Let's be realistic, people... I see a lot of Kucinich supporters here

[Hawkeye-X]

and I have to say something. This is not intended to be a flame bait, but realistic thinking here.

First of all, I have a lot of respect for Kucinich, having never attacked him on DU, having met the man himself a few months ago when he was in town at a local rally on campus. I'm a Dean supporter through and through, and I'm convinced that he will be able to win the nomination and defeat * resoundingly. Why? Read on.

I understand that Kucinich represents the progressive side of the party, and I have no objection to that. But ask yourself this question: Why do you want to continue to support Kucinich when a lot of polls are showing that he is near the bottom?

Yes, he represents a lot of good ideas, and I'm a socialist, and by that standard, I should be a Kucinich supporter, but I'm not. Why? Because I'm looking at the election realistically and we need someone who can attract voters from all three - Democratic, Republican and independents. I know for sure that Kucinich won't be able to draw much Republicans because of his views. It's better to govern from the center where that person can work with both sides to get what they want. Granted, it's time for Republicans to lose their benefits, but it doesn't work that way. If Kucinich was able to move to the center and do so, then he will have my support, but his ideas are very left of center, and it will not please the Republicans and if Kucinich was, by a miracle, elected President, he'll have a very hard time trying to pass his ideas because of the majority of the Congress - all he can do is try to push his legislation through, but I have a very bad feeling that even most moderate and conservative folks on both sides of the aisles will reject the ideas. Whatever Congress will pass, and if Kucinich vetoes that legislation, it would be easily overridden, making him look very bad. Thus, Kucinich would be at risk to lose in 2008. We need stablity, not another R takeover. Also, you have to consider the 2006 Senatorial elections in play too.

Dean has shown a proven record of working with both sides of the aisle while he was a governor for 12 years, and if Dean is able to work and give what we need to fix America, and he is a centrist, which is ideally what Clinton was. What's more, he has the capability to work with the people of America, not special interests, and finally Dean will provide a lot more benefits, including education, health care, paying back our national debt, getting people out of Iraq, and a lot more.

I know most of Kucinich supporters are rather die-hard, and I will respect that, but to me, he is a fringe candidate with no real national support. I am amazed that he considers himself a Presidential candidate, when he can do even better from his own state. Ohio needs help to move from the right, and Kucinich should at least re-think his strategy and finally challenge Voinovich for his Senatorial seat, and win it. I know Kucinich could benefit greatly from this, and he currently has the funds at least match Voinovich dollar for dollar. We need a Democratic majority on the Congress, and I'm being realistic, because Kucinich, although a great Presidential, could really help Ohio become a blue state.

I applaud to Kucinich for speaking out, and giving us progressive ideas, and it's time that we move on, and make sure that Democrats can have the necessary tools to give what our Democratic president needs, whether it be Dean, Kerry, Edwards, or even Clark, which is delivering the House and the Senate to us.

Hawkeye-X

[mattgabe]

1. More likely than not...

you're not going to convince Kucinich supporters to go over to HoHo by insulting his candidacy, and essentially saying that he's not taken seriously in Congress. Just a thought.

[Hawkeye-X]

4. Re-read my post

I never intended to insult Kucinich, but look at the candidates realistically. I never said to move to Dean - I was giving an example.

Hawkeye-X

[Liberal Veteran]

2. I can't disagree with you....

I have a lot of respect for Dennis Kucinich and if it was just me voting, he would be my pick. Unfortunately I try to temper my idealism with realism and it simply is not Kucinich's time.

[redqueen]

3. Why do I continue to support Kucinich despite the all-knowing polls?

Integrity.

Same reason Kucinich doesn't tailor his message to polls.

The lack of which is the reason most people despise politicians in general. They don't have any principles or integrity, they just check polls and change their message accordingly (depending on which audience / voters they're appealing to, of course).

:puke:

[xJlM]

67. You must mean waffle-powered Howard

How many flip-flops has he made? Well it wasn't just one, I can assure you of that. To me, he represents a typical lying politician who will pander to whoever he's speaking to. I can't believe people think he's going to go somewhere, other than back home to Vermont.

[OhioStateProgressive]

5. our jobs are voters, not analysts

i stick with that, we are the masses, our jobs are to vote...not to pretend we are all intelligencia who need to analyze and rationalize things

[idontwantaname]

6. MOLLY IVINS:

Vote with your heart in the primaries, and vote with your head in November.



i dont want another bush in a democrat costme.
and thats what everyone else is to me.

[Hawkeye-X]

7. Ivins is a wise person

I just hope after all the divisive fighting that has occurred in the past few months that we all unify and throw out * after the primaries are done.

Hawkeye-X

[dfong63]

36. Molly Ivins has endorsed Howard Dean

[JohnKleeb]

42. So doesnt mean you cant follow her advice

And its true.

[diamondsoul]

8. Looking at the election "realistically"-

is premature at this stage of the game.

If everyone who respects Kucinich and his message supported him he'd be polling higher right now, so you won't convince me to give up my support until DK says he's finished.

Realism never changed a damned thing, and in this case, being "realistic" is just a code-word for giving up before the battle even starts.

[sandnsea]

11. The Practical Politician

Kucinich is practical and realistic. I wish he'd campaign on that more. And a few months down the road, his plan to get the UN in and the US out may go over VERY WELL!

[sandnsea]

9. I'm tired of moving right

I want Kucinich on my ballot, because depending on how the primaries are going, I will very likely give him my vote. I want a candidate who knows HOW to work with both sides of the aisle, not one who STARTS in the middle. That's why I support Kerry. His legislation actually helps people, he gets bipartisan support on it, and it doesn't have to be repealed a few years later because it didn't work.

Since I can't have Kucinich, that's what I want. Not someone who grabs on to every Republican idea that comes down the pike, only to have to redo them a few years later because they didn't work. Kennedy made that error with NCLB, Dean made it on deregulation, Medicaid HMO's, Yucca Mtn, and Vermont land use, to name a few. No more of it. I want a Progressive whose ideas make so much common sense, that people get behind him. That WOULD be happening in this election if people actually paid attention to policies instead of campaign hyperbole.

[XanaDUer]

10. What sandnsea said

:thumbsup:

[Rainbowreflect]

12. This is why I support Dennis Kucinich throught the primary.

As we teeter on the edge of disaster knowing bush would gladly push us over the edge. I believe any of the democratic candidates can build a bridge to climb across, but Dennis Kucinich would give us wings to fly across.

[redqueen]

13. This really makes me sick

This kind of capitulation to the 'establishment' or 'what society is ready for' is IMO enabling whatever dysfunction you're capitulating to.

Example:

If you observe that 'society' treats attractive people more favorably, so you decide that since Kucinich is what you deem 'funny looking', therefore you don't support him, you are both subscribing to and participating in that dysfunction.

Ditto for any other of the myriad laughable crap ... oh, sorry... I mean't 'pragmatic / realistic issues' I've seen used against Kucinich.

[jkg4peace]

76. I hate that "this country isn't ready" line

I'm ready! Are you? Let's make the change. They will all just have to catch up. I wasn't ready for war. I wasn't ready to lose the right to protest unjust policies. I wasn't ready to have our government hijacked by a bunch of right wing neocons. This country is in the process of becoming a corporate state (pretty far gone, at that). Kucinich is the practical candidate. Is it practical to pay twice as much as everyone else for health care and not get universal health care? Is it practical to spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world (with the majority of the "rest" being our allies)?We are getting so ripped off in this country by corporate America and democrats just sit around worrying that "this country isn't ready for a change". Well, too bad. If they are not ready, they are brainwashed and clueless about what is going. Let them go shopping while we go vote!

[JohnKleeb]

14. Sorry but I aint giving up

I think you PMed me in the summer urging me to do and my answer is a flat no. I tell you why, Kucinich appeals to me on a lot of issues, and plus I too have met the man and it was perhaps one of the greatest honors in my life. Besides there hasn't been a single primary, let the voters choose. It's not just issues though, I really like the man personally, his story of a poor kid who became the mayor of a large city is inspiring. Like another hero of mine, RFK, Kucinich talks a lot about peace, and I am on the brink of pacifism honestly, and I am so sick of war, that's my generation we got fighting here. A republican congress is gonna give any one hell, we remember the Clinton years. I am sorry, but I wont give up. I don't send money often being I am underaged but I invested something further than my dollars this past spring, I invested my heart, no poll standing can take that away and my ideals. Sorry Hawk but that is how things are.

[Rainbowreflect]

20. I heard him speak in person and he made me cry.

He was so passionate and caring. He moved me as no candidate ever has.

[JohnKleeb]

22. He makes you think, thasts for sure, and get emotional

His way can be very simliar to my own, he talks about the staute of liberty's symbolic message and what it meant for his family members. I really like how he brings up the greats of the past like FDR, RFK, etc, and above all he has some great lines, "Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction"

[Hawkeye-X]

21. It's OK.

I did PM you, but it's your call. I'm just trying to be realistic. We've had alot of good arguments, and I understand that you want to support Kucinich, and I have no problems with that. It's your candidate, and all I want to make sure that we all are unified to defeat *. That's all, even if Kucinich drops out during the primaries, not being divisive with everyone at all, whatsoever.

Hawkeye-X

[JohnKleeb]

It's all good

I made my decision long ago after hearing him talk about Taft-Hartley, this is my guy till the end. I think unity will be good but we need a better message than ABB honestly, we need to unite you bet but we need a good message, not just being better than Bush, I can't explain it but we need a strong message. Personally, I think it's gonna be cool to get Bush out to begin with, but I would love a progressive adminstration.

[no name no slogan]

37. The last "realistic" candidate I worked for was Michael Dukakis

I've been through a fair number of election cycles-- probably more than you, judging by your thread-starting post. I've supported candidates who were "realistic" and "electable" and also a fair number who were "unelectable".

When I was about your age (1987-88), I supported and worked hard for Michael Dukakis for president. Even though my own beliefs were more in line with Paul Simon or Jesse Jackson, I saw Dukakis as "pragmatic" and "electable", who wouldn't alienate the "swing voters" who were oh so important.

I organized two precincts for Dukakis, both of which were on campus, and ended up going all the way to the state convention as a Dukakis delegate.

What happened to Dukakis in November? He got the crap kicked out of him by Dubya's daddy. He waffled around on the issues, not taking a firm stand on anything, trying to find the "pragmatic" middle ground that he thought would attract the most voters-- much like that being done by Howard Dean today. It was pure politics by focus group strategy that Democrats have been playing with for almost twenty years now, with more disasterous results every election.

My first truly "unelectable" candidate I worked for was Paul Wellstone in 1990 on his first Senatorial run. Paul was not even supposed to get the Democratic nomination that year-- a suburban attorney named Tom Berg was the "annointed" candidate by the party elites, and appeared to be a lock before the caucuses.

Wellstone would not accept this, and neither did his supporters. We worked the grassroots, phone-calling, door-knocking, flyering, whatever it took to get our folks to caucus. We literally OVERWHELMED the caucuses and sent more delegates to the state convention. Needless to say, Wellstone got the endorsement and easily won the primary.

And the rest, they say, is history...

The last time I voted for the "pragmatic" choice was for Clinton in 1992. I knew he wasn't a liberal (much less a progressive), but I knew he had to be better than Dubya's Daddy. I had real hope for universal healthcare, ending the gay ban in the military and other Democratic issues. What a disappointment that was.

As soon as the "pragmatic" Clinton got elected by running at the center, he immediately swerved right, supporting NAFTA, "welfare reform", "managed competition" in healthcare and a host of other right-wing issues. What a mistake.

People are ready for REAL CHANGE. They are ready for a candidate who STANDS UP for what he believes in, whether they agree with him 100% or not. They want things like universal single-payer healthcare, better schools, rebuilt infrastructure, and an end to our warmongering abroad. If given the choice between a REAL Democrat, offereing a REAL alternative to ShrubCo, they'll vote for him/her.


As Jim Hightower says, "there ain't nothing in the middle of the road by yellow stripes and dead armadillos".

[helleborient]

15. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about DK's lack of experience?

And his electoral record? He has lost races for the U.S. House of Representatives as many times as he has won.

That, for me, is a serious problem in me giving him serious consideration.

His current office as U.S. Representative is the only statewide office he has held - nearly 7 years there.

He was mayor for 3 years and State Senator for 3 years.


To me, these are serious questions for Kucinich here and now.

Regardless of the reasons...he was unable to win re-election in his only executive position in government and his legislative experience is dwarfed by that of Kerry and Gephardt.

[idontwantaname]

18. hey helleborient...

yeah. experience is handy for connections...

but given all their experience i wouldnt give gephardt or kerry a dime for a phone call.

[helleborient]

25. That's fine...we disagree (n/t)

[idontwantaname]

29. yeah. its cool...

because no matter who gets the nomination ill stand with them.

[helleborient]

35. Same here (n/t)

[JohnKleeb]

19. That is true but consider this

Although in the middle of the candiates as far as age goes, Kucinich became a politican first out of all them at 23 in 1969, you forgot to mention for 6 years before he was mayor he was a city councilman, may seem irrelevant but its true.

[helleborient]

27. John, what I really got tired of are all of this unsupported "info."

On Dennis' electoral past.

And this media conspiracy thing...on another thread I just posted the fact that Howard Dean was running a strong second in New Hampshire before Dennis ever entered the race.

At that point before Dennis entered...Howard Dean was the only candidate voicing strong opposition to the war in Iraq.

Isn't it interesting that Howard Dean supporters don't scream that Dennis Kucinich tried to co-opt Howard Dean's position as the anti-war candidate. Howard Dean did get there first in the presidential campaign.

Dennis has never broken 10% in a poll in any state...while Dean was already at 15% in New Hampshire before Dennis showed up on the scene.

For the media to give more coverage or even equal coverage to Dennis when he entered the race and polled only 1-3% is what would really seem to bring up issues of conspiracy.

John Kerry and Howard Dean had already proven they were leading the campaign in New Hampshire - the first primary in the country.

[no name no slogan]

38. Look at Edwards, then

He's only been in the Senate for four years. Why is it not an issue for him, if it's about experience?

Besides, I thought America was ready for somebody who's not your average "politician"-- at least that's what 99% of the Dean supporters have told me! :hi:

[durutti]

70. He's about as qualified a progressive candidate as you can get. n/t

[jkg4peace]

74. And how did Ho-Ho become Governor?

The real one keeled over and he got promoted. BFD - governor of puny little Vermont. There are 6 times as many people in the CITY I live in than all of Vermont. Governing a dinky little 97% white rural state doesn't exactly make him the one with all the experience.

And he did such a bang up job that he thought he should seal his records for an unprecedented 10 years on the way out just in case anything might come back to bite him in the ass. Bush-lite you say? You bet! Name one thing he ever did to actually oppose the war (did he march with the rest of us? rally congress? write a letter, make a phone call? anything???)

Dean is another product of rich white privilege and nothing else. He is Bush with a D after his name. It will be more of the same with a little different spin -- but nothing but spin, just like now.

If someone like Dennis Kucinich is not electable, then we are all going to hell.

[MuseRider]

16. OK, Hawkeye-X

I will not take this as flame bait because you have not been a Kucinich basher and I feel that all of our candidates should be held up to the light. There are several reasons for me. I will try to explain a few, my time is short so it may not be all you are looking for.
I am almost 50 and have been voting for Democrats for many years. This it the first candidate I can feel good, completely good about voting for. Now that is something to say. His records are open, he admits his past voting record, defends it and then explains his transformation. He makes policy and it evolves but never changes from the base it was made from, humanity and for the good of all people internationally and for Americans nationally. I like his policies. I do not agree 100% with all of them but closer to him than any other, EVER. He challenges the Republicans and does not back down. He votes as he says he will vote, not changing for popularity or according to the polls. In other words he has integrity. His records are open, he is willing to discuss them. To me this is the number one reason for supporting him.
He was drafted to run for this office so I doubt you will see him drop out for a while, if at all because he has strong grass roots support, people who are working their tails off for him and he is not the type to let them down.
There are numerous reports of the respect his Republican associates have for him and he has won against Republicans in most, if not all, of his elections.
His direction is the direction I would like to see this country go. For the good of our citizens and for the good of the world.
There are several of the other candidates I like but none even compare to Kucinich in my soul, my mind.
One other thing before I have to go. I do not see him as a lefty. I see him as someone with common sense and a desire to leave this world a better place for all of us. He seems to be in this game for that reason, not neccessarily for the game. His is the place we should begin our negotiations if we do not control the House or the Senate. The center is already too far to the right to me so lets begin from his place and see what happens.

[Hawkeye-X]

24. Right. I do not dispute this.

Like I said before, I have a lot of respect for Kucinich, and he does represent the progressive side of our party, and also uses a lot of common sense. I'm trying to instill that with my wife in regards to our dog. I'm a believer of common sense, and I do want to leave the world better for the next generation and beyond. Right now what the Republicans are doing is making sure that our lives in this earth is too short. My common sense is telling me that even Kucinich is a ideal match for me (He came 2nd next to Dean on a recent candidate preference questionaire that was on DU a couple of days ago), that I have to go with the person that can represent not just the left, but all of America.

The center isn't exactly far to the right, but you have to remember that as a candidate, Howard Dean is viewed as *slightly* left of center, and we have to move the center back to its approximate position -- 50/50, not 25/75 like the other * lite are doing -- such as Lieberman, as a example.

Hawkeye-X

[MuseRider]

26. I came back for a minute

and I think you deseve polite responses since you did not present this a flame bait. I must respond with MY opinion and as you intentioned this thread I want to say this, not as flame bait. I do not see Dr. Dean as left of anyone. I see him smack in the center with a tendency to lean whatever way best suits his current need. I started with Dean but left because of the reasons I stated above. I do not see Dean as a representative for me or a good part of this country, perhaps he is and if he gets the nod we will see. I think Kucinich stands the better chance because you can't ever confuse him with Bush*, the others either but K is the polar opposite. To some this means we will lose. I do not think so. Somehow I don't think this issue between so many of us will be settled and probably it should not be because the last thing we need is to become another lock step party. These are interesting times. Peace.

[JailBush]

17. The problem with your "realism" is that it's a bad habit.

Ralph Nader wasn't the REALISTIC choice in 2000. (I agree, but for the right reasons - Nader is as corrupt as Gore.) Kucinich isn't the REALISTIC choice in 2004.

In between, principled candidates are routinely not the REALISTIC choice for Governor, Mayor and the Seattle School Board. Thus, we're left with the sobering reality of constantly choosing between the lesser of evils.

At this point, it would appear that Howard Dean will likely get the nomination. Since I don't trust the obviously corrupt Democratic Party, that's going to make me very suspicious of him, though I'll still support him over Bush.

But it's still too early to call it. A lot of things could happen between now and New Years - especially in George Bush's America.

In the meantime, Kucinich injects something very important in this race: Principle.

Several statements Wesley Clark made on September 11 make me very suspicious of him. I'm much more impressed with Howard Dean, but Kucinich remains my favorite. If Paul Wellstone was still alive, Kucinich would be my second favorite.

In the meantime, people who talk about "realism" don't impress me if they're only focused on the presidential campaign and the limited issues that ordinarily go with it.

People who want to tackle REALITY should be condemning Bill Gates and his National Education Association alongside George W. Bush. They should recognize the fact that public schools have been privatized and show as much concern for the children who are effectively held hostage as they do Iraqi children.

They should have credible websites that support good LOCAL candidates. They should exhibit a healthy suspicion of all the corporate operatives that have infiltrated virtually every institution in America. THAT'S realism.

[Cornus]

23. Idealism vs. Realism

Let me say that I really, really, REALLY like Dennis Kucinich and what he represents. The idealist in me would support him in a minute, but the realist (which an *older age* and possibly senility has brought to the forefront) recognizes that he doesn't stand a chance of either getting the nomination or, if he did, of winning the election.

"Because I'm looking at the election realistically and we need someone who
can attract voters from all three - Democratic, Republican and independents."

And you think Dean can do that? No way...if you want to attract the votes of moderate Republicans and Independents, then Wesley Clark is the candidate to do that...not Dean. If Dean were to get the nomination I'll be right out front to support him, but those *up for grab* votes will go right to *. The one who can attract those votes is Clark and I'm hopeful that he will bring my country back to where it used to be...a respected nation...NOT the bully of the world.

[sandnsea]

31. Dennis IS a realist

This is what I mean when I say I just hate that we're all side-tracked by this idealism thing. Forget it, toss it, throw it to the wind!

It is hard cold reality that profit in health care is killing people in the United States. It will not work in the long run. We already subsidize research on every single medical ailment and medicine. We already fully fund the FDA approval process to make medications, and I think treatments, available. The taxpayer is paying already. The people involved are getting paychecks. There's no logical reason to conclude that the people who are doing the work are going to be less diligent because their paycheck comes from the government than from a corporation. That IS realistic. It is further realistic that huge sums of money are going to the pockets of the investor class that could be going to give people heatlh care. The only people hurt by not for profit health care are the investor class. They'll have less money, boo hoo.

His views on peace as inevitable and getting rid of this war mentality are also realistic. We'll never get there unless we cut through to the hard core reality that we have to make peace eventually, even after we go to war. Learning how to create peace is realistic, not idealistic. If we don't, we're going to kill ourselves.

The same with the environment, worker's rights, all the rest of it. He isn't an idealist, he's a realist. We have to quit appealing to the egotisical, war-mongering side of people and start appealing to our common goals.

The only reason I support Kerry instead of Kucinich is because he believes the same basic things as Kucinich, except he states his views as a realist instead of an idealist.

[burr]

50. absolutely, I love the neo-con view of life...

the idealist believes government is not needed..because the world is a perfect place, human nature does not allow us to commit crime, the economy will bring about full employment and high wages with market forces alone, people are good enough to freely provide their money to educate feed and provide jobs to the needy without a government. No military will be needed, because no attacks will occur. No roads need to be build, because the rich will contribute to our infrastructure eagerly and patriotically! No bill of rights will be needed..because every company and corporation will treat us as free people, not slave labor working at gunpoint. No one will ever pollute, because they understand the long-term damage this trash and toxic waste will do to the environment and fellow man. National healthcare will not be needed, because the profitable drug companies will donate any needed medications to the poor and the Doctors will see all who cannot pay...out of Christain Love! So no taxes or laws are needed friends, just anarchy and idealism. :eyes:

[LWolf]

28. I have a lot of respect for pragmatists,

even though I'm an idealist. The thing is, I think we need both. I don't want to live in a world that has given up on its ideals; to me, that is a world without hope. And there is just as much reality to giving up, a piece at a time, and watching those ideals erode away, as there is to the "reality" of who is electable or not.

It's also a reality that corporate-directed/owned media is directing national attention to certain candidates, and ignoring others. It's a reality that, if we don't want them making our choices for us, we won't allow them to make our choices for us. Regardless of what they report, we'll choose our candidate according to the issues, records, etc.

Another hard reality: if we never choose candidates who support the direction we want to see our country, and the world, go in, we'll never go in that direction. Whether or not a specific candidate "wins" a specific election, the more votes for candidates that truly represent us, the more those issues come to the forefront in the national conversation.

In the end, it's not the polls or the media that decide the electability question. It's the voters; they are the ones doing the electing. Let's not discourage voters from voting their true choice before they even make it to the voting booth. Let's allow the voters to speak more powerfully than the media. If we want the voters' voice to be more powerful, that's where we'll put our attention and our priority.

In the end, for Kucinich supporters, his standing in the polls isn't the point. Not for us. We don't expect corporations or mainstream media to love him; if they did, he wouldn't be the candidate for our issues. The point is to support the vision we have for our nation and the world. And to support the man who voices it in a national campaign. With our dollars, our voices, and our votes. And by doing that, we may or may not elect our candidate. We do add an invaluable element to the process. Our voices matter. They count, whether or not our particular issue, candidate, or proposition passes or "wins." If they didn't, we all might as well lay down and let the republicans roll right over us. Like some dems in congress have already done.

I'm supporting Dennis because I believe he is the right man for the job. I'm not about popularity contests. I don't need to watch the same programs, go to the same church, wear the same fashions, or enjoy the same recreational activities as everyone else to validate myself. Neither do I have to vote for the candidate everyone else does to feel that my voice or my vote is valid. To choose someone else because I might not "win" would be to abandon my principles. It would compromise my integrity.

I'll be a pragmatist in the general election. I'll vote for the democratic nominee, even if I don't like or trust him or his message.

In the primary, I'll vote for what is right, and keep my integrity intact. It's a win/win situation, as far as I'm concerned.

[MuseRider]

30. Well put.

Thanks, you said it much better than I.

[LWolf]

41. Any time, Muse Rider!

:kick:

[no name no slogan]

43. We've been running "pragmatists" lately, and our record stinks

We could run yet another "pragmatist" this time around and play Dubya's game by Dubya's rules, and we'll go down once again in defeat.

I'm sick and tired of the so-called "pragmatists" and their patronizing attitudes, like "oh, he's to idealistic to win" or "nobody'd EVER vote for him". Because, after all, pragmatists are the best presidents in our party's history, right?

Was FDR a "pragmatist"? How about JFK? I would argue these men were more idealistic than pragmatic. Dennis Kucinich is the same.

If recent history has proven anything, it's that people DO NOT get excited by "pragmatists", and will not come out to the polls to vote for our candidates. Look at our party's steady decline over the last twelve years: we lost both houses of Congress, won the presidency twice because of a 3rd party candidate splitting the vote, and lost more governorships than gained, with ever decreasing levels of voter turnout.

After the sElection of 2000, people in this country are READY for an HONEST man to run for president. A man of integrity, truth, and honor, who's not afraid to stand up for what's right despite the possible political consequences to himself.

Fortunately, we have that man this year: Dennis Kucinich. A true "people's candidate", DRAFTED to run by people who were inspired by his "Prayer for America" speach against the war in February of 2002. He never "planned" on getting the job, he's answering the call he received from the concerned citizens of this nation and the world.

We DO have a real choice this year: more politics as usual, no real solutions to our problems, and a "vision" based on which way the wind is blowing or which way the polls are pointing, more "pragmatism". Or we can vote for an IDEALIST.

The time for pragmatism is past. GWB proved that in 2000. We can go down to defeat (again) with yet another pragmatist, or we can rally behind an IDEALIST, with PRACTICAL solutions to what ails this country.

The choice should be obvious.

[LWolf]

81. It's obvious to me.

And has been from the beginning.

Now to get the rest of America to take a clear look...

How do we accomplish that outside major media? If we solve that one, we can get this done.

[Padraig18]

61. Well said!

As Molly Ivins said (paraphrasing), "In the primary, vote your heart; in the general, vote your head." :hi:

[LuminousX]

32. Why it is important to support Kucinich...

Kucinich won't get the nomination. I'm willing to put high stakes money on that. But DK shouldn't drop out and DK's supporters shouldn't abandon his campaign. Sometimes the goal isn't as obvious as we think it is. We are so focused on the Presidency that we sometimes forget what campaigns can actually accomplish.

Dennis Kucinich needs to remain active, garner enough votes, that he can speak at the convention. He needs to be able to re-enter Congress with a greater aura of power that running a Presidential campaign can give a person. He needs to secure a higher profile so he can be an effective spokesman for his causes.

We have several other candidates who are talking about repairing NAFTA. Kucinich wants it dissolved. Do you think that once back in Congress he will let a candidate renege on the promise to fix NAFTA? He will have a sizeable national following to direct towards his causes, causes that many of us support. He is going to be the energy in the House needed to help pass healthcare legislation, to protect American workers from unfair trade, and to keep the fire to the feet of corporations.

Support Kucinich, Kucinich supporters. He needs to stay in this race for as long as he is financially and physically able to.

[helleborient]

33. Fully agree

Wise analyis!

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. All the more reason

to keep working on election reform.

[cryofan]

39. DEAN HAS A RECORD OF BENDING OVER FOR THE POWERS THAT BE

In fact, the powerful vested interests are very close to Dean, as that is his family background. Those with power and money have interests diametrically opposed to the majority of Americans.

Howard Dean III, formerly of Park Avenue, is second choice, and Dennis is Number One!

[dfgrbac]

40. Dean has to say two things for my vote.

I will not support our military Empire and its goals. I support reducing military spending and, instead, fixing our collapsing infrastructure, especially schools and healthcare.

I want Dean to say he will turn over complete control to the United Nations of Iraq, and start bringing our troops home! We will cooperate with the UN in helping them do their job of nation building, which they are better at than we. Our people will be under UN command (probably with NATO help).

I want Dean to give up the dumb idea of continuing the healthcare shipwreck we are on, and to support the idea of single-payer healthcare to cover all American citizens.

That Dean can win and Kucinich can't is bull. Whomever we put out there will win if we run a campaign on the real issues and not a superficial campaign on progressive ideas. The people out there are yearning for some truth in campaigning! If Dennis was allowed to speak up as our nominee, voters would rush to the polls! That propaganda about the country being conservative is just that - propaganda!

Try it (Kucinich), you'll like it!

[Frodo]

53. Well, I guess he WOULD get YOUR vote... but

He can't win with one vote, and he would get closer to that then to 50Mil.


Edit - I'm not saying DK can't get any votes (though I don't think he can possibly win, so I don't support him). I'm saying he wouldn't get any votes if he adopted those positions as his main campaign themes.

[dfgrbac]

72. If the people understood those issues, he would win!

How many Americans really understand that we are living in a modern day Roman Empire? I have written much about this which I could link to for you. Our "empire" is not of land conquest, but rather of resource conquest. We have made a practice of stealing natural resources, and even human resources, from third world people who are least able to defend themselves. We use military action of our own (like Iraq), and trained paramilitary in other countries to do our (corporate profits) bidding. Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of poor indigenous people have been killed in these ventures. Do we American citizens really want to continue this? I don't think voters would choose yes, if they knew about it.

In the case of healthcare according to a poll a few years ago, 67% of Americans want guarenteed universal healthcare. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate offering that.

:think:

[eridani]

44. ." I know for sure that Kucinich won't be able to draw much Republicans

because of his views. "

Tell the guy referenced in this article all about it.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/01/open-mikulan.php

Anai Ibarra-Lopez quit a corporate PR job to work as the campaign's
unpaid media coordinator for Latino affairs in Los Angeles. She tells
me she first heard Kucinich speak on radio station KPFK and found him
straightforward on immigration and driver's-license issues. She is
also alarmed by the high proportion of Latino casualties in Iraq and
by the Pentagon's recruitment focus on low-income Hispanics.

More surprisingly, neither has Greg Gilbert, a Republican
investment banker from Newport Beach who heads up Kucinich's
Orange County campaign. "People here are getting sick and tired of
what's happening," Gilbert told me. "There have to be alternatives to
war and the corporate economy, and Dennis is the only one giving
them. I can't imagine campaigning for anyone else."

[Mairead]

45. Dennis gave the answer in his Q&A session in Oakland early this month

He invited people to imagine that it's the day after the election next year. "Yay we won!" Oh good...well, what did we win? Did we win universal single-payer healthcare? Did we win a reduced war budget and the long-deferred peace dividend? Did we win a fast trip home in one piece for our kids in uniform? Did we win jobs? Did we win mj legalisation and an end to the lunatic drugs war? Did we win a president who will take the side of working people every time?

If we didn't win those things, then what exactly did we win--the right to be effed over by a different faction of the ruling class? The right to be led to the slaughter by a guy in a blue shirt instead of a guy in a red shirt? Who's the "we" that did the real winning?

That's the real "realism" here.

[WonderGrunion]

46. With due respect...

I'm a Howard Dean supporter to the bone. I want him to win the nomination and I want him to beat *

Having said that, I don't want anyone to drop out of this race yet unless it's a financial necessity. I think the real that we've been able to make all this headway against the BFEE is because we had 10 (now 9) voices strongly campaigning against him for the last year or so. And that's without Gore or the Clintons or Kennedy adding to the very valid criticisms about his policies (or lack thereof).

The depth of our candidate field this year has been a huge boon to Democrats because it helps to include more people into the system. Howard Dean brings me to the table because I'm tired of Dems rolling over to Rethug intimidation tactics. Kucinich's idealism inspires the JohnKleeb's of the world to get involved and that's great to. Gephardt inspires the blue collar laborers. Sharpton inspires just about everybody. Lieberman keeps his immediate family voting Dem :evilgrin: Sorry, bad me.

Still, I don't want anyone dropping out unless they have to. All the Bushies in the world cannot shout down the cacophony of reason our Democratic field has brought forth this year.

Cry Havoc, and Release the Dogs of War!!!( or Peace for the Kucinich voters)

[JohnKleeb]

49. Kleeb right here

He didnt just inspire me, he inspired my dad as well. Thanks though for using me as an example.

[WonderGrunion]

68. Hi John!

I've always found your passion for your candidate to be inspirational. It reminds me of those days not long ago when a young Wonder Grunion decided to through his hat behing Jesse Jackson's rainbow coalition while a senior in high school in 1987. Sadly, the inspiration was shouted down by the pragmatic choice of Dukakis after it appeared that few else in Maine cared much for rainbows. I'm glad this year we have many strong candidates making many strong options for our big tent. Keep the faith John.

[no name no slogan]

82. As a former Dukakis campaigner

I find your post interesting. I'm probably a year or two older than you, but Dukakis was my first political campaign I worked for in college, as a freshman and sophomore.

My own personal views were closer to Jackson or Paul Simon, but I worked for Dukakis because he was "electable" and was our best hope to "beat Bush", interestingly enough. Dukakis, the "pragmatic progressive", got our party's nomination, but got his ass handed to him on a plate in November 1988. So much for backing the "pragmatic" choice.

That is why it's good to have a REAL choice this time: Dennis Kucinich. I'm sick and tired of supporting pro-corporate Democrats who would be Eisenhower Republicans in the 1960s. We've sold our party out to these types over the last decade, and we haven't gotten much back in return.

Hard to believe, but I've gotten more liberal since I left college. Maybe it's because I lived through the 90s, and the great "promise" of the Clinton regime didn't come true for me (I've actually done better, financially, under Shrub). I've seen what pragmatists do once they're elected, and I don't like it. Selling out your base support to "get along" with the opposition DOES NOT work.

That's why we need a real LIBERAL in office. That's why we need Dennis Kucinich.


And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. I can't base my vote on what I THINK other people will do

In 2002, I voted for Ted Kulongoski for governor in the Oregon Democratic primary. I really preferred Bev Stein, who already had grassroots supporters in every county and a humane, progressive platform, but I foolishly wondered whether the freepers in rural Oregon would support a single, middle-aged Jewish woman whose entire career had been in Portland.

We'll never know. I squelched my own preferences and like most other Oregon Dems, voted for Kulongoski in the primary. He looks as if he might spend his weekends hunting or fishing, so I figured that he'd appeal to the rural voters. So what if he talked in vague platitudes.

Big mistake. The Repiggies enthusiastically nominated a law-and-order Rottweiler named Kevin Mannix. When I took
an 80-mile trip through rural Oregon just days before the election, I saw Mannix signs everywhere. Not one single sign for Kulongoski outside the city of Portland and the college towns.

On Election Day, I made GOTV calls all afternoon, and when I went to the Dems' gathering to watch the returns, I saw to my horror that Mannix was in the lead.

In the end, votes from the two solidly liberal cities of Portland and Eugene pushed Kulongoski over the top--just barely. I had known that the Republicans would be solidly for Mannix, but the swing voters were evidently completely uninterested in Kulongoski, because if it hadn't been for Portland and Eugene, he would not be in office today.

People with more recent experience in Oregon may want to correct this impression, but in the first few months of his term, Kulongoski seemed to be entirely unable to corral the wild Repiggies in the legislature.

More recently, the Episcopal Diocese of Oregon elected a new bishop. All the candidates went on a tour of the diocese, stopping at the larger churches along the way. The priest at my former parish was in charge of tallying the votes, and he reported that Portland residents said, "We really like Candidate A, but will the rural churches go for a person of color?"

The rural residents said, "We really like Candidate A, but will the Portland churches go for someone who is so down to earth?"

In the end, Candidate A was elected on the fourth ballot, which is remarkably fast for the election of a bishop.

After those experiences, I am through with voting on the basis of what I think other people might like. In the primary, I'm going to vote for the candidate that I like. That's how elections are supposed to work, isn't it? Maybe if we all did that, we wouldn't be so dissatisfied with the results.

[JohnKleeb]

48. Lydia what sense you just made

:hi: and thanks for the ancedote.

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

52. I tend to agree with you, lydia

And I too, will be voting for Kucinich in the primaries.

I agree, if more people did the same, the results wouldn't be so dissatisfying. ;)

[burr]

51. really, you're a socialist???

Then Kucinich ain't your man!

In fact the entire Kucinich program seems to be centered on FDR's approach to strengthening the private sector. He wants the hand of government to loosen its grip around overbearing patent regulation, so that one can record outdated MP3's over the internet..without spending time in prison! He was only one of eight or nine Congressmen to oppose the Millennia Act, which gives the government the authority to search your computer to see what copyrighted material you have downloaded..and then prosecute you. It also makes it easier for large companies to go after small companies which develope new software related to some old...broadly written patent. In this case taxpayer's money is being used to destroy market forces, and you call Kucinich a socialist for opposing this?

Kucinich hopes to re-introduce the idea of competitive biding for military contracts. Non-bid contracts are a crime, and a true example of socialism! Kucinich seeks to reduce uncontrolled military spending by 15%, making him the only candidate to make this promise...has dean made a promise to cut this level of Socialistic spending? Kucinich believes that deregulation is bad for the private sector, and for small businesses. So how does regulating monopolies go against the principle of market competition?

The main thing we agree on relates to Kucinich's position, in favor of keeping some of Shrub's taxcuts. This is a mistake..leading to higher taxes on future generations, and huge deficits. But supporting these taxcuts is not a socialist position!

[Hawkeye-X]

54. I oppose all of *'s tax cuts

that's why I'm in favor of Dean's reversal of tax cuts. "Tax hike" -- my ass. Dean wants to re-enact the Clintonian tax base before Chimpy destroyed it, and re-write the tax laws to benefit all, including the poor, middle class, and even the wealthy.

The tax laws are sorely out of date, and it is very regressive, which we need to change it to become somewhat progressive.

Hawkeye-X

[burr]

55. so I've gathered...

As I stated before, keeping any of these taxcuts is the same thing as imposing overbearing taxes on future generations.

But my question is..why would any intelligent person label Kucinich as a socialist? :shrug:

[Frodo]

56. So Bush didn't make any tax cuts??

If returning to the Clintonian tax base is NOT a tax increase then the new rates must not have been tax cuts right?

The problem with that "logic" is the the voters aren't stupid. If Dean's proposal means I'll pay $3,000 more in taxes next year than I did this year I nkow I got a "tax hike" (regardless of which part of your body you refer me to). It's going to be a much easier "sell" for the other side than pretending that the "non-increase tax change" is not going to hurt them.

And how does one write a tax law that benefits the poor, middle class, AND wealthy? You either pay more or less than you do now. If you want to benefit everybody you're cutting everybody?

[burr]

57. allowing tempory taxcuts to go bye-bye is not a tax increase...

it is the law. We just want the law to be enforced now, rather than "phasing it in." ;)

The real TAX INCREASE will come if we pass our present share of the tax burden off to future generations. You are right..voters are smart, and they will never sell out their children just for some short-term, feel good "taxcut."

[Frodo]

58. Really? They've done it again and again and again.

Every time we run a deficit it is, in some sense, a tax on the next generations. Yet we ran much bigger deficits in the 80's after people went for the tax cuts then.


And, yes, allowing "teporary taxcuts" (that nobody considers temporary except the CBO) is a tax increase. "phasing it in now" is not going to convince anyone and is too easily refuted.

"How much did you pay last year?" "Under Dean's plan you will pay this much more next year, and the year after that and the year after that and the year after that AND he want's you to believe that it ISN'T a tax increase"

Doesn't your argument sound an awful lot like "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes. So will I.He won't tell you. I just did."??? Remember how well it worked for.... what's his name again?... You know... the only guy in history to lose an election in every state in the Union?


edit - typos

[burr]

59. Actually Mondale did as well as Dole did against Clinton...

getting 41% of the vote. But Reagan did not win re-election because of Mondale's campaign agenda, in fact polls showed this gave Mondale a slight boost over his original 30%...Reagan won because of the short-term strength of the economy. Had the economy taken a turn for the worst, I think people today would be calling Reagan the idiot and President Mondale a genius.

And by the way...I know of no candidate who has lost in every single state in the Union, unless you are talking about Ralph Nader, John Anderson, or Ross Perot!

People like you must not care much about the future. As you pointed out, we are paying around 14% more than we should taxes thanks to the huge deficits within the past 23 years. Had we payed a larger tax burden then..we would likely have no deficits and lower taxes today.

[Frodo]

60. Um.... no. And Dole is hardly the model of a successful candidate either.

He did as well as Dole did against two candidates. Both Clinton and Dole obviously lost millions of votes to Perot. Dole also won something like 19-20 states. Mondale did not. Mondale also lost by 18% (almost 17 Million votes) while Dole lost by 8.5% (still a walk).

That's like saying "he just got 2% less than Clinton did in '92, so his campaign couldn't have been all bad" - while ignoring the fact that Clinton actually won the presidency and Mondale barely won his home state.

Frankly, making the argument that the tax issue wasn't such a bad idea since Mondale didn't do all that bad is laughable on it's face.

And no, Mondale DID lose an election in every state in the union. He lost 49/50 in his Presidential run and lost a race in that 50th state last year.


"People like me" is irrelevant. I'm not advocating keeping shrubs tax cuts in place. I'm advocating winning the election (soemthing you seem to be willing to give up on). Telling the working poor and middle class that they need to pay more is a losing argument (reference previous statistics for Mondale).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. This thread has been hijacked.

:-)

[Frodo]

63. I'm just really interested in having something worth doing next Fall.

If we can nominate a candidate that can give shrub a run (even if he's behind) then maybe enough legwork at the grassroots level can pull us over the top. Nominate the guy who appeals to the largest number of DUers and we're just wasting our time.

Right now I think shrub is a favorite for a "second" term. But things look worse on the legislative side if we lose several seats in each chamber and shrub no longer has to even try to look moderate for a "re"-election bid. Picking any one of three or four of our candidates could cost us way too many seats (if Mondale shows up as the candidate we won't get things back until my kids can vote).

There's a lot more at stake than "just" the White House, and way too much to pick the candidate that most closely matched our beliefs with no thought to whether he can win. He11, I'd vote for my grandfather over any of the nine if positions were all that mattered.

[burr]

65. put your hands up, and get your face on the floor....

this is a hijack honey!!! :crazy:

[burr]

64. what the hell was I thinking???

you are absolutely right!!!!

taxcuts, taxcuts, taxcuts, and more spending on top of more additional taxcuts!

even better, why have income taxes at all??? best to fuck the poor, the kids, and income taxes completely...time for the national sales tax. :thumbsup:

fuck liberity, justice, and the American way...GO TAXCUTS!!!

[Frodo]

66. Read for content much?

Did I say any of that? No. All I said was that Dean's position does, in fact, amount to a tax hike and wouldn't "sell" well with voters.

I see no reason why he can't just repeal the cuts on the "wealthiest 1%" we keep talking about and leave the rest alone. If we were telling the truth that the vast bulk of the cuts went to the rich, then we should be able to get the vast bulk of the money back by only taxing them extra.

How can we possibly tell the single mom with to kids that her taxes will be $1,000+ higher next year even though we don't believe the cuts for the middle class amounted to anything?

You're the one who wants to screw up "liberty, justice, and the American way" by ensuring that the other side runs the country for the next 4-40 years. Good luck explaining THAT to your kids. "Well son, daddy tried to win it all and ended up losing when he could have had smaller victories to build on, sorry about that - now go log in to bed and make sure big brother knows you're where you belong"

[burr]

69. whatever you say...

enjoy those wonderful taxcuts, and you can thank shrub in the process for all the future tax increases and spending cuts that come with them!

[OhioStateProgressive]

84. "smaller victories to build on"...sounds like Centrism

which we all know is only a small amount away from Republicanism


either the moderates nominate Dennis, or another left winger...or the democrats may never win another Presidential election

[Frodo]

85. Actually, it smells like victory.

You might not recognize it from not seeing it lately. But it's the policy all of our winning candidates have gone with over the last few decades. Carter, Clinton, Gore.

Bush vs Dean will be "tax cuts for everyone" vs "tax increases for everyone". Gore was "that's irresponsible, moderate tax cuts for those who need it most".

One just sells better then the other. And I like to win. Besides, he doesn't HAVE to do it after he gets elected. He just can't run on it.

[OhioStateProgressive]

86. i don't consider a moderate as victory

might as well have a republican

[Frodo]

88. (S)he doesn't have to BE a moderate.

(S)he just has to SELL to moderates.


Carter,Clinton & Gore sold pretty well to the center. Would rather have Ford or a second Bush I administration?

[OhioStateProgressive]

89. well

after getting fooled by Clinton for 8 years, what does it matter if we have a republican or Moderate democrat?

Clinton cut welfare, didn't provide Universal Healthcare...made laws on Marijuana tougher..Clinton brought Nafta and allowed massive privatization


i will take a real democrat, thank you

[Frodo]

90. No. Actually YOU will take a real Republican.

Those are your choices today.

A Democrat who can win who brings in an administration we have SOME influence on, or a Republican who is worse.

Move the center so it becomes a decision between a REAL Democrat and a moderate Republican? Then you can go all out.


That's not a decision today. Change tomorrow.

[OhioStateProgressive]

91. "be the change you want to see"

the world doesn't change until we make it change

a runner cannot go forward unless he puts his feet out there

you propose stagnation by maintaining what we have

in the world the moderates create, there is not enough difference between Democrats and Republicans to make one bit of difference

[Frodo]

92. Then you need to change people's minds.

We have a Democracy (at least until recently - and yes, I know it's a representative republic... blah blah blah). And if 80% of the people don't want to do it your way it won't happen. "All or nothing" is irrational immaturity.

A runner cannot go forward unless he first has shoes, until he prepares himself for the run, until there is a something to run ON. Drive, determination, goals, vision, guts/balls/intestinal-fortitude or a strong belief in a higher power etc. etc. etc. do NOT get it done.

And you don't MAKE the world change by WISHING it to be so, nor do you MAKE the world change in one great big step. It's gonna take your whole life and then it will be 10% done. The other side is winning because they are happy to take incremental steps. Insist on a candidate who gives you everything you want in the first ten days in office... and you get NOTHING.

Enjoy it.

[OhioStateProgressive]

94. this is what is really happening

Republicans will win, and keep winning, until they have destroyed the country so bad that "the people" will have no option but finally vote for the drastic leftist candidate

we are trying to save the nation from having to go that far by electing Dennis now

every election where Democrats run a moderate, more people turn Green

[OhioStateProgressive]

83. supporting National Healthcare IS socialist

and so is National College

declaring steel a national industry

using government to serve peoples needs is very socialist

while you are correct that Dennis is not a socilialist, he is social-minded, and he will help redistribute the wealth downward instead of upward

[ErasureAcer]

71. Polls mean nothing...

that's why I keep supporting Kucinich. If you haven't noticed yet, the media is biased...and so are their polls.

Furthermore...Dennis will get LOTS of support from Green Party people(who in my opinion tend to be more serious about politics and will join in on the Democratic Caucus or Primary in their state)...so there you have a good 3 million people...unregisted by any poll supporting Dennis in the primary.

He could very well win the nomination if all the greens turn out(most greens support Dennis, I would believe).

So...I think Dennis is actually doing better than the polls say. We'll see if I'm right in January.

No doubt, he'll do A LOT better(at least 5% points) than what he is now in every poll. So he is about 3% in Iowa right now...expect that to be at least 8% come the Caucus.

He could very well finish 3rd or 4th in Iowa and gain some momentum.

[snoochie]

73. I support him despite polls

because I agree with him the most. I'm not one of those that has the other candidates ranked so that I think I should use my vote to make sure some other candidate either does or doesn't win the nomination. If it's not Kucinich, then I really don't care who it is. I'll vote for any of them.

[Tinoire]

75. Get ready to see a lot more!

http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=379&h=216&r=6m&u=kucinich.us/&u=


You can run your own comparison charts :evilgrin:


Now what's that you were saying again? Tear down camp with months to go?

Oh no... This, my friend, is the moment! http://www.kucinich.us/thisisthemoment.htm


http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~cryofan/kuc-v-dean.bmp (dated Nov 29, '03)

Thank you Cryofan!

[OhioStateProgressive]

77. realists don't deserve a voice(nt)

[JohnKleeb]

78. nah all deserve a voice but the realists shouldnt screw with the idealists

cuz you dont wanna piss me off :evilgrin:. Now on a serious note, I am willin to support Kucinich till he withdraws if that should happen from the race. Till then I will support him, and if he drops out before the convention, I will either go to my second choice which is now Senator Kerry or wait for the convention to choose a person. I think Kucinich is doing better than the media says, just a hunch honestly because I saw a man with Kucinich stuff at work today, and my cousin a mainstream democrat looked at his platform and was impressed with the fact one I was involved and two she liked it.

[whirlygigspin]

79. help elect more progressive to the house and senate

no matter who wins the Presidency, we need more progressives
in the house and senate to push us all closer to the center.

If I had my wish, Bernie Sanders would be President,
I'm hoping that if Dean wins Bernie will have more clout and a lot of new friends in congress.

I just hope the alpha males don't force Clark on us so they can look Macho to the electorate.

[JohnKleeb]

80. Lets do that, I agree totally

[JohnKleeb]

87. Well Hawk seems you saying this has brought some personal good luck

Got a letter from my cousin's wife and she had never heard of him but she liked what she saw, my aunt liked his universal health care, I saw a bumper sticker at work on sunday, my uncle seemed to like him to I found out tonight, and I saw another bumper sticker at work today and the neat thing was that it was a friend of mine's mom. I didnt get the chance to say hey!, because I was getting off my shift and he was leaving at the same time. So NoVA has more DK supporters than just yours truly.

[Hawkeye-X]

93. Good for you!

I'm glad that they're bringing out the Democratic spirit in Virginia. After 50 years or so of voting Repuklican candidates, and Repuke senators, it's definetely a damn time for a change!

:thumbsup:

(I wonder why this thread won't die... I'm amazed it's still alive after a week)

Hawkeye-X

[rbnyc]

95. Some answers form my P.O.V.

Why do you want to continue to support Kucinich when a lot of polls are showing that he is near the bottom?

Because at this stage polls are mostly a reflection of name recognition. If Kucinich wins the primaries, name recognition won’t be an issue. (Also, I prefer that we change reality to influence polls, not let polls shape reality.)

we need someone who can attract voters from all three - Democratic, Republican and independents.

Screw the Republicans. We need someone who can attract Democrats, Independents, Greens, the Working Family party and people who are not already voting. Kucinich can attract all these voters and has a record of defeating Republicans in largely Republican areas.

but his ideas are very left of center

Why are peace, a healthy environment, civil rights, and living wages “very left of center”? These are pragmatic issues that have been painted that way to scare people into thinking that Kucinich is unelectable, but they are all common sense issues.

BTW, I like a lot of things about Dean and will work to elect him if he wins the nomination, but I think the primaries are about elevating the dialogue and IMHO Kucinich does that best. And if he wins the nomination, I think he will win the general election, and that his victory will be more meaningful than a victory that was directed by fear.

EDIT: typo