Do you support the guy you like, or the one you think others will like?

[RichM]

Disclaimer: I only said "guy" to fit it in the subject line. No offense meant to CMB!

John Maynard Keynes once famously compared stock-picking to a beauty contest in which you vote not for the contestant you personally find most beautiful, but for the one you think most others will find most beautiful.

The present DU screeching about candidates seems much the same kind of phenomenon. Everyone here that's able to write a cogent paragraph seems to acknowledge that Kucinich has the best ideas & platform, but he shouldn't be supported because he "can't win." Isn't this idea equivalent to the statement that you don't vote your heart, you vote what you think most of your peers will approve of?

The reasons given to support many other candidates are largely that "they can win." Isn't that the same idea?

Are Democrats supposed to be the party of people who lack the conviction to vote for the person whose ideas they personally find most resonant -- but rather the party that backs the candidate who seems the most promising marketing prospect?

[KG]

1. you gotta stop that shit, Rich

don't be making people stop and think. everybody should just shut up and vote ______ dammit!

[Dude_CalmDown]

2. Both

Kucinich is the one I support and the one I believe that others will like - maybe it's the ears.

[Mairead]

3. Nice one, Rich. Let's see how many people take the point

Anyone want to make a wee book?

[CWebster]

4. A little of both-

based on reality. It is not a perfect world.

If the likihood was that the most popular candidate was intolerable to me I would vote strickly idealistically, but if the evidence reveals a populus candidate with broad appeal and political potential - and has a good chance to threaten the status quo--then count me first in line.

Because this is about more than beating Bush to me--this is just as much about changing the attitude of the establishment party that enabled Bush. And i have to go with the odds.

This is a sensitive but inportant debate on the Left.

[Mandate My Ass]

5. I went to hear Jim Hightower last night

He likes Dennis and got a hearty round of applause for saying so!

I can't wait till the swimsuit competition. :hi:

[Dude_CalmDown]

8. Actually I wouldn't mind letting that one get lost in the schedule..

"I can't wait till the swimsuit competition."

[RichM]

16. Yeah, I saw Dan Ellsberg last Sunday, who said the same thing, & got

the same reaction. It was at a "Progressive Festival" in Petaluma -- a nice little town about 30 miles north of SF.

Ellsberg prefaced his remarks by saying, "No one has to tell me about the sins of the Democrats. I know all about them, believe me." Everyone chuckled at that. He went on to say that he finds Dean acceptable, though he was sharply critical of Dean's support for the Iraq occupation. He said Kerry's IWR vote had badly disappointed him. On balance, he said, the Democrats have been cowardly & inadequate in their opposition to Bush, but in his opinion, it is still not justified to say that there is "no difference" between the parties.

(I'm just reporting on Ellsberg, here. He was somewhat more charitable towards the Dems than I would have been.)

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

I think Edwards will probably win the swimsuit. :hi:

[Mandate My Ass]

17. The sins of the Democrats

Hightower has nicknamed them "Wobblycrats." He has cute Texas euphemisms for lots of things and he succeeded in charming the money right out of my pocket for his newest book. He not only lamented the lack of principled opposition on war, the economy and erosion of civil rights, but in his folksy way he pointed out that the Dems long ago traded in their workboots for the same Gucci loafers the republicans wear.

He's all about grassroots. He said there are pockets of opposition out there everywhere and he's trying to unite everyone. I joined truemajority.org (I think that's the URL, I'm having trouble getting on google today.) Anyway, he said that winning back the white house will only put us back at square one but I actually think we'd have to undo a lot of damage before we could say we're back where we were in 2000.

Oh, and I'm going to hear Michael Parenti later this month. I only found out about him through your posting some of his book titles and essays here. That should be a good one too. Belated thanks for the heads up on Michael.

[JohnKleeb]

70. yes I cant wait for the beauty pagant

[Skinner]

6. I suppose if voting were a beauty pageant ...

then you are correct, it would be silly to vote based on who can win.

But we're not picking the cover of Vogue magazine here. We're trying to beat the current occupant of the White House. And it seems to me that whether or not a candidate is likely to win the General election is actually of vital importance.

Now, to be clear: I have made no judgements about who is capable of beating Bush. There seems to be a wide range of opinion on DU regarding who can do it and who can't. But to argue that electability is irrelevant seems to miss the point -- at least if one of your motivations for getting involved in electoral politics is to get your candidate elected.

[Mairead]

9. But 'electability' is NOT a property of any candidate!

Whether a candidate is 'electable' is in US, not them.

Was Gore 'electable'? Was Bush? Which one was 'more electable'?

[CWebster]

14. Was Nader?

[Mairead]

23. Which was Nader more like in 'electability', Gore or Bush?

[CWebster]

58. the ultimate evidence

Nader did not even do as well as expected. That is the reality. In our current system--he is unelectible.

Kucinich doesn't do it for me and there are things in his past that make me uncomfortable. His positions on choice, his racial divisiveness to get elected. And he has this new-agey aspect that gives him that spacey dreamer edge that is not well-rooted and integrated into reality- other than in a very idealized matter.

[Mairead]

59. But you didn't answer my question -- was Nader more like

Bush or Gore in his 'electability'?

As to your objections to Kucinich, I'm not going to argue with you.

[RichM]

60. What do you mean by the "racial divisiveness to get elected" thing?

I haven't heard anything about this before -- and it's pretty clear to me that DK isn't the type.

[Mairead]

66. Apparently

When he was up against George Forbes, a Black man, he and Forbes both 'played to' their constituencies, in Forbes's words. Forbes went on to immediately say that there was no actual racism involved on Dennis's part, or presumably his own--it was only rather sad, cheesy gameplaying that ought to have been beneath them both. This was back when they were both about 30 y.o.

[Terwilliger]

33. No

[sangha]

15. That's a false dichotomy

Electability does not lie completely within one specific group. It is formed by the insection of myriad interests, some in competition, and some acting in concert. The bottom line is that the general consensus concerning certain political positions is well-known enough to conclude that certain politicians have little to no chance of being elected.

IOW, while it may be true that a Kucinich or a Sharpton could win *IF* "we" (ie US voters) decided to elect on of them, there is more than ample reason to believe that that is NOT going to happen.

[Mairead]

20. I don't agree.

What we saw in 2000 was 50M people vote for someone who, seventy years ago or so, would have been a 'remittance man' somewhere, cashing his check every month, boozing and gambling away the time with his cronies. Someone who was not only pathetically unqualified to be President, but unqualified to hold any public office whatsoever. Someone internationally recognised as an embarrassment to the nation and scary as hell to the world because of his unexamined limitations.

He should never even have been made Governor of Texas, yet a concerted campaign put 50M votes for President into his hand, enough so that Daddy's criminal cronies could install him.

If the ruling class could put a loser like Smirky McCokespoon, with his long record of repeated failure and antisocial behavior into office, then we could damnsure put someone like Dennis Kucinich in, no worries.

So I argue that 'electability' does lie solely within the electorate, not the candidate. If any part of it were in the candidate, then Smirk would never have reached any office at all. Except maybe the doctor's office. At the clinic.

[sangha]

25. Your argument doesn't support your opinion

If anything, Election2000 shows that electability is more about having the support of the ruling class than the support of the people. Gore had the support of the people (by a margin that exceeded half a million of "the people") while Bush had the support of the ruling class.

[Mairead]

28. Of course my argument supports my opinion!

You even admit as much. Smirky's success wasn't due to factors inherent in him, but in his supporters. Had they wanted someone else, he would have been seen for the smiling, overprivileged and unqualified psychopath that he is.

But his supporters chose him, and they had the money to sell him.

Alinsky pointed out that there are two sources of power: money and people. And of the two, people is much the more powerful but (usually) harder to bring to bear because it's distributed while money is concentrated.

But if we want to, we can organise and concentrate the power of people and overcome the power of money. Our problem is that we almost always let our egos get in the way instead.

(There's a passage in Feynman's first book of anecdotes in which he describes how the group of physicists working on The Bomb took a decision: they each put forward their argument and then agreed, in an ego-free way, that one of the positions was clearly superior. I remember thinking when I read it that their behavior fit very well with the theory of creativity that says being able to recognise a superior solution is even more rare than the ability to come up with such a solution. That decision demonstrated why those physicists were tops in their field.)

[RichM]

32. Here's a very similar anecdote about another of the Manhattan Project

physicists, Nobel-Prize-winner Hans Bethe.

Bethe taught for many years at Cornell, & was politically active. In the 1960's, he was in a campus debate, where 4 faculty members argued on the theme: "Resolved, the US nuclear strikes on Japan were justified." Bethe was arguing on the "Pro" side of the Resolution. Physicist Phil Morrison (also a Manhattan Project member, who'd actually flown on the Nagasaki mission) was arguing on the "Con" side.

After Morrison spoke, the German-born Bethe stood up and said, "Enough. I am convinced!" (Meaning, that he had been completely won over by Morrison's arguments, and did not wish to maintain his position any longer.)

[sangha]

39. That works for small groups

In groups as large as the American electorate (over 100 million), there's a different dynamic, and it is possible to predict some things with a reasonable degree of certainty. Enough certainty to say that Sharpton is not going to win.

[Mairead]

46. The size of the group is not the determining factor

The 'smart' of the group is. People like Bethe invest their egos in being able to recognise gold when they see it, not in being able to convince someone else that pyrites are the real thing.

There are a lot of smart people out there. We can do our best to show them the gold, or we can drink the sellout kool-aid and buy stock in pyrite mines.

[sangha]

37. Be that as it may

Smirky's success wasn't due to factors inherent in him

Inherent or not, he was electable.

But his supporters chose him, and they had the money to sell him.

That's electability.

But if we want to, we can organise and concentrate the power of people and overcome the power of money. Our problem is that we almost always let our egos get in the way instead.

That's true, but as you point out, it's just as true that people, being humans, let their egos get in the way. Theoretically, anyone can be elected, so long as they are a natral born citizen, 40 years of age or older. Realistically, it takes more than that.

[Mairead]

45. Your position is that our choices are our fate

As though there's some sort of natural law in operation.

Yours is the Borg argument: 'resistance is useless'. I disagree. I'm with the late Prof. Harris: 'fighting back doesn't guarantee victory, but it changes the odds'.

If resistance were useless, and everything pre-determined, the ruling class wouldn't need to unceasingly propagandise us via every possible channel. But they do, which tells me that our situation is really quite dynamic, and if we apply some counter-pressure, we can break free.

I'm in favor of breaking free. We might not choose to elect Dennis, but if we don't, it won't be because he's afflicted with some property called 'unelectable'.

[RichM]

18. I would REALLY, REALLY like to see this point explored. It touches so

many great themes.

For one: isn't it the perfect mark of a consumer society, to assume that "electability" resides in the guy on TV, and not in "We, the People?" It's the perfect passive couch-potato assumption. In Consumer-Land, WE have no responsibility; WE have no power; all we can do is choose "products" from what is presented on TV.

For another: Indeed, think of Bush, Gore, and Nader in 2000. Think of how "electable" any of them was. An inadequate spoiled rich kid, a stiff Establishment Democrat visibly unwilling to be himself before the electorate, and the guy who said the best things but was kept outside the official debate.

[Mandate My Ass]

22. We need IRV

"Instant runoff voting allows all voters to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of helping elect their least favorite candidate, and it ensures that the winner enjoys true support from a majority of the voters. Plurality voting, used in most American elections, does not meet these basic requirements for a fair election system that promotes wide participation, and traditional runoff elections are costly to the taxpayer and often suffer from low voter turnout.

"Instant runoff voting is a winner-take-all system that ensures that a winning candidate will receive a majority of votes rather than a simple plurality. In plurality voting -- as used in most U.S. elections -- candidates can win with less than a majority when there are more than two candidates running for the office. In contrast, IRV elects a majority candidate while still allowing voters to support a candidate who is not a front-runner. IRV is a sensible method in single winner elections.

"IRV allows voters to rank candidates as their first choice, second choice, third, fourth and so on. If a candidate does not receive a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoff counts are conducted, using each voter’s top choice indicated on the ballot. The candidate who received the fewest first place ballots is eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter's favorite candidate who is still in contention. Voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate have to support their second choice candidate -- just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election -- but all other voters get to continue supporting their top candidate. This process continues until a candidate receives a majority."

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/talking.htm

[Mairead]

24. Agreed. And IRV is another reason to support Dennis

I think (don't clobber me if I'm wrong) that he's the only one clearly in favor of it (i.e., stated as a policy on his web site).

[Cheswick2.0]

52. I reject that supposition

Gore was said to be stiff and was not. Nader was said to have the best ideas and did not. Gore was a much better lefty than Nader. He was certainly more electable.

[GreenArrow]

54. "Gore was a much better lefty than Nader"

a glance at their position papers and histories would suggest otherwise.

[RC]

7. I am waiting to see what shakes out.

So far ALL of the candidates come up far short.

Now if they would talk loudly of Treason, murder and theft. Ask why the stand down on 9/11/01 directly to the people in the bu$h&co administration. An accounting of all that money that used to be in the treasury. And hammer it home long and loud. At best they all just beat around the bu$h.

Also what would any of them do to correct the damage bu$h&co has done to the economy, the environment and our world standing. What would any of them do with Iraq if they win the presidency?

[Mairead]

11. um, have you been listening to Kucinich? He strongly addresses all that

[RC]

13. So, what does plan to do with the people in the bu$h administration

if he wins?

[MuseRider]

29. That is a good question.

I would like to know the answer to that if he has even addressed that. I have not seen anything so far. This guy is not a wimp, that I know. It amazes me how anyone could ever think he is just because of his stature. He is a giant in my eyes.

[Mairead]

49. I'm not sure I understand your question

Do you mean does he shoot them or something? I would hope that he'd sack the lot. Give them immediate notice that their services would not be required after 20th January.

[LSdemocrat]

10. Dean's my personal favorite . . .

and that's who I'm supporting. None of the other candidates really get me excited.

[jus_the_facts]

12. I don't give a rats ass who anybody else supports......

.....and I've only stated a couple times who I would like to see win the nomination....all the petty bickering and bullshit around here is EXACTLY WHY *THEY* have us RIGHT where they want us :eyes:

[sspiderjohn]

19. Most LIkely to Defeat Bush in Landslide

Close election they'll steal again with fraud.

[wryter2000]

21. That's a fabulous question

I was thinking this morning that *my* candidate might not be the one I feel is closest to my views. He actually appeals to me on an emotional level that I think will resonate with large numbers of people.

Before that sounds too silly to be countenanced, think of this. The more I watch Clinton and the more I think of the elections where Dems have tanked (2000 wasn't a tank, we was robbed!), the more I'm convinced that just having the right ideas isn't enough. You have to be able to sell them to large numbers of people who are still upset over Laci being killed and pray for Kobe and JLo and Ben every night.

[MuseRider]

26. It is the money

that gets in the way here. DK gets no press attention so very few people really know what he is about. The reason given? He does not have support (money). I talked just this last week with a few aquaintances of mine who are very anti war Democrats. Not total bozos who don't follow what is happening but don't follow like we do here. NONE of them had even heard much about DK. They knew about Dean, Leiberman, Clark, Gephardt, Kerry, Graham but nothing about Edwards, CMB, Sharpton or Kucinich. I don't think anyone who can't be heard will ever be elected. Once people hear them all they can make up their mind but face it, many are deciding that we are toast because they have only heard a few of the candidates and keep hearing that we have Leiberman, Kerry, Dean and Gephardt and now possibly Clark. We have got to do something about the money or no one will ever hear the messages from some really fine candidates that do not take the corporate money.

[ElkHunter]

27. Eugene Debs once said...

...that it is better to vote for the thing you want and not get it than to vote for the thing don't want and get it. But Debs was running against the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, and Harding. With the possible exception of Wilson, who broke his 1916 campaign pledge and got us into World War I, none of these men were as bad as George W. Bush.

[Mairead]

30. bump

[KaraokeKarlton]

31. Yes, both, I support Howard Dean

He's the one I like best and I think he has the most to offer. I firmly believe that he is the best suited to tackle the jobs the next president is going to have to tackle. It's going to be quite a mess and Dean has firsthand experience cleaning up messes. As for your cartoon...I don't like Kucinich's positions. He's much too radical for me.

[DemBones DemBones]

35. I'm curious: Why is Kucinich "too radical" for you?

Getting the UN in and US out of Iraq?

Single-payer universal health care?

Repealing Patriot Act?

Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO?

Full Social Security benefits at age 65?
(rolling retirement age back to 65)

Better oversight of our food, including labeling GM foods?

Breaking up agricultural monopolies/ restoration of family farms?

Cutting unneeded weapons programs from Pentagon budget?

Raising pay for military personnel and increasing veterans' benefits?

Reversing tax cuts to the wealthy & retaining an estate tax?

Investing in our infrastructure?

Seeking an end to capital punishment?

Supporting rights of labor to collective bargaining?


Or are you opposed to medical marijuana? A living wage? Privacy rights?

I'm sure I've left something out but please tell me what you dislike in all this.
I hear that "people" say he's too far left but I'm trying to learn what they mean from an actual person.

Thanks!

[MuseRider]

38. I hope you get an answer

to this. I have been trying to figure that out for a while myself. How is it that this guy can't get any press yet he has been so completely marked as unelectable and radical?

[Toby109]

34. At the heart of it is

Washington is like high school with money. Kinda of like Hollywood. Who knows the origin of that quote, I can't remember. Martin Mull?

[janx]

36. Both, and I'm a Deaniac.

He's a moderate.

[Enraged American]

41. F**k Dean/Clark. Kucinich is the man!

KUCINICH 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Q]

40. I vote issues...not personalities...

- Sometimes personalities win over issues. That kind of thinking brought Bush* to power.

[Enraged American]

42. Personality-voting brought Dean popularity too. GO KUCINICH!

[DavidNY]

43. My support for Kerry has been based on agreement with his ideas...

though I admit that my recent elevation of Clark into an approximate tie with Kerry has been based in part on electablity concerns. Not in the sense that I support Clark because I think other primary voters will support Clark (though that may be the case), but in the sense that I think Clark may have a better chance of accomplishing the ultimate goal: a Democratic victory in the general election.

I take offense at the idea that anyone who can "write a cogent paragraph" should believe Kucinich to have "the best ideas and platform." I don't support spending money to create a separate "Department of Peace", or passing a law that among other things bans space-based mind-control weapons. I don't support complete economic protectionism, or apparent opposition to war under essentially all circumstances. And while I'm not sure if this would be included in your definition of "ideas and platform" or whether you'd instruct me to look only at what Kucinich claims his position to be at this instant, I don't support a rapid 180-degree flip-flop on the question of a woman's right to choose whether or not to abort a nonviable fetus. Please don't tell me that I have to "acknowledge" these things as great if I want to be considered able to write a cogent paragraph.

Kerry's "ideas and platform", on the other hand, are much more appealing to me. I support strong environmental laws (though I admit Kucinich's record is approximately equal to Kerry's in this respect if you look at something like their LCV ratings rather than the history of where they spend their political capital). I support socially liberal positions, including a consistent record of favoring the right to choose. I support the view that free trade, under many circumstances, is a good thing. And I support a more nuanced position on war in general and the Iraq war in particular.

Also, I think your dichotomy between "ideas and platform" and "electability" is incomplete, in that it leaves out the life history and character of the candidate-- which strike me as legitimate things to consider no matter how idealistic one wants to be. We're not just going to be voting for a platform, but for a person. Based on Kerry's wartime record and general personality, I would have much more confidence in him as our domestic leader, representative to the rest of the world, and Commander in Chief than I would in Kucinich. (I would make the same favorable comparison of Clark to Kucinich.)

[no name no slogan]

47. More militarism will not bring peace

Unfortunately, so many Democracts, in an effort to not look "wishy-washy" on national defense, are obsessed with a candidate's military experience, or lack thereof.

However, take a look at how well our "General Presidents" have done. Eisenhower? Nothing to shout about, except for the military-industrial complex warning. US Grant? Almost impeached because he was drunk most the time.

Maybe, just maybe, if we had a president who stood up to the military-industrial complex and weren't in love with violence, we wouldn't be in such a compromised position in the world right now.

Been outside the US recently? We're loathed and feared more than we are loved. The US is not regarded as the bringer of freedom, but as the harbinger of totalitarian oppression and economic slavery. Is this really how we want to be seen by the rest of the world?

The fact that we spend more money in this country on the opression of disenfranchised peoples around the globe than we do on our own schools is morally reprehensible. This is not a trait any sane person would want to reinforce.

Instead of blowing all that money on useless project the DoD doesn't want OR need (like the unworkable "Star Wars" space-based missile shield), Kucinich would take part of the money and use it for a Department of Peace.

The Dept. of Peace would focus on conflict resolution at ALL levels-- locally and nationally as well as globally. If we actually MADE AN EFFORT towards peace in this world with even a FRACTION of what the Pentagon gets each year, we could make an incredible difference.

Kucinich has explained his previous anti-abortion stance and his change of heart. If you look back at when he voted against abortion, it was a consistent "pro-life" position, like that of many devout Catholics (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-torture, etc.) Also, although he was against abortion, he also believed in funding birth-control efforts and education-- something the so-called "pro-life" contingent has failed to do.

Kucinich also states that he'll use Roe v. Wade a litmus test for the appointment of federal judges-- how many of the other so-called "pro-choice" candidates have taken this position?

We don't need any more militaristic leaders in this country right now. That's what got into this mess in the first place. We need leaders who aren't afraid to work aggressively for peace whenever possible, not send in the Army at the drop of a hat.

We don't need to be the cause of death to any more people in this world. THAT's what being pro-peace is all about.

[DavidNY]

51. The military isn't used only for "oppression of disenfranchised people"...

one of the reasons I like Clark, in fact, is his performance in the Kosovo conflict, where the military was used to _aid_ a disenfranchised and oppressed people (Kosovar Albanians persecuted by Milosevic's Serbian government). In Kosovo and Bosnia, a lot of people do view the U.S. as the "bringer of freedom", because of the genocidal attacks that we helped bring to an end. You may have seen some of the articles recently about how President Clinton was received when he visited those two places (I can dig up a link if you don't believe me but it's been in the news so recently that I figure that might not be necessary).

Sometimes military force is the best way to "work aggressively for peace", the best way to facilitate "conflict resolution". Bosnia is one example of this: a bloody war, featuring among other things a massacre (Srebrenica) that killed more innocent civilians than 9/11, was ended only when the U.S. and the rest of NATO finally got forcibly involved, bombing the aggressor Bosnian Serb forces to get them to the negotiating table. If the U.S. had intervened _sooner_, the worst massacres could have been avoided-- to me it seems like the problem there was too much reluctance to use force, not too little. Having an entire Cabinet department devoted to urging the importance of peacefully negotiating with genocidal maniacs, and talking the rest of the government out of using force, would not have been useful.

I agree that we need a leader who won't "send in the Army at the drop of a hat", but if you look at Kerry and Clark's actual positions they'd agree with that statement too. My problem with Kucinich in this context is that it seems to me he goes far beyond this and asserts that military force is basically _never_ a good thing. There's a middle ground between the apparent neocon position that we should be preemptively invading countries right and left and this sort of pacifist position. Military force is a tool, and whether its use is a good idea depends on how you use it and what you're using it to accomplish.

As for the abortion issue: it's not my biggest concern, but I do find it a bit rich that many of the people so fervently in favor of Kucinich are opposed to Clark because he didn't publicly advocate some Democratic domestic-policy principles until recently and they therefore feel that they "can't trust him". That Kucinich has an explanation for his former position doesn't alter the fact that he quite recently completely reversed his position and is asking us to trust him nevertheless. I'd rather stick with someone like Kerry who has a consistent record on the subject; even Clark doesn't have a history of fervently taking the _opposite_ position to his current one.

[diamondsoul]

62. I felt compelled to respond to this comment-

"My problem with Kucinich in this context is that it seems to me he goes far beyond this and asserts that military force is basically _never_ a good thing. There's a middle ground between the apparent neocon position that we should be preemptively invading countries right and left and this sort of pacifist position."

That would be because military force isn't ever a good thing. It absolutely, and without question means that people will die, and that's what makes it never good. Necessary in some instances, absolutely, but not a "good" thing. The united States has gone from being the strong military defender of bullied countries to being the global police force. We cannot afford to be the global police force, not in terms of military strength nor in terms of world view.

There are places the US military simply does NOT belong. Other countries civil wars are theirs to fight, just as we fought ours, and we need to stop meddling in them. Help when and if asked for it, maybe, but we don't get to decide the future or fate of other nations just because we CAN. That's what we've taken to doing, and our own security is suffering for it.

Kucinich is not the pacifist so many seem to believe he is. He voted in favor of using military force to respond to the Sept. 11th attacks. I've read the bill, and know the circumstances under which it was presented to Congress, and I agree with that vote. Had I been in the House on that day I'd have cast an identical vote myself.(and yes, even with Bush in the White House, I'd cast that vote.)

Just because he believes peaceful means should be exhausted completely does NOT mean he doesn't have the backbone to call in the troops when it is necessary. If anything that makes him a much stronger candidate. He won't call them out unless nothing else can be done, but he WILL defend this nation, and that's what I want in my President.

[LWolf]

44. The issues.

The person that I feel does the best job with the issues.

I might waver on the electability factor if I thought we couldn't beat *. If I were desperate, reaching for any chance, I would vote for the person I thought had the best chance to beat *.

But that's not the case. Bush is beatable. He is vulnerable. Any of our candidates are better, and any could beat him. With his record, he is the one with the electability problem.

The primary is a chance for me to cast a vote for what I really believe. Plenty of time to compromise the issues in favor of beating * in the general election.

[Iverson]

48. the candidate I like

That's what democracy is all about, or so I've been led to believe.

[Brucey]

50. Depends on what you mean by support.

Work for the person you like and try to make him/her electable if that is an issue. If your person doesn't get the nod, then go with principles... but principles MUST include liklihood of being elected (Nader was a fool in 2000).

[Uzybone]

53. Kucinich doesnt appeal to me

he talks the good talk, but I doubt he will be able to actually perform when he gets there. I like the guy and if he gets the nomination (mordant chuckle) I'll vote for him with head held high. But Im not supporting him at this time. I guess this means I cant write a cogent paragraph. :eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. I won't make the same mistake twice

Before the most recent Oregon gubernatorial race, I heard the primary candidates speak at the Multnomah County Dems' picnic. Of the two frontrunners, one was a woman county commissioner (Bev Stein) whose ideas closely matched mine and who had set up grassroots organizations in every county. The other was a "regular guy" type (Ted Kulongoski), who was more conservative.

After the candidates had left, I talked with other Dems about who to vote for in the primary. Everyone liked Bev Stein but were afraid that she was not "electable." This was not an untenable position, since the previous woman governor had been put through hell by the Repiggies. Good old Ted was considered the candidate who would not scare the Republicans and who could relate to the rural people.

Well, not only did Ted not scare the Republicans, he barely attracted the notice of anyone. Even in Portland, I rarely saw Kulongoski yard signs. His campaign was almost invisible.

In the end, the Republican, a nasty law and order type named Kevin Mannix, won the rural areas overwhelmingly, and only the reliably Democratic cities of Eugene and Portland saved Kulongoski.

Since being elected by a hair, Kulongoski has been a disappointment. The legislature is mostly Repiggie, with a 50/50 split in the state senate. The Repiggies have been obstructionist (surprised), and Kulongoski has not been able to do much with them.

I wish we Dems had gone with our instincts and made Bev Stein our candidate. Our misplaced concern about how the Republicans would treat her was patronizing. Since even Kulongoski couldn't win the rural vote, we could have had Stein energizing the urban and college town vote.

But we went with the candidate that we thought other people would like. Only we were wrong.

So for the time being, I'm going with the candidate that I like.

I wish we

[Mairead]

57. I've had that same experience, Lydia

The latest was voting for Gore only to see him walk away from the coup. It really is very disheartening, so I'm not ever going to do that again.

Dennis is the guy I'm voting for in the primary and the general, win lose or draw. And if not enough people agree with me, well, that's democracy.

[janekat]

56. I Like ANYONE who's running against Bush n/t

[iambe]

61. Elections are about more than just "who I like"

So I take both factors into consideration - what I personally like about a candidate's positions, and the "marketing factor." It's a balancing act, and it's not over for me yet as far as the primaries go.

[Padraig18]

63. The purpose of the exercise

As a member of the opposition party, the ultimate objective is to become the RULING party; like it or not, this means selecting a candidate or candidates who will appeal to the majority of people casting votes in a given political jurisdiction. Hence, my personal philosophy is roughly the same as Molly Ivins':

"Vote your heart in the primary, and your party in the general."

With this caveat: if I saw my personal favorite as endangering the overall welfare of my party, I would abandon that candidate and seek an acceptable compromise candidate.

:)

[RichM]

64. The view you describe here tacitly assumes that "your party" has

unquestioned basic virtue. You even say you'd be willing to abandon your OWN personal favorite, if you thought he might endanger the party. Thus, you implicitly endow the concept of "your party" with unquestioned weight & authority.

What happens in the case where there are only 2 parties, and both of them stink? When both of them march pretty much to the tune of the same powerful forces in society? Why are you so willing to subordinate your opinion to that of the Democratic Party -- the same party that has quietly sat by for years, while Bush has dismantled much of what once was good about the USA? The same party that has often been COMPLICIT in the dismantling?

IOW, you're not addressing the possibility that "your party" needs a change of direction.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. I understand your question but for the first time in my political life

I support the guy who can win...but I am NOT AS HELL BENT on who that is as of yet.

Kucinich for all his very wonderful very TRADITIONAL Democratic ideas (but for his former votes on women's reproductive rights) stands ten times MORE of a chance of getting those ideas heard and acted upon if a Democrat is in the WH than if the current regime is there.

Recovery from this nightmare HAS to start somewhere.

I am not in the school of people who says there is no difference.

I can cite MAJOR differences in environmental (clean air and clean water, national parks, logging, oil drilling) Labor (overtime rules, a party that favors rasing the minimum wage) consumer protections ( Clinton tried to veto PSLRA and but for a few turncoat Dems would have) and so on.

There is a certain point where one must notice which direction they are headed. ANY candidate will reverse the direction of this horrible administration in MANY if not ALL regards.

I am astonished at those who can continue to argue with a clean conscience that that is not the case.

[Karmadillo]

67. Kick

n/t

[Kamika]

68. well that cartoon is me in a nutshell

Id LOVE kucinich but he has no chance to win im sorry but its true. So its Dean for me

[JohnKleeb]

69. whoa Rich that cartoon by Frazier has me thinkin

*walking away and groaning* I am really not groaning but I feel there is some truth to that.

[Desertrose]

72. I met Dan Frazier

and saw the cartoon before he submitted it- even suggested some links for him.
Cool guy.....good 'toon!

But Dennis is pickling up steam- we just have to keep keepin on as far as spreading the Kucinich word!!

(I should tell Dan his cartoon is all over the place now!!)


Peace
DR

[JohnKleeb]

71. both I like Kucinich and his ideas

He's a good man who is proof that if you work hard you can go places. I like him too.

[guevara]

73. Clark

Clark's the man. Just wait till he beats up on Bush.

[rucky]

74. Don't Be Afraid, Folks!... Feels Good When You Do It.

come out of the closet and admit you're secretly rooting for Dennis Kucinich. No commitments...just don't count him out so easily like that. Cynicism is soooo last millenium. All the cool kids are doing it. It'll make you feel good. Just one time ain't gonna kill ya.

If you can't say it here, where can you say it?