Could Dennis Kucinich win the General Election in 08?

[Clarkie1]

Poll question: Could Dennis Kucinich win the General Election in 08?

Although he's not my first choice, I respect Dennis a lot, and a lot of people on this board would like to seem him president. Since politics is the art of the possible, that begs for the question:


Do you think Dennis could win the general election in 08'?

[saracat]

1. Not possible.

I like his politics but he is a miserable candidate. Sorry ,he is totally unattractive and speaks like a barking dog. He is very annoying to listen to even when you agree.

[elshiva]

65. No personal attacks please.

He's not running for Mr. Universe. Not everyone can be smart AND sexy like Kerry/Edwards.

[Clark2008]

70. Who was sexy on that ticket?

:P

[elshiva]

74. Richard Nixon???

[Mojambo]

2. Only in my dreams.

If this were an even remotely sane country he'd have a shot.

[Padme Amidala]

3. Clarkie1. You don't like Dennis. I won't take the bait.

Because no one candidate has a majority here, they would all lose a poll like this and this is what you are counting on. I don't stoop to such flame threads.

[Clarkie1]

5. Actually I do like Dennis

And agree with more of what he says than I disagree with.

I also hope he runs for president in 08' because I think he is an important voice for a lot of people.

And, there's another poll going right now where Kucinich is the ONLY candidate that I thought needed some context.

I voted for Kucinich/Boxer in that other poll, by the way.

Love my senator Boxer!

[Sapphire Blue]

14. Either Boxer/Kucinich or Kucinich/Boxer

.... with Wes Clark as Secretary of Defense, and Bono as Secretary of Peace.

[Padraig18]

35. Wes Clark as Secretary of Defense isn't possible.

Under US law, the Secretary of Defense cannot have been 'active duty' for a minimum of ten years prior to their appointment.

[Sapphire Blue]

37. The Boxer Rebellion continues!

Boxer can just sign an executive order her first day in office to change that little detail, then appoint Wes Clark as Secretary of Defense. No need for nominations or confirmation hearings.... they're just a formality, anyway. (Rice, Gonzales, etc)

[Padraig18]

60. It doesn't work that way. n/t

[serryjw]

4. Kucinich's problem is money

you can't get your message out with out it and if he doesn't take Corporate donations it is very difficult.

SARACAT..Have you seen DK in person? He is a very soft spoken man. The debates are a lousy format for him, unfortunately

[saracat]

19. I have interviewed him and met him several times. He just is not

an attractive candudate. He is probably a very good person. I agree with 99% of what he stands for, but he just couldn't command an audience.In many respects a candidate has to have the abilities of an actor, and it helps to have some attractive physical attributes as well. Dennis unfortunately is lacking in these area. I agree he is soft spoken in person,but he is also a bit frenetic and makes people uneasy. This also is not a winning quality in a candidate! And a presidential candidate has got to be able to handle a debate. I saw him debate live three times and he was annoying. I love his message, but he isn't a great candidate! We need someone who will win!

[serryjw]

62. Saracat..I hear you BUT

I am not going down the level of 99% of the stupid Americans who care what DK looks like vs someone whom is destroying this country.....Wellstone was not all the attractive either......Time has come to vote my conscious and if everyone would he would get elected. There is no dem (potential) nominee for 2008 I would support. So I either vote for DK or Green

[saracat]

89. But we have to WIN in order to prevent the destruction of this

country! What good does it do to be morally pristine in your vote if the 99%stupid Americans vote for the other guy? Better they should vote for "our" Guy! And Wellstone was a MUCH better speaker, but he wouldn't get elected either. Sorry, but politics is like casting a movie and neither DK or Wellstone were presidential. Bush tries to fake it by wearing a flight suit. He knew he had to sell himself. He was a crappy candidate but they sold him.We don't seem to have a Karl Rove and even if we did neither Dennis or Wellstone would agree to be "sold" and packaged.
We would do better with Martin Sheen. A lot of Americans probably think he IS President!:)

[serryjw]

93. Any candidate the KKKarl Rove

wants to package is salable. I still shake my head that this country would re-elect *. Even if we are right and the election was stolen; we were way too close. Kerry sold us down the river, and there is no one whom is being groomed for 2008 whom has not done the same. Until my party goes back to being 'liberal' and supports the New Deal they will not get my vote. I will see if Dean can make some progress. Congresses voting they all should be fired.

[saracat]

96. Kerry has NOT sold us down the river. Do you watch how he is voting?

He is the ONLY consistantly liberal Senator.He is more liberal than Kennedy. Dean isn't a liberal. But some members of Congress are. Grihalja and Pastor of Az always vote on our side as an example. And Kerry Edwards have entered yet again into court in Ohio to make sure the vote is counted though they can't personally benefit. Edwards is devoting his life and fortune to fight poverty. Closer to the New Deal your not going to get.There are some I agree with you on. I can't stomach Lieberman for one, but Kerry is above all things not a sellout.

[Selatius]

114. This is what I detest about American politics; it's so vain and shallow

At least in Europe there are strict limitations on campaigning as well as contributions (which have been outlawed in many countries). Over there it is more often true that campaigns are run on the issues and the merits of their positions, not on how they look, speak, or act. It's simply so shallow, and I am loathe to play the game if at all.

If Kerry is liberal, then that's a new development in my corner of the world. It doesn't take much effort to be "the most liberal" in the US Senate nowadays, and his economic policies have more in common with old-fashioned Republican centrism than New Deal Democratic liberalism.

[Desertrose]

124. of course Kerry is a sellout....

He is above all things...a POLITICIAN! .....and politicians are always concerned about themselves first and maybe eventually the rest ...if its convenient or expedient.

I find it interesting that Kucinch has had the most honest answers...he consistently speaks up for the truth...no matter what....and yes, the way the system currently is, DK proabalby couldn't win. So why can't we change things so that we can get some honest people in office?...and if we can't , they why do we even bother if its all a "game"?

The system obviously isn't working the way it is, so why not some changes ( of course all the ones who are currently getting their $$ and perks won't be too happy to change anything, will they? Wonder if that could be why nothing has changed for so many years??)

[karynnj]

132. Kerry is no more a politician than Kucinich

I think Kerry is a very honest man. His career has been one of service to his country. If you look at the some of the major projects he took on; such as investigating the contras and drugs, investigating terrorist financing and the POW/MIA work, you can see he most definitely was not choosing them for politically expedient reasons, but because he thought they were the right thing to do. Either of the first 2 investigations could have derailed his career, which meant the world to him. The POW/MIA work involved a huge amount of effort with a very real possibility of not being able to satisfy any of the stakeholders. Each of these three projects involved a huge amount of time and effort over multiple years.

Also, since losing the election, much of what he has talked about lately fits the term politic activism, which may be the best mode for both achieving anything and expanding the party.

[WilliamPitt]

128. Actually

Dennis rocks an audience better than most candidates I've seen. He owns the rooms he speaks in.

[cyclezealot]

22. Serry...The listeners are totally enthralled by his presentation.

I have never heard such a wound up crowd as those hearing DK...as to not taking corporate money..that is his problem when ad money is really the means to win...Never fails...So we are all DOOMED.
And DK did pretty damn well for not taking corporate money..like $12 mil ..pretty dam good for listener response to his message when his major means of collection is passing the hat...
Thank you DK for thinking there is hope is this *****d up system.

[serryjw]

64. CZ...Read my post to saracat......

I walked away form a 20 friendship with Republicans.I have drawn the line in the sand. I am not going to help you F*CK up this country. I will vote my conscious whether he can get elected or not..The 2 party system is broken. The only way it will get fixed is to write in our candiadte or vote 3rd party. Kerry got my vote and 3 years of 24/7 years of activism to save SCOTUS. I'm sure we will lose the Court before 2008 so it won't make a difference.

[jsw_81]

71. His problem is that he's a leftist

And America does not elect leftists to the presidency, period. We had a heck of a time just getting a moderate southerner (Clinton) elected, and some would argue that he would have lost had it not been for the Perot factor.

Kucinich could have all the money in the world and he'd still get creamed from coast to coast. Money isn't everything in politics -- just ask President Steve Forbes.

[Radical Activist]

79. That attitude is exactly why Democrats will continue to lose

The fact that so many people say this makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Do you think conservatives ever say this to each other, despite the fact that most of the nation disagrees with them on the issues? No, of course they don't. They go out there and fight for their views and don't back down just because they have one loss. This attitude is what kills the party and our changes of winning. Nothing will change until Democrats stop believing that false statement.

[jsw_81]

85. It's not a false statement

I suppose you think that they key to victory is to nominate a strong leftist who will stand up for his/her principles and praise the likes of Che Guevara, but I can assure you that it is a recipe for electoral disaster.

The sad truth is that vast swaths of this country -- the so-called "flyover states" -- are backwards and conservative; they readily accept the right-wing agenda that the GOP serves up for them year after year. American liberalism, on the other hand, is limited to a few urban pockets (e.g. New York City, Boston) and as a result it is incredibly hard to imagine a leftist/liberal ever winning a national election. The country that rejected McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry would reject someone like Kucinich by an even wider margin.

[Radical Activist]

88. I think you underestimate midwestern and rural populist progressives

Some of the most liberal Senators in recent years have been from the Midwest. Dick Durbin, Paul Simon, Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin, Howard Metzenbaum, Russ Feingold. The modern Left started winning when the rural populists joined with the urban progressives. You just pinpointed the other key mistake that is destroying the Democratic Party: giving up on rural areas to Republicans without a fight. The fact that the national Democratic Party has been ignoring rural areas, and recently the South, is exactly why we are losing and will continue to lose.

If we follow your attitude I suppose the party would continue to let conservatives move the national debate to the right by not even presenting a compelling left-wing message, and continue to lose ground in rural areas by writing them off as redneck conservative hicks. That is a guaranteed path to failure.

The "fly-over" states are taking what the GOP serves them because the Democrats stopped showing up years ago. Probably because of idiots in New York and DC who created a conventional wisdom that says liberals can't win there.

[Griffy]

90. Um... we WON.. just bush stole the WH... expose that and '08 is easy!

the election fraud and the PROPAGANDA (or propagannon...) are the real problems.. these folks are crooks and they have the government, so we the people will seek other ways... but the people already relized that bush was the wrong choice, unfortunatly for them and us, they didnt pay attention enough to see the fraud under thier noses!

just try not to say things that say we lost.. WE WERE ROBBED!

[cyclezealot]

103. addicted to the lies of labeling

One public servant in America not addicted to the effects of money and the misery it brings; and learned people buy into the propoganda that a person is radical...Those who refuse to sell out are so rare , guess it is radical...Hurrah for you Dennis..
Dennis effette leftist...He is the most working class pol I have EVER met...And he refuses to compromise on issues critical to working class people..Way to go Dennis.We need you...
Until the middle class is subjected to deliberate genocide , will the likes of you wonder who done us in...
Don't believe the lies of the pundits...Make your own decisions..

[bywho4who]

78. Not $$$$$ TRUTH

Truth is the problem here.

(the truth will set you free)
Free Being fired or killed

in this scenario!

:think:

[AP]

6. I'm not sure what the point of this post is, but the answer to this...

...question is obviously another question: what do you think is going to be dramatically different in '08 compared to '04 that will completely reverse Kucinich's fortunes?

[countmyvote4real]

7. Maybe he’ll go green. That’s where I’m headed

if the Dems continue to shift towards Repuke lite. I know that I have admonished others for their shift in previous elections, but I am now prepared to join them if the Democratic party can’t stand up for its roots.

And excuse me, but saracat's “tele-genic” (It seems that I’ve made that word up.) defense against DK is totally blown out of the water by the current buffoon who doesn’t have a tenth of the percentage of principals and vision for our country and the world.

I haven’t missed a vote in over twenty years. That’s just in case anybody that’s supposed to represent me in LIC, NY ever reads this. It’s not like my congressional rep has a published email address or wants to know. Maloney is baloney if you know what I mean.

[DaveinMD]

8. Kucinich couldn't get elected Senator

let alone President. This is a pipe dream.

[cyclezealot]

21. Ohio outside of Cleveland is like Georgia..

Most Democrats just give up...They called them copperheads during the civil war..Their loyalities were really to the south...See any other Democrats doing that well in Ohio, since John Glenn..And he might be repsected but a sell out...Ohio..Can't carry that ..NO big deal for Dennis...
My question..Rigged elections..will any Democrat do any better...Sell us out on trade to the right wingers in the Red states..The Democrat will not get this Democratic voters either..In this household..
Dennis...Had a chance at the likes of Dubya and Dennis' economic populism, after four more years of losing jobs, health care..
The repug. would be scared shi+less to face Dennis...Dennis takes no prisoners when allowed to debate one on one...
American's don't care about who wins points with logic and their own self interests' , then maybe he can't win...Only Demo. who will get my blood boiling...

[Blue Wally]

46. Admire your zeal

but for historical accuracy, the anti-war types in Ohio during the 1861-1865 timeframe were Copperhead Democrats. Ohio outside of Cleveland was Lincoln Republican and contributed a lot of soldiers to the Union cause.

[cyclezealot]

51. Copperhead Democrats..

The south of Indiana was known as Copperhead Democratic country...Many had sympathies to the south...Southern Ohio had many of the same types, no?
Did not mean to imply all of Ohio was ready to bail on the war, but many in certain regions of Ohio had sympathies towards slavery..But,not the state as a whole...
Might say the slave south was democratic prior to Lincoln too, but now are friendly with racist repugs...They too like the old Lincoln friendly parts of Ohio are now pretty right wing...
about as friendly to progressive messages as say Valdosta...?
but as Jesse Jackson says so well...Liberals need provide an economic populist message to overcome the racist inclinations of some in the old south...and convince the working people of those areas , what good is electing racist repukes if they have no job or health care..
Certainly, Kerry did poorly at that, as when he attended the Davos, Switz. world trade conference, he came home being called "Davos Man."
If DK had the right media forum to present his populist views about economics, things would be far different.

[Blue Wally]

52. My point was

Rural Ohio is not Republican country because of the conversion of Copperhead Democrats to Republicans. Rural Ohio has been Republican for a very long time and has contibuted many presidents and presidential candidates to the Republican party. The Taft family were not converted Democrats.

[cyclezealot]

54. But Blue there was a lot of sympathy for

southern slavery in places like Evansville, Ind...that was not known for being copperhead..Copperheads might have had two reasons to oppose the war... Different wings, like present day parties?
an anti war wing with similiar views to say the draft protests of NYC during the war and southern elements not hostile to slavery?
Seens my history books said some areas like those mentioned pretty cozy with slavery..
But both those types pro-slavery copperhead democrats and present day repugs who have morphed into racists inclinations...are both hostile to a multi cultural society.

[Blue Wally]

56. You are assuming

that they are the same thing. Rural Republicans are not racists except to the extent that everyone is a racist. The Underground Railroad was pretty much manned by these rural Republicans in the north. While the Copperhead Democrats may have been racists (though i believe the Copperheads were more anti-Republican than anti-black) and may have converted to being Republican due to racial animus, the old line rural Republicans were conservative but not racialy motivated (you don't get to be very anti-black when you live in a non-diverse community because blacks are not a factor in your life).

Remember the red-blue county map and also the varying shades of purple county map?? I wonder if a racial composition county map exists varying from 100% white to 100% black?? There are an awful lot of very,very white counties in the US, most of which are Republican and have been Republican for quite a while. I would submit that racial issues rank very low on the list of concewrns of these people even though they are conservative and Republican.

Your argument does hold true (in part) for the "border" areas along the Ohio River and through the south where many whites vote Republican because they feel betrayed by the Democratic Party on race.

[cyclezealot]

83. I think my impressions came from Zinn's

People's almanac...Indiana and Ohio contributed something like 80.000 Confederate soldiers each...seems I recall reading Caro,Illinois is capable of growing tobacco..
about rural areas sometimes having racist inclinations amongst parts of its population..I went to a rural college in west Michigan..Many think racism weaves its way through unsuspected elements of the general population...Example...At my College ..They hired a Black Psychology professor...a contingent of farmers invaded our campus with tractors..Swear to god...Heah, I sit in bars and listen to strangers go on about race...Maybe racism is legally prohibited in many aspects of American life, but not in our minds. Whether urban,rural, north , south...
The Civil Rights laws passed in the 60's, yet Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott have lots to say about our psyches..

[realisticphish]

84. um, no

cleveland is not 48% of ohio, which is what percentage voted for kerry. columbus is pretty liberal, outside of the rich suburbs, and Michal Coleman is a fantastic liberal dem mayor

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[lonestarnot]

142. Liked REPEAL NAFTA IDEA! n/t

[Radical Activist]

9. He could have made the election about trade, jobs, Iraq and Bush's

dishonesty. And he could have done it without the hypocrisy of Kerry who supported the IWR and several free trade agreements. Kucinich could have highlighted all the wedge issues that Kerry could not talk about without looking like a flip-flopper. From an issue standpoint, he would have been a much better candidate than Kerry.

Often when people talk about electability they mention the most superficial aspects of an election. Obviously, nominating bland, moderate candidates who straddle the fence on the issues has not been working so well. Conviction politics works. That makes a person electable.

Kucinich could stand a chance in '08 if he puts more effort into fundraising and makes some better decisions about how to run his campaign.

[Albert Einstein]

10. I agree. With the right campaign, he will lead the Democrats to victory.

He stands for the issues that most Americans care about. He will be the most genuine candidate we have ever had.

[Rainscents]

11. Problem with American people is... they want image...

Dennis don't have that. I like Dennis and he is a true believer in Democratic party and I truly believe, he would make great President.

[Radical Activist]

13. But Kerry does?

Come one, the supposedly most "electable" person in the primary who we nominated sounded like he was delivering a funeral sermon half the time he spoke on TV. I think the notions of what is electable among liberals is one of the biggest things keeping us from winning. Lack of self-confidence in the appeal of our ideals is the liberal's worst enemy.

[sportndandy]

16. But Kerry won if the votes were counted.

In fact, if you give him back the switched votes and add the un-counted votes, Kerry won in the biggest landslide ever. I think that points to a well-received image.

[cyclezealot]

23. But few of us were really enthused about Kerry.

We sort of agreed..He was only some what of a flip flopper. put me to sleep..and I am a Democrat...

[karynnj]

134. Kuchinich could?

Kerry sounded great in all 3 debates and at the convention.His speeches never seemed like funeral sermons to me, I actually loved his eloquence.

What was the highest % Kuchinich got in any of the primaries? He seemed like a nice guy, but not Presidential.

[no name no slogan]

140. Kucinich got 30% in Hawaii

And strong double-digits in several other states. In fact, he finished 2nd in Hawaii, Washington and Maine, beating Edwards in all three. Of course, you wouldn't have known this watching the MSM, as they literally excluded him from some of their reporting (even when he was in 2nd place!).

In MN (my state), where he probably had his strongest volunteer organization, he got 17%, despite the virtual blackout by the press and absolutely no $$ from the campaign.

If you've never had the chance to hear Kucinich speak, I strongly urge you to do so. He has the grasp of the language like no politician I've ever heard-- and I cut my political teeth working with Paul Wellstone in the late 80s. As a matter of fact, a book of his speeches was published last spring called "A Prayer for America". It was his speech before the Iraq war that led 50,000 people to draft him to run for President in 2004-- the only candidate besides Clark to be drafted by a popular movement.

[tinanator]

20. speak for yourself

What Americans need are honest elections. The rest will take care of itself. Until then any predictions based on faulty data are GIGO'd.

[cyclezealot]

41. Americans want a slick snake oil salesman,

that is what they get...Over someone we know we can trust. And wonder why we are always getting screwed..Supposedly informed people here at DU...the country is hopeless...Image rules and we get screwed..
People here going for a media imposed image and not listening to what one has to say...
DK in a debate format...Knowledge is supposedly power. But not in the USA...

[T Town Jake]

105. Please...

...Kucinich has admirable passion, but he'd be an electoral disaster as a candidate in any presidential campaign.
There'd be fifty "Red" states in the aftermath of any such quixotic offering made by our party in a presidential election, and even the District of Columbia's electoral votes would probably be "too close to call" between Candidate Kucinich and whomever the Repuke candidate was late into the evening.
That'd be the only genuine "suspense" in such a contest, and I can already see the headline: "Will D.C. go 'Red' this year?"
It'd be an honest question in the highly unlikely event that Dennis Kucinich was ever the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
Get real.

[Blue Wally]

47. Do you mean??

Often when people talk about electability they mention the most superficial aspects of an election. Obviously, nominating bland, moderate candidates who straddle the fence on the issues has not been working so well. Conviction politics works. That makes a person electable.

I guess that means that McGovern won by a landslide in 1972.

[Radical Activist]

75. There were a lot of reasons McGovern lost

and the fact that he was liberal probably wasn't the biggest one.
Why is it that moderates pull the McGovern card in discussions of electability but I'm supposed to ignore more modern examples. Gore and Kerry lost, and Carter couldn't get re-elected. Clinton, the most charismatic politician of our time, never even got a full majority of the vote. We have far more examples of moderates losing than liberals. Bringing up McGovern from over 30 years ago is just not relevant to today's political world anymore. We should stop repeating a losing strategy and nominate someone who stands for something. It worked for the Republicans.

[Syrinx]

12. signs point to no

But as fucked up as this nation will be then, a puppy dog could probably win for the Dems, assuming there's a fair election. <hmm>

I would advise that we don't annoint Dennis.

[sportndandy]

15. Is this a joke thread?

His positions are great, and in certain venues he comes off as quite attractive (as a candidate, not a dream date) Dennis cost himself any shot in the primaries when got on Jon Stewart and sounded like a monkey. In a 5 minute interview the only issue he had was the Iraq war, and he didn't sound like he was against it. He sounded like he was very much for it, and for having many other wars too, just so long as they are run much better than the shrub. Now this might not have been his position, but the upshot was that he had no idea who Jon Stewart was and how important that interview was vis a vis exposing himself to his natural constituency: liberal males 18 - 45. For all his great speeches and debate performances he came off as a hack. Oh it was SOOOO disappointing. And what about staying in the race after it was long over? Was that self mockery or just sheer stupidity?

[Clarkie1]

18. I don't mean it as a "joke thread" at all.

Eventhough I don't agree with Dennis on everything, I respect Dennis' integrity and agree with him on many things.

I posted this because I am honestly curious if people here think Dennis is "electable" as president of the U.S. or not in the near future. I tend to think not, but that is just my opinion. I know that my opinion is not unusual in this regard.

I am surprised by the number of votes saying Dennis could possibly win, so I think this poll has so far helped clarify in my mind how much support of Dennis here is as a "dream ticket" and how much from those who believe it is a real possibility. That is interesting information ot me, so I'm glad I posted the poll.

I hope people do not "flame" any candidate on this poll. That is not my intention.

[hippywife]

61. I watched that episode

and every other opportunity I could get to hear DK speak and NEVER, EVER at any time did he even come close to sounding like he supported the war. He came out and spoke strongly against it even before Dean.

[mermaid]

17. He Couldn't Even Win The '08 NOMINATION...Let Alone GE. n/t

[moobu2]

24. I don't think he could even win one state in the primaries n/t

[bowens43]

25. of the 2004 primary candfidates,

other then Clark, he is the least likely to be able to win a general election. Unfortunately, the camera isn't kind to Dennis.

[Clark2008]

72. Other than Clark?

You must live in a blue state.
Clark would have won us some red states - and the blue one's Kerry got.
I love how people in blue states don't "get it."

[Crunchy Frog]

73. No,

just an obsessive Clark hater who has to get a little dig in at every opportunity.

[Clark2008]

76. ah... thanks for clearing that up for me, Crunchy.

I was trying to figure out how someone who was in the race only four months and still racked up the only "not his own state" win against Kerry, plus coming in second and third tons of times couldn't win a general election. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Unfortunately, I suspect Bushco could fuck the country up so badly in the

next 3 years that a ham sandwich could beat the Republican. Of course, by that time, it may not matter since every last damn dime of the treasury will have been spirited away to offshore accounts by Bechtel and Halliburton CEOs, the constitution will be a smoldering heap, the deficit will be five times the size of god and no sane Democrat would WANT to inherit the mess.

The way things stand currently, though? No. He could not.

This is not a pure "who is more left or right" issue. I think there is room for Democrats who stand up for things unequivocally, even if they are things which piss off the fundamentalist red state "left behind" goons... I think a lack of moral clarity and consistency has been a problem for us.

For example, I happen to think Howard Dean might have been able to beat Bush (or, beat Bush by a substantial enough margin to prevent the GOP from weaseling another one out) last year- because although he was "left" (he was 'left' because he was right, of course) of Kerry on, say, Iraq, he was always consistent and he was able to articulate his stance.

What I really think we need to do (and as someone else noted this is all horribly premature) is run a candidate who is not afraid to stand up for certain basic solid ideas and principles, even if- even if- it pisses of various groups or people with agendas or flies in the face of "conventional wisdom". We need someone at home with appealing to the social libertarianism of millions of educated urban voters who right now can't decide whether the GOP or the Democratic Party is more interested in micro-managing their lives, because we have not clearly presented a Democratic Party that believes consenting adults should have the right to be left the hell alone about their personal choices regarding what they read, watch, and do with their own bodies. Yet we also need someone at home with appealing to poor rural voters (and everyone else) who are being raked over the coals with health insurance premiums, or the 45 million with no insurance whatsoever, by clearly explaining that the only people who wouldn't benefit from universal health coverage under a SPHC system are the Insurance Industry bigwigs.

I will grant that Kucinich may have done similar things at some point, but unfortunately I don't think he's the guy.

[Trish1168]

59. I agree, they'll screw it up so badly...they'll be looking for a reformer

Kucinich is the best candidate. There's no question in my mind. And in desperation, people will look for substance of message over image. We can afford to focus on image when we're spoiled and not feeling particularly threatened. But the fact of the matter is that people are getting more and more disturbed by the corporate regime and their over reaching power. Kucinich would over throw that regime, and depending on the economy in 2008 (no doubt it'll be very very bad from the impending currency crisis), they may even let it happen (having recognized that their greed got them in a huge mess).

Kucinich is just about my favorite candidate of all. I didn't know anything about him, until Kerry lost the election. Then I became obsessed with learning all I could about politics and bought a number of books. Kucinich was mentioned in many of them. I like his courage (e.g. he sued W over his abrogation of the ABM treaty...the case was thrown out by a Bush appointee, of course, but it took courage to challenge W on the constitutionality of his treaty abbrogation).

I can't be the only one whose seen the light. All Kucinich needs is an image/speech consulting and to keep with populist reformer message. People will be looking for answers more than image. If the elections are un-rigged by then, I think he's a shoe-in.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I'm not that impressed with DK. Just not.

I have many friends who were on the Kucinich bandwagon. Northern California is probably one of the few areas where he did reasonably well in the primaries.

I agree with many of the positions the guy has taken, to be sure. But I'm just not convinced he is the specific guy to carry the mantle. JMO.

Edit: This is always open to revision. Maybe the guy will end up wowing me, in which case you will not find a bigger booster than yours truly. Cartainly, if he gets the nomination, I would back him very enthusiastically just like I would back most of the other ex-2004 primary candidates; the one notable exception being Lieberman, but I don't foresee much "Joe-mentum" on the horizon.

[Mairead]

27. Yes, we certainly could put him into the WH.

His policies are solid, pro-working people 'New Deal'-type policies that are very attractive. If anything, they don't go far enough (which is something that we'd have to deal with).

The barriers to him being nominated and elected are

• To paraphrase Fr Dowling's 1941 comment: there's a widespread delusion among the poor that electing a candidate who's only mildly hostile to our interests is the best we can expect, and there's chronic terror among the wealthy elites lest we discover that that's not so
• Hardly anyone knows who Dennis is, what he stands for, or what his history is...and Media Inc intends to see that it stays that way.

We can overcome those barriers. When I handed out, to random working people, a pro-Dennis summary sheet just before the Mass primary, the responses I got were highly positive.

But first we have to get past our Dowlingist delusion, understand that we can do better for ourselves, and actually resolve to do it. Henry Ford, that innocent fascist, wasn't talking about electing Dennis, but what he said applies anyway: whether we think we can, or we think we can't -- we're right!

[abburdlen]

28. He could if we voted for him /nt

[bklyncowgirl]

29. I love Dennis but...

Early in the primaries when I went out looking for another candidate to support because my original guy, John Kerry, was looking pretty weak and I didn't appreciate his vote to authorize the war, I took a look at DK because he was the guy I agreed with almost 100% on the issues.

I ended up moving on to "I can live with Dean or Kerry" mainly because DK lacked successful high level administrative experience. His stint as mayor of Cleveland was not a sign of great administrative ability.

I've always felt that I should support a primary candidate who had things in his background that showed he could actually do the job if by some miracle he got elected.

[Mairead]

30. "I can live with Dean or Kerry"

I ended up moving on to "I can live with Dean or Kerry" mainly because DK lacked successful high level administrative experience. His stint as mayor of Cleveland was not a sign of great administrative ability.

You're probably unaware, then, that

• Cleveland has as large a population as Dean's whole state of Vermont and is much more representative of the USA than Vermont.


• Both Kerry's and Dean's political experience is extremely narrow, and Kerry has no experience at all as a political executive. Dennis has elected experience as a legislator at all three levels of government, and as chief executive at the big-city level


• Dean inherited the Governor's office; Dennis won the Mayor's office against opposition.


• Being independently wealthy, neither Dean nor Kerry has ever put their entire livelihood--not to mention their political career--on the line to stand up for the people. Dennis did.

[eridani]

81. His refusal to sell Muny Light was what lead to the resurrection--

--of his career, when people realized that he was right. As far as management, I'd say that running a city on a cash-only basis (no loans available because of the default) is excellent administrative experience. Since Cleveland has roughly the same population as Vermont, I'd say it's pretty similar to Dean's experience.

[JHBowden]

31. A qualified yes.

If Kucinich is shrill, refuses to get a haircut, and sings the national anthem at rallies, then probably not. It is the mechanical stuff more than the ideological stuff that would hurt Kucinich as a candidate.

[Padraig18]

32. No.

Sorry, but that's my honest opinion.

:shrug:

[Mairead]

33. It would be interesting if we could separate out the

unbiased assessments from those that really reflect an agenda. I've noticed several posts in the thread that say 'He can't be' but that really mean 'I don't want him to be'. (Of course, my positive one can be impeached the same way, since I do want him to be. But Dennis can be defended as the best choice on rational grounds and, since I'm a Jeffersonian democrat, I believe with Zinn that people will vote for their interests when they're allowed to see them clearly.)

[BlueManDude]

34. enuf of this nonsense

[LWolf]

36. Absolutely. n/t

[IrateCitizen]

38. No, and I voted for him in the primaries in 2004

I have the utmost respect for DK and what he's tried to do on the national stage. I supported him in those endeavors and I will support him again in the future. But I do not delude myself that he could win a general election in the current environment.

His problems on this level are manyfold. One is image. Strangely, I don't think that ideology is a problem for him, since I've even known right wingers who actually had a lot of respect for him, and would consider voting for him. But image is a MAJOR problem for him in an age in which politicians are marketed in the same manner as brands of soap.

Perhaps his biggest challenge lies in the lack of a broad-based movement that brings many constituencies together -- ESPECIALLY people of color. Also, I noticed among many of his supporters here on DU that his candidacy became less about his ideas, and more about Dennis. What is needed for the movement to come FIRST, and then for a candidate to emerge out of the movement. This is what happened with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition in the 1980's, and it fell apart when Jackson pushed to make it his own personal political machine, and loyalty to the movement morphed into loyalty to the man.

There's too much change that needs to happen first before America would be open to a Kucinich candidacy. I'd support him again, but I wouldn't expect him to win by any means.

[eridani]

82. PDA is not tied to a Kucinich run in 2008--

--or at any other time. And some of the old Rainbow Coalition people have signed on. We really do need better ongoing grassroots work if someone like Kucinich is to have a real chance.

[pf99]

39. As Mayor of Cleveland

I think he would have a hard time explaining why he took the City of Cleveland into default.

Now I agree it was a courageous stand, but I think most people will hear he took the City into default and not listen why.

[goodhue]

45. Dennis was right! Courage and foresight.

In 1998 the Cleveland City Council honored Kucinich for "having the courage and foresight to refuse to sell the city's municipal electric system." The default can be readily understood by most people as standing up to Enron style corporate crooks, if the story is told.
The story fits in well with his history of truthtelling in the midst of naysayers and ostriches, just like with WMD, single-payer, etc.

[eridani]

104. Three words

Swift Boat Veterans. Hate to break it to you, but any candidate we could put up would be trashed by the Republican Noise Machine. So why not go for someone who advocates policies that actually help people?

[Jack Rabbit]

40. I respect him also

However, he is not going to be President of the United States.

I long ago realized and accepted the fact that in a Presidential election if I want to vote for somebody with a chance of winning, I will be voting for somebody who stands to my right.

[no name no slogan]

43. Then you end up getting what you deserve

If you keep settling for less each time, then don't be suprised when you keep getting less than what you want.

A vicious circle, indeed.

[Jack Rabbit]

48. My vote is not a free lunch

I do insist that my ideas get a fair hearing and I expect something to be reflected in the party platform.

My objection to the DLC is not so much that they are moderates, but that they are moderate ideologues. They want to marginalize us progressives and yet still expect us to vote for their candidates unconditionally. The DLC was not always that way. There was a need in the 1980s to tweak the Democratic Party toward the center, but they acknowledged the party as a big tent. With Clinton, we progressives agreed to give up on abolishing capital punishment in return for a real shot at national health insurance. Okay, it didn't work, but that was the idea and it was a plan I could sign on to.

Right now, I find the DLC's pronouncements on foreign policy every bit as odious as the policy adumbrated Bush and his neoconservative aids. Will Marshall of the PPI, the DLC's foreign policy think tank, says that it is just ridiculous "to depict (the US invasion of Iraq) as the expression of a new U.S. imperialism". I think it is ridiculous to call it anything else.

However, I voted for Kerry, who stated that there is something to be gained by staying in Iraq. I did that for two reasons: First, I believe that Mr. Bush is a threat to American democratic institutions and that we could little afford another term in office by an administration dominated by yuppie fascists; second, I believe that Kerry is a pragmatist who might have tried two or three ways of salvaging the US position in Iraq before realizing that it is hopeless and doing the right thing by withdrawing. Bush, on the other hand, will defend his war profiteering cronies' contracts to the last drop of somebody else's blood.

If there were a better alternative to the Democrats, such as the Canadian New Democratic Party or the British Liberal Democratic Party, I would seriously consider joining such an organization. I was a registered Green for four years, but that will be little more than a protest vote for some time to come. The DLC ideologues should be warned that I am not above casting a protest vote and I don't have to be a registered Green to do so. If they try to ram a corporate-friendly GOP-lite candidate down my throat, I reserve the right to vote for somebody else.

[goodhue]

42. Of course it's possible.

Back here in MN, Wellstone and Ventura were similarly derided with the "can't win" mantra, that is, until they won.

Dennis can win if people vote for him. People will vote for him even if they disagree with him because he speaks truth to power, just like Paul and Jesse.

[goodhue]

44. Is Kucinich Electable?

Is Kucinich Electable?

If any Democrat has a history of attracting swing voters and "Reagan Democrats" in winning elections against better-funded Republican opponents, it is Dennis Kucinich. He has repeatedly defeated entrenched incumbents. He beat a Republican incumbent for mayor in 1977, for state senator in 1994 (overcoming the national right-wing tide) and for
Congress in 1996.

His Congressional district includes the suburb of Parma, Ohio, described as "one of the original homes of the Reagan Democrats." An Ohio daily calls it a "conservative Democratic district," which he carried by 74% in 2002. Being a success there may be a better predictor of national success than holding statewide office in a liberal stronghold like Vermont or Massachusetts.

Kucinich is a winner because he builds Wellstone-like grassroots campaigns against bigger-spending opponents. He is a winner because of his blue collar roots and populism, reflected in his battles for heartland voters against unfair, corporate-friendly trade deals.

He is an unabashed progressive who wins because swing voters who don't agree with him on every issue still see him as a fighter for their interests, as someone who will put the interests of workers and middle-class consumers ahead of big-money interests. No Democrat is better positioned in 2004 to attract 'Reagan Democrats' and swing voters with a frontal attack on how Bush policies hurt them and favor the rich.

Republicans use "wedge" issues to pry away traditionally-Democratic white working class voters -- a tactic that has not succeeded against Kucinich. In '96, for example, Republicans used his support of gay rights as a wedge, and he stood firm and triumphed.

On the other side of the spectrum, no other candidate can attract disaffected voters, 3rd party voters and Ralph Nader supporters to the Democratic column like Kucinich. Across the country, Nader 2000 voters and Green Party sympathizers are joining his campaign, as are other 3rd party supporters.

It's been a long while since progressives and the Democratic base have been so motivated, and so angry -- over manipulation and deceit that began in the 2000 election and continued through the Iraq war (now finally catching up with the Bush team). No candidate can better tap into and mobilize the anger of the Democratic base than Kucinich, who has never wavered in his opposition, who has courageously led the way in exposing war manipulation, and who speaks with passion to the big issues that animate Democratic and progressive activists.

Kucinich has been a winner in a swing district in the swing state of Ohio. And Ohio has 20 electoral votes. It is the state that is key to national victory; only two candidates in the 20th century won the presidency without carrying Ohio.

Al Gore lost Ohio in 2000 despite the Herculean efforts of Kucinich, as vividly described by journalist James Ridgeway in an article written days before the election: "Kucinich is a shoo-in, but hauling Gore along will be a daunting task. Shuttling back and forth from Washington, Kucinich has put together an old-fashioned canvassing operation throughout Cleveland and its suburbs that is one of the largest such efforts in the nation. By election day, 400 to 500 people will be on the streets...

"Day after day, members of the laborers, electricians, plumbers, and steelworkers unions crowd into Kucinich's tiny office on Lorain Avenue, piling signs into the backs of cars and pickups before hitting the neighborhoods. The general approach is for volunteers to use Kucinich's name to get a foot in the door, then ask for support for a Democratic judge before uttering the vice president's name."

Kucinich's best efforts couldn't win Ohio for Gore in 2000, but Kucinich can win Ohio himself if he is the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate. And in presidential politics, as Bush-strategist Karl Rove knows well: As Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

http://www.kucinich.us/electable.htm

[Spinoza]

49. Repukes would think

they have died and gone to heaven.

[goodhue]

50. I disagree.

They would be scared. Dennis would talk openly about PNAC and BFEE. If he were nominee, it woud be much harder for MSM to silence him, as they have done to date.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. So why doesn't he run for Governor or US Senate first?

Congressmen aren't usually viable presidential candidates no matter what their political views, unless they are Speaker or have held some other leadership post.

[cyclezealot]

87. Ohio has not had a Democratic governor or senator

in what like a decade..I think DK just wants to be a voice to spark new ideas...Not that being president is not his goal ..His campaign brought about new recruits to causes such as the PDA...
DK has a significant role in the US House..with the Progressive Caucus...an incubator of new ideas...Who else would speak a pure voice in the democratic debates for labor and health care issues..
As Bernie Sanders says, he would not want to serve in the Senate. Have to respect the likes of Trent Lott or Jim Inhoff..Decorum. screw it...A majority of the House Democrats are progressive...DK is in this incubator, I think and hope reflects the make up of the Democratic party better than so many weasly Democratic senators..
Naw..DK should stick to the House where He can influence the progressive in the people's house and hopefully through national speaking tours and influencing House members, his ideas can filter their way to the American public; since use of the media is a dead end.

[Hippo_Tron]

101. My point is that some claim that he could easily win his home state

I don't see this as the case unless he could win a senatorial or gubernatiorial race.

[cyclezealot]

102. DK would sweep blue states...

But Ohio is not a blue state..His debate style is polite but take no prisoners...Repugs are not used to that at all...But,the thing blue states are almost enough to win...I almost suspect Florida is more of a blue state than Ohio...The Fla.congressional delegation is so skewed because of massive gerrymandering..Not that Florida is easy...
In so much of the country , crackers rule...Often Florida has closer presidential elections than Ohio...At least the last two times out...
Social Security is a big Florida issue..making it potentially win able...

[Stevepol]

53. Kucinich could have won in 04 if the vote counting had been fair

Kucinich is a great campaigner. If he'd been the candidate he would have run a great campaign and brought a lot of Dem voters out of the woodwork. But of course unless the voting machines are fixed (or unfixed depending on how you look at it) no Dem can win. Ever.

[cyclezealot]

91. I gauge Kucinich by audience response..

They get overwhealmed by DK's intensity..Go to a Kerry rally..You could fall asleep...I would compare the applause meter intensity at any Kucinch rally over over those of Kerry any day...The Kucinich rallys I have attended..We lost track of applause interruptions.
The problem for Dk...The likes of Fox news or Chris Matthews...They use Hitler like techniques...Repeat a unfounded phrase or lie enough people believe it, sight unseen.....To say the press is not hostile to Dk and out to destroy him like they Did Dean's so called faked scream is obvious...
This only goes to show what an outstanding candidate DK is and how trust worthy he is...They know with DK in office their monopoly and unchallenged media status , purvelying one sided news would come to and end...We would have a fairness doctrine and alternative voices and the electronic media would be beholding to its owners, the American people as the original FCC charter called for...
The great disappointment to me about this country and our progressive forces...Members here at DU are naive enough to buy hook and sinker their bull s*it... I expect more from us..Does not mean you have to support DK, but at least have enough sense to reject the media's smear... As they ended up doing to Dean and even your precious Kerry. (Swift Boat, etc..)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. If given the same kind of publicity that the other candidates got,

why not?

He did way better than the national average here in Minnesota, simply because a bunch of us annoying supporters made sure he got media coverage. That was true across the board. Where the supporters were organized and nagged the media into providing coverage, Dennis got good percentages.

The national media ignored him before a single vote was cast in Iowa.

Besides, after eight years of Bush, the public may be ready for someone who is really different fromt the average Democrat, of whom it cannot be said, "You voted for the Iraq War" or "You supported the 'free trade' that has put people out of work."

[Dragonfly]

57. To me, Kucinich has been seriously heading

toward a progressive leadership role ever since the "Department of Peace" concept stirred alert and caring congressional co-sponsors (now up to at least 50, I think (?)

Few seem to grasp that Cong. Kucinich is an integral factor in a fast-connecting reversal team responding to the quickly-fading lights of real democracy.

Those that do make such a leap of tangible faith, Hi.

[no name no slogan]

92. At least 50 for DoP-- maybe more by now

In fact, there's grassroots groups in many states working directly with their congresscritters to get them to sponsor the bill when it's reintroduced. Not just Democrats, but even REPUBLICANS have shown interest in the idea.

I know the DoP group in MN has talked to two Republican congressmen, and received a fairly positive reception from one of them. Sure, he didn't jump on board enthusiastically, but he has been open to their proposals, and the dialogue continues.

Don't be suprised if the DoP becomes law within the next decade.

[Dragonfly]

100. I not only won't be surprised

but I'm counting on it soon catching the public's imagination like the first sustained warm March wind promises an inevitable end to dark winter.

If one takes part of just one afternoon to take the pulse of America via 10 major online newspapers and then switches over from 3 to 5 to Utne, Common Dreams, Alternet, DU, Buzzflash, Salon, etc., it becomes easier to see what drives the raging civil war-like battles.

The Twin Cities rank right up there with Greater Seattle in terms of focused effective activism and clarity of what the stakes are for us all right now. Way to go......

Your post sends affirmation of the tide-turning that I feel strongly today.

[The Gigmeister]

63. No. Not even close.

[elshiva]

66. Kucinich rules! I'd vote for him. eom.

[Clark2008]

68. Do I think Denny is wonderful? Oh, heavens yes!

Do I think he could win a national general election.

Oh, sadly, no.

[jsw_81]

69. No chance

Kucinich would do well in liberal college towns and the inner cities, but he would get stomped everywhere else. He would almost certainly lose Ohio (by a wide margin) and might not win a single state with the possible exception of Massachusetts or maybe Hawaii.

Anyone who seriously thinks that Kucinich could win the presidency is simply out of touch with reality.

[no name no slogan]

117. He's the only one in '08 who even had a rural policy

His rural policy called for the breakup of agribusiness monopolies, which would fix a wealth of problems for rural economies. Family farmers would once again be able to compete with corporate farms, and would have a level playing field for the first time in decades.

If you talk to the economic concerns of rural America, and give them the chance to vote for REAL CHANGE, they'll take it. When you pay them lip-service (with cosmetic changes to a hopelessly unfair system), they'll vote for somebody who shares their views on gay marriage instead.

[jpgray]

77. Possible, but overwhelmingly, astronomically unlikely (nt)

[burrowowl]

80. Yes!

2 more years of Bu$h and maybe people will start to wake up. But, anybody coming after Bu$h is going to have a hard row to hoe.

[Constitution]

86. This is a flame. Clark and other candidates would lose this poll.

Dennis would win the general election though and anyone who says otherwise is out of touch with reality.

[knight_of_the_star]

94. Not in '08

If we can win in '08 and '12 then maybe he would have a good shot in '16, by then we would have retaken control of Congress and the debate so he would have a good shot.

[Cuban_Liberal]

95. Highly unlikely, at best. n/t

[nickshepDEM]

97. Nope. n/t

[RealDems]

98. I like Dennis, even though he isn't my first choice

and I think it is possible he could win a general election. I tend to think that anyone CAN be electable, and that elections are really only a matter of timing, circumstances, and quality of campaign. People who try to determine electability are really just guessing, and they usually get it wrong.

Not only that, but if history is any guide, over the past 30 years, every candidate that is able to hold their own base has won the election.

[New Democrat]

99. Only if his oppenent is David Duke.

[IndianaGreen]

106. Can Adlai Stevenson win the election in 1956?

So what! Stevenson was a far better man than Ike. It was the country's loss that Ike won, instead of Stevenson. The same can be said about 2008. We are going to be so far into a police state by then that it won't matter who the Democrats nominate, the fix will be in!

So we might as well vote for the candidate that best represents our views. Some of you would prefer someone with a lot of stars on his lapels, others will prefer the DLC queen (you know who I am speaking of, while others may want to try the same product we tried to market in 2004. I am voting for Dennis Kucinich for the same reason I voted for him in the Indiana primary: he was, and remains, the candidate that best represents our views.

For all I know, we may be voting in the Canadian elections by the time 2008 rolls in!

[dolstein]

116. Ah yes, better to lose with a good man than win with a scoundrel

The Republicans tried that in 1964, rethought their strategy in 1968, and the rest is history.

Frankly, I'd take your position a little more seriously if it weren't for the fact that the only people who seem to meet your "good man" standard are left-wingers like yourself.

Basically, you think that anyone who doesn't support a left-winger must either be evil Republicans are morally compromised, craven, win-at-all-costs DLC'ers.

[IndianaGreen]

136. If you like scoundrels, vote Republican!

If you want to replace Jesusland with a humane and just society, you ain't gonna get it by trying to outdo Bush.

[dolstein]

147. Truman, JFK, LBJ and Clinton were Republicans?

None of these guys were saints. They all did things that "good men" don't do. I guess when you're ready to join the real world, we can have a real discussion.

[IndianaGreen]

156. Truman's intervention in Greece was not his finest moment!

Or is that particular dark chapter of our history down the memory hole?

Kennedy had his Bay of Pigs, and he almost got us all vaporized by his overreaction to Soviet missiles in Cuba. Kennedy's involvement in the murder of President Diem, another gem of ours, made it difficult for him to extricate ourselves from Vietnam.

LBJ? What can I say about the man responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 US troops and the slaughter of hundreds of thousand Vietnamese. Nixon was the only one to outdo LBJ in the carnage count, at least until Bush breaks all the records.

Clinton? Ask the people of Latin America that have been murdered under the ethnic cleansing called Plan Colombia.

We don't expect people to be saints, but we expect them to respect human rights and to do what they can to improve the human condition.

[CWebster]

107. No

He can be painted too easily as a kook, unfortunately, and it is not due to his politics.

[goodhue]

108. If not for his politics,

there would be no need to paint him as a kook.

[CWebster]

109. From a quick google:

Dennis Kucinich, who by way of Shirley MacLaine studied with Chris Griscom at The Light Institute in New Mexico is an unlikely President. His message embodies hopeful evidence of the long awaited "Paradigm Shift." Who else but an inventive Libra contrarian would propose a Department of Peace?


Recently, he said: "The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy."


http://www.karmicrelief.com/WUArchive2004/WU021304.htm

[goodhue]

110. Yes, thanks. I'm familiar with the quote.

It is one that Kucinich-haters routinely trot out as an example of his lunacy (See, e.g., http://www.realchange.org/kucinich.htm).
It comes from a speech he gave a peace conference in Croatia in 2002.
Here is the speech in its entirety:

Spirit and Stardust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich
From his talk at the Praxis Peace Institute Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia on June 9, 2002

As one studies the images of the Eagle Nebula, brought back by the Hubble Telescope from that place in deep space where stars are born, one can imagine the interplay of cosmic forces across space and time, of matter and spirit dancing to the music of the spheres. Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self.

The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: one with the universe, whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental; we, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling. We receive the blessings of the Eternal and we are showered with abundance. We ask and we receive. A universe of plenty flows to us, through us. It is in us. We become filled with endless possibilities.

We need to remember where we came from; to know that we are one. To understand that we are of an undivided whole: race, color, nationality, creed, gender are beams of light, refracted through one great prism. We begin as perfect and journey through life to become more perfect in the singularity of "I" and in the multiplicity of "we"-- a more perfect union of matter and spirit.

This is human striving. This is where, in Shelley's words, ". . . hope creates from its own wreck the thing it contemplates." This is what Browning spoke of: Our "reach exceeding grasp." This is a search for heaven within, a quest for our eternal home.

In our soul's Magnificent, we become conscious of the cosmos within us. We hear the music of peace, we hear the music of cooperation, we hear music of love. In our soul's forgetting, we become unconscious of our cosmic birthright, blighted with disharmony, disunity, torn asunder from the stars in a disaster well-described by Matthew Arnold in Dover Beach:

". . . the world, which seems to lie before us like a land of dreams, so various, so beautiful, so new, hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, nor certitude nor peace, nor help for pain. And we are here, as on a darkling plain, swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, where ignorant armies clash by night."

Today’s Dover Beach is upon the shores of the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. Our leaders think the unthinkable and speak of the unspeakable inevitability of nuclear war; of a nuclear attack on New York City, of terrorist attacks throughout our nation; of war against Iraq using nuclear weapons; of biological and chemical weapon attacks on civilian populations; of catastrophic global climate change; of war in outer space.

When death (not life) becomes inevitable, we are presented with an opportunity for great clarity, for a great awakening, to rescue the human spirit from the arms of Morpheus through love, through compassion and through integrating spiritual vision and active citizenship to restore peace to our world. The moment that one world is about to end, a new world is about to begin. We need to remember where we came from, because the path home is also the way to the future.

In the city I represent in the United States Congress, there is a memorial to Peace, named by its sculptor, Marshall A. Fredericks the "Fountain of Eternal Life". A figure rises from the flames, his gaze fixed to the stars, his hands positioned sextant-like, as if measuring the distance. Though flames of war from the millions of hearts and the dozens of places wherein it rages, may lick at our consciousness, our gaze must be fixed upward to invoke universal principles of unity, of co-operation, of compassion, to infuse our world with peace, to ask for the active presence of peace, to expand our capacity to receive it and to express it in our everyday life. We must do this fearlessly and courageously and not breathe in the poison gas of terror. As we receive, so shall we give.

As citizen-diplomats of the world, we send peace as conscious expression where ever, whenever and to whomever it is needed: to the Middle East, to the Israelis and the Palestinians, to the Pakistanis and the Indians, to Americans and Al Queda, and to the people of Iraq, and to all those locked in deadly combat. And we fly to be with the bereft, with those on the brink, to listen compassionately, setting aside judgment and malice to become peacemakers, to intervene, to mediate, to bring ourselves back from the abyss, to bind up the world's wounds.

As we aspire to universal brotherhood and sisterhood, we address through thought, word and deed conditions which give rise to conflict: economic exploitation, empire building, political oppression, religious intolerance, poverty, disease, famine, homelessness, struggles over control of water, land, minerals, and oil. We realize that what affects anyone, anywhere affects everyone, everywhere.

As we help others to heal, we heal ourselves. Our vision of interconnectedness resonates with new networks of world citizens in nongovernmental organizations linking from numberless centers of energy, expressing the emergence of a new organic whole, seeking unity within and across national lines. New transnational web-based e-mail and telecommunications systems transcend governments and carry within them the power of qualitative transformation of social and political structures and a new sense of creative intelligence. If governments and their leaders, bound by hierarchy and patriarchy, wedded to military might for legitimacy, fail to grasp the implications of an emerging world consciousness for cooperation, for peace and for sustainability, they may become irrelevant.

As citizen-activists the world over merge, they can become an irresistible force to create peace and protect the planet. From here will come a new movement to abolish nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction. From here will come the demand for sustainable communities, for new systems of energy, transportation and commerce. From here comes the future rushing in on us.

How does one acquire the capacity for active citizenship? The opportunities exist every day. In Cleveland, citizens have developed the ability to intercede when schools are scheduled to be closed, and have kept the schools open; to rally to keep hospitals open; to save industries which provide jobs; to protect neighborhood libraries from curtailment of service, to improve community policing; to meet racial, ethnic and religious intolerance openly and directly.

Active citizenship begins with an envisioning of the desired outcome and a conscious application of spiritual principles. I know. I have worked with the people in my own community. I have seen the dynamic of faith in self, faith in one's ability to change things, faith in one's ability to prevail against the odds through an appeal to the spirit of the world for help, through an appeal to the spirit of community for participation, through an appeal to the spirit of cooperation, which multiplies energy. I have seen citizens challenge conditions without condemning anyone, while invoking principles of non-opposition and inclusion of those who disagree.

I have seen groups of people overcome incredible odds as they become aware they are participating in a cause beyond self and sense the movement of the inexorable which comes from unity. When you feel this principle at work, when you see spiritual principles form the basis of active citizenship, you are reminded once again of the merging of stardust and spirit. There is creativity. There is magic. There is alchemy.

Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make non-violence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development, for economic and political justice and for violence control. Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values.

Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable'. Thus it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus.

The Department of Peace will also address human development and the unique concerns of women and children. It will envision and seek to implement plans for peace education, not simply as a course of study, but as a template for all pursuits of knowledge within formal educational settings.

Violence is not inevitable. War is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this world a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children from fear, from harm, from destruction.

Carved inside the pediment which sits atop the marble columns is a sentinel at the entrance to the United States House of Representatives. Standing resolutely inside this "Apotheosis of Democracy" is a woman, a shield by her left side, with her outstretched right arm protecting a child happily sitting at her feet. The child holds the lamp of knowledge under the protection of this patroness.

This wondrous sculpture by Paul Wayland Bartlett, is entitled "Peace Protecting Genius". Not with nuclear arms, but with a loving maternal arm is the knowing child Genius shielded from harm. This is the promise of hope over fear. This is the promise of love which overcomes all. This is the promise of faith which overcomes doubt. This is the promise of light which overcomes darkness. This is the promise of peace which overcomes war.

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D - OH)can be contacted at either [email protected] or [email protected]. His website is www.kucinich.us.

[Spinoza]

111. If we want Karl Rove

to have the best orgasm of his life, we should run Kucinich in 08.

[trudyco]

112. Right now I think paper ballots are more important

Or you are just wasting your time. It will be a Repub win. There are a lot of state battles going on - trying to prevent paper ballots at least for the '06 elections.

I think paper ballots, cleaning up elections, reframing the Democratic message (hell, having a Democratic message) organizing grass roots organizations everywhere, getting our own media is first priority.

[messiah]

113. Yeah he could win if democrats actually believed

in something and not just "winning". If you never try you will never know!.

[imenja]

120. like what?

What do you see as admirable about Kucinich? I believe in competent government. I support any number of leftist policies. I would devote an enormous amount of time and energy to see Barbara Boxer take the presidency, but I will not vote for Kucinich in a primary or a general election. I don't believe the man can be a competent president. Some of the comments he made in the primaries, like the idea of IMMEDIATELY abolishing all trade agreements upon assuming office, were nothing sheer lunacy.

If you want a progressive candidate, a true representative of the people, I support that whole heartedly. Kucinich, however, is not my choice, and it's something I feel very strongly about.

[no name no slogan]

143. You misrepresent his positions

He NEVER said abolish ALL trade policies-- EVER. That is a gross misrepresentation of what his platform was.

What he said was that he would withdraw the US from NAFTA and the WTO-- two trade agreements which give an inordinant amount of power to large, transnational corporations at the expense of the citizens of its member nations.

If the US withdrew from NAFTA and the WTO, free trade would continue with the rest of the world, under the same trade agreements we had before joining NAFTA and the WTO. We would return to unilateral trade agreements with each trading nation-- agreements that can be negotiated or re-negotiated without violating the worker-unfriendly rules of the WTO and NAFTA.

I don't blame you for your misperception, though. With all the Kucinich demagoguery and misrepresentation that went on here, it's quite easy to not know what his true positions were.

[imenja]

144. My concern is process

How that would be achieved. I've already discussed that in this thread and don't intend on rehashing it.

You still haven't answered my question about what you think Kucinich offers. Why would he be better than Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, or or Howard Dean? The point I responded to was Messiah's comment that the only thing keeping Kucinich from winning a Democratic nomination is that Democrats are afraid of being beaten. That certainly is not the case for me. I see absolutely nothing that qualifies Kucinich out of an array of possible leftist candidates. I can't imagine him as commander in chief of the armed forces. I can't imagine that he has the strength to deal with a national security crisis. I also am not going to support a candidate who has voted to allow the federal government to take a way a woman's right to her own body. I'll take Barbara Boxer anytime, and it has nothing to do with electability, though obviously I don't think Kucinich could win in a primary or general election, since I know I would never vote for him.
The OP asked for opinions, and that's mine.

[no name no slogan]

146. Your entitled to your opinion. I'll address you points

Kucinich has quite a bit to offer over the other candidates you've cited:

I can't imagine him as commander in chief of the armed forces.
* Dennis Kucinich is currently the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee that handles Pentagon appropriations. He knows how the Pentagon works, and has been a leading critic of Pentagon waste.

Remeber, Bill Clinton didn't have any FP experience before he was elected, either, yet he managed to keep the (relative) peace for eight years. OTOH, George Bush I was in WWII, and he invaded Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia AND Panama during his four years. It doesn't take a military man to lead successfully.


I also am not going to support a candidate who has voted to allow the federal government to take a way a woman's right to her own body.
* Did you ever support Al Gore? Because up until 1988, he was a reliable "pro-life" vote in the Senate. As was Dick Gephardt in the House. In fact, Senate minority leader Harry Reid is also considered "pro-life". Does that mean you wouldn't support these men, either?

What do you think about Hubert H. Humphrey or George McGovern? BOTH of these candidates were against "abortion on demand" in 1972, before Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. Would you have not voted in 1972, then?

Dennis Kucinich's abortion position has evolved over time. Even when he was "anti-choice", he STILL voted for family planning, contraception, and sex education-- hardly votes that would fit the "pro-life" profile.

I see absolutely nothing that qualifies Kucinich out of an array of possible leftist candidates.
* Dennis Kucinich stood up for the people of Cleveland by refusing to sell Muni Light to a private power company, even though it cost him his job as mayor, and caused Cleveland to default. That to me shows a selflessness that is lacking in most other candidates.

Incidentally, the same company that tried to take over Muny Light was also responsible for the East Coast Blackout in 2003. Talk about foresight!

He's also one of the few non-millionaires in high political office in this country. In fact, his net worth is somewhere around $60,000. He still lives in the same $20,000 house he's lived in since he was Mayor of Cleveland. He lives a very basic, non-materialistic, simple lifestyle. Dennis not only talks the talk, he walks the walk, too.

He spent part of his childhood homeless, and lived in a car with his mother, father and six siblings on more than one occassion.

He's also a card-carrying union member, just like I am. How many other presidential candidates and congresscritters have ever held a union card? I bet you can count them on two hands.

Dennis Kucinich is not only right on 95% of the issues, he also has VISION. He was the only candidate in 2004 who not only took the positions that 90% of the party supported, but also offered solutions to some of society's biggest ills. He didn't propose more band-aids to stop the bleeding-- he proposed innovative NEW ways to heal the injuries done to this country.

Kucinich was the only one in 2004 bold enough to call for a reduction in wasteful Pentagon spending, so that more money could be put into rebuilding our infrastructure. He was one of the few who called for a truly single-payer universal health care plan, and the ONLY one who had a realistic way to fund it.

Kucinich not only opposed the Iraq war from the start, he also opposed the Patriot Act-- one of a few brave members of congress to do so.

Dennis has devoted most of his life to public service, just because he felt he had an obligation to do so. He's not in it for the wealth or for the power: he just wants to help. In fact, the only reason he ran in 2004 was because he was drafted by 50,000 citizens, after his "Prayer for America" speech in 2002.

That's why I supported him in 2004. And if he runs again in 2008, I will probably support him then, too.

[imenja]

148. you make a good case

and I appreciate it, I knew nothing about his life story, and it is indeed compelling. It was clear to me he was not wealthy, based upon his dress, and that is certainly something in his favor.

I did not support Al Gore. I voted for Nader that year, though in retrospect I regret that given how terrible Bush has turned out.
I'm too young to have ever voted for Humphrey or McGovern. That they objected to so-called "abortion on demand," which we do not or have never had in this country, prior to Roe v. Wade does not strike me as comparable to Kucinich's voting against constitutionally protected rights. I respect his moral convictions, but a president makes supreme court appointments. That is one of his most important and lasting legacies. I will not support a candidate who I cannot trust to safeguard my fundamental rights.

I in no way doubt that Kucinich has a good heart and is a very well intentioned man. I have never doubted that. But what I see absent in him is the pragmatism and toughness required to be president. Not every good person is suited to be president. Most of us lack the kind of strength required for the position. Based on the debates, which was my only view of Kucinich, I saw a candidate lacking in key qualities. If he decides to run again, I will see what he has to say. But if asked to support him today, I decline.

[no name no slogan]

151. Hey, no worries. The last Dem president I voted for was in 1992...

...before this year (voted Nader in 1996 and 2000, because I'm in a blue state).

The debates were really unfair to DK in almost every respect. He got even less coverage than Sharpton did, even though Dennis was well above him in several polls. I remember that there was a press release from the campaign after the second debate that he got less than half the time of next-to-the-last candidate.

Also, FYI, one of Kucinich's planks in his 2004 platform was using Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for SCOTUS appointments-- something none of the other candidates would support.

Personally, I doubt he'll run in 2008. He didn't really want to run in 2004, but because of the circumstances he ran because, at the time, nobody was speaking out against the Iraq war or the Patriot Act. By the time he officially "announced", Dean had picked up the anti-Iraq banner, and the press annointed him as the "anti-war" candidate (even though his position was much more similar to Kerry's than Kucinich's). And the rest, of course, is history...
:)

[imenja]

153. I take issue with your depiction of Dean's position

I was a Dean supporter, and I decided to support him early on (before I had even heard of Kucinich) because of his forceful position on the war. Dean is far from a classic liberal, but his opposition to the war was clear from the time congress authorized the resolution. He was the first candidate to enter the race and was consistent in his opposition to the war, even when it was far from politically expedient to do so. Dean had a lot of problems in the campaign, which ultimately led to his own undoing, but he was far more consistent in his opposition to the war than Kerry. Both Kucinich and Dean displayed a strength of conviction that Kerry lacked. Kerry was near the bottom of my choices for nominee, but I nonetheless worked extremely hard to try to see him elected. He won't be winning my support in 2008, but I don't think I'll have a dilemma. Democrats will not be so quick to anoint him nominee again.

I think Sharpton got more coverage because he just sounds so good. He's engaging and entertaining. It just has a great way with words. The media couldn't resist that. Nor could I. I just loved to listen to him.

Carol Mosley Braun was a candidate I liked who was never taken seriously by the press. They refuse to consider black women as acceptable candidates. If we only had a candidate like Shirley Chisom today. Now that would be something.

[no name no slogan]

157. Have to respectfully disagree with your disagreement re: Dean and Iraq

Dean was not necessarily against the war in Iraq, he was against the way that it was carried out. In fact he basically supported the Biden/Lugar amendment, which would have given Saddam a 60-day ultimatum or face invasion, regardless of whether or not WMDs were found. This page has a good comparison of their stances on the issues.

Previous to the war, Dean's campaign was focused on healthcare, as he is a doctor and it was a strong issue for him. However, after he made a few comments about the war, he changed his focus. I know-- I was a Dean supporter before I heard of Kucinich and his platform. Also, Dean started his campaign early in 2002, long before Kucinich decided to enter the race (Feb 2003).

I also liked Sharpton and Mosely-Braun, but couldn't get behind them. Sharpton mainly because he was a polarizer (and was taking GOP $$$ to run, to boot), and Carol because of her past ethics "problems" in the Senate. However, I did agree with most of their positions, with the exception of M-B's approach to Iraq.

Speaking of Shirley Chisholm.... they reran the special on her on PBS last night. I'd known about her previously (was a PoliSci major in college in the 80s), but never knew all that much about the rest of her life.

I agree, she would have made a hell of a president. :hi:

[beyurslf]

115. Not the GE or the Primary

[imenja]

118. He couldn't win my vote in a primary or a general election

I simply don't believe he has the necessary character to serve as a remotely competent president. For me, it has to do with what I see as an absolute lack of practicality rather than particular positions. Some of his goals are admirable, like negotiating more just trade agreements, but the idea of immediately canceling all existing agreements upon assuming office is sheer lunacy. The global economy would undergo a tremendous shock that would harm all of us.
Many of his ideas look good on paper, but he doesn't seem to have the remotest idea of how to actually implement them. Perhaps he spoke in such ways in the primary because he had no intention of ever taking office. But I have no alternative than to take him on what he has said. I would much prefer Ralph Nader, Barbara Boxer (I would LOVE to see Boxer as president), or most any other leftist public figure I can think of. My objection is not ideological. It's a very strong impression I have that Kucinich would be entirely incompetent.

[goodhue]

121. Withdrawal from unfair trade treaties is not lunacy & would help, not harm

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/trade.php

Trade

If the United States is to be free to negotiate fair trade agreements that protect jobs, the rights of workers, and the environment, then there is no alternative but to repeal NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO. I have sworn to repeal NAFTA and the WTO, and I will unalterably continue to work toward these goals.

For a decade, we have been subjected to a grand experiment called NAFTA. When that agreement was signed in 1993, it was enthusiastically supported by big business, Republicans, and all too many Democrats. Now it is clear that this experiment has failed. We've lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs since July 2000. Over a half million of these are directly attributable to NAFTA. Our trade deficit grew to $418 billion last year and continues to climb. And, because of the WTO, corporations have been granted unprecedented powers to sue the government in closed trade courts anytime laws designed to protect workers or the environment are deemed to infringe on corporate "rights."

This is called "free trade." But where is freedom when jobs are lost? Where is freedom when industries threaten to move out of the country unless wages are cut? Where is freedom when the right to bargain collectively is crushed? Where is freedom when a union is broken? Where is freedom when you can't make a mortgage payment? Where is freedom when you can't send your children to college? An economic democracy is a precondition of a political democracy. Where is freedom?

It is time to reclaim state and local sovereignty, which NAFTA has usurped. No NAFTA, no Fast Track Authority. Fast track is a barrier. Fast track brought us NAFTA. It prohibits amending trade agreements. We could not amend NAFTA Chapter 11, which grants corporate investors in all NAFTA countries the right to challenge any local, state, or federal regulations, which, those corporations say, hurt their profits. No more back track on democracy. No more back track on workers' rights. No more back track on human rights. No back track on the Bill of Rights.

The Bush administration wants to extend NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere through the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). This proposal is being pushed by the administration and its Republican allies in Congress and the corporate world, although it is opposed by many leaders throughout Latin America.

The only way to undo the damage these trade deals have caused is to end them. If the United States is to be free to negotiate fair trade agreements that protect jobs, the rights of workers, and the environment, then there is no alternative but to withdraw from the WTO. If our agriculture, textiles, and other industries are going to be able to help pull the world up, rather than being dragged down to the level of serfdom or exported abroad, we must put an end to the disaster known as the WTO.

The NAFTA and WTO treaties include legal clauses permitting the signatory countries to withdraw from them at any time, following a routine notification period. The President should invoke these withdrawal clauses and once and for all take America out of an unfair system of corporate trade. We should return to bilateral trade conditioned on workers' rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles. This would provide security for American workers and for workers worldwide.

We need a new start. We must begin from scratch with decent, bilaterally negotiated trade agreements between this country and each other country we trade with, agreements that are based from the start on the needs of people and communities.

[imenja]

122. you haven't understood my point

The goal is an important one. Trade agreements as they exist are unjust. I have no dispute there. But to cancel them all immediately would certainly create economic shock. How do you think the stock market would react to such a move? How many workers will still have their jobs when companies plummet in value? How could the government maintain social programs with Great Depression level tax revenues? I acknowledge that the treaties need to be renegotiated, but all parties need to agree to the new terms. These are not unilateral agreements and should not be treated as such. I would support a candidate that says he / she wants to renegotiate such agreements. But the idea of single handedly abolishing them all in one fell swoop is dangerous and no doubt illegal as well. Canada and Mexico are parties to NAFTA and have a right to take part in the new treaties that would replace them. Moreover, congress would have to vote on any such abrogation. The Constitution specifically gives congress authority over treaties. Would you have Kucinich declare martial law so that he can impose his own policies without regard for constitutionally protected congressional procedures?

This provides a crucial example of why Kucinich is such a poor choice for a president. It's not that he is wrong about the consequences and terms of these agreements, but his ideas on the solution are impractical, dangerous, and most likely illegal. They also disrespect the nations that are party to those agreements. It's not enough to espouse ideas that might suffice for an undergraduate essay. Policies have to be implemented in ways that protect the American economy and acknowledge the political circumstances of how such changes can legally be made.

[goodhue]

123. NAFTA Article 2205: Withdrawal

Nothing illegal about it. Required six-month notice should soften any market reaction. I understand your point fully but respectfully disagree. IMHO Kucinich's policies are extremely well thought out.

Your understanding of constitutional law re treaties is entirely incorrect. The President, not Congress, is given the power to make treaties. Art II, Sec 2 of the US Constitution gives the president the power to to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

In the case of NAFTA, the language of the treaty itself provides for withdrawal upon six-month notice. Almost all treaties have similar withdrawal clauses that can be exercised by the executive without recourse to Congress.

Indeed, if you recall, this was precisely how President Bush withdrew from the ABM treaty on Dec. 13th, 2001. No Congressional involvement, no martial law. Bush simply took a pen and took the US out of the ABM treaty.

The suggestion that martial law would somehow be required would not suffice for an undergraduate essay.

FYI, here is the text of NAFTA Article 2205:

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=178#A2205

Article 2205: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.

[imenja]

125. two thirds of senators is hardly a technicality

Congress votes on treaties, period. They give the president negotiating authority, but they vote to ratify all treaties. Somehow you imagine 2/3 of a Republican Senate will defer to Kucinich? Or do imagine abolishing the Republican party as well? Hopefully Democrats will win back control of congress, but to imagine they will have 67 seats in fantastical. Then you have to consider how many Democrats will go along with your plot to bring down the global economy. I wonder if this isn't like the Republican SS scheme. Argue that the intention is to reform something, when all along the end result is mass destruction.

You may indeed be correct about the withdraw. Perhaps a president could withdraw unilaterally. And evidently he could single handedly bring about a global recession. Does that comfort you, or do you simply not care? If your concern is workers rights, your proposal doesn't achieve that. At any rate, 6 months is not what your fearless leader promised in the primaries. I always believed he had no intention of becoming president, so it didn't matter what he said. This whole thread is a waste of time. The fool will never win the nomination.

[goodhue]

126. 2/3 of senate already approved NAFTA including withdrawal clause

As with most treaties, the president can withdraw from NAFTA without consent of Congress. Congress does not vote on treaties "period", as you state, as the US House has nothing to do with it. The Congress does not give the president negotiating authority as you state; rather the US Constitution, Article II, Sec. 2 gives the president the power to make treaties, subject to Senate approval.

Withdrawing from NAFTA will not bring about a global recession IMHO. It is not a lack of caring on my part, but a lack of agreement with your premise.

When President Bush withdrew from the ABM treaty, Kucinich sued the administration and learned full well that Congress had no say in the matter. In June 2002, Kucinich and Feingold filed a lawsuit to prevent President Bush from withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty without a vote of Congress. They lost.

Kucinich repeatedly made clear that the withdrawal was on six-months notice, a notice he would provide on his first day in office.

Look, I respect the fact that you don't like Dennis. But I have a hard time abiding the claim that his policy positions are not well reasoned nor realistic. I'm no doubt overly sensitive on the issue, as I am a lawyer with a graduate degree in public policy who attended the national convention in Boston as a Kucinich delegate.

Please let's agree to disagree.

[imenja]

131. again, my disagreement is not in the goal

but that they have to be carried out in a reasonable fashion. I would prefer to see a president renegotiate treaties rather than unilaterally withdraw from them. I don't think it helps our world standing for Bush to behave in such ways, and I don't see why similar actions by Kucinich would be any better, despite his good intentions.
I find it impossible to imagine such a swift action would not result in a devastating response on Wall Street. Capitalists don't share yours or Kucinich's ideals. They want to make money. Changes need to be implemented in ways that balance financial concerns with workers rights. NAFTA is an atrocious agreement, and I despise chapter 11 in particular. But Americans need to start acting like we are part of the international community, not separate from it. Unilateral withdraw of any treaty is a demonstration of our self-proclaimed superiority and ignores are responsibilities and ties to the rest of the world.

Obviously we can agree to disagree on this issue. Primaries are intended to resolve such disagreements. I never suggested that you don't have a right to support your chosen candidate, but based on my view of Kucinich in the primaries, I did not like him. As a woman, I also care about maintaining a woman's right to abortion. I realize he changed his position on the issue in preparation for the presidential race, but I would prefer a candidate who does not have a voting record that undermines women's right to control our own bodies.

We don't know who will run in 2008, but we can be sure we will have different choices from 2004. I certainly hope so. My ideal candidate is Barbara Boxer, but this is not an ideal world.

[no name no slogan]

129. Canceling NAFTA doesn't mean ANY global trade

far from it-- trade would still carry on as it did before NAFTA was adopted. The rules in force previous to NAFTA would go into effect-- in essence, you'd go back to 1993 trade rules. The same goes with the WTO: if the US withdrew from that, we would simply revert back to the unilateral trade agreements we had in place before we joined.

Then you have to consider how many Democrats will go along with your plot to bring down the global economy.

Global trade has existed for thousands of years-- long before the WTO and NAFTA existed. Ships from Arabia were trading with the Indians and Chinese dating back 1,000 years, and the Silk Road brought exotic Oriental goods to Europe from going back to the Dark Ages.

Global trade and the global economy would still continue regardless of whether or not the US left NAFTA and/or the WTO. The US is the largest consumer economy in the world-- the rest of the planet would trade with us regardless of WTO membership. After all, the WTO isn't even a quarter-century old yet, so it's not like it has existed a long time, either.

At any rate, 6 months is not what your fearless leader promised in the primaries.

In fact, during his campaign, he said he would withdraw the US from NAFTA upon taking office. That means that the US would still have to follow NAFTA's provisions for the following six months-- after all, it's in the treaty language.

It's in the best interest of the US to cancel unfair trade agreements that only benefit rich transnational companies. If this means leaving the WTO and canceling NAFTA, then so be it.

[imenja]

141. My concern is the stock market response

that is what could trigger a global depression. Obviously I know trade has existed for centuries, though not for thousands of years, if you care to figure the Americas into your definition of global.

The goal of creating fair trade agreements is a fine one. The question is whether we want to renegotiate them with some concern for the other nations who are party to them, with concern for the impact on the world economy, or simply withdraw unilaterally, as Bush did from the ABM treaty and the preliminary Kyoto agreement. Do we really want future presidential administrations to act with similar disregard for our treaty partners?

[GOPBasher]

119. He's generally too leftist to win a general election, BUT

there is a chance that Bush might fuck things up so badly that we can nominate anyone and win. In that case, let's go Kucinich!!

[WilliamPitt]

127. No

[dweller]

139. how far the mighty have fallen . . .

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Pitt0126.htm


http://www.american-buddha.com/interv.ram.htm
What's your take on the world situation now after all the big changes of the last two years?

I' d like to say we're headed for a change in government, with Dennis Kucinich as president. But I wouldn't
bet on it. What we've got is untrammeled greed, greed, greed. Greed is overwhelming our compassion. The
times when government becomes uncompassionate, our human hearts hurt. The war in Iraq is a hurt in our
compassionate hearts.

Do you think that, as a human species, we're "getting it" and evolving in any significant way?

Yes. We're getting to the point where computer and television are not sufficient for our needs for
communication. We need communication with our hearts and that is really a heart to heart deal. I see the
human heart as the basic instrument for social change. Dennis Kucinich and I, we shared hearts.

How did you two connect?

The core, the consciousness, the compassion. We met twice. My heart met a human being. Which is very
unusual when you meet a politician. (Laughs) I'd like my heart to be represented in the government.

As you look at the global stage now, what do you see as the big dangers we face?

I'd say the environment is number one. We have to stem the effects of what's happening to the
environment, like global warming. The paranoia. We distrust those we call "them" and that's rife and stems
from our president. This country is mobilized only when we have a good enemy, like the drug war, the
cancer war, the cigarette war.

As you grow older now, how do you face death? What do you feel?

I feel wonder. I'm here Looking around and seeing the One manifesting. Looking at people and seeing God
manifested. I'm not on the production line of society. I'm not writing books. I'm doing them. It feels like a
very great privilege to not be in the work force.

How is your health and strength now?

I travel almost all the time. The wheel chair doesn't go a lot of places, like many hotel rooms. I get a kick
out of it all, the effect of my stroke on my arms and legs. I don't mind. It would be good to heal all this,
though. I do have a chair everywhere I go.

You seem completely lucid as ever.

Every now and then, my memory is hazy. It absolutely delights me, because there's a Buddhist story about
that: speak not of the past, anticipate not the future, then you will dwell in the ... I can't remember it.
(Laughs) Too many people think and spend time in the past and future and they're both just thoughts.

You mean they're not real?

That's right.

What do you think about what you wrote in "Be Here Now" (his million seller 1971 book).

I'm still here.

Is there anything you would add to the book now ?

I'd have to add: cultivate the faith that there are other planes than that which you deal with here. That faith
allows you to experience the grace of your life.

snip

peace
dp

[Illinois_Dem]

130. Two chances--- minute, and none whatsoever.

He couldn't even win 100 delegates in 2004, so I can't envision a scenario that puts him in the White House in 2008.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[0007]

135. I couldn't vote because I don't know! I'd like to see Dennis

win the presidency.

[doodadem]

137. Candidate Charisma

Ok, this is something I posted on the Evan Bayh thread, and didn't get any response, so I'll try again.
Love Kucinich, love what he stands for. But in the debates, he comes across as a demented elf.
Here's something I've never seen discussed yet: candidate charisma. I'm sorry, but I can name you a whole list of Democrats who do not have it--including the 9 who ran for the last presidential nomination. As much as I liked some of these folks, the only 3 that even had a little punch/charisma/star quality/sparkle, were Dean, Edwards, and Sharpton.
Hillary certainly doesn't have it (although she is married to the King of Charisma). Gore didn't have it. Nader does not.
We need to be thinking about this people. It is a quality that people will follow, even if they don't agree with everything else the person stands for, because their personality fills a room when they walk in. It is more than leadership, more than ideals.
Clinton had it, Kennedy had it (and so does Ted), sad to say, Regan had it.
We have to find that guy.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

138. Candidate Charisma? Its a joke

"Charisma" is the hobgobblin of the lazy modern American.

Such thought make me quite glad that men such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't have get elected in our MTV-soundbite-entertainment-empty calorie culture we are now.

They are two great men who would have been beaten.

[doodadem]

145. You're right, but

It's what we have to deal with now.

[cyclezealot]

149. How much does charisma matter?

Even when it means they are selling out to repug. interests causing us all to be screwed..Why would you think every Democrat is not capable of screwing us over certain critical issues. ?
Americans should be able to get over sound bit politics and know if a candidate is feeding us a line of crap...Never accuse Dennis Kucinich of that...
Most civilized countries of the world respect knowledge and appreciate depth and know policy wonks is what runs the world..Not grandstanders.

[Ron Green]

152. "Should" is the operative word in your post. Americans should be able to

get over the soundbite politics, but unfortunately American culture has become nothing but a giant Wal-Mart of weak and stupid ideas, not the least of which is "A handsome and dashing man will lead us to safety."

I beleive that the masses are ignorant all over the world, but the American masses are fatally so.

[Beacho]

150. No, but he should run anyway

As should Al Sharpton, et al. Getting the message out there is more important than viability.

BTW, let's spend some time on 06 and worry about 08 later

[suegeo]

154. The machines are rigged

Republicans own the voting machines and they rig them. Dennis is not a republican, therefore, he cannot win, what with crooked republicans stacking the machines against him.

[blindpig]

155. I'm a Kucinich backer, but the answer is no

The American people are too fucking stupid to know a good deal when they see it. Too brainwashed to know their own best interest. It's heartbreaking.

I'm coming to believe that the American people don't deserve the fair deal that a return to New Deal ideals represents, that we deserve all of the evil shit that's about to be heaped upon us.