Why Dean instead of Kucinich?

If our aim in 2004 is to make a statement why not nominate a veritable liberal?

:scared:

:)

me what qualities Bush has that make you so certain he can be elected? .. I've already read the other current comments on DU, so I'm more interested in your personal observations. (and not links to other threads.)

Since you seem to believe that Bush can win a presidential election at all, can you tell me on what basis people will vote for him? .. I do understand that many republicans will vote for him because that's their party, even though there are good indications that many of them won't. So let's say, why would non-republicans vote for Bush?

Your point being? Clark is just touting his military experience to neutralize *.

That's it. Nothing more. That's what Americans have already seen and have decided to support someone with far more experience=.

And unlike like Clark, Dean will have the opportunity to prove it.

"Baby-steps" like we've been scratching and clawing after for...well forever it seems like!?

Wasted energies, imho.

at the precipice of a rw freefall into a bottomless pit, which way would you rather take 'baby steps'?

....politics is negotiation, haggling. If you buy the car at sticker price, you get taken. If you nominate a president who pretends to be something he is not, you get taken.

Unless we choose Kucinich, what will we have won even if we 'win'?

Will we have non-profit healthcare? No.
Will we finally have a peace dividend and lower taxes? No.
Will we have good education for all? No.
Will we have an end to corporate dominance through NAFTA et al.? No.
Will we have an end to the evil drugs war? No.
Will LGB people finally have full civil rights? No.
Will we get our Constitutional rights back? No.

So what will we have won?

And who's the 'we' who will really have won?

whichever democrat running would NEVER put the a-holes into the judiciary, or his or her cabinet for that matter, than Bush has.

Your argument persuaded me in 2000. There has been so much damage in these 3 years of W that I believe we need to have a democrat in the WH in 2004.

Think positive - it might just lead us to a veritable liberal - however, another 4 years of Bush might lead us to our graves.


:kick:

if sharpton got it

The President of the USA is neither a King nor a magician whose wishes and ideals become real.

exactly who you think can win.

And maybe Gephardt.

LTNS jaysun! happy holidays!

His message is too consistently far left, and his experience and demeanor aren't Presidential.

But he does have the best overall platform, IMHO.

Hopefully, Dean's grassroots revolution will pave the way for politicians like Dennis to achieve higher and higher national profiles.

with Kucinich the Repugs would carry all 50 states. With Dean, at least we have a decent shot of winning.

VT is far more liberal than Kucinich's district and DK keeps getting elected. Dean is no more electable that Kucinich.

Kucinich is more liberal and might reflect my views better overall, but he is not electable in my opinion.

Dean will begin the transition of the Democratic party to where it belongs, away from the Republican abyss that the DLC is guiding it towards. Only Dean and Kucinich have a vision of where the party needs to be. Maybe Kucinich has more future potential than at this point in time, or a potential position inside a Dean administration.

List out for us the policies that distinguish him from Bush. They're all trivial.

He's not going to cut the obscene war-industry budget.

He's not going to pull our kids out of Iraq.

He's not going to end the drugs war.

He's not going to provide universal healthcare and certainly not non-profit healthcare

He's not going to see to it that LGB people get their full civil rights.

He's not going to do much of anything. Try to find something substantial in his policies, something that sets him apart from other candidates. There isn't anything.

He's Bush Lite, the angry advocate of No Real Changes At All.

He was against the Iraq war, clearly, but realizes that we can't leave the mess now that people like Kerry, Gephardt, etc. have voted for it. We need to achieve stability in Iraq. Kucinich said in the last debate that we should pull our troops out immediately after the U.N. takes over. I agree in principle, but this is not likely. A transition or phasing out of U.S. troops as U.N. troops are phased in may be possible, but there is no immediate withdrawal that can work now IMO. It sounds good, and I've said it myself, but I think Dean (and Kerry) are correct on this.

Kucinich appears to be for single payer health care, which is not likely to happen immediately. I think Dean has a good handle on health care measures that can pass and that can make a difference. He has done this in Vermont.

I could go on, but you would be better to go to Dean's web site for more accurate positions than I could supply.

There is a time to be an idealist and go with someone like Kucinich or Nader and a time to vote for someone who can be elected and still fight to change things in the direction necessary. I did vote for Nader in 2000, and Kucinich would be my candidate if Dean were not running.

Dean has been governor of my state for 11 years and has earned my trust as someone who can get the job done. He listens to all sides, is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. His balancing of budgets has brought Vermont's low bond rating up to the best in New England. Trust me, that's a good thing. Imagine what our national debt has become under Bush and what that means to future generations as they are burdened with our foolish debts. Dean knows that one of the objectives of this deficit spending is to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare. I'm counting on Dean to restore financial security to our country and integrity to the office of presidency.

I wish he didn't. I passionately wish he didn't. I want him to have lots of substance. It's an enormous disappointment to me that he doesn't, and a worse one that people like you are eager to settle for the Bush Lite policies he does represent.

If Dean becomes the nominee, the wealthy elites will have won again. They can't lose if they have Bush Regular on one side and Bush Lite on the other. We're the ones who will have lost. As usual.

Although Kucinich stands completely against the status quo as we know it, I believe it would be far highly more likely to persist if he is elected. IMHO, although I like his platform more, I feel he would be a completely ineffective scapegoat president who could reach no compromise with a Republican dominated congress, and basically get nothing done other than drum up fear about liberals. Refer to the puppet government that was instilled by the League of Nations for a reason why I would fear such a presidency. And no, under no circumstances would I be convinced he could get ANYTHING done (not as though this is based on a negative attribute of his).

Dean on the other hand, offers viable policies packaged in a new deal idealogy which can set the stage for future progression by establishing a dynamic and new social contract, and yet also offer current solutions which will produce more liberal (but pragmatic) compromises to our status quo. He doesn't seem to be selling a few policies, but rather, he is selling an idea: a new social contract. This is in itself a very progressive concept, that being, dynamic liberalism of rights based on negotiation with the ruling class, rather than rights granted through the grace of "God" as our consitution states. Pragmatic progressive in truth, although some will vehemetly hate that I apply such terms to Dean.

I admit Dean isn't progressive in terms of his policies, but the package is in itself what I, as a very progressive anarchist, would alone base my decision off of. It would finally, for the first time, lure me to the polls. This is a step which must be taken in all progressive societies before we can start deriving new rights based on our standard of living and ability to fufill such, rather than what the founder fathers alone thought God granted us. Having progressive policies is only a piece of the package, passing such policies is another, but we must not forget another piece: creating a new progressive ideaology to base new future political actions off of. It is time enough that we have established a new social contract, and I would trust Dean would be able to implement such, and perhaps then, and only then, Kucinich would be able to fully utilize such.

After I caught his New Deal speech, I have been highly impressed by him. Totally changed my outlook of his candidacy, and may most certainly change yours.

Find something in his policies. You can't, because there isn't anything. Yes, along with Bush he is a candidate of the status quo (though not the only one). I'm not making this up. Look at his policies.

Don't hoodwink yourself! See what's really there!

any great vision, concept, or policy a candidate (who is not your first choice) lays out in writing and speeches is a con. Riiight. :)

As the organiser Si Kahn points out in his text on organising: there's nothing easier than to repudiate a speech. Actual declared policy is harder. So if Dean means it, why isn't it policy?

why is Dean's for-profit health care policy "viable"? 60%+ of Americans want a government-run single-payer universal healthcare system, NOT some mish-mash of existing programs that still leave many million people uninsured.

Dean's plan is nearly identical to the plan Clinton proposed in 1993-- another "viable", "pragmatic" plan that went down in flames-- in a Democratic-controlled House and Senate to boot!

Democratic voters (AND swing voters, too) are sick and tired of voting for the evil of two lessers. Voter turnout is almost below 50% in presidential election years, because the major-party candidates we've run are virtually indistinguishable on most major issues: "corporate welfare", the failed drug war, protection for American jobs from predatory corporations, the death penalty, media monopolization, etc.

Dean has paid lip-service to these issues, but his stance on these isn't much different from that of the Repubs. He's scratched the backs of his corporate supporters before, and chances are he'll continue to do the same.

What's the point of winning if our candidate won't change the direction of this country? Do you honestly think voters will get energized to vote for the guy "not as bad" as Bush?

...that the people in congress will pass such policies, who do not consist of the 60%+ of people in America that you are banking on.

Kucinich cannot change the direction of the country. Kucinich couldn't even get a law past. This is a sad reality, but a great virture of his. He would compromise no beliefs of his in order to pass policy. I am not saying Dean neccessarily will, but perhaps he believes more in compromise being the best utilitarian solution for all, whearas Kucinich believes, as I do, that progressive action is the best solution of all regardless.

Difference is sadly one method will jive with Congress, and the other will be undeniably stopped, and painted with scapegoat tactics. Show me some examples in history, etc, where a house dominated with regressive assholes could possibly consider the progress of a progressive who does not consider compromise a soution.

... he ain't no dean... fortunately. I am really hard pressed to wonder why i should vote for dean in a runoff were he to win a nomination, except out of deference to y'all.

It would be tempting to go back to voting for someone who actually represents even an inkling of views... who would likely be green or libertarian in the runoff.

I can't vote for dean, except by holding my nose and pretending i'm seeing kucinich. Well said: Dean: the angry advocate of No Real Changes at All.

1. He's stalled at 2% in the polls, that's why. I'm finished throwing away my time, money, effort, and votes on candidates who get 2% of the vote.

2. The behavior of Kucinich supporters on this board regarding Howard Dean does not reflect very well on their candidate now does it? I would think that Kucinich supporters would be making Dean their second or third choice since there are four candidates in this race genuinely opposed to the Iraq war: Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun. Instead of promoting antiwar unity and reserving their harshest criticism for the Bush regime, for the four who voted yes on the IWR, and for the retired four star general, too many Kucinich supporters see Dean as some kind of interloper who is stealing the thunder that should be going to Kucinich, and attack only Dean. I will say this, I was leaning toward Kucinich at one time until I went to a Kucinich meetup and found most of the people there only interested in attacking Dean, and relying on material from prowar candidates like Kerry to do so. What crap. Also, seeing that many Kucinich supporters have four-star general Clark as their second choice...huh???

I asked myself the same thing,which is why I'm voting for Kucinich.

no matter what anyone else thinks. I've always done so. It's my only way of expressing my opinion about the direction that the party should take.

and the amazing groundswell of support and money that Dean does. So for practical reasons, that's why Dean is my choice.

I won't be led to say anything negative about Dennis Kucinich because ideologically he is my first choice. But sadly, if wishes were fishes....

is an artifact of media attention. Haven't we all seen that, as plain as the noses on our faces? Media attention--candidate advances; no attention--candidate languishes.

We're being manipulated.

If you can show me rock solid proof that Kucinich is in FACT outpolling Howard Dean, that Kucinish is in FACT out fundraising Howard Dean, that Kucinich is in FACT growing his support base at a faster and more vigorous rate than Howard Dean, you got me. I'm all Dennis Kucinich's.

OK, go.

Of course he isn't. My point is that the differences are an artifact of corporate media choices, not any special merit on Dean's part that DK lacks.

Why do even NPR and PBS shill for the corporatocracy? Why do we never hear any serious coverage of socialist or even social-democratic points of view, but we do hear plenty about the wonders of capitalism? These things are not unconnected.

Look around for yourself. What's going on is exactly analogous to what was going on in the runup to the Coup: all Bush all the time. Bush was anointed by the media. That incompetent psychopath was sold to us, and when we wouldn't quite buy, installed anyway.

Now it's all Dean all the time so that the wealthy elites own both candidates. Bush Regular vs Bush Lite. How can they lose?

It's not heard to see, if you're willing to look.

Let me try one more time. If I am not being enough to the point, let me know.

1) Prove to me that DK is outpolling Dean.

2) Prove to me that DK is out fundraising Dean.

3) Prove to me that DK has the momentum, excited voter base, and the in your face hubris it's going to take to face down the fascists.


Do these things and I am YOURS. I will be a Dennis Kucinich supporter and redirect all my efforts that way.

OK now, give me your best shot.

polls, fundraising and provable measurable momentum...all to the standards of......????

You missed what Mairead was telling you..
My point is that the differences are an artifact of corporate media choices

You want facts that will support you logically supporting Kucinich...but with the media distortion, you won't get it, You don't believe that we, who support and work on the campaign, tell you that things are happening big time under the radar and you don't want to hear us. Even the whole Ted Koppel incident didn't make it clear to you that they are cutting him out ??

If you want something to happen...to change...you have to take a chance- take a risk....there is nothing safe and sure. You want facts and poll results to convince you - ain't gonna happen.

So if you support Dennis for the primaries...what do you have to lose? Nothing... What do you have to gain? Everything.....

Dennis has fought hard fro everything in his life...you think he won't fight for us now? He will...he has....

We can't prove anything to you if you don't want to be open for the answer...


Peace
DR

"So if you support Dennis for the primaries...what do you have to lose? Nothing... What do you have to gain? Everything....."

First of all, we have an enormous amount to lose if we support Kucinich, namely the election. Kucinich would almost certainly get creamed and would probably lose all fifty states, including Ohio. As a result, we'd get four more years of "President" Bush and would probably see *massive* Republican gains in the House and Senate. Yes, Dean might hurt some Democratic congressional candidates in the South and Rocky Mountains states, but Kucinich would drag us down in every region of the country, even New England and the West Coast. We'd get clobbered and might even see a filibuster-proof GOP majority in the Senate.

forgot that part, didnt ya? My goodness, you should go to work for Jack Welch as an understudy.

his web traffic tells a story you dont really want to hear. Maybe you would rather listen to some cable news version of reality?

..Ogrish for president!

But if he gave Kucnich a cabinet position, I would love him.

no, Chomsky is not god, but I agree with that assessment

Dennis Kucinich is light-years ahead of the pack (pun intended)on the issues, on vision, and on acting for America. He is a steadfast champion of democracy, and I don't choose any of the contenders instead of him.

Here's just one of many reasons; your holiday gift from Dennis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=26955

It's not hard to believe in 'the eyes that see through the lies'.

Why can't more of us see through the lies?

poster photo, though.

Yes, world-weary is a good description, but there's a glimmer of defiance and an even bigger glimmer of pure-D hope for humankind. I look at Bush's eyes and see pure black emptiness. I look at Dennis' eyes and see pain, strength, worry, gentleness and love all at the same time. He's got the eyes any caring person could get lost in if you look close enough, and there's a reason for it.

Or are we so used to hearing those dismissals that we just assume
them to be true?

on ANY of the candidates. It just so happens any one of them is electable, given the support, fundraising and momentum they can build in their campaigns.

I lament that I cannot support Kucinich in this run, but I assure you it is not for ideological differences - in truth, his ideology is closer to mine than any of the others.

Seriously, he can do everything he claims he can but only if the people who want him to succeed ensure that it happens. So far I see and hear a lot of excuses about why we can't do that, and all I can think of is how my mom and dad used to tell me "Can't never did anything.". IOW anyone who says it can't be done is just too scared of failure to try, and as long as you keep saying "can't" it will be true, you'll NEVER get it done.

I'm tired of saying "can't" and making it true. NOW is the only chance we have to make that word a flasehood.

Do you know, my Dad is Republican, through and through, for a few good reasons and some not so good reasons. He finally asked me tonight who it is I'm so determined to see win that I volunteered and am busting my ass for. His response was "Dennis Kucinich?...What's he going to do?". I told him "Fix the healthcare situation in this country for one thing.". Next he says "He can't even stay elected in Ohio!" and I explained that isn't true at all.

My dad was so uninformed he had no idea Dennis has been in the house for 8 terms. I had to tell him the man won a recall even AFTER the Muny Light battle and Cleveland's default! He wandered off saying "I don't know enough about him I guess." but I do believe he'll look now. He may or may not support Dennis in the Primary, but at least he's thinking about real issues and willing to look. It took me a whole 5 minutes to make my dad think he ought to check the guy out.

here at DU. I have logged several posts smacking it down as intellectually insulting, contradictory to democracy, and nothing more than partisan manipulation. If there is something I have left out in describing it, please add!

That being said, this is not why I don't work for a Kucinich candidacy. It would be wrong to say I don't support him. I support him ideologically as he is closest to my ideology. But I work for Dean because he fullfills all necessary requirements plus he has the support and the drive to take this to Bush's face. I am really really sorry, but DK simply lacks those latter qualities right now. Believe me I wish he did not, but he does.

In my perfect world, DK would already be facing Bush on a path to a landslide election for the Democratic Party.

Right, I know, a few hundred of the right people being asked the right questions when they're around to and feel like answering them, a few million bucks in the bank, and the "in your face hubris" which just has me confounded.

Tell me, Scott, WHY do you think Dennis doesn't have the three things you want him to have? How about because people like you aren't giving it to him! How many posts have you seen around here saying the same things you've said, and what are those people doing about it? Are they trying to boost those qualities for Kucinich? No, they've chickened out and gone to the guy they think already has all of those things.

Personally, I'm a lot more afraid of the shock November 2004 may bring if we nominate anyone BUT Kucinich and hope to take down the fascists.

**edit to add** Please know I'm not trying to come across as an overbearing b*tch here. It just makes me want to cry to hear people say essentially, "I wish Dennis had money, poll numbers and a strong support network, but I'm giving those things to someone else.". For heaven's sakes, man, if you WISH he had those things, then GIVE them to him!

"**edit to add** Please know I'm not trying to come across as an overbearing b*tch here. It just makes me want to cry to hear people say essentially, "I wish Dennis had money, poll numbers and a strong support network, but I'm giving those things to someone else.". For heaven's sakes, man, if you WISH he had those things, then GIVE them to him!"

Ok, I should know this, sorry.
But what is the deadline for getting mathching funds for candidates?
It hasn't passed, has it?
We should be emphasizing that for our candidates that are requesting
matching funds. And Kucinich is one.

Those who will have already qualified for them but the funds aren't tallied until next month sometime.

Dennis qualified two days ago, about a half hour after the filing deadline in Delaware which led to a story claiming he wouldn't be on the Delaware Primary ballot.(AP has since corrected that report) The matching fund qualification assures him a spot on the ballot even though it was late.

So if we donate to Kucinich in the next couple of weeks
(or any other candidate accepting matching funds), our
donation gets doubled!

So, now's the time.

are limited to the first $250 of a max $2000 donation.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I have a headache and don't feel like looking it up right now .. but from memory . that's the 'matching fund' .. not a DOUBLE.

Respectfully, and since you have approached this with civility, let me try and reiterate why I support Dean as opposed to DK.

1. Dean has more popular support. The only way I can gauge this is a cross section of polls, which nationally tell me that Dean is pretty firmly in the lead.

If DK truly has more popular support, show me where I can see proof of this.

If he does NOT have more popular support, what kind of sense does it make to put him up against George Warmaker Bush?


2. Dean has raised, and is raising, more funds for his campaign. As much as I don't like living in a reality seemingly ruled by filthy lucre, here we are nonetheless. It is folly to think that our collective good looks are going to buy an adequate campaign to battle President War.

If I am being lied to, and Dean is not out fundraising the other candidates, please show me proof - and that DK is out fundraising Dean.

If DK has more campaign dough than Dean, why is he not using it, or is he hiding it for now?

If DK does NOT have more campaign cash than Dean and is not raising enough of it, tell me how am I to believe that DK is popular enough to unseat President War if donors won't help him raise adequate funds?


Have I been clear enough here? Dennis Kucinich is the candidate of my heart and mind...but in order to win next election we are stuck in a fight of dollars and knuckles. I know it sucks! But tell me, what do you suggest? You know what they say about a guy who brings a nerf bat to a gunfight!

You just don't appear to be open to what I and at least one other are trying to get you to see-

If Dennis Kucinich got donations from every single person who said "Dennis Kucinich is the candidate closest to my ideals but..." he'd have already beaten Dean in fundraising all over the place.

If every person who said "I like Dennis Kucinich best but..." were to commit to supporting him and voting for him there wouldn't be any question about popular support even being discussed.

So part of the reason he doesn't have all these things you say you wish he had is because people like you refuse to back him up. That's it in a nutshell and that's what I've been trying to get across to you. It's self-defeating to say I wish Kucinich had money and then donate to Dean or another candidate. It's self-defeating to say I wish Dennis had "popular support" and then commit to backing another candidate.

Oh, and you'll never see a leap in the polls for Dennis until the Primaries begin. Why? Because the people who take the polls don't want you to know how much support he has and many of the people who do support him aren't available to respond when the calls, surveys, etc. are carried out.

After everything Bush has managed to carry off and the blatance of this administrations criminal behavior, are you really going to discount a conspiracy against the most dramatically opposing candidate so quickly? I'm not talking tinfoil here, I'm talking about people in positions of power who would lose a lot if Dennis were to be elected and who KNOW it. The kind of people who have the money to pay Zogby to poll for them, the kind of people like those at WaPo who poll with such leading questions that no matter what order you put them in the notion of Dean vs. Bush is all but embedded in the respondent's psyche.

Look around and give it some thought. That's all I ask.

"So part of the reason he doesn't have all these things you say you wish he had ..."

So he doesn't have the support and funds to make a serious run at Bush. Thank you, THAT'S what I was trying to ascertain. You have confirmed it, and that's why I am not a Kucinich supporter at this time.

"IF" is a great game, but it's too risky right now. I really really really want Bush out of office. I'm sorry, but that's first priority with me.

Mostly because it really makes me sad to see or hear.

You took half of my statement and ignored the rest. Basically what you've said is no different than Kucinich supporters are saying except on the flip-side of the coin. You'll follow the guy who has everything you want EXCEPT your ideals, and you won't lift a finger to help the guy who has your ideals GET the things you say you "wish he had". WHY would you sell your own intellect, reason and sound judgement down the river?

Meanwhile Kucinich supporters are saying "This man has the integrity, world-view, and practical thinking I want in a President. He doesn't have money so let me give him as much as I can spare. He doesn't have poll numbers so let me go out and bust ass to change that. If I fail, at least I know I gave it a shot and I can deal with that when someone else is nominated."

You said "Kucinich is closest to me idealistically...". I can't help but believe your lack of willingness to support him implies a lack of belief in your own views, and that's sad.

you want lowest common denominator "democracy".
no thanks.

And some of them are actually quite delusional. It's sad, but this is what happens when someone (especially a young person) gets excited about a candidate only to see them go down in flames. They'll get over it in a few weeks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But how many times have I heard I like DK and what he stands for but he is unelectable so I support so and so. Oy, if those people just believed then DK would be electable in more ways. Interesting ain't it.

I think that pretty well sums it up.*sigh*

We ain't dead yet, and I'll be damned if I go down without a major fight! BTW, I have yahoo and MSN on if you want to tag me. :)

well we are on a boost now :) but yes how long must we hear that. Ok I will buzz you maybe.

I just contributed to Dennis Kucinich with my Xmas money - I don't need that damn CD burner as much as I need Kucinich's voice to be heard on the national stage. Dennis, you are an inspiration :hug:

Very nice. Now your donation will be matched by our beloved gov!

I don't have much to give, but since I gave to Dean in a former life, it's only fair I help out the superior candidate.

:grouphug:

Hey! I saw John Kleeb's picture up there. Cool. ;)

if you are lucky enough to even find a candidate that so closely reflects your ideological positions and/or inspres you, why on earth would you not vote for that person in the primary??? at the very least you will be one vote closer to your ideologies being a solid part of our final platform, if 'whoever it will be' is going to get elected in the primary anyway, why not validate your opinions and beliefs by voting for the candidate that best mirrors them...how else will the party know how you feel???

there is some serious groundswell here in pennsylvania for him

the kucinich kids grow!

one love
spike

Because Dean represents my beliefs better than Kucinich. I think Kucinich would be a terrible president. Jon Stewart says that the extreme right wing wants to drag us to a past that never exited and the extreme left wants to drag us into a future that would be unbearable. Kucinich represents an unbearable future to me.

Then so does Bush, because Dean's policies amount to preserving the BushCo status quo.

That's fairly sickening.

Indded, that is how I feel every time I read one of those highly hagiographical posts about Kucinich. I just laugh at those posts that insist Dean is exactly like Bush. I'll overlook the insult as I am laughing too hard to be offended by the words of those caught up in a devotional frenzy.

Check your facts. Nobody says 'exactly'.

But Dean's policies are enough like Bush's that 'Bush Lite' is an accurate thumbnail characterisation. That can be verified by looking at Dean's own website. It's all there in black-and-white.

As for it being an insult...why is telling the truth insulting?

on the statement you are trying to amke. I for one, am not trying to make a Kucinich type statement.

It's about the best man for the job at hand. It's about running an electable candidate. Where did you get this 'make a statement' stuff?

I want Bush out of office as much and Dean can do it. He has a better orgainzation and he has broader voter appeal along with being correct about the war and taking back the government from special interests. What a candidate stands for his important but so is his/her grassroots support. Dean has it and DK does not. His supporters are a great bunch of people generally, but there are all kinds of dynamics which come into play in a race for political office. It simply is not DK's time and probably never will be. I hope he stays in congress where he is needed.

n/t

choose not to make him the winner.

Let's see for ourselves.
There seems to be a consensus that he's the best candidate.

The fact is...Dennis is way too far left to appeal to the current demographics of tis country.
There is nothing i'd love more than to see Dennis President. But it won't happen. And I gotta throw MY support to whoever has the best chance at beating Bush...because another four years of Bush is unthinkable.
And right now, the guy who appears best able to beat Bush is Dean.

Serious, I dont think, and remember I am only 16 but I dont think I ever heard of people really liking a candiate on the issues and everything but not giving their support. Personally, I can't define it, its an attiude that saddens me honest. Anyhow I just dont get it.

Dean is the ONLY one with executive experience.

Dean NEVER voted for Iraq war.

Dean is pro-2nd amendment

Dean ACTUALLY balanced state budgets, every time.

Dean has won EVERY election he ever ran in, SIX so far.

Dean is THE MOST QUALIFIED to institute a UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE system being a full fledged medical doctor himself.

Dean has the BIGGEST WARCHEST and has demonstraed skills in keeping up the momentum.

Dean has demonstrated the most important leadership quality---choosing the right people to do the job. Just look at Joe Trippi and company's success so far.

Dean has a strong personality, never lost for words, quick on his feet.

Dean even looks like a fighter, robust appearance.

Dean has no video's accessible to Rove, praising Bush*co

Dennis Kucinich was mayor of Cleveland from 1977-1979. Cleveland, as a city, is many times larger in population than the entire state of Vermont.

Also, Dean admits that his "Universal" healthcare system will still leave 10 million people without coverage-- so it's not truly universal.

Also, Dean never had to vote for the Iraq war, so of course he never voted in favor of it. Also, Dean favored a 60-90 day "waiting period" for Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections before any invasion of Iraq(UN-supported or unilateral) occurred.

However, Dean was crowned "the only Democrat to oppose the war" by our useless mass media whores who dictate the content of our public discourse. This happened at the same time Dennis Kucinich was gathering opposition to the war against the House Dem leadership who were hell-bent on giving in to Bush.

That about says it all. Name recognition leads the polls, not policy.

Dean has been anointed by the media as the dem candidate. Seems this is mainly due to his 'anti-war' outsider stance, which when compared to Dennis is like Dennis 'writing the book' and Dean buying the Cliff notes the night before the test.

TWL

If our aim in 2004 is to make a statement why not nominate a veritable liberal?

Because he's an extremist and he can't win. You either want to win or you want to make a statement.

what is radical/extremist is
Letting people die because they are poor (not having health care)
Letting corporations become slavers and selling out american jobs
Continuing a racist (think mumia) and barbaric (only lovely countries like iran saudi arabia and the usa still have the death penalty) institution
Continuing a militaristic occupation for oil in iraq when are troops are still dying and there are groups like the un who are better for the job at task
Supporting the views of Neo-conesque hawkish groups like aipac
kucinich is not my ideal leftist cannidate but one of two sane moderates who are running

What color is the sky in your world?

read it. Study USA in the 20th century. Get back to us.

what a ludicrous statement. I hope you are prepared to eat those words.

Well, okay, tinanator. *lmao* We'll come back after the primary and see if Dennis Kucinich has his name in lights. If so, I'll eat my whole computer. How's that?

any particular primary, or would you rather just take Zogby's word in advance?

(even though pro nra and pro death penalty)
and is the saviour of the democratic party
(even though he sided w/ gingrinch on medicare shredding oops mean reform)

"If our aim in 2004 is to make a statement why not nominate a veritable liberal?"

Our aim in 2004 shouldn't be to make a "statement" or send a "message" like the idiotic, immature Nader supporters did in 2000, our aim should instead be to nominate and elect a credible Democrat to the presidency of the United States so that we can work toward peace instead of war, prosperity instead of recession, and honest, clean government instead of courruption and scandal that we have seen with Bush.

Howard Dean is a serious, mainstream presidential candidate who has served as Governor, Lt. Governor, and state legislator (as well as being a physician). He has built what is arguably the strongest grass-roots effort in American political history, and he has raised more money than any Democratic candidate in history.

Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, is a fringe candidate who has no chance of ever being elected president (he wouldn't even carry his home state) and has no chance of raising the kind of money needed to be a serious candidate. Yes, he has a long, admirable record of public service, but the fact is that he is nowhere near the mainstream and frankly has become a bit of a joke recently, especially with his "Department of Peace" nonsense, not to mention his ridiculous "find me a girlfriend" circus.

Dean is only in it because AIPAC owns his ass. Lieberman would be his VP. Own those facts. Far more importantly, Kucinich is going to sweep this race so clean you will probably contemplate suicide, or worse.

You're in denial, friend. Come next year, Dennis Kucinich isn't going to sweep anything except the floor in his dusty, abandoned campaign headquarters. Maybe you can give him a hand.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm supporting Dean but I don't think Kucinich deserves to be called a fringe candidate. His views on things like national health care and livable wages would be considered mainstream in Canada or Europe, and if they aren't mainstream in the US they should be. The Department of Peace proposal is visionary on the same level as FDR's New Deal and the legacy of the United Nations which FDR and Truman left us - even though in the current political climate in the US it has no chance of becoming reality.

We could use a couple hundred more like him in Congress.

His pathetic, laughable "find me a girlfriend" stunt was the last straw. He has zero credibility outside of Cleveland, Ohio and the deluded imaginations of his followers.

and essentially wrong headed post.

The right does not want Dennis to run. If he were vulnerable for the PUGs, he would be getting air time like mad.

Rove knows that putting * on a stage with Dennis would be tantamount to a concession speech.

You attack my post as "wrong headed" and in the next breath say that the right is afraid of Kucinich. I think my irony meter just exploded.

You're either joking or absolutely clueless about the American political system. Unfortunately, I suspect that the latter is true.

Here, let's take up a collection.

anyone with an honest bone and a few clues wouldnt stoop to such a "stretch". You certainly have your work cut out for you.

Talk about pathetic posts, chum, your one takes the soggy bikkie hands down.

Dean is electable, whether you like it or not. He's part of a movement within the democratic base that started because we are sick of LOSING races by using the same old political "me too, only better!" rhetoric that is inherent in candidates like Lieberman. The only statement we're making is that we are tired of losing.

cuz your looking to do it again.