Kucinich or Edwards? Is the perfect the enemy of the good?

[Jackpine Radical]

OK, first Kucinich.

In terms of espoused values, I'm closer to him than to any other candidate. But I see two problems. The first is electability. He's not gonna be the nominee. No way. The M$M aren't going to permit that to happen. He will never get his message out. He won't get 10% of the vote in any primary anywhere. The second problem is, frankly, even if he were by some miracle elected to the White House, he would be a totally ineffectual President. He would be immediately neutralized, and I simply do not believe he has the nearly superhuman strategic skills it would take to negotiate his platform through the system and into reality. Overall, I agree with him about where we want to get to, but I see little to encourage me that he can get us from here to there.

Edwards, on the other hand, actually has a shot at the White House. His greatest skill is as a persuader. He made a highly successful and lucrative career out of persuading juries of the righteousness of his causes. (And it sure doesn't hurt that those causes consisted of championing "little people" in their battles against the corporations.) I wasn't a big Edwards fan in 2004 (although I fell in love with Elizabeth on the couple of occasions when I met her). As I have heard and seen more of Edwards this time around, though, I'm getting the impression that he is the one to take on the corporations; he understands the fundamental issues, and he's on my side. He wants to fight the Corporate enemy, not to join with them. Edwards is the only really viable candidate who stands for the things I think are most important. He has made mistakes and acknowledged them. I'll buy that. Where his proposals are less than perfect (e.g. in health care), they are at least enactable. I can live with that.

In short, if I vote for Kucinich, I might as well be voting for DLC or DLC Lite. This is the real world (despite Bushco's efforts to make it into a Lewis Carroll universe). As I now see it, the closest I can come to acting in what I perceive to be my own interests is to vote for Edwards.

[book_worm]

1. A vote for Kucinich is a vote for Kucinich.

I say people should support who they feel closest to.

[robinlynne]

2. I'm with you. love Kucinich. voting Edwards.

[RiverStone]

44. Second that...

Same logic.
Same vote.
Same avatatar. :hi:

[robinlynne]

47. Hi there riverstone and polar bear!

[helderheid]

65. same

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. Hear ya!

[RedCappedBandit]

72. And right there is why Kucinich wont win.

huzzah..

[robinlynne]

76. No, even if he were to win the nomination, he wouldn't win the general. He is probably the best

politician out there. But he, and we, are minorities. ANd the flying saucer thing makes it harder. If it looks like there is a chance for him when it gets to my state's primary (feb 5th), or if Edwards is out of the race, I will vote Kucinich. I donate money to kucinich. Because I think his message is so important, and because I think Kucinich brings the entire Dem debate into better territory.

[begin_within]

3. I want Kucinich, but I'm being forced to settle for Edwards

Kucinich is the best of all the candidates as far as his positions on all the issues. But the commercial media has virtually eliminated him from contention by simply ignoring him or marginalizing him. Elections are won and lost on TV these days, I believe, and they have decided to give Kucinich no airtime - thereby killing his chances of winning. They are giving Edwards airtime, but are generally more interested in the latest Obama vs. Clinton skirmish. There are a couple of things I don't like about Edwards (his vote for the Iraq war resolution and his ambivalence about same-sex marriage) but if the choice is being forced to be between Obama, Clinton or Edwards, then Edwards is obviously the right choice among those 3.

[bobbolink]

71. What is his "ambivalence" ?

[begin_within]

73. He said he would not support same-sex marriage, then he said he would have to think about it.

That's the last I've heard from him on it. I label that ambivalence.

[bobbolink]

95. Where did you "hear" that? Directly from him?

I was watching and listening to him speak.

What he said WAS: that because of his religious background, he had a struggle with gay marriage.

OK? That's honest. We jump up and down and say we want honesty. Well, there it is. He's struggling with an issue. Don't we all have issues we struggle with????

THEN, what he said was that he believes in Civil Rights for everyone, and would NEVER stand in the way of gay marriage.

I heard him and saw him, and that's exactly what he said.

I think that's about as clear as it could be.

[bobbolink]

110. Too bad you chose not to reply.

It serves us better to deal in the full truth.

[BridgeTheGap]

4. I disagree that if DK were elected he would be ineffectual

Reason: In order for DK to be elected, there would have to be a "sea change" among the electorate and that "sea change" would also be reflected in the make up of the Congress.

[redqueen]

14. He might be ineffectual in getting some things done...

the less-popular things would stall or fail outright.

But many of his policy ideas are extremely popular with broad swaths of the populace. I'd love to see congress keep trying to ignore their constituents if he was elected.

[BridgeTheGap]

21. I agree - but how many Presidents actually accomplish all they

set out to do - i.e. Clinton and healthcare reform.

[redqueen]

22. Sorry but that "healthcare reform" was a sick joke.

He said he'd set out to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. I don't know that he ever tried, though, so... maybe that's not such a good example.

[BridgeTheGap]

27. But you get my point, right - few Presidents accomplish all they set out to do n/t

[redqueen]

31. We all know that... so the attempt to convey that it's a liability only for Kucinich

is rather disingenuous.

[BridgeTheGap]

35. True. n/t

[tinrobot]

5. Kucinich is the ideal, Edwards is the real deal.

Edwards is the one with the political skill to actually win it. He gets my vote over Kucinich.

[Clark2008]

6. I don't trust that Edwards is "on my side," you see.

His Senate record speaks louder than his rhetoric and his record is just as triangulating as HRC's and his experience isn't even as vast as Obama's.

I don't see why people just don't vote for Kucinich - the best way to get the press is to get the votes.

[LeftyMom]

8. Glad I'm not the only one who sees it.

He strikes me as a triangulating faux-populist.

[redqueen]

12. Well they're "forced" to vote for someone else, see?

I don't know exactly how it works... but, apparently that's the reason for some, anyway.

:shrug:

[greguganus]

29. Edwards was my "senator", and I sure as hell don't want him as my President. n/t

[Pastiche423]

85. Same here

He was very ineffectual for the two years he actually did senate work. After the 1st two years, he was running for president.

Maybe ineffectual is the wrong word, that is if you support the war in Iraq. He co-sponsored little lord pissypant's war.

I think many people are either blind to how he voted, or they simply have not done their homework and don't know. (And don't care.)

[scarletwoman]

97. Do you prefer HRC over Edwards, then? That's what it comes down to for me.

Edwards has apologized for his Iraq war vote. I believe that people are capable of learning and growing in consciousness.

The Al Gore of 2008 is a far cry from the DLC Gore of the Clinton years, I believe that he has grown into a far better person in the interim. I see no reason not to grant Edwards a similar allowance for having an evolving awareness.

As I said below, it comes down to this for me: Vote for Kucinich and get Clinton, or vote for Edwards and possibly get Edwards. As a progressive, preventing Clinton -- the Warrior Queen of the New World Order -- from getting the nomination is my highest priority.

sw

[Pastiche423]

98. Oh for cripe's sake!

Have you any idea what johnnyboy ran on during his 1998 bid for the senate?

The same rhetoric he is using now.... "I stand for the working people, I stand for the poor."

Well, he got into his only elected office and did what?

He:

voted for the Patriot Act

voted for Homeland Security

voted for Yucca mtn

voted for *'s war resolution after co-sponsoring the damn thing

voted for bankruptcy bill

voted to exempt fuel refiners from liability

voted against regulation of drinking water

did not bother to vote on an Iraq investigation

his ADA voting record was 60%

Does any of the above match his rhetoric in 1998?

What has he done (not said) that makes you think he has changed?

I will admit that I was fooled in 1998. But I will not make that mistake again.

[scarletwoman]

100. I honestly don't know what to think.

I see him as someone not all that connected to the Beltway machine -- and I'm willing to acknowledge I could be wrong.

If I'm going to vote for a Dem "no matter what", I'd far prefer it would be Edwards over Clinton or Obama. You seem to be saying that he's a fraud and phony. That's not the vibe I get from him -- but like I say, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

At this point, I can barely give a damn anymore, anyway. I think that the political and economic systems in this country are pretty much corrupted beyond repair, so I question what possible use there is to participate at all.

After a lifetime of being a faithful voter, I'm pretty much ready to quietly retreat into my own life and just go into survival mode for what time I have left on this planet. The changes that need to happen aren't going to happen through electoral politics, they're only going to happen through seeding a different consciousness into the collective mind.

sw

[Pastiche423]

101. I am where you are

(in your last paragraph).

In 1997 when I heard johnnyboy on the campaign trail for senate, I got excited. He was saying things that gave me hope. Believing he meant what he said, I voted for him.

Well, he made it to the senate, then promptly forgot what he promised. His voting record abysmally sucked. He voted w/the DLC, of which he was a member. In the two years he was active in the senate, he returned not one email, letter or phone call.

After 2004, I swore to myself I would never again vote for the lesser of two evils again. So, having faithfully voted for a president since 1972, I believe this year will be the 1st time since 1972 that I will not vote.

The thing is, I don't know how to be apathetic. :(

[SammyWinstonJack]

70. Because no matter how much we want Kucinich, he will never be elected.

The TPTB won't allow it. Why can't you see that? It won't happen. Not in 2008. It ain't gonna happen. Just like it didn't happen for Clark or Dean in 2004. And Edwards probably won't get the nomination in '08, so not too worry. :silly:

[LeftyMom]

7. I refuse to cast my primary vote for anybody who doesn't support marriage equality.

Since DK does (and I like him on other issues) he'll get my vote.

[redqueen]

26. Yeah, civil rights... that's a pretty fundamental concept. (nt)

[onehandle]

9. Exactly. And Edwards will expand our Congress the most on the coattails of his landslide.

More seats in Congress = A Braver and more Progressive Congress.

Isn't that what we want?

[cali]

13. that's opinion- not fact.

It remains to be seen whether Edwards has any coattails. In any case, the odds are that there will be an expanded dem majority no matter who the dem candidate is. 11 months out from the election, it's absolutely impossible to make the claim you're making.

[onehandle]

20. Absolutely impossible? Nothing is absolute.

DUers say so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3496258

[flvegan]

10. Peace candidate or IWR co-sponsor?

Repeal the Patriot Act or vote for it?

Troops out of Iraq immediately or maybe by 2013?

Yup, that's a toughie.

[redqueen]

11. ...

:loveya:

[patrioticintellect]

16. Yea, only in America will we get angry at the Chinese for poisoning our toys and support the man

Who voted for the agreement that has led to this sad situation in our trade with China.

[LeftyMom]

32. I'm confused too

But I can't even remember where I live, so that's not a shock. :rofl:

[patrioticintellect]

15. If you don't vote your heart

Your heart will never win.

Vote for the candidate who should win not the candidate who is polling the highest in corporate media polls and establishment polls across America.

I'm voting my conscience. All of you who say Kucinich is closest to your views should too.

[dysfunctional press]

17. kucinich endorses a handgun ban, making him UN-electable.

Edwards has my support. :hi:

[redqueen]

18. IMO most voters aren't single-issue voters.

Just sayin... :hi:

[dysfunctional press]

41. the only thing you can say with any certainty about "most voters"...

is that they won't be voting for kucinich.

[redqueen]

42. Nice snark.

Very constructive. Thank you.

[readmoreoften]

57. Wow, that's a losing battle. And a pointless one.

The Texans I know love their guns and there is FAR less gun violence here than where I grew up on the east coast. My in-laws have a loaded gun closet they use for keeping wild boars away from the house. This is such a non issue. Support a mixed economy, give people real hope and real opportunity and there will be less violence.

In Switzerland, every household is require to keep a gun. What's the death rate there?

[DutchLiberal]

59. It's about time somebody told you it's not 1800 anymore, and the US isn't the Wild West anymore.

[dysfunctional press]

93. why tell me? i'm not the nra.

i'm just pointing out the FACT thatthis country is nowhere near ready to elect a candidate who wants to ban handgun ownership by private citizens. you can tell me anything you want- but it's not going to change the opinions of the multitudes of gun owners out there.

[DutchLiberal]

104. I'm not saying you are NRA. With 'you', I meant: 'you all'. And:

You have to have leaders who lead, instead of leaders who wait 'till the people are "ready". Otherwise they wouldn't be 'leaders'. So if people are not "ready" for it, you make them ready!

[dysfunctional press]

105. we only have 1 "leader"- the president. the rest are "representatives"

and they are supposedly beholden to the will of the people.

and the people want their guns.

[DutchLiberal]

108. But that doesn't mean they can't have their own *leading* opinions!

Representatives decide what their stances are on certain issues. Then they go to the people and say: "this is what I stand for. Please vote for me." And then it's up to the people whether or not they support them.

The way you make it sound -and I guess that unfortunately is the sad reality in today's politics- the representatives base their stances on what the public wants to hear. This way, some things will never change. Politicians should be leaders, especially if they're running for president, not followers.

[dysfunctional press]

109. apparently you don't understand american politics very well...

we elect 'representatives', not 'leaders'. the whole point of our system is that the elected representatives base their stances on what the people who elect them want to hear.

the result is- the united states ALWAYS gets exactly the government it deserves, and the current mis-administration is no exception.

[pnwmom]

19. Why is a candidate with Kucinich's anti-choice past the "perfect" candidate?

It wasn't very long ago that Kucinich was one of the most pro-life Democrats in the House. His sudden change of heart seemed awfully opportunistic to me, and I don't particularly trust him on the issue of Supreme Court appointments.

[redqueen]

24. All the candidates have pasts.... Edwards' is pro-corporate and pro-war.

We all trust the candidates depending on what's important to us, and whether we believe them when they say they've changed.

You're free to accept some candidates' changes of heart as genuine and consider others opportunistic. Of course we won't all agree on whose are which.

[pnwmom]

60. I agree. And NO candidate, including Kucinich, is perfect. n/t

[redqueen]

63. Exactly. (nt)

[fascisthunter]

45. If You DIg Deep Enough

you might convince us Kuch supporters to vote for yours.

[FlyingSquirrel]

23. In many states, you can have your cake and eat it too!

For example in the Iowa caucuses, if you choose Kucinich as your first choice and Edwards as the second, your vote will go to Edwards if Kucinich doesn't get at least 10 or 15%, can't remember which.

Too bad our national election doesn't work the same way. Instant Runoff Voting, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[redqueen]

How many candidates support IRV, I wonder...

Hmmmmm...

[redqueen]

25. How many candidates support IRV, I wonder...

Hmmmmm...

[FlyingSquirrel]

33. Think I'm about done with your stalking and your insinuations

Are you really that dense to not be able to see that the current system is in need of some kind of shake-up?

Don't answer that, you're on ignore now.

[redqueen]

34. What the everlovin hell are you talking about?

I was giving you an opening to say ONLY KUCINICH.

But I don't know... maybe Gravel supports it... I doubt any others do.

[Jackpine Radical]

43. Indeed, that would solve a lot of problems.

If we had instant-runoff, I'd vote Kucinich 1, Edwards 2, maybe Biden 3.

[GOTV]

91. I'm a big fan of IRV! n/t

[Desertrose]

28. Dude...I feel your pain...

seriously..OK ..not serious here at all....I'm just messin with ya.;)

:hi:Jackpine :loveya::loveya:

Well....I'm still gonna do the Dennis thing in the primary here..but I would have to say...I could vote for Edwards if I had to.

Just don't really trust any of em anymore, ya know??But I met Edwards last time and he seemed genuine...but what the hell do I know really??

:hug: DR

[Labors of Hercules]

30. Right on! I Love DK too, and if you agree, then Edwards is your man. nt.

[Kucinich4America]

36. I'm voting for Kucinich

Because in the REAL WORLD, we need to take back our country. Edwards is better than Hillary (Hell, who isn't?) But after being conned into Kerry the last time, I'm not compromising, at least not in the primaries.

[Forkboy]

37. You're not alone in your thinking.

I've been considering it, though I haven't decided if I will do it yet. I also know others who are thinking the same thing. Edwards to me is far from perfect, but also better than the alternative, so we'll see how it shakes out.

[TarHeelMom]

38. Kucinch takes apart Edwards more than any other candidate.

That's why I don't understand why Kucinich supporters would even consider Edwards. If all the Kucinich people who say they don't want their vote wasted would actually vote for him, then he might actually make a dent.

[redqueen]

39. Heh... been saying that for years.

*sigh*

[Little Star]

40. Please explain how

Kucinch takes apart Edwards more than any other candidate. How does he do that more than taking apart Hillary or Barak? I really don't get your point and I humbly ask that you explain it, so that I can be better informed. :shrug:

[GreenArrow]

68. this Kucinich supporter isn't considering Edwards

It's a choice between butter and margarine, between home baked bread and wonder bread, between a diamond and a rhinestone, between a real fruit and one made of wax. I find Edwards' manner so smarmily disingenuous, manipulative, exploitative and fake I will not vote for him in the general. I trust him not a whit.

[undeterred]

46. But you have a picture of the sublime in the upper left corner.

:hi:

[Connonym]

87. My thoughts exactly

I still have my Feingold 2008 bumper sticker on the car. He should be the one but maybe it's just not the right time yet.

[Spike89]

48. Great post, I agree

I'm not torn at all about not giving DK my vote, even though he is closer to me than anyone else running on most issues. The reason is that I think there is a lot more to voting for a president than agreeing on the most issues. Dennis may as well say he's in favor of us all living and being healthy until we're 300 years old--I'd certainly agree with that, but that is far from making it possible. Dennis does not have a track record of leading, or even actually getting things done. He is the guy that stands for principle (admirable) but that doesn't exactly build coalitions and a president is only as effective as his/her coalition.

Edwards, Clinton, Obama...I have my moments with each of them, but I'd have no problem supporting any of them for president. In the meantime, I'm proud to have a congressman like Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and would hope we can get more like him and Dennis into the congress so that when we're discussing 2012, Dennis' platform won't seem so "radical" at least to his own party. I agree with some of the posters here that a change and a shift are needed, but groundswell support doesn't, by definition, start at the top, it starts in congress and the senate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. And this is why there should be some sort of ranked voting in primaries

[Jackpine Radical]

52. Amen to that.

But it's too threatening to the established forces--whoever they are.

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. Of course. They would freaks if too many "wishful" votes for kucinich or other

liberals tallied up to the point of taking out a DLC candidate.

[ulysses]

50. agreed - vote strategically in the *primary*, not the general.

I've been in exactly the same boat, Jackpine, and have come to the same conclusion.

[Jackpine Radical]

51. Yes, it's interesting how everyone thinks the primaries are some kind of

"freebie," a place where they can "make a statement." Somehow, if Kooch gets 7% of the vote instead of the predicted 2%, the right wing of the party will have to sit up & take notice. Like that 7% is gonna somehow pull Hillary or Obama further left.

Nuts.

What will really happen is that the left will dissipate their votes into a bunch of tiny little pie slices that will mean nothing to anybody. If instead they found an electable candidate and put all their little slices together, they might get somewhere. But no, we're too precious. Can't vote for the guy with the mansion and the $400 haircut 'cuz he just ain't common folks, and anyway he voted for the IWR and no amount of acknowledgment of his error is ever gonna make it right for me.

Well, lemme tell ya about Bob La Follette. He was a Republican politician associated with the worst sort of influence peddling in the horribly corrupt jungle of 19th-century Wisconsin politics.

Then one day he woke up & decided he didn't like that game any more. He became one of the great Progressives and led a reform movement that both anticipated and paved the way for FDR.

I think of ol' Fightin' Bob when I hear Edwards speak.

[ulysses]

54. we're told to "blue sky it" in the primaries, then

fall in line for the general. This hasn't gotten us anywhere.

Like with many, Dennis' announced positions are the closest to mine of the candidates, but he isn't going to win. Edwards is second and has an increasing chance. He doesn't have to become La Follette (although that'd be fine, too!).

I've made a point on DU of not telling progressives how I think they should vote, but as time goes on, this is becoming more difficult. You nailed it with the pie slices analogy.

[redqueen]

55. That's unfair.

It is not "nuts" to think that if people would vote their conscience, that we might actually get what we want.

I don't think of Fightin' Bob when I hear Edwards. Kucinich reminds me of Fightin' Bob.

[Jackpine Radical]

56. First, I didn't mean "nuts" in a way to demean the Kucinich people

or anyone else. More like "Nuts to that."

Second, what particularly brought LaFollette to mind is the way he redeemed himself after a dubious beginning in politics. He was anything but a populist in his first years in the WI Legislature.

And I want to say I have very much appreciated your comments on this thread. My purpose in starting it was not just to get everyone chirping "me too" in unison, but toprovide a forum for the expression of all sorts of views on this topic.

The thread wouldn't even be necessary if we had some variation on the Australian Ballot, as a couple of people pointed out.

You & I are separated by some fine points of political strategy, and it is good that we air these differences here. It's good for people to think about these things. Thank you.

[DutchLiberal]

58. Where does the fairy tale that Edwards is anti-corporation originate from?

And why does everybody fall for it?

And how do you think you can ever change the direction of your country if you keep compromising your principles out of 'electability'?

I think Kucinich can't win in the Democratic primary (because everybody does think this). However, I do think that, if he were the Democratic nominee, he would win in the general. The Democrats are going to win *anyway*, so why not nominate somebody who is and has been 100% right on all the issues?

[pnwmom]

61. The Dems aren't going to "win anyway." It matters very much who we choose. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

82. I'm sure they will win anyway.

Which Republician that wants to continue the war in Iraq will the 75% of Americans who oppose the war vote for?

[Mythsaje]

64. Maybe his history of taking on the corporations and winning...

Or pointing out how corporate lobbyists are ruining this country.

[DutchLiberal]

83. I didn't get that impression from his Senate record.

[Mythsaje]

89. As a green senator from a conservative state?

He could've done better. He could also have done worse.

He's broadcasting a very dangerous message for the PTBs. If it resonates in all the places it could resonate, he could prove to be a very big problem for the status quo.

And that's a fact.

[GreenArrow]

66. Kucinich would not win in the general

as all the centrists and moderates would either stay home or vote Republican. So much for party unity. The left would be blamed for nominating a candidate too far to the left. Of course, if a moderate candidate were nominated, and lost, then the blame would still get passed onto the left. Unfortunately, a sizable bloc of voters is quite content with the status quo.

Nevertheless, I will be voting for Kucinich in the primary.

[fujiyama]

62. A vote for Kucinich may feel good but will accomplish little

Voting for Edwards will keep the nomination from falling to Hillary.

Edwards has a chance at the nomination, and more importantly - to actually win the WH.

[scarletwoman]

69. Bingo! Preventing the nomination from falling to HRC is priority #1 for me.

Edwards is the only one who has a decent chance at preventing that.

I'd rather vote for Edwards and get Edwards, than vote for Kucinich and get Clinton.

sw

[Jackpine Radical]

80. Exactly my point.

Thanx, SW. :hi:

[LWolf]

74. Kucinich gets my vote in the primary. He's EARNED it. n/t

[scarletwoman]

75. Idealism and wishful thinking aside, a vote for Kucinich will get us HRC as the nominee.

A vote for Edwards just might get us Edwards. I REALLY want to derail the possibility of a Clinton nomination, and voting for Kucinich won't do that -- THAT'S the reality, no matter how much we might wish otherwise.

I'm really hoping that progressives will think about voting strategically in the primaries. We're not going to get everything we want, no matter what. But a Clinton or Obama nomination -- the most corporatist, Beltway, status quo candidates -- will take us further away from what we want, than an Edwards nomination will.

Progressives should ask themselves, is a vote for Kucinich as a matter of conscience at all useful to our cause if it guarantees locking in the nomination for Clinton?

sw

[Pastiche423]

86. This is a sad day for me on DU

It's the 1st time I have ever, in the almost six years I've been here, disagreed w/one of your posts.

Where did all of the anti-war DUers go?

[Desertrose]

88. Its just all so damn frustrating.....

I have the candidate that I resonate with about 100% and yet he is bashed within his own party even and cannot seem to gain any traction in this bullshit political process. I am so tired of "settling" for a supposed "electable" candidate....

Yet I am still hoping for something miraculous as far as Kucinich's campaign....



I know just how you feel Pastiche423...maybe its time for me to take a DU/political break....

Peace
DR

[Pastiche423]

90. Taking a break has been on my mind for a while

My brain is having a problem w/liberals settling for a pro-war candidate. It seems that people for peace are being marginalized (and laughed at) for what is perceived as an "electable" candidate.

When I read that a former DLCer that attended a Bilderger meeting is the more practical candidate, I shake my head in despair.

[GreenArrow]

99. they've gone ABR

7 years of Bush has got 'em desperate. So they're willing to buy the self-serving platitudes ladled out by a smug, manipulative shit like Edwards, who if elected, will prove different from Clinton largely in terms of style. At this point I'm resigned to either one of them, or the Republican being President.

[scarletwoman]

77. Kicking this up, because I think this raises some very important issues. (nt)

[scarletwoman]

78. kicking again, dammit...

[scarletwoman]

79. And again -- because I'd really like people to think about this. (nt)

[Jackpine Radical]

81. Wow, you're relentless.

Y'know, this is the same argument I had over & over in the 2000 General, with the Nadir people and their "dime's worth of difference" crap. They voted their conscience and we got Bush. I did not then, and do not now, give any credence to the Michael Moore bit about Nadir not taking votes from Gore. That's absurd. There are a whole lot of people who, if they hadn't had the option of throwing their votes away on Nadir in a fit of grandiose self-righteousness, would have voted for Gore. Maybe the Bushies could still have stolen it, but they'd have had to work a lot harder.

[DutchLiberal]

84. Nader CAN'T have taken votes 'away' from Gore,

as votes are not 'assigned' to anyone. Blaming Nader-voters for Bush is not only pathetic, but it's also not logical.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. In the primaries, there is NO reason to vote for anyone but your favorite

That's one of the thing that's wrong with us Democrats. We settle for our second choice too easily.

We act like this is a student council election and we want to vote the same as the "cool kids."

By the way, Kucinich won over 10% in Minnesota, Maine, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Washington last time.

[slipslidingaway]

94. If we constantly choose one of the media candidates then our

voices will never be heard. I understand what you are saying, but there comes a point for each individual when they decide to either take a stand and vote for someone who reflects their positions or vote for one of the media, and by extension, corporate friendly candidates.

Guess this is my year to finally taking a stand.

:hi:

[KoKo]

96. I just donated to Kucinich again...but I understand what you say.

It's very important to keep Edwards in this race. It's very important. Because if Kucinich can't get traction for Populist Message...then the only "next one" is John Edwards.

(You have to understand...I have some anger towards him...standing out in cold holding a sign before Iraq Invasion) but...I'll let that anger go...because what he's saying is important enough that he needs to continue in the Primaries for longer than the "first set." We need to go to that Dem Convention with no clear front-runner for it to matter at all to those of us Activists out here.

So...while Kucinich has my heart and my vote if others are rammed down my through on May 5th...I hope that Edwards STAYS STRONG until then...

[K8-EEE]

102. Kickety Kick! How 'bout if we pressure Prez Edwards to

take up DKs "Dept. Of Peace" and make DK the head of it!

I'm just so sick of Dems who can't DO anything. Edwards strikes me as somebody who will kick some major ass if given the chance.

[bean fidhleir]

103. The system is set up just about perfectly.

No matter how desperate the situation, it's never desperate enough to demand a principled choice, is it.

And people around here actually claim not to understand why creatures like Pelosi and Reid are running the Dem party?!?

[burrowowl]

106. Vote Kucinich

in your caucus to pressure the others to get with it at the convention, e.g., if Edwards ahs a lot of votes give the Kucinich votes to him if he has most of it right.
Seems DUers don't understand caucus or delegates.
Vote DK! Then parley at convention!

[Peace Candidate]

107. Kucinich is the only one with credibility

Actions speak louder than words.

I don't believe the meme that is being pushed-that we must vote for Edwards to beat Hillary. I don't agree with it and I think it is being used to manipulate would be Kucinich voters.