I hate being in this position. Should Kucinich supporters throw it behind Edwards?

I am a Kucinich girl. But, I am also a realist.

I believe Edwards could win the election, not just the primary. Dennis represents what I believe, Edwards is the most palatable candidate of any of the top three, by a large margin.

Kucinch represents my beliefs across the board.

This is always where it gets sticky. Should we band together to ensure a decent Democrat in the Oval Office over what amounts to a pipe dream? Or, do we throw our votes to Edwards, abandoning the whole point of a supposedly democratic system, thus not even giving Dennis the chance to fight?

I feel voting for Edwards instead of Kucinich is a small betrayal of my integrity. Yet, I want to have a good candidate in the general election, & I really do not like Obama or Hilliary at all.

What do you think? Should we help Edwards & send him a mass donation via DU to unite support behind him, in this crucial time before Iowa?

What to do?

from Kucinich on camera before you switch gears?

I know I would.

that everyone has been talking about? Kucinich gives a long explaination as to why he is considering Ron Paul as VP.

much aside from Paul's anti-war position, I don't agree with him about anything else.

However, I would still like someone to ask Kucinich about this in greater detail on television.

In short, I want to hear an "Are you completely sure you're serious about wanting Paul to run with you?" question.

I don't think that's too unreasonable to ask. Do you?

I am voting for Edwards.

why?

It's about the way he ran his campaign in 2004. I was a state coordinator for him briefly, and later a state internet outreach coordinator, so I was very much involved in the campaign.

Dennis micromanaged every aspect of his campaign, cramping the efforts of those he hired to do work for the campaign. Great opportunities for media were missed because he had to be involved in each and every decision, rather than trusting those he hired in the campaign to make those decisions. His managing style really hurt the campaign. I can't help but think that it would be the same thing if he were president. You have to be able to trust your team to do their jobs.

I have heard this before. I was not impressed with his staff or campaign in 04 either. So far this cycle, it has seemed better. Do you have any opinion on his 08 machine?

opinion.

campaign, for without kucinich Edwards might not have been able to move to the left, same with Dodd and Biden. I believe that Kucinich's positions moved the entire presidential debate into a better place. Just imagine where the "center" would be without DK!

in so far as we have a democratic system, it's working exactly as it's supposed to.

This isn't about abadoning democracy. I am trying to be a realist, & not work against ourselves. Kucinich is a very good man. However, I don't think a general election win is realistic.

What is the goal?

What is the best outcome we can realistically hope for....

I want some hope for this country.

'Ideologically committed voters' are almost always disappointed by the outcomes that democracies produce.

Think of it in terms of how our legislative process works. Nothing gets through Congress and signed by the President to become law which does not go through multiple iterations which result from compromises reached between those who represent different interest groups.

If you commit to casting an 'ideologically purist vote' in a Presidential Election, it is similar to saying 'I won't accept anything less than the best.' That is an admirable position when it comes to ideological loyalty, but a terrible position when it comes to electing the best possible candidate.

Voting for a candidate who cannot win, who you 'know' cannot win, is much different from voting for a candidate who you believe will win. In the former, you have contributed 'knowingly' to electing a lesser candidate to the position who shares fewer beliefs with you than other available candidates. In the latter, you might be mistaken about the candidate's viability but you are not 'knowingly' promoting the election of the lesser candidate.

Often times democracies do not allow the election of 'the best candidate' in multiple candidate elections because of the competing interest groups who vote in an election. However, as a participant in the democratic process we can always be realistic and promote the election of the best candidate possible.

I think you now 'know' Kucinich cannot win, and are struggling to decide where your precious vote will produce the 'best' results for all of us.

In the end, voting 'ideologically' rather than 'realistically' is not rewarded by democratic election systems. But we are free to choose what we individually determine is the best use of our precious votes.

If Ralph Nader voters had voted 'realistically' rather than 'ideologically' there is every reason to believe we might have avoided the entire Bush disaster.

Something to think about.

ABC

and there were a lot of people who said they would switch to Edwards if it meant making sure that HRC wasn't the nominee.

IMO, Clinton is the least electable, and Edwards is the most electable in the General Election (at this point in time.)

I want him to stay in the game as long as possible and have as loud of a voice as possible. Maybe his positions will rub off on some of the other candidates, if they become aware of his popularity.

a) The longer we hold out, the more likely it is that other candidates might feel they need to give a nod to our issues.

b) The sooner we rally around one front-runner, the sooner the corporate media will focus all their shredding efforts on that one person.

what to do. for some reason I was thinking that our primary was way late but I checked and its on Feb. 5 so I better be making my mind up on my preference. I'll prolly be voting for kooch in the primary though and whoever the dem candidate is come novermber '08

There is a lot of Hilliary support in these parts.

I guess I will watch & see & make a calculated decision at that point.

that he has a good platform doesn't negate that. And it's always been a pipe dream to imagine he had a chance. Go with Edwards if that's who you see as most palatable.

I have not made up my mind, I love Dennis and what his ideals are, John is good too, also Biden. Just observing and listening to all.

with the Paul thing, which is too bad. But Edwards? "Clean coal" Edwards? I don't think so. Besides, the "yes" vote on the IWR was a deal breaker for me and I don't care how many times he apologizes. That "yes" vote was either him listening to his DLC masters telling him he must not show weakness on terra or he was too inept to look up the evidence himself. Either way -- not ready for prime time.

and Paul would ever be on the same ticket.

I was still voting for Kucinich, but that makes me feel a little better.

Back to the OP - I'm not going to vote for one of the other candidates in the primaries. I like Edwards, and he's my #2, but I don't like him so much more than Clinton and Obama that I would change my vote from Kucinich.

Not a chance.

Bake

That was Dennis speaking, you can hear the entire clip, and his explanation as to why he is considering Paul as VP is certainly not taken out of context.

this has raised a question for me. Who would make a good VP for Kucinich?

and sees some chance in courting them, and spoke to that desire without considering how fucked up an idea that is -- or what that would do the activists who know Ron Paul is a wacko.

... but I don't think I could ever support him again.


I was profoundly alienated by that overture to Paul -- a man who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. People who want to do things like that are the enemy, pure and simple.

Biden voted for the bankruptcy bill. That was a horrendous piece of legislation, & I don't give a rat's ass, if he did it because
of the Credit Card companies presence in his state. That speaks volumes to me, & I can't support him due to this atrocious vote.

That, & his....

I like you. I really like you.....to the Criminal Attorney Genergal Gonazalez.

every time I see Biden or read his name.

By the time the later primaries come around you have a better chance not to vote for someone who will be back at their old job by sundown the next day. I have my few choices (mainly edwards and Obama) Im assuming both will still be alive and kicking 2/5 (Minnesota) but you never know.

It's a matter of making a choice. THAT is the great thing about living in a free democracy - you get to make that choice. That doesn't mean it's always going to be an easy choice.

Nor is it, as someone suggested upthread, a matter oof not "voting your conscience." While you may support DK, your conscience seems to be telling you that he has no shot and therefore you should support the next-most-palatable candidate (i.e., Edwards) who actually has a shot at getting the nomination and winning the general election. I see that as making an informed, CONSCIENTIOUS choice.

In the end, it's YOUR choice. And that's why it's still a democracy.

Bake

See my post above on democracies being 'messy' for a fuller discussion.

But it all boils down to 'how do we contribute to the election of the best possible candidate?'

It is not 'turning your back' on ideological principles to cast a vote for a 'second preferred choice' who can win when your 'first preferred choice' has no chance of being elected.

I am sure if 'ideological Nader voters' had been presented with the stark choice of having Bush or Gore end up being President for the next 4 years they would have come down heavily in favor of Gore. Yet their decision to vote 'ideologically' for Nader was a vote against their actual interests as it helped put Bush in the Oval Office.

DK represents my views and I don't see the Paul thing as a threat, even if it were to happen.

The ideologically pure voter's logic can lead to an illogical result.

Voting solely on the basis of ideological beliefs does not insulate them from suffering worse results than if they had voted realistically.

CONSEQUENCES CANNOT BE AVOIDED.

Had enough of that. I'll vote my conscience, thanks.

Sometimes 'holding one's nose' and voting for a second preference candidate is much better than being devastated by the election of the worst of the three candidates.

Nothing wrong with doing that.

Would we not all agree that there is a world of difference between 'just good' and 'devastatingly bad'?

The lesser of two evils is still evil, and voting as if it isn't is what's pushing the Democratic Party to the right. I'm through with being a masochist.

... sometimes I cannot help but wonder what people are thinking, but you laid out your logical reasoning for all to see.

And I stand by it.

...I would blame the BUSH voters, not the Edwards or Kucinich voters. Your implication that people who vote for Kucinich are helping Republicans is faulty. I could just as easily say that people who vote for Edwards are helping Republicans.

I'll still vote for Kucinich.

What decided for me was a mental picture of DK in the White House, spouting his good ideas but unable to bring the rest of the country (and even a democratic congress) along.

The man is brilliant, and has amazing foresight. But something about him puts him too far ahead to pull others along with him. I don't believe he could get the nomination, nor be elected. But, if he *was*, would he be able to get things done?

I went through the same thing in 2004 before the primes and eventually took the pragmatic path and voted for Edwards. Unless Dennis pulls some miraculous upset in Iowa and NH, which I fully believe is possible if people don't vote the way the MSM tells them, I will have to go with Edwards again. It won't be a nose holder vote either. I truly like his stand on issues and I KNOW he has the best chance of all of them, save maybe Biden or Dodd, to win the GE.

Kucinich stands for liberal principles but would be a poor president at best in my opinion.

He would be better than Bush however.

Basing your vote on who you think can win, rather than who you want to win is giving short shrift to those like Dennis who have the best ideas. Sure, I could throw my vote for Dennis to Hillary instead, but I would be selling out and giving my vote to a corporatist instead. Same with Edwards.

The point of a democracy is for the individual to vote for the person who most represents their own views. Not who could win, not who their neighbor is going to vote for, but for who they think personally is the best person for that job. If you think that Dennis is the best person for the job, vote for him. If you think Edwards is, vote for him. But don't vote for a person for the simply fact that you want to be on a winning team, or because you want to see a certain candidate lose. That's part of how we got in this mess in the first place, voting for lesser evils. I really don't think that more of the same will get us out of it.

is not the person who represents all the same views.

Frankly I share DK's views but anyone that looks into his person carefully realizes he is woefully inadequate for the job.

Otherwise you have a point, it just rarely has a place in reality.

Given the fact that the top tier, along with the rest of the pack, are pretty much bought and paid for by corporate America. Even Edwards, who talks a good liberal game, has been bought and paid for, thank you very much.

And the point that I make not only has a place in reality, it is reality. It is what the democratic system of government is based on. Veering away from that is what got us into our current state, continuing to stray is only going to get us further away.

I won't try to upset your view that except for DK 'all the top tier DEM candidates have been bought and paid for' (although I doubt you will find a majority here who agree with you).

There are ways to bring about the change you seek, but putting a Republican in George Bush's seat when he leaves the Oval Office will not get you there. It would do incredible damage to this country, as many people will suffer( and some people will die) if we fail to elect a Democrat in the next election.

But if feeling 'ideologically pure' is more important than the real life dangers presented to so many people with another elected Republican President, then I doubt anyone is going to change your mind.

It is, after all, the primary. There is plenty of time during the general election to make deals with the devil. As far as "putting a Republican in George Bush's seat" what the fuck are you talking about? How am I doing that by voting for Kucinich? Why the fuck are you using this disproven, tired, hackneyed argument that is traditionally used against those who are going Green? What, you think that Kucinich is Green(well, OK, I admit, he fits right in, but he's still a Democrat).

Sorry, but I think that you are quite frankly over reacting. What, do we now need a primary before the primary in order that a person actually vote for the person they like rather than the lesser of two evils.

This is something DK is poor at.

Edwards top single donor by far is ActBlue

http://www.actblue.com/about#mission

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

His top sector is Lawyers and Lawfirms.

I vote for who I want to. And the fact that Edwards is in the pocket of lawyers really doesn't reassure me all that much, if at all.

...how is the primary different from the general election? if you could, for instance, avoid clinton by voting for edwards instead of kucinich. it's the lesser of evils once again, no?

disclosure: donor to kucinich.

Secondly, I would personally have a hard time pulling the lever for Edwards, for many different reasons, trust being of primary importance among them. Third, much of our country's problems can be traced back to the "lesser of two evils" practice as it has played out over the past thirty years. Continuing with more of the same won't miraculously solve our problems, it will once again only make them worse.

... so these NeoCons and corrupt Republicans will not be allowed to rise from the dead again like they did after Iran/Contra.

Edwards is by far the best equipped to make sure that happens. ANd until it does, we can expect Repubs to block everything that Dems try to do in the new Democratic Administration.

Voting for ideas only, discounting who can actually win, the lesser-of-two-evils argument, yadda yadda.

I've heard all this shit before, just replace the names with Gore and Nader.

Who makes that decision? Who is that authority? Doesn't that take even more of our government, our election process out of the hands of the people? Especially if you start imposing this "electability factor" during the primaries(which is what this discussion is about anyway, you can leave Nader out of it)

Sorry, you may want to follow such an undemocratic path, but I think that most of the citizens of this country tend to shy away from such totalitarian mindsets.

If we nominate someone who can't win, we've just shot ourselves in the foot. How is it a totalitarian mindset to nominate someone who can WIN? Isn't that the entire point of the primaries? I like Dennis, a lot, but he won't win - the primaries or the general election. Insisting on voting for him knowing this means you are voting to make a point, and there is far too much at stake to do that. Of course it's a free decision on who you vote for - but if you discount the political process (which is fucked up, I admit) we will NEVER WIN. And if we're ever to change this process into something that better reflects the will of the people, we have to accept it isn't something that can or will happen instantaneously. We can't change shit if we're never in power.

You know, if all the people who have the same sort of mindset as yours, like Kucinich but won't vote for him because he can't win, would actually go out and fucking vote for him, guess what, he would win. But somehow you have been blinded by this non-electability meme that is getting passed around, so thus have shut yourself off from the possibilities.

Besides, what the fuck good is winning with a corporate whore candidate who's going to screw us nearly as bad as losing would do:shrug: Sorry, but we are in the era of the two party/same corporate master system of government, and frankly I'm not going to vote for those who are a part of that, no matter how electable they are. This isn't about winning or losing as a party, this is about the good of our country, and frankly we can get just as screwed with a person with a D behind their name in the White House as we can by a person with an R. Blind party loyalty on either side is not a good way to run this country.

but because of DK willingness to discuss Ron Paul as his running mate.

"My heart is with Kucinich, but my money goes to John Edwards."

Kucninch has been more steadfast in his beliefs (other than choice) and doesn't seem to change his mind with every opinion poll.

Therefore, we'd be guaranteed a populist and wouldn't have to worry about which candidate - conservative Democrat or faux populist - shows up.

:shrug:

:shrug:

All candidates say and do dumb things, but that one is at the top of the list.

Edwards isn't "my guy" though I like him and a few others. I'd guess that Edwards supporters don't switch to Kucinich because we all know that Kucinich has about a 0% chance of being nominated. Averting a Hillary nomination seems to be a priority to many people, and switching votes to someone who won't win probably isn't the best strategy for them.

Let your own mind and experience inform your choice. You will make the correct choice, no matter which course you decide to take, if you do. Let no other opinions or denunciations sway you. Your vote is your life, and yours to use as you please, and nobody else gets to tell you what-for unless you want them to.

Good hunting.

:toast:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

too many are overwhelmed by questions, mislead by media, and never make it to the actual point of pushing the button and casting a vote.

when you are at the polling station, and alone in the moment, trust your body to guide your decision ...and watch yourself as you follow through with what you really want.

when your vote is your life, watch how self-preserving you respond.
dp

If Edwards is in position, then my instincts say yes.

I keep thinking that people who hold to their ideals 100% will wind up with candidate Hillary. Why not support candidate Edwards who is close to 80% of your ideals and he might actually win it all?

Will they be smart?

In terms of progressiveness, the rest of the pack is pretty much in the same (albeit narrow) part of the spectrum.

Unless you live in Iowa or NH, there's no need to change until you hear something from Kucinich himself.

The Plain Dealer, who is promoting this strange story, ALWAYS works for the GOP. Beware of anything they say. Their decision to follow Kucinich (who never lets them know of his schedule) and promote a non-story that none of the rest of the news media has picked up on is highly suspicious.

The GOP and the Plain Dealer know Kucinich is up against long odds to win. Their motivation is very suspect.

Do what most Dems in NE Ohio do, ignore the Pee Dee and see what happens.

:silly:

I will probably vote for Edwards because I like what he's been saying, consistently, this time around. I think he's genuinely learned to be a liberal even if he didn't start out there.

However, if you like Dennis, and there's lots there to like, then vote for him in the primaries. That's what the primaries are for.

If we don't. If we all second guess ourselves trying to outwit the system, it will never be a true reflection of the desires of the base of the Dem party.

Let's everybody vote for their favorite candidate in the primaries, then if we have a tied convention, then talk about who's delegates are going to whom.

It sucks, and your mileage may vary, but my thought is that a strategic vote in the *primary* may reduce the need for too much strategery in the general. Maybe. Hell, I don't know. I'd be a lot happier with Edwards than with Clinton.

Y'll do as you will, though.

Biden is my candidate, but I'm contemplating using my vote strategically in the primary by throwing my vote to either Edwards or Obama.

I can't decide. Every day I seem to flip flop.

a certain graciousness that I have yet to see so far. I realize it's a difficult decision, but even though I'm an Edwards supporter and probably biased somewhat. I have found from taking those sort of "silly" tests about who you support by answering various questions, I've found that my views coincide with Kucinich's. They also show I support Biden and Edwards too!

I do feel it would show MSM that Edwards is more viable than they have given him credit for. Since I live in Florida we have a Primary problem and I don't think I need to worry about who to vote for, HOWEVER for those who will vote, if Clinton or Obama gets all the momentum MSM will most assuredly write Edwards off!

And since the D.C. Elites already hate Edwards it will send a message that Edwards can't get elected. For me, he has a message that reaches out to more of "middle America" than Clinton or Obama! I do like Obama, just think he could be much more dominate if he waited a little longer!

The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to vote for Edwards, or possibly Obama, in the primary.

Realistically speaking, my favorite candidates have no chance.

it gives me a chance to recycle my earlier response:

----------------------------------
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-20-07 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
60. why stop there?

Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Richardson should get behind Edwards. they'll be like the Super Friends.

together, they may be able to trip up Hillary and get her to say her name backwards - sending her back to her own dimension and leaving Iowa up for grabs.

-----------------------------------

i'd throw it to Dodd, and maybe Richardson before him. i have nothing against JE, i just reject these notions that Edwards is the natural choice for Kucinich supporters.

...very unnecessarily -- instant runoff voting should've become a reality here a long time ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

To answer your question, I think a move to get behind Edwards soon probably does make the most practical sense, but it's a shame that we've settled for so long now, for such a poor electoral process.

We should demand instant runoff voting on PAPER ballots ONLY.

I really feel he can win the nomination and the next election. He stands up for the working class, and that is what the democratic party is all about!

Mine says vote Kucinich.

Having spent the better part of a day w/ Kucinich and his wife when he was in town for a forum I have to say that while I perceive Dennis to be sincere in his beliefs, I also believe him to be more wed to the attention and notoriety... than to the cause.

While I am not anywhere near as well acquainted w/ Edwards, I believe that Edwards does what he does: FOR THE CAUSE and NOT for the attention.

This is a huge difference when I consider the personal and emotional investment many of us have in our candidates.

The world WILL turn on the American election in 2008.

It is up to Americans, particularly the early voters of Iowa and New Hampshire who "HOLD THE WORLD'S FUTURE IN THEIR HANDS" with their caucuses and their votes, and upon whose shoulders our planet's future lies, to vote thoughtfully in this election. It is the responsibility of these early voters to think through the vast differences in winning potential between Hillary vs Edwards.

Furthermore just who best represents the less advantaged as well as the shrinking middle class, and the consequences of losing an opportunity that may in fact represent the final chance to salvage our nation for our children.

Send Dennis a check, and send Edwards one too, but VOTE for EDWARDS! :think:

I don't know anyone else who thinks that Dennis is in it for the attention. Not one single person.

Q: Governor Richardson has said that if he becomes the candidate, we will start announcing... setting up what his cabinet would be, probably including what his running mate would be. Would you be prepared to discuss that sort of thing?

DK: I'll tell you who I am thinking about.

Q: Ok.

DK: I'm thinking about Ron Paul. (A bunch of hooey about eagles needing two wings to fly, not worth transcribing.) Think about how it could unite the country. You know, having a Democrat and a Republican on the ticket.

Vote for your guy, but please face the fact of his Kucinich/Paul 08 idea, which Paul thankfully shot down.

My conscience has Kucinich at the bottom of my list, next to Clinton.

http://tinyurl.com/3cya9z

it's not happening, next!

Read the post that I replied to.

you're just stirring up shit to stir up shit.

They referred to Kucinich's Vice President Ron Paul idea as a "rumor" and it is not.

http://tinyurl.com/3cya9z

I agree that (thanks to Ron Paul) it is not happening.

we don't give a shit who nixed it, it is nixed.

1: talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
2: a statement or report current without known authority for its truth

Rumor:
1. a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts: a rumor of war.
2. gossip; hearsay: Don't listen to rumor.
3. Archaic. a continuous, confused noise; clamor; din.
–verb (used with object)
4. to circulate, report, or assert by a rumor: It is rumored that the king is dead.

"Kucinich was considering Ron Paul as VP" = truth, not rumor.
"Kucinich is considering Ron Paul as VP" = lie, not rumor.

But by all means don't let me stop you from flogging a dead horse.

1. Bush says something stupid like Iraq and 9-11 are related
2. He renounces that months later
3. DU can't talk about it because our "motive is suspect" since we think Bush is a horrible President.

Got it. Great logic.

go shill for hill or something.

My point is to challenge Kucinich posters who lie about this Ron Paul issue, or are totally misinformed about it. Calling it a "rumor" is a lie. Saying Kucinich never considered Ron Paul as a VP is a lie. Is long as there are lies or misinformation about it, I will continue to post. Get used to it. Feel free to keep this issue kicked, because the more people know the truth, the better.

Good luck with the draft schweitzer thing. :hi:

I'd hold my nose and vote for him if he is the nominee. Without a doubt.

When you and the other denialists stop pretending like Kucinich's awful Ron Paul idea never happened, I will have no reason to talk about it.

It isn't a smear if it is the truth.

What else do you need to know?

he suggested it, retracted it. it's over, move on.
i guess that all you have to smear him since he's right about all of the other issues.
the other candidates, not so much.
:hi:

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2363798

This is Not a 3 second sound bite. He gives quite a lengthy explanation as why it would be a good idea.
I am sure he recanted it once his supporters were horrified by it but this was Not A Rumor.

For some, it depends on your definition of "rumor" and your what your "motive" is.

Move along, Dennis is perfect, nothing to discuss here...

Was, is the operative word.

And as to your comment! :rofl:

If people base their primary/caucus votes on what they THINK other people want, then they're GUARANTEED never to get what they themselves actually want.

If everybody who said, "I love Dennis, but he can't win" had voted for him, he would have at least placed higher in the standings and won some respect for what certain DU posters like to call "the far left." But too many of us lack the courage of our own convictions.

I think I'm sold. Not taking anything away from DK but this guy could own the popular vote.

and I admire you for your courage on this.

It makes sense to me.

I'm in the same boat as you. Kucinich is where my political positions are, but Edwards is more electable at this point. I don't think the country is quite ready for someone as honest as Kucinich, but they may be if the economy falls apart as it appears about to do. So, it's a timing thing to a large extent in my opinion. We're still complacent about everything.

Another way to look at is that the left just isn't at a strong point now, but could be as moods change. Kucinich could ride that change in mood when it happens. At this point, it would take something unusual to split apart the corporate duopoly, perhaps as radical as a Kucinich/Paul alliance. But I don't think voters are aware enough to understand the reality of the corporate parties. They always think there are two choices, period. So, the choices get closer and closer to each other until we arrive at the present point where the two parties both support most of the same issues like war and corporate welfare, Patriot Act, deficit spending. We need to take the country back. Maybe it will be one step at a time, or it may be in an abrupt change.

Obama is too conservative and a bit too openly religious for my taste and Hillary is just not a Democrat, not in the traditional sense anyway. So I won't vote for her even in the general. Obama I could vote for in the general.

But Edwards is the progressive populist in the race, I will certainly contribute to his campaign, through DU or separately. So, I guess we better get started. He's picking up in the polls and time is running short.

Stop listening to what the media is telling you, and start using your vote the way it was MEANT to be used: to express what you WANT out of YOUR government.

Honest to Christ, is someone PAYING people to post things like "I really like Kucinich, but if I vote for him, Rudy Guliani will become president and the undead bloodbath will begin"? If you want Kucinich, then vote for Kucinich! Why the fuck would anyone let the DLC - or anybody else - bend them over and rape their vote away?

is that we can't take the risk. Not at this time in our history when the republinuts have done so much to destroy the underpinnings of our democracy (and its replacement with a corporatocracy) and of the social infrastructure that FDR helped to build and when so many critical issues such as global warming, the continuing occupation of Iraq, an economy that is crashing around us, the demise of the middle class and of any chance for the poor to find a way out of their circumstances face us, etc. I agree that there is much to admire about Kucinich's stands on the issues (as a progressive they certainly speak to me) and his championing of impeachment. But I have come to believe that Edwards' heart is in the right place on the issues that are of greatest concern to me, while he also can appeal widely across the electorate. On the other hand, I also support Kucinich staying in the race. His doing so, will help keep Edwards' feet to the fire, on progressive positions on the issues.

I think this post on the PDA blog by Wayne Williams states the case for supporting Edwards over Kucinich very well:

"Dennis is a good man, yet politics is a serious, and now we know, very dangerous game. This nation is plummeting down a rat hole that grows larger every day. John Edwards understands this now more clearly than ever before. He’s acting, saying and doing the right things and being as clear and specific as anyone can… and you know the corporate media is scared to death of him, let alone the rest of the power structure of this nation. Why? Because they know he can beat them on so many fronts on so many levels. Yet all they can throw at him is a $400 hair cut?

For me the choice was a logical and rational one. I would have hoped living in a dream world where we see a President Kucinich instead of a Clinton was a reality, but I saw it for what it is, a dream, a fantasy. I had to wake up.

I felt avoiding the realities of WINNING, and getting the job done would see history repeating itself.

Dennis Kucinich = Adlai Stevenson Democrats Lose!

John Edwards = Coat Tails, Progressive landslide

If Dennis supports Edwards, and keeps Edwards feet to the progressive fire, then in Congress, they become allies and we all win.

I hope you understand me, THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOESN’T THINK AS WE PROGRESSIVES DO! Travel this nation, go into the heartland, go into the south… THEY DO NOT THINK LIKE US! As such, we will not get their votes no matter how RIGHTEOUS we think we or Dennis are.

The world moves in smaller steps than we like to think. It took 35 years and 8 Billion dollars for the Radical Right Neo-Con’s to destroy the work of FDR, and America still hasn’t learned from the advice of Dwight D. Eisenhower about the Military Industrial Complex, and you think they are ready for US? Think about it.

PDA is about working both inside and outside the system. Keep working for what you believe in, but be rational, logical and SMART! That is what PDA is about, the possible, not just the dream. We’re working to bring back Progressive thinking to the Democratic Party.

We are not going to do it by supporting someone who doesn’t have traction, neither did Ralph Nader.

Dennis himself needs to be running, but if he gains no traction (and except for very progressive groups, he shows little now), and causes Edwards to not beat the DLC machine in the process, and we end up with more of the same Clinton Republican Corporate agenda that is wasting this party at it’s core… then Dennis needs to get out of the way and not be another Nader spoiler. Dennis needs to get power by bringing you and your support to another Progressive who can win. Edwards is clearly showing himself to be that candidate now. I’m really impressed with so much of what John is saying, he’s coming from his heart, but some of us are not listening… just as we blame the radical right for doing… not listening.

Finally… this isn’t about Dennis. This isn’t about you, or me, this is about real politics, the politics of the possible. Be honest with yourself. I sure was. I worked for Gene McCarthy and felt then, the way you do about Dennis now. I worked for George McGovern then, and felt the way you do about Dennis now. I love those men as I love Dennis, but like them, in this America, they didn’t win, and I don’t think DENNIS IS GOING TO WIN! But he may just bring us Billary, again!"

http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=1468

Obama opposed the war from the start and has a much more progressive voting record than Edwards. I know the net-roots spin is for Edwards but Obama has a background and viewpoint much more like Dennis than Edwards does.

Dennis has debunked the rumor. NE Ohioans would appreciate it if other Dems would try to avoid helping the Plain Dealer in their latest effort to turn Kucinich's Congressional seat over to a Republican.

Thanks.

Q: Governor Richardson has said that if he becomes the candidate, we will start announcing... setting up what his cabinet would be, probably including what his running mate would be. Would you be prepared to discuss that sort of thing?

DK: I'll tell you who I am thinking about.

Q: Ok.

DK: I'm thinking about Ron Paul. (A bunch of hooey about eagles needing two wings to fly, not worth transcribing.) Think about how it could unite the country. You know, having a Democrat and a Republican on the ticket.

Dennis considered Ron Paul for VP. Ron Paul rejected that idea. Kucinich supporters complained. Kucinich took it off the table. What about this is a "rumor?"