Canadian Healthcare and Kucinich for President?

[sabrina 1]

Bring it on!!



Dennis Kucinich ~ a great Democrat

Dennis’ Early Years

The oldest of seven children, Dennis was born in 1946 in Cleveland, Ohio to Frank and Virginia Kucinich. The family lived in 21 places, including a couple of cars, by the time he was 17 years-old. One of his most vivid memories was watching his family count out money on an old white counter top to see if they had enough for their bills. He attended Catholic grade and high schools.

One nun, noticing that other students were commenting on the fact that he seemed only to wear one purple pair of pants, obtained another pair for him. Such acts of kindness and compassion seared themselves into his memory and led him to a life of public service.

At 17 he left home, took jobs as an orderly and also as a copy editor while enrolling full-time at Case Western University. After graduation he began his political career serving as a councilman and later as Clerk of Courts. At 31, he ran for mayor of Cleveland attempting to become the youngest mayor of a major American city in history.

Mayor of Cleveland and Muni-Light

He was elected mayor of Cleveland in 1977 on the promise to save the city’s municipally-owned electric system which offered customers significantly lower rates than the private utility. A year later, Cleveland’s banks demanded that he sell the city’s 70 year-old municipally-owned electric system to its private competitor (in which the banks had a financial interest) as a precondition of extending credit to the city.

The attempted political blackmail failed as did several assassination attempts. He remembered his parents counting out coins on the dresser and refused to sell the people’s power. In an incident unprecedented in modern American politics, the Cleveland banks plunged the city into default for a mere $15 million despite being offered triple collateral to protect the loan.

The principled stand destroyed his political career. He lost his reelection bid. He was demonized as the mayor who threw Cleveland into default. Fifteen years later, the citizens of Cleveland - recognizing he had saved them hundreds of millions of dollars in municipal power bills and also forced the private utility to keep bills low to compete – voted him into the Ohio Senate. His campaign signs featured a light bulb and the expression “Because he was right.” In 1998 the Cleveland City Council honored Dennis for “..having the courage and foresight to refuse to sell the city’s municipal electric system.”

U.S House of Representatives

In 1996, Dennis unseated a two-term Republican incumbent. He has followed that narrow victory by winning 60 to 70% of the votes in the following elections. Much of those vote totals were achieved because of outstanding constituent services and his successful efforts to save a local steel mill, two neighborhood hospitals and 10th District cities a dramatic - and disruptive - increase in train traffic.

At the same time his reputation as a progressive leader in the Congress grew. He was voted the chair of the Progressive Caucus because of his passionate commitment to peace, human rights, workers rights, economic justice and the environment.

In 2002 the second great challenge of his elected career occurred. After analyzing the “evidence” presented by the Administration in its rush to folly in Iraq and actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, he stepped forward to help lead 125 Democrats in voting against the blank check for the President to wage an illegal, immoral and ineffective war.

Speaking from the floor of the House some 140 times against the war and appearing on over 100 radio and talk shows was a risky political move. But it did not stop him. The neo-cons and their complicit friends in media engaged in a frenzy of caustic name calling. In Feb. of 2003 when Dennis explained on “Meet the Press” that oil was a key causal factor for the war and that our troops would be trapped in a costly door-to-door war, administration zealot Richard Perle insisted Dennis’ comments were “scurrilous” and “an out-and-out lie.” Richard Cohen of the Washington Post chimed in to agree with Perle calling a Congressman who saw no evidence of WMDs and did see oil as a cause for war a “fool.” Other “mainstream” opinion commentators called him a “clown” and worse for not seeing the clear evidence of WMDs.

For his tireless and courageous efforts he was awarded the Gandhi Peace Award in 2003.

In 2006 when Israel and Hezbollah were facing off, Dennis again stepped forward for peace. As the Administration gave a green light to Israel and the Republican Congress sat silent – again – Dennis warned that the conflict and the ensuing deaths would make peace even more intractable. And now as the Israeli and Lebanese governments teeter from public criticism, his words ring true.

It was not the first nor, hopefully, will it be the last time Dennis Kucinich ignored political dangers to do the right thing. After all, it is his life story.

Was that really meant to be an insult? From, Gibbs, the man who participated in the destruction of Howard Dean's campaign, a member of his own party?

Makes you wonder who's really in need of a drug test.

[tridim]

1. Did Gibbs say DK is a "Bad Democrat"?

I googled it and got nothing.

[sabrina 1]

3. No, he used Kucinich

to demonstrate what bad Democrats the 'professional left' is. This coming from someone who worked with Republicans to destroy another great Democrat, Howard Dean, is laughable.

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

His snide comment, aside from being wrong, makes the assumption that the 'left' are just whiners. The truth is that if Kucinich was president and doing some of the things this administration has done, like lifting the ban on Offshore drilling, he would be subjected to the exact same criticism.

[tridim]

Gibbs quote made no implication that DK is a bad Democrat..

Or a bad president for that matter.

You're spinning it into something that isn't true.

[sabrina 1]

16. No, I'm pointing out his use of

Kucinich to attack the base of the party with. A typical DLC and rightwing talking point.

As for him being capable of undermining good Democrats, explain his despicable behavior towards in Dean in 2004?

[tridim]

26. Can you point me to links demonstrating this "typical" talking point?

For the record I love DK (do a search), yet the only time I've ever been called a "DLC type" was on DU, because I support the Democratic President and the Democratic Party.

[sabrina 1]

29. I'm not familiar with your posts so would not have and did not refer

to you as a DLC type.

If you want to see how Kucinich is used by the DLC types , do a search of this site, or a general Google search. He is generally dismissed as someone only the 'left fringes', the 'hippies', the 'loonies' and the 'druggies' would support.

Gibbs selection of Kucinich to use as an example, was meant to show that the left is so extreme, even that loony Kucinich and that commie Canadian Health Care system, wouldn't be enough for them. I think most people got what he meant who've around the Internet political scene for any amount of time.

[Bluebear]

43. Link to typical talking point HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[sabrina 1]

47. Lol, I thought I clicked the wrong link, but I guess I fell for it. n/t

[pnwmom]

52. No, he wasn't criticizing Kucinich. He was pointing out that Kucinich would

be getting just as much criticism from the media as Obama is. Why? Because he wouldn't be any more effective in working with the recalcitrant Senate. And the Senate rules that govern filibusters cannot be changed mid-term.

[sabrina 1]

72. If Kucinich was bending over backwards to

appease Republicans he certainly would be criticized by his own party base. If he appointed Republicans to positions of power, or went to Republicans like Lindsey Graham for advice, he definitely would be criticized. And if he lifted the ban on Offshore drilling, or refused to lift the ban on Gays serving in the military, there is no doubt the base of his party would be criticizing him.

Gibbs is not saying that Kucinich would be criticized, and he is not saying that the president is being criticized, he is saying that the very people who got this president elected are whiners because they are rightfully upset over how he has handled policies and how he has backtracked from the very positions that got him elected.

Airc, the last person to call the American people 'whiners' for complaining about the way things are, was during the campaign and that person was fired by McCain.

Ironically it is Gibbs who now viewed as the whiner along with Rahm Emanuel. What did they expect? That people would get in line no matter what the WH did, like lifting the ban on Offshore drilling eg? We criticized Bush mercilessly and criticized his base for not doing the same thing. If they don't want to be criticized, then stop leaning over backwards for Republicans and doing assinine things like creating Deficit Commissions and appointing old Republican anti SS advocates to positions of power on issues that this WH and the Democratic majority should be perfectly capable of handling.

[yurbud]

58. you think that wasn't the implication?

[elocs]

2. Kucinich for President. That would make McGovern/Nixon look like a close race.

But then maybe it's more important for Liberals and Progressives to feel good about casting their votes for someone who reflects their political purity rather than someone who has any chance to win the presidency.

[sabrina 1]

6. Maybe if that were true, most of us would not have supported

Obama instead of Kucinich. Thanks for demonstrating the point I was making about Gibbs.

Your use of the word 'purity' demonstnstrates that rather than have an honest political debate, you'd rather fling insults like the WH at those who don't think their duty as citizens is over once they vote for a member of their own team.

It's sad that this country is still so backward that a man like Kucinich, someone the DLC constantly uses to insult the base of their party with, is still too far ahead of his time, and too poor, to be elected president.

Contrary to your snide declaration, most of us realize that and generally settle for the lesser of two evils.

[pnwmom]

51. Yes, the country IS that backward. Kucinich wouldn't have a chance.

Wishing on a star won't get us anywhere.

[Desertrose]

7. Well I voted for Obama and what did I get?

Someone who "won" the presidency...so big fucking deal.

He continues the same policies that were in place for the past 8 years. Is that supposed to make me feel better while I still cannot afford healthcare and the wars are being continued & escalated? More people losing their jobs and more becoming homeless, yet I am supposed to feel "all warm & fuzzy" cause I voted for the "winner"??


Its not about political purity...its about changing the direction we're heading. Obama hasn't done that ...at all. Yet he is a Dem. Seems like it's all just bullshit, my friends.

[sharp_stick]

4. Ahhh the prodigal candidate returns

It's a bit early in the election season for him IMO but I suppose fury at Gibbs could drive you to it a bit soon.

[sabrina 1]

14. Maybe instead of, like Gibbs, making stuff up

you should think before you post.

Kucinich will not run against a Democratic president. He is a Democrat and will support the Democratic presidential nominee and always has. He ran against BUSH.

Unlike Gibbs who connived in the most despicable way helping Republicans to destroy a great Democrat, and has no compunction about taking potshots at other Democrats, Kucinich doesn't resort to such dirty politics.

[LWolf]

5. Changes I can believe in. nt

[Radical Activist]

8. People would be just as unhappy with Kucinich

because he would have the same Congress. Actually, some people would be happy because they would rather have fiery speeches than actual progress. But, his list of accomplishments as President would likely be less than what Obama has done.

Congress already blocked the closing of Gitmo by not authorizing funds for it. You don't think they would do the same if Kucinich tried a quick withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan? Why wouldn't people blame Kucinich for that just like they're blaming Obama for Gitmo being open?

[Erose999]

11. Fiery speeches = using the bully pulpit = results. Our current leadership should try it sometime.

[Radical Activist]

17. Obama uses the bully pulpit constantly.

He's frequently doing town hall meetings, he did dozens of TV shows to campaign for health care, he used the bully pulpit at multiple speeches to Congressional and national televised speeches from the Oval Office. He used it so much that the press started criticizing him for being over-exposed.

Obama might be the best speech maker of our time. If simply using the bully pulpit were enough to magically make things happen then the Senate would have passed every bill he introduced by now.

[sabrina 1]

21. He is a great speaker and he has used the bully pulpit

but not to fight for the issues he ran on, such as a PO. If he would get rid of his current crop of DLC advisers maybe he can become the man he was in the campaign again.

Where are the 'fired up and ready to go' speeches on Civil Rights for all Americans? Where were they on Health Care for all especially when he had a mandate AND the support of a majority of Americans?

It's not much use being a gifted speaker if you only use to get to the WH then forget about the people who got you there.

[Radical Activist]

30. The issues he campaigned on.

His campaign primarily focused on four issues.
Getting out of Iraq
Clean energy
Health care reform
More government intervention to fix the economy

He used the bully pulpit on ALL of those issues. In fact, he has followed through on all of them with the exception of the Senate blocking a cap-and-trade bill. Although, he did more for clean energy in the stimulus bill alone than Clinton and Carter ever did combined.

He did not run a single issue campaign on the public option. I find the netroots obsession over that one issue to be bizarre. To suggest he didn't use the bully pulpit for the issues he campaigned on simply because of that one agenda detail suggests you have a distorted sense of perspective.

[sabrina 1]

35. Who said he ran a single issue campaign on the PO?

That is a talking point used to disparage those who were, rightfully, critical of the lost opportunity to provide a decent, not-totally-for-profit health care system. That was a very, very important issue.

Considering the number of Americans who die each year because of the corruption of the Private Ins. Industry, the issue was one of the top issues for many Americans. He had a mandate, he had a majority of the people on his side, and in the campaign he opposed the continuation of the Republican for-profit system and he opposed mandated Insurance. He certainly did support a PO at least, until he got to the WH and then shut out the very people who elected him.

But there were many issues that got him support, that was one of them. Using the charge that the left are 'single issue' voters is completely disingenuous. Progressives care about people, Republicans care about Corporations.

And it is the DLC and the Rightwing that attempt to denigrate Progressives by dismissing them as 'single issue' voters, or concerned only about their 'pet issues'. That talking point should not appear on a progressive board imo.

[Radical Activist]

39. You claimed he didn't use the bully pulpit

for the issues he campaigned on. The only example you gave was the public option. I showed that your claim is false because he has frequently used the bully pulpit for many issues. Your claim that he didn't use it for the issues he campaigned on could only be true if the public option had been his only campaign issue. In fact, he even argued for the public option many times.

At no point did I accuse you of being a single issue voter. I simply showed the flaw in your argument. If you're going to broadly attack Obama for not using the bully pulpit to speak on his campaign issues then you need to come up with more than one example.

[sabrina 1]

42. There was no flaw in my argument. You said it yourself, I used

the PO as an example of an important issue he could have used the bully pulpit to promote.

I could have made a long list, but assumed you understood I was using one issue as an example.

How about torture as an abhorrent criminal practice even for third world dictatorships? I haven't heard him rallying people around making this a torture free country.

How about restoring Habeas Corpus? Where are the great speeches on this incredible centuries-old right, destroyed by the Bush administration?

I won't go on, but I hope you get the idea. He has a gift, he has not used it to fight for some really important issues. Maybe he will, but so far on some issues of vital importance to this Democracy, he's been relatively silent.

I'm hoping he's waiting until his second term, but I this time, I will just wait and see rather than have expectations that are unrealistic.

[moksha]

33. Not really.

He does make fine speeches, but there is no bully there. He is more of a facilitator than a leader. He brings together the Democratic conservatives and the repupuglican conservatives to talk.

[NorthCarolina]

34. I missed the one where he used the bully pulpit

to strongly push for a Public Option during the health care debate. Oh, and I missed the one where he took to the bully pulpit to demand an end to DADT and the unconstitutional DOMA....oh wait, I also missed the one where he informed the public that the banking legislation about to be passed didn't do anything to change the status quo. Maybe I should watch more tv.

[Radical Activist]

40. Then you should pay more attention to what Obama actually does

and less attention to second hand characterizations about what he does.

[JI7]

38. so why didn't Kucinich get the other members to support his bills ?

[sabrina 1]

48. His record as a member of Congress on getting co-sponsors

for his bills, and the number of bills that made it out of Committee, is about average. The idea that he has failed to do anything is a lie spread by those who have a vested interest in silencing him.

He's done as much in Congress in the time he's been there, as most, and more than some. We've proven that before by actually looking at the record.

However, he could not get Congress to go along with defunding Bush's war. But he can hardly be blamed for that. The question should by, 'since he was so right about this war, what is wrong with Congress, especially Democrats, who refused to back him up'? NOT what is wrong with him.

We need more like him in Congress and fewer corporate owned members. We cannot blame the few who try to do the right thing for the behavior of those who don't.

[boppers]

59. So, DK's fiery speeches had what effect, then?

Theater for political geeks?

[sabrina 1]

63. I don't think you really want to

make those who are defending Gibbs by claiming that he was not insulting Kucinich, wrong. But you just did that anyhow. Thanks for confirming and providing an example of how the DLC and the Right use Kucinich to insult progressives with. A fact a commenter in this thread denied. I will now refer him/her to your post as an example of what I meant.

As for Kucinich's fiery speeches, if you think that a member of Congress telling the truth is simply 'theater' you are far too cynical, and in this case wrong, to be of any help to this country right now.

This is one of the few honest members of Congress we have, respected even by those who don't often agree with him on both sides of the aisle for his sincerity. Much the way Wellstone was respected.

Odd that you would criticize an honest Congressman, but defend scum like Gibbs who is a slimey, political dirty trickster who joined Republicans to bring down Howard Dean at a time when this country was in dire need.

Your choice of who to support says a lot about you, nothing about Kucinich who can speak very well for himself.

[boppers]

69. Project much?

You're making a lot of assumptions.

[NorthCarolina]

66. +1000 n/t

[izquierdista]

9. I'm on board for that!

[Erose999]

10. Sign me up. I'll even donate $10 to his campaign lol nt

[sabrina 1]

73. Me too. Every little bit counts, and adds up. We could donate to his

campaign for Congress, we need him there to keep reminding us that there is a better way even if we are not yet ready for it.

He is too good a Democrat to run against Obama, but I'd like to keep him in Congress ...

[polly7]

12. In some ways Kunich does remind me of Tommy Douglas, struggling

as a child and growing up to fight for social causes. I don't know much about him, but his heart seems to be in the right place.

[piratefish08]

13. that would make a great t-shirt.

I'd buy one......

[sabrina 1]

25. Lol, so would I ~ n/t

[Radical Activist]

15. Also, some on the left would attack Kucinich as a sell-out if he got the Democratic nomination.

Obama worked hard to raise money and get decent news coverage. I remember in the primary arguing with people who claimed that Obama wasn't a liberal because he was getting media coverage and raising money.

In other words, as soon as a candidate successfully does the things it takes to win an election there's a portion of the left (mostly Greens and Marxists) who will turn on that candidate. It doesn't matter how liberal that candidate is on the issues. It's a self defeating mindset that will cannibalize any Democrat who achieves anything.

[sabrina 1]

19. You said a lot in that post.

First, Kucinich would never get the corporate backing necessary in our current system to actually get elected, because they know he would not be willing to serve their needs.

No one can and our only hope is that someday a candidate will take their money and then spend his four years along with members of Congress, to help change the system.

People did become concerned when they saw former Bush donors begin to contribute to Obama, and not without reason. Are you not concerned at the news that they are now getting ready to bet on Republicans?

Gibbs is way off base in his statements, most of us while we deplore the system, understand we have to work within it. That is why, despite reservations many people had, Obama won. So his statements are ridiculous.

And if Kucinich ever did it make it, he would be subject to the same scrutiny, not because the left are whiners, but because they are good Democrats and citizens.

[Radical Activist]

32. Kucinich can't raise money because he doesn't pick up the phone

and do the work it takes to raise money. A lot of it is his own fault.

Obama did the work. His fundraising base started with liberal donors he developed relationships with in Chicago throughout his career. Most of his campaign was funded by small donors. The corporate donors started giving too since they give to anyone who has a chance at winning. Yes, they would even give to Kucinich if it looked like he was going to win the nomination anyway.

There's something very self-defeating about the assumption many on the left have that anyone capable of getting the Democratic nomination must be bad. It's a cynical, loser mentality.

[dflprincess]

18. Works for me!

[NorthCarolina]

20. If Kucinich runs, he'll absofuckinglutely get my vote. eom

[sabrina 1]

23. He'd get a lot more votes this time I think.

But he won't challenge a sitting Democratic President. He's too good a Democrat to do that. Which makes you wonder why members of his own party trash him the way they do.

He's not Gibbs who had no compunction smearing and undermining a great Democrat.

[NorthCarolina]

27. They trash him because he carries a message of common sense that the public

can understand, and would certainly agree. He would bring the change to DC that Obama talked about as campaign fodder for the base. He would use the bully pulpit to correct the public misconception of what it means to hold Liberal ideals. In short, he would be the card that topples the corporate empire, and brings an end to the "United States of Acquisition". The DLC/GOP could not risk Kucinich to be seen as the man that he truly is, and therefore must force him to wear an artificially created mask of public ridicule.

[sabrina 1]

36. Great post.

I absolutely agree that if the American people heard more from Kucinich he would have a good chance at being elected. We are so starved for someone who isn't so 'pragmatic' that they can dismiss dead civilians as a necessity, as collateral damage, or that doesn't believe Wall St. criminals are entitled to be treated differently to the rest of us.

He is their conscience and they dare not let him be heard because he shows them up for what they are without ever being nasty or rude about it. Just by telling the truth.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. When I was working on his 2004 campaign, I wish I'd gotten a dollar for

every person who said, "I love him, but he can't win."

The appeal is definitely there, but I think a lot more people are aware of the odds against someone like DK getting corporate backing.

[sabrina 1]

45. Someone upthread said he was too lazy to pick up the phone

and ask for donations, to 'do the work' that Obama did. They claim that even big Corps would donate to him if he did the work.

I am laughing at the idea of Kucinich calling Halliburton eg, and asking them to support his run for the WH.

I agree with you, he will never get the donations to fund a campaign. But imagine if all those who have said 'I love him, but he can't win' actually voted for him and worked to get him small donations at least and donations from some of the good Corps, because they do exist, I wonder how far he'd get? I think people might be surprised.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. I think so, too

Our little guerrilla marketing campaign in Minnesota won him 17% of the vote statewide, not enough to win, but more than the 3% he got elsewhere.

In ever state that had well-organized guerrilla marketing volunteers, he did better, and it had nothing to do with how red or blue the state was. He did better in Utah than in Oregon, for example, and he did better in certain small Wisconsin towns than in Madison.

[sabrina 1]

49. That's interesting, and with the party machine against him too.

People like him when they do get to hear him. He was excellent in the debates, after he was no longer involved, they really were pretty predictable.

It will take a long time before this country is ready for someone like Kucinich, if ever, but I'm glad he's in Congress to keep pushing for what is right, so we don't forget what 'right' looks like.

[boppers]

60. How many times did DK visit Oregon?

Somehow I must have missed that?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. I don't know--I wasn't in Oregon

but he visited Minnesota four times, and we had to BEG the local media to cover those visits. (They covered Edwards talking to 25 donors but we had to badger them to cover DK speaking before an enthusiastic general public crowd of 1600, and three out of the four TV stations that sent cameras didn't use the footage, choosing instead to lead with a scandal about a love triangle involving a county sheriff. The fourth station spent about 10 seconds on the story.)

It's possible that Dennis did visit Oregon but the Big O ignored it. I don't know, since I had already moved to Minnesota by that time.

He did well in Hawaii, because until Obama, presidential candidates rarely visited Hawaii, so I'm told that he got good local coverage simply for showing up.

[Cleita]

22. It works for me.

However, if he ever got there, they would find a way to get rid of him, just like they did to Howard Dean.

[sabrina 1]

56. I can only imagine how they would go after him if it looked

like he had a chance. Just like Dean as you said. Too bad the public allows themselves to be so manipulated. They are really to blame for not standing up against the political dirty tricksters.

[elana i am]

24. not an insult

i wrote in kucinich during the election because i have principles, but i'm not delusional.

i expect progressives to be grounded in reality and respectful of facts, like the chances of kucinich getting elected president and the US getting canadian-style healthcare are less than zero. there are some pesky little realitites to be dealt with, like the number of progressives in congress can be counted on 1 1/2 hands and the 60-vote requirement.

what's going on around here looks very little like progressivism but instead resembles the left's version of the tea party.

[sabrina 1]

28. Can you elaborate on your 'tea-party' statement?

I have never seen the Republican Party slam their base, ever. They may do it in private, but not in public as this WH has done now on numerous occasions. Enough that Nancy Pelosi has taken the trouble to go to the WH twice to speak them about trashing Democrats in public.

I don't see any comparison in this situation, which is like a last straw to many of those who worked so hard for this president, and how never had any illusions that this country is anywhere near ready for a man like Kucinich to the teabaggers. If you can point out where top Republicans have been slamming them on a regular basis, then maybe I'll see what you are getting at.

We are still in the primitive stage of development and we are realistic enough to know that we won't get someone like Kucinich for president for a long time. The fact that Gibbs used Kucinich and Canada for his snide remarks, puts HIM in the same category as the right who frequently refer to Canadian healthcare and Kuicinich as signs of how 'insane' the left are.

[elana i am]

31. the tea party comparison

means the progressives getting bent out of shape about the administration not being progressive enough when the administration ISN'T progressive. the hugely extreme progressive expectations (that presumably led to disappointment and feelings of betrayal) are what resembles the tea party.

i am a progressive but i paid attention and didn't get hyped up on lofty expectations of obama and co. so i'm left scratching my head at the irate response of other progressives here now. i supported kucinich because of my progressive ideals and my principles, but i'm not stupid or delusional.

seriously, with the current make-up of the congress and with obama being a centerist and not a liberal, how did so many progressives manage to delude themselves into thinking a public option really had a chance? for that matter, how did so many progressives manage to delude themselves into thinking obama was a liberal? why is there not more acknowledgment of the 60-vote rule? what made progressives believe that obama could crack the whip and all the blue dogs would fall in line?

i am also perfectly willing and able to acknowledge that a certain segment of progressive DU has gone completely daft.

[sabrina 1]

41. Thanks for your response.

I can agree with some of what you said, eg, that this not a progressive administration. What I can't agree with is that people were unrealistic in their expectations.

For example, I settled on Obama out of the final choices we had, Hillary, McCain, Edwards, because of his position on the War in Iraq. Other than that there wasn't much difference in the three Democrats until they started debating Healthcare. That was a deciding factor for many who did not like Hillary's support for mandated Insurance.

I never thought Obama was a 'leftie'. Early on his focus on religion, eg, bothered me, not that he is religious, but that he seemed to feeding into the idea that Democrats are 'godless' when the truth is Democrats are many different things. It seemed to me he was catering to the right.

But even accepting that he was not especially progressive, there were some issues that I do not think it takes an extremist to support. Such as torture and restoring the Rule of Law.

Offshore drilling which he very effectively debated McCain on, was not an extremist position for a Democrat either.

I don't see the relationship at all between those who are disappointed in his change of positions on several not-very-extreme issues after the election, and the tea-baggers who are yell if their party even thinks about providing some assistance to the poor, which they don't anyhow, so there's no need for their hysteria.

Iow, not too many people I know voted for Obama thinking he was a real fire-breathing progressive, but they did expect to be included in debates about major issues, not shut out, and they did expect an explanation other than 'my thinking evolved' on the issues on which he changed his mind. Nor did they expect the brow-beating from his aides when they dared to ask questions. If anything, the left has been very subdued in its disagreements, letting many things go until there was an accumulation of issues on which he seems to have completely changed his mind and to cater to and include Republicans when he does not include progressives. I think the criticism is justified and should be addressed rather than have his aides ranting about it. They, Gibbs, Rahm et al seem tea-bagger-like to me if anything.

[boppers]

62. "If anything, the left has been very subdued in its disagreements"

:rofl:

Are you SERIOUS?

Before Obama was even inaugurated, the left was having huge screaming matches over whether or not some dude should be allowed to *pray* on the podium, GD:P was a non-stop flame-fest over every appointment proposed, word uttered, and policy suggested, and the lefty boards were predicting catastrophic failure of epic proportions.

Which makes me wonder: If you consider that "subdued", what would "more vocal" look like?

[sabrina 1]

68. That 'dude' was a rightwing fundie homophobe.

Yes, any Democratic President who invites a rightwing fundi homophobe to his inauguration does KNOWING people are going to be upset. And if he didn't know that, something is wrong with the thinking in this WH.

As for the rest of your post, I don't recall those flame-fests. I get upset when it's necessary, such as when a Democratic President appoints Republicans to positions of power. I didn't work to put Republicans in power, I worked to get rid of them.

Or when the President does something like lift the ban on Offshore drilling. I would be upset with any president who would do that. Although I would never have expected it from a Dem. president.

Rightwing policies, rightwing appointments and catering to the right while shutting out progressives, that will get me upset every time. It should get all good Democrats upset.

[flvegan]

37. Sign me up!

[pnwmom]

50. You're dreaming if you think that iconoclast would have better luck with the Senate

than Obama. We need a President who's willing to negotiate and mediate and Kucinich has never shown those skills.

[earcandle]

53. Thank you for this post !

[laughingliberal]

54. K & R nt

[Safetykitten]

55. An excellent idea. I 'm in.

[Overseas]

57. Me too! Yes please ! //nt

[TheKentuckian]

61. Sign me right up. Anybody that is satisfied with corporate health care is a moron

[Kall]

64. Dennis Kucinich wouldn't have taken the Republicans' shit meekly

Obama's political skills are the things of myths. Kucinich sure as hell wouldn't have been kissing the asses of Republicans who openly stated they would uniformally oppose him. He'd have talked to the public about what needed to be done, why it neeeded to be done, and they'd pay a price for opposing legislation the public wanted.

For all the talk of Obama's political genius, he won a Senate race that was a gimme against a Republican that had to withdraw, and a national election against a Republican party that was universally reviled and responsible for the biggest economic calamity in decades, which hit people right between the eyes 2 months before the election. Without the economic crises, whether he would have even won is an open question, You're seeing his political skills at work now, letting Republicans oppose half-assed legislation with no consequences, searching that bipartisanship with an opposition that openly stated it would never be forthcoming, and pissing off his former supporters.

[Kall]

65. Oops

Not meant to 'reply' to this comment, just the general thread.

[sabrina 1]

70. You're absolutely right. Kucinich would never allow

Republicans to roll him over the way this WH has. But then I'm beginning to think that when Obama said he admired Reagan, he actually did mean it the way it sounded.

Kucinich has guts. See the difference between someone who will not waver when he knows he's right even at the cost of losing his job, dealing with Mafia hits put out on him and other threats to his life.

Later he was proven right about refusing to privatize the Energy Company and even though he lost his job over it, the people benefited from his courage.

We will never see that from any candidate approved of by the Corporate Masters who actually run this country. They would arrange for an end to the existence of any president who actually stood up for the people, and would never allow someone Kucinich to even get close to the job.

[Desertrose]

71. That's what I love about Dennis.

He doesn't take crap off anybody. Wish more had the courage of their convictions DK has.

[dreamnightwind]

74. Yes to Dennis, and if not him, someone else

I'd support Dennis with all my heart. I doubt that he has a chance in hell, partly due to the opposition of the powers that be, and partly because he's an easy guy to not take seriously and because he doesn't seem to me to be someone the dumbed-down masses in this country would ever get behind.

This kind of post, proposing that we actually take action and organize a progressive-left alternative to the corporacrats, is a great start. We need more of it, so thanks.

I personally would give my efforts to Dean or even Elizabeth Warren, or to some deserving person that isn't even on my radar yet.

But we really do need someone to unite around. Or a progressive umbrella that organizes within the democratic party as a counter movement to the corporate domination of the party that supposedly represents the left.

It's way past the point where supporting the corporate Dems and pressuring them to do what is right is a reasonable strategy. They spin their actions to the left while they ignore human needs and instead support their real power base, the corporations.

So I applaud your OP and Dennis, and say whether it's Dennis or someone else, we have to do it, it's time. Count me in.