Why do some anti-Kucinich types seem OBSESSED with driving him out of the race?

[Ken Burch]

If you don't want to support the guy, fair enough, that's your call.

But it seems like some people think that Kucinich's very presence in the primary campaign is some kind of mortal threat
to the whole party.

Why?

Do you honestly think that Dennis Kucinich and his supporters have to be silenced if the party is to win?

What kind of a party would we have if NO ONE who agreed with Kucinich's ideals had a say in it?

(Actually, given that we HAD that kind of party from 1994 to 2006, does that kind of party really have much reason to exist?)

Oppose the guy, vote for somebody else, fine. But quit acting like Dennis and his supporters are the Democratic Party's enemies.

There's nothing he or us can do that could possibly hurt the party enough to justify your rage, fear, and contempt.

You NEED our votes to win just as much as you need anybody else's supporters.

The way to get them is by showing our candidate and our principles RESPECT.

[mmonk]

1. He doesn't represent where this country is going.

This country is going to hell.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. ITA

this country is going down

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Dennis is/has always been 20 years ahead of the mainstream

the masses don't/can't get it.

[Ken Burch]

3. "The masses" or "the elitists"?

It used to be "the liberal elitists" but they all got over the liberal part. They just like to pretend that they're still Democrats to ward off a bit of the shame.

[aquart]

12. Probably because we don't like being called "masses."

It oozes superiority and contempt.

[Ken Burch]

15. If you'll read the post I had right above yours, aquart

You'll note that I also objected to the use of the word "masses". Although, in my case, it's largely due to the fact that I don't accept that the "mainstream" is the "masses" and that Kucinich supporters are an elite.

[hayu_lol]

125. So was Studebaker...

20 years ahead.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. A lot of times I think...

That stuff like this is done for the pure sport of it.

[MuseRider]

5. Ding Ding Ding

You get the prize.

Most of the time I see these kinds of things they are by someone who KNOWS the answers but just has to get his/her digs in. You can lay out the facts just so many times then you finally realize that they KNOW it but they only want to dig under your skin. Poor way to behave or to treat anyone but there it is.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. Yes.

MKJ

[illinoisprogressive]

7. I have no problem with DK. he has every right to run and has some good ideas.

[Ken Burch]

10. Thanks for saying that, IP

You've always been one of the more civilized voices in the '08 debate.

[robinlynne]

28. Dennis notches the entire dem debate up a level! He is one of the party's greatest

assets! Even though I don't think I'll vote for him, because I don't think he will win, I support him 100% with my words, and money too. If Dennis were not in the race, these other guys would all move to the right immediately.

[TheModernTerrorist]

51. how will he not win

if you refuse to vote for him? that's is the only reason he won't win. :P

[slick8790]

65. Because it's a wasted vote.

Common sense tells you that one of the top three WILL win the nomination, and one is certainly worse than the other two.

[MadHound]

126. Trouble is, common sense hasn't been so common at times

McGovern, Carter and Clinton as ones who "weren't supposed to win" come immediately to mind.

[robinlynne]

67. I don't thjink he will win the national nomination,a lthough I think he should. So if I vote for him

I'm helping to place Hillary in power. For that reason only I'm going with edwards, but will be fine with really anyone but hillary.

[Stardust]

75. Ooh. I hadn't realized my vote for Dennis would bolster HRC. Dayem.

I hate sticky wickets.

[robinlynne]

77. That's my opinion, and the way i see it. I'm not pushing it or saying how anyone else should vote,

just discussing it. I don't want Hillary to win the nomination. period.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. I want him to stay in the race

I want people to see what happens when Democratic voters get a chance to choose between a far-left fringe candidate and mainstream Demcorats. I am confident that Democratic voters will make the wise choice.

[liberaldemocrat7]

9. Hillary Clinton appears a right of center Democrat.

At least Dennis Kucinich has represented a district in Ohio for quite awhile and served as mayor of Cleveland.

He does not appear a fringe candidate to me.

I suppose you consider Franklin Roosevelt far left because he created Social Security and unemployment insurance which had no private component to it, unlike what Hillary wants to do with her public private partnerships which like Medicare part D will enrich private companies and do very little for the middle class.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. If she is right of center, them there must be A LOT of center right Democrats

[Desertrose]

26. BINGO!

There ARE a lot of right of center Dems.

Kucinich being the exception.


(if I edit this enough maybe I can say what I'm trying to say.)

[...of J.Temperance]

113. APPARENTLY Barney Frank is even one now! Lol!

Seriously....check the Barney Frank thread from the other night in either GD or GD Politics, can't remember which forum.

Some of the comments will boggle your mind.

[Clintonista2]

73. Hillary Clinton has voted with the Democratic majority 93% of the time

She also has a more progressive voting record than Obama, according to www.progressivepunch.org

[...of J.Temperance]

114. Stop that, stop pointing out the TRUTH about Hillary....they can't handle it

They've developed their own myth that Hillary is a neo-Conservative and is really REALLY RIGHT-WING and that she eats newborn babies for breakfast....don't burst their myth, by throwing the TRUTH and REALITY at them.

[...of J.Temperance]

110. Hillary Clinton WILL get the Presidential Nomination

It's virtually assured that she will....and she's a formidable campaigner, and what Hillary WANTS, Hillary usually GETS....I think she'll win the Presidential Election....if I were the betting kind, I'd bet on her to become Number 44.

At this time my candidate is John Edwards, I'd like him to get the nomination, in my heart it's saying Edwards....but in my political head I know it'll be Hillary.

Hopefully she'll pick Edwards for Veep and if not Edwards, then hopefully she'll pick Governor Bill Richardson.

[Vincardog]

25. Thank you Freddie for that vote of confidence. I also believe the people will vote for DK

What this country needs is a true progressive populist move to the left.

[robinlynne]

68. farleft fringe? really? WEll there are about 40,000 farleftfringers around here then.

[...of J.Temperance]

115. 40,000 out of about TENS of MILLIONS of people in the real world

I'd say at the tops, the Kucinich support is about 100,000 out of tens of millions of Democrats, which is why he's only on 2%, which is why he'll never get the nomination ever.

If Kucinich had a mainstream message and was part of mainstream politics, then....well he'd be polling like 45% as opposed to 2%.

[...of J.Temperance]

116. The mainstream Democrats always win that sort of race

And can we blame people for supporting a logical, pragmatic, sensible and mainstream message? No we can't.

[aquart]

11. It's vital he stay in to the very end.

Which takes remarkable courage and strength and no one has the right to diminish that in any way. He's taking the edge position which is a completely thankless task, but focuses the arguments in the right direction.

No way in hell should he drop out. What he must get is the strongest possible showing his supporters can muster. Don't let his positions be ignored. Don't let the likelihood of eventually losing stop one of you from voting for him. The size of his turnout will determine our future.

[...of J.Temperance]

119. I like the fellow, I don't dislike him

I just think he's somewhat misguided is all....his campaign is a campaign that's run almost totally on Idealism....and that's actually the crux of his problem, why he's polling 2%.

Candidates who are Pure Idealists never win the top job.

[ChenZhen]

13. Because he is TOO LIBERAL!

That being, he is ACTUALLY left of center. Wow. Imagine that... :)

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007

[...of J.Temperance]

117. Kucinich isn't Left of Center

Kucinich is Left of Left and then Left again....that's why he's polling 2%, that's why in the 2004 Ohio Democratic Primary he couldn't get more than 10% of the vote in his HOME state.

Left of Center is Senator Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden.

Center-Left is Senator Hillary Clinton and in my heart I KNOW John Edwards is still Center-Left and that he's not moved into Left of Center.

Left of Center and Center-Left are both where the mainstream Democrats are.

Dennis Kucinich is Left of Left and then Left again, he's out there where the likes of Cynthia McKinney used to be and almost certainly STILL is.

I've got nothing against Dennis Kucinich, but his talents are better used in Congress, his talents being his vote....he really shouldn't think he can punch above his weight and think he can compete with the Big Guns like Hillary, Edwards, Obama.

Same on the GOP side, Ron Paul hasn't got a hope of getting their party's Presidential nomination.


On Edit: Dammit capital letter error

[riqster]

14. Speaking as a Centrist...

I rarely disagree with DK.

[...of J.Temperance]

118. Really?

I'm curious, because I'm a Centrist Democrat and I rarely agree with Dennis Kucinich....except on reinstating The Fairness Doctrine.

So what exactly are you agreeing with Dennis Kucinich on? His politics is pretty far away from the politics of Centrist Democrats.

[lastliberalintexas]

130. From centrist Dems, perhaps, but not Centrists

Despite claims to the contrary (even from you in this thread), Kucinich is NOT a leftist, and is actually fairly middle of the road on the political spectrum. The fact that he is considered far left speaks volumes about the political discourse in this country.

[Mythsaje]

16. If anything, I wish we could hear MORE of his ideas

He's not well liked by the "skeptical," anti-"woo" crowd here on DU because of his new age beliefs, but...:shrug:

I think letting him talk shifts the debate in directions it desperately needs to go. I don't think he has any chance in the general, but he makes for good dialogue in the primaries. Or would, if the corporate media whores weren't intent on smothering him under a blanket of disinterest.

[Snarkturian Clone]

17. I used to be all about Kucinich

until he said he supports a nationwide smoking ban. I will not vote for a candidate that is interested in restricting freedom.

I guess you could say I was for him before I was against him.

[LWolf]

19. Of course, he is the candidate that

has been strongest in protesting the erosion of our constitutional freedoms.

He's the most adamant, vigorous supporter and defender of the constitution of the lot of them. He's the only one of them in office at the time to vote against the Patriot Act.

I feel pretty confident that I'd be freer under a Kucinich administration than the rest.

[slipslidingaway]

22. You misrepresented the same issue on a different thread and I

replied with the facts and now, a day later, you post almost the exact same message.

Every Dem candidate had the same answer with the exception of Obama and Clinton who said they would first try and enact changes at the local level. On this issue you are left with voting for a Republican or a third party candidate, singling out Kucinich on this issue is being dishonest, especially when someone has already posted the facts and video to you.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1979420&mesg_id=1984948

Snarkturian Clone Fri Oct-05-07 09:37 PM
"I was all about Kucinich until...
I found out about his interest in a nationwide restaurant smoking ban. I will not vote for anyone that is interested in restricting freedom."


My reply yesterday, Fri Oct-05-07 10:22 PM

Edit to add my reply link from yesterday
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1979420&mesg_id=1985257


Watch the video...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3556419&mesg_id=3557787

Smoking ban

slipslidingaway (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-28-07 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #21

36. THANK YOU & all other candidates said YES to smoking ban
except Clinton and Obama who said they would prefer to have local bans and see the outcome first.

Here's that video, start at 5:25.

Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel all raised their hands in response to the question. When Russert was doing the second summary and moving on to the next question, Edwards wanted to join the other five.

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE SEPT 26, 2007 part 12
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gBwCUw60aZI

[Snarkturian Clone]

29. Thanks for being astute, but I'm not singling out Kucinich

I'm just stating the fact that I was a Kucinich supporter until such time as he suggested that he was for a nationwide smoking ban. I'm not trying to stump for any one of the other candidates when stating this fact.

I agree that the dilemma exists that I would be forced to vote for a RW or indie candidate. It is a problem.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Good luck finding a candidate, there are too many other

issues for me that take precedence over the smoking ban issue. Not for profit health care and stopping the next war of aggression being the two most important.

[Ken Burch]

43. Is having the right to fill your lungs and the lungs of those around you with poison

Worth giving up on stopping the war?

That is one warped values system.

And remember, the right will make sure you get a cigarette...when they line you up to be shot.

[Snarkturian Clone]

45. who said I was a smoker? I'm a non-smoker.

I just believe in freedom.

[Ken Burch]

47. But why are smoker's rights, of all things, YOUR measure of freedom?

And again, do those rights(whether or not you personally exercise them) outweigh the immorality of the war?

And given that most smokers are reactionaries, and thus can fight perfectly well for their own rights, why even worry about them?

In the end, you're still saying that some people should be killed so that others can have the right to kill themselves.

[Snarkturian Clone]

48. mm-hmm.

[ProudDad]

81. You're the one making a big deal

out of a reasonable response to people who are too addicted to notice that their addiction DIRECTLY affects innocent people...

Captain Hyperbole indeed...

[slick8790]

66. Why can't everyone have freedom?

Why can't we be free from war and have the right to smoke a cigarette in public? Sorry, but this is one of the many reasons I don't support kucinich. maybe we should work on restoring our standing in the world and fixing the economy before we worry about smoking in public places, eh? This reeks of right-wing morality..."The government knows best for you, so you can't smoke in public". If I don't like the amount of people smoking in an establishment, I won't use their services.

[ProudDad]

82. It's not "FREEDOM"

to try to kill me and mine with your fucking habit...

[slick8790]

87. Yes, that's what smokers are trying to do.

[ProudDad]

98. Don't know if that's what they're trying to do or not

but that's what they would continue to do here...

If it weren't ILLEGAL in my state -- Thank Goodness!!!

[sufrommich]

96. "Most smokers are reactionaries"??

WHere did that come from?

[Ken Burch]

109. Well, the fact that the Republican party pushes hard for "smoker's rights" for one thing.

And there's Rush's habit of posing with big phallic-looking cigars in his mouth.

In this country, smoking just isn't something humane, progressive, considerate people usually do. Maybe a tiny handful, but other than in Cuba maybe, there's no progressive rationale for smoking. It's about violating other people's space, it's about imposing yourself on other people's lungs, it's about saying at every moment to those around you "my needs matter and yours don't".

[...of J.Temperance]

121. What?

"....smoking just isn't something humane, progressive, considerate people usually do. Maybe a tiny handful, but other than in Cuba maybe, there's no progressive rationale for smoking."

With all due respect, this is ridiculous, you can't seriously believe what you've just written can you?

How about the anti-smoking Fascists get off peoples backs and let an individual make their OWN CHOICE, without imposing RESTRICTIONS on a persons choice?

IF I want to smoke, I will, of course I'm PERFECTLY HAPPY to go outside and smoke, but that's all anyones getting....IF they try and stop people from EVEN smoking outside, then they're REALLY going to far with this anti-smoking Fascism.

[RFKJrNews]

123. Dude, that's just nutty!

What, have you forgotten JFK and Bill Clinton's penchant for those "phallic-looking" cigars?

Goodness gracious, now you're equating all smokers with Republicans? With all due respect, are you out of your mind?

[RFKJrNews]

111. Sweeping generalizations, much?

"most smokers are reactionaries," Ken Burch?

Wow, that's painting in very wide strokes, my friend. I'm sure you have some scientific data to back up that wild assertion, would love to see it - once you retreive the data from your spaceship.

Not sure how many smokers you actually know (probably not very many, as it appears you are part of that crowd who would not stoop low enough to say "hello" to one), but I know several and they are all perfectly sane, logical people who care as much about our country's future as you and I do. Reactionaries they are not.

So dude, what are YOU smoking? Obviously something stronger than tobacco.

You also wrote: "smokers are perfectly capable of fighting for their own rights, so why even worry about them?"

Uhhh, because they are human beings. Even if you consider smokers the least among us, remember that they are Americans, too. Like it or not.

A smoker's only crime is that they have a bad habit. Bad for their own health and (arguably) bad for the health of others. Although I've never heard of any smoker killing another human being through outright violence due to their bad habit. Let's get them help and treatment rather than penalizing them with fines, tickets, and throwing them in jail. Let's try a bit of compassion on for size.

After all, how many drunks go out and kill people everyday in violent acts thanks to a bad habit that is perfectly legal? By this logic, drunks can have all the freedom they want, but smokers can have none.

If you stand for a local, statewide, or nationwide smoking ban, will you also support a return to alcohol prohibition? (We all remember how well that deal worked out!)

[...of J.Temperance]

120. Most smokers are reactionaries? Huh?

What an absolutely BIZARRE thing to comment.

So smoking is now determined by WHAT political party and political ideology a person holds?

[ProudDad]

80. He does NOT support a nationwide smoking ban!!!

Please get your facts straight.

He supports extended the ban on smoking in enclosed, public spaces that already exists and is working quite well for everyone in California and Arizona to the rest of the nation.

You DON'T HAVE THE "FREEDOM" to try to kill me with your carcinogens!!!

[Snarkturian Clone]

86. hasn't worked well here in Philly

bars and restaurants suffered bad last winter.


Is that why you want Kucinich? So he can tell you what's best for you and make laws about it? Doesn't sound like freedom to me. The needs of the many (people who want freedom) outweigh the needs of the few (anti-smoking warriors).

I know this is pointless to argue with you but I can't let you continue to spread around awful memes.

[ProudDad]

99. Worked damn well in California and here in Arizona...

You're just repeating that tired old meme that the Chamber of Commerce keeps spouting whenever the MAJORITY of citizens, the ones who are non-smokers, protect themselves from their inconsiderate, cancer-spreading brothers and sisters.

We ARE THE MAJORITY WHO WANT FREEDOM from the poison being spread by smokers.

These laws are passed by the majority who either never smoked or quit smoking and would prefer that others don't poison them.

You have any proof (other than your opinion, or what "people have told you" or Chamber pre-ordinance propaganda) that "Philly bars and restaurants suffered bad last winter"?

Of course, the bottom line is that we, the majority who DON'T pollute our lungs with that shit, have a right to be free from those of you who still choose to do so. So if it "costs some business" for some bars -- well, too fucking bad!!!

It appears to be pointless to argue with you though. In my experience counseling thousands of addicts I've learned that one can't convince an addict in denial that their addiction is hurting others.

[Snarkturian Clone]

101. how can I be an addict

if I don't smoke?

"It appears to be pointless to argue with you though. In my experience counseling thousands of addicts I've learned that one can't convince an addict in denial that their addiction is hurting others."

"Of course, the bottom line is that we, the majority who DON'T pollute our lungs with that shit, have a right to be free from those of you who still choose to do so. So if it "costs some business" for some bars -- well, too fucking bad!!!"

You are an enemy of freedom. Period.

[Adelante]

103. I don't like it either, but it doesn't turn me against Kucinich

I don't agree with any of our candidates on every single thing.

[LWolf]

18. Because he's a threat.

If American voters ever got the chance to listen past the media hype and campaign propaganda, they'd hear that he best represents their interests, unless they are getting some benefit from corporate corruption.

Therefore, the media hype and campaign propaganda must be kept at shrieking levels, to drown out any chance of that happening.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. He's been at every major debate

he's been on all the TV shows. How have american voters been denied the chance to listen to him?

They've heard him - they just don't much care for him.

[LWolf]

21. There has been no major debate.

You know: one of those formal forums where every participant is given the opportunity to answer every question, and where every participant is given equal time, so that some candidates are not favored over others. Chris Dodd's talkclock shows this pretty clearly.

You know: one where major, unbiased questions are asked by neutral moderators. Where paid talking heads don't come on when it's done to spin propaganda, but observers come to their own conclusions, and have to make up their own minds based on their own ability to reason.

If the press were doing the same equal, unbiased reports in mainstream media, and there were REAL debates, you might be able to say the nation has had a chance to hear him.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Over the course of two national campaigns

he's gotten more than enough media time to make his case.

Americans don't much like him.

[LWolf]

38. Americans aren't a monolithic group.

They don't have uniform likes and dislikes.

Most Americans don't know enough about him for an informed opinion. Most Americans don't watch debates, and the minimal air time he's gotten in debates doesn't offer opportunity to form a substantive opinion.

The Americans in his district enthusiastically re-elect him on a regular basis, so I'd say that those who know him best, those who are represented by him in Congress and those that have paid attention to his career, DO like him.

I think the rest of America, if they knew more about him, would like him, too. Or they like the status quo, and therefore view him as a threat.

[Ken Burch]

39. I don't know that you can say that about Americans

You obviously despise the guy, although I don't know what it was he's said or done that so mortally offends you.
If you want the party to settle for victory and power in name only, that's your call.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. I don't hate him at all!

I find him sort of likeable. He's just irrelevant to national politics.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Well put Ken Burch!

:thumbsup:

[LoZoccolo]

27. Because he can make a slew of empty promises,

This is supposed to make the other candidates look bad to the people who he can convince that he wants to do workable things.

[burythehatchet]

30. Funniest. Post. Ever.

:rofl:

[ProudDad]

83. Yeah, el picolo can always

be counted on for a good laugh! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

He/she's so consistently off...

[Ken Burch]

40. Who are you to say that they are empty?

Why do only the bland, watered-down centrist promises that won't change anything get to be considered practical?

And those candidates could embrace what he's saying and look better.

We don't have to be hostile to our base and timid and apologetic to our opponents win, Lo.

[LoZoccolo]

41. Because he knows that he is not going to win, just like I do.

He can say he's going to send astronauts to Jupiter and wean us off of oil within 12 months if he wants; he doesn't have to do any of it.

And 3% of the 2004 primary vote is not considered the "base".

[Ken Burch]

42. The majority of the voters who support Dennis on fhe issue ARE, however

Don't presume to think you bland centrists are actually winning on principle. You're winning on the media generated electability and inevetability myths.

Oh, and btw, there's really no point in using your avatar to bash someone who's now politically irrelevant. Or who will be unless those of you in the right wing give the guy a chance for a comeback by displaying the arrogance and control-freakery you're showing here.

(I won't vote for him, but it'll be hard to make a case that progressives shouldn't if HRC is nominated in a coronation on HRC's conservative activist-hating platform.)

[LoZoccolo]

44. I actually think Kucinich should apologize for using the results of that flawed poll.

I outlined my reasons back when it was cited by the Kucinich campaign:

What they do not mention is:

- The box can be stuffed without any effort; I voted three times from the same computer without resetting cookies or anything.
- There are little to no social welfare issues; all I found was universal health care.
- The population was not selected randomly and therefore the results cannot be generalized to a larger population.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3441981

[Ken Burch]

46. You still want to pretend the country and the party are rabidly anti-progressive

Why?

Why be obsessed with lowering us to centrism, when that means giving up and ratifying the Republican status quo for all eternity?

On the main objections you raised:


Why would the lack of questions on social welfare skew the survey? You won't find many people who support increased social welfare spending and OPPOSE single-payer health care. People aren't that schizoid.

Can't "the box" in theory, be stuffed on ANY poll? We only have the pollsters word on it that they've chosen randomly.

And why assume it would only be progressives who would vote more than once? HRC conservatives could just as well do the same. And I hate to put it this way, but it's a little arrogant for anyone who had anything to do with ANY Clinton campaign to be impugning other campaigns' integrity.

[LoZoccolo]

49. You cited a poll and I debunked it; I said nothing else.

Why be obsessed with lowering us to centrism, when that means giving up and ratifying the Republican status quo for all eternity?

Lame.

Why would the lack of questions on social welfare skew the survey? You won't find many people who support increased social welfare spending and OPPOSE single-payer health care. People aren't that schizoid.

That's your correlation to demonstrate. Unfortunately, the poll doesn't do it for you.

And why assume it would only be progressives who would vote more than once? HRC conservatives could just as well do the same.

You can't assume either one, that's why the poll is completely meaningless.

And I hate to put it this way, but it's a little arrogant for anyone who had anything to do with ANY Clinton campaign to be impugning other campaigns' integrity.

If I see anyone who has anything to do with ANY Clinton campaign, maybe I'll let them know.

[Ken Burch]

53. It's not just that response to that poll.

You ALWAYS show contempt for progressives and activists. You could hardly be an Obama supporter and still be that dismissive of people like me. A lot of people like me back Obama(though I'm not one of them)because they see him as a progressive who could stop HRC.
Support for Dennis's view(and this isn't measured solely in one poll, there are many others and you know it)IS much larger than support for him as a candidate. You can't make that go away or say it doesn't matter.

The Democratic party needs a grass-roots, progressive ticket that galvanizes activists if it is to win. No bland timid apoligetic centrists like Kerry are ever going to be worth nominating again.

It's about victory. Victory is built on enthusiasm, not on settling for what the Beltway boys tell us we HAVE to settle for.

[LoZoccolo]

56. I could certainly be an Obama supporter and be dismissive of Dennis Kucinich.

Especially seeing that they are running against each other for the Democratic nomination, and also because Obama is polling at about 20% and Kucinich is polling at 1%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Support for Dennis's view(and this isn't measured solely in one poll, there are many others and you know it)IS much larger than support for him as a candidate.

You should find those polls and keep them handy, then. I would think that being armed with that information and spreading it to primary voters would help Kucinich out more than trying to find out the answers to the questions you ask in the original post. I don't think they exist though.

The Democratic party needs a grass-roots, progressive ticket that galvanizes activists if it is to win.

How come these progressive tickets never make it to the general election, then?

I don't have as much contempt for progressives and activists as you might think, but if they are to impress me, they should go out and create this progressive majority rather than pretending it's already there and blaming the media and the DLC for all of their problems.

Let's look at which activists are successful in the Democratic Party. The pro-choice lobby is almost always obeyed, because they've got a good number of voters behind them. Same-sex unions are something that would only be utilized by about 6% of the population at most, and yet support for them is given by almost half of the population because the people who want them went out and got support for them. This whole netroots blogosphere thing, in comparison, is a joke. Its influence doesn't extend that far beyond people who are already very interested in politics. Maybe they can influence things by emphasizing stories that the mainstream media doesn't; I would say that that's the most powerful thing you can do with a blog is create an echo chamber for other political enthusiasts and call the mainstream media out on glossing over an important story, and maybe they'll run it themselves, but that is still dependent on them being shamed into it. They could completely ignore something that's all over the blogs and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it. When talking about the dynamics between the netroots and the Democratic Party you'll mostly hear a lot of complaining about how important the netroots should be and how they get ignored or put down, etcetera. Forget the netroots, spread your issue beyond it. Get close to 50% of the U.S. population behind you on any issue and the Democratic Party won't be able to ignore it. Or you can continue to get these Internet political enthusiasts, this less than 5% of the population threatening to cause a ruckus and talking about how dangerous they are and you'll likely find yourself replaced with a more reliable 5% in the center. That was the whole purpose of the DLC if you go back through it's history; it was hard to satisfy bunches of activist groups enough to get their sustained funding, particularly in the area of identity politics, and still get elected as those activist groups had not done their job and given their issues broad appeal.

Now people can do one of two things: they can continue to whine and complain about how I said the netroots is a joke (look hard enough and you'll find someone here who runs the pity party like every single day), or you can make it not a joke. You can make it as powerful as the pro-choice lobby and then it won't matter what I think about it because you will have kicked my ass.

[Ken Burch]

57. We ARE out there working to mobilize the progressive majority

We don't just work in cyberspace.

And Obama has nothing to gain from his supporters dissing us as you continually do.

Is there a reason you don't think engagement and respect are worth your effort?

Why does it always have to be trash talk?

[LoZoccolo]

61. It is not always trash talk...

...but it's often a show of attitude before I get into it.

[...of J.Temperance]

122. Gosh that was a great set of logical comments

That was a pretty excellant response, I commend you.

[ProudDad]

84. Because mister piccolo IS rabidly anti-Progressive... (n/t)

[martymar64]

129. He admitted to being a democrat only since 1999

and did push polling for republicans. what do you expect? Progressive Ideas are to him like sunlight is to a vampire.

[Freddie Stubbs]

102. It would be like me promising to get "Kuicnich for President" tattoo'd on my forhead if

Kucinich won the nomination.

[Ken Burch]

107. Freddie, you do realize that a lot of people would vote for Kucinich just to SEE that, don't you?

n/t.

[Vidar]

60. A post every bit as intelligent as your "Fuck Nader" avatar.

[Forkboy]

100. No he's not.

;)

[slipslidingaway]

31. Thank you, Dennis exposes items that others would prefer

the public remain uninformed about, such as the draft Iraq Oil benchmark placed in the supplemental bills and the lack of evidence and debate on Iran by this administration.

[Riktor]

32. I can only speculate...

Believe me, I dig Kucinich's style. He really seems to be one of the few politicians who isn't afraid to look too liberal, and he's not even from San Francisco.

However, the reason I am not supporting him in the primaries is because I believe him to be unelectable in the GE. While I agree with much of what Kucinich has said, right now, my priority is getting the Republican stain out of the White House, and Kucinich just doesn't have the appeal to moderate conservatives and moderate independents.

I'll take a guess that a number of these Kucinich bashers feel, like I do, that if Kucinich wins the primaries, we're toast in the GE. They may feel the urge to try and knock him out of the running to prevent that from happening, although there is little chance that would actually come to pass.

Alternate theory: these people are working on other Dem's campaigns. I've worked a few, and a savvy campaign manager will send PR stooges onto the net to slander their opponents anonymously. In fact, I was placed in charge of tracking such posters while working for a congressional campaign in New York.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. The primaries are not for you to second-guess what other people might like

The primaries are your ONE chance to express what YOU really like.

The "vote for the guy you think is electable" nonsense gave us Kerry in 2004, a man who wouldn't even fight for himself, who conceded before all the votes were counted.

To quote Dr. Phil's ONE good line, "How's that workin' for you?"

[Riktor]

55. Thanks for the civics lesson, but...

... politics is about concession. I won't be heartbroken if I have to give up a great candidate for a good candidate who actually stands a chance at victory. I don't see this as selling out or compromising my ideals because, at this point, any one of the Democratic challengers in the White House is preferable to another four years of Republican incompetence.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. But you see, Kerry was supposed to be that one who would give us a chance

for victory. Supporters of other candidates, including most of the people I knew from the Kucinich campaign, worked for him, walked our feet off in GOTV activities, and then he went and conceded right away.

There's strong evidence that officials in several Ohio districts cheated, but he didn't challenge the results.

That's the end of my saying, "Oh, okay, any old Dem is all right with me."

No, in the primaries I'll vote for the one I really want.

Maybe if more people voted for the one they really agree with instead of the one the pundits want (Kerry in 2004, Hillary now), we might see some changes in this country.

[Riktor]

72. That's Your Prerogative

I'm not telling you how to vote. That's best left to the dunderheaded fanboys who worship their chosen candidates as saints.

However, I feel your assessment of Kerry to be somewhat flawed. Kerry put up the good fight, and he only
"lost" by a narrow margin. His defeat was but one step in a logical progression which will inevitably end in the dethroning of the Republican party.

At the time, Bush wasn't terribly popular, but he wasn't nearly as unpopular as his is now. He's alienated a number of moderate Republicans and independents, and they are our key to victory in 2008. Everyone knew the race in 2004 would be a tight one, so I voted with my conscience in the primaries for that election. Though I suppose the point is moot, as I'm probably going to wind up supporting the same guy in the upcoming primaries.

[KoKo]

34. I've wondered if he was Independently Wealthy or had taken from Lobbyists if he wouldn't get more

Media coverage. Seems to me that more and more we only respect wealthy Presidential Candidates. Clinton was the exception but he had great connections through Yale Law School and Georgetown.
Jimmy Carter was a wealthy Peanut Farmer and had connections from his Navy Years with some powerful people.

Dennis is just a nobody to most average Americans because they can't connect him with any power group or successful money making on his own. There isn't any group pushing him with Media or Power Brokers. Just the people who know his voice on the issues.

My hairstylist (whose not been politically involved but is disgusted with Bush) says she will vote for any Democrat over a Republican...and she asked who I supported and I said Dennis Kucinich if Al Gore doesn't come in. She said "WHO???" I repeated his name and said he was a Congressman from Ohio who had some great ideas on issues. She said: "Well I haven't heard of him and I want to vote for someone who can win." :shrug:

Sad...isn't it.

[Colorado Progressive]

35. IMO because the truth scares the S*&^% out of cowards nt

[VANSPEAK]

36. flash vs. content

Dennis is a content candidate. While the guy is right on when it comes to content, his sense of "command" is what he and the country are struggling with. His size and manner can be distracting, but not much. He's funny looking but so was Honest Abe (who probably had about the same level of popularity when he started out. He's one of a few to support at this early stage because he articulates the changes needed and projects a tangible vision of our future.

[Pushed To The Left]

50. K&R ! I'm supporting Obama, but I've got nothing but respect and admiration

for Dennis Kucinich. I'm glad he's in the debates bringing up the issues and ideas that not everybody talks about.

[Ken Burch]

52. Thanks. In the end, it's just about respect.

N/t.

[Yukari Yakumo]

58. I don't mind him actually...

But I do enjoy watching his cult squirm when inconvenient truths about him showing he is no saint are posted.

[Desertrose]

69. "His CULT squirm"

Oh yeah, I can tell you "really don't mind him".
:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

70. We never said he was a saint.

We just think he is a great candidate and that his ideas would be good for the party and the country.

And, btw, what the heck did the guy ever do to you?

Or is just that you don't think activists and people with strong convictions should have a say in the Democratic Party?

Get over yourself, wouldja anime girl?

[Vidar]

59. Because Kucinich makes the rest of the field look bad by comparison.

Ridicule and dirty tricks are therefore the response of the corporate candidates & their media "running dogs".

[bobbolink]

64. DLC

Tactics of the right.

[...of J.Temperance]

108. You people are SO BORING....CHANGE THE RECORD!!!! n/t

.

[Zodiak]

127. Said like a person who until a day or two ago

had "DLC" as an avatar.

Time to update the old ignore list.

[XemaSab]

74. I don't think has a chance in hell of winning the primary or the general

and I'd like to see all those good liberal votes going to someone who can. :shrug:

Other than HRC. :P

[martymar64]

131. When the convention comes

Kucinich delegates can use their leverage to influence the party platform and to be able to throw their support behind a fellow candidate that could change the nature of the convention from that of a coronation to a real contest.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

76. Because he is the only real Democrat in the race and exposes all the others as phonies

[Rhythm and Blue]

78. I don't see anyone trying to get him out of the race.

I do see people saying that his ideas are unworkable, his record of legislative accomplishments thin (despite his years in the House), his performances often grandstanding, and that his "I won't vote for Hillary" supporters are short-sighted.

Not seeing anything that's any worse than what's being hurled at Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. Certainly nothing akin to "DK must drop out and his supporters are evil and must shut up because we fear them in contemptuous rage."

[Enthusiast]

79. Dennis is my choice.

He is not in the least too liberal.

[Desertrose]

91. Just the usual ridicule and ignoring tactics.....

but Dennis just won't go away...and keeps getting more supporters.

Seems to really bother some people when his supporters won't promise to hand their votes over to another dem. Maybe they are not as shortsighted as those who can't see what the DLC dems are all about.

[BigDDem]

85. Who the hell wants to "drive him out?"

I think he and his supports provide some great comic relief.

"Who should DK pick to be his running mate" was priceless and
I love all the hilarious conspiracy theories.

[SaveElmer]

88. Rather drive him out of Congress...

He is a non-factor in the Presidential race...

[Desertrose]

89. I know, Elmer. Rosemary is your candidate to help drive out that pesky Kucinich.

....but maybe not so much a "non-factor" in the prez race as you would hope.

Why else all the fuss?

[SaveElmer]

90. I would like to give President "Democrat"...

An effective working majority in the House...one that is interested in making progress not scoring political points...

[Desertrose]

92. Progress ....what do you call progress?

Continuing along the corporate path like the DLC candidates..?

Progress in the war?

Progress towards a another war??

[SaveElmer]

93. Ending the war...getting kids health insurance...

Getting Universal health coverage...

None of which Kucinich has contributed one iota of effective leadership on...

Stands on the sidelines whining how imperfect others are for forging compromises to take us towards those goals...and votes against things like SCHIP...

He is a very poor COngressman...

[Desertrose]

94. Second verse...same as the first!

So according to you, everytime DK opens his mouth is only to whine...


....and he's such a poor congressman he was re-elected HOW many times?



Yeah, right.

[SaveElmer]

95. Plenty of poor legislators reelected time and time again...

According to CQ however, DK may not be so lucky this time...

[Desertrose]

97. I agree about many poor legislators being relected...not

necessarily about DK....

[Ken Burch]

104. Are they pretending a Republican would beat him in the fall, or a DLC'er in the primary?

Either thing would be a tragedy for the district.

And I'd really like to know why people like you want this party to be an ideal-free zone.

[Ken Burch]

106. No candidate that wasn't against the war from the start can be good at ending it now.

There IS no compromise between ending the war and NOT ending it.

[Ken Burch]

105. Making progress doesn't require silencing progressives.

The first two years of Clinton proves that a Democratic administration and Congress where progressives are silenced is simply not worth having.

[...of J.Temperance]

112. "But quit acting like Dennis and his supporters are the Democratic Party's enemies" Lol! Try this...

"But quit acting like Dennis and his supporters are the Democratic Party's enemies."

Try being a DLCer for just ONE DAY....and then check back with me and tell me what it REALLY feels like to be treated like you're the enemies of the Democratic Party.

You Kucinich supporters are LIVING the Life of Riley, compared to the crap and ugliness that the DLCer's get accused of and we're treated like the Spawn of The Devil or something....of course NOBODY actually directs their hate and anger where it REALLY should be directed towards:

The Blue Dog Democrats....and NOT the DLC.

Kucinich, yeah he seems like a nice fellow, but the reality is, he's not got a snowball's chance of getting the party nomination.



"You NEED our votes to win just as much as you need anybody else's supporters."

I could say this myself about how the anti-DLCer's NEED the DLC supporters votes to win as well....

[Ken Burch]

124. The Blue Dogs are the bad guys, not the DLC...interesting....

Could you elaborate on that, please?

I'm not trying to bait you here, it's that you're the first person I've heard make this argument.

[LWolf]

132. The DLC IS the enemy of the Democratic Party

we want to see. The party of labor, the party of social and economic justice.

You can't expect to re-frame the ideology of the party without opposition, and I'm sure DLCers are aware of this.

When the restructuring is over, the Democratic Party will be the party of the former moderate republicans and conservative democrats.

There are still Democrats who object to this restructuring.

[RandomKoolzip]

128. "Seem" is the key word here. It seems that way because you're a Kucinich supporter.

I really like the guy too - in a perfect world, Dennis WOULD be prez.

ANyhow - to Hillary's supporters, I'm sure the ideology-based arguments against her candidacy smack of a desire to squelch moderate voices, just as to us on the left-er side, the centrist arguments against Dennis's candidacy must seem like low-blow, personal attacks. Neither is really true - it's a matter of where your own allegiances stand that determines how one gauges the tone and content of those posts.