Kucinich Supporters - Can Someone PLEASE provide a PLAUSIBLE explanation for his support of OBAMA?

Anyone . . .

Anyone . . .

Crickets.

I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice," Kucinich said in a statement. "But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.”

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/kucinich_obama_is_my_second_ch.html

that is why I asked for a "PLAUSIBLE" explanation.

I'm still waiting for one.

Krash

JE and he seem to be dealing with some bad blood.

We can blame Nader for other stuff.

be because of the JE/Clinton exchange that was caught on tape at a debate -- wanting to winnow out the second tier so they could have serious debates. He thought DK might still be pissed at that.

I believe Edwards should be over Obama.

maybe not by his rhetoric, but certainly by his record, which is what matters most.
It's easy for any candidate to pander to primary voters. We can see Republicans like Romney do that. Obama has built a record from his time in the State Senate of consistently supporting progressive causes.

I'd rank him 3rd or 4th most progressive.

Go look at the ratings by the ADA or National Journal.
They put him first among the Senators running.

Go look at his record in the Illinois State Senate, where he led the fight against the death penalty.

2. . . . let me just say that no matter who wins, it is absolutely great that economic populism has taken center stage so far in the presidential contest. Thanks to candidates like John Edwards and Mike Huckabee ignoring the Punditburo's attacks and trumpeting the populist line, Wall Street-backed candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had to resort to posing as populists as well - and that's a good thing. The more candidates channeling the public's righteous anger at corporate greed and economic inequality, the better.

(Emphasis added) http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/thoughts_about_iowa_after_vacation

on an opinion from an untrustworthy Edwards supporter.

Thanks for making it clear that we are indeed on different universes.

Stick to actions please, not words.

they do not show anything because many times people vote no or yes for reason that have nothing to do with the bill - or in Mr Obama's case "present". Its the actual stands that count.

I think you must be, and the fumes are getting to you. Put the tube down and open a window and get some fresh air!

Obama progressive? What about his promoting the anti-gay preacher with a "cure" for being gay? That's not progressive, that's backwoods right wing ape shit crazy.

And he does love his lobbyists...bad for Americans who want change. :(

other supporters.

You care about what candidates say and who they are associated with.

I care more about what they do. That's what matters in the end. That's what affects people's lives.

I've never said Edwards was perfect, and I don't agree with him on everything, but I believe he is the best one to fix the problems this country is facing.

Don't tell me I approve of McClurkin's theories.

Obama made it clear that he disagreed with McClurkin. I thought he should have also kicked him off the tour, but just because I support Obama after that doesn't mean I approve of McClurkin's theory.

You need to learn some basic logic and stop hurling accusations like that.

div class="excerpt"]I care more about what they do. That's what matters in the end. That's what affects people's lives.

When Tucker asked, why not Clinton or Edwards? Kucinich answered that he believes Obama to be "sincere." Make of it what you will, but combined with the anger he's shown toward Edwards this year, he appears to simply not believe John Edwards' transformation into a progressive.

It's a political deal, plain and simple. If his supporters don't have a viable subcaucus (which will probably happen in most precincts), he said they should join the Obama subcaucus. By joining a viable subcaucus, some of DK's supporters may get to go on to the county-level conventions-- something that would NEVER happen if they were not in a viable subcaucus. Oftentimes, the subcaucus leader may offer delegate seats to lure members of other subcaucuses over to their side.

Delegates to the county-level convention are only committed to their candidate on the FIRST BALLOT ONLY-- if it takes more than one ballot to endorse a candidate, convention delegates may vote for whomever they choose on the second and subsequent ballots. Which means that, if Obama doesn't get the endorsement on the first ballot, these delegates may vote for somebody else later.

Also, by going on to the county-level convention, these DK supporters/Obama delegates may get to have some influence on the platform, and the party itself.

I want an explanation for why THE most progressive candidate in the race (Kucinich), wouldn't throw his support behind the SECOND most progressive in the race (Edwards), instead of behind Obama, who is arguably the FOURTH most progressive (Dodd being the 3rd).

And I'm STILL waiting . . .

Edwards has the rhetoric, Obama has the record. They're both about the same to this Kucinich '04 supporter. Quite frankly, both are a sad compromise.

I was wondering why Obama and not someone who fit Dennis' politics better, like Edwards.

Obama and Edwards are not that far apart, and are more similar than they are different. Edwards has the more populist rhetoric, but his record in the Senate wasn't much different than Obama's.

DK probably sees Obama as having better numbers in Iowa, so he's suggesting his supporters join an Obama subcaucus, increasing the number of delegates Obama will get, therefore increase the chances of DK supporters going on to further conventions (county, CD and state).

Politics is all about numbers. A lot of people seem to forget that around here.

Crickets

And the answer can be found in this article.....

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/kucinich-hits-edwards-with-newspaper.html

Apparently Dennis was understandably concerned that Edwards was getting some big financial help from the family of Richard Mellon Scaife, by way of a 527 group.

in that article?!

Seems pretty obvious.

made me think they activated his chip.

Obama is the only frontrunner who might bring change.

How can you have crickets when you didn't ask the question yet?

It's a mystery for the X-Files

During one of the debates Hillary told Edwards we have to get rid of the lower tier candidates from the debate. Edwards agreed, and it pissed off Dennis

I am not sure if that is true or not, but the aragonce of the Democratic party machinary can be very demoralizing.

Kucinich is kicked off the ballot in Texax because he won't sign a "loyalty" oath that he will support the Democratic candidate

That sound more like a republican tactic doesn't it

Don't get me wrong, I would hope any of the Democratic candidates would support whoever the nominee is, but requiring what comes down to a loyalty oath to be on the ballot sure rubs me the wrong way

It could make Kuch viable in a few, himself.