In your opinion, is Dennis Kucinich the best presidential candidate ever?

Leaving out the so-called electability factor, does Dennis reflect your views better than any other candidate of your lifetime?

Are you counting the hat?

One of the best, if not THE best in the 2008.

FDR is the best ever (minus Executive Order 9066 and possibly the atomic bombings).

All praise to Kucinich, but, best--even of my adulthood-- is a tough standard. I'm gonna have to ponder on that...

whom I call "war criminal" for that, and get flamed for saying that all the time.

What's Executive Order 9066? Is that the locking up of totally innocent Japanese citizens in concentration camps? Like they now do at Gitmo?

and had thousands more GIs killed.
Wake up!

No matter what the circumstances.

had the best resume of anyone ever to run for president, but it didn't make him a very good president. He was also one of the best human beings ever to run, but still was an unsuccessful president. (not counting G Washington since he didn't really run).

and will be in 08. And no, I am not a HRC supporter either.

Dennis reflects my views better than any of the other candidates on many issues; war and peace, healthcare and social justice, for instance, but not on others- gun control being one. And I'm probably going to vote for him in the primary, but I don't want actually believe he'd be an effective President.

That's an interesting composition glitch.

it sends a message to the dem party that a sizable number of us want single payer health care and a decisive end to the war. But I don't think Kucinich would be an effective president. He doesn't have the political skills needed.

On health care he does. I wish everyone had his health care policy. Other than that not really.

khk

The IMPORTANT thing to consider is the set of conditions and the needs of the nation. If, for example, FDR (or Lincoln!) were a candidate in the TV age, he'd also be deemed "unelectable" due to his health and being wheelchair-bound. (Lincoln was too homely ... no TV charisma.)

That said, I rank Kucinich's MATCH between political/policy positions and the NEEDS of this nation to be nearly comparable to Kennedy (in the post-Eisenhower era) and FDR (to counter the impacts of runaway corporate greed).

I think it's clear that many people will REGRET not electing Kucinich 8-24 years from now. We're concemning this nation to a continued growth of corporatist/fascist corruption.

that he was that good a president? (I'm not exactly sure.)

The fifties were a "back to the cave and hide" time when we pondered our own navels. The mental shock of 'discovering' the world in WW2 and Korea had the backlash of older people running for home and talking about the "red scare" while filling our heads with Davy Crockett and Ozzie and Harriett. It was a time of Disney escapism. Norman Rockwell revisionism, and Reader's Digest sloth. JFK was emblematic of "passing the torch to a younger generation" with hopes and dreams of a 'global village' where FDR's Four Freedoms had a chance. The "outward bound" sense of youthful adventure was nowhere more evident than his inaugural goal of "landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade." New Frontiers - not the backwoods of Davy Crockoshit anymore.

So, what was "accomplished" was a nation waking up, shaking off the old fears, and striding forth into the world AND the Universe. JFK ALLOWED himself to be the person in which such promises were vested and never acted to dispel the mythology. That is, after all, a large part of the "job" - behaving and speaking in ways that people can have confidence in themselves. Presidents personally accomplish very little - the "bully pulpit" is best used to support and nurture our "better angels." JFK did that. He embodied the aspirations of a new generation and didn't act in any way to piss on the ideals.

It's a very ephemeral thing ... presidenting. FDR couldn't walk around the block but he helped bring a whole nation back from a crushing loss of faith in itself. Rarely has a cripple stood so firmly. JFK screwed a lot of women but he never fucked the people - he was a rich white man who stood for the liberties and welfare of the poorest black people. He was right for the times. We needed someone who'd stand up for our aspirations, not our avarice. He did that. Our "better angels."

Nixon (in 1960) still personified the anti-commie fears - a "kitchen debate" champ and whiner (it's all about HIM) about his daughter's dog (Checkers). He NEVER shoulder the "magic" cloak of personifying a nation's "better angels" - he was bereft of any comprehension of such aspirations on the part of a whole nation. Even as a Quaker, he was spiritually stingy - while JFK, as a Catholic, never chained himself to the guilt.

:hi:

but mostly on a deeply spiritual level that is hard to explain.

I think Carter and Mondale were as close as you can get to my way of thinking, actually

Probably, Lincoln was THE best, but that is due to how I've interpreted history and what I've read. It wasn't in my time (!)

Kennedy was the most progressive, but I was still 6 when he was elected. He wasn't the best candidate ever and people voted early and often in Chicago, I understand. He sure had intestinal fortitude.

Kucinich is the best we have NOW in terms of strong direction, leadership. His issues address as much for our future generations as I believe Al Gore, who I know isn't running.

:kick:

We are talking about Candidates NOT Presidents. Comparing Lincoln with Jefferson Davis, based on how each ran their presidency shows Lincoln a Master Politician and Davis a prima donna but as "Candidates" Davis wins hands down on paper. Look at Lincoln in 1860, Lincoln had ONLY served 1-2 terms in Congress at least a decade BEFORE the election. Lincoln has made speeches, but had lost the last election he ran for in 1858 (Where he campaign for a GOP Legislature for Illinois so they would elect him Senator). He had been a political hack for decades while also a Successful TRIAL lawyer.

On the other hand, Jeff Davis had been a Senator, Secretary of War and other positions in DC that on the surface made Davis a better Candidate for President then he was in real life. The problem was you needed a Politician to win that war, Lincoln was one, Davis was not, but that was NOT seen till both were in office and the Civil War was on. Here the issue who is the "Best Candidate" not the best President (Bush is President right now and we can all agree he is a failure).

As a Candidate Lincoln had some good points, he wrote all his speeches, spoke what he wanted to say. Knew the topics that were hot, and what to avoid. Now he ran in the pre-Bryan era, where Candidates did NOT leave their home (The parties brought people to them and the parties ran the Campaigns). Hard to compare Lincoln 1860 and 1864 Campaign even with Bryan's 1896 Campaign let alone today’s campaigns. The system was that much different then.

He wanted to control Corporate American, regulate Business, support Labor. His wife was a lawyer, at a time when women just did NOT get educated beyond grade school (as were his Son, his one daughter would become the first Congresswomen from Florida and later the first female ambassador from the US to any nation). He supported Farmers and advocated to use the Federal Budget to aid education (and to spend money to get the economy going). He opposed the whole concept of Social Darwinism and Eugenics when both where at the height of their support in this country (and this opposition was used against him as evidence he opposed "Science"). He opposed imperialism, advocating withdraw of US troops from foreign countries they were occupying (Through he did support wars that freed people from Tyrants). After his many runs for the Presidency, he would be appointed Secretary of State and resign that position when the President he had help elect refused to reign in Wall Street when Wall Street was pushing the US into a war Americans did NOT want to be in. He told anyone where he stood and why, and why they should support progressives. He advocated for the Common man when it was unpopular. He advocated for the Income tax, Women Right to Vote, Direct election of Senators (When all where unpopular).

For these progressive stand, he was attacked, both professionally and personally. He was attacked while alive and even 30 years after he died because the GOP still feared him (and had so blacken his name that people often thought of him as opposite of what he did stand for). The right attacked him, but so did the left (more because he opposed Communism as much a Capitalism).

For his progressive stand, he was nominated by the Democratic party Three times. HE was so feared by Theodore Roosevelt that many, if not all, of TR's progressive actions were more to head off this man's desire to be President then anything that had much support in the GOP. Each time he ran, he won a higher percentage of the Vote (But the GOP always pointed out fewer people voted for him, but ignored that even fewer people voted for the GOP candidate, you had a general decline in voting numbers during this time period).

In his Speeches you can see what became the NEW deal under FDR. He had his weaknesses (for example his silence of racism, a silence he shared with FDR for both needed white Southern Support to get the nomination and to get elected). He had that right balance of seeing what was needed, what could be done, and what to accept as not changeable in his day. He is to the LEFT of every other Democratic Nominated Candidate (Through some Candidates who ran for the nomination were to his left). I am speaking of the first Candidate who took his campaign to the people, instead of leaving the party win the election for him. That is the Democratic Nomanee for 1896, 1900 and 1908, William Jennings Bryan.

Dennis Kucinich has a while to go to meet that record, but Bryan was only 36 when he was nominated. Dennis Kucinich can be better than Byran, he might get elected but as long as the issue is the issue is "best presidential candidate ever" any candidate has a bit to go to be better than Bryan (And remember his time period is NOT our time period, look at him from his time period not ours, for that is the test for any such comparison).

A letter about Bryan written by his wife during the 1896 campaign, who had been admitted to the BAR in 1888 after being tutored by her husband (as was the custom of the time for MALE lawyers):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Life_of_William_Jennings_Bryan

One note on Bryan. He was so attacked during his life time by the press of his time period that many people have a negative notion of Bryan. Just remember when you read of Byran, read the "history" as you would read a FOX NEWS "History" of any Progressive Democrat. For the GOP first did what they do to Democrats to this day to Bryan and it is reflected in the many, if not most of the historical record.

History of his Daughter Ruth Byran Owen:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ruth-bryan-owen

was pretty durn good.

?