Kucinich for prez in 08...what do YOU think?

[harpo]

I think Kucinich has the best platform and ability to win in 08...wondering what other people think. I don't think Clinton OR Edwards has a shot in hell but the media is trying to steer us in that direction like they did w/ Kerry instead of Dean (who would have won).

[beyurslf]

1. I don't think he has a chance at the nomination and even less chance at

the general election.

[harpo]

3. he could carry OHIO!

[beyurslf]

7. Or at least his House District in OH

[liberalmike27]

241. **********

Sadly, if people would listen to the vision of the candidates, rather than allowing the media to make all their choices, then maybe we'd get somebody good. From what I can tell, the media is in the driver seat. Look what they did to Dean, to McCain. It would seem the good candidates are always eliminated from contention, whether it be a black baby, a scream, or whatever device they will use in the future. Show concern for anyone but the most wealthy: Boom, the media hammer comes down.

[jsw_81]

18. Extremely unlikely

Based on Ohio's conservative shift in recent years, I'd say that Kucinich would probably lose the state by 10-15 points. He'd win Cleveland and some of the more liberal college towns, but he'd be crushed in the suburbs.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Ohio's actually gone more dem in recent years

Ohio used to be GOP heartland just like Indiana. Before Clinton, the only dems to win the state in recent history were FDR and LBJ and both of them won almost every state in the country.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that Ohio was the base of the GOP political machine led by Marcus Hanna back at the turn of the century. The local GOP is still strong there, they have a GOP gov, GOP legislature, and two GOP senators.

[Radical Activist]

51. Dems might have won Ohio if

we had a nominee that talked about the #1 issue there, which is the loss of jobs to free trade agreements. Instead, we nominated Kerry, who voted for those agreements. Now you tell me how that is more electable.

[snowbear]

52. Or....

...if Wally O'Dell would've created a DieBold that wasn't a LIEBold..

:shrug:

[sarahlee]

229. Dennis on CAFTA

Did you see the article on CAFTA on the kucinich.us home page today? Pretty good.

[fujiyama]

55. No

No he couldn't.

Let him first win a statewide office and then I'll start entertaining the possibility of him carrying the state in a presidential election.

[WI_DEM]

76. I don't care if he runs--he certainly has a strong voice on important

issues, but I highly doubt he could win. You say he could win Ohio. How could he win Ohio in a general election if he couldn't even do better than fourth place in the '04 primary--in his own home state.

[Mairead]

83. It's hard to know whether to call it 'unethical' or just 'stupid'

when people spend all their time during a campaign hysterically demanding complete loyalty in the name of ABB, cursing anyone who even suggests that they might choose not to toe the line, and generally making mindlessly-partisan asses of themselves

...and who then afterwards sneer at the candidates who suffered from that hysterical chicken-littleism. It's particularly distasteful, of course, when the hysteria was in aid of a dud who then sells everyone out before the dust even settles.


I'm not suggesting that this is a portrait of you, though you might check your chain of reasoning to see whether you've fallen for the line of bs that those dreckbergers put out. You might also consider how much evidence you have --if any-- that the Ohio primary results were on the up-and-up. And possibly even reflect on the relative parts played by candidate merit, money, and ownership of the media.

[BornaDem]

239. Now you're saying that the Democrat primaries are fixed...

in addition to the regular election? I'm already having a problem convincing myself it's worth voting in the election if "the fix is in," as so many DUer's believe. Why would anyone bother to vote again let alone try to get others to vote if EVERYTHING is fixed from in front? I don't understand how calling all elections crooked will get us anything but less voters.

[Freddie Stubbs]

153. He wasn't very popular with Ohio Democrats in Presidential primary

Kerry 617,611 52% 81 Delegates

Edwards 408,175 34% 55 Delegates

Kucinich 107,685 9% 4 Delegates

Dean 30,213 3% 0 Delegates

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/OH/

Dean had dropped out about two weeks prior to this, so Kucinich was essentially the last choice of Ohio Democrats. Apperently those who know him best didn't want him to be the party's nominee.

[harpo]

173. good data...exposure earlier can help resolve that, thanks!

[StudentOfDarrow]

233. No he couldn't.

I live in Ohio, and believe me, Kucinich would stand no chance. Common sense is not exactly common around here.

[genius]

54. Dennis is the only candidate who can unite the party and win Presidency

The only Democratic candidate who can win the general election is a candidate with a backbone and integrity. That makes Dennis the frontrunner. He came in second in votes at the convention. There are a lot of people here who are afraid of him. Don't listen to them. They're just upset that we have the winner this time.

[liberaltexas]

177. Sadly agree

Even though he has good platforms, I think he's a non-starter.

[lindsayg]

2. i'd vote for him

[MuseRider]

4. I agree with you

and would love to see it.

[Vickers]

5. I'd vote for him, and make sure my passport was current

:eyes:

[wuushew]

6. Dennis will easily earn my primary vote again in 2008

Hillary like the rest of the DLC will vote yes on the 2006 Iran War Resolution.

[Debs]

170. I love Dennis

I will vote for him given a chance. It does seem the kiss of death lately if I really like a candidate, instead of just being willing to support him. Obviously Dennis is very liberal, I am not sure he can win a presidential election. I am also not sure we should try to guess ahead of time about elect-ability. IF he most represents our values shouldn't that be reason enough to vote for him. Its reason enough for me. Perhaps what Dems need is someone that people will look at and say, well he was the choice of principle. Dems obviously didn't choose him for any cynical reasons. Perhaps what Dems need to energize OUR base, like the GOP energizes their extra chromosome voters IS a lefty with a populist message. I think what is most important is that he not be demonized by those who disagree to the point they don't think he can win even though they mostly agree with him. I am personally tired of the attacks on the liberal wing of the democratic party by the moderates. I know it goes both ways, the circular firing squads are part of our problem. IF you don't support Dennis fine, I certainly understand why but for goodness sake don't denigrate the man he has obvious integrity and his message is one that resonates with a heck of a lot of us liberals

[genius]

176. Dennis inspires people to strive for their highest values

Imagine how our party would be viewed if we actually nominated our best candidate?

[sellitman]

8. After Dean he is my next choice.

Dennis has great Liberal values and is more in line with my views however Dean has a fire that excites people more and would make a great President.

My .02

[Carolab]

143. I'm with you. Dean and Dennis are the best. n/t

[snowbear]

9. He was awesome in the debates...

But as the overall candidate? Uh.. set the pipe down and walk away slowly.. :smoke:
----------------

BADD: Boarders Against Drunk Drivel
Friends don't let friends post drunk.
Get the key(board)s, before it's too late. :beer:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. I'd vote for him in the Minnesota caucuses again

:-)

I believe in asking for what you really want instead of settling for what you think you can get.

[harpo]

21. that's right

[DeepGreen]

11. I would vote for Dennis anytime, the sooner the better ! nt

[Selatius]

79. Our system is too corrupt to handle Kucinich

You can vote for him in the primaries if you want, but the corporate news media as well as much of the political establishment will work to ensure that he gets nowhere. Kucinich has better odds running for office in a European country than in the US.

I hate to say it, but if any president with the integrity half as much as Kucinich got in office, he will end up being assassinated for pissing off too many entrenched interests.

[serryjw]

105. I love him but I 100% agree

I'd vote/work for him any time any day any year but he would have the same fate as Paul Wellstone.
MSM would eat him up, he would never get his voice heard and our DLC candidates would just ignor him like they did in 2004.

[MaggieSwanson]

12. I'd love it

Dennis is a visionary progressive, with his feet firmly planted in the ground. His ideas are pragmatic and practical, his ideals are unimpeachable, and he has my vote any day.

Want to know what he's been doing lately? Check out his updated website at kucinich.us for more info.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. I adore him, but no way will he get elected with our crappy corrupt system

[Zomby Woof]

27. Sadly, that is true

I am not popular around here for suggesting that not only is the system rigged beyond repair, but America doesn't deserve quality progressive leadership. We get what corporate America pays for. :-(

[harpo]

89. with that logic, why nominate anyone?

[Selatius]

114. You have more hope than most people here, I fear.

In my personal opinion, nobody like him will ever get close to the "throne" ever again. The presidency is no longer the people's presidency, not any longer. The same could be argued of the Senate and House. Kucinich will not have the love and support of the people. The corporate controlled media will ensure that. Even if that fails and he gains the love and adoration of the people, he will be virtually guaranteed a death sentence at the hands of those who detest justice and truth.

If you want to know why I say this, just go back 40 years when the people really had a chance to wake up from the slumber. All the leaders who could have had a shot at changing the course of the US in a way that could've more matched the ideals of social justice died. They were all murdered.

My heart of heart hopes you are right, but my mind says you are just going to repeat history.

[rman]

132. we don't do the nominating

not really anyway.

someone will be nominated anyway even when many people think there's no real point to it.

Kucinich would great, but i'm affraid it's not realistic.

[harpo]

146. actually we do..go to a state convention sometime

[Sparkly]

14. There are so many things I like about him.

But I don't think he represents enough of a spectrum to win either the nomination or the presidency.

I see him as an idealist, and in an ideal world, his vision could take hold. But I think he may have prioritized ideals over the Democratic party's best interests and chances for progress, and that doesn't help.

Just my 2 cents.

[loyalsister]

238. Agreed

His national constituency is very small.
And, he doesn't seem to be the kind of negotiator that a president has to be.

[unkachuck]

15. he'd make a damn good president too....

....but he's to short and ugly to get the job....remember, this is America, forget substance....

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[jsw_81]

17. Kucinich? No way

If you really think that Dennis Kucinich has a better chance of winning the presidency than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards then you have a lot to learn about American politics; I would literally bet my life savings that if nominated Kucinich would lose at least 45 states in a historic landslide.

Kucinich may be an excellent representative for Cleveland, but believe me there is no chance that he will ever be elected president or vice president (or senator, probably).

[harpo]

19. well I don't believe you...and I DO know a lot about politics ;)

[safi0]

20. I'll tell you what Kucinich

Supporters, have Dennis run against Mike Dewine in 06. If Dennis ran for that seat and won it would really go a long way twoards proving that he has some electability in a national election.

[WI_DEM]

77. Exactly

If he was Governor or Senator from Ohio he would have a better base to run and win Ohio if he did seek the presidency.

[harpo]

90. how many senators have won? 3 I think...please don't rely on senators!!!

[safi0]

96. 2 of those were in open

elections like 2008 will be

[Radical Activist]

50. In '04

Kucinich would have made an issue of Bush's lies about iraq and the jobs we lost to free trade without looking like a flip-flopping hypocrite because Kucinich actually opposed those things. He would have done at least as well as Kerry. I think people make a mistake by allowing conservatives to define what is electable for us. It isn't Hillary either. Never standing up for something unpopular doesn't make you more electable.

[eridani]

22. The question is really whether progressives can get that organized

Just about 100% of his supporters in my state had not ever worked in Dem political organization, and it takes longer than a year and a half to learn the ropes after you've decided that the Dem party is the right venue to promote progressive programs. If we can't organize well enough to do an end run around the media, then we can't elect him. Hell, we couldn't even elect someone who was far less of a threat to the New World Ordure.

[dkofos]

23. He was my choice in 2000

Unfortunately he was not the MSM's choice so he went nowhere
If Dems would listen to DK and not the media he would have a chance.

[goodhue]

219. in 2004

DK did not run for president in 2000

[FourStarDemocrat]

24. I think he'd make a great Pres, and I'd defiitely vote for him in the GE

but I think his chances of winning the Democratic nomination are extremely slim. We do need more leaders like him, no doubt.

[Eloriel]

25. I'm thinking --

I didn't like him to start with, I like him even less now that I've learned even more about his character, and I'm really getting sick, sick, SICK of being force fed the little dweeb.

I also think I'm now hiding threads on this subject and pretty soon I'm going to be hiding people.

[Zomby Woof]

26. How is he being force fed on anyone?

:shrug:

His character is unassailable, however.

[H2O Man]

32. No one's character is unassailable.

It may not be fair to him to elevate him in that manner.

The discussion regarding his being the democratic choice in 2008 is perhaps fun for some, and maybe in a different world he would have a chance of being president. But I think he has a little less chance than LBJ of being the democratic candidate in 2008.

[Zomby Woof]

95. Fair enough

I would agree that no one should be lauded too much, including DK.

As someone who supported him on principle, I damn well know his chances are slim to none. I have always been a realist about DK - I applaud his stances on the issues (not all of them, but close), and he usually says things I can get behind.

But not even during the furor of the primaries last year did I ever think he was going to get the nod. Two obstacles: money and America's right-of-center bent.

America isn't ready for a real progressive in the White House. This nation is still in its adolescence.

Although I remain a firm supporter of DK, I would agree with those who discount his chances in 2008, albeit with 100% respect for him.

[H2O Man]

127. Well said.

I think that our country needs to do a heck of a lot of work before we get to the stage where electing a person like Dennis K. is something that comes natural to us, rather than something of which the mere suggestion makes some democrats reactive. We are not there yet. We are actually moving further away from being able to grasp those values and policies that he advocates.

[XanaDUer]

28. What's wrong with his character?

...

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Mairead]

117. There's nothing substantial wrong with his character. (nt)

[CTLawGuy]

60. If he didn't...

make caucus day vote deals with war supporters to knock out fellow progressive candidates i might like him better.

Dennis makes me want to eat a big, juicy steak :9

[Mairead]

62. Don't you think you should be over that snit by now?

It's really unappealing. Misguided, too.

[CTLawGuy]

72. well

someone above did say Dennis' character was unassailable. and this is why I disagree.

It's sad that Dennis and his supporters can barely hide their jealousy about the success of Howard Dean. Howard Dean, just like Dennis, had no name recognition and no money, yet still managed to climb up to front runner status. If Dean could do it, then Dennis has no one to blame but himself if he cannot.

[Eloriel]

86. Oh, Bingo, BINGO!

Well done.

One quibble. It wasn't just the jealousy -- altho that seems to be insurmountable. It was also the fact that Dean slighted Dennis (or so DK thought) by not including him in the top tier candidates when Dean said, "I'm the only anti-war candidate..." DK had a shit conniption about that and as far as I can see never got over it. He's STILL not over it.

Someone PM'd me with this pretty little feint:

Your post in this thread (link) caught my eye. Would you mind sending me some links about his character? I have been unable to find much, as you can well figure googling such a thing is most difficult.

Thanks,

LOL. Isn't that sweet? A for Effort. So innocent.

Cluetrain: The ARE no links, at least none that I know of. I don't need some writer or blogger to tell me EVERYthing I need to know or believe. As an adult, and I get to gasp! make observations and assess behaviors on my own. And it's clear to me that I have a more highly evolved sense of what is "good character" than a lot of other DUers.

While there are many things he does RIGHT, here are the behaviors I've seen in DK that do not think exemplify integrity and character:

* Changed his mind about abortion. True, he changed it in the right direction, and put out some of the right words as justification -- but frankly not enough of the right words because the timing was suspicious: right before mounting his Presidential campaign. (Wasn't there something else similar he changed his mind about?)

* Displays unrelenting resentment toward Howard Dean -- jealousy and the incident(s) cited above -- and allows that to affect his behavior toward Dean.

* Played footsie with John Edwards in order to assist in the manipulation of the Iowa caucus votes (and voters!) with the only goal of depriving Howard Dean of that potential win. Call me a purist, I think THE PEOPLE ought to be allowed to choose -- without manipulation of the rules and the people (voters).

* I didn't follow it that closely, but it sure seemed to me that DK supporters (during the primaries and even to some extent now) all have the same skewed misconceptions about Dean, all skewed remarkably in the same or similar direction. Quite simply, they were told lies about Deam. Some of them have come to realize that what they THOUGHT they knew about Dean wasn't true, others still hang on. I don't have ANYthing to connect this directly to DK, but it had to come from somewhere, didn't it? Perhaps from his campaign and he had nothing to do with it. In any case, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth (along with everything else) and doesn't help me trust him or his people.

Seems like I'm forgetting something. Oh! I am!

* Lying about Dean. He did it again just the other day. And made a federal (public) case out of something he should've been picking up the phone about or more productively, speaking to Pelosi and Reid about.

As a result of all these, I have a VERY low opinion of him. You can laud him for his voting record and "his politics" (I used to), but I can't get past his pettiness and lack of character and integrity. Seems like those who can fall into two camps: those in denial and those for whom these character flaws aren't character flaws at all.

[harpo]

91. so if you take out the issue w/ Dean...what bad points can repukes use?

[Stand and Fight]

100. I sent the PM as an honest question.

Anyhow, thank you for also posting an honest inquiry on my part. I resent your insinuation. I simply wanted to know what you knew about Kucinich. I have not liked him very much myself, but I figured I could be enlightened by a long-time DUer. I have never been comfortable with merely saying, "Oh, there's just something I don't like about him." I also wanted to avoid igniting a flame-war, so I figured I would send you an PM to find out more. Never figured that it would be turned into something it was not. Nonetheless, thanks for sharing. At least now I have a basis for my dislike of Kucinich rather than abstract concepts.

[Mairead]

123. "At least now I have a basis for my dislike of Kucinich"

Wouldn't it be a good idea to check the reality of those 'facts' before accepting them at face value, though?

[Stand and Fight]

134. I seem to remember...

I seem to remember hearing this before; however, there is that old saying about what people wish to be true they readily believe... I will fact check, but I am sure I've read this before.

[Mairead]

122. Eloriel, I think you should check your facts and reasoning. (nt)

[Elidor]

211. Heavens to betsy! He sounds just like a...a...

A politician! What will we tell the kids?

[Mairead]

121. " Howard Dean, just like Dennis, had no name recognition and no money"

I'd suggest you check your facts and reasoning.

Dean is and was a multi-millionaire, a 'member of the club', someone who bragged of his conservative Vermont record to the Cato Institute when speaking there.

Yet despite having been an 'open secret' candidate for months (about a year, I believe) before Dennis declared in February '03, in March '03 his numbers and Dennis's were both bumping along in the noise. (Dennis's press guy did the research and even made a nice little chart from the data. I kept a copy.)

But then Dean started getting pumped by shills like Nagourney at the NYT, who shamelessly --he was not merely open about his partisanship to an interviewer who questioned it, he asserted his entitlement-- gave Dean 110 positive references during the same period he gave 10 disparaging ones to Dennis, with the results you're trying to ascribe to Dean personally. That simply doesn't wash. The numbers ascribable to Dean personally are those of the year before that, i.e. zilch. Yes, once Nagourney et al. inflated Dean's balloon, Trippi and Dean kept it in the air...but I know of zero evidence to suggest it ever would have got off the ground hadn't it been for the initial Media Inc puffery.

[CTLawGuy]

128. so Dean was able to impress the media

probably because of his record Internet fundraising from small donors donating less than 100 dollars and his loud denunciation of the war.

Also, theres a difference between being personally wealthy and having a wealthy campaign. I don't recall Dean keeping his campaign afloat with personal funds.

Dennis couldn't cut it. He's not a bad guy, but he wasn't able to move the mountains that Dean could.

[Mairead]

129. Sure. Just like Bush impresses them. And for broadly the same reasons.

I.e., he's a wealthy owner/supporter of the corporatocracy.

And both his contribs from small donors and his anti-invasion stance came after the puffery, not before.

As we know from the 20th February '03 Salon interview by Tapper, Dean was still at that point supporting the Bushian decision to invade. Like Bush, he would have preferred a UN figleaf, but he supported Bush's decision to invade even without the figleaf, and said so 'for about the eighth time today'. It was only the day after that interview came out --21st February 2003- that he was quoted in another interview as saying that he opposed the invasion and always had done, the latter claim being a breathtaking display of chutzpah that I don't remember anyone from Media Inc calling him on. But he hadn't yet scared them waxen with his populist talk of dismembering Media Inc, so he was still their Golden Boy at that point; they hadn't yet realised that they would want to prophylacticly kill his candidacy too.

[CTLawGuy]

133. that is incredibly wrong

1. Do you have ANY evidence that Dean is a supporter of the corporatocracy?

2. In the article you are referring to, Dean believes that we should disarm Saddam Hussein if we find he is armed. We have a right to protect ourselves from WMD, even unilaterally. Dean opposes the invasion of Iraq because he believes the president never made a case that Iraq threatened the US, or that it had WMD.

3. Nowhere does Dean say he supports the invasion. He supported the idea of protecting the US from WMDs. Dean was not willing to take action where none was proven to be necessary.

4. To say Dean supported the invasion is to say Dennis opposes the first amendment because he voted for the flag burning amendment last year (which he did).

[Mairead]

135. No, it isn't.

"1. Do you have ANY evidence that Dean is a supporter of the corporatocracy?"

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.

...

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

That looks rather supportive to me. I can't think of a progressive who'd expect their politics and record to be 'really like(d)' by Cato cap-libs, can you?



"2. In the article you are referring to, Dean believes that we should disarm Saddam Hussein if we find he is armed. We have a right to protect ourselves from WMD, even unilaterally. Dean opposes the invasion of Iraq because he believes the president never made a case that Iraq threatened the US, or that it had WMD.

3. Nowhere does Dean say he supports the invasion. He supported the idea of protecting the US from WMDs. Dean was not willing to take action where none was proven to be necessary."

No, you're putting words into Dean's mouth. There are no conditionals in what Tapper reported that Dean said, no "if we find he is armed". It's straight support:

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

As reported here by Tapper, Dean uncritically accepted Bush's WMD claims and went on from there. No conditionals. He accepts WMDs as given, would like a UN figleaf, but is happy to attack without it if the UN won't play. Just as I said.

[CTLawGuy]

139. even Mike Malloy agrees that Dean is not a "corporate Dem"

It's no secret that Dean is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But he is not for a "corporatocracy". He is even for breaking up the big media conglomerates. He doesn't believe corporations are evil, but he doesn't believe they are trustworthy and should be left alone either.
--

Also, Dean, in his uneducated opinion, believed back then that Saddam probably had WMD. He admits that. From the idea that someone should be disarmed a belief necessarily follows that someone is armed in the first place. He clarified his position by saying that Saddam should be given 30-60 days to disarm or action should be taken.

You are assuming that Dean must be in favor of the overthrow of Saddam, militarily and unilaterally, based on that statement.

Where in that statement does he specifically endorse an invasion which results in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Iraq?

Or, please explain to me how invasion and overthrow is necessary in order to disarm a nation?

Is it not possible that effective military action could be as simple as locating a weapons bunker and bombing it?

Is it not possible that reports from the inspectors could cause Dean to question his uneducated belief about WMD?

Is it impossible for Dean to demand proof of necessity before actually endorsing a specific military action, despite what he endorses in a probable situation?

(For example, I could say "I think Michael Jackson is a child molester, so he should go to jail," if I am just a man on the street, but also say if I am a juror at his trial, and I have to actually SEND him to jail, "I believe he is probably guilty, but I must wait for a strong case before acting.")

is it impossible that Dean could realize later that Bush is up to no good with Iraq and therefore oppose his questionable actions there?

[Mairead]

145. So what? Did I miss the memo where Malloy was named final authority?

"It's no secret that Dean is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But he is not for a "corporatocracy". He is even for breaking up the big media conglomerates. He doesn't believe corporations are evil, but he doesn't believe they are trustworthy and should be left alone either."

He says he's for breaking up media conglomerates. His entire behavioral history, however, says different (whence his expectation of a warm reception by the corporatocratic Cato members). His campaign rhetoric was completely at odds with his behavior while in office. Has he changed? As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of actual --as opposed to lip-service-- change. I know that his 'break them up' rhetoric seemed to scare the corporatocracy enough that they killed his campaign, but I know of no evidence for their apparent fear being justified.

"Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" is the very definition of the corporatist attitude.


"Where in that statement does he specifically endorse an invasion which results in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Iraq?

Or, please explain to me how invasion and overthrow is necessary in order to disarm a nation?

Is it not possible that effective military action could be as simple as locating a weapons bunker and bombing it?

Is it not possible that reports from the inspectors could cause Dean to question his uneducated belief about WMD?

Is it impossible for Dean to demand proof of necessity before actually endorsing a specific military action, despite what he endorses in a probable situation?

(For example, I could say "I think Michael Jackson is a child molester, so he should go to jail," if I am just a man on the street, but also say if I am a juror at his trial, and I have to actually SEND him to jail, "I believe he is probably guilty, but I must wait for a strong case before acting.")"

Oh please! His statement could not have been more clear. Nobody was in any slightest doubt about the nature of Bush's criminal plans. If Dean had something different in mind then the rules of English required him to actually come right out and say so. Dean was doing what Kerry had done and was doing: supporting Bush's crime against humanity.

[CTLawGuy]

151. Mike Malloy is pretty knowledgable when it comes to these things

If Dean was not for breaking up conglomorates, why would he go on TV and say he was for it? So he can shoot himself in the foot? So he can make the media hate him?

If someone is a DLC democrat, why would they go down the path that Dean did? Why not toe the DLC line and line up the big corporate donors? Why call the DLC the "Republican Wing of the party"?

When I see Dean's past actions, I see him signing a civil unions bill that had 30% support in an election year.

He DID NOT wait until after the election to sign it.
he DID NOT call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Court's decision.
He DID NOT simply ignore the court.
He DID NOT rant about activist judges.
He defended the idea of civil unions and equal rights throughout the campaign.


Re Iraq: you didn't respond to any of my questions.

Since you're not responding to my questions, maybe you can explain to me why Dennis thinks someone who burns the flag should go to jail?

[Mairead]

152. The first time Malloy walks on water, let me know, okay? Til then...

I don't know where Dean really stands. I know some of what he said during the campaign, and I know some of what he did during his actual time in office. They are very different. Now, did he really have an epiphany and consequent change of heart? I have no evidence for that. Do you have any? If so, trot it out.

"Re Iraq: you didn't respond to any of my questions."

Yes, I did. I just didn't say what you wanted to hear.

"Isn't it possible that Dean could be pro-non-invasion action ONLY to get rid of WMD? It makes sense considering he supported the Biden-Lugar compromise, which limited Bush's authority to the narrow purpose of getting rid of WMD."

Sure. It's also possible that he was planning to provide every surviving Iraqi family with a house and a car and a lifetime pass to Disneyland, too. I don't think he mentioned that either, did he?

The "Biden-Lugar compromise" was an exercise in hot air. It limited nothing. It was an attempt by a DLCer and a PNACer to fig-leaf Bush's crime, but it was too transparent to cover anything and everyone knew it--especially the BushCo criminals.

[CTLawGuy]

154. no, if you read up on Biden-Lugar, you'll find it's very substantive

that's why Bush didn't want it. That's why he wanted IWR.

Another interesting Malloy fact: he said that Dean was not a REAL Democrat. he admitted that Dean was not a CORPORATE Democrat, but he believed the only REAL Democrat in the 2004 race was...

Dennis Kucinich.

---------
""Isn't it possible that Dean could be pro-non-invasion action ONLY to get rid of WMD? It makes sense considering he supported the Biden-Lugar compromise, which limited Bush's authority to the narrow purpose of getting rid of WMD."

Sure. It's also possible that he was planning to provide every surviving Iraqi family with a house and a car and a lifetime pass to Disneyland, too. I don't think he mentioned that either, did he?"
---------

Your response is irrelevant. You can't put words into Dean's mouth. You can't just turn a position in favor of simple disarmament into a position in favor of unilateral invasion and conquest with no justification and still be intellectually honest.

Disarmament does not equal invasion and overthrow, and based on Dean's statement I don't see where he indicates he favors the latter.

[Mairead]

160. Really? What was the penalty?

"Your response is irrelevant. You can't put words into Dean's mouth. You can't just turn a position in favor of simple disarmament into a position in favor of unilateral invasion and conquest with no justification and still be intellectually honest."

You know, I can hardly believe I'm reading this. I am the one providing the evidence. You are the one claiming that what he said is not what he meant!

I find a strong parallel here between what you're trying to do and what the 'Christians' cultists do who claim the power to pick and choose from the bible. I also find it extremely distasteful.

[CTLawGuy]

161. I am criticizing your interpretation of

Dean's statement. You concclude that Dean supports Bush's unilateral invasion based on his statement that Saddam ought to be disarmed.

However, you cannot logically make that leap without more evidence. Since you are accusing Dean of being in favor of Bush's policy, YOU must prove that Dean truly is in favor of that policy. You need more evidence than he wanted Saddam to be disarmed.

The evidence points AGAINST Dean being in favor of the invasion...

-From http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cdp0303/dean031503spt.html

"What I want to know, what I want to know, is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq? " -Howard Dean

-From http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-16-dems-cover-usat_x.htm

"My position on the war in Iraq has not changed," Dean told the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles. He said the administration "launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help and at an extraordinary cost so far of $166 billion."

[Mairead]

164. I'm *not* interpreting his statement, except as required by English itself

"You concclude that Dean supports Bush's unilateral invasion based on his statement that Saddam ought to be disarmed."

No, based on the rules of the English language. If he had meant something other than what Bush was planning--unilateral invasion, massacre, and endless occupation--then the English language required him to say so. That's how English works. Just as if you say "I saw John today. He isn't feeling well." every single native speaker of the language would understand that you meant John isn't feeling well. If you really meant that it's George, not John, who's doing poorly, then you would have to explicitly say that.

Dean supported Bush's criminal conspiracy. He's not a stupid man, nor is English a second language for him. If he intended to express conditional support or support for a different kind of action he could have done so in a myriad of ways. He didn't. He supported BushCo's plans unconditionally, just as Kerry did.

The evidence points AGAINST Dean being in favor of the invasion...

-From http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cdp0303/dean031503spt.h...

"What I want to know, what I want to know, is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq? " -Howard Dean

-From http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2...

"My position on the war in Iraq has not changed," Dean told the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles. He said the administration "launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help and at an extraordinary cost so far of $166 billion."

Check the dates.

[CTLawGuy]

167. the dates are from 2003

so what?

---

according to your "rules of English",

"I support giving Saddam 60 days to disarm, or disarming him by force" is equivalent to "I support a unilateral invasion (without any evidence) to overthrow a sovereign government and occupy a country."

Does that also mean if I say that you should not have the right to carry a gun, then I must mean that you should be expelled from your house?

Or is it only if you are jealous of me?

[Mairead]

174. Yes: *after* the Salon interview. Part of his sudden non-change-of-heart

"according to your "rules of English",

"I support giving Saddam 60 days to disarm, or disarming him by force" is equivalent to "I support a unilateral invasion (without any evidence) to overthrow a sovereign government and occupy a country."

Please don't be disingenuous. It should be beneath you. The rule in English is that the context determines the meaning of anything not explicitly spelled out. The context was BushCo's intention to invade Iraq, massacre its people, and occupy the country while stealing its oil. It was not about someone else named Saddaam, it was not about some other country, it was not about sending flowers, it was not about sending in a gaggle of cops to arrest him, it was not about 'nuking Iraq til it glows', it was not about seeing whether he had WMDs, it was not about asking the SpetsNaz to go in and assassinate him. It was about the international crime against humanity of aggressive war for profit.

Had Dean wanted to change the context, he would have had to say so. When someone simply changes context without warning, it's called a 'non sequitur'. Dean would have had to say something like 'I'm opposed to Bush's plan to invade Iraq because a lot of innocent people would be killed. I think we can disarm Hussein by doing X instead'. He didn't say anything of the kind.

As of 20th February 2003, Dean supported BushCo's crime. After that, it's anybody's guess---though as RedQueen points out, just last week he expressed continued support for the criminal occupation.

[CTLawGuy]

178. What you are doing

is making convenient assumptons about the context of Dean's statements,

the assumptions that allow you to demonize Howard Dean and make yourself feel better.

Also, where does Dean even mention Bush OR his plan to invade, in that statement? You are ASSUMING Dean is agreeing with Bush's specific plan.

He was probably asked what he would do about disarming Saddam independent of what Bush wanted to do. I'm sure all the candidates were asked that.

[Mairead]

183. Read what Tapper wrote.

I've been a native speaker of the English language for 64 years and I know how languages work. There is simply no other valid way to interpret what Tapper reported. You can demand til Hell warms up that people accept your fantasy, but the reality is that you have nothing to support your demand but wishful thinking. That's the bottom line, DarBoy, and I'm done trying to persuade you to own up.

[CTLawGuy]

184. well may God bless you then

if you are positive that "disarm" means "invade and conquer" and only "invade and conquer" then I can't budge you.

Believe what you will, the fact is Dean has been a champion of the anti-invasion position, the taking of which turned the entire establishment against him, and eventually sank him.

Believe me, if Dean were really FOR the invasion, he would have done better just to come out and say so, and get the backing of the DLC establishment, and avoid the dreaded "Liberal" label from the media.

But he held firm in his convictions.

[redqueen]

155. Well we know he hasn't had a chance of heart about Iraq.

He's pro-occupation. Said so last week, didn't he?

[CTLawGuy]

162. he's not happy that we have to stay

but he realized the horrible alternative a chaotic anarchy would provide.

[redqueen]

163. Who suggested anarchy?

Did you see this story?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1765051&mesg_id=1776372

Our presence is making things worse in Iraq... not better.

[CTLawGuy]

165. anarchy is what happens when the central force in a country

suddenly becomes powerless, falls apart, or leaves. I agree that we need to change how our soldiers interact with the people, but without a stable power source to take our place, every interest in Iraq will vie violently to gain that power, hence civil war.

there's no excuse for torture and civilian death, but we can't just leave without making sure there is something that will keep order and protect people there.

[redqueen]

166. Foreign troops...

hasn't it been said enough? Turn over control (and some of the profit - which is why this is being fought SO HARD against) to other countries.

[CTLawGuy]

168. Dean is FOR that

but Bush is not biting, sadly.

But the foreign countries are not going to go in becuase they know the cost.

Dean advocated so hard against the invasion because he knew this would be the result - quagmire. I wish the Dems had listened to him.

[redqueen]

169. He is?

If so, why did he just say we're stuck?

And how do we know foreign countries won't go in? Has anyone asked and allowed that the reconstruction contracts/profits will be up for grabs as well? I think not.

[CTLawGuy]

171. we are stuck

in the sense that we can't leave immediately, because there aren't enough foreign troops to take over for us.

[redqueen]

172. That wasn't the sense of the context...

It was we are stuck and we'll have to hope bush's plan works... not we are stuck for now and we'll have to hope our leaders can coordinate with foreign leaders to get more cooperation so we can bring our troops home.

No one has said anything about immediate withdrawal.

I wonder why strawmen like that keep being brought up. (Not really.)

[CTLawGuy]

179. Dean said he hoped Bush's plan worked because he

knows Bush is not going to consider doing anything else.

I'm sure Dean is not in favor of civil war and theocracy in Iraq.

[eridani]

186. And we let what Bush will consider doing determine our policy?

• Bush did not invade to get rid of WMD. There were none.

• Bush did not invade to fight Al Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and the invasion in fact took resources away from that project. He maintains close business relationships with Saudi Arabia, which funded and continues to fund Al Qaeda.

• Bush did not invade to get rid of Saddam. He explicitly stated that the invasion was still on even if Iraq's neighbors succeeded in their plan to convince Saddam and sons to go into exile.

• He did not invade to bring democracy. He fought having elections for as long as he could, and is now unwilling to abide by the platform of the party with the most votes, which calls for phased US withdrawal.

He invaded Iraq for one and only one reason, to plant a permanent military presence there against the wishes of its population, in order to rule the entire region by force. To wish Bush success is to approve of this goal.

Now, many people figure that this is all water under the bridge since we invaded despite all rational objections, but isn't a better outcome for Iraq possible in the long run?

My answer to that is the following analogy. Suppose you catch someone ripping the stereo out of your car. Is your reaction to say "Stealing my stereo is wrong, but as long as you started you are morally obligated to finish the job"? That's obviously stupid, but is it nonetheless possible that you could wind up better off after the theft? Of course it is. Your insurance company could decide to reimburse you for the whole thing, and you could wind up with a newer stereo with many more extra features. But the catch is that you won't end up better off if the thief continues to stalk you waiting for another chance. The only way for that better outcome to occur is if the thief is put permanently out of the picture.

So, yes, it might be possible for Iraq to be better off in the long run, but only if the goal of the invasion, namely using it as a permanent military base, is taken completely off the table. And it's up to them--"democracy" imposed at gunpoint isn't really democracy.

And yes, reasonable people can disagree about the best way to do withdrawal and how long it might take.

[CTLawGuy]

187. interesting point

however the analogy you give is not quite accurate.

If someone is in the middle of stealing your stereo, it doesn't create a situation where simply running away would make the situation worse.

A better analogy is if a bunch of teenagers trash a house, set furniture on fire and dump the fridge contents out on the floor they should be made to clean up what they destroyed to the best of their ability. Should they just leave, and let the furniture burn up, and the food spoil, or should they work to put out the fire and preserve the food?

It would be questionable to say that the right thing for them would be to just leave the house in that state and let the victims clean up.

It would be even more questionable to accuse someone who suggests they should clean up the mess they made of supporting the trashing in the first place.

[eridani]

191. If that happened to me, what I would want from them--

--is a whole buttload of money, and their vicious thuggish selves out of my house and my life forever.

With 70% unemployment in Iraq, what in bleeding hell are we doing taking work away from them? We pay THEM to do the work, and instantly the recruitment pool for insurgents dries up.

And we are vigorously promoting civil war there, not preventing it. What did you think would be the effect of hiring Kurds to help destroy Sunni Fallujah, or Shi'ites to control the roadblocks around Sunni towns?

[CTLawGuy]

194. but you think its fair that you should clean up your own house

ok, thats your preference, I just disagree I guess.

[redqueen]

195. Have you really not noticed that that's the Iraqi's preference, too?

Honestly!

[CTLawGuy]

197. I realize the Iraqis don't want us there, and I understand why,

but I don't think they realize what will happen if we leave without a central power in our place.

Frankly, if you think that once we leave, if we don't leave a central power, they will all join hands, sing songs and become friends, you are just as naive as Bush when he claimed the Iraqis hated Saddam so much they would greet us with flowers when we "liberated" them.

[redqueen]

198. *sigh*

Of course I don't believe that.

I don't think you're really interested in having a real discussion about this, or you wouldn't forget what's already been said.

Good day.

[CTLawGuy]

200. OK, I'll bite

what am I missing?

I'm just saying that it's not a good idea to just up and leave in a situation like we have in Iraq.

[Mairead]

204. "I don't think you're really interested in having a real discussion"

I had the same reaction. My feet started to hurt from dancing around in that tight little circle. When the pain spread upward and lodged just above the top of my legs, at the back, I quit.

[tinanator]

210. bush isnt naive

how can you make that claim?

[bvar22]

212. And if we stay in Iraq and continue to kill Iraqis,

at what point will the Iraqis suddenly "join hands, sing songs and become friends." How may MORE Iraqis do you think we will have to KILL before they suddenly put down their guns and say,"Gee, I guess you guys are right!"

It is you, my young friend, who is painfully naive. Read up about Vietnam or the French occupation of Algeria.

US killing more Iraqis is not the SOLUTION.
US killing Iraqis is the PROBLEM.

[eridani]

226. No, I hire someone to do it with the money they owe me n/t

[youngred]

203. yeah I'm jealous of Howard Dean and his "progressive" record

all of this is quite pathetic. I thought we had left this brand of intra-party-idiocy behind us to focus on the more important battle against the other side.

VIVA POUM

[youngred]

202. so sick

yet you always post to attack the "little dweeb"...

[Radical Activist]

29. I'm going to see if another real progressive runs.

Progressives had a difficult choice to make in '04. It would have been nice to have a stronger progressive candidate with a better organized campaign than what Kucinich had. A lot of people went to Dean as a more "realistic" choice, but he wasn't progressive anyway.

I'll consider Feingold or Edwards and see who else runs.

[Kevin Spidel]

34. Feingold or JJ Jr in 2008

is my vote ;)

[Radical Activist]

44. Both would be good choices.

We'll see if JJ Jr runs for Mayor like they say he might. I guess that could be a step to the Presidency too. :)

[imenja]

116. Boxer would be great

[Mairead]

207. "... with a better organized campaign than what Kucinich had"

Why not sign up for the program to build him a campaign organisation, then? Wouldn't that be better than settling for catch-as-catch-can?

[Radical Activist]

30. If everyone who liked DK but didn't support him because he had no chance

had actually supported him in '04 then he would have won the primary in a landslide. There's no question about that.

Liberals are our own worst enemies because we don't support each other. Self doubt and lack of confidence in the appeal of our views do more to harm liberal candidates than anything the Republicans do.

Stop letting the corporate media brainwash you into thinking liberals don't have a chance. The fact that you believe that is the #1 reason liberals don't have a chance. Its your own fault!

[safi0]

37. Don't act like were the only ones who

Do that. If many Pukes had, had their #1 choice in 96 and 2000 Alan Keyes or Bauer would have been there candidate, but they picked the candidate they felt had a better chance of winning the GE

[Radical Activist]

45. They picked someone who represented their views

Who also had a chance at winning. That's what I would like us to do. But, any progressive no matter how good they are as a candidate is automatically dismissed as unelectable, at almost every level of government.

[MrSlayer]

31. I think he'd be great but would also get killed.

The Kooch is a great progressive candidate but would be slaughtered for his looks and would be painted, as he already is, as a godless, maniac, ultra-liberal socialist who would give the country to the terrorists. I voted for DK in my primary because General Clark was long gone by April, I like the guy and love his politics but he would have no chance in hell of winning once the right wing hate machine ran him over. It sucks but it's true.

[Radical Activist]

53. They did that to Kerry anyway.

They'll do it to anyone we nominate. The reason he won't win is that liberals don't believe a liberal will win and therefore don't put up a fight. That's how the conservatives defeat us. The kind of attitude in your post has more to do with progressives like Kucinich losing than anything the Republicans do.

[harpo]

92. liberal/godless is what you have so far (like Kerry)...what else ya got?

[suigeneris]

33. My opinion, he has 0 chance of winning. Sorry, he's a good guy. (nt)

[googly]

36. I will drink to that...............

:toast:

[Pilgrim4Progress]

38. Heard him give a powerful speech

Dennis gave an incredibly impassioned speech at our state convention last year. He had me in tears.

Having listened to another well-known speaker the previous night who gave a very polished performance, but without conveying the same deep conviction and passion, Dennis' powerful, moving and genuine delivery was a major surprise. I'm glad I got to hear him. He really earned my respect that day.

[sharonking21]

68. Same here but

If you are referring to the Texas state convention, I agree with you. Kucinich gave by far the best speech of the entire convention and it really 'upped' him in my esteem as a politician. Further, I really like him. But, I don't think he would have even a ghost of a chance in the general election.

[harpo]

88. why not? Specifics please

[sharonking21]

97. Because I think he has already

been assigned or taken on the role of the one who is too far out there on the left to go over with your average voter. Further, he has kind of slipped into a stereotype of one who is not all that practical.

It is not fair perhaps, but the Department of Peace thing didn't go over with most people. Same with the vegan thing. And here anyway he kind of became associated in people's minds with some of his supporters who introduced multiple resolutions at conventions that most people didn't see as "doable." The same supporters visibly made themselves albatrosses around his neck with antics like appearing with purple hair etc.

None of this is very profound, but unfortunately it really matters to most voters. Most want a President with some presence or dignity and they have not come to view him in that way.

That is why I was so surprised that when he spoke at the Texas convention, I ended up thinking his speech was the best--you see, unconsciously I hadn't taken him seriously previously. And I think the same kind of thing would be operative when it came to the general elections.

[harpo]

102. thanks for the feedback!!! This gives us something to work on...

for the next few years :)

[sharonking21]

103. I'm glad to give it and I

hope you didn't take it amiss. I wanted to be honest with you while still letting you know I think he is a good man.

[harpo]

106. no offense taken-feedback is a good thing! It helps people improve ;)

[Digit]

39. Don't think he could win...not popular enough...good guy tho.

[harpo]

93. why couldn't he win? If we start now we can fix that

[Digit]

138. If you don't know, you are not being objective enough.

[Guaranteed]

40. Ever send a snowball down to hell?

Yeah, that's what that would be like.

[Zorra]

41. He would be best President the US ever had. Unfortunately, we would

have to mount a frenetic word of mouth and internet campaign, beginning right now, because the last thing corporate America wants is Dennis Kucinich kicking their fascist asses out of our government forever and re-establishing a full-on genuine Democracy in the US.

Media coverage of DK would be either nil or they would slaughter him with lies.

Kucinich/Conyers '08

[Mairead]

63. And that campaign is exactly what we should be ramping up right now

We need to

• Get the word out about his history, politics, and character
• Create a feedback mechanism so that people can verify at any moment exactly how not-alone they are; and
• Develop a mechanism for bringing in many tiny donations on demand, so that it's obvious to potential political endorsers which way the wind is blowing

If we do that, we're in with a good chance.

So how about it?

[zulchzulu]

42. Got any more in that pipe you're smokin'?

Surely you jest.

[harpo]

43. surely I'm serious...my delegate vote in Texas is going for him

[zulchzulu]

70. If there's any indication on his performance in 2004...

...Al Sharpton beat him.

Hey, I like Dennis...I also want to win in 2008. And it will never happen with Dennis as the Democratic candidate. If you think he would have national appeal and win, I'd love to see your scenario.

I'm talking "real world", not "fantasy world"...

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[harpo]

48. first you say I need to put down the pipe, now you say I'm drinking...

Who do YOU want?

[Algorem]

47. He should run because he's the only one with the huevos grandes enough

to say what really needs to be said.I mean,he needs a wheelbarrow.

[snowbear]

49. Oh definitely he should run... but....

Just don't want harpo getting too bummed out.. :hug:

[No Michael Savage]

56. Anyone who will pull America out of NAFTA and the WTO has my vote.

Kucinich in 2008!

[Mairead]

57. So, of those who want DK in the WH in '08, how many are willing

to sign up and actually do the necessary spadework?

He won't get there no matter how many people clench their fists and Wish Real Hard (that's what everyone did last time--and, regrettably, I have to include myself in that 'everyone'), but it just might happen if enough people Work Real Hard in a non-random way. So, are there enough people willing to do that?

[Mairead]

82. gee, that many, huh?

and people wonder why we get crap, sellout candidates who give up before the votes are counted.

[harpo]

87. sure, count me in! I signed up the other day on his site

[Mairead]

124. If you're serious, great!

Go into the DK Group, read Genius's thread ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=272x306 ) and if you still feel the same way, sign up.

[katinmn]

58. I would vote for him but I think we must focus on '06 now

[theboss]

59. I think he'll get at least 5 percent in the Primary again

He was such a strong candidate last time, he may gain a percent or two.

[NoPasaran]

64. I'm thinking that my grip on reality has improved

Since I quit starting every day with a couple of bong hits.

Just a suggestion...

[goodhue]

65. I think that rocks.

All things are possible.

[realFedUp]

66. No nt

[CWebster]

67. Why the hell not

If a shrew-like, brain-dead, flaming inbecile can run this place into the ground, and a cadaverous snob living out his JFK fantasy can be "most electible", then who is it that decides that Kucinich, who at least calls it like it is, hasn't got a chance?

As long as we accept who they tell us hasn't got a chance, then all we will ever get is who they decide does.

[Mairead]

69. It's amazing how predictable some people's responses are, isn't it?

I bet that you and I could make separate lists of the 'Democratic' posters who are always on the alert for chances to jump in and badmouth progressive politics ...and it would be 99% the same list.

[eridani]

108. Uncalled for slam of Kerry

However, it just points out that the Rethugs control the memes. Any Dem deviating from eheir agenda will be called unelectable. Why not advocate what WE want, for a change?

One thing for sure is that if we are going to do an end run around the media for any candidate, we need to be better organized.

[CWebster]

118. Slam of Kerry

That is the reality and in the context of the debate it was applicable.
Candidates don't walk on water just because they are Democrats and ignoring Kerry's liabilities as well is a formula for failure.

[eridani]

120. I was just pointing out that Karl Rove and the media--

--would treat any Dem candidate the same.

[CWebster]

125. You are right about that

I was just responding to the title of your post. But you do have a point--those on the Right are downright bullies, but so few call them on it loudly and consistantly because the Democrats are so often compromised. Now, they could've had a candidate with Dean, who could've spear-headed a populist style revolt, but the party leadership was threatened. The question now is have they effectively neutered Dean from promoting desperately needed reform?

[MsTryska]

71. Sweet jesus......

you think the republican machine was rough on a sporty athletic, vietnam vet that took a bullet in the ass - what the hell are they gonna do to a vegan pacifist?


not that Dennis would take it lying down tho. I bet he'd come back with some really good zingers.

[LittleClarkie]

73. Bless him

Once they got that far down in the list, folks had a hell of a time even remembering his name. No name recognition. And 2008 looks to be just as crowded.

[mzmolly]

157. LOL

you think the republican machine was rough on a sporty athletic, vietnam vet that took a bullet in the ass - what the hell are they gonna do to a vegan pacifist?

:)

[manly]

74. Kucinich in '08

I'm sorry to say that Kucinich does not have a sufficiently strong personality to carry a national election. This may be a ridiculous "qualification" for president, but that's the way people vote. IMHO.

[KG]

75. the only democrat that i'd vote for.

[Joey Liberal]

78. He's a Joke

Forget Kucinich. We need to get serious about a candidate that can actually WIN.

[TahitiNut]

80. Well, then, nominate Jeb Bush.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[harpo]

94. like who? And why don't you think he can win?

[benburch]

81. I am 100% behind Kuchinich in '08

And plan to once again be the local chair for his primary campaign.

[Larkspur]

84. Kucinich who?

:evilgrin:

[fujiyama]

112. Kuc-who-nich?

[Mairead]

130. "Who-cinich?" would have been funnier (nt)

[ISUGRADIA]

85. DK is not my cup of tea, but he should run

I don't see the charisma that some people do (and I did see him speak several times in Iowa before the Iowa Caucuses) I do think he brought a necessary viewpoint to the process. And kudos for him not neglecting his House seat and still making votes during the primary season.

Some mainstream political ideas started from fringe movements and leaders (Eugene Debs and the Socialists of the early 20th century for an example). I don't think DK will win the nomination, but he won't be a spoiler or a poor sport.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

101. What's the problem?

The point is, he brought important views to the process. So did Al Sharpton. So did Carol Mosely-Braun. Few believed they could win the nomination, but I was very glad they were involved.

Nothing wrong with appealing to "pure Democrats," whatever you may think that means.

[mzmolly]

99. 'RED ALERTS' won the last election, can you explain why Kucinich

would be considered a "safe" alternative to papa Bush?

[eridani]

107. Here's a free clue.

The Rethug noise machine will again make it sound like NO Dem is safer than papa bush.

[mzmolly]

119. That's why we need the RIGHT Dem.

:)

[eridani]

141. From the standpoint of the Rethugs--

--there is no right Dem. No candidate that we could put up who would not be subjected to the exactly the same kind of trashing. Given that basic fact, I'm going for the guy who advocates what I want.

[mzmolly]

156. Indeed there will be trashing, but which trashing will be most effective?

If we can get behind the psycology of why we lost, we can figure that out.

It seems to me, that (if we lost legit like) we lost because of "THE FEAR OF TERROR" and ... if that's the case, we need to find a guy who is thought experienced in matters of national security while not subject to the BS Kerry was.

Whether you and I like it or not, (because we've lost 2 in a role) polls are going to play a role in what kind of Democrat many people support. Thus, if we lost because of so called moral values, then we'll find a squeeky clean candidate for 08 who's centrist language may send chills of down the spines of us progressives. ;) If we lost because of "national security" we'll find a guy with a big proverbial penis, if we lost because of X ... you get the picture.

My guess is were gonna try to cover all our bases.

Southern
White
Male
National Security guru
Family Man
Governing experience

Hopefully we can be both passionate and intelligent, we needn't sacrifice one for the other. I hope we can find a guy who will represent all of us well. Seems near impossible though.

Then again, Bush could hang himself politically and leave the field wide open. :evilgrin:

Only time will tell. Edited to add - for the record if for some reason Kucinich gets the nomination, he's got my vote.

[bvar22]

182. I am surprised ...

I am surprised that in your profile of your perfect candidate, you failed to include a stand on ANY specific issue.

Do the issues matter to you?

[mzmolly]

188. What ...

Are you talking about? Of course issues matter, and I wasn't saying it was my idea of a perfect candidate, what I said was ... it's the likely candidate.

If were talkin perfect, I'll take Ms. Boxer thanks!

[Darranar]

104. That would be awesome. It won't happen, but it still would be awesome...

I'm totally in support.

[lynch03]

109. HAVE YOU GUYS GONE COMPLETELY INSANE??

How could you even entertain the idea of Kincinich in 08'?? He may make a good president but that DOESEN'T mean he'll make a good CANIDATE, we have to comprimise some of our principles for someone who's more moderate and has more charisma and appeal across the board..

KUCINICH??? LOOK AT HIM, people would just vote against him because of how measly he looks...noone would take him seriously..

[harpo]

192. we did that in 04...it didn't work, have to try something else

[SoCalDemGrrl]

237. Yeah it's like nominating Alfred E Neumann..

I like what he has to say, but unfortunately in this mass media world-- his looks are the kiss of DEATH for the Dems.
Sorry but we have to face reality on this one folks - and Kuchnich AINT GOT IT!!!

[leftofthedial]

110. he definitely has had the best positions

pro worker

progressive

[smartvoter]

111. Many of us would vote for him, but I don't think he'd carry the middle. n

[fujiyama]

113. No for several reasons

First off I'll start with the shallow - he's kinda funny looking, a bit short, a vegan, and a pacifist. He supports a "Department of Peace". This comes after the last election where a fuckin Veteran was branded a traitor because he protested an unjust war. A "Department of Peace" would be branded as "pie in the sky hippie nonsense"

Second, a spotty history as mayor of Cleveland. Sure, they love him in his district and good for him. I'd vote for him if I lived there. I also agree with what he did as mayor (regarding the power companies), but the city did go bankrupt. If the media twisted other campaigns, I don't want to see what they'd do with Kucinich. I'll give him credit - he wouldn't sit quiet going down, but he'd undoubtadly go down nevertheless.

Third, his performance in the '04 primaries was ABYSMAL. He came in after Kerry and Edwards in his own district during the primaries. His constituents obviously like him fine as rep, but they don't have the confidence he could win a presidential campaign.

Fourth, he "flip flopped" on abortion. Sorry, call it a change of heart, etc...It's still a "flip flop". We all know what happened with that.

Fifth, no statewide experience. He hasn't won a statewide race in OH. IIRC, he's run, but lost. Let him run a statewide race and I'll consider a presidential run. If you think it's tough for a senator to get elected president, let's just see a congressman.

[Mairead]

126. I think you should check your facts and reasoning

You've been supping from a poisoned cup.

[harpo]

148. I've got the fifth one for ya...he was senator in 1994

[fujiyama]

175. STATE senator

That doesn't mean he was elected statewide though. It means he was elected from a certain district.

I'm not ripping on Kucinich in particular. I just think if it was bad enough trying to get a senator elected, it'd be even worse getting a house represenative.

Kucinich should run for statewide office and then it'll give a better idea what sort of chance he has in carrying his own state.

[harpo]

193. true, valid points

[Quetzal]

115. I think Dennis could win here in Hawaii

or come very close TO winning it.

As for other states, I don't know.

[tinanator]

150. in a fair vote

he could win anywhere. Without a fair and open voting system its all conjecture based on prejudice that cant be taken seriously.
Kucinich/Gore 2008

[tinanator]

131. if he isnt on the ticket

we will have failed completely.

[LittleClarkie]

136. Who is "we"

Kucitizens, or Dems, or the country as a whole?

[tinanator]

137. the opposition

anything less than (or contra) Kucinich style policy changes are simply status quo supporting destined to fail again play it safe faux opportunism being placed over legitimate badly needed change.
Its time to set things right. Enough time and lives have been wasted.
You are either against Bush policies, or with them. We cannot be lulled, cajoled or suckered into tacit support as a means to an end.

[redqueen]

158. THANK YOU!

:applause:

[spindoctor]

140. He is the only politician I TRUST

And that says it all for me.

[benevolent dictator]

142. I def. think he should run and be focused on CONSTANTLY

think about it. If we had focused A LOT on Kucinich in '04, everyone could have seen what a REAL liberal is like. Instead they focused on Dean and Kerry and tried to hide Kucinich away in the corner and look where it got them. Dean was taken down by a scream and Kerry got branded "the most liberal senator" ever in all the world who will make us commies and let gays marry and nationalize everything.

I doubt these crazed right wing attempts to make Kerry look like the most liberal thing since communism would have worked as well if we'd focused more on Kucinich.

Plus I just think Kucinich is awesome.

[killbotfactory]

144. i think the idea is insane

like it was in 04

[harpo]

149. Well obviously the choices in 04 were incorrect...however sane they seemed

[Catchawave]

147. I really like DK !

Though I think he'd make a much better cabinet member as Secy of Peace!

[redqueen]

159. I'm there.

I'll vote for him or another progressive.

I'm sick to death of people who won't even recognize our most pressing problems, let alone address them.

[Dragonfly]

180. There isn't anyone else on the Congressional

horizon who is more effective weaving vital issues into a vivid depiction of an out-of-control White House/Pentagon. Many more "know," of course, but Dennis Kucinich is just speaking heartfelt, irrefutable truth, right out loud.

This Department of Peace project is, to me, the best thing moving about DK's energy right now. Come autumn, we might see a boatlaod more of progressives, and even clear-eyed mainstreamers, burning the midnight oil by reading the excellent and comprehensive DOP conceptual framework.

Naturally, an '08 presidency, as one of the crescendo accomplishments on the high-arc trajectory that is the DK phenom, would be nice. (I like Reps. B. Lee and L. Woolsey of Ca. as teammates, too)

[bvar22]

181. Dennis Kucinich speaks for me.

I will support him and campaign for him every way I can, just like 2004.
His membership in the Democratic Party is one of the few things that has kept me in the Democratic Party since Wellstone was killed.

I vote issues and integrity, not bullshit.

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[quaker bill]

185. He will do every bit as well as he did in 2004.

No better, but every bit as well.

[mzmolly]

189. Yup.

:hi:

[Mairead]

205. I see people around here who, to judge by their reactions,

must be changing their underwear 3 times a day out of sheer terror at the idea of DK being elected. They leap into every thread and cast aspersions in the same way a panicked priest swings a censer around at an exorcism.

It's very puzzling. What could they be afraid of, do you suppose?

[mzmolly]

208. I don't fear Kucinich being elected personally, I am just of the reality

it will never happen.

Here is what the OP said:

I think Kucinich has the best platform and "ability" to win in 08.

ABILITY??? ABILITY TO WIN?! :freak: I have yet to see the evidence of that. It's one thing to say you like they guys platform, it's another to suggest DK can win.

I see people clinging to a small percentage of the progressive vote in 04, acting like DK has a shot in hell.

Further I see trolls on other boards openly discussing how they pose as Kucinich supporters on DU? I think it's all a matter of perspective really.

:hi:

[Mairead]

213. So you think it would be fine if we get him elected, then?

You'd be completely okay with that?

[mzmolly]

214. Indeed I would.

:hi: For the record ... I'm ABF, "Anyone but facists"

[Mairead]

215. We might have a small communication problem, my fault

I'm really asking: on the spectrum that goes from 'Anybody but Kucinich; he shouldn't hold any public office' at one end to 'he should be made President For Life' at the other, and 'I really don't care; Kucinich is no better or worse than anyone else' in the middle, where are you?

For example, I'm up toward--but not at--the 'President For Life' end.

I consider DK's politics to be markedly superior to anyone else's on the political scene today. I positively want them (which at present means wanting DK himself) in the WH with a like-minded Congress. I am willing to commit to a 3-year formal project to make that happen. That's where I am on that spectrum.

Where are you?

[mzmolly]

216. I'm of the belief that he's not a well rounded candidate frankly.

I want to know what he plans to do regarding "National Security" beyond visualization and lighting candles. ;) :sarcasm:

I also resent his "I'm the only real progressive" quacking when he was anti-choice until just before the election. He also has some other very ANTI-PROGRESSIVE positions of which I take issue. I'm sure you've heard them all, so I won't go into detail ...

And, I don't think he's got a snowballs chance in haites of getting the nomination.

However, that said ... he's got some strenghts. In fact, early in the primaries I initially considered him, and ruled him out pretty quickly after doing some research.

That's my position on DK. If you all get him the nod, I'll vote for him k? :hi:

[Mairead]

217. So that means you're in the middle of that spectrum, then?

He's no better or worse than any other? Is that where you'd place yourself?

[mzmolly]

218. He's better than Sharpton, if that helps?

;) That said, I really don't like to fault other Dems here though, Lieberman included.

[Mairead]

220. You really don't want to commit yourself, do you!

Why is it so hard for you to just come right out and say where you consider yourself to be on that spectrum? I'm not asking you for money!

[mzmolly]

221. What on earth!? I said exactly where I stand on Kucinich.

There were several candidates running, do you want me to rank them all?

I am left of center politically, if that's your question?

If you want to know how many stars I'd give Kucinich as a democratic candidate on a scale of 1-10, I'd give him about a 3 ... does that help?

He ranked just above Sharpton ... Sharpton being my LAST choice for Prez.

mmmk?

[Mairead]

222. Okay, thanks. From your earlier description, I couldn't work it out

So hearing the '3' definitely helps, thanks.

SO if you feel generally positive toward him, why disparage him the way you do? Why not say encouraging things, or if that's too hard, say nothing at all? Wouldn't that fit better with how you say you feel about him as a potential officeholder?

Or is your scale skewed, where somebody has to maybe score a 6 with you before you stop disparaging them?

[mzmolly]

223. Hmmm, I was pumped for information about how I felt.

I don't start threads "disparaging" Kucinich, but I do get angry when he mis-represents other Dems and publicly "disparages" them.

[Mairead]

224. "I don't start threads "disparaging" Kucinich"

I didn't say you did. But you do routinely jump into them to belittle him in a content-free way, as you did in this one. Why? It's at odds with the positive feelings you claim.

[mzmolly]

225. I actually don't feel all that positive. And my original legit question

has not been answered. :shrug:

What I did was agree that it's not likely DK will get the nod. Other DK supporters here have also said as much. When pressed for specifics ... I gave them.

[Mairead]

230. Your admission doesn't surprise me. Which is why I see you as afraid.

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't feel the need to run over and jump in with your little empty digs each time. That's the act of someone who's terrified, not of someone who's confident. Why not own up, get your fear out in the open?

And I have no idea what your 'legit question' is. Did you ask it of me?

[bvar22]

190. It doesn't matter.

I will work HARD to send him to the Convention again.
SOMEONE in the Democratic Party NEEDS to be telling the truth and offering alternatives:

NAFTA (Free Trade)
LABOR
Rampant Corporate Vote Buying (both partys)
Phoney Wars for Profit
Obscene Defense Spending

I will also be supporting Braun and Sharpton (or anyone who delivers a Progressive LABOR/Peace Platform) if they decide to run again. I will work HARD to keep all of them in the Primaries as long as possible. Truth to Power, baby. After that, its out of my hands.

[redqueen]

196. He's the ONLY one with courage enough to run and voice these issues.

That's reason enough to support him, no matter how many naysayers jump on the bandwagon to prevent any alternate message from being heard by more people.

[Mairead]

206. Instead of that, why not work hard to see that he's the nominee?

Wouldn't that seem like a much better return on your energy investment? (It would to me!)

[PKG]

199. Well, I suppose four years of Frist wouldn't be *that* bad

:eyes:

[tinanator]

209. I guess eight years of Bush wasnt so bad either?

assuming one thing or another, "losing" two elections in a row wasnt what I would call evidence of Kucinich's shortcomings.

[Desertrose]

201. How did I miss this ? Hell yes, DK in 08!!

I agree ...it is possible and he is definitely for the people...he is a populist and that is what is needed now....but it is the ORGANIZING to make it happen, without being derailed by the MSM & repubs and yes, even the dems, that we need to focus on. (:hi: I agree, Mairead)


I must admit I am pretty tired of seeing the same old detractors attempting to repeatedly trash Dennis. Do things NEVER change?? I mean c'mon, why must support of one man automatically mean hatred of another....I don't get it. Dean is who he is and Dennis is who he is...so why the hatred? Get over so we can WORK TOGETHER TO BENEFIT EVERYONE or we will get more of the same crap we've gotten since 2000,people.

I think its time we stop "settling" for an "electable" and find someone who has vision and ideals and SUPPORT him/her 100%. If we don't try to change things, you can be sure, NOTHING will change.

DK in '08

[warrens]

227. you gotta be kidding or a disruptor

yeah, he's a good guy with somewhat decent ideas. He's as electable as my pet slug. Sorry to be cynical, but Dennis is NOT going to be president anytime. And Dean would have taken Vermont and NY and that's about it. I love the guy, but he was such a perfect target.

I think our candidate will be Russ Feingold, John Edwards or John Kerry.

Everything Kerry and Edwards said came true. Without the ability to screech about homeland security, which is now totally discredited, the GOP has nothing to run on.

[eridani]

228. ALL Dem candidates are perfect targets n/t

[tinanator]

231. with all this omniscience

how did we ever lose an election? I find it strange how many (or few imo) can blanket generalize when I have personally seen the most reactionary and/or hard right people turn and listen seriously to Kucinich. Their reactions were nothing like these mistaken assumptions imply. Vacuous charges by people ruled by image and fear.

[Desertrose]

232. I actually had some repubs sign on my DK prez primary group

and had quite a few others who said if her were the Dem nominee, that they WOULD VOTE FOR HIM!!

So...the meme about repubs choosing else over DK is just that...a meme...a falsehood started and repeated often enough that some will believe just about anything.....

[eridani]

234. Kucinich and some Republican students

http://www.folkmusic.com/archive/z_kucinich.htm

A candidates' forum at the University of South Florida sponsored by the student government. All presidential candidates (including the President) are invited. DJK is the only one who responds. The appearance is, essentially, a speech/Q&A. Many college Republicans are in evidence with Bush/Cheney signs. Dennis is brilliant in his ability to present the issues in an almost entirely non-partisan way while at the same time making clear his positions. Never once does he mention W. He handles a number of intentionally trick questions with absolute ease and touches on issues that are of common concern to all students, irregardless of party loyalties. Some Repubs leave in frustration. More leave their signs under their chairs and join the crowd around DJK at evening’s end.

Tim started with a song, DJK spoke. He was in rare form…quoting Shelley, Yeats, Decartes, Emerson…drawing in the crowd with wide-ranging references to physics, metaphysics, literature, history and art. Having listened to him, in order, address a union audience that morning, a religious audience that afternoon and a college audience that evening I was struck by his ability to present ideas that were intelligent without being elitist, compassionate without being corny, bold without being batty and spiritual without being sectarian. He answered complicated questions directly and clearly, drawing roars of appreciation even from those who expected him to be evasive. In fact, a group of Bush/Cheney supporters lamented near the end of the Q&A that they weren’t registered to vote in the primary because they would have liked to have cast theirs for Kucinich.

All in all, I’ve never…in my many years of following elections and voting…witnessed a candidate with the kind of expansive intelligence, with the ability to focus attention on issues common to all the citizenry while at the same time proposing solutions that are radical only in their uniqueness, not in their audacity. Kucinich is the rare candidate that is actually more humble than you’d like him to be. He mentions past victories only to prove that thinking and acting “outside the box” means there’s enough room for success for all. He challenges us to be courageous enough to believe that we can accomplish things. That we are more than we seem. That we are hampered not by inability but by fear. A cynic would decry his speeches as radical politics masquerading in the guise of self-help cheerleading. But the fact remains that our nation and this world is crippled by a sense of hopelessness and fear. We believe our problems are too great, our resources are too limited, our numbers are too small, our opponents to powerful, our time too short. We are sold a bill of inevitability and we are paying with not only our pocketbooks but with our souls. Unless and until we are able to wrestle our demons…be they personal or communal…we will never have peace. It requires a kind of reshaping of the national dialog and the courage to reject old paradigms for what they are: out-dated, divisive and unsuccessful.

[eridani]

235. A Republican intern following the Kucinich campaign

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/news/campaign_compassion.html

It begins with me, a life-long Republican at an Iowa Democratic Party fundraiser. Four presidential candidates speak. Thousands of dollars are raised.

As we leave the ballroom, I ask Kucinich a question that mentions a homeless man sleeping in the stairwell of the hotel's parking garage. Kucinich immediately responds, "He's there now? I'll go visit him." And 20 minutes later, we meet at the garage's entrance - a congressman, an aide, a security agent and me.

The four of us walk down the dark stairwell. Kucinich stops. He doesn't want to frighten the sleeping man, and whispers to us to keep our distance. Three of us stand 10 steps above the concrete floor this sleeping man calls home.

Below, the congressman stands motionless, staring at this man whose poverty is absolute. Is Kucinich thinking of his own past? As a boy, his family sometimes lived in cars. Tonight, Kucinich's face says more to me than any speech he's ever given. I believe that he is suffering right along with this helpless and hopeless sleeping man. It is 25 degrees out tonight. How cold was the boy in Cleveland who called cars home?

The congressman finally kneels beside the man and leaves a gift. What will the homeless man buy with the significant amount of money Kucinich has left him? I'd like to think he is a Jean Valjean, a discouraged man for whom one display of compassion and generosity will inspire a new beginning. I'd like to think he will not buy drugs or alcohol. I'd like to be less cynical.

[Imagevision]

236. Big biz would knock him out- Iraq, too much cash!

[mapatriot]

240. Hell.......

Yeah, when it freezes over