Kucinich is not "unelectable" and deep down you know it

A lot of this is posted in another thread, but it was slighty off topic, so I'm making this one. I'm not bashing any other candidates, not even Lieberman (I'm just saying I have major disagreements with him). I think any of the candidates would make a great president (except Joe - sorry Lieberman supporters), but I really do think that 99% of the people here, if they could just hand pick a president with no election would select Kucinich, and here is my reason why he is electable.

He represents everything DU stands for. Many of the other candidates represent a lot of what the majority of DUers believe in, but they all have some issue, which a good amount of DUers disagree with(hence the flame wars between the backers of Dean, Kerry, and Clark). Supposedly this "issue" that the candidate has a stance on, which is opposite of what a lot of DUers believe in, is what makes this candidate "electable." This "issue" or "issues" supposedly makes this candidate more mainstream.

To me, that's just crazy. I'll vote for the candidate that I don't totally agree with, but I won't vote for the candidate that I wholeheartedly agree with? ..... all because the right wingers (people who have a vested interest in not seeing Kucinich elected) tell me so.

To me, there's nothing wrong with any of the 10 candidates, except Lieberman, with whom I have major disagreements with. Clark, Dean, Kerry, and any of the others (except Joe L.) I feel would make a great president. However, Kucinich would just be better than any of them, because he truly represents what I believe in.

He's only unelectable because the right wing media will keep saying that, so even though a lot of people know the source is skewed, they will still go along with it out of fear.

I'm sorry, but Kucinich is the worst nightmare for every corporate crook, polluter, human rights abuser, and terrorist out there. He's the worst nightmare for every business or person who has used money, power, and influence to write legislation that they are affected by, so they can get away with bad things. He is the worst nightmare for every fox that is guarding the henhouse. These people, for whom DK is their worst nightmare, have a lot of money and power, and they are the ones who have you scared of Kucinich being "unelectable." Yes Clark, Dean, Kerry, and all of the others (except Joe) are all nightmares for the people listed above, but Dennis is their worst nightmare. {on edit} He is the shining light of hope for every working family and small business owner.

Notice ... I mentioned terrorists, too. A lot of right wingers won't get this, but the terrorists will know that you can't get away with terrorism anymore if you have large business deals with the US. Yes, Saudia Arabia, Al Qaeda, and The Carlyle Group - I'm looking at you. With the current regime, if you have major business deals, you get a pass on terrorist acts.

Kucinich is only unelectable because people keep saying "he's unelectable." There is no other reason other than the media has played this unelectable boogey-man trick with you. They've got you scared of the big bad bush, so you'll play it safe and not vote with your heart.

Also, going up against Bush, even the media wouldn't be able to deny him his message. They have to have debates, even if they are framed. DK will call Bush a liar, and will back it up with facts. Not only that, the majority of people in America are more liberal than a moderate like Clinton was (I'm not bashing Clinton, he was a great president, but he was moderate, not liberal or conservative.) However, the media for the last 10 or so years, maybe more, has been telling the people that they are conservative, so they tend to think they are until they hear the issues.

Let's face it, Gore won in 2000, but is unwillingness to confront Bush on his lies and to directly dispute the lies told about him made it close enough for Jeb to steal it. He was too much of a gentleman, a nice guy, who figured the people could discern bullshit from truth without him to point it out for them. Unfortunately, he was wrong. Many of them could see the Bush lies, but a lot were fooled. He didn't differentiate strongly enough his differences from Bush. A trained or careful eye could spot it easily, but the majority of voters do not look with trained or careful eyes. This made it close enough to steal.

Kucinich will never have this problem. He is forceful with his message, and the difference between him and Bush could be no greater. I believe the large majority of Americans are fed up with Bush, but they feel all politicians are basically the same. They would love to have an alternative. That's why I think Kucinich would win easily. Things are really going bad for the USA right now, and nearly everybody in the country knows it, no matter how much the media will say the opposite. People also know that many of these problems are the Bush administration's fault, no matter how much the media deflects for him. You can just feel it; the majority of people want a change, but just don't see that any candidate offers anything different. They don't know what that change is.

A Kucinich vs. Bush election would show them that change that they've been wanting. There's no way they can say that Kucinich will be the same as Bush. That's why he would win.

Once again, all but one of the candidates (sorry Joe) represent A LOT of these things, but Dennis Kucinich is the epitome of this.

I'm calling all this unelectable stuff just what it is - bullshit. It's all in your minds; a disturbing red-herring put into your mind by some people who don't want the same things you want, who will do anything to keep their control over you. It is a cancer they have injected into you so that you won't act in your own best interests.

I am not going to be scared, I am supporting Kucinich first, then whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

I've said my peace. Thank you.

I'm inclined to support Kucinich myself...he most closely represents what I believe in. And if all the people who tell me they'd support him if he was electable would stop playing the damn game and vote for him then he wouldn't be unelectable...he'd be elected. :-)

to have a real Democrat. I think a lot of people who usually don't vote would vote for DK.
I will support the Dem nominee. However, I would have a very difficult time with Lieberman.

:yourock:
Kucinich! Kucinich! Kucinich!
I really have to admire this man who fights for what I believe in whenever he can, like his education plan wow.

but he would get steamrolled like Carter by the Groper (much like raygun did)

Why do supposely Clark and Dean and the other more "electable" candiates have more teflon. Kucinich is as big as fighter of any of these candiates. This is the moment, we have to promote peace and justice around the world, Dennis Kucinich is the best without a doubt for that message.

he might not give much away, from what he Invisions

To make 2 terms (I'm not a Clinton Fan!) It's Washington D.C. DK would make a great President but I think he could only last 1 term..

but what if the people liked his accomplishments so much, he would get reelected again. We dont know what the future has in store for us.

This is actually the very problem with DK. He would be able to accomplish nothing that he would like. The reich-wing press and congress would make damn sure of it. Clinton was almost rendered impotent (in a manner of speaking ;-) ) by these same forces and he was willing to compromise and had great charisma and political skills. DK doesn't seem willing to compromise and he definitely doesn't possess Clinton's "it".

The country is way right at this point in time. I don't think the masses would vote for DK--especially once the reich-wingers launched their campaigns against him and you know for sure the Pubs in Congress would do all they could to stop him (which BTW is quite a lot).

Lastly I take issue with the initial post in this thread. To state opinion as fact is folly and indicative of a bad case of blow-hard".

I think the best we could hope for is for DK to get a meaningful appt. in the upcoming Dem admin.

Just my $.0125

Julie

They attack everyone with the same level of viciousness, i.e., complete. They tried to impeach the most right-wing Democrat in 70 years, a guy who is to the right of Nixon frgodssake. So what exactly do you see our incentive for pre-emptive surrender being?

If our side is going to be pilloried --and it is, that's guaranteed-- then why in Goddess's name should we not choose the strongest, most complete solution for us? Why should we try to appease? What's in it for us?

to be willing to take say 75% or even 65% of what you want instead of holding out for 100% or nothing. Kucinich plans things that will be far too radical to the ears of most Americans.

We Dems need to do a lot of catching up in the propaganda wars before we shoot so high. It is the price we pay for having ignored things way too long.

Then you figure in that Kucinich often behaves radically and unstatesmanlike and voila! A sure loser in this horse race.

Julie

First it's that he'll be attacked, but now it's that he wants too much.

I suppose if you really haven't got a solid argument, then you have to make do as best you can, but it's certainly annoying to be on the receiving end of that. It sounds too much like 'we're right and you're wrong so neener neener!'

any ugliness in posting a list of things about Kucinich that leads me to believe he's not the right candidate at this time.

There are of course several good reasons for me doing this but one is that I do not want to give the wrong impression that I don't like Kucinich or something. I do like him.

I have not changed any argument but I have added them. If you would like to believe that I can't form a solid argument you are free to do so of course.

I think the saddest part of this whole Kucinich thing is that this country is way too far right for him to stand a chance. I believe the rest of his obstacles could be overcome.

But hey, that's just my opinion, I don't feel only I can be right on this, and I am behind whoever gets the nom. If it's Kucinich it will just be a harder battle to win but you can bet I'd fight it.

Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

Julie

You are making a lot of assumptions about what Dennis will/will not accomplish.

If we have a strong, fighting Democrat at the head of the ticket, the "coattail effect" will be larger-- i.e., more Dems in congress. If that's the case, it will be MUCH easier to pass a truly liberal, progressive agenda thru congress. That means we won't have to compromise as much, if at all, with our opponents. Do the Repubs compromise with the Dems now, seeing as they have the presidency and both houses of congress?

Also, Dennis has a history of defeating incumbents-- even popular ones. In fact, his re-election percentage has risen steadily since his first electoin to the house. Dean's, OTOH, dropped each time he was reelected. Dean was also responsible for helping to get more Democratic governors elected in 2002-- in which the Dems suffered a net loss of governorships. That doesn't bode well for his "coattail effect", IMHO.

If we have a mushball accomodationist/compromiser at the head of the ticket, we'll continue playing the same game the Dems have played VERY UNSUCCESSFULLY for the last decade-- not winning the Presidency with a popular vote majority, losing control of the House and Senate, losing governorships, etc.

in life that when I am willing to compromise and listen to all sides I get a lot farther in what I try to accomplish. This has been the case in all aspects of my life, politics, business and momhood.

Little did I know that all these years I have been a "mushball accomodationist/compromiser"!

Julie

I agree that compromising is okay, but should you really compromise your position even before you start negotiating?

If you start negotiating from your "true" position (lets say, a left position), the chances are you'll end up with a left-center compromise than if you start from the left-center and compromise from there. Is it better to end up with a compromise that's closer to your true position, or to end up with one farther away from it?

I think the answer (despite my poor syntax :)) should be obvious.

The president has the power to give very interesting Sunday night statements. He can explain directly to the American people what is going on and turn the tide against some of the criminals behind the media. ONLY by our getting a president in office CAN we accomplish anything because he has the stage.

He would have to do some Tradings

Which is why Democrats have to focus on the Congressional races also.

It's long past time to fire some of the far right Republicans. Moderate Republicans we can work with, but ideologues are going to go down fighting even when it is obviously counterproductive to themselves.

I hope that Democrats can give as much "local" energy to the Congressional races as they do to the Presidential race.

Carter DID get elected. However, OPEC, especially Saudia Arabia, screwed him over because he wouldn't play ball with them.

Bad economy = no reelection.

America won't fall for that this time, because even the Freepers admit Saudia Arabia is the source of terorrism (they just think Bush has some secret plan they don't know about yet).

why supposely do the other candiates have higher "teflon", people act like he wont respond to their charges. Hes a fighter and people need to know this.

He shrank from taking strong measures.

I see no evidence in his record that hesitation would be true of Dennis.

stronger than Carter. I loved much about Carter but DK has been around for long enough to know how to get things done and will work tirelessly to see that they get done. I think it is easy to underestimate the fight in this guy.

I agree completely and without reservation. He is the man. Great post, nice work. Thanks.

He's a nice guy, but he's my 8th choice of the 10 running.

Not flames.... I really would like to know.

2) he screams too much

3) he would have to deal with a very hostile congress and would not compromise

4) despite being in the house for years, he is not in the party leadership at all

Hes been pro choice longer than that is 3 months. We havent a clue how congress will be and on screaming, Ive heard him speak, he wasnt FDR :) but who is, you should really see some of the videos, hes not always screaming.

When people come out with sad stuff like that, it's because they have nothing better. It's like the story of the farmer who wouldn't lend his rope because he needed it to tie up his milk: when someone doesn't want to do something, they'll make any hopeless claim to 'explain' it.

I'm sorry you don't like the screaming, but don't you sometimes feel like screaming at Bush?

I think Bush needs to be screamed at - a lot. I think Gore would have carried every state except for Texas if he would have screamed at Bush.

Right now, the neo-cons are tearing down the very fabric of our society....for me it's time to scream. If you wait too long, you might not have the right to scream anymore, IMHO.

Scream while you can, and at someone who is well deserving of it.

there's constructive anger, and there's screaming. Dennis just screams.

but I see it totally different. In this case I feel it is constructive.

If we don't scream, we ain't gonna be heard, especially if the media doesn't like our message. A guy like Kucinich is a threat to a conglomerated medias power and greed. If he doesn't scream, they wouldn't show him at all.

Also, it seems people like Dean a lot because he is a fiery debator. He will scream, too. So Dennis is not alone in this. Sharpton doesn't scream, but his humor takes the place of it.

Any candidate running against Bush will be steamrolled by the media if he doesn't resist with all his might. The time for gentlemanly debate is over.

They repugs took their gloves off long ago.....when are we?

Dean screams sometimes, but he focuses his anger constructively. All I have ever seen Kucinich do is scream, and just screaming is not constructive.

"All I have ever seen Kucinich do is scream" and the media select the clips to show you. I've also seen him being interviewed on television with absolutely horrible lighting on his face. The media have focused a lot of attention on Dean and now they're playing up Clark. Lieberman and Kerry have had some play, too, The others have gotten very little attention.

I've watched the debates and I've seen Dennis speak and all I see him do is scream.

It's not fucking media brainwashing, it's what's coming out of his mouth!

The Kuchinichistas take no prisoners, so to speak.

I'm not media fucking brainwashed, I just will never vote for someone so transparently self-promoting as Howard Dean.

The points you think you make about Dennis are wrong, shallow, defeatist, and don't win any points for the candidate you think you're working to promote.

Oh... you mean like changing your mind on abortion to fit with the party norm before you ran for president?

If you were blind and deaf....and the only way you could absorb information was brail....what problem would you have with Denny then? I gather from your words you wouldn't have any idea about who you should vote for if you suffered from the above mentioned malladies.

RC

Opportunities to know that Dennis doesn't "scream," if you want them:

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

http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/ndrive/project/rwh/rwh080303.rm

I've got him at 9th, after Sharpton but before Lieberman.

Anyone who was recently anti-choice, even though he says he's repented, gives me the willies.

AAAAAGH!

Since WHEN is over a year ago "recently"?

Rant over. }( I just hate that argument lately.

... even if it were two or three or five years ago, it would worry me. I don't think it's been "over a year" -- more like "almost a year" -- but no one who who was against choice that recently and so obviously switched sides for political expediency is no true progressive. What he is, is a true flake.

And you're wrong, it's been over a year. Kucinich's first PC vote took place in March 2002. Look up the voting records, easily done at www.cspan.org

Furthermore, that fact alone tells me political expediency has nothing to do with it since he was never considering running for President until he was drafted early this year.

What's flaky is not looking at time-lines and facts before speaking. You've been nothing but rude in this thread, while I've been polite and even outright good-natured. I've no idea where your obvious dislike for me comes from nor do I want to know, but calling my candidate a flake is no way to inspire unity or convince me not to vote for him. All it does is piss me off.

it's pretty clear he changed his mind for political expediency, because about the time he changed his mind, he decided it would be a great time to run for president.

Here's the timeline:

March 2002: Dennis breaks with his anti-abortion stance in congress.

November 2002: Dennis Kucinich wins re-election in his very "pro-life" district, with ±75% of the vote.

February 2003: Kucinich is DRAFTED by a large public demand for him after he gives his "Prayer for America" speech in front of the SoCal Americans for Democratic Action.

As you can see, he changed his mind almost one year previous to his decision to become a candidate. Not only that, Dennis's abortion opposition has been tempered by his pro-family planning position. He would even support federally-funded abortions for needy women who cannot afford them-- something Howard Dean (former head of Planned Parenthood of Vermont) has opposed consistently.

That your sig contains a banner about bringing our troops home, but you support a candidate who wants to increase our troop presence in Iraq, while you continuously slam one of the only candidates who wants the US to withdraw militarily from Iraq. Not to mention the Gov's abysmal record on progressive causes as governor of an overwhelmingly liberal state in New England.

BTW, Dennis has been in the US congress for eight years (four terms). He is also the ranking Democrat on at least one committee (the pentagon appropriations committee). So yes, he is technically part of the leadership. Also, he was mayor of Cleveland, a city whose population is more than the state of Vermont.

Please send the smarter monkeys next time, please.

"Kucinich is only unelectable because people keep saying "he's unelectable."
----------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is that the vast majority of people/voters are saying it too. A shame I admit, but there it is. And nothing is going to change that.

The good guys do not always win - and sometimes the bad ones do (cf. 2000)

I wish it were not so, but there are many things I would change if this damn magic sceptre I inherited from my grandpa would just start working.

Because all three are killing Kucinich in every poll. K really does not stand a chance.

Thats what I am talking about. Its only fall 2003, if it were May 2004 I may be more understanding and less stubborn.

I agree with you there.

I just don't think there is a chance he will be nominated. Not only does he has to jump over Dean, Kerry, and Clark, he has to overcome Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman.

Props to your passionate support, though. I sure as hell have been wrong before.

Of course we can be wrong. Its not gonna be easy but its still early. Thanks, I proudly support this man.

I promise. But the fact that people don't recognize the names is precisely the point - the few names they DO recognize aren't Dennis. That's just an unfortunate fact. And also unfortunately, in many places and especially here in the 'bible belt', a name like Kucinich arouses dark suspicions. It sounds, to them, too 'foreign.' They can't pronounce it and it's too hard to spell. Hell, it's too hard to READ.

I'm just telling you what people are saying (or aren't saying.) As awful as it is, many folks base their political support on the shallowest of rationales: appearance, "American sounding" name, greed,
"gut instinct", and so on. You know the drill. We (?) tend to support whoever looks and sounds most like ourselves, and in Oklahoma, people like DK are few and far between. Nowadays, the best campaigner, not the best candidate generally wins.

I would happily give you 10,000 to 1 odds on a wager and wish to lose.

And truly, when reality overcomes idealism, it sucks. We share the pain.

K

Hey I will get back to you in 35 years if I run with my late great grandfather's name lol that name is Kovalcik. Also on your point about his name these same people were iffy on Jack Kennedy and his Roman Catholicism and his Irishness. Why cant a Slavic American run? if thats the case then it will be awhile like if we elect a woman or minority until we can prove ourselves. We cant let unprobables rule all. Unfortunate what my grandfather said was true it is all about green essentily because isnt the best campaigner also the one with the most money. Thats a shame Oh well :(, the superficality of this world saddens me. I dont get it this day and age well, I dont get it.

Have you ever heard that saying "Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me"?

Let it begin with us right now. If you think that he stands for what you believe in, then why wouldn't you support him? Don't you think that many people believe like you do?

Many of those calling him unelectable would like to elect him. That just doesn't make any sense. The debate, unjustly, has been framed against him.

We need to unframe it right now, because the emporer has no clothes. All we have to do is say it....that's it.

I just sent you a PM. Thanks. My smilies are not working but I will try. :hug:

There are...what?...200 million people in the USA? Out of those, I'd suppose 50 million are constitutionally qualified to run for President. In my opinion, around half of those would do a better job than Bush. Hell, they could do better if they basically did nothing at all! There are hundreds of DUers who are certainly more qualified than *. But what chance, lacking the resources needed to mount a campaign necessary these days, would any of them have?

Look at the California debacle - a mediocre immigrant actor who barely speaks English is about to become governor there, whose support is 99% due to being a role model for idiots. 23 years ago America picked yet another mediocre actor as president for gods sake.

And now we sit here with an idiot in the White House who didn't even win the popular vote. How can you hope to elect someone with no national
persona (even a bogus one)? It ain't gonna happen. Beating up on the messenger doesn't change the message.

I wish it were not so.

I just don't understand why you won't act in your own interest or takes steps to follow what you believe in.

Look...clearly you are upset at the state of the country. You think it's terrible that aaaahhnold appears to be leading in the polls, and you are upset about: "And now we sit here with an idiot in the White House who didn't even win the popular vote".

My point exactly. We can't defeat guys like this by going along with their rationale. Why would you try to out-aahhnold Schwartenegger? Why would you try to out-bush Bush? That won't work. You can't defeat the system by going along with it, the riptide will simply sweep you away.

We need a candidate who will stand apart from other politicians. You don't think both conservatives and liberals are tired of all this stupid political stuff? Don't you think people are tired of candidates debating, but you not being able to tell the difference, because they don't want to "rock the boat?" Rocking the boat is the only way that we're gonna rock the vote. I know that sound stupid and cliched, but it's true.

You're argument against DK is exactly why you should be for him.

I just don't understand....

And I figure the best way to do that is to get behind someone who can accomplish that not-so-small feat given Dumbya's $200M war chest. Look, I could vote for Dennis, you could vote for him, and a few hundred thousand others as well. Great. It's marginally significant. But the other 40 million voters will not. It just boils down to that sad fact.

You do not need to convince ME, you need to change the minds of several hundred people who YOU are connected to. Can you do that? I don't think so. And I really don't think you believe you can either. What is is what is. We might not want to admit the news is bad news but dammit, wishes don't make pigs fly. (NO, I'm not calling DK a pig...just in case you're gonna flame me for that observation.)

Oh, Dean is coming on Leno now...I wanna watch. Off here.

but if I can change the mind of just one person that's enough for me. Maybe that person will change someone elses' mind, and so on and so on, ect.

Or maybe I can't do shit....However, going along with the current system, just because they tell me it won't work, isn't going to change anything. I'm not going to just sit and do nothing. Even if it's pointless, I'm gonna keep trying.

What I'm trying to do is just speak the truth. I believe a lot of people here believe DK has the best message, so why don't they wholeheartedly support him? I believe, also, that if the majority of the country really knew his true message, they would support it, as well.

However, we'll never get that message out with a "we've lost before we even started" attitude.

An analogy: what I'm trying to do isn't as far-fechted as the US winning the hockey gold medal in 1980. Nobody gave them a chance either, but they didn't give up.

I have to support the candidate I believe in the most, and I just don't understand why others won't, simply because they've been told otherwise by people who do not have your best interests in mind.

Who knows how much longer I'll have to help turn the tide ... 4 year clips are a lot at my age ...

I'm ready to seek that New Frontier ... to build on the Great Society ... to revitalize the New Deal ... to deliver on the Fair Deal ... come my friends, it's not too late to seek a newer world ...

Corporate America ... it's antics around the world and at home ... the enablers who compromise us on its behalf ... are killing us ...

It won't be an overnight thing ... we have our work cut out for us ... but ...


Let it begin with us right now.

Now is the time.

One person can make a difference.


rap song, "Go, Go Dennis" by Joel Tyner:
http://www.friendsofkucinich.com/JoelTyner-Go-Go-Dennis.mp3

"How long must we sing this song" to quote U2 in Bloody Sunday. How long must we wait? Cosmic I know from what you tell me, RFK was to you what Dennis is to me now. RFK hes one of my biggest heroes and he talked about the same themes we see dennis talk about. I bet Bobby is proud.

?

...by playing into the stigmatization of the left. When we favor "electable" form over enlightened substance we help to deepen the groove of superficial values.

superficalness I honestly think is the cause of a lot of this. :( thats so sad.

:hi:

I always love bumping into you at DU. I'm going to my first Kucinich Meetup this Thursday. I'm finally strong enough to take the subway! But I might be able to get my husband to drive me.

I'll report when I get back.

Have a good time. :hi: People I think are being very superfical about it all. This man wants to promote peace and prosperity. This is an important moment. We havent a clue what lies ahead of us.

Good to see you again! I read your post below, have a great time at the meet up and report to us. I am trying to set them up here but am having trouble getting it started but I am sure learning about recruiting!

It's always good to see you too.

:hi:

if we will elect him.

But have given up on his candidacy and only support him insofar as I want him in one or two more debates.

In politics, especially General Elections, one must be able to project a Moderate Image no matter how Progressive you are.

Kucinich cannot moderate his tone and the HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO was the last straw.

Being able to market or present yourself to the public is a fact of life... not to be regretted but understood and acted upon.

Dennis will do more good in the Senate when Clark or Kerry wins, then he could possibly do in the White House.

He's too divisive, we have to nominate someone who can draw the moderates if we want to win against Chimpy.

He was short, kinda goofy looking, and often got overexcited (or "unstatesmanlike") when he was speaking, too. But he spoke to the people, and he was honest and credible.

Hell, even the Repubs here in MN were voting for Wellstone in his re-election bids, even though they didn't agree with him more than 1/2 the time! Do you know why? Because you ALWAYS knew that he would do "the right thing", and HONESTLY believed he was doing the right thing, and leveled with the people of the state on EVERYTHING.

Dennis is the same way. He and Wellstone were colleagues. They both know how to fight against seemingly unwinnable odds. And they've triumphed.

THe myth of the "swing voter" is completely bogus. If you do the math, you'll notice that the so-called "swing voters" make up at most 10% of the eligible voting population. Remember, there's almost 50% of eligible voters who have sat out the last two presidential elections. That means if we can get even 1/4 of these folks out to vote for a REAL DEMOCRAT, then we've won, "swing votes" or not!

With a strong, issues-oriented, energetic, honest candidate, we can get those disaffected voters. Another Dean/Kerry/Gephardt clone will only lead us down the path to defeat, once again.

Kucinich represents and regularly gets re-elected in a district which has "Reagan Democrats" written all over it: ethnic, catholic, blue-collar, perhaps a bit to the right on social issues. If DK can win there he can win anywhere. If he were nominated he could take out Bush.

If the party was behind him, and he had a strong VP, Kucinich could beat Bush.

I agree with every word you said. While I won't be voting in the presidential elections (not a US citizen or living in the USA), my partner will be.

She has often talked to me about Kucinich, and with everything she has told me about him, it is true, he is the person who represents the vast majority of the people of the United States.

It doesn't matter if you are repuke, dem, green, or some other independant, if you believe in equality, a strong economy, a future, then this is the man that will help secure that.

Thank you for such a wonderful read.

FC

Hes a great man. You would like him and I know you are of course all for equality. Hes a neat guy too.

My biggest problem with Kucinich is not the 'electable' cannard so much as what I perceive as his inclination to go with ideological solutions to problems and not looking past his ideology. When one approaches problems from the perspective of ideology rather than pragmaticaly in a cost-benefit paradigm or even better, greatest good for the greatest number standard, ideologic solutions rarely pass muster, whether from the right or the left.

That is because ideology is based on belief rather than realities.

Have you actually looked at his programs personally, or are you just going by what you've been told?

Have you actually read the text of his proposals?

If so, and you still disagree, then okay...we agree to disagree. If not, then please look at the numbers.

He IS basing his plans in reality. His opponents are the ones with the "fuzzy math." Just look at the Bush tax cut.

We know all know that supply-side economics is not based in reality. It's based in greed. I thank Al Franken for making famous something that was pointed out to me a long time ago.

These people are using cowboy economics in a spaceship environment. The opponents of him are the ones not basing their economic plan in reality. His plans will work. He is simply stating truth to power, and when you do that a lot of people with either try to take you down in fear or just say he's full of crap.

I just came back from getting meds for my sick son and was thinking in the car.

Most people in this country are sick and scared of the thought of war without end. Only those who profit from war, economic profit and ego profit, really welcome this thought. Who wants to go or send their children into this kind of thing? DK is the complete opposite of Bush*. None of our candidates are as opposite as he is, hence the Peace Department. I have no doubt that if military response was called for DK would do it. (I have not read enough to know this for a fact but it is my guess so please suppliment if you have this info) However he would do it with an honest distate and as a last resort. I think this would be a tremendous boost for his electablity. Really, how many people in this country really like the way all of this feels? With his ability to pull in the Reagan Dems and the Repubs in his district he really has the chance to become president. But then again, as I have been told before, I am just one of those crazy old hippie "librals".

Kucinich voted in favor of using military force as aresponse to the Sept. 11th attacks. That vote was called for I believe on Sept. 13th 2001, so the evidence showing who was responsible had not yet been brought forth conclusively. Kucinich's reaction was to vote in favor of military response to what appeared to be a direct attack on the United States, possibly coming from another nation.

He is not a rabid pacifist who would never use military force to defend this country, and that vote is proof.

I needed to know that. Some say he would not be capable of handling something that required military force. I just see too much fight in him to not respond if we absolutely needed that type of response. Thanks, this will help me to help him.

some people are under the impression that particular bill specifically authorized Bush to go into Afghanistan. There was no country specified, the sole question was whether the Sept. 11th attacks were sufficient to justify a military response.

Believe it or not, I was prompted to look this all up when I got an e-mail from someone who was leaning towards supporting Kucinich. They were strongly considering him but were troubled by that vote. I did the same with the PL/PC voting record to prove that he didn't make that change in his position anywhere near the time he began considering his Presidential run.

and also thanks for the link above so I can go check votes myself without having to ask. Didn't know about that one. The PL/PC is a hard one to fight. I would be upset about it myself if I did not have a feeling for the character of this man. I would much rather have someone who has made a sincere change (we are expected to buy this from Clark without any real proof of action) especially if his belief is a long held one. Just to keep this from getting taken elsewhere, I welcome Clark wholeheartedly and after I have seen him around doing progressive deeds I will be happy to consider him. Whew!

for Sharpton or Braun. As far as the other people go, I'm not so much as willing to even entertain going to the polls for them. These other people are financially tied in with all types of corporate crooks or wannabe corporate crooks.

and you support him primarily. You dont have to be instead you deserve a thanks for be able to see that Kucinich has a terrific vision.

energy to walk to the polls to vote for any of the other seven. They don't deserve my vote and they will not get it.

Thanks, that was thoughtful and really well reasoned.

Peace.

:dem:

I so wish I had written that! Can we pretend I did ;)

Kucinich is the people's man and there are a lot more of us than there are of corporations!

The Select Smart Poll shows just how electable Kucinich is. And that is exactly what the moneyed people and corporations fear- they fear us- they fear the people! What a messed up country!

Select Smart:
Winners of the Presidential Selector Race
(96,507 Responses to date)
45% Congressman Dennis Kucinich, OH - Democrat

14% Bush, George W. - US President
10% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
8% Green Party Candidate
6% Libertarian Candidate
6% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
2% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
2% Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat
2% Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat
2% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat
1% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat
0% Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat
0% Bayh, Senator Evan, IN - Democrat
0% Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat
0% Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham, NY - Democrat
0% Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat
0% Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat
0% Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat
0% Daschle, Senate Minority Leader Tom, SD - Democrat
0% Phillips, Howard - Constitution
0% McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican
0% Buchanan, Patrick J. – Reform/Republican
0% Socialist Candidate
0% Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" AR - Democrat
0% Kaptur, Cong. Marcy, OH - Democrat
0% Nader, Ralph - Green Party
0% Feinstein, Senator Dianne, CA - Democrat

http://www.fluxrostrum.com/MindFlux/DennisKucinich/electable-candidates.htm

I think this is a great point brought up. I just wish we would stop playing the "electablity" game, its annoying enough as it is, we dont know for sure who is and who isnt electable. Kucinich really appeals a lot to me.

If DK is the one you'd want under ideal circumstances, but you're not voting for him because he is unelectable, then I challenge you to vote for him.

If your theory is true, he will not get past the primary with or without your vote, so you may as well vote for him and keep a clear conscience, right?

Sure he doesn't stand a chance, but - as long as the front-runners are all the same to you as to who gets the nomination - a losing vote for DK is not throwing away a vote. A strong DK showing will force the DNC to take notice. It will also give DK MUCH more pull in Congress, where he has been stellar but not always taken as seriously as he should be.

So unless you think Clark is the devil, or Dean dismembers cats, I challenge you to vote the primary with your conscience and let electibility be determined by the electorate.

kucinich has every wagoneer, every citizen on his side, this thread seems like a green thread for they too will support any democrat candidate except j.l. ... Kucinich has the vote of the people, Kucinich has the people standing with him.... Kucinich is my only choice, Kucinich should be your only choice... speak from the people and act like one of them......

i dared to dream, i dared to make a difference, i dared to vote for Dennis Kucinich.....

"i dared to dream, i dared to make a difference, i dared to vote for Dennis Kucinich....."

Well said.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

Amazing how many many people like DK and yet...
they...say....that.... w o r d .....unelectable

I am seeing DK is very electable...in fact he's the only one.

Hope they made their goal...and then double it for matching funds!!

Can't wait to see him here in 'Zona at the debates next week...we have a great party/welcome/rally planned!!

Hey Dan- I hear MN is really going all out there for DK...wahooo!! We are doing our part here in AZ, too!

:yourock:

Peace
DR

edit typos

We got his appearance at Central High professionally taped, and it's now circulating on all the cable access channels around the state. We made a bunch of money for him with Peace Parties. He's given us permission to ask for up to five appearances through the end of the year. He's coming here on his announcement swing, and we're going to try to get full press coverage for his visit.

Minnesota rocks for Dennis!

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

I agree with you.

Dennis' campaign is as grassroots as it gets. And those roots start with us. We can like him as much as we want, but if we think the people ought to be able to create change, we need to remember that we're the people. We're the roots. If we won't act on the change we wish to see, we shouldn't expect to declare victory in '04. We can declare that we didn't get beat. But not victory.

Be that change you wish to see.

Spend your vote on the candidate you believe in.

I think that DK is a honorable man but he frankly isn't ready yet to be president. If he were Governor or Senator of a state I would be more willing to support him.

He is too anti-military to win in the current era.

Dennis is not anti-military. He is anti-defense contractors. There's a huge difference.

I was in the Marine Corps for 8 years. The gross negligence of many of the higher ups and "big budget" projects was obvious to any who dared to look, while quality of life programs for the troops and much need supplies were skimped on. You can't say anything while you're in, of course, but it's obvious. I can see how a Kucinich administration would make our military much better, and would increase morale. The people fighting your wars are more important that the toys they fight with. This has been proven over and over again. Look at the Frozen Chosen or the Revolutionary War. Not only that, the troops are much happier when they don't have to risk their lives over BULLSHIT.

In truth - BUSH IS ANTI-MILITARY. He cuts supplies for the troops, including meals and equipment to fight with, cuts military benefits, cuts veterans benefits, and pretty much every thing we should support in the military. On the other hand, if you're a defense contractor, like say....Haliburton, you gotta love the guy. It's raining money for you. Bush is pro defense contractors, not pro military.

This is even a worse lie that the "unelectable" myth, and it has no basis in fact.

{on edit}
Once again this debate has been incorrectly framed for you by the media. Why do you choose to look at Democratic candidates in a Republican frame?

Sometimes he's the only source of sense in whole threads.

Must've been before I got here.


:eyes:

RC

He's NOT anti-military. He wants all those E-1's and E-2's to get the full amount of the raises Bush promised them, then took away. Those are the ranks that everyone was pointing out as being on food stamps, yet the other candidates have said NOTHING about this Bush betrayal.

HE wants full and increased funding for the Veterans Administration NOW, including the funds taken away by Domenici during Clinton's administration. It is vital that we see to the victims of Agent Orange NOW, as well as the victims of the Gulf War and exposing people to hazardous materils on their military jobs.

He is AGAINST developing and deploying cold war weapons systems, including the Osprey and a lot of other Cold War type toys that pork mongers and the Bushies want us to buy with our tax money. He is AGAINST weaponizing outer space.If wanting us to save tax money while still keeping the military strong is being "anti-military," so be it, because I could go on forever.

But I won't, because with DK, war will always be the last resort, not the first choice, and THAT makes me happy and gives THE WORLD that currently fears us, hope.

 
A Special Fundraising Message from Dorothy J. Maver, National Campaign Manager

September 30, 2003
9:00 p.m. EDT


Three hours eastern...four hours central...five hours mountain...six hours pacific time left...we are within $100,000 of our goal - 1.5 million for the quarter. Help us go over the top. Thank you for your support! Please go immediately to our website www.kucinich.us or call Kucitizens standing by to take your call at 866.413.3664 or put a check in the mail. All checks dated September 30th and arriving by October 2nd count! We are the ones we've been waiting for...this is our hour. In the MSNBC Poll today Dennis John Kucinich was number one with 30%... This peace train has left the station...all aboard... In the Spirit of Peace, Dot

Dorothy J. Maver
National Campaign Manager
Dennis John Kucinich
Campaign for President
866-413-3664 dot@kucinich.us
www.kucinich.us

:bounce:

If they really believed he was unelectable, they wouldn't be working so hard to get us not to elect him. We need to stand firm and vote our conscience.

I think that Dennis is the most electable candidate because he will show America a real difference.

I don't understand why people who agree with Kucinich would not support him in the primary. The point of the primary is to see who is electable, and if everyone assumes that things will never change they never will. Support who you agree with now, especially this early in the primary process if he or she doesnt make it to the national election then settle for the lesser of two evils. If you agree with Kucinich the most now support him, if you agree with Kerry support him, but don't just pick who you think other people will like the most who somewhat agrees with you. Stop complaining about the problem while being part of it at the same time.

TroubleMan, it is nice to see your passion about this candidate. But I don't think you are acknowledging certain superficial criteria that Americans look for in a president. Please understand, I am not trying to be funny or ridicule Kucinich. I honestly believe that many Americans take these factors into account (either consciously or subconsciously) when they vote at the polls.

First is the candidate's name. Look at the names of our past presidents: Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy...all the way back to George Washington. Even before they became president, these names had a familiar and "American" (waspy?) ring to them. I saw one poster on this very board say Kucinich's name inevitably gets followed by "gesundheit." If a candidate doesn't have a familiar "American" name, he is has a point against him.

Second is physical appearance. Kucinich looks, well, wimpy. Americans look for a president who appears physically strong. This impression is especially important in post-9/11 America. Make no mistake, this is one reason for Bush's success. (I believe it is also a factor in Arnold Schwarzenegger's popularity).

Third is voice. Kucinich speaks with passion, but here again, he sounds kind of wimpy.

The superficial qualities of Kucinich remind me of a another recent presidential candidate: Michael Dukakis. Remember how opponents said his name with such disdain? Remember how they ridiculed him during the infamous tank ride?

In an ideal world, people would elect a president based on his character, his experience, and his stand on the issues. But in our media-driven culture, superficial qualities have a huge influence on voters. For this reason, I think Kucinich is unelectable for president.

is being countered even as we speak. Volunteers have come up with some brilliant methods of making the name Kucinich both familiar and fun for people to say. I'm unconcerned about that, though your point is certainly borne out by history. Then again the entire Kucinich campaign is about dramatic change, so I suppose this funny sounding Slavik name is the perfect backdrop.

He looks "wimpy" for about thirty seconds! IF that long! The second he opens his mouth to speak it's pretty evident to anyone watching this man is no door-mat. As a matter of fact that's what sucked me into his campaign, the fact that he's this little elfin looking dude. I mean he looks like he'd be easily defeated, but about 2 seconds into his speech the first time I saw him debate I was thunderstruck. I sat there for the whole thing with my jaw on the floor and just shook my head muttering "THIS is the guy we need! They'll look at him and snicker, and then he'll take them out with a single shot!".

<mini-rant>I have to say this because it has been driving me absolutely buggy- On the one hand we have people saying he looks like an elf or a wimp, etc implying he can't run with the big dogs. Then right here in this very thread we have people b!tching because he got snarky ONCE in a debate! Well fer cripes sake, people this guy can NOT win with some of you! I swear sometimes I'm convinced people make up excuses not to support him because they can't find anything of substance!</mini-rant>

Also, going back to the name thing, Kucinich himself has been countering that with "Just remember to vote for Dennis!" which IS a nice waspy sounding name.(I do admit, I wonder sometimes if Clark's name gives him a bit of an edge- both first and last- with the people you're referring to. Wesley has that unusual strength and character to it that appeals to a lot of us. Hell I love that name!)

Its Slavic actually and as Slav I feel like how my fellow Irish, yes I am a Celt Slav got a problem with that lol so is Dennis, ok as I am saying I feel like how the Irish Catholics did with Jack Kennedy in 1960, call me silly but I think it would be nice to get one of my own in the white house plus hes great on the issues and has a great vision. The irony is hes not really that small, he would NOT be the smallest president ever, and hes only a couple of inches shorter than Dean he weights a bit more less I am willing to say though which probably has some thinking Dean is a giant compared to him, and lol I am taller than both of those guys, I am only smaller than Kerry I think, and maybe about Gephardt's height. Remember DS, he was disappointed not to serve in the military like his brothers and father had done, and theres some irony to that, Ive seen him called pacifist before, and thats not bad either but that story proves hes not, he would have heard the call to duty had he not had a heart condition yet he still was a productive young man.
I am sorry if I made it sound like his ethnicity was a big reason but its a neat factor to me, you guys do know we have had only one Catholic president, and only some of non English ancestry. This is America!

And you are right, the man's appearance does not define him. I think I just have a more cynical view of the average American voter. "Voter appeal" is that nasty term that we wish wasn't a factor, but really is. Remember that line from the movie "Back to the Future"? "No wonder your president is an actor, he has to look good on TV." Sad, but true.

from http://www.kucinich.us
 
A Fundraising Update from Dorothy J. Maver, National Campaign Manager

October 1, 2003
3:00 a.m. EDT


Thank you, thank you, thank you! We met our goal!

Your efforts and financial contributions, whether two dollars or two thousand dollars are making an incredible impact on our ability to spread the message of Dennis John Kucinich to ALL Americans.

How fitting that a dynamic, grass-roots campaign comprised of extraordinary people like you will be responsible for placing an extraordinary man - OUR OWN DJK - in the White House in 2004.

Here's a little trivia fact for you and your friends. Did you know that 8 of our nation's Presidents have come from the State of Ohio? With your continued support, Dennis Kucinich will be the 9th!

I send a very special thanks to those of you who rallied so hard during the final hours of our matching funds deadline. You can be assured that every dollar is cherished and being spent wisely.

It is now October and a new financial quarter begins. This presents another opportunity to fundraise for the campaign so that we can all benefit from the matching government funds....so keep doing what you do so well...and please begin thinking who you will invite to your house party on October 13th as we join together to celebrate this historic campaign and Dennis' formal announcement.

The spirit, the pride, and the honorable manner in which this unique campaign is being funded is consistent with the Spirit of Democracy.

One person truly makes ALL the difference.
 
Gratitude,
Dot Maver
National Campaign Manager
Kucinich for President

All it takes is a little money from everyone here. If you haven't donated to Dennis, please do so.

http://cronus.com/prayer

There's a link off the above web page.

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets!>

Great post!

I had this exact same discussion with my Mother today and Brother yesterday.

I said that every time you regurgitate that unelectable mantra you are only enabling the lie.

Any man is electable if the will exists.

It is only the manipulation of expectations that limit out choices.

The republicans are experts at manipulating expectations.

Each on of us can break the chain by voting our beliefs not other peoples expectations.

is that he hasn't figured out a way to break through the media wall.

Dean started out as an asterisk, and figured out a way through that wall. Dennis needs to do something dramatic to capture the attention of the nation and he needs to seriously increase his fundraising.

Nader received almost 3 million votes in 2000. It is incredibly hard for me to believe that you couldn't seriously tap in to that group for funds. If you could get $20 per person, you would have $60 million.

He still has time, but he must do it before Iowa.

With all due respect to the Congressman, I do NOT 'know' that he is not unelectable; to the contrary, I know that he would not carry the VERY Democrat-friendly State of Illinois. Rightly or wrongly, he will NOT "play in Peoria", and his nomination would cede 21 electoral votes to *.

what you hope, believe, or want to be true. You 'know' Dennis can't win and I'm sure you 'know' Dean can. But in fact all you have is your emotion underpinning your 'knowing', not anything else. If you had anything convincing, you'd offer it in place of your naked assertions.

I work 'the trenches'--- phone banking, door-to-door, Democrat rallies and other gatherings, labor picnics and more--- and DK does not stand a chance in IL. I do not *know* that Dean can win IL, but I *do* know that he has a far greater chance than DK.

I did not disparage DK personally OR politically, nor did I disparage his supporters/campaign, and I resent the underlying tone of your reply. What next, a "Drink the Kool Aid" comment? :eyes:

Now you're saying 'far less chance' rather than 'can't'. Do you see the difference? 'Can't' is an absolute. It implies either that you're all-knowing or that the fix is in. It's possible that one of those is true, but I don't believe either one. (Note my phrasing: 'believe').

Food for thought from three observant people:

The best-laid plans o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley, / An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain / For promised joy.

There's many a slip twixt cup and lip.

It ain't over til it's over.

I clearly said I *know* he can't win Illinois (twice)-- period. You can engage in whatever manner of sophistry you wish by attempting to twist what I clearly said (twice), but it does not alter what I said, Mairead.

And you still evidently haven't grasped what 'know' means. You can't know because the outcome is in the future and multicausal. You can believe that it will come out a certain way but that's all you can do. (Well, you can make unfounded assertions, too.)

Learn the difference between 'know' and 'believe'. It's important.

I don't 'know' that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, either, but based on what I DO know about the rising of the sun to date, I have NO doubt about saying that I *know* it will.

I will not engage in sophistry or metaphysical debates with you. The word has a clear, contextual meaning, and I stand by my previous two statements.

Troubleman.....thank you!

As we know, the heart has it's own kind of intelligence. So long as we listen to it and trust it....we will always be living in truth.


If any of you missed this speech by Dennis that posted elsewhere....enjoy it now!

Dennis Kucinich’s Acceptance Speech for the 2003 Gandhi Peace Award

I'm glad to have this moment to be with you and to express first of all my gratitude for being the recipient of the 2003 Gandhi Peace Award. It's very humbling to have my name associated with the name of a true visionary, of someone whose life was a gift to the world, and whose life many of us in public careers try to emulate. And I want to thank all of you who work to keep this fine organization going. When I first arrived, I had the opportunity to speak to many of you about your own commitments, about your work. And it's especially humbling to have the opportunity to share this evening with you, because this is your life's work too. Your life's work is dedicated to the active work on behalf of peace. There are some who think that peace is somehow a static activity. Far from it. It's a dynamic _expression of the possibilities of human aspiration. For those of you who came in from New York today, who participated in the march, thank you. Please join me in thanking .

"Out on the edge of darkness there lies the peace train. Peace train, take this country, come take me home again." 30 years ago that song was written by Cat Stevens. And it's interesting how you can almost hear the rhythms come back at this moment: "Out on the edge of darkness." We look at the edge of darkness out across this water-I'm looking at the beautiful illumined gazebo, and I think of what we can do to send light to the Persian Gulf this evening.

..The psalms have a phrase in Latin: "Emitte lucem tuam." Send forth your light. And we so need to do that at this moment, so that we can describe the entire Persian Gulf in light this evening, and to send the light of peace in that region. To take the light of peace which is in our hearts, and extend that light, and that love and that compassion. From my studies of the Scriptures and the Gospel of St. John, it begins, in the early verses, it speaks of the light shining in the darkness. "And the darkness grasp it not." Light always shines in the darkness. And darkness has dropped upon our country, upon our Constitution, upon our highest aspirations for America, upon our historic traditions-the light of truth will shine in that darkness, and the darkness will neither comprehend nor overwhelm it. So we are called upon at this moment, to be witnesses for peace, for truth, for light, for love, for compassion, and for the potential of humanity to evolve from a condition where some believe that war is inevitable, to a condition where our knowledge that peace is inevitable becomes the defining paradigm of a new century and a new world.

How do we get to that point. Today we're being offered a competing vision. One vision holds America as a nation involved in a Manichean struggle at war with the forces of evil. Gandhi of course said the only evil that exists in the world is that which is rattling around in our own hearts. Yet there are those who have described these images of evil, and have projected those images, as though on a large screen; and have tried to vivify them; have created enemies. That philosopher created by Walt Kelly named Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us!" And so this vision which is emerging from smoke and fire, digitized visions projected on our television screens today, phantasmagoria, garish phosphorescence projected into our psyches, into our hearts, creating despair, creating a vision of the world disintegrating. Not the first time this has happened in human experience, but the first time we've seen in coming from our nation waging an aggressive war. Almost a hundred years ago, William Butler Yeats described the Second Coming: "Turning and turning, in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer. All things fall apart. The center cannot hold." He wrote about an era that presaged disintegration, that presaged war, not only in Ireland but later on a world war. And today we're looking at a world where the center is not holding. Where this world view of America at war is becoming a doctrine, or reflects and derives from a doctrine, that paradoxically would be what we expect to secure our country...>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=31583

Very well said indeed!

All it would take to elect Dennis is that we support him. If we really support him --really, truly, in our hearts and guts support him-- then we'll make it happen.

Yet they harp what the media has fed them: "But he's unelectable!"

Bullshit! We repeat the lies that we're being sold and in the process shoot ourselves in the foot.

If everyone that said they like DK actually cast their stupid vote his way, I honestly think he'd win.


Great thread!

And I say that as a person who has donated money to his campaign.

Does that sound contradictory? Well, then give me a chance to explain.

Dennis Kucinich's campaign is much, much, much more important than electoral politics. Changes resulting from electoral politics are short-term and transitory. But paradigm changes, changes in the way we perceive the world around us, are much more permanent. And THAT is the importance of Dennis's campaign for President.

The reason so many of us here love him so much is because he is the ONLY ONE who is standing up there and seriously questioning some of the most basic assumptions of American society. He's sowing seeds in the wind, in the hope that they will take hold in people's consciousness. While there are many people who still won't vote for him -- they just may hear him and say to themselves, "You know, this guy has REALLY got a point on this, it's just too bad he can't be elected." While many of you lament the thought that he can't be elected, I believe it is much more important to recognize the way in which he is changing, ever so slightly, their most basic attitudes.

THAT is the importance of Dennis Kucinich's campaign. And in this way, his candidacy is much more important than ANY of the front-runners who, although they may put a short-term stop on the Bush agenda, will in reality do nothing to change the status quo.

From Dennis's mouth to the ear of the greater consciousness. In the words of the REAL Elvis (Costello), "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?"

Now, flame away on me if you wish.... :D

I mean, why have Hitler Lite when you can get the real thing?

If the entirety of the Plame case makes it to the mainstream media, the only one planning to run in 2004 who will be unelectable is Bush.

So! Which Democrat do we want to be president? Kucinich is one of the better ones, to be sure, but any of the ten will be a better president than Dubya has been.

but his message would not resonate with much of the country. It would not resonate much beyond the area he currently represents.

It would come as no surprize that I would not favor at least some of the positions that he has championed being an Edwards supporter. That being said, even if I were to have that hypothetical single vote, it would not go to him.

"Not only that, the majority of people in America are more liberal than a moderate like Clinton was (I'm not bashing Clinton, he was a great president, but he was moderate, not liberal or conservative.) However, the media for the last 10 or so years, maybe more, has been telling the people that they are conservative, so they tend to think they are until they hear the issues."

This is what happens when we talk only to people who agree with us. The whole world seems just as liberal, or conservative or whatever, as we are. But the country is not more liberal than Clinton. Every poll and every election shows otherwise. It doesn't make me any happier than it makes you to see the country slide rightward, but especially after 9/11 it became a fact. Refusing to face facts won't help us forward our agenda. Indulging in fantasies about how we can have everything we want politically because everybody really agrees with us (they just won't admit it) won't help us forward our agenda.

Have your asbestos underwear on, because the DK supporters just know you're wrong. :eyes: /sarcasm off

DK has introduced a Bill in the House to repeal especially ugly provisions of the Patriot Act.Including the one that could put you in jail for telling a patron that the FBI or other captive law enforcement agency inquired about them. Think about it.

And we're fighting the Patriot Act and we want to get it repealed or struck down by the courts or at least hamper its enforcement. But I'm not holding my breath. The post 9/11 paranoia has died down, but it hasn't gone away by a long shot. Meanwhile, it shows that Kucinich is most useful where he is - in Congress.

The questions you ask determine the answers you get. That's such a simple, rock-solid truth that I'm amazed there are people who still seem to imagine that questions and answers are independent of one another.

The majority of USAians are more liberal than Clinton. Much more! Look at the stories, films, songs, and other pop culture that people spend their disposable income on. The vast majority have a very liberal slant. The few right-wing ones get hyped to the skies and then fall flat on their faces.

It's not by accident or for nothing that people are subjected to relentless ideological 'carpet bombing' by Media Inc. If everyone were 'centrist' or 'conservative', our rulers wouldn't need to do that. They wouldn't have needed to lie about the Iraq invasion, they wouldn't need to hide the death toll, they wouldn't need to spin everything they touch. But they did, and do, because the majority of people are not really on their side by nature and must be kept hoodwinked and confused.

and half distinction-without-a-difference. How can election results, for example, be a case of "the questions you ask determines the answers you get"? And your view of pop culture is selective, I'm afraid. Why is Fox the most popular news network by far if Americans are so liberal?

As for the idea that Americans would be more liberal if all the conservative propaganda were to go away, well, so what? It can't really be proved one way or the other, but even if it were true, so what? The conservative propaganda isn't going to go away! Moneyed interests will continue to maintain it. And the lying isn't going to stop either.

Making our political plans on the basis of the "wonderful world it would be" if conservatives stopped lying and stopped spinning and stopped controlling the media is naive and pointless. It's a surefire strategy for getting killed in any given election.

We have to deal with the electorate as it exists, not as we would have it be in an ideal world.

How can election results, for example, be a case of "the questions you ask determines the answers you get"?

Easy. The 'questions' are the candidates. Let's draw a small comparison. Take the Gore-Bush debates from which Nader (and all other candidates) were excluded. That maps very well onto a poll in which you are asked in big bold type whether you prefer to eat puppies boiled or roasted, while the options of (c) not eat them at all (d) take them home and adopt them and (e) call the cops are in very tiny type hidden below the fold and kept out of your view by the polltaker. Hey, they were on the poll, must be that most people want to eat puppies, and the only thing people care about is how to prepare them.

Why is Fox the most popular news network by far if Americans are so liberal?

Who says it's most popular?

Making our political plans on the basis of the "wonderful world it would be" if conservatives stopped lying and stopped spinning and stopped controlling the media is naive and pointless.

Sorry that I wasn't more clear. People are hoodwinked because there is only one voice getting to them. If we supply a second voice....

Item one, your analogy is silly. It's got nothing to do with eating puppies. If the majority of voting Americans were more liberal than Clinton, of course they would have supported Gore by more than fifty-point-something percent, given that the alternative (as you yourself cast the issue) was Bush. You must think that the people who run political campaigns for a living are awfully stupid if you think there was some enormously attractive political alternative (like not eating puppies in your analogy) that no one considered. Don't forget that no one is actually bound by their campaign rhetoric. Case in point: seen a lot of compassionate conservatism lately? So, if Americans really were thirsting for liberalism, at least Gore would have provided it. And in your world, that would have gotten him elected by sixty percent or more (in the real world, it would have sunk him).

Item two, the ratings say that Fox News is the most popular news network.

Item three, go thou and provide that second voice, if you think you can. Here, you're just preaching to the choir. Every time we nominate a candidate with the intent of "sending a message" we go down in flames - Mondale, McGovern, Stevenson, et al (worked the same for Republicans with Goldwater).

By you, facts and logic are "unsupported assertions." What an extraordinarily selective perception process you have!

What I wrote had nothing to do with puppies. Substitute anything else for the puppies, and the same argument holds: if you make some limited set of choices visible while hiding others, most people will pick from the visible choices and those who've done the hiding can bray that people 'really want' that limited set.

Get it now? It's not rocket science.

Backing off your silly analogy and replacing it with an untrue generality doesn't change anything. If there was really a broad-based desire for more liberal candidates, political professionals would know about it, and at least Democrats would run more liberal. But in national elections, EVERY TIME we try this we get killed. Every single time. We win only when we run to center. That's because every "disaffected lefty" vote we win on the left loses us two from the center, where most voters (and nonvoters) reside. It's not rocket science, just history. If you've got anything more than opinion and fantasy to answer with, let's hear it.

You're assuming that the only turnout for any presidential election will be the ±50% that turned out for the previous presidential election. What about the other 50% of eligible voters who DID NOT VOTE because there wasn't a candidate to their liking?

If there's only two right-wing candidates to vote for, you would assume that all voters are right-wing, and ignore the ones who stayed away from the polls. What if we could get even a fraction of those non-voters to vote for our candidate?

I would rather win this election with a candidate who gets at least 50+% of the popular vote (unlike Clinton, TWICE) in an election where 55+% of eligible voters voted. We can do this with Kucinich. I don't honestly believe we can do it with another moderate.

for the idea that any significant percentage of the nonvoters were progressives who were "turned off by both candidates," or at least that that percentage was any greater than right-wingers who were turned off by both candidates. It's easy to think that everyone is a liberal when you only talk to other liberals, but that doesn't make it true.

History shows that every time the Democratic Party runs left in a national election, we get killed. We win only when we run to the center. Political pros all know that, which is why candidates usually do run to center, including Republicans. All you have to argue against that with is a fantasy about huge numbers of disaffected lefties who didn't vote.

There is NO REASON to believe that anything like a majority of the electorate would support Kucinich, even if we could get them off their asses and into the voting booths.

In the last 30 years, the Democrats have only won ONE presidential election with a majority of the popular vote: Carter in 1976. Of course, the Repubs were tainted by Watergate, and almost NOTHING could have saved them that year.

Also, look what the Repubs did in the late '70s to re-energize their party, post-Nixon. They recruited the hard-right religious fundementalists and cultural conservatives into their fold by appealing to their socio-cultural issues. Since then, the Repubs have consistently run right-wing candidates for president, and they have won more than they've lost!

However, the Repubs are still NOT the majority party in this country-- but they're getting close. Still, the vast majority of the public sympathizes with the Democrats, or leans towards the Democrats, on most important issues (reproductive choice, public schools, worker rights, the economy, healthcare, just to name a few).

Unfortunately, a lot of these folks don't bother to vote because they don't see candidates that will STAND UP for these issues-- EVEN THE DEMOCRATS! They'd rather stay home because they feel there's almost NO DIFFERENCE between the Repub and the Repub-Lite "moderate" we keep offering up for sacrifice every four years.

The current strategy is obviously not successful, so why should we continue playing the same losing hand? Maybe, if we tried something different, we could get back that electoral majority, and at the same time, get more REAL Democrats elected to Congress to help pass our liberal agenda?

First, it's silly to discount victories because we didn't get a clear majority of the popular vote. The popular vote is irrelevant in presidential elections, which are decided by the electoral vote, which Clinton (for example) won handily both times. And nobody gets the majority of the popular vote when a significant third-party candidate runs. Anyway, the important thing is to get in. You get your agenda enacted or at least block the opposition agenda by getting in. Surely this is obvious, isn't it?

Second, we have tried "something different" and gotten killed each and every time we tried it. What part of electoral history don't you understand?

Speaking as a political scientist (my undergrad degree):

Third parties dominate in elections where the two major parties are perceived to have moved too close to each other, and are perceived as indistinguishable. We've seen this happen for the last three presidential elections, where a third-party candidate has been able to win a sizable portion of the vote at the expense of both major parties.

To say the popular vote is irrelevant and only the electoral college matters is to dismiss a very alarming fact: the victor has no popular mandate from the electorate, and typically doesn't have very long "coattails", either. That means getting his/her program thru congress will be an uphill battle.

Another important fact is that the participation in presidential elections has declined substantially in the last three elections. That means that almost half of the electorate no longer feels like voting for "the evil of two lessers", and doesn't feel that any candidate speaks for their concerns.

Take a look at Bush & Gore on many important "liberal" issues (free trade, death penalty, "welfare reform")-- their similarities outweighed their differences. Why would somebody who gives a damn about these issues bother voting if their choice doesn't exist?

Continuing to buy into this "electability" fraud and chasing that 5% of the electorate called "the swing vote" has not yielded good results for the Dems. Just look at congress since 1992: both houses have gone Repub. Even the House, which the Dems held for 38 Years! That's not even taking into account the loss of governorships and state legislatures to the Repubs while following this misguided strategy.

If you want more evidence of how a "new strategy" can work, look at the 2002 election results. The DLC-supported "moderate" Democrats tended to get their butts kicked, while the "true Democrats" who stuck to their guns overwhelmingly WON re-election, in spite of little or no support from the DNC-controlled DLC.

The American people are sick of voting for some pre-packaged blowdried flip-flopper who governs by focus group. They desperately want a candidate who has the conviction of his beliefs and is willing to be honest with the electorate.

If not now, when? If not Kucinich, then who?

If we had a sane voting system that didn't suck so bad as to fundamentally influence the system.

Get Condorcet or Acceptance voting going in the primarys, and then we won't have to worry about this "electability" nonsense.

I'd like to say that my heart is with Kucinich, and while I know that
having the media against him (Murdoch controls 70% of our print media, so I know how that translates) will make things difficult, I
don't understand why everyone who believes in him can't vote for him
in the primaries. If he doesn't come through, I guess he just retires
from the race, and there's no harm done. But what he's done from
an extraordinarily unpopular position (voting against the Iraq war,
which was electoral poison just a few months ago)is quite amazing,
and the beauty of it is, it's a movement upwards from the people, not
a response to media manipulation, or big corporate money, or because he happens to be a movie star. It's genuine, and real, and wonderful; this is what democracy is really about.

And as someone who is outside looking in, remember that nobody knows what's going to happen in Iraq between now and February - it could be
that Bush will be in even deeper trouble by then, and Kucinich's stand may become even more popular, because I think it's extremely unlikely that Bush will be able to get any meaningful help in Iraq from Europe unless he's prepared to eat a little humble pie, and I don't think he's capable of that. He's in a hole, and his answer is to dig a deeper hole. Please don't give up on Dennis - you're so lucky to have him!

Strongly like the arguments I get from fundie christians when they find out I am an atheist.

"Deep down you KNOW god exists," they say.

My answer to them, and this thread, is no, not even a little bit.

Despite the teenaged fantasies of the Kucinich supporters, DK is not anyone's worst nightmare. To be someone's worst nightmare he would have to have some chance of getting elected, and he has none. Not just very little, but none at all. I am a socialist myself. If i was in charge, i would eradicate corporate person-hood, eliminate the ownership of land, and do away with personal wealth. Am I capitalism's worst nightmare? hell no, because there is no way I am going to be in charge short of their being a great plague that kills everyone but the other 7 people nationwide who agree with me. It is wonderful that people are supporting a candidate that speaks to their issues and their heart, but holding DK close to your heart does not mean he has any chance at winning,m and it certainly does not mean that the establishment is even a little frightened of him.

and personal wealth...

...yet you've called Kucinich an "extremist and ideologue" who would be "as bad for the country as Bush"

...and repeatedly asserted that "it's Dean or nobody" for you, that your stance is non-negotiable, not subject to debate.

Seems you're in thrall of a few juvenile fantasies yourself.

But we are not living in an ideal situation. I am smart enough to know that my own ideas are not shared by very many people. My personal beliefs might place me out on the far left, but in recognizing that others do not agree and that we live in a cooperatove society and therefore all opinions must be considered, I reject and avoid extremism.

An extremist is one who who holds a belief and will not compromise,and will not accept anything other than total submission to their agenda. An ideologues is one who makes decisions and policy based on ideology rather than reality. I am neither of those things, and neither is Dean, but I believe Kucinich both, as is Bush. I do not want any ideologue or extremist in the White House, even one that happens to agree with me.

is a matter of opinion. Naturally, I don't agree.

By your own definition however, you are an extremist. Kucinich will support and vote for any Democratic nominee. You will not. Only Dean gets your vote, not Kerry, not Clark, not Lieberman, and certainly not Kucinich. If ceding the country to Bush because the One True Candidate isn't available isn't an example of "one who who holds a belief and will not compromise, and will not accept anything other than total submission to their agenda", I don't know what is.

I'm ordinarily not one to give anyone grief about their voting choices. I've always defended those who vote third party, and don't whack on those who sit out elections. But after seeing your condescension of his supporters as indulging in "teenaged fantasies", I was feeling peevish. If you hadn't included the unnecessary insult, you wouldn't have heard from me.

I do not mind a few jabs.

And it was not an "unnecessary insult," it was an observation of the behavior of his supporters, seriously.

Also, picking a candidate to support and sticking with him does not make me an extremist. I am very much against the idea of "Anybody But Bush," as I believe that being the President requires a hell of a lot more than simply not being George Bush. All of the other Dem candidates have, for me, demonstrated either an inability to get elected, or a serious shortcoming that makes them unsupportable in my eyes. Of the available candidates, Dean is the only acceptable choice, it is possible a new acceptable candidate could join the race, but at this point it is extremely unlikely and I think that the 10 we have are what we have to work with. Case in point, if Gore was running, BOTH he and Dean would have my enthusiastic support.

Yeah, deeming Kucinich to be the RNC's "worst nightmare" is overwrought boosterism, but it's no worse than what I see in Dean (or others) threads. In the interests of fairness, next time a Dean is THE ONE, He'll Beat Bush, Restore Dems to Congress in a Landslide and A Progressive Renaissance Will Bloom thread crops up, pop in and note their callowness out loud. If I'm around, I promise I'll defend you :)

He is a moderate. A centrist. By his own admission and definition (and mine). We don"t NEED a radical progressive in the White House right now (any more than we need a radical right-wing fundamentalist), and to have one would do more harm than good.

The road from dystopia to utopia is a very long one. We cannot skip steps or take shortcuts, it would just haunt us in the end.

I do think Dean will beat Bush handily. And one of the reasons I support him is that he will be able to accomplish something even if he is facing a Republican controlled congress. He has a proven track record of bipartisanship, compromise and getting things done.

I commend you for your passion for Kucinich. I think you bring up many valid points, but there is one thing you are overlooking. Kucinich holds many positions that border on democratic socialism. Even more so than some of the candidates in the early to middle part of the 20th century. I believe you are misreading America if you think that a democratic socialist is electable here.

Though the media may tend to make America look more conservative than it really is, I think you are seeing it as more liberal than it really is. The 2000 election shows how basically right down the middle this country is politically. Remember, Bush campaigned as a moderate. Had he campaigned as the right winger he's turned out to be, I think Gore would have won easily. This country does not elect wingers on either side of the spectrum, and though I agree with Kucinich on much, he is as left wing as it generally gets in this country. His ideas are too radical for mainstream America. And if you spend any time rurally, then you know that the American conservative streak is alive and well, regardless of the media.

Even if Kucinich won the nomination, I promise you that a centrist independent would enter the race, and likely, win. With Bush on the far right and Kucinich on the far left, a McCain or someone else would charge in from the center, and likely win. Even in a straight up Bush/Kucinich election, I don't think Kucinich would get 25% of the vote. Liberals aren't what America is about. How many liberals are in Congress? Many of the Democrats have conservative tendencies. Far less than 25% of Congress is comprised of real liberals. The bulk is centrist, with some wingers on each side.

The best hope for Kucinich is to have a strong showing in NH and Iowa, and show that his ideas resonate with voters. Then the eventual winner can carry on some of his concepts.

Both propaganda lies. If enough people believe them, they may as well be true.

That's what I've been trying to say! Thnaks.

And I don´t mean aura in the kooky New Age sense (not that there´s anything wrong with that :)). But when he gets up there at the podium and before uttering a word begins singing a medley of patriotic songs without the least bit of self-consciousness, all those entrenched politicians out there, the protectors of the powerful, with their perfectly-sculpted pompadours, lantern jaws, and gravitas, start shitting themselves. When faced with such unabashed honesty, they have no choice but to return to the trusty comfort of cynical high-school ridicule - just make fun of the man, shame him in his honesty and forthrightness, shame him for showing how morally bankrupt they are. But this isn´t high school anymore. DK has aura. He´s got something ineffable the others lack, in addition to the issues you CAN put a finger on: health care, reduced defense spending, peace.....

that lists everything Kucinich has done and everything he plans to do so that people see just how solid his record is, and where he stands. I'm sure it would take up the whole page.

I don't think the media will give him that opportunity on their own.

i copied out his accomplishments on labor and it was ELEVEN PAGES.

But I agree that the media wants to ignore DK because he is AGAINST any more conglomeration in the media and would get the Justice Department to enforce anti-trust legislation against the media. THEY HATE HIM.So we are going to have to pay through the nose to get the media to show the POSITIVE things he has done and the positive things HE WILL DO.

support on display for all to see? A NYTimes page taken out, designed and paid for...NOT by some election organization or interest group....but by you and me whose one and only interest is to let people know who this man is.

I'll be honest with everyone here, I hate lamenting about the lack of press but its a legit question. Yes I know he doesnt have the money Dean does but why must it all be about green. Words got me supporting Dennis Kucinich, no amount of cash is gonna make me say I wont support him. It unfortunely I fear is all about green. I hate to lament but I am confused by the news media hardly ever mentioning him. We know who the only presidential candiate to vote against the Patriot Act and only one of two to vote against IWR of course he wasnt those two werent the only ones opposed to the war. We have got a man here whos been standing up for us, I desire peace no matter who the president may be. I tell you I admire this man with his 98% career record from the AFL-CIO, a man who is introducing legislation to repeal the hated patriot act, a man who stood too against the war, and a man you can admire. I support Dennis Kucinich, I know its gonna be hard to get him the nomination, but what I dont get is this superficality. I read some of what RFK said in the 60's and its resemblant to what Dennis says now. I admire this man, I think he would make a great president and how could you not like getting a Gandhi Award. Please consider supporting this man.

NYTimes, and/or LATimes...

I'm willing to donate what I can.

If I were not living paycheck to paycheck here...I've thought some Billboards would be good, too. Plaster Dennis along the highways enough, and give him full pages in the newspaper, and it would be hard to keep him invisible.

an ad in the NY Times opposing the War in Iraq. $40,000 for a whole page, $23,700 for a half page.

http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2012516.html

<edit>

On January 30, EPIC announced that after consulting with several Thailand 24 and Seattle RPCV colleagues, they had decided to revise their campaign goal for the NY Times ad. As donations stood -- they were close to $9,000 at that point and at the rate contributions were coming in (the average donations have been under $50), they believed that the earlier goal of raising $40,000 for a full-page ad might now be unrealistic and were looking at a more achievable goal of a half-page, horizontal ad (cost: $23,700). They were redoing the web-site "barometer" and setting a target date of Feb. 10th to raise the $23,700.

more...

we don't elect the president anyway. What's your point?

I just don't think he is the best choice for president. He would make a great senator, and I can see him leading some historic filibuster to protect New Deal labor laws or something like that. But he strikes me as someone who is more concerned with staying true to ideology than with getting things done, and I think that the president should be someone who is pragmatic and results-oriented. I respect him for staying true to his convictions (except on abortion and DOMA) but I think that he is the type who as president would let a whole healthcare plan fail rather than letting it be watered down one little bit in order to pass, and we don't need that. The American people have been waiting too long for healthcare, and we need someone who has a better chance of getting something through Congress, because almost any plan would be a lot better than what we have now.

In other words, it is not Kucinich's electability that I question. I know that he has defied the odds and beaten Republican incumbents in Republican areas before, so I do not underestimate him. What I question is his ability to get things done were he to become president, and that is where I am not so confident.

far from it, in fact.

And I think that's the case with most democrats in this country. So, yeah, he's unelectable. Nice guy? Sure. But not giving him anything more than that.

He does not stand for everything I believe in, and I probably disagree with him on more issues than most of the other candidates.

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope

Kucinich wins with people who take the time to learn his positions. He wins 50% of the "Reagan Republican" vote in his district. He took 75% of the overall vote in his last campaign. He's bested three separate Republican incumbents for three separate, successively national, offices.

He inspires people to want to help him, because he appears to want to help us.

Not voting for DK because you disagree with him on the issues is principled. Not voting for DK because you're consumed by an illusion of "electability" is the wrong reason.

Eighty percent of all one-term Presidents in the Twentieth Century were Republicans. One Hundred percent of the Presidents who fled office in disgrace were Republicans. Bush has toasted the nation worse than Hoover, a Republican one-termer. He's pissed on the office worse than Nixon, a Republican who barely escaped impeachment and jail by quitting.

Bush is toast on the issues. That's why the Republicans are trying so hard to hijack the electoral process with Black Box Voting, recall, personal destruction, and hype. They can't win on the issues. Think the 50 million who voted for the Republican in 2000 are going to make that mistake again? Think again.

Unless the Republicans succeed in derailing the election nationwide or in key states (like they're trying in California), the Democrat is going to be President - no matter who is nominated.

So I think we should nominate the person who is best on the issues, and put to bed this electability nonsense.

Vote for the candidate you believe in, and so will I.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

Open your eyes. issues are meaningless in campaign. it does not matter that you don't like it, that is still the way it is.

But you keep right on voting for issues, and you keep right on losing EVERY time.

"A vote on the issues is the vote of a fool"

I usually prefer reasoned debate without attacks, but that's the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. You must be a producer for Faux news.

The exact opposite is true. Only a fool would vote for someone based on personality and looks rather that what they stand for. Just because a few dumbasses do that and the news tells you to do that, you are going to fall for that? That truly is foolish.

YOU NEED TO OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

Things are not that shallow now, and can only get that shallow if you believe in them and keep saying it.

issues. So if RFK didnt look so good and wasnt the best speaker but brought up legit points, I would be a fool. I dont get it.

I find it arrogant and offensive in the extreme to be told by DK's supporters that the somehow *know* what I believe 'deep down'; apparently crystal balls are standard issue with your campaign kits, eh?

The fact of the matter is that a HUGE percentage of the Democratic party--- repeat, HUGE percentage--- have opinions and beliefs about many issues that are *radically* at odds with DK's; nonetheless, when we DARE disagree, we are met with this patronizing "you've bought into what the media tells you" or "you're not a real progressive" garbage! No, we are NOT deceived--- we believe OTHER THINGS--- and apparently a HUGE percentage of Democrats agree with US, not YOU!

At some point, you've got to realize that.

I'm not telling you that you have to like him. The whole point of this post is that so many people say that they like him the best, but don't support him because he's unelectable.

For those who disagree with him on issues (and until now I have seen very few), this message is not directed at you, other than to say the "unelectable" stigma is bullshit - which it is.

The reason I made this is because people kept posting about how much they like him, but won't vote for him. I just find a stance like that to be uncomprehensible.

To those who disagree with him....fine....don't vote for him. However, if you agree with his stances, and 99% of the posts I've seen on DU (and I've lurked on this board since early 2001, maybe late 2000) wholeheartedly agree with him on the issues, then you should vote for him.

I don't post a lot, compared to how much I'm on here....I listen more. I've seen people, when DK isn't brought up, agree with his stance on an issue, but then when he is brought up, say they disagree with him.

Also, a lot of those who disagree with him say things that don't make sense. For instance they say he's "anti-military," which couldn't be any farther from the truth - or they say he's a socialist, which he definitely is not. Therefore, they just disagree with him, because they've heard a lie about where he stands on an issue. I want to break this stupid framed debate we have about him. The debate on him is not framed correctly, and this is true for just about any other of the "candidate" threads here, too. A lot of people disagree because they really don't understand the candidates position at all, and again this goes for all the candidates.

I know not everybody here agrees with him, and I don't want them too. The truth is that a large majority of the posters here(if you don't mention his name) agree with him on the issues. Then that same majority turn around and say they won't support him.

That doesn't make sense.

"Unto every thing there is a season...."

If we had the luxury of nominating a 'soul mate' candidate, with *no other consideration involved*, then maybe Kucinich would be it---maybe. But the point is this: that he is 'unlecetable' is NOT a myth, it is VERY real, and we don't have the luxury of nominating a candidate we can use as a sacrificial lamb this time.

This election is about our sovereign right to self-governance; do we defeat the crypto-fascist swine who 'fired the shot over our bow' in 2000, or don't we. It is NO more complex than that. It is dire, it is desparate, it is a life-and-death struggle to regain our sovereign right to live as self-governing citizens of a free republic..

DK is NOT the candidate who will make that happen; he does not resonate with the neccessary 50.1% of the voters in this country who will decide who governs us, and he never will. Joe Six Pack will tune out *every single thing DK says* as soon as he hears the phrase "Peace Department". Fair? Probably not. Realistic? Completely!

This is not about ideals--- it's about winning a fight for our way of life. if we don't win in 2004, there will never BE another presidential election---ever. I firmly, deeply and sincerely believe that.

Also, I believe what you say about if Bush wins in 2004, there may not be another election. Actually, I think if whitstle ass is way down in the polls, there won't even be a 2004 election. He'll allow or setup another Al Qaeda attack on us, then declare martial law - or something to that effect, maybe a war or some kind of disaster.

However, I believe that a whole lot of "Joe Sixpacks" are really fed up with Bush, and if you could point out to them under DK's plans, they'll pay less in taxes (unless they're really rich), pay less for everything, and be covered medically even if they lose their job, and their family will be covered too - I think a lot of those guys would go for it, especially now because a lot of those guys have lost their job, and are beginning to somewhat figure it out. Also, the Joe Sixpacks of the world love screaming and yelling, they love a good fight (real or imagined), and I think DK might appeal to them in some base way in the same way some here don't like him.

Of course there is going to be diehard anti-Kucinich voters no matter what. That's the same with any candidate. Like I said, Gore made himself too moderate, or enough for them to steal it. If he would have done a "veer to the left" and been much more vocal he would have won in a landslide.

The candidate we put up in 2004 must differentiate himself from Bush a whole lot to win. Doesn't everybody say this? Doesn't the majority of people harp on Lieberman here (myself included) for looking too much like a repug. They say he can't win because he's too much like Bush. These same people are now saying that DK can't win because he's too different from bush (i.e. too liberal).

Well which is it? You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Dem nominee must show his differences from bush in a big way....but wait, not DK, that rule doesn't apply to him.

Like it or not, 90% of the electorate is to the right of DK, and unless we peel them away from *, NO Democrat is going to win. DK is not the candidate to do that, nationally. Assuming that the electorate will somehow become suddenly 'enlightened' by Nov. 2004 is a pipe dream; as much as I dislike the term, 'sheeple' are the grist our political mill has to work with. He has staked himself out in territory that SCARES them rightly or wrongly, and their votes count (except in FL) one-for-one just like DK's supporters' votes do.

Don't you think the 90% of the electorate is also to the left of Bush?

80% of the voters are in between * and DK. Most demographics show a classic bell-shaped curve with a rightward shift--- rightward. That means that most voters self-identify as moderates or moderate-conservatives.

Since the game is won or lost with electoral majorities (except 2000), the *likelihood* is that the successful candidate will be one with whom the voters identify--- one they look at and listen to and say "Yes, that's what I believe, too." I live in a Republican area, and I *know* which voters are 'in play': it's not the 'ditto heads' and it's not the liberals--- it's the moderates and moderate-conservatives--- and they WON'T vote for DK.

We HAVE TO remember that Democrats alone are not going to win this election; we MUST cut into *'s share of the independent, swing voters. I sincerely believe that DK will not be the candidate who makes that happen for the Democratic party this next election.

but do you have a source for this "bell curve"? I ask because I'm not covinced of its accuracy, but if there's a source, I'm willing to consider it.

It's funny though, because I sincerely belive that Kucinich is our best and possibly only shot at getting Bush out.

http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris%5Fpoll/index.asp%3FPID=212

Assuming that my math skills are good, 40% 'moderate' plus 35% 'conservative' = 75% to the 'right' or 'liberal' (18%), a better than 4:1 margin.

THAT is why the party must nominate a moderate.

The reasons why we are told he is unelectable are dumb reasons pad like his last name, his looks. I havent said that to anyone. I didnt appreciate and I dont like TM did either about being called a fool. Ive seen many supporters of different candiates say well I like him but hes unelectable. We dont know that yet.

Unfortunately, quite a few of DK's supporters DO say such things, and it's frankly insulting as hell to be condescended to.

On edit: I specifically want to say that *you* have always been a gentleman, and while we disagree, I do so as someone who respects you.:)

Its just however as insulting as hell for us to be told our guy doesnt have a chance etc. I know thats no excuse but it does make people bitter, and thus more angry. I am sorry that happens though, it is wrong but I for one get annoyed as anything when people say Kucinich doesnt have a chance and etc. I have chosen this man and I genuinely like him on both the issues and the man himself. I dont get it, and I dont understand why people arent willing to give him a chance. I dont like lamenting but some of the stuff he has spoke out against deserves media attention. I hate to complain but theres something up with that and it dont smell good to me.

... because of the way you guys always frame the question. The DK folks never ask it in anything less than stark, black-or-white terms. We never see, "On a scale of 1-10, how well do you think DK will do in your area?" or "Would you rate his chances as 'excellent', 'good', 'fair', 'poor' or 'non-existent'?". It's always framed as "Will DK lead us to a smashing victory since he espouses blah, blah, blah and happens to be a very nice guy?", and then a LOT of you get super-supertouchy when the answer is "no".

Really, John--- it happens that way 99% of the time, and no one likes to be boxed in with a loaded question--- one that has no correct answer, other than the one you guys want to hear. :)

Thats not my question though. You say you are annoyed by being criticized for your support of Dean, I am just as for my supported of Kucinich. I honestly dont think any dem will have a sucess in this area. Its not always us, its a split. Do you realize how annoying it is to say hes unelectable because of his last name, looks, and height, hes only a couple of inches shorter than Dean. I am told people are attracted to Dean because he stood up to Bush well so did Dennis, why does that this disqualify Kucinich? Wellstone once said that politics is about doing good for people. I understand their frustration honestly, its not gonna be easy but anything could happen.

If *anyone* on this board understands about attacks on a candidate and his supporters, John, WE do! :P In fact, despite my self-imposed 'civility' pledge, I may very well verbally savage and/or jackslap the next smug so-and-so who utters the phrase "Drink the Kool Aid" !

All I'm saying is this, John: for whatever reason(s) (and there ARE some pretty hefty demographic reasons) people who say DK can't win don't neccessarily *dislike* DK or wish him ill, and they don't say it to disparage him. They're just saying what they honestly think and know about the people who vote in their area, and nothing more. :)

Actually its not Kucinich or bust for many of us. Well if having an ethnic name makes you unelectable then I feel I will have a hard time priding myself on being American. Of course they have good meaning but its superfical I think, on the ethnic name factor I know you are Irish as I am well I am part only but so I am saying, JFK's Irish Catholicism was played on by cynics as well in 1960, I am not saying hes the next Kennedy but its the same premise. If we cant elect a guy with an ethnic name, lord only knows when we will elect a woman or minority. They are good people at heart I dont deny them that but dont you think its rather absurd that people wouldnt vote for a guy because of his height, looks, and last name. Thats mostly what people talk about. If thats true, well I am off to Canada or Europe, I cant stand this. I would love to see how many people really care. Shame isnt it. I think you understand but our guy is attacked just as much. Ive seen good and bad from all sides believe me.

what are these beliefs about many issues that are *radically* at odds with DK's? Could please you list them for me?

I'd like to be able to get a firmer grasp on the new ideology of the Democratic Party. Thanks.

:dem:"No government can continue good, but under the control of the people." --Thomas Jefferson

In terms of the reality of the situation, no he doesn't have a good chance. But if all of us were faked out by probabilities in this life, no one would ever accomplish anything difficult.

Believe it--DK is the man to turn this country around, if we will all get behind him. Sadly, I don't think most of us are ready to believe that peace is possible. Someone pondered yesterday about how liberals don't come out swinging enough, and it is true. If a couple of neo-cons can seize power illegally and run this freakin' country in the ground, surely, SURELY...it is not beyond the realm of the possible that a liberal could win the White House legally.

Please, people, start believing in a better world because it cannot exist until you do. And it isn't a new age cliche, either-it is reality. A reality that only WE can create.

Margaret Mead was right-Ghandi was right--and Martin Luther King was right and if you don't believe that--then maybe there are some democrats who need to revisist the meaning of democracy.

We have a LARGE group of thoughtful committed individuals here at DU who have ALREADY changed the world--our progressive beliefs are essential to the work we do in getting out the word about corporate thieves, environmental degredation, the consequences of war, and evil black boxes.

So if your excuse is that the world isn't ready for Dennis--then it is really because YOU aren't ready for Dennis. Because Dean knows what DK knows and the civil rights prophets knew--and everyone here should already know--WE have the power.

Vote your conscience in the primary. Your true, abiding wish for the world--you owe that to yourself and your children. When the nomination comes I will be the first to rally behind whomever. But I will not cede my greatest dreams without a fight.

I will support Kucinich if he gets the nomination; I will support WHOEVER gets the nomnation with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. :)

The Social Credit movement has been wrongly pigeonholed as being very right-wing, but they seem to be relatively open minded on both social and economic issues. They view Kucinich as a hero for having the vision to keep Cleveland's electric company public and saving the city's taxpayers over 250 million in the process.

http://www.socialcredit.com/

Quixotic yeah, but the primary season is for principles, the election is for politics

I want people to vote their hearts in the primary, like Molly Ivins says; I also want everyone to stick around for the general, whether their candidate wins or not. This election is too big for 'my way or the highway' thinking (and yes, I CONSTANTLY tell my fellow Deanites the same thing). :)

and then take their toys and go home if their candidate doesn't win, confuse me. Either you're in it to make a difference or you're doing it for some spurious vain reason I don't understand. I will support whomever follows

Dean would be my second choice and he's strong enough to win the nod I think