DK Supporters: Why Edwards not Dean in 2004 and Obama not Edwards in 2008?

In 2004, Dean was the most viable vociferously anti-GOP and pro-middle class candidate at this point in the primary cycle. In response, Kucinich teamed with Edwards in the Iowa caucuses.

In 2008, Edwards is the most viable vociferously anti-GOP and pro-middle class candidate at this point in the primary cycle. In response, Kucinich is teaming with Obama in the Iowa caucuses.

Any theories?

And right now, I'm sticking with Kucinich. As to my second choice, we'll see.

in 2004.

As to why DK is supporting Obama as the second choice this time around, I am puzzled. My best guess is that he wants to block Hillary.

:shrug:

Dean was a left-centrist governor of VT, who played up his anti-war stance with left/progressives, even though many of his stances (healthcare, NAFTA) were to the right of Kucinich.

Edwards is much the same: he's got the rhetoric, but his record speaks otherwise.

EDITED TO ADD: Kucinich was not so much "pro-middle-class" as he is/was pro-working-class

2004. Dean was far more of a populist and anti-war. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass. It's unbecoming. And clearly you know jackshit or less about Dean and healthcare. I do. I'm a Vermonter, and though Dean was hardly a radical lefty, he was far, far more progressive in every way in 2004 than Edwards. Not. Even. Close.

The OP asked why Kucinich '04/'08 supporters didn't support Dean/Edwards. I was merely giving the perspective of one past Kucinich supporter (for the record, I am not supporting anybody this year).



And since I actually WORK in healthcare policy, and live in a state that has a higher percentage of insured than does Vermont-- and has since 1990, I kinda do know "jackshit" about healthcare, so don't pull that card on me.

Back when Howard Dean was getting the idea in the 90s, Minnesota was already delivering a quasi-universal system to its residents-- one signed into law by a REPUBLICAN administration, no less.

And Howard Dean had DLC connections in the 90s. His unabashed embrace of corporatism in the 1990s was one of the main reasons the peace/justice community didn't embrace his candidacy.

It's simply weasel words to say Dean had DLC connections when he was never a member of that organization.

Vermont had the highest number of children with health care coverage in the nation due to Dean's policies. Since you know so much about it, I'm sure you know that fact. And please provide some evidence that Minnesota during the 90s had a higher number of insured than Vermont. One thing's clear: Vermont is the healthiest state in the country- and a lot of that is due tot he emphasis that Dean placed on it in the 90's.

Dean had a moderate record as Governor, just like Edwards has a moderate record as a Senator. Dean used the language of a liberal but never had the platform. The thing to remember about Dean that many people didn't notice is that he said we would have to be in Iraq for another 2-5 years and he opposed cutting defense spending. Dean gets credit for opposing the war early but he didn't have a plan for ending the war or reducing defense spending that was any different than what Gephardt or Kerry were proposing. When it came to the question of "where do we go from here?" Dean was no different than the pro-war Democrats. Kucinich pointed that out often. He really got in Dean's face about it a few times.

So in 2004 we didn't really have an anti-war Democrat who opposed the war from the start AND had a plan to get out quickly other than Dennis and Sharpton. This time we do. Its Obama. No need to compromise. Plus, I think Dennis understands the importance of Obama's background as a left wing community organizer in a way that isn't getting attention in the net-roots campaign to paint Obama as a conservative.

about conciliation in comparison.

Dean was not a fake. He was an in your face fiscal moderate, social liberal. Nobody in 2004 other than DK advocated cutting defense spending.

Why Obama over Edwards now? I don't get it.

has a plan to get out now, talks about nuclear non-proliferation, which Dennis cares a lot about. I like what Edwards has to say but Obama is the one who has had the consistent record.

Dennis is a guy who has lost elections because he stood up for what he believes in. Why would he pick a guy like Edwards who took a lot of bad votes to pander to conservatives as Senator? Or is he pandering to liberals now in order to get elected President? Either way, its not how Dennis does things.

Dennis also cares a lot about economic issues and knows that Obama got his start in politics by knocking on doors in the housing projects on the South side of Chicago. They both come from a background of left wing movement politics while Edwards does not.

Whose campaign is closer to Kucinich's on these issues?

He never claimed to be anything that he wasn't. But here in VT, Dean was passionate about providing health care. And it wasn't just Dr. Dynosaur. You provide, of course, not a single link for your claims. Dean was passionately against the Iraq war, and in Vermont that was the mainstream position. You're simply throwing around bullshit.

No, he was not. I think one reason he lost Iowa is that people saw him moving back to the middle in December before the caucus. I guess he thought he had the primary all sown up.
If he was passionately anti-war he would have had a plan to get out instead of staying in for several more years and keeping pentagon spending levels high. He had the right language but nothing to back it up.

to prove your case. Dean was and is a common sense kind of guy. Remember his comment about the capture of Saddam. Look, I know exactly who Dean is. He was my governor for 11 years. You clearly don't really know much about him at all. Let me guess you were either a passionate Kucinich supporter or a passionate Kerry supporter. Whatever else he is, Dean is straight forward.

Are you denying that Dean used the "democratic wing" line all the time in order to sound like he's a Paul Wellstone liberal? I remember the debates. I remember what Dean said about being in Iraq for 2-5 years. I don't need a link. Google it if you do.

Yes, I was a Kucinich supporter last time and I remember meeting liberals who mistakenly thought Dean shared their views on many issues. They must have gotten that idea from somewhere. It was the most dishonest and fake campaign I've seen in any Democratic Presidential Primary.

It looks pretty good in comparison to Edwards' this go round.

didn't stop you from shitting on every Dean thread in 2004 primaries.

Dean in 2003 represented a way to still vote Democrat while being a progressive, which is what I am. He was an antiwar, social liberal, fiscal conservative. We can start to see what fiscal irresponsibility has cost us, a $9 trillion dollar deficit and climbing. We can start to see what the war has cost us, in case we couldn't see in 2003. Social programs are at great risk because of that reckless spending. Interest on our debt prevents us from funding social security or single payer health insurance. It takes a fiscal conservative to understand that. Or, it takes a Dennis Kucinich, who has made most of the right decisions the first time. ;)

I never cared that much for Dean in his early years as governor, he was a moderate, much to the right of myself, but he was always there for education and gay rights, as well as other social issues. To be fair, he took over after Republican governor Snelling passed away, so he stepped into a conservative administration.

Fast forward to January 2008 and once again Kucinich does the illogical thing by backing a corporatist instead of a progressive. It makes no sense, unless it is out of spite. Most progressives see Edwards as the only hope in this election. Clinton and Obama are Wall Street corporatists. Arguably Clinton is the worse, but that is splitting hairs.

I saw in a thread eleswhere, Obama saying Dennis should've been included in a debate. Maybe it's as simple as that.