Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How do DK supporters feel about "the Edwards announcement"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:03 PM
Original message
How do DK supporters feel about "the Edwards announcement"
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 01:23 PM by cthrumatrix
I know it's not giving your vote...but by saying this I guess that some DK folks might not causcus for him in the first round...and hwo does this effect him from here?

I really don't know...


On edit: people on here are right -- DK voters can go with whoever they want...when they want...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. I disagree, no reason NOT to caucus for Kucinich in the 1st rnd
I think you're jumping the gun there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. ok...i see your point...they don't have to...you're right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. they can change their vote
if they see they have enough to put edwards over the top they can change their vote to edwards. but they can still vote kucinich first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Definitely overreacting
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 01:07 PM by redqueen
This kind of collaboration will be done precinct by precinct.

Please do not interpret this as "Kucinich is telling all his supporters to vote for Edwards" as this is not the case. They'll decide after the first round of votes what to do, but it's not surprising they'll be working together to improve their outcomes. :)


On edit: how odd is it to see all the anti-Kucinich sentiment on this board? Geez Louise, people. Is it that inconceivable that in places where Kucinich has strong support, that Edwards might throw some delegates his way, in return for some Kucinich support in places where Edwards is stronger?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. its actually terrific for Kucinich folks
he has always been a long shot, at least this way he has a chance to ride into DC with Edwards and retain a platform to preach his sermon from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. Ride into DC with Edwards? How?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #34
74. via Boston in July?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I have been wondering that myself!
It is assumed that K will not do well ever, anywhere. We will see, I am not betting on anything but polls mean nothing. The people have to speak, then we can talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thank you!
I know I'm in the minority but I really do think that he'll do better than expected, and I also expect that this deal will help him to do so!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. I have always heard that
they are friends. There are many things I like about Edwards some things I do not but the two of them together? Powerful is the word I am thinking. The influence that each would have on the other could be wonderful IMO. Edwards impresses me in the way he reaches out to the people. DK? Well, he just impresses me with everything. Could this be a sign of things to come or is it just for Iowa that they are kinda teaming up? Hmmmm. This is a most interesting election cycle!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. According to Jeff Cohen on FOX a bit ago-
this is a one day deal for the moment, but it could be a sign of things to come, too. I'd leap for a Kucinich Edwards ticket for the same reasons you just gave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. fair enough but its a great hedge and costs him nothing
win win win

its good no matter what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DjTj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I think it will help Kucinich more...
With Dennis' low numbers, he won't be viable in most precints, so in any precint where he hits 15%, he'll need to maximize his delegates.

Since Edwards and Kucinich both don't have massive ground operations, this is definitely a deal that goes both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I agree
Glad to see this happening. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
81. yes
very helpful for Dennis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. Not from me. I think DK's voters will vote their conscience, no matter
what. If Edwards is their #2 they'll vote for him. If Gephardt is their #2 they'll vote for him. If Kerry is their #2 they'll vote for him.

However, I do concede that some will do what the campaign wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
65. Point 1 Bingo
Point 2, I would have no problem caucusing for Edwards in areas where he might be a little weak if I knew Edwards people were caucusing for DK in areas where DK might be a little weak.

I see this as an intelligent strategic tactic.

Hey :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
111. I'm not surprised..... Add another one to the "bad" list of many here...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. delete
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 01:10 PM by liberalnurse
I missed the breaking news.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plurality Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. Edwards is my #2, so I don't see a problem with it.
I like how Edwards has come out for publicly financed elections and free air time for candidates. Those 2 issues right there should be the cause of all progressives, because with that Kucinich might actually have a chance to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. In fairness, Kerry has advocated that position since 85.
He and Wellstone wrote legislation for public financing in the mid 90s and damn few would support their efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plurality Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Kerry's up there in my list
he's not far behind Edwards for #2. He would be solid #2, but some of his commercials here in NH have me kinda pissed off so he moved to 3 and Edwards went to 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
13. Not sure where DK's going with this
He's always one step ahead of me, anyways. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out for both of 'em.

Haven't decided my second choice yet, but this is helping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I've thought about it some more.
One of my reasons for supporting DK is to bring one more voice to the progressive wing of the party. Win or lose, a strong DK showing is good for the party & gives us progressives more pull.

While DK is still very much in play, Edwards is surging right now & there's talk of a "comeback kid" scenario. Hedging our bets w/ Edwards will keep our voice in the mix & show that we can collectively influence outcomes. We know Edwards will survive after Iowa... less sure about DK, but this deal gives us more of a fighting chance as well - with no sacrifice. Not to mention that being part of the big news of a big day doesn't hurt.

yep: win, win, win scenario
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
17. BIG NEWS... You can switch groups before the first official count
so if Edwards has 35% and Kucinich has 10% - and we know that going into the first count, 5 Edwards supporters can switch over to Kucinich & they both break 15%. If that's the case, this is huge!

bearinthewoods informed me of this. any conformation that that is indeed how these deals work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I think you have it.
I am trying to learn for our caucus and I think this is correct. I could be wrong, it is very confusing. This just keeps them both in the race and I think that is great news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
46. yes, very astute
this is why it could help DK quite a lot
might be his ticket into top four or at least a much stronger fifth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
67. That's what I've been told. And I'm all for it. n/t
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
22. I personally dont care one way or the other
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
23. I think this might convince a few Dean supporters who think they're ...
supporting Dean as the electable alternative to Kucinich to think again about a few assumptions they've made.

I think this says something powerful about Edwards. Kucinich has just given him the DK seal of approval, and, as you all could probably guess from my posts on DK, this one's very important to me personally, and I'm sure it's very important on a wider level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
36. Not likely
but if wishes were horses....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
51. It's not Kucinich's "seal of approval"
It's simple politics. Kucinich is trying to keep the race as tight as he can, so the four at the front wear themselves out attacking each other. As long as he's so far behind, he doesn't want anyone dropping out. It keeps things more dynamic, makes everyone else work that much harder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:56 PM
Original message
Indeed. I reweighing all the assumptions I've made about Kucinich's
integrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
72. Stickdog, do you prefer Trippi's ploy of bussing people in?
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 05:02 PM by Tinoire
I have no problem with DK/JE's strategic swap. It's being done openly and fairly. I'd say that bussing people in from out of state and having them register in Iowa is a little... border-line.

Thoughts?

This is nothing more than a strategic deal. The political process in this country is a total sham and dirty tricks have been winning the day left and right. I am glad that Edwards and Kucinich could team up with a clean fix.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #72
97. Why are you repeating that Gephardt smear. You know it isn't true. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #97
106. I don't know that. Trippi unfortunately has an established record
He's fought well for Dean but he is a very dirty campaigner. The stuff he pulled for Mondale's campaign is legendary.

You may believe it's a smear, I tend to believe it & so do my Dean friends out here. But they justify it, saying that when you're going against Rove, that's the kind of guy you want from the start.

There is unfortunately some logic in that. Please don't paint Trippi as an angel. You'll notice I could give a rat's ass because I've never brought this up before & tend to agree with my friends' point but I am amused to see the campaign that has Trippi decry the Kucinich/Edwards deal as something dishonest.

Research Trippi, Cranston, busses for a real laugh. He gets an A for ingenuity and down-right low-down dirty fighting. I won't begrudge Dean for having him but please let's keep some sense of perspective here. We're in this to win too. Like Kucinich, we're not cute, evaporated little air-heads and we're just as determined to win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #72
103. Tinore, I'm stunned that you of all people believe that rumor.
I was supposed to be one of those people, but a death in the family kept me from being able to go. I did go two weeks ago, though. I personally know more than a hundred Dean supporters who have traveled to Iowa to help get out the vote. None of the Dean supporters were bussed in. Everybody traveled on their own dime and most signed up with no indication of whether the campaign would house us or not. Walking through the incredible Iowa cold is a miserable experience ... and that's what these people are doing. Walking and knocking on doors hour after hour in the freezing cold.

Do you know what the FIRST thing people have to do when they check into any of the campaign offices throughout the state (which you have to do in order to canvas)? You are required FIRST to sign a statement that you will not attempt to represent yourself as an Iowan or to take part in the caucus. Then everyone is trained for 30-60 minutes and sent out in teams with lists of voters who are leaning toward Dean. (At this point, the goal is to covert leaners to definites.) When they come back into the office after 10 hours in the frigid cold, they make phone calls for another several hours.

This is all volunteer. It's all free to the campaign except for the girl scout camp digs where many are staying. The only bussing that takes place is from the camp to HQ to pick up the walk list for the next day.

I have NEVER encountered a single Dean supporter who would consider for a moment any form of cheating. That's just not what this campaign is about. On top of that, we're all absolutely convinced that either a competing campaign or the repukes will try to plant out-of-staters who will try this and represent themselves as Dean supporters.

The only thing we want is to win and win clean. That's what this whole thing is about. And that's ALL it's about. If any of us were asked to cheat for Dean, we'd leave the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioStateProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
24. in the words of my dad
"I bet that chaps Deans balls"

I'm not sure what to make of it...I think Edwards represents wealth, but if it can help Dennis in the long run, and help someone else beat Dean, then I guess it is ok
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Edwards represents people who work for a living, whether wealthy or not
If you don't work for a living -- if you make your money from buy and selling assets, and from dividens and inheritance, and you don't pay tax at the highest rates (earned income) -- then don't vote for Edwards or Kucinich.

Both of these guys are running on behalf of people who work for a living, whether you're a meat packer or Charles Barkley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioStateProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. i understand
and because of that I do like John Edwards, but I have worries about the wealthy people, I just do...I believe Dennis more truthfully represents those people because of being brought up poor in a steel mill town, from the ohio valley, where the middle class was created in this country
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. They're both running on the same issues.
Kucinich is running so that the life that Edwards has had can be available to more people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioStateProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. i see your point
but i still recognize a big difference between growing up semi poor as Edwards did, in the Carolinas...and Dennis growing up in Cleveland absolute dirt poor...I see a bigger virtue in it, thats all

If Dennis is aligning himself with Edwards I suppose i am left to venture my feelings are a prejudice and I should go against them...I have done it before and would do so again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Edwards did not have a silver spoon in his mouth
he made his own way from the start. That he is wealthy now is a testiment to his work ethic.

The nice part is that he understands both worlds which is helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioStateProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. no argument
i understand he is self made...but I would rather support someone who has worked his whole life serving, and never getting wealthy

I don't admire wealth, I don't won't wealth, I reject wealth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
50. yes
and this is huge for DK and some of his supporters like myself. why would we want to replace one silver-spooner in the white house with another silver-spooner? maybe i just got issues about rich people but i don't think i'm alone in that respect
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #50
62. why you ask ?
is it better to have friendly ears in positions to do some good or to preach to the outside of the building ?

This is politics folks, to reject help because you don't like the hand offered is foolish.

Besides noone is asking any Kucinich supporter to reject his chosen candidate, only when his candidate has already lost his voice.

How is that a bad thing ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
39. Yes, by all means. Let's have another President who represents wealth
just as long as it stops Dean and his grassroots movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. What ARE you talking about?
Edwards has just as humble roots as Kucinich does, and he's a Lawyer AGAINST corporate interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
54. Edwards is unabashedly pro-Iraqi War and pro-Iraq occupation. He has
no history of helping labor, and nearly all of his contributions come in $2,000 increments form trial lawyers.

If he and Dennis have a lot in common, I'm going to have to reevaluate my position on Dennis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #54
73. trial lawyers
who fight corporations.
remember Edwards was a plaintiffs lawyer.
he is no friend of corporate board rooms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #54
78. I have never been too sure what to think of Edwards
He was pushed off my radar screen long ago because of the 2 points you just brought up but ever since I realized that DK was the only one I really, truly trusted on the war and occupation, I decided to wipe all their slates clean and look at them.

Additionally, Edwards bothers me quite a bit because he's so obviously blessed by the DLC.

I would have liked to be working with the Dean campaign on this but I wouldn't have gotten a wink's sleep because of Trippi. He's the kind of guy who's check has to clear before I count on the money. Good for Dean but not good for others to work with.

Domestically though, I think the previous poster was right. Edwards does care about a lot of issues that affect the little man- at least that is the reputation he has and the way he and his record come across. Will have to look at him closer to see how true/untrue that is.

A friend of mine has been telling me for weeks that Edwards is the DLC's guy right now. That they had written him off because he was polling badly but he held up well at the debates, is polling well, and that that's the guy they want in- if not as President, then as VP because the DLC/DNC will insist he has to be on the ticket.

We have a bet going that he will be at least VP. I am saving my pennies because I think I'm on the losing side of the bet.

Hang in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
48. no
No Edwards does not represent wealth.
He fights against wealth on behalf of the poor.
But the media doesn't address such issues so I think many may not realize it.

Kerry and Dean represent wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioStateProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #48
102. i hear what you are saying
but in my book, a man with a million plus dollars in the bank represents wealth

but as long as it stops Dean, it is all good
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
25. I don't think
Edwards and Kucinich are close on issues and therefore, I don't particularly like vote trading or caucuses. I know I'm not a DK supporter nor speak for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdx_prog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
27. I like Edward's stance on most issues......
The guy is "squeeky" clean.....A good choice for the "cross overs" that switched parties during the Clinton witch hunt. These people supported (blindly) Bush because they thought he would bring "respect" back to the office. Now, they are STILL looking for someone like that. Edwards is the guy in my opinion. Kerry has been in congress long enough to be good at "playing the game". Edwards doesn't seem to play the game like most of the career politicians do. He seeme to make decisions based on what is good for the majority instead of voting down party lines. DK will not be in this for long.....I see him bowing out after NH....I mean, what's the point?...same goes for Sharpton.....I think Joe is probably going to hang a while longer just to make a good show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wheresthemind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
33. I think it is important to note....
that Dennis and Edwards and close friends. This is not just a political move, but two buddies, who may not aggree with eachother on every issue, helping eachother out. Just like member of the right had huge respect for Paul Wellstone because he stuck to his convictions even though he did not aggree with him, you can believe in someone and not line up with them on every issue. Also if Edwards goes all the way, Dennis will be a good posistion to affect his policies. Dennis is a smart guy, he would not help out who was evil as some have even gone so far to suggest.

An e-mail I recieved earlier:

I need to say this very quickly and right now please help spread the word.

Dennis is NOT endorsing Edwards and is NOT bowing out.

There is a strategy deal with Edwards that we cannot comment on except to say we are very pleased with it because it is part of a larger strategy.

Fox news has not been telling the truth about anything since Bush took the White House.  Do not begin believing them now.
 
If you get an email about this from any of your other groups or organizations, please help us make this clear:

Dennis is NOT bowing out and Dennis is NOT endorsing Edwards.

Thank you!

Claudia Slate
Virtual Outreach Coordinator
Kucinich for President
www.kucinich.us

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #33
53. Dennis is NOT endorsing Edwards and is NOT bowing out.
worth repeating
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #33
87. Thank you. Confirms what we've been saying. Not an endorsement
just a strategy deal in an era and in an election where some rather dirty smoke 'n' mirror tricks have already been played.


This deal is honest and done out in the open.

What must be so shocking to people is that it's a gentlemen's deal. Nothing under-handed going on here.

Good for Kucinich

&

Good for Edwards


Let the era of clean politics begin!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
35. I couldn't be happier
My two favorite candidates working together, best news from Iowa I've heard in a while!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. And what about Gephardt & Sharpton?
Please explain how Edwards made your "US" group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. simple, he's a populist
He's rather conservative and hawkish for me, but he has a history of fighting corporations and his economic platform is second only to Kucinich's. Plus, as an added bonus, he's a true working class hero, not some trust funded aristocrat.

Truly, I couldn't be happier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #42
56. A "populist" imperialist with a father in middle management?
I guess they don't make "working class" heroes like they used to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. Yes, Edwards is an imperialist, just like Dean
If I have to choose the lesser of two evils, I'd choose Edwards over Dean. See how it works?

Dean supports the War Against Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #56
88. C'Mon Stick... As old as Edwards is, I would hope that his father
would be in middle management by now. It would be sad if he weren't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #88
95. By the time Edwards started school, his father was in management.
By the time Edwards started high school, his father was the manager of the Robbins mill and his mother ran an antique shop.

On the campaign trail today, the senator regularly describes himself as the son of a mill worker but rarely if ever notes that his father was part of management. ``They weren't quite as humble as Edwards makes it sound,'' says Pat Smith of Robbins. ``Wallace was a very important man at the mill. ... They weren't rich, but they weren't struggling poor.''

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/05/from_mill_town_to_the_national_stage_boston_globe/

Nothing wrong with John's father being a self-made man, but he's the son of a mill manager, and his "son of a mill worker" chorus is bogus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #95
110. I don't know about all of that and it doesn't really bother me
but thanks for pointing it out. You know what a collector of factoids I am. It's unfortunately not the first time I've heard something about Edwards persona not quite being what it seems. One was a verbal from a Dean friend who's been very much in the now and now this. Neither is anything major but you never know and I appreciate it. Right now, I'm more concerned about how he views the US vs the world. US power and might that is...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
76. you and me both
Imagine DK beating one of the big four and it won't be Edwards. Or else a very strong fifth with a story about Edwards winning it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
38. Well, if Michael Moore can endore Wesley Clark ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Moore
has no voters to turn over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GumboYaYa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
43. I received an email today saying this is not true.
My source is someone connected with the Kucinich campaign. The message was similar in content to the one posted above.

I have no way to verify the truthfulness of the email, but it will not surprise me if the press is misreporting this story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #43
84. Or rather a lot of people here are mis-understanding the deal
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 05:12 PM by Tinoire
Some people are erroneously thinking it's an endorsement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
44. great news
Just heard. It's great news for both candidates, IMHO.

Full disclosure is that Edwards has been my second choice for sometime. Like Kucinich he runs on hope rather than fear, possibility rather than anger. Indeed, Kucinich has previously stated his affinity for Edwards (see, e.g, daily show appearance). This so-called agreement is simply smart caucus strategy for the both of them.

There will inevitably be precincts in which only one of them, or neither of them, are viable.

If Edwards is viable but not Kucinich, then Edwards picks up some bodies and importantly prevents them from going to Dean/Kerry/Gep.

If Kucinich is viable but not Edwards, then Kucnich picks up some bodies and importantly prevents them from going to Dean/Kerry/Gep.

If neither Edwards or Kucinich are viable, then they can join forces and try to become viable for whichever candidate has a greater proportion.

The upshot is that both Kucinich and Edwards should be helped marginally. Will it be enough of a margin for DK to get him out of fifth and break into the top four? Will it be enough of a margin for Edwards to put him in first? Who knows. Importantly, caucus-goers are free to make their own choices and I suspect Dean will still pick up a fair number of Kucinich anti-war folks.

Who wins the caucuses has as much to do with who is the second choice as it does with who is the first choice. The alliance merely increases the number of folks with Edwards or Kucinich as there second choice.

Some folks may wonder why would DK support Edwards over Dean given Dean past position against Iraq war. Please realize that Kucinich is focused on the future. At this point Dean's policy position re Iraq is continued US occupation for years and an unwillingness to cut defense spending. Edwards when speaking last Friday practically spelled out DK's 10-point plan about getting the UN in charge of Iraq. Furthermore, Edwards continually rails against war profits.

Indeed, Edwards always speaks out against profiteering and fighting for those left-behind. He is a candidate of the people, just like DK.

I was greatly amused by how beffudled one msnbc correspondents suggesting that he hadn't thought DK and Edwards were that close in terms of the issues. As if the media had ever bothered to thoughfully compare the candidates on the issues. Their "Dean's a liberal, Edwards' a moderate" talking points are of course ass-backward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:33 PM
Original message
DK is for more
fundamental changes in economics, foreign policy and healthcare. Edwards will talk change but will be more like pruning or trimming on those issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
47. most certainly
DK is the only candidate for fundamental change.

But of the so-called top four, Edwards is the candidate of those left-behind by Washington policticians/media running on hope for a better future. Plus I think Edwards may be for more change then folks realize. He believes in anti-trust and fighting corporations. When he talks about these issues its evident he knows what he is talking about, which cannot be said of a couple other mavericks in the race. He is a plaintiffs lawyer, only recently sent to Washington, who wants to lead our country in a new direction.

Fear ends, hope begins. I think its a style and strategy similarity.

DK believes that the only way to beat Bush is to run on a positive message of change. Someone to bring light into darkness. Sorry to get so metaphorical but I really think DK thinks in those terms.

Check out this passage from his Ghandi peace award acceptance speech:

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech20.php

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 though this 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 it 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. A national security strategy which calls for America to be the first to attack. To work preemptively. To work alone and apart from the world. To proceed unilaterally. Such a doctrine is the product of a world view which is compartmentalized, the product of dichotomous thinking, of us versus them. And carries with it the ultimate consequence of war. Because then, "this town's not big enough for both of us." And so when might makes right, what of international law? When might makes right, what of morality? When might makes right, then the sword shall be the only measure of justice. The nuclear posture review is a continuation of a national security strategy which calls for first strike use of nuclear weapons. Reversing 60 years of painstaking efforts toward nuclear disarmament—nearly 60 years. The doctrine of "Shock and Awe," which we're hearing so much about these days, was taken off the shelf of the National Defense University's war studies program, and represents a selection of military strategies, all under the title of "Shock and Awe," which celebrate the various glories and desirability of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Tokyo firebombing, the B-2 bombing of Vietnam, the idea being that—and I've read the doctrine and I would urge you all to read it—the idea being that if you can create so much damage to a civilian population, as the dropping of the atomic bomb did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that people are just shocked—psychologically, physically shocked. And they're in awe. What kind of a world view or vision would want to create a doctrine which would bring fear to people all over the world? Which would raise fear to an almost biblical proportion? Which would make fear on the level of a deity?

Now we know from our studies of the Hindu religion, that the forces of destruction and the forces of creation exist simultaneously. Shiva and Vishnu exist simultaneously. We also know that we have the opportunity to be able to determine which of those forces work through us: the forces of destruction or the forces of creation. Granted, at any point in our lives, they may be working their way simultaneously. However, as a nation, America at this very moment has become an agency of destruction in the world. As a member of Congress, I've found it daunting and even heartbreaking to see this process that pulls people in as though it were some kind of a magnetic pulsation, and causes people to support war, either through their active participation or through their silence. We search for historical antecedents, and we sometimes find them in chilling ways. Lately I've been talking to many historians who draw comparisons to the 1930s. A world view is being offered where will trumps love. Where what the philosopher Eric Fromm called the anatomy of human destructiveness is working its way through official government policy. Where all of the work to celebrate the human condition is being trashed in favor of a doctrine of control.

We know what the darkness looks like. And now let's talk about what the light that we wish to describe looks like.

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech20.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Not convinced
they are anywhere close as to how each would govern. No offense, I'm a constituent of Edwards. I don't want people (especially DK people) to get the wrong impression of Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark4VotingRights Donating Member (795 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
52. Ok, I'm a Clark (obviously)/Kucinich supporter.
And, while I think Edwards is one of the better candidates,
I don't see how Kucinich could back him. Sorry, not Edwards
bashing, but he did vote for IWR. Just a fact. So...
they just don't seem compatible in that sense.

If Kucinich really is teaming up with him...I'm mystified.
Maybe, since he's a member of congress, he can't pick an *outsider*?

I really dunno.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #44
59. In how many precincts will DK get 15%?
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 04:07 PM by stickdog
This is a sellout to Edwards and the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnAmerican Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #59
68. More than you think.
This will benefit both candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #59
83. Based on reports we've been getting- quite a few
In some areas the streets are lined with Kucinich signs. Lots of support. In a few areas though it's not that much.

Edwards and Kucinich each just want to cover the bald spots. Kind of like patching the lawn... a little patch here and there...

It's not a sell-out, nor is it an endorsement. Relax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #83
96. If DK actually gets something out of this horse trading,
I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #96
107. Me too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CMT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
45. apparently
the word at the DK blog is not overly positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
55. I was just called by my brother in Oregon. He says if DK really has a deal
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 04:09 PM by stickdog
with Edwards, he just lost over 250 of the 300 hardcore progressives whom my brother works with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. That's surprising
I guess they'd rather lose out than even SPEAK with anyone who voted for the war.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. Why is it surprising? We are talking about true believer activists.
You know, the ones who ORGANIZED the anti-war marches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #66
99. I am one of those activists and I decided long ago that
I wasn't giving any candidate a free pass simply because they didn't have to vote. You know how cynical I am- I won't put my money on "I would have"'s when there are a few statements, made at the time, that don't clearly support the campaign statements.

Also as one of those organizers, I am against all of the wars we've been engaged in and that includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Columbia and our support of the 'war' going on in Israel/Palestine right now. None of the candidates up there, except for Kucinich and possibly Sharpton (because his rethoric has at least always matched) have reflected my views.

Because of that, they all get a free pass... It's sad; it's a sorry state of affairs but I don't see how I can do it otherwise.

Were Clinton running today, he'd be saying that he was anti-war and opportunistically parading himself as a conscientious objector during Vietnam & blah, blah (you get my drift) and yet we had 2 armed wars under Clinton, quite a bit of involvement "meddling" in Latin American countries, and a few trade wars. That's why no free pass unless they HAD to vote and I know how they voted.

All that said, don't think I'm knocking Dean because I'm not. I've warmed up to him lately and I am extremely warm to the populist movement behind him but being a true believer/activist has nothing to do with strategically voting in this caucus to keep your guy in and making a deal with someone else to help you cover the blind spots.

Please hope that antiwar activists and true believers like me are able to find a middle ground between our consciences and political reality because otherwise, if DK doesn't win, most of us will go third party and that would be a crying shame.

I think the Iowa Caucus results will surprise everyone. Unfortunately, we're making too big of a deal about them. Not all of the candidates are in Iowa and we should be keeping an eye on what they're doing that is so important that it's not worth spending time in Iowa right now.

We'll all be ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. well
talk about overblown
its a one-day strategy specific to Iowa caucus night
common practice when caucusing for president
perhaps they don't understand how caucuses work in Oregon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #58
70. They are strict anti-imperialists, and now they're Dean or Green. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnAmerican Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #55
71. Who are they going to go to?? Dean???
Please stop...the laughter is hurting my sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Dean or Green. And the other thing funny about it is the idea that they
are in the minority while Edwards-loving Kucinich supporters are in the majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnAmerican Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. "Dean or Green"
That entire concept just boggles the mind. Dean is nowhere near what the Greens believe in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. You'd think
their heads would explode from the conflict.

Oh well! I never understood single issue voters anyway. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #79
92. How in hell does it boggle the mind? Moore endorsing Clark boggles
the mind.

Dean stood up to Bush when nobody else would. Dean offers concrete, incremental, pragmatic and positive solutions to this country's biggest problems.

Finally, Dean has revitalized grassroots organization within the entire Deamocratic party, and he's Bush's worst nightmare because h's not afraid to say the emperor has no clothes regardless of what the polls and his handlers tell him.

Most DK supporters THOUGHT they were running an insurgent, revitalizing, outsider campaign as well. Many are waking up and smelling the tobacco today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #92
112. Wow
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 08:04 PM by Tinoire
Let me put it very directly/

Dean did NOT stand up to Bush "when no one else would" because people like Kucinich, Lee and McKinney had been doing it for years and were on record as having done so there's no way that "Dean was the only one". Not a damn peep did we hear from or about Dean until his campaign was in swing and thousands of anti-war protestors had already started making a lot of noise.

This is not the honey with which you are going to draw a single Kucinich supporter to the Dean camp. Some of us have been trying very hard to overlook Dean's centrism and what we see as fabricated positions because we have respect for Dean supporters and the rather populist movement behind Dean. It is not, by any means, as populist as Kucinich's (which is 100% grass-roots without any help from well connected groups or politicians) & seems to be made up of reasonably well-off people (Yuppies and the like) who can afford a DSL line. The poor, the down-trodden and the majority of your hard-core are not in the Dean camp.

Second. Kucinich supporters believe that Kucinich has, not offers but has, "concrete, incremental, pragmatic and positive solutions to this country's biggest problems" so that sentence doesn't draw us either.

We are not that enamoured or trusting of Dean the man because of certain flip-flops and things some of us feel don't quite stand up to scrutiny. My assurances from Dean insiders is that "he listens to us" and I hope like hell they're right. I hope like hell he keeps listening to the people carrying him into office because I would be VERY VERY saddened at how crushed Dean supporters will be if they ever feel they were had.

Nobody is waking up and smelling the coffee. We smelled the coffee long ago. And just like your first paragraph about how Dean is the ONLY one who blah, blah, when nobody else would. That's the kind of Deantalk that PISSES off Kucinich supporters and you're just repeating it. Why? It back-fires more than you know. We're not buying it because we know he wasn't and I can't believe you would repeat that here.

Nobody's jumping off the DK Express because he was the only politician running who has consistently been against the war from the very, very start and has the open record to prove it. Additionally, he is the only politician up there who has been against the carnages in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and the sanctions against Iraq. He's als

Most DK supporters THOUGHT they were running an insurgent, revitalizing, outsider campaign as well. Many are waking up and smelling the tobacco today.

Please check the cup. It's not coffee. It's water. Clean, healthy, unadulterated water. That's why it's not smelling like anything to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
60. i feel good
thought i'd say it again because all the handwringing from the Clark/Dean folks who dominate this board is ridiculously overwrought. but then again things aren't playing out according to their scripts so i suppose i understand the pandemonium
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. Good point
This election will probably throw each and every 'expert' into a fit by the time it's over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
63. I don't think it will work
I don't see K'nich supporters voting for Edwards in a caucus. When K'nich fails to clear 15% I see his people either voting for Dean or just packing up and going home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #63
77. I'm a Kucinich supporter who won't vote for Dean
in the MN caucuses unless not only Kucinich but also Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and maybe even Clark are gone by then.

Those of us who have actually compared the two candidates' positions point by point (as opposed to relying on feel-good impressions) don't see much similarity between Dean and Kucinich at all, not even on the issue of the Iraq War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #77
86. Do you remember what the Democratic party's response to Bush was
before Dean?

How can you endorse that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. DK and the other members of the Progressive Caucus
were fighting Bush while Howard Dean was busy being a centrist in Vermont. They've established their street cred and don't need Dean's blessing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #91
98. They sure did. Now, what about the REST of the candidates whom you
are supporting over Dean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #86
94. this is what I remember . . .

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020719-militaryaction.htm

July 19, 2002

Kucinich: US Should Not Take New Military Action Against Iraq

Recent published reports have indicated that the Administration is planning a 'first strike' invasion of Iraq with as many as 250,000 US troops with the purpose of toppling Saddam Hussein. Some reports have indicated such an attack could occur before the November Congressional elections.

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, the House passed a resolution, on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of force against those determined to be responsible for the attacks. However, the authorization of force was limited to those determined to be responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Today, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, issued the following statement:

"The Administration's unilateral first strike policy, and its harsh rhetoric against Iraq, has very serious ramifications for not only Iraq and the middle east region, but on the carefully constructed alliances upon which the US relies. Pre-emptive military action in Iraq would only destabilize the region and place at risk the lives of those American men and women who would be called to action. It is important that the United States work in coordination with the international community to contain Iraq, and not proceed unilaterally with an unprovoked war.

Although, the Administration has failed to establish a clear link between the attacks of September 11th and Iraq, recent press accounts indicate that the Administration is considering an attack, before the November elections. I would like to remind the Administration of Article I, Section 8, which clearly states Congress, has sole authority to declare war. It is my strong belief that US policy and actions must be made carefully, according to the Constitution that we, in Congress, and the President have sworn to uphold. There is no room for pre-emptive military action in a democratic society which relies upon its Constitution for guidance in domestic and foreign affairs."


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020926-warvote.htm

September 26, 2002

Kucinich and Tauscher: War Vote Should Happen After Election
Reps. Kucinich and Tauscher Send Letter to Colleagues
To Have Vote on War After November Elections

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) and Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), today, circulated a letter among their colleagues stating that a vote on Iraq should occur after the November Congressional elections.

The letter states:

"As the greatest power on earth and the only great power to have made support for democracy a central tenet of our foreign policy, it is incumbent upon us to address matters of national security and decisions through the reasoned and deliberate process afforded us by our Constitution. This becomes particularly important when these decisions could possibly mean putting our young service men and women in harm's way. This is not a process that can be rushed for the sake of political expediency.

"The upcoming election is changing the nature of the debate over Iraq. The war has become a political issue in House and Senate campaigns. Every recent statement made about the war by the Administration and Congressional leaders is now being analyzed in terms of the impact on the election.

"The American people are poised to elect a new Congress in 41 days. The Congress that will face the consequences of war in Iraq should be the one to make this decision and take this vote.

It is not in the best interests of our nation, nor is it in the best interests of either party, for us to challenge each other's patriotism or our devotion to duty. Such conflict creates an image of instability to our allies and encourages our adversaries. Despite our differing views regarding Iraq, we should attempt to preserve the spirit of unity which was exemplified by our coming together after September 11, 2001."


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021003-warresolution.htm

October 3, 2002

Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich on War Resolution

This resolution gives authority to the President to act prior to and even without a UN resolution, and it authorizes the President to use US troops to enforce UN resolutions even without UN request for it. This is a violation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which reserves the ability to authorize force for that purpose to the Security Council, alone.

This resolution is the same authorization that the President originally sought. Many members of Congress in both parties objected to previous language, which is still present in this resolution.

Further, the UN resolutions, which could be cited by the President to justify sending US troops to Iraq, go far beyond addressing weapons of mass destruction. These could include, at the President's discretion, such "relevant" resolutions "regarding Iraq" including resolutions to enforce human rights and the recovery of Kuwaiti property.

While these changes are represented as a compromise or a new material development, the effects of this resolution are largely the same as the previous White House proposal.

In conclusion, this resolution does not represent a genuine multilateral approach to solving the conflict in Iraq. It authorizes a unilateral, go-it-alone military attack. Furthermore, it violates international law and U.S. obligations under the UN charter. Lastly, it does not put any reasonable limitations on the use of military force against Iraq. Rather, it gives the President broad discretion to send troops to Iraq.


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021003a-oppositiontowar.htm

October 3, 2002

House Opposition to War Grows Largest Gathering Of House Members Yet Announce Opposition to War Resolution, More Expected to Join Next Week

Twenty-five Members of Congress, led by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), today, announced their opposition to the War Resolution presented to Congress yesterday by the Administration.

"While these changes are represented as a compromise or a new material development, the effects of this resolution are largely the same as the previous White House proposal," stated Kucinich. "This resolution does not represent a genuine multilateral approach to solving the conflict in Iraq."

"In the week to come I think you will see many members of the Democratic Caucus begin to question the wisdom of this resolution," continued Kucinich. "I think you will see many Democrats vote against this resolution."

As a vote nears on the House floor, next week, today represented the largest gathering of Members opposed to war. Members present, today, announced wide spread opposition to war in their districts, and urged constituent to continue to call Congress and urge Members to vote no.

Kucinich was joined today by Reps. C. Brown, S. Brown, Capuano, Christensen, Clayton, Conyers, D. Davis, DeFazio, Doggett, Farr, Filner, Jackson-Lee, Kaptur, Moran, Olver, Rivers, Sanders, Serrano, Shakowsky, Solis, Tubbs-Jones, Waters, Watson, and Woolsey.


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021007-presaddrtonation.htm

October 7, 2002

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) Reaction to the President's Remarks
Leader of House Opposition Says Administration Has Failed To Make Case For A Preemptive Strike

"The Administration has failed to make a case for a unilateral and preemptive strike on Iraq. War is simply a failure of diplomacy.

"The United States must continue to work with the international community to ensure that weapons inspectors are allowed into Iraq. The Administration's stated policy of 'regime change' is counterproductive to efforts to disarm Iraq and restore stability to the region.

"The resolution, presented to Congress by the Administration, gives authority to the President to act prior to and even without a UN resolution, and it authorizes the President to use US troops to enforce UN resolutions even without UN request for it. This is a violation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which reserves the ability to authorize force for that purpose to the Security Council, alone.

"The resolution does not represent a genuine multilateral approach to solving the conflict in Iraq. It authorizes a unilateral attack. It violates international law and U.S. obligations under the UN charter. It does not put any reasonable limitations on the use of military force against Iraq. It gives the President broad discretion to send troops to Iraq.

"The United States risks losing our moral authority as a beacon of democracy worldwide. A preemptive strike would send a very dangerous signal to India and Pakistan, Russia and Georgia, China and Taiwan, and North and South Korea.

"The United States must work with the international community to rid Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that it may have. We must work with the United Nations to ensure that UN weapons inspectors are granted unfettered access to ensure that Iraq is disarmed.

"The debate this week in the House will be a historic moment for our nation. A preemptive strike on Iraq will set a new direction for our foreign policy and send a dangerous signal to the world community.

"If the United States proceeds with a unilateral preemptive attack, as the Congressional Resolution states, then we will have taken upon our nation an historic burden of committing a violation of international law. Our nation has traditionally defended democracy. A unilateral strike would mark America as an aggressor. We would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold."


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021008-debateoniraq.htm

October 8, 2002

Floor Statement Of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

As the House of Representatives begins a historic debate on a resolution authorizing a preemptive strike for the first time in our nation's history, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), leader of the House opposition to the resolution, gave the following statement on the House floor today.

"O say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

"America let us remember on this day the connection between freedom and bravery, that to preserve our freedom we must be courageous.

"Let no fear, no threat obscure our vision and lead us down the dark path of preemptive war against a people who have not attacked us.

"Let us be guided by the truth, the truth which shall set us free, the truth which keeps us free.

"Let us lift this nation up into the light of peace. Into the eternal promise where we are all one. Where nation shall not take up arms against nation. Where we shall turn our swords into plow shares our spears into pruning hooks.

"America has a higher calling. Our founders calls us on this day to defend our country by defending universal truths, by defending international justice, and by defending the very spirit of our Constitution, which calls us to form a more perfect union with each other and with the world."


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021009-intelligencequestions.htm

October 9, 2002

Kucinich: New Intelligence Reports Raises Substantial Questions
Helps Growing Opposition To War In House

A CIA letter, released yesterday, has raised serious and substantial questions about the rush to war Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) said, today, at a press conference. The letter, sent by CIA Director Tenet on Tuesday, states that unprovoked by the US, Iraq is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.

"With less than twenty-four to go before the vote, this report raises substantial questions," stated Kucinich. "Less than twenty-four hours after the president addressed the nation, on Monday, the CIA communicated to the Senate information which is directly contradictory. You have to wonder whether the President is getting all the information he needs from his advisors."

Yesterday, Kucinich, who has been leading opposition to the war in the House, released a whip count that stated that 100 Members of Congress will vote against the war resolution.

"These contradictions have raised questions in the minds of Members of Congress and stopped the momentum which the Administration has tried to build," continued Kucinich. "I believe today, in light of these new findings, the number opposed to war will grow."


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021009a-debateonwarresolution.htm

October 9, 2002

Floor Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), leader of the House opposition to the resolution, gave the following statement on the House floor today during general debate on the war resolution:

Yesterday students held a peace rally on the West front of the Capitol. It may have been the first rally on the Capitol grounds in opposition to war with Iraq. I attended and I heard representatives of America's youth asking: Why:

Why war against the people of Iraq?

Why assert military power which threatens innocent civilians?

Why war to settle differences?

Why separate our nation from the world community?

Why not give peaceful resolution a chance?

I looked at the faces of the young people at the peace rally. Fresh faces, hopeful, optimistic, and challenging. Soon the voices of our youth will be heard across the nation. And we should pay them heed. They will be heard on campuses, in town halls, in marches. They will be raised to challenge and to confront senseless violence, mindless war, the death of innocents, the destruction of villages to save villages. Voices will be lifted up in urgency because the future knows when the place it needs to build could be destroyed. The future knows skepticism when promises of peace are wrapped in fire and brimstone.

Our young people opposing war represent a message from the future America, the America that can be, and with the upwardly spiraling aspirations of millions of Americans of all ages, the America that will be:

The future America works to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society.

The future America works to make war archaic.

It is a nation that lives courageously in peace, working to settle differences at home and abroad without killing.

The future America comprehends the world as an interconnected whole. It understands that changes in transportation, communication and trade have made people throughout the world neighbors.

The future America believes that each person is sacred. That each person makes a difference. That each choice we make affects others. That an injury to one person is an injury to all. That justice ought to be international and that vengeance is reserved to the Lord.

It is an America where human rights, and workers rights and environmental quality principles are within the ark of the Human Covenant.

It is a nation where each life is given an opportunity to unfold, where all have access to health care, to higher education, to jobs and to a secure retirement. Where the quality of life matters. Where people build families, build communities, build an American community of our dreams, where our highest aspirations light the way to a better nation and to a better world.

The future America is a nation which works to sustain life on earth. It champions protection of the global environment. It works with all nations to abolish nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons.

It is a nation which preserves the heavens for the restless human soul. And it rejects putting weapons in space because it knows the kingdom that will come from the stars should bring eternal peace, not war.

While some voices clamor for war, a future America looks for deeper unity of all people worldwide and seeks not empire but harmony.

So to you, young America, I sing a hymn of praise because while some may want to send you marching off to fight yesterday's wars, you are advancing from the future, reminding us that our nation has a higher calling. Reminding us of the America that can be. Reminding us that there has to be a better way. Challenging us to find that better way. Joining with us to make straight the path of democracy.

This is a time for caution as we would face war, but it is also a cause for joy because the same reveille which sounds a battle cry and clangs the tocsins of war, brings forth legions of others enlisted in a holy cause to relight the lamp of freedom in our own land.

So come forth young and old. Prepare for America's future.


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021010-warresolutiondebate.htm

October 10, 2002

Floor Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), leader of the House opposition to the resolution, gave the following statement on the House floor today during general debate on the war resolution:

More than two millennia ago the world began a shift from the philosophy of an eye for an eye. We were taught a new gospel of compassion, of doing unto others, as you would have them do unto you. It is that teaching, that faith in compassion that has sustained the human heart and this nation. I believe, as did Washington, and Lincoln, that America has been favored by divine Providence. But what if we lose our connection to our source by an abuse of power?

We are at a dangerous moment in human history when twenty centuries of moral teachings are about to be turned upside down, instead of adherence to the golden rule, we are being moved toward the rule of liquid gold: Do onto others before they do onto you.

No longer are we justified by our faith, we are now justified by our fear. Iraq was not responsible for 911, but some fear it was. There is no proof Iraq worked with Al Queda to cause 911, but some fear it did.

It is fear that leads us to war. It is fear which leads us to believe we must kill or be killed. Fear leads us to attack those who have not attacked us. Fear which leads us to ring our nation and the very heavens with weapons of mass destruction.

The American people need the attention of their government today. People who have worked a lifetime are finding the American Dream slipping away. People who have saved, who have invested wisely, are suffering because of corruption on Wall Street, the failing economy, and the declining stock market. People have lost their homes, lost their jobs, lost their chances for a good education for their children. The American Dream is slipping away and all the people hear from Washington is war talk so loud as to drown out the voices of the American people calling for help.

Seventy years ago Franklin Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", calling America to a domestic agenda. A New Deal for America. Faith in our country calls us to that again. Faith in our country calls us to work with the world community to create peace through inspections not destruction. Faith in our country calls us to use our talents and abilities to address the urgent concerns of America today. Let us not fear our ability to create a new, more peaceful world through the science of human relations. Faith America. Courage America. Peace America.


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021010a-oppositiontowar.htm

October 10, 2002

Kucinich: Large House Opposition to War Resolution Represents Wider Opposition to War Across America
133 Votes Against War Represents Growing Opposition Across the Country To Preemptive Strike Against Iraq

Today's vote in the House of Representatives represents the growing tide of opposition advancing all over the nation against a preemptive war against Iraq, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) said today at a press conference after the vote.

"The 133 Members of Congress who voted today against this resolution represent the millions of people across the country and around the world who do not believe the United States should launch a preemptive attack against Iraq," stated Kucinich. "Today's vote is a result of millions of people calling Congress and telling Members that this war is wrong."

Earlier, Kucinich, who lead opposition in the House to the resolution, stated on the House floor,

"The American people need the attention of their government today. People who have worked a lifetime are finding the American Dream slipping away. People who have saved, who have invested wisely, are suffering because of corruption on Wall Street, the failing economy, and the declining stock market. People have lost their homes, lost their jobs, lost their chances for a good education for their children. The American Dream is slipping away and all the people hear from Washington is war talk so loud as to drown out the voices of the American people calling for help."

Joining Kucinich today at the press conference following the House vote were Reps. Baldwin, Conyers, D. Davis, Doggett, Filner, Hinchey, Inslee, Jackson-Lee, Kilpatrick, Lee, McDermott, Sanders, Schakowsky, Serrano, Solis, Tubbs Jones, and Woolsey.


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021011-occupationofiraq.htm

October 11, 2002

Kucinich: Congress Did Not Authorize Military Occupation of Iraq
Seizure of Iraqi Oil and Colonization of Iraq Raise Questions About Administration's War Plan

Recent news reports that the Administration plans to seize Iraqi oil and use the money to set up a military government in Iraq raise serious questions of the Administration's intentions in the region, stated Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) today.

"Congress did not authorize the colonization of Iraq," stated Kucinich, leader of the House opposition to the war resolution. "Congress did not authorize the seizure of Iraqi oil. These reports released the day after the Congressional vote, raise some very serious questions about the Administration's intentions for the region, and completeness of their disclosures to Congress."

"I believe had the Administration fully disclosed their plans, before the Congressional vote, there would have been a much different outcome," continued Kucinich. "The resolution passed yesterday by Congress authorized enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions, not colonization."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #94
100. And Edwards was right there fighting for us by DK's side?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. no
but neither was your guy to the best of my recollection
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. How do you think Dean ever became the frontrunner?
Please tell me your theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #77
90. very well put
Not much similarity between DK and Dean on Iraq. Dean favors the occupation, Dennis does not. Edwards like Kerry has an exit strategy which is not that far removed from DK. Dean says our troops will be there for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnAmerican Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #63
108. I see very little Kucinich to Dean crossover.
Dean and Dennis are two very different men, with two very different political viewpoints. Farther apart than Edwards and DK by far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
69. Find out here....
for those of you who didn't believe those posters at the Dean sight...

go here to assess the reaction of Kucinich supporters....

http://us.denniskucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2778

My read is that reaction is mixed....

1) Some think it's great....
2) Some think it's horrible....
3) Some think it's a lie (but we now know that it isn't...no word on their reaction to it being true...)

I think this will reflect the same way on the ground....

See, Dean was right! You can't guarantee your supporters to anyone...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #69
104. Hmmm- just busted two of them. Registered Jan 19 2004
Trippi transparency.

No one's jumping off the DK Express.

Anyone who was ever on bought their ticket waaaay before January 19.

An old trick we learned at DU... Kind of like all the "newbies" rushing over here to breathlessly tell us

"I used to be for DK or Dean
but
now I'm for X
because blah, blah, blah (cut and pasted from some campaign blog).

Honestly, how stupid do people think we are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #69
109. LOL
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 06:22 PM by LWolf
That's good. Way to insert the obligatory Dean cheer into a non-dean thread: (See, Dean was right!)

I've been working hard on the Kucinich campaign. While I've browsed other candidates' sites for their take on issues, it would never occur to me to "eavesdrop" on their volunteers. You have way too much time on your hands. Or, to quote Dr. Dean, "You've got to get a new life."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
80. Puzzled.
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
85. I'm pleased.
It does nothing but help Dennis.

Neither men are changing their platform. There are no concessions on the issues. They are still competing against each other for the nomination.

But there are 8 people in this race. As 2 who haven't been given any press as "electable," (yes, I know JE is polling better, but they still aren't ranking him with Dean, Clark, & in some cases, Kerry), they can strengthen each other. The better both of them do early the more competitive the race will still be when it gets to the rest of us.

It's a win/win for both men. No one has to give up anything. I like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlFrankenFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
89. A little mixed
I really really like Edwards, and if Kucinich's support helps Edwards win Iowa then I guess there could be a Edwards/Kucinich or Kucinich/Edwards ticket, but since their stances on the war are different it would be interesting to see Kucinich supporters go toward Edwards, but who knows if they will?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
93. Win for Kucinich and Edwards
Kucinich is many people's #2 choice after their primary candidate. If their first choice can't get viable numbers, then it's a no-brainer that many of those supporters would naturally gravitate to DK.

Also, most people have neglected a very big fact about a recent DM Register poll: 47% said they might be persuaded to change their candidate support at the caucus.

Everybody knows that Kucinich's support runs deep: there's no such thing as a so-so DK supporter. DK's supporters are very committed and persuasive. It's entirely likely that he could pick up more support from wavering caucus-goers where there's a strong DK presense.

I've been saying this for a few months, but I believe a lot of people will be suprised at tonights results. This race is far from over. Tonight, we're deciding on less delegates than there are in either Michigan, Wisconsin or Florida. It will not be a NH/IA decision year. I have a feeling we're in it until June.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC