Kucinich Mulling Second Run For President

Click here to read the whole story.

<snip>

Kucinich was a darling of the far left in 2004, for pushing hard to get the U.S. out of Iraq, an argument that has since become the majority opinion of Americans. At the time, his "U.N. in, U.S. out" mantra seemed politically naive, even if the idea of a short U.S. stay in Iraq had merit.

On the one hand, maybe Kucinich should get more credit for his stance -- rather than Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), who is often given credit for helping change American opinion on troop redeployment. On the other hand, it's hard to fathom Kucinich improving on his woeful performance in the 2004 primaries.

We need your voice, your common sense, and your humanity. And I'll support you to the end, just like last time.

:patriot:

for the nomination, but I'm glad he's running because he shines a spotlight on issues that desparately need them.

he makes his points, and upon getting crushed in early primaries, gets out quickly. the party needs to be unified.

I hope he runs and stays in until the convention (or better yet wins the primary and becomes President), honestly do you believe Kucinich hurt Kerry in any way in the general? Of course not, if anything he got people motivated. Being completely unified to the point we are marching in lockstep is not a good thing, it is better to have lots debate early on and then come together for the general election when it really matters.

At a PDA event in Beverly Hills on Sunday. He called into the fundraiser for PDA. When asked, will he run.

His answer was ... "yes"

he plans to file in the coming weeks. And is already making calls for his exploratory committee.

NT

again.

Posted from my Goodlink Treo.

:yourock:

while pretending to have a chance.

many DUers are telling Obama to sit down and and stay out of it BECAUSE they think he doesn't have a chance.

(even though Obama stands a much better chance than Kucinich ever will)

Hmmmm . . .

Hillary vs. Edwards, unless Gore runs.

What crappy choices.

I'm hoping it's down to someone with some FP sense and a REAL populist background.

n/t.

You basically have two groups of candidates: ones who can raise money, and ones who can't.

Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Kerry, Clark can raise money.

The others probably can't raise as much.

I don't know whether Bayh falls into the first category or not.

No other first-term Senator would be considered for the nomination.

because unlike the rest of these clowns, he doesn't insult our intelligence, actually has a vision, and so far as is possible for a politician in this political and cultural climate, tells the truth. Is he electable? No. Is he ahead of the game? WAY ahead.

Obama could run, and even possibly win, but he ain't a pimple on Dennis' ass. Same goes for Edwards, Bayh, Hillary.

DK won't win; it's quixotic to even try. The guy has been right about damn near everything the last six years, but it makes no difference. He'll be preaching to the choir. Americans (at least those who have bought into the dumb show that passes for "democracy") want "leaders" who blow smoke up their collective asses.

his platform gave us an ability to passionately organize a specific base and give way to Progressive Vote, then PDA. That was the movement I signed up for. It has been accomplished.

I will not be on this bandwagon this time.

Edwards has my vote!

wtf planet is Kucinich living on

Makes me want to run for President, just for the free booze and interns.

I don't think Dennis has fun so much, rather he believes he is doing missionary work to help the debate, the party, the country, and those not yet killed. And I think he is spot on.

But this time he may do better than in 2004 because of the absence of a more mainstream anti-war candidate...actually scratch that, because Clark and Obama are running, and while Edwards voted for the war he has apologized.

In the ole days, when they actually had wide open conventions, there used to more 'favorite sons' in the running. This way the states could back their favorite son, and if he didn't get any wide support, he could always bargain to support the frontrunners in return for something the people of his state wanted on the platform of the party. That's probably more reason why Kucinich is considering running.

He came in a very distant third with 9% - behind Kerry at 52% and edwards at 34%

this is nothing more than a vanity campaign, and will be seen as such by most voters.

You can only "bargain" in politics when you have something to bargain with, and Kucinich showed that he had no political capital with his poor showing in 2004.

from more viable anti-war candidates. but, yeah, sure, he should
go ahead and run.

he was an advance prophet, and those are usually ignored or scorned. Murtha helped change minds.

is so completely dismissed as a possible contender for president by so many so early on. It sounds like presidential material is limited to the most photogenic, or accomplished fund raiser or eloquent speaker rather than the eloquence of his ideas and actions. Kucinich has been a standard bearer durinf these dark days for sanity and decency and has offered the best plan for a speedy withdrwal of troops from the Iraq quagmire.

Sometimes the best people are passed over for the worst reasons.

He is not an effective fundraiser.

He does not have extensive relationships with party people at the state and local level.

His supporters are incredibly devoted but small. That works well in a guerilla campaign to get your issues out there but winning a national election takes more than that.

Kucinich has refused to play the game and thus he can't be a serious presidential contender.

are sick of the game, and want to end the game, he's the most serious contender out there.

I'm not going to play the game. I'll vote for someone I can fully support, or I'll write in someone I can. America can join me, or not. I respect everyone's right to choose.

I'll vote my conscience, and my conscience will be clean.

i really think if we couldnt see the candidates, that dennis would be a serious contender. it is a little upsetting

Even on DU it seems, we care far more about who plays the game of politics better than we care about who has the better ideas. A true progressive would only have a shot (if at all) if he/she was photogenic, well spoken, and extremely adept at saying things that make people feel good without saying anything of substance. We love slogans and we love people who can feed us a good line, but we don't care about ideas. The fact that Kucinich has been on the right side of just about every issue under the sun doesn't faze most of the the people here. All they can say is "he doesn't look presidential", "he could never win", or "he'll just take votes away from the REAL candidates". I wonder if any of the people who say these things realize that they're part of a self-fulfilling prophecy. :banghead:

here. I wonder if a candidate who looked and talked like Lincoln would ever be considered "electable" by todays so called standards? I seriously doubt it.

I think the Dems would do well to break out of the current paradigm of thinking about the qualities that make a candidate electable (appearance, speech, demographics, race, religion, etc.) and give people of true substance with great records and integety an opportunity to be heard. Maybe the dumb electorate would be stunned awake by such candor and learn to ignore the "political pundits" who love to expound on the viability of this or that candidate based on their knowledge of politics, thus guiding the people to vote "intelligently" rather than with personal conviction.

As for those who think DK is more "effective" in his role as "gadfly" (!? does that mean political irritant?)just keep all your best people marginalized as you persue the ideal candidate - great strategy!

Kucinich had opportunities he missed and screwed up in his '04 campaign. If someone with his views is going to win, it will have to be someone who can inspire those beyond the left and someone who is capable of running a good campaign. Based on his rotating campaign managers and lackluster efforts to raise money last time, that person isn't Dennis.

Lefties have stayed out of electoral politics for far too many years to have the institutional strength to put someone like Kucinich over the top. However, I think that the goal of pushing the Dems in his general direction is still worthwhile, and I'm prepared to do it again. For me, supporting him is a way of acquiring that strength.

Have Elizabeth take his place during all TV appearances, surefire way to get the nomination :evilgrin:

Dennis is living proof that the far left is all talk and no winning.

They say that universal health care and fair trade are "far left" issues, and you can do nothing but agree. Thanks for nothing.

Don't you? :sarcasm:

I said don't talk like a Republican labelling universal health care and fair trade "far left" when those positions are held by the majority of Americans, making them centrist by any reasonable definition. When did I mention voting? Maybe you are replying to a different subthread?

I was labeling him or her as one of those pretentious people who think they are the foremost authority on "electability" and that we have breached some kind of duty if we don't vote for their pre-determined "electable" candidate. My point was that those people don't have an automatice right to our vote, even though they think they do.

I'll vote for him! Early and often! ;)

He is probably the most honest candidate that we have right now, a breath of fresh air in politics, and a man whose positions have been proven to be consistently correct and ahead of their time.

Dennis Kucinich did poorly in 2004 because of poor press by the media. They didn't convey his message to the people with the same intensity as they did for the candidates they purposely were pushing - like Kerry.

And during the debates, moderators like Ted Kopple asked inappropriate questions - like, "Why don't you quit since you have almost no money?" That's an insult, instead of asking something legimate.

I voted for Dennis in the Primary!

If you have not yet noticed, our media leads us around by the nose!

My candidate for this 2008 election is Mike Gravel. He wants to empower us to overcome the political corruption we have by giving the us (the people) law making power.

No way. There's nothing fair about that.

The media was a problem for Dennis, which is why a candidate like him as to run twice before getting any traction. Unfortunately, I think he still doesn't have a chance unless he dramatically changes the way he ran his last campaign.

It all depends on how a national sales tax is implemented - if it's implemented.

But it does not matter anyway. The more important issue is Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy. If this gets enacted, we, the people, can change anything if we don't like it!

I doubt it. Because he doesn't take the money from special interests - no - that would be him selling out and I don't believe he will.
Howard Dean's 2004 campaign raised $40m from mostly small donations. Kucinich would have to pull off something comparable.
Content/Position wise - DK is great. On these merits alone, he would make the best president. But politics, unfortunately has devloved into a money pit of influence over voter preference.
The media will ignore Dennis again.

--we can push the party in the direction of his positions. That remains true even though he probably can't win.

and probably why I will support him.

:shrug:

And Kucinich did raise $10 million. Not bad.

That being said, Kucinich should have made a bigger personal effort to raise money. He could have raised another $5 million had he been more aggressive.

rising in the polls.

I've seen graphs. Increases in media coverage for Dean were closely followed by more money and increased poll numbers. He was the "anti-war" candidate that the corporate media found acceptable. Dean gets credit for having a great press team on staff.

Dean was at the forefront of internet candidacy. Kucinich could have found a natural audience there. He was not ready for primetime. That was where Dean built a cadre of supporters and used Meetups to great effect. He created his own buzz in that manner which led to fundraising efforts. As he continued to have these quick fundraisers (the bats) brining in 10's of thousanfds of dollar in juts one day. the MSM started to pay attention. Suddenly in the fall of 2003 Dean was all the rage.

Kucinich is a fine speaker if not the most telegenic guy.

He does not have relationships with the party apparatus and he is not the greatest fundraiser. That dooms him in the primaries.

--made a fun horserace story, and the Dean campaign was able to take very good advantage of that, leaving all other races in the position of being the second guy to think up the Pet Rock idea. Later, they got really afraid of what a Dean victory might mean in terms of future elections, and rightly so. Those internets tubes aren't enough--Kerry had the best ground game with the locals in Iowa.

I voted for him in the Indiana primary. Had the country listened to Dennis, we would have been out of Iraq 3 years ago!

Anybody have any information they'd prefer me to read as an introduction to him?

www.kucinich.us

There are tons of candidates that everyone calls the slam dunk for the nomination. Howard Dean was it last time and Kerry ran away with it.

Kucinich has silently been going about his business and has been the most consistent of any candidate in the field. His strength is in the fact that he is what this party is supposed to represent ie; the typical FDR Democrat.

Selecting a candidate is not about whether or not the guy is a good speaker. It's the issues. Those can rise above any candidates speaking abilities. Republicans have beaten Democrats with two candidates that can barely string two sentences together.

BTW; I HATE THESE FUCKING THREADS!!!!!!

He has difficulty fundraising and he does not have relationships with the party apparatus that;s his problem. Not his speaking.

I'd like him even more if he declared his support for the National Initiative for Democracy.

Our two party system is not working. We, the people, must assume power while we still can!
Mike Gravel offers that to us.

Well, he's one of the many candidates included here:

http://bluepyramid.org/2008

Not that this makes him official, of course!

apparently doesn't realize that he would be considered a centrist in most of the rest of the world. I call his positions "common sense."

I like Dennis, and I volunteered for his campaign last time. But I've become extremely cynical about whether the MSM will allow his message to get out. They didn't so much slam him as ignore him, even before a single vote had been cast in the Iowa caucuses.

So we have to build the institutional structures that are the only way to do an end run around the media. For me, supporting him is part of an ongoing process, win or lose.

Never seemed naive to me.