Elect Barack Obama
Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Vote Early-Absentee-Nov4
Visit the Democratic Party
Its nonsense Kucinich is not electable
Why are some people saying Dennis Kucinich isn’t electable? I’ve heard reasons like he looks wimpy and is to short, or he’s a socialist.
First, I thought this was America the land of opportunity, isn’t saying someone looks funny and is to short for an administrative job a form of discrimination? What does height and looks have to do with important decision making abilities? The answer of course is nothing, that is if one has a degree of intelligence and can think for themselves. Perhaps, one who wouldn’t vote for someone solely based on looks, should consider applying for a position on Jay Leno’s All Stars. Unforunately this type of thinking about people is prevalent in our country and needs confrontation with logic and intelligence.
Second, Kucinich is not a socialist. Socialism is looked at as a poison by some in this country. The facts are, many forms of socialism already exist in our country. A couple examples would be the police or fire departments. They are owned, funded collectively, and run by communities. What is social security, the program that has helped millions through the years but socialized retirement. President Franklin Roosevelt instigated the Social Security System was he a socialist? The answer is of course is he wasn’t. However, Roosevelt and others realized there is a place for socialistic principles to have a positive effect in certain areas of society. This type of thinking about socialism always being horrible exists in our country and needs to be confronted by logic and intelligence.
The other day, I saw a picture of a young lady with a coy smile on her face. She was with a tall handsome presidential canidate with his arm around her. I could see she was charmed, and I thought she probably will vote for him. In the past, I recall people excitedly telling me they had met a political canidate and had shook their hand. Later they told me they voted for that canidate. Is shaking hands or being allured a reason to vote for a canidate? Of course not, that is if your intelligence isn’t compromised by pretentious charm. Well guess what folks, this type of irrational, and emotional voter reasoning is also prevalent in our country. People are influenced by all sorts of irrational commercials, and various media adds. Whatever happened to critical and rational thinking? Are we just a country of people highly suggestable to glittery influences? I don’t think we are when using logic and rational thought in considering candidates for political office.
The above types of thinking processes are not only irrational but self defeating. The only way to alleviate faulty thinking is through confrontative logic and intelligence. There are other types of problems across the political spectrum needed to be dealt with also, like corporate influenced media favoritism towards candidates or issues. Anyone with a lick of logic can see that going on. Our country needs intelligent, rational and honest leaders to confront and fix these problems.
Dennis Kucinich is electable just like anyone could be. I believe he is worth listening to with an open mind. His views on all of the issues are logical and in the best interest of the people in this country. Mr. Kucinich is genuine, honest, logical, wise, and not influenced by corporate or special interests. I believe he is the type of canidate with the qualities necessary to confront and fix serious problems in our country. An intelligent and rational voter, will listen to what he says, look at his record and make an informed decision.
Sincerely Jim McKeever
Printer-friendly versionJoin us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
All very passionate, and to
All very passionate, and to some extent true. The reality of the matter, however, is that Kucinich is not electable because he has no widespread grassroots support, no organization, and no history of accomplishment. His few cult-like followers do him no favors with their strong-arm tactics either.
Even if Dennis were 6' 5" tall, and had the looks of a movie star, that would not change the fact that he is not electable due to his lack leadership ability, as evidenced by his own lackluster campaign. He talks the talk, but unfortunately is not able to walk the walk. Truman was no looker, but he was a leader.
Having said all of that, if by some miracle he is nominated by the Democratic Party, I would vote for him. My main concern is gaining a stonger Democratic hold on the combined Houses of Congress by real Democrats, thereby reducing the recently assumed dictatorial powers of the Oval Office -- regardless of who, or which Party, wins it.
Kucinich is a leader.
If Kucinich wasn't electable he wouldn't be an elected congressman. Kucinich is a leader by making the right decisions. Co-authoring HR 676,the nonprofit healthcare bill is leading. No other canidate has a single payer non profit plan. Obama just said yesterday that if he could start from scratch he'd incorporate a single payer plan. I wonder who he got that idea from. And someday whether Kucinich is elected or not non profit will be the kind of health system we will have. Kucinich stood on his own against the war from the beginning, now you hear all the other canidates apologizing for their votes to give Bush authority. Which one of the canidates lead the way in realizing the war was a mistake? He's now leading the way on ending the war by stopping funds to support it. It'll only be a matter of time before the rest will realize he's right again. He had enough sense to take the time and read the Patriot Act and was the only one to vote against it. Now the others are admitting they should have too. I'm ashamed of the democrats for not following his lead on impeachment. The Bush administration probably did the worst thing in american history by a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. I believe someday truth will prevail and Bush and company will pay the piper. Kucinich wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth like many politicians. Quite the contrary, he came from a poor and humble enviroment. He led himself out of that situation to success. That background helps him to understand the needs of the poor and average american. Oh, he did follow Edwards lead once and got a $400.00 haircut, only he got it from a barber who's kid needed expensive medical help. Kucinich is a leader because he's genuine honest and does the right thing the first time.
Sorry, but the facts say
Sorry, but the facts say otherwise. If Dennis was a leader, he would be much further ahead in the polls, and command a much better showing in the press and the public eye. As you say, he has been around a long time, and his public image has changed little over the years. He is in the same category as Nader and Perot - an "also ran."
Wishing for a miracle comeback by an underdog is a very American trait. It didn't happen in his last run for the presidency, and I'm fairly confident that it won't happen this time. True leaders inspire others to action with their charisma and "presence," and Dennis just doesn't have those qualities.
If you add up all of Kucinich's election losses vs. his wins, over the span of his entire political career, he ends up in the negative column. Sponsoring a pitiful few Bills, most of which gained no support whatsoever, is not a political "accomplishment" to inspire widespread support among the American People, nor the Democratic Party.
All of the things you say about Dubya and the neocons are very true, and this country is on the brink of fascism. However, Kucinich (or any other candidate at this point) is simply not equipped to change any of that no matter what he promises. In the end, it makes little difference who occupies the Oval Office in 2008, unless the entire political landscape changes.
Only an uncorrupted Congress has the power to uphold and enforce the Constitution of the United States, and restore the checks and balances that have been flaunted by this administration and the current Congress. Until we flush the neoconservatives of both political Parties from Congress, and replace them with American patriots, we will continue to get what we pay for, and deserve.
The media runs the show
"i could'nt agree with you more. If people would listen to what he has to say there would be no other choice. the media is basically telling America who to vote for. I pray that the people of the United States of America stand up. let us be the ones saying who should be elected not the media."
Thie above is a response to the same blog from a woman on a different board. I believe her in regards to the media and it is an uphill battle for Kucinich. I disagree with you on his leadership. Millions of people now are against the war that weren't in the beginning. Kucinich stood practically alone (at least with the politicians) against it. That in my eyes is a big component of leadership the wisdom of being right and the courage to stand up regardless. Leaders aren't made from the media and Clinton, Edwards etc... were lemmings in regards to that war. Wins and losses don't make you a leader either. As for bills, The Conyers/Kucinich healthcare bill isn't weak. It is truly what is needed for people in this country. The others proposing plans with private insurance are hogwash. They talk about controlling premiums, deductables and what insurer's will cover. What a joke. At least Kucinich had the balls to do what is right. People that vote for Kucinich understand he's a long shot, they know he doesn't have the media on his side, and is far apart from the status quo. But they want real positive change not the same crap we've had for so long. I do agree with you on congress and the neoconservatives. There are a few, Kucincih being one, in Congress that are not corrupted and stand up for the constitution, another sign of leadership.
Like it or not this is first
Like it or not this is first and foremost a popularity contest. It's not about who has the best ideals, nor is it about who 's the most attractive (We need only look at George W. and Nixon to see that this is true). The first step in being "electable" is being appealing to wide a range of people. From their the more important stuff like a candidate's values, track record, and plans come into play. But they majority of people will be ignorant and/or apathetic to all of these details if they aren't aware of the candidate and don't feel a connection to him.
Re: Like it or not this is first
It is a popularity contest and the media plays a huge part in creating a persona for each canidate. The public falls prey to much of this facade unless they utilize logical and rational thinking to dispute it. People need to be educated on "how to think" in this country. I was a high school counselor prior to retirement and I can tell you there is no such "how to think" coursework in the school system at least not pre college, and I doubt there is much at the university level. If we (including elected officials) knew how to think Iraq would never have happened. I like Kucinich because he does know how to think.
Criticism of the "public"
Criticism of the "public" will not increase Kucinich's ratings, nor his level of acceptance by the great unwashed. By your reasoning, the "public" is responsible for Dennis' failure to gather the needed support to win.
Our representative form of government gives equal weight to those who know how to think (as defined by you), and those who don't know how to think (meaning those who do not agree with you).
I don't "think" that Dennis has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination. That doesn't make him a bad person, just rejected by an overwhelming majority of his fellow Democrats.
Truth of Kucinich is that he hasn't the ...
foggiest notion of how to run a campaign. The mistakes, the fumbles, the misstatements, the lack of targeted goals, his failure as a legislator over the years, his last run for the presidency and this run gets him nowhere.
Kucinich Brownshirts are a cult. They use strongarm tactics to invade all sites to disrupt and point fingers.
Dennis knew last time around that he needed a wife. He got one. A much younger greencard holding Limey Hippie Chick is not the answer to the American electorate.
His statements about UFOs, about taking on Ron Paul as his VP, and the rest give him no credibility.
His inability to gain support in the congress for his bills, this is another failure.
The man will get his usual 3% and thats about it.
Dennis may be a nice guy, but he is simply not electable...except amongst his fringe supporters.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Re: truth of Kucinich
I'm no expert on campaigns, I know he doesn't have the $$$ others have. I won't comment on your assertions about him and his wife because I don't know their relationship. As for his bills HR676 is the most important domestic bill in my opinion right now. He has some degree of support there and I believe it will grow. I'm not trying to strong arm anyone, only present what I feel is logical argument. Kucinich gave an honest answer to a dumb question for a debate in regards to the ufo thing. All I can say about that is, many people have reported seeing things in the sky that the couldn't identify. Supposedly Reagan and Carter have saw something identified. I think its trivial and being blown out of proportion. Russert could have asked dumb questions towards the other canidates but for some reason didn't. Although Paul and Kucinich are far apart on domestic issues they're very close on foreign policy. I'll admit they would be strange running mates and they would have to iron out a lot between them. Kucinich is very open minded but I doubt he's choose Paul if by miracle he was nominated.
Basically, I like Kucinich because I believe he's genuine, honest and has integrity. Most politicians are full of crap. He made the right decisions on Iraq, Patriot Act, Nafta, on a non profit healthcare system, and I think he's right in trying to impeach Cheney and bring back some respectability to our country. Regards
Re: critism of the public
The public is responsible for the elected officials we have. They will also be responsible for the ones elected in the future. You must be pretty powerful to ascertain I meant what you said in regards to thinking. Many people who know how to think and use logic disagree with me. What you said is not what I meant. My objective of this thead was to encourage people to use logic when considering canidates and not rule out Kucinich. I support him and try making rational arguments for him. He's not perfect but I believe he's the best canidate, obviously you think different. At the end of your first response you said if by some miracle he made the nomination you would vote for him. I thank you for that.
As for knowing how to think, I believe there should be classes taught along those lines. Learning a process, involving use of,logic, identifying BS and screening it out, looking at all angles that kind of thing. I read a book once that had a multi step process that made some sense. Any thoughts on this?
"As for knowing how to
"As for knowing how to think, I believe there should be classes taught along those lines. Learning a process, involving use of,logic, identifying BS and screening it out, looking at all angles that kind of thing. I read a book once that had a multi step process that made some sense. Any thoughts on this?"
The "process" you mention is called life. Some of the smartest people I know (both with, and without, formal educations) are blessed with a high degree of common sense. That is not something that can be taught, but comes from the ability to reason.
Back to the topic of this thread, Dennis Kucinich is not a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination to the office of POTUS. I will indeed vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who that may be, but I am reasonably confident that it will NOT be Kucinich. He just doesn't have what it takes to become president. That is not just my reasoned opinion, but the collective opinion of a majority of "thinking" American Democrats.
By all means, support the candidate of your choice, but please allow the rest of we Democrats the courtesy of making our own reasoned choices. Alluding that we are somehow deficient in our ability to think, simply because we don't agree with your chosen candidate, will not help your cause.
Question: Will you vote for the Democratic nominee if he or she is someone other than Dennis?
RE:As for knowing how to
My intention in bringing up how to think was not to imply anybody not supporing Kucinich was deficient in thinking abilities. I can understand how it could misinterpeted though. At the end of my initial blog I said an intelligent, rational voter will listen to what he (Kucinich) says look at his record and make an informed decision. A logical person would look at all the canidates before deciding. I respect your reasoned opinion even though I think differently. Yes I would vote for whoever the democratic nominee is. Kucinich is a long shot, my next choice would be Obama. I like the fact Obamba said he would talk with Iran etc... right away. Clinton critized Obama because she said talking with them wouldn't give a good impression internationally or something to that affect. I think leaders need to talk and try and iron things out. Why wait? In my estimation Clinton's unwillingness to do so doesn't show strength. I think Obama is a new face with new ideas and overall better for the country. I tend to think any of the canidates would improve our foreign policy situation. But one huge problem in this country is healthcare. I strongly believe in getting private insurance out of the picture and going to a national plan covering everyone. A big reason I like Kucinich is because of his healthcare bill which in my opinion is far superior to any of the other canidates. I am hoping people will look at the differences in the healthcare proposals and lean towards Kucinich. All political stuff aside waht are your thoughts on healthcare?
I have to disagee with you on your statement about life and thinking. Yes for some life experience, parental guidance etc... can develop many good thinkers with common sense and ability to reason. However for many people life doesn't work out in a way where there thinking processes are rational. Prior to being a high school counselor I worked in mental health for 20 years. I worked with a lot of people with varying problems and although I was eclectic in counseling style many times used a method called rational emotive therapy (RET). Its main objective is teaching people to think rationally about things that bother them. Basically people get upset about something and tend to blame the event/stimulus as the cause for their being upset. (RET) taught them to realize it was their thinking about the situation not the situation itself that was causing them distress. The patients learned how to rationally dispute faulty thinking and improved their lives. They weren't being taught what to think but how to think.
I believe if people were taught principles of thinking with logic the world would be a better place.
First of all, Kucinich (or
First of all, Kucinich (or any other presidential candidate) can promise anything they wish, but only Congress can change the law of the land. The office of POTUS is basically powerless without the support of Congress, and much too powerful with a corrupt rubber-stamp Congress.
And lastly, yes teaching more people how to think objectively would certainly improve many aspects of society, but then again so would almost any level of advanced education. The fact-of-the-matter, however, is that in a democracy all opinions count -- even those which are not well thought out, as evidenced by two elections of Dubya and the neocons.
To paraphrase Rummy, "you go into an election with the electorate you have, and not the one you wish you had."
It seems to me that the argument:
If people were different then the world would be different, is a tautology.
People however, are NOT "different".
Cultures do advance (and fall back) so progress is not impossible.
I'm left with two possible implications from this thread:
1) We should teach critical thinking (However I believe we already do...for those horses who drink).
2) We should shame people for foolishness in hopes it modifies their behavior. (Ridicule is a useful tool for change but any "critical thinking" that is going to be implemented here must start with those who are attempting to "change" people).
Are you saying that the
Are you saying that the bell-curve is an elitist ploy to make themselves look smart?
I'll stop now...;-)
I won't...
...and how would YOU know if I was being condescending?!
;)
LOL!
LOL!
RE, RE, RE, ad nauseum...here ya go Jimmy...
Good 'ol Jimmy continues to titillate us with his 'common sense' approach to Kucinich Brownshirting.
In rebuttal, I offer his own thread over at DU: general discussion politics forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?as=view_all&add...
Note the replies from Jimmy and fellow Kucinich Brownshirts and those posters who have chosen not to admit that Kucinich is not electable. Note also those others who feel pretty much as I do.
Jimmy is just another one visiting to make trouble ala Anita Stewart...another stalwart Kucinich Brownshirt who came here to make trouble.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
I suspected as much.
I suspected as much. Single-issue posters almost always give themselves away...
RE, RE, RE, ad nauseum...here ya go Jimmy...
And while you're at it look at posts number 9 and 70.
Sorry for stirring things up Mr. Grinch. I really wasn't trying to make trouble.
Ya know Jimmy, In the first primary that...
Dennis ran in. One of the other candidates[check your spelling of candidates]in that primary was Al Sharpton. He quickly gave up and quit the campaign. Dennis, like the Duracell Bunny with his bass drum went on and on and on. At the end, Al Sharpton got more electoral votes than Dennis did.
Maybe thats the answer, dress Dennis up in a cute bunny suit and strap a bass drum on him and wind him up--gee, ya think that would get him some attention.
Dennis didn't do too badly here in Oregon last time around. Of course, he was in the state for 6 weeks. There are 50 states. Does Dennis have the time to spend 6 weeks in every one of them?
I did read the thread at DU. I know the names of most of the pro-Kucinich Brownshirts who posted there. Last week, they were all attacking Hillary. The week before, Edwards. I suppose, judging from history, that next week is Obama's turn.
Dennis himself is unaware of the reality; he doesn't care about the reality; this is a hobby with him and his following is a cult. They collectively all act like a cult, they write like cultists, they behave like cultists, and unfortunately, all 3% of them aren't enough to justify the prose that gets wasted on Dennis's behalf.
Was a time during this pre-primary that other candidates were mentioned. No one, especially the Dennisites, wanted to discuss anyone else. Thats why we are faced with a less than sterling group of wanna-bee's.
Of them all, Hillary has got to get attention--she is the only one with PAYBACK in her bloodstream.
However to get back to Dennis, you might want to google using the keywords:
grinch+democrats.com
...and then read what transpired before things got nasty.
Oh well, that is history now. The Brownshirts sowed the wind...and the whirlwind will take them all out.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Ya know Jimmy, In the first primary that...
I just started posting on DU and here yesterday. I'm very willing to discuss other canidates. I'm for Kucinich but have an open mind. I do not want to make any bad blood.
"Of them all, Hillary has got to get attention--she is the only one with PAYBACK in her bloodstream."
Could you explain Payback?
Jimmy, the word canDidates is not...
spelled canidates. I've mentioned this a couple of times. Seems as if you aren't really reading what is asked in the posts of others.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
ON Payback...
the Clinton's were under attack before they even got into the White House. The attacks were ferocious and came from everywhere. The Rovian playbook and Gingrich's GOPAK dictionary were in full play. The wolves of the MSM were constant with their efforts to publish any and all lies they could dream up about both Clintons.
John Derbyshire, an editor from The National Review, called for the death of Chelsea Clinton to prevent the spread of Clinton genes.
Rush, a pusbag of the highest blight, called Chelsea a dog--not once but over and over.
Of them all, Hillary is the only one whose marriage survived these kinds of attacks. No one will deny that the 'dog' Chelsea became an example to American youth.
Other items come to mind: Clintons rip off the White House. Then there was: Clintons rip off Air Force One. Only two papers in the country have apologized for these banner headlines. Vince Foster comes to mind, there are countless others still being used by the perverts of the MSM and all neo-cons.
There has to be a reason for all the Repugs attempting to bail out before the next election. It can't all be just "to spend more time with the family."
Hill knows where the bones are buried. She knows how to do what she will have to do. In any case, there will be some 'payback.'
The Japanese have a saying: Revenge is a dish best served cold. That is behind the loyal memories of the 47 Ronin who lie in distinguished in a small graveyard in Tokyo.
There are those of us who would like to see a bit of payback for what we have been subjected to.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
To the poster JIm...who stated that...
Dennis was 3% ahead of him, I suggest that Jim tells his neighbor and then Jim will be at 6%.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Since you are a new member,
Since you are a new member, we will give you the benefit of doubt.
A few months back, a group of rabid Kucinich supporters attacked Democrats.com in full force. When we discovered their "home site" (Kucinich's campaign website) and published their own statements with the facts of their intent to disrupt Democrats.com, they quietly disappeared.
For some strange reason, as Grinch points out, Kucinich supporters exhibit a cult-like quality not seen in those who back other candidates.
...and by the way...
...Kucinich still only leads me by 3%.
In fact Dennis leads ANY Progressive by only 3%.
That should put to rest the idea that being Progressive makes you THE candidate.
It's a necessary but not sufficient condition.
RE-RE, Kucinich, for for knowing...
Kucinich is not even a long shot. He is not at the track and he is not a horse. As a horse, he might have some essential value.
Do you find that the responses you are getting to the same item posted at DU are different from the ones you are getting here?
Kucinich has done what for the past 8 years? Aside of course, from taking up a seat in the House? What bills has he promoted that ultimately got passed? What has he done about voting problems in his home state? What has he done to shut down Diebold? What really, has he done since being mayor of 'that mistake on the lake' as Cleveland is referred to by many midwesterners?
What sort of people does Dennis attract? Our experience on this site is that his supporters like to storm other sites and skew polls en-masse, disrupt staid and orderly discourse, and generally throw their weight around as best they can.
Bottom line, since your interest is in healthcare, where was Dennis when Hillary Clinton proposed a healthcare package some 16 years ago--the first to offer a change in programs?
I don't really give a darn what his relationship with that Limey Hippie Chick is. After all, Dennis has already been divorced a couple of times.
Mostly, I resent Dennis supporters who try to campaign for him themselves...he obviously does not know how to run a campaign.
In the last Dem debate(so-called), the candidates were encouraged to ask a question of another candidate. Who did Dennis choose to ask the question he had coming? Why Dennis of course. Yeah, he asked himself a question. WOW!
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
RE-RE, Kucinich, for for knowing...
You're comparing a democratic canidate to a horse. Are you a democrat? Most responses I've got haven't given Kucinich much of a chance. I've already expounded on Kucinich's record and things I felt he done that were important. Voted against Iraq war from scratch. Against Nafta, Patriot Act etc... As far as what kind of supporters he draws well in my opinion ones that are are very liberal. Sure he draws fanatics but so do other canidates. My objectives weren't to be disruptive or to throw my weight around. I'm willing to listen to others views on different canidates or issues. As for healthcare Kucinich believes in eliminating private insurance Clinton wants them involved. I've been screwed as has many others by private insurance so I like Kucinich's plan much better. I'm no campaign expert, I do know he doesn't have the money others do. As for Kucinich asking himself a question. I suppose if he had the same amount of time or close to the top 3 frontrunners it might be inappropiate. However because he doesn't come close I thought it was ok. Dodd, Richardson and Biden should also consider it if the chance arises. He did ask himself an important question in regards to healthcare. People do need to know the differences of each canidate's healthcare plan and that hasn't been explained in much detail.
JimmyMac811
I really think people are missing each other on Kucinich:
Being Progressive does NOT make one the best Candidate.
Accomplishing Progressive Goals does.
I'm not arguing for or against Kucinich. Just DEFINING the conversation.
As an aside:
I've long held that Liberalism is for Conservatives as well. Their sensibilities are different, and you certainly can not bring mean spirited Right Wingers into the fold, but you can make inroads into broader swaths of American voters. I do not see Kucinch doing this. Nor, especially, his more intense followers. Repeating "Liberal" credentials is not the way to make advances in my view.
Which part about Kucinich
Which part about Kucinich not having the support of 97% of Democrats, nor the backing and support of his political colleagues do you not understand?
You have expressed your support for Dennis over and over again, and nothing has changed. This thread is becoming an exercise in the ridiculous, because all of your arguments are impotent and do not deal with the reality of the current political landscape.
In the end, the very best that Dennis can do will be to have the "honor" of handing over his measly showing to the elected nominee. After that, he will fade back into the woodwork as an "also ran" once again. If we somehow manage to get a Democratic president in 2008, Dennis will not even be considered for a Cabinet post.
OK, lets look at Dennis's campaign...
methodology: If one wants to be president, then one has to establish a high-level of funding. Dennis has not. If you will remember, both Dean and Clark did establish private donorship in their campaigns. Somehow, Dennis still, after running for a year, has to beg for phone money.
Iowa is the kickoff of the actual primaries. Dennis could have attended two events that might have helped him. He could have attended one of these(a private fundraiser)by just sending a $30 check for the BBQ. He didn't. And, more importantly, he didn't go. The AARP invited a number of candidates, including Dennis, by registered letter. There were some minimal conditions that had to be met. Dennis not only did not meet the minimal conditions, but did not even answer the registered letter. During that period, important to all candidates, Dennis saw fit to fly to Hawaii. Shoot, he could have driven to Iowa. So now, he is beating the bushes in NH. Everyone else is in Iowa.
His wife Elizabeth made a statement about his considering Ron Paul as a VP which got broad distribution. Dennis was asked, at a houseparty in NH about this. And he agreed with his wife, sure he would consider Ron Paul. Then he went off the track and talked about seeing an eagle on a canopy and thinking about an eagle having two wings--one left and one right. He considers Ron Paul to be what he needs. And the Damn Eagle has yet to get it's wings back.
Dennis sat on his ass and voted. Sometimes one way, sometimes another. But not once has he engaged his fellow Dems in the house to get them to stand behind what he proposes. He has done little else than vote. One has to remember Tom DeLay who managed to get bills rammed through even though many of his house members did not want to support those bills.
Dennis has no fire. He has a poor past. Yes, he has been re-elected as if election from Ohio means something. It means nothing on a national scale.
Please check your spelling of candidate--it is incorrect both here and at DU. Typos are one thing, this is something else.
Healthcare: Why did he not support Hillary's healthcare proposal 16 years ago?
Guns: Why did he just advocate taking all guns from private owners thereby leaving the only guns in the hands of law enforcement?
Goofy stuff: How much of his goofy thinking is left over from when he bunked with Shirley McClaine?
We can go around and around. The result is the same. If Dennis would wear a bunny suit and play a bass drum, he might get some attention.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
I STILL want to know...
...why, when one progressive leads another by only 3%, we need to jump on the bandwagon of the one who leads by such a small margin?
It seems to me we could all look around and find a Progressive we like better OR an unwashed player who might DELIVER more: Can you say "Health Care" and "Payback"?
And yes, I have to hold the vomit back at times but such is life. The fight comes years before the election. At that point its all pragmatics. Then back to the fight. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Dennis's Campaign
Dennis has fire. He sticks to his principles. He is not beholden to rich corporate interests. He is consistent. He doesn't "parse", hedge and waiver. If you agree with his positions why don't you support him? Why do we have to settle on the media's hand picked and pollster's pick for our nominee? The people should decide who their nominee should be. Electability should not be on the amount of money you raise and your standing in the polls. It should be on the power of your ideas. The MSM is not giving Dennis equal and fair treatment. Did you watch him in Iowa or New Hampshire? Look at the audience response compared to Hilliary who was booed. Dennis won the DFA and The Nation straw poll. He is dependent on ordinary grassroots citizens, not professional campaign workers and consultants. So if you are progressive, why aren't you supporting him? If the Founders of our country had this attitude, we won't even be having this debate.
go ahead and give up your mind
Ok grinch and harding you apparently are advocating voting for the person you believe is electable. Who would that be?
I for one will not vote for someone who is morally corrupt but you are telling us that we should because they are electable? Big media has made up your mind for you I guess. How sad.
g1v3up, who do you personally consider...
morally corrupt amongst our several candidates. Perhaps you might care to define your term?
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
vote your conscience
It is the duty of every American to vote their conscience, not vote for someone just because they appear to be more electable than someone else. Get a clue grinch and become an American or be the coward and vote for the one that the media says is the winner. Let someone else make up your mind for you. And drop all the hot air in your long driveling posts.
g1v3up, Of course it is. It is also imperitive...
that the candidate chosen by the voters(while we still have that option)be capable of doing the job and not just sitting in the chair.
The media has no effect on me. I make choices based on research of the candidates. Research that has gone on now for 8 long years.
Are ye then, one of them? I am referring to the people who enter as many sites as possible to stir up trouble.
As to being an American, my family will have been here 400 years in another 20 years. I really could be nothing else.
If you do not like the answers to posts to another, then don't read them.
Does voting for an incompetent candidate make any sense to you? It does to some.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
And what is: voting one's conscience?
Isn't a vote more than a way to make oneself feel morally warm and fuzzy?
I happen to think that Kucinich is a decent Liberal. I think others are far more progressive in their thinking, and they only trail Kucinich by 3%.
Is it reasonable then for each of us to cast a write in vote for the candidate of our choice?
Or are we ALSO trying to get SOMETHING accomplished?
And does that not take BOTH Progressive Values AND a road to victory?
Voting Your Conscience
I will always vote my conscience. But why should we compromise just to have a Democrat win?
If Hillary wins the nomination, she will not win the General Election. She will bring out the right wing nuts who are obseessed with hating her and the progressive and discouraged swing voters will stay away and a Republican will win. Since coming to the Senate, she has not said anything about health care. Did you see "Sicko"? She is in the pockets of the health insurance and drug industries. She is also getting money from the defense industry. Do you realy think that we will have universal, single payer health care with anyone else seeking the nomination? The only progressive choice in the primary is Kucinich. Stop compromising. Build the movement. Get money out of politics. We need Federal financing of Presidential and Congressional elections. That is Dennis's position as well
Why not support me?
Seriously. Your argument is ONLY that Dennis is a Liberal. I am too.
I am not being flippant. I simply want us to understand each other.
Beyond the above, one of the reasons folks move into panic mode, is that they see the Holy Grail as A Candidate. THAT IS FALSE.
I can not stress that enough. IT IS FALSE.
The Holy Grail is you and me. It is building a movement so that A TRULY PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE WILL GET ELECTED EASILY. We are not there yet obviously, but we can get there.
Electability of Dennis
If you agree with his positions why not vote for him? If you don't support and vote for him he can't win. Why should we compromise and vote for the least common denominator "corporate Democrat?