you can teLL kucinich kicked ass Last night

for the first time this season, there has been quite a few posts here and eLsewhere, shitting aLL over DK as uneLectabLe.

good job dennis. :patriot:

:thumbsup:

I would say. But he certainly had a good night last night, apparently. It helped a bit that Clinton and Obama were busy ripping into each other.

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

I'm sorry, but I've decided it is not worth compromising my ideals and vote for the "popular" candidate in the primary so I can get a Democrat elected. I'll vote for Kucinich.

Bryant

That's exactly it. He's 15% short of being corpratist enough for me. That's very perceptive you - but it's the sort of perceptiveness I've come to expect from those wise enough to hitch their wagons to Kucinich's star.

With humans used to being controlled by corpratists it will be child's play for my insect overlords to conquer and enslave humanity. Hell you are practically slaves already.

Yep - I'm not a secret freeper. I'm a secret space locust!

Bryant

...and one I can actually appreciate...SciFi.

Lee

Never sure how to respond when I'm accused of being corporatist.

without explaining just how DK is offensive to your conscience.

But in simple terms, I don't think he's the best candidate. I don't think he would make the best president. So I'm not supporting him.

I'm a bit tired of the assumption that everybody who doesn't support Kucinich is voting strictly out of political necessity. Like deep in our hearts, every democrat across the land would vote for Kucinich, but we betray ourselves and go support Clinton or Edwards or Obama strictly because of perceived political necessity.

Perhaps some Clinton, Edwards, or Obama supporters fit into that category; I don't. I support Edwards because I think he's better than Kucinich (and the other candidates). And that's why I mean by voting my consience.

> I'm just amusing myself

No doubt you're a master at at.

Tesha

Who is your dream candidate, Mr. Perceptive?

I also like Obama and Richardson.

Bryant

It was the GOP Cheating that robbed him of the White House

and didn't fight the election results in Ohio. He lost his credibility with me when he did that.

And he lost his credibility with me too - but he was definitely electable.

And a Kerry Presidency would have been historic (in a good way.)

must promise to truly FIGHT if the repukes try to steal the election again. If not, then our country is doomed, I think.

defeat right outta the jaws of victory.

you deal with the issue on its merits - instead of digressing?

stood down because they got what evil BushCo was, held their nose and worked their asses off for Kerry.

And Kerry WON.

We're going to have a harder time keeping that coalition together this time and maybe that's a good thing. Because you can't keep asking people to work for the Dem nominee and to put their needs on hold and then never return to address those needs in any way. It won't work.

I'm working for Dennis. I don't care if Hilary has already been crowned. 2004 taught me to stop caving WHILE I'm bitching about the system caving.

The Democratic process isn't just about votes - it's about managing the discussion too. And keeping Dennis in the ring (even if he's not likely to win) means keeping his issues in the ring. Peace, Health Care, Debt with China - if Dennis weren't there last night it would have been one big masturbation fest.

as a West Valley College grad. :)

done now.

If Dennis just went away, none of this would even get floated.

Besides, "electable" is in the eyes of the beholder. It is one of those things repeated until it becomes true, and we don't have to let it become true.

And yet there are those on DU who want to dismiss him.

Hmmmmm......

yes, I would say that he was electable.

The American People must vote for a candidate that speaks for them, not the corporate a@#$%^kissers who will only do more of the same. I sent Kucinich a contribution after his stellar performance at last night's debate. I saw him speak at the "GreenFestival" in Chicago. His speech was rousing. He had a huge crowd on their feet, cheering. He spoke without notes about a wide array of issues. He knows what he's talking about. Don't allow the pundits and politicos to play mind games with your vote. He'd be an outstanding, principled, president. He's the only candidate that will restore sanity to our government.

not like a citizen with needs and values.

You know that, right?

so... it must be intentional.

so we'll remember how to be people and not products ourselves. :(

I think Kucinich is a bad candidate and I think he would be a bad president. Obviously a huge step up from Bush, no question about it. But so would electing a tree frog (but not a pond frog). So even if Kucinich were the most electable, I would still be supporting Edwards or Obama. I support Edwards because I believe in him, not because he's electable.

But I do find myself interested in the horse race aspect of the race, and I do want Kucinich to do better than he's likely to do. I don't support him, but I think the issues he raises and what he represents should be more prevelant in the Democratic party.

Bryant

question, I'm not being coy or trying to trip you up. Usually I just wait until the Democrats have chosen someone and work for that candidate.

This time, I've decided to work for Dennis. Because I know what is important to me. And because I know what a stranglehold multinationals have on this country and because our people lives are suffering from crumbling systems -- education, national defense, health care, you name it.

I don't see Dennis pandering to Murdoch or basing his agenda on a focus group.

I don't believe him to be skilled at building coalitions, nor do I see him as being particularly popular within the Democratic Party. I think he will be a weak executive, and we need a strong executive right now if we are going to undo the bad of the Bush years.

For the record I think all the Democratic Candidates (even Hillary Clinton) want to fix our crumbling systems.

Bryant

If he got nominated, that obviously means that he increased his position within the Democratic Party. Even if just made President out of the blue, his positions should win Democrats over when they see how well progressive principles work. I think he'd be a take action President.

he's so used to playing the purist, the last honest democrat, that if he were in the middle of his party again, so much would have to change it's hard to imagine.

Obviously if his views and ideas (like Department of Peace, for example) were mainstream in the Democratic Party, he'd have a much easier time of it, perhaps he'd be a strong and effective leader. But assuming he got hte President without being the center of his party, you'd have a congress of Liebermans in effect, shutting him out at every turn.

Bryant

Dennis would inspire many Democrats to support his agenda. We would have a problem with the blue-dog type Democrats, but we already have that problem to a degree. I for one think he's the change we need. But if someone like Hillary wins, I will accept that as a fine transition.

Only a tidal wave would put Kucinich in office. We all know the institutional challenges he faces; if he succeeds it would be a break away from a right wing status quo which has held since Reagan. And as with Reagan, politicians who don't get with the program will be taken out at the earliest possible opportunity, dinosaurs of a age whose time has passed.

--to be mostly reflected in the platform of the WA State Democrats.

http://www.wa-democrats.org/files/Platform%20and%20Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%20Democratic%20Party%20of%20Washington%20-%20June%203,%202006.pdf

He's stood up against the disastrous policy decisions that both parties have made for years.

And, I see no indication that the DLC candidates want anything more than to get the nomination. I guess (and this may be me) I don't trust them. I don't trust that their policy will win over the privilege they have always enjoyed. I don't trust how packaged they are. I don't trust the burnishing and the filters. Remember, Junior was going to be the education President.

I don't want to trash anyone, particularly. Imho, we really need to try to stand together.

But it's increasingly difficult to do that when good, strong voices like Dennis's are so obviously trashed in favor of money. Dennis being trashed in favor of people who have voted against my interests so many times. I don't vote that way. Maybe other people do. I know Republicans do.

1. I don't think that Kucinich has a weak character or will develop a weak character in office; he won't be a weak person. But he won't have the power to affect the positions he wants to, because he has no stron base of power within the power and, in my opinion, he hasn't demonstrated the skills to build such a base. As I've said elsewhere, He's very good at getting people who already agree with him to support him, but lack confidence in his skills of compromise and bringing people around to his way of thinking.

2. I think that being a politician implies a certain amount of burnishing and filters; that said, I don't think any of our candidates are particularly awful on that score. Hillary Clinton is probably the worst when it comes to that, but I still get the sense that there is a real human being behind it all. I don't support Clinton (as I've said elsewhere, I'm in Edward's camp), but I think she's not a bad candidate.

3. I disagree with Kucinich's approach to government, and I don't think he's electable. And Im not trashing him when I express that opinion any more than you are trashing Edwards to say that he's too beholden to money.

Bryant

will likely be our next president.

:)

(Yes, I appreciate the context of your remark. I'm just hijacking your comment for my own amusement.) :evilgrin:

Got me. :)

I don't think Dennis is far out of the mainstream. I think the only real enemies he'd have are the Republicans, and I'd relish that fight. His approach to government is exactly what I want to see.

I suspect I'd be in the other party anyway.

I'm really a moderate conservative at heart; but given how ultra right wing politics in America are, that makes me a moderate Democrat.

Bryant

I don't see anything not moderate about universal health care, bringing the troops home as soon as possible, and ending the corporatism that has affected us. I think it's his rhetoric that gets him labeled as extreme, and he uses that rhetoric to keep everyone honest.

for my website, so will give him an overview them - along with the others. Basically take an issue (Choice, the War, Poverty, etc.) and look up what the candidates have said about it, from their websites. Kind of useful for me, anyway. I know last time around, I had largely written off Carol Moseley Braun, but reevaluated her when I read what she was saying about foreign policy (if memory serves).

So anything is possible.

Bryant

Whomever you choose will then represent your beliefs. Thank you for having a reasonable discussion here. :hi:

Edwards is my second favorite candidate, so if not Kucinich, I'd like to see him nominated.

:toast:

Hi, sfexpat2000! :hi:

lol

:)

Even the most establishment elite oriented among them will at least throw some sand into some of the neocon initiatives. Despite NAFTA and the telecoms act, Clinton blocked a lot of nastiness. I don't get why Will Pitt wants to call him a radical, but slowing down the rush to total breakdown counts for something. At least it gives us more space to manuever. Plenty of people in 1993 thought that the Repub trashing of governmental functions was going to be over and that they could just go back on autopilot. I don't think that will be the case this time.

as necessary. We also don't know that Dennis isn't good at that. It's just not had to be tested where his positions on the issues are logical.

You're assuming a set of voters who have no principles. Though it's hard to blame you for that assumption given the shallow nature of the voters as constantly presented by the media. Yet, I think it only shows the shallowness of the pundits.

The attitude so prominent among dysfunctional democrats of vote for the "sure thing" at any cost less the "unthinkable" happen and a republican get elected is the reason why the country has continued its slow but predictable decline for decades (not six years).

The only way to reverse that trend is to revolutionize washington political parties, starting with our own. The only way to do that is with your vote - regardless of the short term consequences. You have to stop voting for the lesser of two evils. You have to stop ignoring policy positions or lack of positions of the candidates that the media and ruling class have picked at told you are the "electable options."

It's true, things won't be pretty at first - and some bad people might even get elected in the beginning. But it is quite simply the ONLY way things will ever change. Overtime, with pressure from a united people, the party will return to a more progressive and courageous platform that represents the majority of Americans (since study after study shows, to the consistent feigned "surprise" of an unhappy media, are fairly progressive and left leaning on a majority of issues.

It's the agenda setting media, its corporate masters and the ruling elite that sell the propaganda to the people that this is such a "divided nation." There are social issues where the nation has clear divides, but not as many as you would think. LGBT equality would probably be the major one where there is a split. Immigration might arguably be another. A majority of americans support a woman's right to choose, but you would never think so by listening to the mainstream media. But you start talking about health care, education, worker's rights, taxes and civil rights(*) you discover that a majority of americans agree - they are not split.

*A lot of times it has to do with how you frame the questions. On Civil Rights, if you ask people if they are willing to make some sacrifices of civil liberties for the sake of greater security, many people would say yes. But you ask those same people about specific civil rights and whether or not they would give them up and they say no. If you ask people if they want socialized medicine, they are likely to think "socialism" and say no. If you ask them if they think there should be access to at least basic health care for every American the overwhelming majority will say yes. This is an example of how the corporate ruling class frames the questions as part of the maintaining of necessary illusions, to borrow a chomskian phrase. You ask the questions honestly, and you discover that people are more socially progressive without even realizing it.

is he STILL unelectable? is he a foreign national? too young? perhaps he is past his term limits?

what exactly makes him unelectable?

Kucinich was on fire. If he can take his case that aggressively to the American people I'm starting to think he can beat the media's trivialization of politics. I watched that debate with my apolitical fiance, and she loved him. He actually answered the questions he was asked and promised real structural reform to our failing institutions. When I tried to explain to her how Kucinich is unelectable due to his appearancs/veganism/new age beliefs, she looked so disappointed in me for basing my selection on such trivial grounds, reminding me how much grief I gave her for not voting for Kerry because she didn't like the way he looked (before we met). She's right, at some point we gotta put the right candidate to the people and give them a chance. People always say they want a strong Democrat uncorrupted by corporate influence, that they no longer trust the Party to look out for the little guy. Well, Kucinich is the littlest guy I know, and if he keeps this up he may well find himself in the running. And if you put an pro-universal healthcare/anti-Nafta/anti-war ticket together, people will vote for it.

If Gore doesn't run.

He showed us that we have a real choice for President!

Geezus, he's been on the right side of effen' everything. And he wiped the floor with the Produced Ones last night.

I'm glad I forced myself to watch.

:(

Which means, of course, that he kicked tail and took names 'cause he gets little respect over there.

Markos after seeing Dennis get 20%...

:puke:

The Great Orange Overlord spoke ugh too soon!

:)

I don't care what your politics are. Best delivery, best crowd reaction, simple as that. Edwards was outshined by Kucinich, Obama seemed to lose his train of thought repeatedly, and Hillary started strong but got booed and was reduced to yelling by the end of the debate. None of the other guys were even notable, except Biden for being a glowering dick.

We believe he's strong, that's for sure. And confident. I liked him a lot. Still, I need to hear more justification now for his ideas. I want to hear the theory, the full moral and strategic arguments for pulling out of Iraq now. Now that I know he's strong I would like to know he's thought things out well.

He has details about his Iraq plan on his site.

I'm talking about public appeal here. I know Dennis is a really smart man and his ideas are well thought out, but I'm saying the public needs to see it a little more now. I think its the next step, having shattered the perception he is a shrill liberal weenie with his strength and integrity in the debates, its time to show his calm strategic side now.

because he'd be right out.

Didn't he cry when his opponents speech was like 4 hours long and all he had was "Four score and seven years ago..."

:loveya: Elizabeth!

...about coveting the president's wife? :rofl:

Lee

owOOOOoo!

this no time to play games when we know what the repugs will bring, and you can say what you want many will not vote for him some think he is a little nuts, especially since he fired someone while on television. I saw him apologize for it but we all know what is down the road so stop pretending,but if he were the nominee I would vote for him.

Saying it said nothing about payments or what not, so I quoted from the bill itself, oddly enough, no response after that. :shrug:

But I don't think he would make a good president.

I'm going to keep sending him cash because he brings up issues the other candidates are afraid to talk about.

By giving Dennis money you're supporting his agenda, even if he hasn't got a snowball's change in Iraq.

AND making a bit of progress in shutting the unelectable-bots up.

The government would come to a screeching halt, and nothing would get done.

I want a president with allies - that's why I liked Kerry so much. Say what you will, the man has allies like LBJ did.

Clinton has allies (and some very powerful enemies too)

and that nothing would get done.

You're not psychic, are you?

LBJ knew this and enacted the Great Society Legislation, Civil Rights Legislation and Vietnam War.

He had been in the Senate for years...

Now they can rule by signing statements!

:bounce:

And that is the one lasting thing Bush did.

The Iraq war will fade and be forgotten

Sept 11 will be outdone by more and more horrific events

But the one legacy Bush will leave is that of turning the Presidency into a Dictatorship.

It becomes hard to pick through the lies because most of them are really good actors. Most of them dodge real questions so to call any of them a good president would be stupid in our part. A GOOD president would answer ALL questions straightforward and be honest about their agenda. After the debates I have seen, if you take away who had the best one liners, who was dressed the best and who had the motivational skills to get a crowd to cheer over bland statements, I would say Kucinich has been pretty straightforward in his answers. That should account for something. After last nights debate, I finally see some jabs coming around about him which is great, we need to know more about our candidates . Ive seen that he changed some critical views 180 degrees which may be a sign that he is like us, human and can gain knowledge and make a better decision than in the past. Ive seen that hes an astrology nut I guess and as long as he didn't make a law where I had to conform, thats ok with me too.

I guess for me, after the years and years of our government moving towards corporations and the wealthy running the world and its people into the ground, I would gladly accept someone completely different from the norm we have had for so many years. Over time we have accepted this way of slowly ruining our country and I say no more! Change is what we need, I would rather a so called nut job try to make things better than to give into another typical politician that wants to continue with the same agenda! Thats why I also liked Ross Perot's ranting in the past. he was a little off but was against this machine that we all hate...or do we?

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."--Mahatma Gandhi

if only to prove conventional wisdom wrong

I'm still laughing at that one!

Somewhat related to a quote from John Pilger:

The great Irish muckraker Claud Cockburn got it right when he wrote, "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."

View Pilger's amazing speech here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1541050&mesg_id=1541050

Interesting that he got the most applause and cheering from the audience but the MSM insists that Hillary's the nominee... unfucking-real.:wft:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/07/130258

Sad that so many are so willing to be led around by the nose, but there you go.

I hope he begins to pick up steam, and makes a powerful showing in the race. Go Dennis Go

If he is going to have any chance at all of winning he has to be all for protecting the 2nd amendment, or he is doomed to fail.

and sniffa.

Good point!:)
DR

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1543440&mesg_id=1543440

:)

thanks for the Link. :hi:

Newsflash: if he's in Congress, he's electable. Duh.

you can do it RIGHT NOW on DU/Act Blue.

It's very easy. Do it now!

link:

http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/12518


.

I was working out of town, and didn't have access. I just read about it when I got home this morning, checking the news.

Here's an interesting response posted on "AFL-CIO Debate Highlights" at the Washington Post:

You left out the best highlights of the night, which did not come from Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or Biden.

Obama can take his "war on terror" and stick the "right battlefield" where the sun don't shine. He disgusts me.

Clinton? Does she ever say anything that pins her down to a distinct position that people can agree or disagree with? Or does she keep all of her true thoughts to herself, afraid to commit to something that some voting group might take issue with?

Edwards? Generally better than the others you chose to highlight, although weak last night.

Biden? Why do I have to listen to these hawks play the "fear" card while they intend to keep a military presence in the middle east? I'm sick of all of them.

The highlights? Dennis Kucinich, who is best on every issue, every time. If the AFL/CIO can't see that he is light-years ahead of the pack on every issue that affects labor, if they don't have the courage to endorse the best labor candidate, then they should quit pretending to represent the working class of America.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2007/08/aflcio_debate_highlights.html