If Kucinich runs again--would you support him in '08?

I read on Kos that he may be throwing his hat in the ring again.

I'm not super familiar with where he stands on issues.

If he didn't vote for the war and wants us out as soon as possible, is for alternative energy, universal healthcare, ect then I would.

he is three-for-three on the specific issues you posted about.

:)

welcome to DU :hi:

Dennis has long been one of the very few sane members of Congress -- he is much like Paul Wellstone. Just one example - a story from Dennis' website...

Message From Qana

CLEVELAND, September 8, 2006

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, and his wife Elizabeth have just returned from a personal peace-building initiative in the Middle East. Their mission included war-torn Lebanon, where they met separately and at length with Lebanon Prime Minister Fouad Siniora; President Emile LaHoud; General Michel Aoun, former Prime Minister and now leader of the Progressive Patriotic Party; Fawzi Salloukh, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants; Yacoub Sarrat, Minister of the Environment; and former Prime Minister Selim Al-Hoss.

There was unanimity among Lebanese leaders that now is the time to explore multiparty talks with hopes of achieving a breakthrough agreement for peace in the entire region. All felt that political negotiations were key, as opposed to use of force. Each official spoke of the necessity of lifting the blockade, addressing the status of the Shebaa Farms, engaging in an exchange of prisoners with Israel, and obtaining maps of areas mined by the Israeli army.

The couple toured the heavily damaged suburban Beirut area, where they witnessed the ruins of thousands of apartment dwellings and hundreds of businesses. Kucinich became perhaps the first US official to cross the Litani River, accompanying a humanitarian mission from the American University in Dubai delivering food, water, and medical supplies deep into southern Lebanon.

"Village after village was reduced to piles of rubble. We saw thousands of destroyed homes. We also saw bombed out hospitals, schools, factories, churches, mosques, fire stations, gas stations, cars, bridges, roads, water systems, electric systems, banana plantations, and lemon groves," Kucinich said.

"In several villages we stopped and walked through piles of concrete and dust from what had once been homes. Public areas were littered with unexploded cluster bombs and land mines. The smell of death was everywhere. Homes still standing, upon closer inspection, had holes in the walls from artillery shells."

One of the most emotionally wrenching moments came at 10 o'clock at night as they arrived in the village of Qana, the Cana of biblical lore where Christ performed the first of his miracles, changing water into wine. One of the greatest tragedies of war befell a house in Qana where a 1,000-pound bomb exploded and collapsed the structure, crushing dozens of women and children who had sought shelter in the basement.

Kucinich and his wife went to pay respects to the dead, as a graveyard in the center of the village was lit by automobile headlights. They walked by several rows of graves, each with a picture of someone killed in the bombing. One picture was of four members of the same family. Buried were a mother and her three children. As Kucinich quietly wept, a hand reached around his shoulder to console him. It was the very man who had lost these family members, his wife and three children.

Kucinich and his wife were led away from the graves across the road and down a very narrow street, over piles of debris from the blast, and to the scene of the disaster. Some childrens' clothing and bomb fragments were still visible in the rubble. A crowd quickly gathered, as it was learned that an American congressman had come to the village. Soon nearly 50 villagers surrounded the couple, including many who had lost family members through what they believed was an American-made bomb.

Elizabeth Kucinich said, "Dennis and I will never forget what followed. There we stood in the darkness, surrounded by people who had suffered great loss, who had every right to express anger or even rage, yet instead they expressed remarkable depth of forgiveness, compassion, and a desire for peace and reconciliation, speaking calmly from the crowd through interpreters. 'We do not hate America. We love the American people. We do not like what your government does; it could have saved our families. Please tell the American people that we are not terrorists. We do not hate Israel. We want to be safe in our village. We want to be left alone. We want peace.'" The couple promised to take the message of hope and peace from Qana back to the United States ...

http://www.kucinich.us/archive/home/display.php?src=k_20060909_dnan.cuc#more

We was the best choice in 04 and he'd be the best (except maybe Gore) in 08. Would he win? Probably not but I don't think I've seen a politician that stands on his ideals like Kucinich. The man is a rock for what is right.

and would certainly do so in '08!!

Whatever he does, good luck to him.

:toast:

Do you think he could win the nomination, and if so, could he win the election?

I think the best possible scenario -- a real fantasy result -- would be Kucinich becoming VP. It isn't clear to me that a majority of the U.S. public is yet sufficiently awake to elect the Kuc President, but how about Gore/Kucinich?

:kick: :kick: :kick:

I would have to see the whole field to see if I would support him over his competitors (I didn't end up voting for him in 2004). But he's an honest man and a solid progressive, and given his likely competitors, that's a voice we need.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Sure, I'll support him. He knows that his candidacy brings some issues into the campaign which will not be heard from any other candidate.

Though if Gore or Edwards runs again, I will be split.

My Kooch yard sign actally got me a letter from one of my neighbors (unsigned) who saw the sign, looked up kooch;s platform, and wound up supporting Dennis.

whom I would identify with.

He has earned the support of conscientious liberals and should receive it. If integrity counts at all, supporting Kucinich is obligatory.

supported him in 2004, so of course I would support him again.

I honestly wonder why he was, and to a certain extent still is, so thoroughly written off by media and everyone as a candidate who really might have a chance. I remember in 2004 that even a lot of the "liberal" media, when they would run thru the list of democratic candidates, would inexplicably omit Kucinich.

Is it just about money, is that all it is? Or maybe his height or lack of? I being a short person myself have noticed how tall people are often considered to have more "stature" in the figurative sense - we being primate animals still respond to those kinds of things I'm afraid.

In any event, the man is incredibly principled and well spoken and would have my vote again this time around.

I think that scares the corporate interests behind the media and those playing the tunes that other politicians dance to. Kucinich demonstrates no willingness to be "just a little bit corrupt."

The corporations have no use for him, because of his steadfast integrity.

under better management)... yep, i think the establishment would have none of this.

You are from the future! :yourock:

His "Department of Peace" is the single stupidest announcement by a candidate in decades, IMO.

edit:spell

Stupid from a PR standpoint or stupid from an idealogical standpoint?

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock." - Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)

Dept. of Peace is brilliant!

cause peace sucks!

He doesn't have to tell people what they want to hear. When this country is in an unwinnable war, we need a Department of Peace. Even though he has no chance of winning, his voice needs to be heard, so I hope he runs again.

need more people in office like him.

although i think that he could make a decent president- there's absolutely NO WAY that he would EVER win in a national election- it's COMPLETELY ludicrous to think that he has even the slimmest of outside chances.

is that clear enough?

but I would support Kooch over both of them.

this time around, it's gotta be Gore.

:kick:

dp

even though I agree with myself on everything: there is a 0% chance of me winning.

I only agree with myself about 75% of the time. :evilgrin:

As much as I like him and he has great stands on issues,
I dont think the 'Keebler Elves' will let their leader run for President.

Like this:


Or maybe this:


:shrug:

Kucinich is one of my favoirite Democrats.

I agree with him on the issues at least 85 percent of the time. And I admire him for his guts, honesty and willingness to stand up.

However, the notion that the only way to lead in politics is to run for President is a fallacy, IMO. I would rather see Kucinich focus on his considerable abilities as a progressive leader in Congress and as a strong advocate for pushing the Democratic party to its liberal and progressive traditions in othger ways.

He has many strengths, but he should not waste and dilute them by playing the presidential candidate game. That's not where he does best.

In the eyes of most voters, Kucinich is not presidential material. His speaking style can be too shrill and his flaky New Age side also would prevent people from taking seriously as a presidential candidate.

In 04, he was merely a sideshow in the debates, even though he was usually absolutely correct about Iraq and other issues. In that setting, he looked like the class dweeb, while the other candidates rolled their eyes and said "Sure, Dennis, sure."

I'd rather see him use his passion and honesty to influence politics in other ways.

Kucinich ran the debates. He forced all the other candidates to respond to his issues. He moved the entire discussion to the left of where the corporate media and moderate "play it safe" Democrats usually exist. Kucinich forced Dean to clarify that he wasn't really taking an anti-war stand. He forced other candidates to confront realities about the Iraq War, Trade policy and Universal Single-payer health care. The other candidates didn't roll their eyes. They were forced to respond and clarify their own positions.

Kucinich's major role in the debates was the single most significant part of his candidacy.

Lived through the McGovern landslide.

Lived through the Mondale landslide.

Those were enough.

it's just that he'd have zero chance of winning . . . I intend to support Al Gore, even if it means we have to draft him . . .

Americans (both repubs and democrats) are ready for an honest man. Kucinich is an honest man with the right message. The only folks that would not support him is the corporate owned media, the lobbyists, etc. The corporations want politicians they can buy and sell. The American people are ready for a big change in government.

opinions that I support. He's one of the few people in Washington I think truly represents the interests of the vast majority of Americas rather than the caving in to corporate interests.

It is not about being a purist by any means. It's just that I don't see any other likely candidates addressing the need to make fundamental and structural changes in both foreign and domestic policy.

We don't have proportional representation in the United States. We will probably never have proportional representation in the United States.

The primaries are the only opportunity we have to vote for fundamental change without casting a vote for a third party in the general election and contributing to the election of a Republican.

DK said during his campaign that it would all come down to the war. He is so very right as we see.

We need DK in the Whitehouse as the next President! :D

:dem:

Do I honestly think he will win the nomination, no? But I can think of a few good non-quixotic reasons to support him in the primary anyway:

1) He has earned it and I agree with him on almost all of the issues. More than any other candidate. That's the moral, deontological rationale.

2) But here's a strategic, utilitarian rationale that is not stated often enough. Progressives should stick together behind a single candidate to maximize their influence on the platform and the nomination and who better to trust to use that influence wiesly and justly than Dennis? For the first time since 1952 the presidency is truly an open seat. No incumbent or sitting VP is running. I expect alot of people will throw their hat into the ring and the nominee may not be sucessfully anointed by the party insiders and elites. Their could potentially be a scramble to get the delegates needed among the front runners. I'd love to see these people forced come hat-in-hand and negotiate with Dennis and be compelled to put more progressive ideas into the platform and assure him that progressives would excercise real influence in the executive branch under a Democratic administration.

Maybe that doesn't put Dennis into the White House or even in the general election, but makes a John Edwards or Al Gore administration a better one. I'd consider that a step forward.

Bottom line is that if progressives split among the candidates or vote for the least evil of the electables, it becomes a counter-productive strategy in the nomination process. Unite behind someone who has earned your trust: Dennis.

:kick:

and its a legitimate position to take.

We don't have the institutional strength to put him over the top. But unity behind the most progressive candidate will push all the other candidates in the direction we want.

I'm actually looking for GORE, but if he won't do it, then I will support a liberal. I will support Kerry before any other dem currently on the market.

God Bless You, Dennis Kucinich. Peace is :patriot:patriotic

always will.

No strings attached.

Dennis rules! If only more politicians were like him. :patriot:

I will support him in whatever endeavor he may undertake

check out this video of her at youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTpoo0uqGbc

Kucinich calls for million man march
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/10269/1/350

“We must cut the funds and here’s the answer to anyone who says we would be endangering our troops. Tell them the $70 billion appropriated in September is more than enough to bring them home safely now.”

“This year we can change things,” Kucinich said, “but we need your help.” Congressman James McGovern’s bill to cut the war funding will be reintroduced, he said. “It will be springtime for the peace movement. We need to bring a million people to Washington on the eve of that vote. We must demand an end to war.”

Kucinich’s speech was repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations.

K&R like you mean it!!!

He was my first choice in 2004, closely followed by Dean. I think he'd be one of many excellent candidates in the '08 field.

eom

he's a strange looking little man and he wouldn't win.

It would depend on who else is running in the primary. If Wes Clark or Al Gore run then I would have to say no, but if they don't run, Dennis would be at the top of my list.:) If he won the primary, I would ABSOLUTELY support him.

and will have my vote again should he choose to run.

Does he stand a chance of winning? Tragically, no. BUT, I think it is very important that he be in the race -- in the debates and appearances with all the candidates, he (along with Sharpton) brought up issues the frontrunners were NOT talking about either at all or in too limited a way. Kuch was talking loud and strong about how wrong Iraq was while the others were either forced to defend their positions or make lame excuses. His presence forced a change in the dialog, and I think that is incredibly valuable for voters to hear.

He has my vote regardless of the chances of him winning. It's a vote I can be proud of -- and how many times do you get a chance to say that???

sometimes i think Dennis is the only sane politician left. i'm pretty sure he's the only one with any moral coursge.

He would stand no chance in a national election against McCain or Giuliani, and if somehow God intervened and his opponent was indicted for selling crystal meth to mormon children three days before the election, he'd have a very hard time governing as president.

He is a great guy and I love his positions. He is one of the very few democrats with balls. However, I would not vote for him as I would not vote for Clinton, Obama, or Durbin or any other current or very recent congressman or senator. I am sick of us not learning our lessons in past defeats. My list of who I would vote for goes like this:

Clark
Gore

and at this point thats about it. However, I would love to see Obama as the running mate.

K&R

In '04 I didn't feel like we had good progressive alternatives to Kucinich with a chance of winning. I think '08 is different. Obama is progressive, I'm more impressed with Edwards now than I was in '04, and it seems like Gore has moved to the left as well. I'd like to back a good candidate with a decent chance of winning this time.

And, Kucinich's small chances of winning are not entirely the fault of the media. He did a horrible job managing his campaign and did not make the kind of personal fundraising effort it takes to run for President. If Kucinich isn't going to be serious about making an effort to run a good campaign and raise money, then he doesn't deserve my efforts on his behalf. I love what he stands for, but I think he is more effective as a Congressman or Senator than he would be as President.

Great man and love his ideals but his mayoral stint in cleveland gives me some pause about his executive capabilities. I'd prefer to have him as the "enforcer" position in a democratic house, like majority whip, he'll keep people in the progressive line.

His problem is not so much his issues. He's a poor candidate for other reasons. He would have to run his campaign very differently this time before I considered giving him support.

He's right on the war and was ahead of his time (although Dean, and Clark to a lesser extent were the more prominent anti-war candidates in '04) but he's too far to the left in general to win nationally. He would lose 49-50 states and only win D.C. But he has no chance in getting nominated in '08. Clark, Edwards, and Obama will be able to do well in attracting progressives, and all three of them have a better chance of winning than Kucinich. At best he's a protest vote, but Mike Gravel is almost as progressive as Kucinich and he fills the void this time (although Gravel supports a flat tax...then again Kucinich was pro-life until he started his 2004 campaign.)

Who has a vision.

But, I think he should run so that his opinion is heard in the debates.

I admire his passion and principle but reality is, as far as the presidential contest goes, he will never be more than a gadfly.

I admire his passion and principle but reality is, as far as the presidential contest goes, he will never be more than a gadfly.

He's one of very few politicians that I have any respect for. But I think he's wasting his time.

I don't think America is psychologicaly or emotionaly ready for the kind of ideas he brings to the table. As another poster stated above, he's the only candidate who understands the need for radical changes in our foreign and domestic policies. Frankly, at this point, I don't believe that the country is either ready for or deserving of him. His best role is not as President, but gadfly and prophet.

...that would be an absolutely crazy thing to do. Yes, of course I would!

His campaign was horribly run in 2000 and he hasn't even made an attempt at statewide office becuase he knows he won't win.

he has no chance in a general election, unless the goal is to win 10 states.

He's not the only one, but yes.

For the love of God ---- YES.

He could be a kinder, gentler Jerry Brown to Al Gore's Clinton. If he stays in the race and continues to get support, he'll pull the entire field to the left.

voters away from the eventual nominee. Sorry.I like what the guy stands for but his personality is odd and he drives moderates away from us.We need to WIN!

He is, as we speak, a member of the House of Representatives.

Because of this and ONLY because of this, I must withhold support for him.

Let's look at the last few presidents and their last political jobs before moving into the White House:

The squatter-in-chief: governor of Texas
The man who actually won the 2000 election: vice-president of the United States
Clinton: governor of Arkansas
George the Elder: vice-president of the United States
Reagan: governor of California
Carter: governor of Georgia
Ford: vice-president of the United States
Nixon: vice-president of the United States
Johnson: vice-president of the United States

You have to go all the way back to JFK to find a president whose last job wasn't either governor or VP--nearly fifty years.

We should be able to win with Kucinich downticket--Gore was a senator, George the Elder was a senator, Ford was a senator before he was installed as VP--but we HAVE to come in with a governor or a VP as our standardbearer if we don't want another Republican president.

I also wouldn't mind seeing him as VP to President Gore.

I think he grew a strong base back in 2004 that will help him get out of the blocks faster this next go around. Run Dennis Run.

I'm done with tilting at windmills.

This next election is too important to waste time on DK.

Reelection to Congress?

Sure I'll support him.

He's a complete nuisance candidate.

I do I Do

Have zero respect for him. Wonder what 'deeply-held' belief he'll jettison this time to help his chances, though...