money so it mostly focuses on the candidates who are also aligned with the corporate ad money stream.
Since Greens are mostly disconnected from the money stream, the media has no use for us. It is a functional disconnect.
One remedy for this would be public campaign financing that other states have already done.
A corrupt legislature, as evidenced by the three suspensions of State Senators, has no motivation to initiate public campaign financing because it would mean individuals could compete with the Democrats and Republicans on a level field.
I entered this race with no illusions, other than to build the most functional campaign one can as a minor party candidate in the context of the top 2 primary. I set reasonable goals and am both happy and disappointed in the responses.
I'm happy to have been included in the first candidate forums, a basic functional aspect of democracy.
I've interviewed with the LA Times Editorial Board and am about to meet with the SF Chronicle Ed Board tomorrow.
There are 39,000 Greens who vote(d) out there somewhere in California. Are they connecting with this campaign and the campaigns of the other statewide candidates?
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that given 5 statewide campaigns, are there enough engaged Greens to adequately support them?
Is Ellen Brown the (magical) candidate who will get through the top 2 primary and save the Green Party of California?
Is that sentence really all that is left of a political party?
Knowing that the Greens take no corporate money, do the Greens feel any serious obligation to support their candidates?
There remains an opportunity in this race. Thank you to the 59 people who have donated to this campaign.