email from Kucinich re: NH, Iowa and Edwards

Well, this explains the Obama thing, anyway...

Dear Supporter,

For the record:

1. New Hampshire is the first state where we are aggressively campaigning. Due to the Party lockout in Iowa, we chose to focus on New Hampshire.
2. I am the only person running for President who voted against the war, against funding the war 100% of the time, against the Patriot Act, and who stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system. Nevertheless I was excluded from Saturday night's ABC Presidential debate, or four tone monologue as it was.
3. In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.

He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.

While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.

We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.

We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity.

Dennis Kucinich

Interesting stuff!

but my feelings about the Fortress thing mirror his.

Obama is overwhelmingly supported by small donors. The vast majority of his funding is from that source- unlike JE.

He likes to spin it as such, but he has TONS of corporate clowns supporting him

I tell the truth, if you can repeat your same bullshit, I can as well

The only candidate who hasn't whored themselves out to corporate America is DK. So before you start dogging somebody's candidate about their corporate connections, you should check and see who you support. If it is somebody other than DK, then you really have no room to speak.

who am I kidding. it's hopeless with some people.

Obamas fundraisers include big fish.....



.


More from Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070725obama,1,5894874.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout&ctrack=2&cset=true

In fact it is quite the opposite....One of John Edwards major speaking points is that he has accepted NO LOBBYING MONIES. Certainly M$M would jump on this if it was not true, he continues with this speaking point.

Individual contributions
$30,121,494
99%

PAC contributions
$20
0%

Candidate self-financing
$0
0%

Federal Funds
$0
0%

Other
$207,638
1%

:eyes:

rather than his own.

GreenArrow strikes!

fucking shameless.

being a lobbyist. Sounds a little funny, hitting on Edwards and going for a guy that spent 9 million dollars in IOWA!

NH co-chair who is a registered lobbyist, not his campaign chairman, and as Skinner said in another thread, that's a big difference.

I don't expect YOU to stop repeating a lie.

....especially one from THE DRUG COMPANIES.

My boo boo.

And NO, you can google it yourself. I'm tired of pointing out "Jesus'" feet of clay.

So sad he has 1%

Yet another Kucinich thread you jump in on, as if your time means nothing, to be wasting it on a so-called unimportant, low-polling, non-viable candidate with your contentless post.

It's too bad that Kucinich has so many supporters here on DU and other liberal sites that his views and statements keep surfacing despite your best efforts. Any comment on the text of the e-mail?

Edwards has been my second choice for some time now, but some of his supporters on DU are really starting to worry me that he might not be as progressive as I thought he was (because why else would some of his supporters be so nasty toward Kucinich if they were progressives also?). But I won't let your nastiness influence me on Edwards vs. Obama because I know some candidate supporters really aren't with a candidate for their positions anyway but are really just personality cultists.

Kucinich is no saint

Check out the other thread on this same topic that's currently going on. There are a lot of Edwards supporters making very sensible, reasoned, convincing arguments in defense of Edwards re: this very e-mail and they are doing so without insults or rancor. Why do you seem, from every thread on which I've seen your posts, unable to do the same? Maybe you should go over to the other thread, read their posts and use their arguments the next time this topic comes up, and resist the urge to attack a candidate who's at least as (I'm trying to be diplomatic), if not more progressive a candidate than Edwards.

I keep asking this of all you Kucinich-attackers, but can't get an answer: if Kucinich is polling so low, why keep worrying about him?

I suspect it's because you know the number of his supporters here on DU is much, much greater than 1% and they will continue to speak out on the very issues that Kucinich is speaking out on.

Nor are you a Malloy fan, because an idiot like you wouldn't last 5 seconds on his show.

:bounce:

as well as the other major candidates. They all have their flaws.

Dennis is the man. I hope to be hearing a lot more from him, even if it's only to keep the other ones honest, the ones who try to imitate him.

He said from the beginning that they agree on one thing - "Change." He also said he believed Obama is "sincere" and that was why he chose to support him on the second ballot in Iowa. Those were the only thoughts he's expressed. He never said they were on the same side of every issue. He never endorsed Obama. The one thing he has made abundantly clear, other than what he said about Obama - "change" "sincere" - is that he thinks Edwards is a hypocrite, which Edwards is.

When you speak about who is receiving the MOST MONEY FROM WALL STREET. :puke:

Your choice in Iowa has taken More Wall Street $$$$$$$$ than ANY other candidate from either party!

BTW Dennis what plan do you have published to reign in the tax inequities of Hedge Fund Managers?

John Edwards has a Plan that prevents Hedge Fund Managers from designating dollars that today are allowed to be taxed at the 15% Long term capitol gains rate that would be changed to the top marginal rate as they should be. This was Headline News in Major Newspapers MONTHS AGO. :applause:

DENNIS... You are a HACK for the Establishment! :puke:

If you had problems w/ Obama ... Then why the HEL* did you ENDORSE him! Throughout this campaign you have NEVER GONE AFTER the front runners... Always chipping away at Edwards.

I know your game... which is to hand over all of your supporters info to the DLC nominee once the PROPER NOMINEE... IS "selected?".

Your responsibility is to insure that the ANTI-CORPORATIST candidate is diminished... In order for you to be permitted to keep your position, as a Congressman.

Pitiful Dennis, just Pitiful. No wonder I hear that you are such good friends w/ Karen Thurman. :puke: It ALLLL makes sense. :) You are just like her... BTW I heard about your double clutch on Hartmann... Haaa

I didn't know all that about Edwards or Kucinich.

But DO find Kucinich supporting a corporatist like Obama extremely odd.

Please see Post #17. Thank you.

This might be a political strategy for Kucinich's Congressional job rather than his Presidential aspirations.

K&R for Dennis!

Until he threw me to the wolf. :puke:

Seriously, I would like to know what you mean.

He complained when he was excluded from the Iowa debate that he had an active campaign organization in the Hawkeye State. Was he telling the truth then, or is he telling the truth now?

you are aware that there's a difference between "active" and "aggressive" aren't you?

Must have had the red glaze come over his eyes before he got to the end.

It appears the name Kucinich does that to him.

We are still with you! :bounce: