In defense of a primary to Obama

Kucinich should hit the primary campaign trail.
He should do so and loudly advocate the following-
1.Single payer health care system.
2.Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan + balance the budget over a decade through M-I-C cutbacks.
3.End the drug war.
4.Aggressive clean energy policy complete with "job killing" carbon tax.
5.End the Bush tax cuts.
6.End DADT / Support Gay Marriage.
7.Restore Glass/Steagall + promise to break up "too big to fail" monopolies.
8.Protectionism - end NAFTA end "free"/slave trade and advocate FAIR TRADE.

Any news coverage that Kucinich got would shed light on progressive issues while highlighting Obama's electablity. Since we all know progressive ideals are very unpopular (:eyes:), Obama's favorability rating will increase as people see a real "socialist" running on real ideas.

And if the public likes any of Kucinich's ideas, Obama can steal the idea after the primary.

What better defense from the tea-party "socialist" mantra?

For the record, I think Obama will win big in 2012. He doesn't need Kucinich to primary him. I am suggesting that a Kucinich primary would help Obama, not hurt him. Plus it would show that the Dem party isn't just the DLC.

worse, made fun of (think UFOs)?

And why would he subject himself to the abuse again? Maybe he would. :shrug:

I do think he would be ignored unless Obama allowed him to run.

:eyes:

I was a DK supporter but had to pick another candidate when it became obvious he didn't have a chance in hell of winning. He still doesn't, but that doesn't mean he needs permission to run. That's just crazy talk from you. And yes, warts and all, this is still a democracy.

That was pretty much the day he announced that he was running.

Obama could make himself accessible for debates.. share the spotlight..

All Obama would need to do is ignore the challenge to essentially make it go away..

Anyone could run. Obama could give them the soapbox..

1- It makes it look like we have options in our democracy
2- It makes the party look like one of many ideas
3- It throws the liberals a bone
4- It makes Obama look more moderate.

:shrug:

:eyes:

Easier than dealing with policy failures, I guess.

and wins the majority of the votes in a general national election???

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

got it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you never would have said- "while you bow down and prostrate yourself to politicians".


Back on topic though, who is this super candidate you have all lined up for 2012?

but the rules of the board prevent me -or anyone else from elaborating on them.

Fair enough- I think it's evident enough for most folks to see anyway.

"I have people that agree with me, so I MUST be right". If only the real world was that simple and easy...

:)

Deleted Message seems to have a lot to say. Deleted Message he's our man! If he can't beat Obama, no one can!

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Now where did I put my pom poms? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

And Republicans regain power? Whoda thunk it.

;-)

Not to brag about low unemployment, universal health care, and overall prosperity here- but that is what successful public policy- getting it right- looks like. Wish you all could say the same.

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

to anyone who reads.

:rofl:

you on the other hand, have to live with the reality and consequences of poor public policy.

You on the other hand, I'm not sure where you're living, but it sure is an ugly, cyncical place (and I'm not talking geographically) and thank goodness it's no where near me.

You love a politician- and get proven wrong time and time again on the policy.

-like with those insurance premiums not rising- and keeping your doctor, etc.

Let's see what your fevered, ugly, cynical imagination can regurgitate.

Post the claim, verbatim, then show how it's been "proven wrong". I'll wait.

live with those consequences. Perhaps if you lived in the USA and had or ran the risk of suffering under GOP rule, you might see things differently and take the risk more seriously

:)

Only people on the hard-left have noble intentions. Anyone who disagrees with me is a corporatist sellout, etc etc.

Either get the policies right- or at least try to, or else end up a just another fan of some baseball team or player on that team.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Of course you don't. Wouldn't want to let reality get in the way of your Veruca Salt routine.

:shrug:

Now, obviously some run because they think they have a chance of winning. Like President Obama, then Senator Clinton, or Senator McCain. But why does Kucinich run? He's not stupid. He knows he can't win. Why did Ron Paul run? Also, not a stupid or foolish man; dead wrong on most things but no dummy. He also knew he wouldn't win. Ditto Governor Richardson, or Senator Biden. Mike Gravel. Not one of them stood a chance, really, and they knew it.

But while they ran they were able to raise money, legally. They could just go out to the people and ask for campaign contributions. This money then becomes theirs which they mostly spend on the race for the higher office, but the little bit left over (after they inevitably drop out) can be used to get reelected in their district or state. It's also a golden opportunity to get national attention which might be useful later. Also, if the candidate is able to raise enough funds to stick around a little while, this may turn into a nice cushy cabinet position, which makes for a quieter life than politics.

This of course doesn't describe every candidate. Rudy Giuliani is just an idiot. Fred Thompson is delusional. Alan Keyes is... well, he's Alan Keyes. But a lot of candidates simply run when it's a good time to do so, politically, because it's a politically smart thing to do. Get national attention. Go outside your main sources for contributions. Attention garnered in campaigns applies to the reelection after the drop-out.

Running now, for most Democrats in Congress, would be demonstrating a schism in the party, a schism which exists but party leadership on all fronts don't want to admit to said existence. It would certainly be perceived as playing into Republican hands. Dennis Kucinich is no toady but he is a partisan and a Democrat. I don't think he'll run in 2012 no matter how the President outrages that segment of the left I might call the loudly disappointed.

peace and low stress..

issues but his operational sense sometimes goes awry.

I'd rather see him use his safe Congressional seat to build coalitions toward the ends you list rather than in a primary challenge to the president.

Kucinich, a very strong liberal, has offered his candidacy nationally twice and was rejected both times in overwhelming numbers by Democrats. And both times against the backdrop of George W. Bush's administration.

...such as ending DADT, withdrawing from Iraq and partially from Afghanistan and ending the Bush tax cuts. The rest are issues that are on a longer arc or not possible, though I don't ever see a more than the current financial reforms happening nor ending NAFTA. Carbon tax is probably dead too. Nothing new here really.

what do you think his chances are in a general election?

Kennedy made the same point you're wanting from Kucinich.

shown the door, by both the party & the rank-n-file. Why doesn't the dissatisfied left just shoot for an independent run, like in 2000, unless the goal is mainly to disrupt?

On edit: People keep throwing out DK's name, but I've always been curious, if Dennis is as popular as DU seems to think, why did he not run for that open Senate seat? Could it be that he found out he couldn't win a statewide race? There are only pockets of the country where a DK could even get a foothold, let alone mount a nationwide 50 state campaign. It's just a dumb idea to run a vanity campaign for a mere fraction of the left, who may or may not even be Democrats.

on HCR.

:rofl:

:rofl:

Kuchinich is going to show Obama how to win an election. :rofl: :rofl:

Maybe Orly Taitz can go after Kuch! :rofl:

:popcorn:

What I don't understand is how so many people think a guy who can't get more than 3-4% of the votes during primary season ever had a chance on the national stage.

Good luck with that.