Question for everybody that isn't voting for Dennis Kucinich

Aren't going to feel guilty when "we" invade Iran and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and also thousands of our own troops ? No offense but I think many of you are ignorant to what's going on with our party now, sure our reps and candidates may be technically "Democrats" but their allegiance is to another party, the Neoconservative party. I mean come on, wake the fuck up already, the only evidence you need is that the "Democratically" controlled congress has still not gotten us out of Iraq even after controlling congress for almost a year, and even worst they've almost unanimously passed a few resolutions condemning Iran and setting up the stage for war. For Christ's sake, Nancy Pelosi stripped out the provision which forces Bush to get approval from congress before attacking Iran.

Please wake up from your slumber.




And one more thing, I don't really care about Kucinich, I would vote for ANYBODY who's going to guarantee that no more innocent blood will be shed. I begin to lose my mind when I think about all of the poor Iraqi civilians who have died or had loved ones die because of the illegal war.

That's a rather large claim you are asking people to accept, to put it nicely.

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying and anybody with a good understanding of foreign policy and Neoconservatism would agree with me. Every candidate on both sides, with the exceptions of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul, have all said that they are open to invading Iran. Do a little research on your candidate before supporting them. Now why would somebody whose constituents are mostly anti war come out in favor of another war with a country who hasn't done anything to us ? Because they're trying to appease the neocons. Are you telling me that they're just lying to get elected and once they get elected they're not going follow through with anything they have said ? Yeah if it makes you sleep at night you can think that. But most people realize that they want to get elected again, and to do so they need all the neocon support they can get. Just read their quotes on Iran and look at their voting record on Iran too.

Telling us to do the research to back up your claim doesn't sound fair, does it? You present the evidence in support of your claim, and I'll consider it.

Hillary
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ulGiPp0LQ
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/04/hillarys_iran_dilemma.html
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/18/news/14290.shtml
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177514487245&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Obama
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=860406&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/08/30/2007-08-30_hit_iran_where_it_hurts.html
http://americanfuture.net/?p=2636

Edwards
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=161493
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400
http://www.forward.com/blogs/campaign-confidential/iran-hawk-john-edwards/
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/02/john_edwards_ge.html




Get the gist, or do I have to go through all the other candidates too ?

Obama specifically states that war with Iran would be a profound mistake in at least two of those links. Edwards, all you have is one speech in front of an Israeli audience. For Hillary, the standard, "all options on the table" rhetoric.

None of which means any of them are intent upon invading Iran. I find your evidence insufficient.

Spot on. I decided some time ago that I'd support Dennis at the caucus ... he's the only genuinely indie liberal on the dem ticket, making him a true subversive in an ever shifted-to-the-right country. As usual, this rightward shift is typified by the substantial support of the more prominent media-persona-celebrity candidates which will work diligently for the military-industrial complex...yet many of their supporters don't seem to understand that particular ruse, perhaps out of a need to feel that the most popular candidates in one of the Name Brand parties is on their side. In a rightist country, those who encompass genuinely liberal philosophy are deemed traitorous at best, and "crazy" at worst. And such agenda-setting perceptions certainly don't stem from FOX "news" alone...

--but they are all going along with the bullshit that Iran is some kind of unique threat, for which a military option has to be "kept on the table." All the frontrunners have said it is "unacceptable" for Iran to join the nuclear club. That's bullshit as well. Of course anyone rational would prefer that not to happen on the general grounds that proliferation is a bad thing, but General Abizaid is at least being rational and sensibly regards it as not the kind of serious threat that would require a military response. Iran would have to be nuts not to want to joint the club, seeing as how they are surrounded by the nuclear powers of Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia.

You'd never know, to hear any of our "leading" candidates, that no Persian government has waged an aggressive attack on a neighbor since the Sassanid Dynasty, well over 1000 years ago.

even if he/she is a Democrat (with Kucinich being the only exception)?

Because if you're saying that chimpy is going to do so, how does my supporting, or not supporting, Kucinich make any difference?

Or maybe logic isn't your strong suit.

that would be a nod in the right direction. The media has completely ignored him and so have the people. I don't understand it either, I see so many people talking as if they really truly care to see the bloodshed stop and they feel very bad for the people dieing but I don't think the war is that important to most? I am voting Kucinich for many reasons but the reason I'm not voting on any of the others is because they gave Bush a loaded weapon and continued to give him ammo when he asked. Kucinich said the war was about oil back in 2002 but the others either didn't see it, didn't want to lose political ground and hurt their political careers or had their hand in the cookie jar. Either way they continued the deaths and because they have national non stop advertising through the media, they have national support.

We will see after the primaries where the war ranks in the issues to the Americans.

Simple as that. It's up to us to get the word out.

-Hoot

Your post is a mess.

Do you in fact sense a huge percentage of DUers in favor of an invasion of Iran? Or anywhere else?

I don't.

Then why are you and most DUers in favor of candidates who support war with Iran. See that's what bothers me the most, most of you probably are against war in general but you've been bamboozled. At least the republican pieces of shit who are voting for pro war candidates actually are hoping for another war.

right now I hope we bomb the crap out of any country that has the misfortune to be sitting on our oil.

The more devastation and carnage, the better.

You've absolutely, comprehensively NAILED my political gullibility. You're a damn genius.

There ya go.

Happy?

Call me old-fashioned.

the backdrop of U.S. policy toward Iran.

It's codswallop, as points go.

Awesome! I didn't think I'd be able to balance sound fiscal policy, a drawdown in Iraq, and an expansion of health care with a crazy-ass war! It's like the perfect package! It's like, "hey, here's a balanced budget, here's the National Guard returning from Iraq, here's a diplomatic team being dispatched to Lebanon...and here's a pack of motherfuckin' JDAMs droppin' on Tehran! Woo! Didn't see that one comin', didja, beeyotch!?"

Tool.

You hear and read what he says about Iran yet you still ignore it. I feel sorry for you.

in fact our next president.

Are you going to denounce the majority of U.S. voters for their "ignorance" and stupidity? Are you going to "feel sorry" for them?

I ask because that's how democracies work. This is a Constitutional Republic. So-designed by the Founders and basically intact this evening.

Certainly I cannot rule out the possibility that the Constitution will be tossed away and you personally shall be the sole Founder of a new document which obtains to your preconditions and expectations.

But it does strain credulity, and my best hunch is that the current document and present system will be the operative entities of the 2008 election, barring catastrophic and unforeseen circumstance.

That leaves you, very likely, with a 44th U.S. president that you clearly can't stomach.

Ya gonna move or what?

predicting a war with Iran every month for years now. Don't you get tired of taking every single development in world politics as "proof" we're going to be invading Iran soon?

You know very little of geopolitics. You know very little of domestic politics. You know next to nothing of the philosophy of neoconservativism and its influence. You're a crank fed on blogs and forums, and a tiresome one at that. You see, the problem with trying to play don't-say-I-didn't-warn-you expert on the internet is that eventually you're going to run across someone who actually knows what the fuck he's talking about.

of us and beyond us believe it ruthless to kill pointlessly, or for mere greed.

I do not believe most of our Democrats are "neoconservatives" as you charge. That is baseless codswallop and may the ghost of Bella Abzug visit you shortly and whomp the everlovin crap out of you for saying such an irresponsible and historically invalid thing.

The 110th U.S. Congress is 8 months convened. History takes a bit of time to unfold. It takes a lot longer than it ought to, perhaps, to enact meaningful reform, but it took Lincoln himself a while to evolve on the subject of slavery, and he won some virulent enemies in the process of self-growth; still longer was the process of persuading people who violently disagreed with him that a change was required of their basic ideological hinges.

A very gifted and insightful South African novelist once said that History is resistant to change and punishes those who try to rush her.

I'd like a perfect world, set to my personal terms and conditions, by this weekend at the latest.

ABSENT THAT POSSIBILITY, I'm going to try to remain alert and navigate the landscape as it happens to appear before me.

You like Kucinich? So do I. Vote for him if you wish. I personally love the guy but believe his likelihood for the Oval Office is extraordinarily remote -- this well apart from any media treatment. He's emailing fesity messages to AARP in Iowa instead of finding more imaginative ways to expand his support so that the worthy ideas he's offering can be heard by more to greater impact.

Leave Iran aside for a moment. Kucinich is not going to be our next president. Is he a true heart? Yes. Is he smart and tough and real? Yes. Have I admired and respected him for decades since the Cleveland years? Definitely. But:

He polled 9% against Kerry's 37 or so and Edwards' 32 or so in the Ohio 04 primary, and that's the bottom line for victory apparatus with Kucinich.

If you have a way of ending the impulse of the Bush administration to launch unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, let's hear it.

That would be a lot more productive than suggesting that supporters of other Democratic candidates need to "wake the fuck up" -- to use your charming, conversational phrase.

That's the only reason why DK polls so low.

Good man, but no national constituency to speak of.

Vote for him. I understand his virtues perhaps better than you do and very likely for a logner period.

But he is not going to break 5-6 percent, if he gets that, and he'll sputter to the finish well back of the pack.

You're left with a bitter truth here, as you no doubt realize. A good man is not supported in sufficient numbers to become our 44th president.

Your anger tonight is directed at supporters of the candidate who will very likely be the 44th president.

Obama? Clinton? Edwards? Biden? Richardson?

I like their odds better than Kucinich's.

I forgot what it's called but I'm sure somebody here has heard of it. I guarantee almost every single democrat who takes the survey will see that he or she lines up with Kucinich on almost everything. Now what possible explanation could there be that somebody who agrees with Democrats more than all of the other candidates is polling less than the other candidates ? The mainstream media is why .

regarding opinion on individual issues for that statement, right?

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

"Self-selected sample comprised of mainly Internet politicos" and "random sample." It would explain your rock-solid belief that everyone supports DK's ideas, for one.

Liberals agree with DK, not conservatives.


take the quiz for yourself.
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/

Join us on the issues as you please, but people align with chosen candidates for more reasons than you've bothered to list.

You're free to question their judgment. But they're just as free to call you a jerk if you do it in as poor form as you've done it here tonight.

You like Kucinich? Great. A lot of us do.

That doesn't require our voting for him over someone else we've already chosen.

It also doesn't make us ruthless via your lame-ass Iran argument.

And you might want to take that into account. Root FOR your guy all you want. Try harder to do it without smearing everybody else.

sorry bro, but I'm not going to play nice when we're talking about NUCLEAR WAR

If candidates were only judged by what they say they support and voters only voted for them based on that you would be correct.

However you have left out some very basic facts about human nature. We measure and judge our leaders by many, many other factors, such as- are they being honest?, are they effective advocates?, can they back up their pronouncements?, do they have a track record to measure these things against?

Of course I have left off a whole lot of other important quantifiers, some important and some less so (ie.height,hair,health etc).

Many who would agree with Kucinich see him as ineffective and not serious about even his own campaign (except Hawaii), so they look elsewhere.

Thanks

you forgot to blame all corporations and "the powers that be."

Or are you just pissed that your candidate hasn't captured the mass imagination and venting? No shame in that; I do it too.

I value reasoned discourse and would like a chance to look into any valid claims you might have. I promise i won't be too judgmental...

:)

Well, the big 900-pound-gorilla of an issue is that he wants to outlaw civilian ownership of handguns. This is an absolute non-starter for me, and a principle I can't compromise on any more than I could reproductive choice or religious freedom.

More generally, he strikes me as Carteresque: moral, wonkish, smart, doctrinaire, reductionist, and I think like Carter he would have difficulty getting any of his ideas to happen. He also has Carter's ability to be more a source of guilt than of inspiration. Yes, that's "style over substance", but the Presidency is 90% style anyways.

Of course with a man like Kucinich, some of his ideas are going to fall flat. The American public would NEVER allow the gov't to abolish citizen ownership. I don't recall a single mention of this btw in his book A Prayer for America and since that covers most of his important speeches since 2000, i'd be curious as to a source or context on that gorilla.

Ahhh, Carter. What was wrong with Carter? As long as we can prod Congress into accepting the ideas of Kucinich's that we DO like... as for being "moral, wonkish, smart, doctrinaire, reductionist", well some of these things are positive attributes in a President. He's got the substance. And he listens to the people! Don't like what he's doing? Tell him, he's like Helen Thomas, he'll get back to you.

As for style, have you seen his wife lately?

I don't know. I feel like nearly everyone is JUST ITCHING to find an excuse to dismiss Dennis. (picture Rodney D here...) "No respect! I don' get no respect at all!"

:shrug:

From http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819

"Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill."

6 years of */Cheney/Karl have removed any leeway I was ever going to give the government to disarm the citizenry.

Ahhh, Carter. What was wrong with Carter?

It's like Cato (the Roman general, not the LA slacker): being morally and intellectually right isn't enough in politics. You have to be able to cut deals and get stuff done; otherwise you end up falling on your own sword in Utica.

where i'm at is the world is beyond the "cutting deals and getting stuff done" stage. That's really not going to do it anymore. Those deals need to be WELL PLANNED WITH FULL TRANSPARENCY, and the things getting done need to NOT LINE THE POCKETS OF THE RICH.

As for the guns thing, what can i say? It could never fly right now... but maybe in a few years after the Dept of Peace has been established, all the Rethug perps are in jail or hiding out in Paraguay, the Dept of Justice has been worked out and the whole world is in disarmament mode... towards the end of a second term, we could all have a dialogue about the concept.

It's true "being morally and intellectually right isn't enough in politics"... but isn't that a great place to start? And the President has the ability to surround himself with the best staff and support. With SUPPORT, DK gets things done.


I'm not saying Kucinich is "perfect", what i'm saying is that he won't cave or compromise when it comes to the things that are important TO ACTUAL PEOPLE. Can you remember the last time a President actually worked for the people? That's important to me.

:shrug:

What exactly are you talking about?

I had meant to reply to the OP. Sorry about that.

His timing couldn't be better: just as the Dems and GOP are at loggerheads over whether to fund the Iraq war and whether timetables must be part of the bill--along comes Joe Biden with a solution. He just introduced an amendment that calls for the adoption of his long-tenured proposal to separate the warring factions into three semi-autonomous regions under a decentralized federal system. There is simply no other viable option on the table. As journalist Jeff Greenfield noted, Iraqis are already adopting this plan on a de facto basis.

The Biden amendment has won wide endorsement and you can expect the Senate sinking deeper in to this quagmire to grab this life preserver of an amendment.

FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE IN SUPPORT OF THE BIDEN-GELB PLAN:
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
Former Secretary of State James Baker
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTS IN SUPPORT OF THE BIDEN-GELB PLAN:
Former Iraq Defense Minister Ali Allawi
Former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke
Ambassador Dennis Ross, Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Ambassador Richard Haass, President Council on Foreign Relations
Michael O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Yahia Said, Director, Iraq Revenue Watch
Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, CATO Institute
Walter Russell Mead, Council on Foreign Relations
Anne Marie Slaughter, Dean of Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University
Eric Leaver, Institute for Policy Studies Research Fellow
Juan Cole, Middle East scholar and prominent blogger
David Phillips, Council on Foreign Relations, author of Losing Iraq

PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN SUPPORT OF THE BIDEN-GELB PLAN:
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico (D)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN)
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, National Security Advisor of Iraq
Congressman Chris Van Hollen
Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy
Iowa House Assistant Majority Leader John Whitaker
Iowa State Rep. Doris Kelley
Rep. Lisa Heddens of Ames (assistant majority leader, Iowa house)
Rep. Mike Reasoner of Creston (assistant majority leader, Iowa house)
Rep. Dick Taylor of Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Jack Carter, the son of former President Jimmy Carter, and Democratic candidate, Nevada
New Hampshire officials:
State Representative-Elect Jim Webber (D-Kensington)
Former State Representative Scott Green
Sanbornton Town Democratic Chair Andy Sanborn
State Rep. Bill Hatch (D-Gorham)
Rep. Stephen Shurtleff (D-Penacook)
Eileen Foley, who served for 16 years as Mayor of Portsmouth
Bob Preston of Hampton, a former Democratic Leader of the New Hampshire State Senate
Joseph Russell, former Secretary of the Stratham Democrats
Representative Michael Marsh (D-Greenland)
New Hampshire State Representative and Police Sergeant Mark Preston
Manchester Fire Commissioner and New Hampshire State Representative Robert Haley
Detective Steve Arnold, former President of the New Hampshire Police Association

Former Clinton White House Public Affairs Director Bob Weiner

EDITORIAL PAGES AND COLUMNISTS IN SUPPORT OF BIDEN-GELB:
Tony Blankley, Washington Times
Michael Hirsh,
Las Vegas Review-Journal, Editorial Board
Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times columnist
David Brooks, New York Times
Philadelphia Inquirer, Editorial Board
David Broder, Washington Post columnist
Jackson Diehl, Washington Post columnist
David Ignatius, Washington Post columnist
Bill O'Reilly, Fox News
George Packer, The New Yorker
Portland Press Herald (ME) editorial board
Delaware News Journal editorial board
The Barre Montpelier Times Argus (VT) editorial board
St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board
The Journal Standard (IL) editorial board
Marilou Johanek, Toledo Blade (OH) columnist

Biden is one of the few candidates that I place on my list of being potentially worse than Hillary.

That's nice.

More on Biden's plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Here are Kucinich's totals and percentages for the caucus/primary contests in 2004.

Good showings in Hawaii and Minnesota, Maine, and Ohio.

Not so good everyplace else.

I look at the candidate and see someone I've admired a long time.

But I look at the way the 08 campaign is being run and I'm not seeing a national constituency being cobbled together.

Much less an electoral college win for any general election if in Democratic primaries the candidate never once breaks 1/3 of the total vote.

Out with the bad air...In with the good air...

Out with the bad air...In with the good air...

Out with the bad air...In with the good air.

There. Feel better? You seem a little tense.

However, I do not think that 'most' of the other candidates would bomb Iran at some time in the future if they became president tommorrow. I do think that Hillary and Biden are likely to be convinced to do so. I think it is unlikely that Edwards or Richardson would. Obama I am uncertain about. Of course Kucinich is the only candidate that I am certain would not bomb Iran but I don't think blanket statements are that useful in this regard.

There are a lot of reasons to support Kucinich outside of the avoidance of violence as foreign policy and I do strongly believe that the media has been playing kingmaker with regards to Democrat candidates. It amazes me that they were not doing so with the same pushiness with Republican candidates. Is it possible that the Democrats are a bit more inconvenient to them and that controlling the gate is more important there?

Why are some candidates given more attention than others in this regard?

Funny post. I'm planning on voting for Dennis in my primary, but I'm not so stupid as to think that casting that vote will prevent bushco from bombing Iran.

And you are ignorant as shit. Congress has NO power to stop bush from bombing Iran or Toronto for that matter. Try reading the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

I would advise the people who read this thread to understand that the OP does not represent the vast majority of DK supporters. I may agree to some extent about the Dem Party not standing up to challenges often enough. But i like to use Positive Reinforcement and Non-Violent Communication. After all, PP said it himself "I don't really care about Kucinich"...

Peace...

and VOTE FOR DK IN YOUR PRIMARY! HOORAY!

:)

He's not presidential, he's not really a leader and he would get nothing done if he was elected as President, which is as likely as a four-headed Martian waiting on you at a Taco Bell tonight. He can barely run his own campaign.

As for Obama, he would not invade Iran. That's a meme some Kucinich supporters try to lie about to somehow get support for their candidate. It's pathetic. On that note, I generally really like most Kucinich supporters I run into and understand their mission.

You want the truth. There it is...good luck with your candidate. Support yours and I'll support mine.

I think his honesty and constant speaking of the things really going on in politics would wake up Americans and be able to make some change in the country. He would probably be assassinated but that would piss people off too because they would realize that the system is corrupted and ran by money and corporations. I don't see any other candidate making a stand like he does on real issues, he is very direct and doesn't lightly touch on an issue, he confronts it directly. If we continue to sleep at the wheel, the career politicians that the media gives us will continue the path to corporate profits at our expense.


Someone show me your candidates address on this situation thats happening right in front of everyones candidate. Is your candidate for the people or for the money? Whats better for our future? Don't be afraid to watch the clip, its short.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpD8csRt0lg

He has no staffers or offices in Iowa. All the other candidates has some presence in Iowa, but Kuch can't be bothered with Iowa.

We went through this in 2004 and he didn't reach even 5%.

And Kucinich isn't the stopgap guard against invading Iran. I reject the notion that all others guarantee invasion. That's just nonsense.

The administration is trying to extrapolate the blank check they got with the IWR to cover action in Iran. THAT is the deal-breaker for me. I will not reward any of the knuckleheads that abdicated their Congressional war-declaring powers to an idiot with the IWR.

Of the contenders on deck that can actually garner the nomination, I support Obama.

Or do you believe that advertising doesn't work in America? I had never heard of Kucinich back in 2004 and I only learned of him from this site. I have been following the elections and had no idea Kucinich or his ideas existed. Why do you think Clinton is so far ahead in the polls, its certainly not her record or who she stands for, she gets national coverage the most. Same reason Obama and Edwards fall in the polls relative to their amount of coverage. If you believe that they get their time because it reflects the polls and what people want, you have lost touch with the fact that the media is agenda driven and doesn't cover what we want, they cover what they want and what supports their agenda. Look at the march on September 15th, would you agree that the majority of the country is against the war, why didn't they cover that then? People against the war are a higher percentage than any percentage of people a candidate has but it was left out? Hmmm maybe, just maybe the media and the system don't want to promote someone that stands for the people and is against corporations running our bought government.

If we continue to elect people to run our country with our eyes and ears closed, things to come are going to be much worse for us.

I'm worried it would be another Carter: a guy with morals, integrity, and intellect to spare who ends up being stymied by the bureaucracy, becoming a micromanager, and setting back the progressive cause by a decade for his seeming "incompetence".

We need to adopt Ralph Reed's strategy. I'd rather have progressive school board and city council members all over the country to re-invigorate the Democratic party from within than put all our chips down on one hand right now. Dean's starting to do that, but it's going to take another 3 or 4 election cycles to really kick in.

If you like I can point you to numerous posts and diaries I have made on DU and other web sites for well over two years now warning that the United States was moving toward attacking Iran. I have been out organizing against this for a long long time now. I am NOT slumbering through this threat, but being awake to it does not force me into Kucinich's camp.

There are many good reasons to vote for Dennis Kucinich, and his position on Iran is an excellent example of one. I am glad that Dennis Kucinich is running for President, I want his voice to have that platform. Dennis would do everything sane in his power to prevent an avoidable war with Iran were he to become President. I agree with you there and I applaud Dennis for that.

Now the harsh cold reality. Dennis Kucinich is not going to get elected President. Even if all the voters in the nation who agreed with his position on Iran supported Dennis for that reason, he would not be elected President. Too many voters, Democrats included, support attacking Iran at the point when they can be convinced that Iran is about to acquire weapons grade uranium, if some deal isn't struck with Iran before then. That is not the reality I choose, that is the reality we are confronted with.

I have absolutely no argument with anyone who chooses to support Dennis Kucinich for President. In my opinion a vote for Dennis does have real meaning, but it is not a vote that will help result in electing Kucinich President. And only by electing Kucinich President would a vote for him guarantee that no innocent blood will get shed because of a showdown with Iran. I don't care how often the argument is made that if everyone who agrees with Dennis on the issues voted for Dennis he would win the nomination. Even if that were true, everyone who agrees with Dennis on the issues will NOT vote for Dennis, no matter how many times you repeat the logic why you think that they should. We went through this before in 2004. Only a minority of those who agreed with Dennis on the issues voted for him in 2004, the same will be true again this time, and not because of a post like me or others like me pointing out that harsh reality. We are not so influential that our observations on cold reality will swing millions of votes away from Dennis Kucinich that he otherwise would have gotten. There are good reasons to support Dennis Kucinich now, but thinking we can get him elected President in 2008 is not one of them.

There are third party candidates who I agree with on the issues more than I do with most if not all Democrats running for President. I won't vote for them either when my highest priority is trying to elect the best viable candidate President. Sometimes that is not my highest priority. Sometimes, because the difference between the viable candidates is so narrow and relatively meaningless, and because I want to help build an alternative movement, I vote for someone who I know has no actual chance to win, given their resources and the current climate. I understand that argument, but I reject a "guilt" argument that says not voting for Dennis now puts Iranian and American blood on my hands if war comes with Iran, because only if it were possible that Dennis Kucinich actually might be elected President does that argument have validity.

To be honest, I think more can actually be accomplished to head off war with Iran if supporters of candidates like Obama, Edwards, and Clinton make the effort now to press hard on their chosen candidates on this issue, while they are each desperately trying to woo our support. If you have influence in any campaign, at whatever level, I think those seeking to head off war with Iran need to be leaning hard on their chosen candidates around this one. We need their public statements to walk back from the brink of echoing the demonizing of Iran that the neocons are pushing with too many Democrats walking in lock step. If supporters of Obama, if supporters of Edwards, if supporters of Clinton and others make it known that their support can not be taken for granted if these supposed leaders do not start presenting a more balanced world view to the voters, one that does not reinforce the Bush team message that Iranians are insane and irrationally aggressive, that can do more I think to head off this war than any politically correct protest vote.

http://www.usaelectionpolls/2008/candidates/Dennis-Kucinich/html

Just click on any candidates picture and the info will come up. This is a very comprehensive site.

...because by the time my primary happens, in all likelihood, Dennis will not be capable of securing the nom.

I'd love to be wrong about that, but I doubt I'll be eating any crow over this prediction.

difficult choice between kucinich, and possibly edwards. Kucinich is the best candidate, but I don't believe he will be elected, so I am afraid that if I vote for him I will be wasting a vote which could be fruitful against Hillary, thus helping to bring her (and the right wing of the party) into power. It is a difficult call. Unfortunatley I think it is more important to keep Hillary out than to speak my mind.

who would do anything and everything possible to avoid ANY armed conflict...

All of the other "major" candidates could be easily herded into another stampede for another corporate war...

He's a good guy, but has no chance in hell of winning. Sorry, but them's the facts, unpleasant though they may be.

for the objective analysis...

:eyes:

That's another issue. We will continue to have this discrepancy between wants and reality until we completely reform the election/campaign process.

Kucinich has no official campaign in Iowa.

The reason is classic party platform politics.

Dennis CANNOT WIN the Presidency. He's irritating as hell and pisses off people who do not think, people who are stupid, bigoted, narrow-minded and the like. That's a significant portion of the electorate that will not like DK and thus not vote for him.
He's right most of the time, but sheeple don't care about little things like that. He's smart, but likewise.
He's charm-challenged and always has been. Substance and integrity by themselves will NOT get you to the White House.

(I like the guy, but then I'm in IT and share a lot of the same personality characteristics.)


But Dennis can do something very important with my primary vote.

He will push the platform to the left. That's reason enough to vote for him in the primary.

1) He's not going to win the primary much less the general election. And 2) Unless bushCo. sends in the Marines (what Marines does he have left to send?) before January it's not going to happen in any event.