The case for getting behind Dennis NOW...

Victory in the next election depends on MOBILIZATION and ENTHUSIASM. We need a party and a platform that will electrify the people, galvanizing them for the hard work of breaking the right-wing grip on the White House.

Every vote that goes to Dennis Kucinich, whether or not he is nominated, is a vote for clearly making the Democratic Party the party of hope, of dreams, of the possibility of change. A convention with hundreds of Kucinich delegates will be a convention that people will WANT to tune in on, that will draft a platform that speaks to the nation's highest values.

And every vote that Dennis receives will embolden ALL of our Democratic politicians to take the clearest, most positive and most energizing stands on the issues of the day. Politicians gain courage when courage is rewarded by votes.

We will never be able to out-fundraise the GOP. We will never match them fully in high-tech gadgetry and the politics of software(although we are gaining ground in that category). Where we will match them, where we will exceed them, where we can DEFEAT them solidly, is in the sphere of ideas.

Build the party of ideas, dreams, hope and victory. Take up the fallen standard of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, Cesar Chavez and the activists of the world who lived and died for the future.

Dare to dream. Free yourself from the fear.

Stop the War! Heal the wounds ! Bring the country to life!

Dennis Kucinich. The man who speaks what's in our hearts.

What a perfect post to end my day reading.

Best,

Maggie

Keep Hope Alive/El Pueblo Unido Jamas Sera Vencido/Another World is Possible.

Dennis hasn't got a prayer of winning the nomination, much less the general election.

There's still the case for backing him in order to make sure the party stands clearly for something next time. If nothing else, our party would be greatly improved by having a convention in which Dennis and progressives had the balance of power and anyone who was to be nominated would have to work with them.

As opposed to the usual convention, where only the rich men in the luxury boxes have any real say in what happens.

We need to send a message to ALL our candidates that principles, conviction and truthtelling will be rewarded.

n/t.

having been around politics all my life, though, I agree that he has no chance for the nomination, and even less in the general election . . .

I think it's good that he's running, though, because he'll be the candidate who will be most truthful about our current situation . . . just having him in the race will force other candidates to move a little more left -- because that's where the REAL solutions lie . . .

in the primaries.

participating in politics -- I feel he has no chance whatsoever . . . for the nomination, or in the general . . .

bwdik? . . . :)

He can get the ball rolling behind this stopping the 'Iraq appropriation'.

then we are truly fucked as a party and a nation. He's strong on every important issue, unlike our current "front runner" who has her moist finger solidly stuck up in the air.

"I will not vote for the following candidates in the general election. If you choose to nominate them, you do so with the knowledge that I will not be there: Clinton, Clark, Obama, Edwards, Kerry, Biden, Vilsack, or Bayh. There are many other worthy Democrats that are more interesting. If you want my participation, put those others at the top of the list of '08 contenders."

right on!

While I know better, I'd like to avoid the blame game and ask "the party" to be accountable for their choices. Wouldn't it be refreshing if they just stood up and said, "We value the votes of centrist dems and republicans more than the votes of progressives, so we don't mind losing progressive votes in the process?"

your reasoning please...

to question that next Iraq spending bill. I saw his speech today; he was passionate and human, as was his wife. He said what needed to be said, and I respect him greatly.

Nothing wrong with that. It's helpful, especially when introducing a new idea to the someone conventional American public. If someone repeats the meme over and over enough, eventually it gets pounded into their brain and isn't a shock or a surprise.

We all know darn well that plenty of folks enter the Beauty Contest with the goal of getting the Congeniality trophy...more than a few VPs and cabinet members have been chosen from the ranks of former candidates, after all. He'd sure be popular as a UN ambassador....

I'm going to do an OP about this, but Dennis just posted an excerpt from a message I posted at Elizabeth's blog.

Read it before it goes away: www.kucinich.us. :)

She's beautiful and bright! Dennis can be a winner if we allow him, help him to get his message out!

Recognizing that he has been in the minority his entire Congressional career...given the iron grip the Republicans held over the minority I wouldn't expect much there yet...the future will tell on that front.

However.

It seems to me his tenure as Cleveland Mayor does not really inspire confidence that he would be a particularly good chief executive...

Not that I wouldn't vote for him in the extremely unlikely case he was nominated.

As Mayor of Cleveland, Dennis stopped the private takeover of the city's electric utility. The business leadership bought his defeat in the next election because of it, but it was later shown Dennis saved the people of Cleveland hundreds of millions of dollars.

You've obviously only read what the MSM said about Dennis as mayor. People there consider him a hero and realize they made a huge mistake in voting him out of City Hall.

And my point stands that we need a convention with a huge block of progressive delegates so that we will fight the fall election as a party of principle and hope.

The "politics-free zone" of Boston 2004 must NEVER be repeated. It never helps Democrats to fudge and tack and trim.

Reviewing some of the history...which I recall from the time...Kucinich seemed not to get along with alot of folks in his own administration...some of his appointments look pretty shoddy, and he looks at least to share equal blame with the Chief of Police for the poor relations between the mayors office and the department...

Didn't he appoint a teenager to some important office? I can't find his name, but I recollect hearing about that.

I know you want the party to nominate another bland centrist toady who will agree with Bush and Cheney on everything that matters, but at least play fair about it.

Not all of us want the Democratic Party to be a principle-free zone.

As I said, any lack of accomplishment in the House is understandable as no Democrat there has been able to do a whole lot over the last 12 years...and as I have also said, in the unlikely event he did get the nomination I would certainly vote for him...but

His one area of executive responsibility was as Mayor...and there seem to be significant problems there. As you say his refusal to sell CEI was in hindsight the correct move, and certainly the fact that Cleveland went bankrupt shortly after he was Mayor is not largely his fault. But his poor relations with members of the city council and particularly with the Police department look juvenile to me...and I can't imagine the CEI decision could not have been reached at with less turmoil...

He did only survive a recall by like 300 votes...


btw the link on his teenage appointment is here

Look under Mayorality...also appointed a finance director who was only 24 and whose only experience was 8 months as a stock broker

http://www.arikah.net/encyclopedia/Dennis_Kucinich

I look forward to the acres of empty space.

I have contributed to many Hillary threads. Ken Burch is making the case for Dennis Kucinich for President...not as a protest candidate, or to make a statement, but in the hope he can actually be elected. I haven't asked anything out of bounds as to his record. I have acknowledged areas where it is unfair to evaluate him, and indicated I would vote for him if he got the nomination.

Why do you, apparently as a Kucinich supporter, think it is unreasonable to talk about his record while Mayor of Cleveland? Certainly that is a big part of his resume.

I have detailed Hillary's record numerous times in other threads...feel free to do a search...it is there. And I do not claim executive experience is required. Generically a mayor of a large city with 6 terms in Congress under his belt is qualified. I want to see how you are going to deal with the substance of that record.

I am not going to hijack the OP's thread and turn it into yet another Hillary thread. The OP is asking us to take Dennis Kucinich seriously as a Presidential candidate. Why do you believe his record is not a valid topic in this regard?

No one is allowed to question or trash Dennis' candidacy.

that is the question.

at all. Maybe that is the point?

He's hardly a contender for anything outside his own district.

And a primary held when the same hacks were screaming "unity, unity, unity, voting against John Kerry is not permissable".

Remember Kerry? Mr "I don't always have a pulse but I'm ELECTABLE"?

Was't that a whole campaign such a glorious success?

for him anyway, regardless what "party hacks" were telling them.

He's had a lot more experience since then. We happen to currently have a "president" who was drunk or stoned at that age. Not to mention which, Kucinich was mopping school basements for tuition money while Bush was stuffing firecrackers up the asses of frogs and lighting them off.

After the Establishment ganged up to buy his defeat for reelection as mayor, Dennis was left unemployed and divorced. He couldn't get work for years. He was, effectively, blacklisted for having spoken truth to power.

But Dennis didn't give up. He rebuilt his life, did the hard work of restarting a political career from total oblivion, took the Congressional seat against most odds and in the teeth of the Republican landslide of '94, and used his tenure in Congress to speak for the people who were left powerless in the political process.

And unlike Dubya, Dennis had no rich friends to buy him salvation and second chances.

--but taking a career risk like that really doesn't cost them anything, because they aren't going to be hard up no matter what happens. Much different for a scholarship kid who occasionally lived in cars; putting your career on the line when you have no backup whatsoever is an entirely different thing.

Personally I have a positive view of Kucinich.

But you are asking us to take him seriously as a Presidential candidate. It is certainly fair to ask about his record in relation to his time as Mayor of Cleveland. There is alot there to look askance at.

At the very least, if Kucinich were to become a viable candidate, these issues would most definitely be brought up by the media and Republicans. An effective rebuttal is going to be required.

If you have read my posts you know I am a strong Hillary supporter and am often in the position of defending her record. But you will also notice that I rarely take shots at other candidates, and tend to go out of my way to praise them when it is warranted. To my mind it is better to have a series of strong candidates than one strong and several weak ones, so I have no problem, and in fact welcome, all comers to the Presidential nomination process. Dennis Kucinich included

Why don't you develop your rebuttal to these issues that are sure to be raised in the general election campaign if Kucinich were to get that far, and try them on me. I have no problem giving a person their due when it is warranted. And I certainly realize I may not have the entire story on his tenure in office.

And I do not believe I have ever voiced even the remotest support for Bush.

And I certainly acknowledge that Kucinich may have matured in the intervening years. But as you know, in a Presidential campaign such distinctions are rarely made, and his record as Mayor of Cleveland is going to come under scrutiny should he begin to have success...

Also I believe he was 31 when he became mayor...only one year younger than Bill CLinton when he was elected Governor of Arkansas the first time...so his age is not going to be taken into account by people criticizing his record...

The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich
The Progressive magazine, November 2002

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip---
We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.
snip----
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.
snip---
If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Bloodstained_Path.html

It seems that Congressman Kucinich had a much better understanding of the situation in Iraq, prior to the invasion of Iraq, than 95% of our Democratic leaders at that time. Indeed, in retrospect, it is obvious that he displayed uncanny foresight, perceptiveness, common sense, intelligence, and excellent judgment in his assessment of the situation.

It is a tragic shame that so many of our Democratic legislators at that time did not listen to Congressman Kucinich, and follow his advice, before they gave a blank check to Bu*h to go to war by voting for the IWR. If our "accomplished" Senators and Representatives had listened to Dennis's sage advice, we would not be in this senseless, horrific blood and money sucking quagmire that is Iraq today.

Indeed, if they had listened to him, and voted against the IWR, it could have literally been one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of the US.

We all make mistakes; however, not all of us make mistakes that lead to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, mistakes that cost our nation hundreds of billions of dollars.

Dennis Kucinich did not make that mistake. So I'll vote to nominate him rather than the Dems that did make that mistake.

For some reason, the people of Cleveland seem to think DK is an excellent legislator. They continually re-elect him by overwhelming majorities. Perhaps one reason is because he saved them hundreds of millions of dollars by not selling Cleveland's power company to the banks.

thanks for filling my heart with hope.

Thanks for your encouragement.

Nothing scares the Right like optimistic progressives.

I've always admired the man and think he'd do a good job. But, I'm really hoping Gore will jump in. Maybe with Kucinich as Veep.
Crap, I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in the '08 race this early.

What now naysayers?

Stop buying into the MSM and Corporate Crap! A pauper's vote counts the same as a billionaire's (except when Diebolt is in charge of the count).

The sheep and the goats are being rapidly divided around here...and only 2 Democrats say they are going to run! I love it!

Cindy Sheehan thinks he is great and so does Willie nelson and they are my heros!!!!!!!!

Where do we sign up?

Thanks for signing on early.

Here's the link:


http://www.kucinich.us/

They really need a volunteer form, which I'm told will be up RSN.

I'm with him all the way this time. If somebody else gets the nomination, fine, but as long as he's in it, I'm for him.

With K in the race, the Dems are going to have their feet held to the fire.

Politics isn't just about winning; it's also about presenting principles and policies. I think Kucinich lives and breathes the highest principles that the Democratic Party and America stand for.

who will suck up all the money and media time.

We can support him; I voted for him last time around (changed my registration from Independent to Democrat to do so) and will do so again, but I harbor no illusions that he will get much in the way of votes, money or respect.

I don't think Rupert Murdoch holds fundraisers for Kucinich like he does for H Clinton.

but I don't seriously think the American people are ready to elect Jesus Christ either, if he also unfortunately looked like Gollum.

to go from a fascist bunch of thugs to a true liberal. Possible ? Sadly it isn't likely but ... stranger things have happened.

I was sure dennis would raise $1M in 24 hours. But I still can't get into the donate tab on his website. Is anyone else having this problem?

Still in beta test mode

every important issue there is to bring to the table. I'm so happy he has decided to run. I was concerned that Dennis wouldn't run. I really appreciate him @ debates.

n/t.

I can get behind Kucinich and his ideas for this country.

Anyone notice that the same people that are telling us Hillary can win (even though she is a woman) are telling us Kucinich can't be elected because he is too short? Think about this: would Rush's ditto head insecure male followers vote for a woman? No way. Would they vote for a short man? Yes, if they liked his ideas. Would the soccer moms vote for a short male? Why not, if they liked him. The ditto heads and soccer moms aren't looking for "tall, dark and handsome". They are looking for a strong leader with ideas they can relate to.

This country is ready for a change. The republicans are ready for a change too. The whole country could get behind an honest man. Kucinich is one of the few honest men in Washington. And he has the spine to stand up for what is right. He has the guts to speak the truth. Even republicans can respect that.

Kucinich is a good candidate, not only because of his ideas, but also because of his guts.

It's going to be a long, tough fight, but it will be rewarding.

Sounds like Dennis to me.
NOW, all WE have to do is get the WORD out!
I'll be sending DK my donation ASAP!

http://www.pdamerica.org/


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

how he'll do but I'll proudly vote for him if he got the nom. I love Dennis @ the debates because he speaks truth clearly enough for the people to understand.

declared Kerry was nominated(which they managed to do after only one or two primaries, with, in retrospect, no real justification).

I am refering to Proposition 87 that was just part of our election here in CA.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/prop/87/

n/t.

I will support him as far as he can run, because of his ideas, which need to be heard. You are right - he agrees with almost everything I see posted on DU. Can't win? Maybe not, but at least they will hear us.

And please, folks - can't we quit killing our own before they even get started? Some of the posts are good - "I don't like him because (this stand or the other)" but just attacking because one thinks he can't win is counterproductive. Who would have thought a draft-dodging drug addict alcoholic could win?

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Progressives should signal to one another that this is our guy and we plan to vote for him. This will maximize our influence. In the past we've diluted our influence among different candidates. My thinking was always, vote for the most liberal candidate with a good chance to win. Then I vote for them and they end up trying to spend the whole campaign acting like they aren't liberal. There are alot of progressives among primary voters. Maybe a better strategy is to stick together and make these less principled candidates commit to an agenda that includes some of our values in order to get Dennis' delegates.

This is an open field in 2008 and I believe Dennis could at least be a king or queenmaker in the process if progressives unite behind him. Who else can we really trust not to abandon us?

And who knows? Maybe he could win. Maybe he could gain exposure and momentum and people would start questioning some of their superficial media cultivated assuptions about who might make the best president. At very least he might blaze a trail for a future progressive.

While I want to end the war as soon as possible, cutting off Congressional funding to the troops may actually lead to more deaths and put them in more danger. It is irresponsible and politically stupid. The policy must change at the top; penalizing the troops is not the answer. Kucinich can go to hell.

We didn't give the president a blank check to wage this war and now its Vietnam all over again. Think the key word is "MAY" here.

I'll tell you whatever plan Kucinich has is for the good of us all, cause thats the kind of person he is!

If Dennis where president the Policy would change from the top to bottom!

DEPARTMENT OF PEACE!

If we cut off funds for the illegal occupation, and we leave the money to bring the troops home, the straw man that we are hurting the troops is exposed.

so they won't have enough money to fight stupid wars for the corporate masters.
Sounds good to me.

He will fully fund bringing the troops home, and believe me many of them wish they were home right now. By claiming he wants to cut funding to the troops you are repeating a GOP talking point.

he's the newest candidate for president - Congressman Dennis Kucinich joins us Wednesday morning at nine on 90.3.

>Download in MP3
>Listen to Dan's interview with Dennis Kucinich

http://www.wcpn.org/mp3/2006/1213soiKucinich.mp3

http://www.wcpn.org/soi/2006/1211.html


Once again, a presidential run with a conscience
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/dick_feagler/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1166003315125610.xml&coll=2

Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Dick Feagler
Plain Dealer Columnist

We have little to laugh about in this town. But let's not laugh at the fact that Dennis Kucinich is running for president again.

In 2004, his candidacy was greeted here with scorn. But not in this space.

I knew he would lose, but he was saying things nobody else was saying. And now we know that the things he was say ing have all come true.

Iraq has become a quagmire. That wasn't a popular idea back then. Dennis was ahead on that one. Too many people in his own party didn't have a clue...

If you have ever meet Dennis you would see, hes not like the others..HES REAL!

what does this man need to get his points across? fucking lamers!

I couldn't agree more

Who cares what the polls say, if we were to focus only on polling numbers and who the pundits say has the best chance we would have all been supporting Lieberman in the early days of the 2004 race.

I will vote for the person I believe has the best vision for our future, and that person is Dennis Kucinich.

Therefore, I will send him some financial support. I want to see him have as much air time to talk about his ideas on the war. The more air time he has, the more the other Dem candidates have to answer his/our position on getting out of Iraq.

He's the one driving the "Get Out Of Iraq" bus and I'm going to give him the fuel to keep him going. It doesn't matter to me how little chance he has to win the nomination.

and only recently changed...?

Regardless, he's unelectable in my opinion and I won't vote for him in the primary.

What was really sickening in 2004 was that the "Kucinich USED to be anti-choice" meme was used by the Dean people to justify progressive support for a candidate who was clearly to Kucinich's RIGHT on all major issues. I'm sorry, but the choice thing, by itself, was never a good enough reason to support a less-progressive candidate over a more progressive one.

And in retrospect, it is clear that Dean people wasted their votes by continuing to vote for Dean against Kucinich even AFTER Dean had withdrawn. Especially since Dean endorsed Kerry after getting no concessions from him on the war whatsoever.

We need a big bloc of grass-roots, progressive delegates who are NOT under the absolute control of the Beltway and the hacks. Kucinich delegates will be the only ones who will fit that category.

If your progressive and you vote AGAINST Dennis in the primary, you are effectively voting to give up on your principles for the year. Kerry was given progressive support way too early and with no questions asked in 2004. We can't allow that scenario to ever repeat itself.

That it's not the IWR that's important, but where he stands now?

Just curious to see if you're consistent.

But I don't see him running a better campaign the second time.

Some folks aren't much into forgiving Kerry regarding his IWR vote, or acknowledging that he reversed himself just as Dennis did on pro-life issues, or for that matter that Clark used to vote Republican. That bugs me, as it reminds me of a Conservative friend of mine who draws a conclusion about something or someone based on one issue that ticked him off, and then never revisits the issue/person again. As someone said, a conclusion is where someone stopped thinking. Pet peeve of mine. But anyway.

As for people running campaigns for 2008, I'm still waiting for half these people to announce. I refuse to gear up for primary season until I see the full rack of candidates.

At that time he was still running as the "I'll fight the war better" candidate and antiwar speeches were forbidden at the '04 convention(a convention that, as we can all see in retrospect, was a failure as political strategy and a complete waste of time and money, since the ticket got no bounce from the "no politics zone" strategy whatsoever).

Dennis, by comparison, HAD reversed himself on the choice issue before he started the 2004 campaign, and, even if he'd been nominated as a pro-lifer, would have been obligated to defend the pro-choice position as a candidate since the party's feelings on that issue were so deep.

Dennis' OLD position on choice was never justification for progressives to support more conservative candidates instead of him.

It's ok in terms of supporting him in 2008. It was a problem for 2004(I supported him in the fall nonetheless, and would do so again).

So I think I have established consistency on this now.

...afire. Dean used the Internet very effectively, and we can, too.

We have to stop, with every post we make, putting in a proviso that *even if he doesn't win*, he'll do a lot of good.

Let's help him win! Let's feel it, believe it, that America will respond to integrity attached to real, solid plans to turn our country around.

Dennis spoke of "this turning" in his speech yesterday. Let's help him turn this ship of state and chart a new course!

I'd give odds of 10,000 to 1 that Kucinich is the Democratic nominee. He may do a little better than 2004, but that's not exactly something to brag about.

If you support him and want him to run, by all means, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.

Not that I think DK will win but I'll enjoy your $10,000 cashier's check.


It's a bet! :party:


BOOKMARKING!

is pretty good reason to not get behind him. At least in my book.

against impeachment.

to be elected president?

Lincoln?

He served there 1847-49. Garfield on the other hand was a Congressman when he was elected in 1880.