Why didn't Kucinich catch fire as the anti-war candidate?

[_Jumper_]

Not only was he as anti-war as Dean, he is a real progressive. Why did progressive flock to Dean? I can see why they didn't support Sharpton, but why not Kucinich?

[JohnKleeb]

1. People dont flame me but I think it has to with the fact Dean entered firs

Just my opinion. Personally Ive wished in the past in hindsight that he should have entered earlier but a big but here, I realize it was better that he stayed, so he could fight the war even more. I hope this post doesnt have Kucinich bashing. Please people dont.

[Hep]

24. I think you're on point

Not only was Dean first to enter, but he also tends to be the first to speak up on issues.

Kucinich opposed the war from the start, but his dedication to being a CONGRESSMAN first and a presidential candidate second led to him missing a lot of opportunities to make his voice heard. It is also possibly one of the reasons that he is so low in the fundraising, which he never seemed to be all about anyway.

[JohnKleeb]

30. Actually Kucinich came out pretty early against the war too

On speaking out on things, I guess so, but it was Kucinich who spoke out against the money to Bush.

[Hep]

34. You're right

Kucinich publicly came out against the war early. EAs early if not earlier than Dean, and fought it hard on the floor. But Dean got to make speeches and talk to a bunch of different people, and of course there's C-Span's ratings... I'm just saying that Dean got to have the spotlight more. I could be wrong.

And Kucinich spoke out against the money to Bush. Dean nuanced it, didn't address it as if he were to vote on it, which hurt him in the debates. I just meant that Dean issues these press releases (like the one now about plant upgrades) and tends to be the first to bring it up. Others do it as well or as early, but it seems like Dean has had them beat more times than not.

That could be my Dean bias showing through.

[Mairead]

49. Actually that's not so, John

Dennis is on record as being against it back in Feb '02 ...Dean is on record as still being in favor in mid-Feb '03: the Conason interview for Salon, published 20th Feb, was his last pro-invasion statement. The next day he said he was against it.

Dean got all the credit because Media Inc handed it to him on a plate, with parsley. As that chart that was published here a few days ago showed, in the 3 months after Dennis's February '03 announcement, he and Dean were even-up in the polls. But Dean got enormously more press, and his poll numbers started rising, justifying even more disparity. It was a setup.

[TLM]

54. Why are you pushin this lie still?

It has already been refuted when teh Clark folks pushed it...

Now onto the second BS quote… from the same piece.

“He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.”

Now first of all notice the quotes… the underlined part is not an exact quote, but a paraphrase. Although the bashers love to try and trick people into thinking it is an exact quote, because this is what they try to use to claim Dean waffled on his position on the war in Iraq.

The problem is Dean never waffled… his position has been consistently against the war because there was no imminent threat posed by Iraq, and thus no justification for unilateral pre-emptive war. What Dean did support was continuation of the inspection and disarming process, through the UN. And IF weapons were found and if there was a real imminent threat to the America, AND the UN refused to take action… then and only then, would Dean reluctantly support such action.

Now what the liars do is cut this little bit out of the story and present it as if Dean was saying 30-60 days period… with no prerequisite of an imminent threat. But once again, if you read the few paragraphs before that quote, you see this that the quote has been taken out of context to hide the fact that Dean specifically notes before that statement that there is no imminent threat, and they hadn’t made the case for war.

Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

So you see not only did Dean say that Powell didn’t make the case… in the paragraph just prior they reiterate Dean opposition to the war and ho unpopular of a position that was at the time. It s no wonder the bashers cut that out, it shows they are lying their asses off.

[redqueen]

55. Where's the problem here?

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

He's backing unilateral action.

Pro unilateral invasion.

Pro illegal invasion.

Pro war.

[Mairead]

127. Because it's not a lie, as a more careful reading should tell you

I presume you're willing to grant Conason honesty in his reporting?

If so, then what we see Dean saying here is:

1. Hussein must be disarmed (absolute statement).
2. This should be done by a multilateral, UN-flagged force
3. BUT if the UN won't do it
4. then the US will give a 30-60 day grace period AND THEN invade unilaterally

The 'Powell didn't make the case' paragraph has nothing to do with his commitment to unilateral invasion, but only his assessment of whether Hussein was an imminent threat at that moment.

[w4rma]

81. Dean on Sunday, October 6, 2002

…
Sunday, October 6, 2002; Page A12
…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.
…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[whirlygigspin]

155. perhaps he's flame retardent

that's sound funny!
lol

[karlspur]

2. That is a good question

I think alot has to do with many people being under the impression the "elf looking guy" can't win.

[MrSoundAndVision]

6. oh but the fighting-fat guy can....

that's all.

[karlspur]

8. I have a question

Who is the fat guy in the campaign? I am under the impression that Al Sharpton is the biggest but I am also under the impression that very few people think he can win.

[Brucey]

3. I've heard lots of people say they like his message but not his

image, style, looks, or delivery (yelling all the time is one part of it). When Paul Wellstone started campaigning, lots of Dems didn't like him too. When asked why, they said they just didn't know, or that he preached too much, or was too fidgety, or was loud, or waved his arms too much, etc. The "image" a person makes is much more important than most people will acknowledge, or apparently are aware of. Almost always the taller candidate wins, for instance. Height is a subconscious indicator of strength, leadership, and responsibility. Tall people are more likely to be promoted and get higher salaries too. Kucinich needs to be around nationally for a while in order for people to start seeing through the image.

[JohnKleeb]

7. If thats the case on height

Why not run Kerry :D? BTW Dean is only an inch or so bigger than Kucinich so when Dean supporters say that, I chuckle. I dont know how Wellstone was originally perceived but maybe people will catch on, in fact I think we could be doing better than most think. Stupid height factor honest to god, and I say this is as a tall person.

[Brucey]

18. I agree, it's stupid. But, it's real. Part of the image.

A candidate's image includes race, what clothes you wear, flag lapel pin, how you walk (look at all the criticism of how Bush walks), how you talk (some people wouldn't vote for McGovern because they perceived that he had a lisp). Height is important. Most shorter candidates at the debates insist on having a box to stand on so they will appear taller. Yes, if height was the only factor we should nominate Kerry. It is a factor in his favor. When people see him next to Bush they will tend to see him as a better leader. However, height is not the only factor. Kerry has a sad-sack face, and that is hurting his appeal. His makeup at the last debate was an improvement. I didn't see any polls after, but I'll bet he did better just because of that. Dean did not look good at the last debate - the rolled up sleeves, stern face, a little tired looking. I'll bet his numbers were down. Edwards looks too immature to be a leader. Clark isn't bad, but he looks a little meek. I mean his image. Of course, like Wellstone, people can get past their image over time.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Thank god I am not running is all

Yes like Wellstone, if you think about it, Kucinch and Wellstone have much in common, small guys, great liberals and progressives, professors at one time, and above they talk to your heart.

[eablair3]

37. Kucinich & Wellstone

The comparison should not even be made.

Wellstone voted to give Bush the authority to go to war.

Wellstone also voted for the Patriot Act (letting Russ Feingold stand alone), as well as a good amount of other "non-progeressive" legislation.

Wellstone was a big disappointment in the end to me. I'm still sorry and saddened that he is not around any more, but I can't begin to put in to real words how disappointed I was in Wellstone in the end. I had great hope for him, but he was a real disappointment, and I don't consider him as a "great propgressive" at all. "Major disappointment" is more like it wrt to Wellstone.

I was never disappointed with Dennis Kucinich. He's been there over and over again with votes on the floor, protests against the war, leading the charge against the war, as well as many many other good proposals for putting people back in power.

K is the best candidate out there. Wellstone doesn't compare.

[JohnKleeb]

40. No Wellstone voted no

I was disappointed he voted for the Patriot Act too. Odd of you do this though, but I still like Wellstone for all he did but I liked what you had to say about DK as well, but lets keep in mind that these two guys are and were great.

[JNelson6563]

61. Wellstone the fascist

oy!

[JohnKleeb]

72. no way

Wellstone was a great man, one of my all time favorites.

[JNelson6563]

78. I agree John

that was commentary on the post above and their obvious view of Wellstone.

Julie

[Brucey]

74. Wow, what got into you?

Wellstone did not vote for the war. He was at the end of more 99 to 1 votes than any Senator in history. He was a national leader for liberals and progressives. He was the most caring person anyone ever met. Read about him. Read what Al Franken said about him in his new book. No one ever agrees with someone 100% of the time, thankfully, but Wellstone was a sincere and caring progressive Democrat.

[no name no slogan]

79. I was an early Wellstone supporter (in 1988)

...when he ran Jesse Jackson's MN campaign, and I will admit that he did become more conservative over time. I was very angry with his vote on the Kosovo invasion, and told him so to his face at a fundraiser in 1998. Also, many of his early supporters in the MN peace & justice community lost a lot of enthusiasm for him because of some of his more regressive votes (Defense of Marriage Act, Kosovo, Crusader program, etc.).

However, on the whole, I still have a lot of respect for what Wellstone did, and his phenominal ability to transform social activists into registered Democratic voters. I think he'll be most remembered for that than for anything else he did.

[JohnKleeb]

80. Brucey my dream would be a Wellstone/Kucinich ticket

I would love that much.

[wheresthemind]

135. something you guys may or may not know....

But in 2002 Kucinich was up here door knocking for Wellstone. Some former Wellstone staffers think Wellstone was getting ready to play a big part in Dennis's run.

[Ficus]

143. It almost happened....

[Ficus]

142. Nope

Wellstone voted to give Bush the authority to go to war.

Lie.

Wellstone also voted for the Patriot Act (letting Russ Feingold stand alone), as well as a good amount of other "non-progeressive" legislation.

He struggled with this decision, and ended up only voting for it after the sunshine provisions were added. Not to say I agree, but he didn't just sign off on it. And he did speak up about his concerns about it on the floor.

I was never disappointed with Dennis Kucinich. He's been there over and over again with votes on the floor, protests against the war, leading the charge against the war, as well as many many other good proposals for putting people back in power.

K is the best candidate out there. Wellstone doesn't compare.

I agree, Dennis K. is my favorite, BUT Wellstone DOES compare. No matter what, both of these men served with conviction - and never voted on anything for politics.

:dem: :dem:

[redqueen]

4. He started campaigning a loooooong time before Kucinich.

He also spent a LOT of time doing said campaigning.

[TLM]

56. He's also a much much better speaker...

with loads more charisma.

[no name no slogan]

69. Have you actually SEEN Kucinich speak, though?

Other than the paltry four minutes he gets at those useless debates?

Kucinich was drafted to run for president after he gave a very stirring speech in front of the Southern California ADA in February 2002. He and Clark are the only two candidates who were drafted to run for the presidency.

As a number people have said before, "A Dean supporter is someone who hasn't heard Dennis speak yet".


Kucinich really only began his campaign in earnest in early 2003. Dean, OTOH, set up his exploratory committee in 2001. Dean also spent a good part of 2002 out of Vermont campaigning, while he was still governor. So much time, in fact, that it took a court order for the press to get access to his schedule because he refused to make it public. I would assume he tried to keep it private because he spent a good part of the year out of state.

Kucinich, OTOH, has been very attentive to his duties as an elected congressman, not missing any big votes until the one the Repugs scheduled on the day of one of the Democratic debates (Geph missed this one too, BTW).

And a lot of it DOES have to do with the media, no matter what people say. Dean has been successful playing the media, and saw an opportunity in opposing the IWR. He was able to capitalize on this and picked up a lot of early support among certain liberals who thought he was "the anti-war candidate". And also his appearence on the covers of both Time and Newsweek have done more to help his campaign than anything else.

Also, check Dean's demographics: suburban, middle- to upper-middle-class whites who are pretty media savvy and "connected". This is the prime audience for both magazines and TV, and above all else the media is interested in selling the people what they want to buy.

The media has definately helped Dean, despite the fact that sites like DeanDefense.org exist. At this point in the race (where 90% of the US population can't even name ONE Democratic candidate), ANY kind of media coverage is good.

[TLM]

93. I have in fact seen a few of his stump speeches

and while he does impress me a lot with his ideas, which are great, he just does not strike me as presidential material. He's an idea man... not a leader.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

138. I've seen both, and you are just wrong

Dean has nothing on Kucinich when it comes to "presidential material" unless you mean only wealthy silver spooners have the material to be president.

[loyalsister]

156. Yes and...

it's hard to take him seriously. He acts like a fundamentalist preacher. Some people find that style inspiring. Other people are looking for real solutions.
One of my favorite things Dean said in his announcement speech was that it is a LIE when politicians tell you that if they are elected they will solve every problem you can think of. Some people are looking for a messiah. People who know how the real world works aren't.
Dean has more charisma and comes off as a guy whose approach to problem solving is to sit down and think it over carefully rather than just reacting with unwinnable plans and empty promises.

[ShaneGR]

5. Dennis the Menace

That was what people called him here in Cleveland, back in the 70's. He has never been viewed as anything more than a fringe politician up here. That's just history speaking, people remember what happened to Cleveland when he was Mayor.

[DebJ]

28. LOL that's the ship he should be on...hopefully its sinking too

[no name no slogan]

82. way to contribute

Glad to back up your statements with facts and convincing rhetoric.

:eyes:

[Mairead]

50. "people remember what happened to Cleveland when he was Mayor"

No, they remember what they were told happened. And the telling was all pro-elites.

Be fair, okay? Play it straight.

[Minstrel Boy]

76. He stood up to the energy companies

From "Muslims for Kucinich":

One of the claims you may hear from opponents of Kucinich (unfortunately, not all of them are Republicans) is that while he was mayor of Cleveland, he drove the city into bankruptcy.

Cleveland did have to declare bankruptcy during Kucinich's tenure, but to imply that it was due to mismangement by Kucinich is so distant from the truth that it qualifies as a lie.

Cleveland's debts were largely due to its publicly-owned electric utility, Muny Light. And Muny Light's debts were largely due to the illegal actions of its privately-owned rival, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI). CEI deliberately rigged electric grid interconnections so that Muny Light would suffer power failures. Once Muny Light was deeply enough into the red, CEI prepared to swoop in. First, it attempted to buy Muny Light outright. Then it worked with six Cleveland banks it had very close relationships with. The banks told the city of Cleveland that they would call in its debts unless the city sold Muny Light to CEI.

It was a dirty game, and Dennis Kucinich refused to play it. He refused to sell Muny Light and the banks made good on their threat. You can read all about it here, along with many other examples of corporate malfeasance by CEI. The stories are all too familiar after Enron. If you wish that politicians would stand up to corporations like Enron, Dennis Kucinich should be your man.
http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/006288.php

[ShaneGR]

95. I am from Cleveland, you are not

After the bankruptcy, most of the dowtown businesses left... leaving only the steel mills. What once was a vibrant downtown community, became a ghost-town of empty buildings. The school systems collapsed, and the entire city was a monumental shithole until the mid 1990's.

I know what happened there. I grew up in it.

[snoochie]

99. Well then obviously the repugs are right...

and we should all sell our souls, get on our knees, and worship the mighty business dollar.

After all, if we offend businesses, they'll leave us!

:puke:

How about you try putting the blame where it belongs? That sound like a good idea maybe?

:think:

[ShaneGR]

101. Uh, when Cleveland went bankrupt.....

Cleveland was an 85% Democratic city. How exactly can I blame Republicans for what happened under his administration?

I am an Ohio Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican, ever. I volunteer on campaigns every election season. I have been paid to work on several. I am a yellow dog Democrat. I HATE the Republican Party. We are also kicking Republican ass up here. Our recent election gave all but a few of the Democrats 70-75% victories. This area hasn't voted that Democratic for 25 years.

Coincidentally, 25 years since the Cleveland nightmare.

[snoochie]

103. Way to miss the point!

:silly:

I'm clearly wasting my time here!

[ShaneGR]

110. whatever floats your boat

Sorry about all of that truth. DK is a good guy. He's got a lot of great things to say, but there is a history to him... and that history is not compatible to becoming the next President of the United States.

Realism.

[Newcastle]

132. A. You're not the only one from Cleveland.

B. Not everyone from Cleveland agrees with you (and I know this for a fact).
C. You don't have to be from Cleveland to know the facts here.
D. You don't necessarily know the facts if you are from Cleveland.
E. Kucinich is not responsible for what happened in Cleveland. He couldn't possibly be.
F. The entire steel belt became the rust belt, and Cleveland (under Democratic leadership, as you point out) became a model city by effectively switching to a service oriented economy (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, etc.) This had nothing to do with Kucinich.
G. The fellow you're responding to is right on the facts regarding Muni Light. I suspect I'm older than you and can remember more clearly the actual details. I was there.

[Ardee]

89. there are facts and then there are facts

Despite your attempt to smear the mayoral record of Dennis Kucinich it is a real fact that he did a great service to the people of that city as many there remember and only a few agendised folks like you attempt to distort.

Shame shame.......

[izzie]

9. I do not know as he is the best of them all and for some reason...

He just does not make it with people. Strang how things go.

[dolstein]

10. Most people can instinctively tell whether someone's a serious candidate

And Dennis doesn't pass the test. He simply isn't credible. Sure, there's the fact he's funny looking, practically a midget and has a grating voice, and therefore is hard to envision as the leader of the free world. And on top of that, look at his political resume. Sure, he was the youngest mayor of Cleveland, but that was thirty years ago, and that one brlief success was followed by a series of political defeats. Since then, he's never risen higher than the House of Representatives. At least Gephardt rose to the highest ranks of the House -- Dennis has never been more than a back bencher.

[RichM]

45. Oh, you mean like Reagan, Schwarzenegger, & Bushler? Sure, "people

can tell instinctively" who's a serious candidate. What a load of silly BS. Americans believe anything they're told by television. That's where they get their "instinct" from.

What you're calling "credible" is nothing more than the predictable crowd reaction after the media lets 'em know who the big money is backing. The big money backs whoever will protect their interests the most reliably. This process has nothing whatever to do with being a "serious candidate." The public plays a passive role in this process.

[Mairead]

51. Check your facts.

You forgot to put any in.

[no name no slogan]

86. Facts can be troublesome things

Dennis a "back bencher"? What do you call the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House?

And as far as a "series of political defeats", you surely must not mean his consistently high re-election numbers, starting from his 1996 race where he beat an intrenched Republican? Or the fact that he won in 2002 with 75% of the vote (and 50% of the Republican vote)?

As far as only going as far as the House, Tip O'Neil, one of the greatest Democratic leaders of the 20th century, NEVER went beyond the House. Neither did Sam Rayburn, the House speaker before O'Neil. Even Newt Gingrich (whom every good Dem loathes) was "only" in the House when he lead the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 (which was, incidentally, the year DK won election to the Ohio Senate in a year where Democrats got slaughered at the polls).

What other offices higher than Congress has DK run for? Oh, that's right, NONE. Who's to say he couldn't win election to a higher office than the House?

As The Nation reported a few weeks back, the only reason the media and public aren't taking Kucinich seriously is because he's the only serious candidate running.

[Nederland]

141. How about

What other offices higher than Congress has DK run for? Oh, that's right, NONE. Who's to say he couldn't win election to a higher office than the House?

Not true. Senate and governor are considered to be higher offices because you have to compete for a larger electorate. If DK were to win a statewide office instead of merely a Congressional district it would give credence to his supporters claim that he is in fact electable. As of now, the only elections he has ever won have been very small areas filled with Democratic voters. Sorry, but a national elections doesn't have anywhere close to the same demographics of the Ohio 10th.

[Sandstorm]

11. Not trying to be offensive, but

I think he was viewed as too liberal by the media, and a candidate with any realistic shot at winning. Kind of like Lyndon LaRouche.

[DUreader]

13. Media plays a Big Part, he is viewed as a threat to them.

[Sandstorm]

15. Well, I don't know that I'd go that far

n/t

[Ficus]

144. Now that's a stretch

Lyndon LaRouche? He's not THAT fringe.

[MrSoundAndVision]

12. Don't forget Dennis Kucinich was drafted

which is why he entered the race late. Kucinich will catch on, it's just a matter of time, and people will begin to notice how Dean dodges questions and is vague with the issues.

That's why so many of his supporters resort to name calling instead of with substantive ideas. They don't really have much to say, because he doesn't have much to say.

[karlspur]

16. I 100% agree

so many of his supporters resort to name calling instead of with substantive ideas.

I sent about 1 hour here and so many of them twisted my words around and used hyperboil and strawmen arguments.

[Catholic Sensation]

151. Kucinich's campaign finances

doesn't allow him to have "a matter of time" to catch on.

[Brotherjohn]

14. Reps. usually don't win Presidential elections. Governors do.

I'm not saying that's right. It's just the way it is.

[Tinoire]

17. My assessment is that Dean had a LOT more money behind him

and puts on a great show. He speaks angrily and appeals to an angry White middle and upper-middle class crowd that just had its comfortable world rocked.

Dennis has less money, doesn't put on a great show but he touches your heart and soul in a way that Dean can't.

Plus Dennis speaks to people's grief. My simple observation is that the demographics that have gotten over their anger are with Dennis- quietly grieving and not making as much noise.

I think Dennis' support is as deep as Dean's is wide. Despite the media's marginalization of Dennis, those writing him off are wrong to do so. We never counted on the media to help us and are getting the message out in a real grass-roots manner. Come election day, we may be very surprised at how the non-DSL crowd votes.

[JohnKleeb]

22. Kucinich touches the heart and soul yep

I think too that we are bigger than the polls report. :hi: Tiniore, I got some news, my dad is sending out those fliers you gave me.

[blm]

29. wow...I love the way you described it.

Deep and wide are two different things.

[TLM]

59. Yeah and Dean's support is deeper and wider than

all the other's put together...


Say about 500,000 wide and 25 million deep so far.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. Let's read this part again very closely

Over the next three months (March-May), Nagourney's stories mentioned Kucinich only 13 times. Howard Dean was mentioned 111 times. Yet during those months, polls of registered Democrats showed the two candidates running so close that their levels of support were within the margin of error.3

As the chart above shows, network TV news coverage was no better or fairer. Soon after Bush declared "major combat" over in Iraq, Dean saw a surge in TV coverage, with 30 mentions on the three major nightly newscasts in May alone. Kucinich wasn't mentioned at all that month. Yet the April 23 Gallup poll had Dean at 5% and Kucinich at 3%. From then on, the coverage only got more unbalanced.

[redqueen]

39. Thanks for the emphasis.

Here it is again, in case you missed it:

Soon after Bush declared "major combat" over in Iraq, Dean saw a surge in TV coverage, with 30 mentions on the three major nightly newscasts in May alone. Kucinich wasn't mentioned at all that month. Yet the April 23 Gallup poll had Dean at 5% and Kucinich at 3%.

[JohnKleeb]

41. Oh now I am gonna feel even worse

Yes I recall him being mentioned more and more on the road to the war. Sigh.

[TLM]

64. And what was Dean doing in May.... hrmmmmmm?

Meetups had been going strong for 4 or 5 months, and were reaching numbers in the tens of thousands.

Those people were all contacting local media and sending letters, e-mails, and faxes. They were busting their asses to get media attention for Dean.

Where was Kucinich?


Add to that the fact that Dean was the anti-war voice that was charismatic, photogenic, and when he spoke he didn't sound like an angry 14 year old valley girl.

HELLOOOO?

[robsul82]

65. HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

:D

Later.

RJS

[Ardee]

94. what great political incite.....NOT

I am reminded of another campaigner for high office, one who was also derided for his appearance and his rather reedy hard to understand speaking voice. But when folks actually took the time to understand what he said it turned out that Abraham Lincoln was speaking for the ages........

Those who can only deride a candidate for his appearance or his voice are rather easily dismissed,imo.........

[snoochie]

98. But Arnold can WIN!

We have to support Arnold!

He's got kerazmuh.

:eyes:

[xJlM]

118. Dean comes off as a liar

What was that bit where he talked about voting against the IWR. In May of this year (not that a governor votes in congress, anyway). His whole problem is his mouth, and it will be his undoing yet.

[blm]

42. Dean was the horse the MEDIA rode.

But, a big part was that Dean was slamming other Democrats which the media loves to highlight. Pure rhetoric, of course, since Dean was a centrist posing as a populist.

[TLM]

67. BLM how can you lie about DEan attacking other candidates....

when Kerry just flat out lied and claimed Dean suported "embracing the confederate flag?"


Dean may have attacked other dems, but his attacks were true and based on their voting records... not lies and distortions of what they said.

[blm]

92. That's just not true ahat you said.

Dean embraced that flag when he was defending his support for his NRA position. Deanies use his FEBRUARY statement to clean up the shit that Dean created with his remarks LAST WEEK.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22649906.html
Kerry criticizes Dean's gun views
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
11/01/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said Dean's opposition to an assault weapons ban in 1992, recorded in a National Rifle Association endorsement questionnaire, contradicts his position as a presidential candidate supporting a federal assault weapons ban.

Kerry supported the 1994 bill that outlawed the sale and ownership of assault weapons, which Dean says he now supports.

"Howard Dean, during the time we were trying to pass it, was appealing to the NRA for their support," Kerry said, while visiting a rural Story County farm.
"We don't need to be a party that says we need to be the candidacy of the NRA. We stand up against that."

Dean has said 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore lost the election because he failed to win Southern states, where disaffected Democrats who favor gun owners' rights were reluctant to support him.

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Dean said Friday in a telephone interview from New Hampshire. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

Dean said he answered the questionnaire while running for re-election as governor of Vermont. He has said he was never asked to sign a gun control bill during his Vermont tenure.

[TLM]

96. Once again BLM, Dean has been saying this for 10 months.

At no time did he EMBRACE THE FLAG... even your own quote shows that.

He embraced the people in the south who have been dividied by race and have been voting against their own best interests. Hwever to claim he embraced the confederate flag is a slopy and craven lie from Kerry. And sadly I'm not at all surprised you're repeating it.


Dean said the same thing he has been saying since back in feb....

"I intend to talk about race in this election in the south because the Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us. And I'm going to bring us together, because you know what? White folks in the south who drive pickups trucks with confederate flags decals in the back ought to be voting with us and not them, because their kids don't have health insurance either and their kids need better schools too." (big applause)

and here is what he said the other night...

"I'm not going to take a back seat to anybody in terms of fighting bigotry. I'm the only person here that signed a bill that outlawed discrimination against gays and lesbians by giving them the same rights .

"What I discovered is that the fear of people who opposed that bill, the majority of people in my state, was mostly based on ignorance. We have to reach out to every American. We don't have to embrace the confederate flag and I never suggested we do. We have to reach out to all disenfranchised people. Robert Kennedy brought people together. Jesse Jackson did it. We're going to bring people together in this country. I understand the confederate flag is a loathesome symbol, just as I understood the anti-gay slurs I had to put up with after I signed that bill were loathesome. If we don't reach out to every American we can't win. I've had enough of campaigns based on fear, I want a campaign based on hope." -- Howard Dean, Rock the Vote Forum, Boston, 11/4/03

[blm]

106. Dean used it to DEFEND his NRA support. That's a FACT.

10 months ago was NOT the firestorm. Dean's NOVEMBER 1 remark caused the commotion.

btw, since you don't know much about Kerry, KERRY was the first person to DRAFT legislation to outlaw discrimination against gays in 1985.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. I don't know, but I do know this

If Dean is nominated, and he loses to Bush, it will be blamed on the "left wing" of the Democratic party, and next time we will have to run a "centrist".

Knowing Dean's record, the fact that the left is going to be blamed makes my blood boil. But hey I could be wrong.

[blessedwithbliss]

21. I think some consider him a bit too far left for a healthy America

I don't know enough about him to say either way. Does he support capitalism? Lower taxes? Gun ownership? Strong defense etc?

[Mairead]

57. No, 'too far left' is just a lie. He's bang in the center.

I'm not sure 'support capitalism' is quite the right way to put it. More that he doesn't oppose capitalism as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

He doesn't necessarily believe in lower taxes, but he positively believes in cutting out waste so that we get the most service possible for each dollar.

He supports the entire Bill Of Rights, including the RKBA (he himself used to carry concealed). He does support gun-control laws (I don't), but he's not a grabber.

And he strongly believes in national security and an effective military. Where he differs from other candidates is that he doesn't believe the Maginot Line is going to work this time either, and so we should stop steering by the wake (to mix a metaphor). He wants to pay the kids better rather than pour money down the boondoggle ratholes, and reduce the motivation to attack us rather than try to conquer or kill everyone who might try.

Does that help at all?

[Tinoire]

125. The most Left thing about Dean is the rhetoric

I don't believe much that Clark says but if you're gonna go for rhetoric, Clark's is a lot better even if it's still "under construction".

I fear we are too emotionally invested and too eagerly projecting our own desires onto Dean and Clark which explains why people get so enraged when their candidate is validly criticized.

There is no hope left for the Democratic Party. We're as bad as the people who wholeheartedly believed in the "compassionate conservatism"- some of which are in our ranks right now falling for even more clever rhetoric.

Dean is excellent at seizing people's anger and speaking to it but is that enough? There's no doubt he'll be better than Bush but is that enough? No offense to Dean but my pet tarantula would be better than Bush- it's not like it would take much.

[Newcastle]

129. That could only be an issue

if we had a healthy America to begin with (the one we've got is sorely ailing) and if the country weren't grotesquely tilted to the right (which it is).

[CMT]

23. I hate to say it, but

The perception I think is that Dean caught fire on this issue because he was more of a centrist than Kucinich and so the media took him more seriously than DK, who they too easily dismiss as a flake. It is not fair and isn't true, but that is my perspective on it.

[mzmolly]

26. Because he was more of the peace candidate. He put fourth no information

regarding what circumstances he could support a war aka defend our country. People wanted to know under what circumstances would you attack Iraq Mr. Kucinich. We got no answer to my recollection.

People needed to hear that because Bush gives the false perception of strength/security. Unfortunately when Dean put out hypotheticals, his words were twisted, and still are today. But, most people knew what he meant (thus the climbing in the polls)...

Dennis is a good guy, just not the total package.

In fact, I think Dean is only about 90% of the package, but I support him whole heartedly.

By the way, I would'nt describe Dean as the anti war candidate, he's more the anti this war candidate.

[blm]

27. Dean was NOT antiwar. The media said he was. Dean supported use of force

outlined in the IWR with the Biden-Lugar amendment.


http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

>>>>>>>
Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."

[Roark]

32. I like Dennis

I like his politics a lot. Kucinich has consistently come down against NAFTA and is the only candidate we have that opposed the war from the very beginning, without pander or wavering.

That being said, I won't vote for him for a couple of reasons:

1) He is not electable. Not for President anyway. Kucinich serves a vital function in the house and I think we need him there.

2) He does look funny. I can't help it. I have tried to get past it, but in the end he just looks wrong. He does not look like a President. That is shallow. I know it is shallow. I can't help it. He does not look like a strong man.

3) He ran Cleveland into the ground. Despite anything else, he is the only person to have been in charge of a city that has gone into bankruptcy in America since the depression. I have read a great deal on this - and not all of it was his fault (in fact, very little of it was directly his fault) - but in the end he did not stop it from happening. It is the responsibility of our elected officials to keep situations like this from happening and when he had the opportunity, he was not able to keep Cleveland afloat. After the destructive economic situation we have had under Bush, I do not think it would be wise to not only put a "unproven" leader in, but one who has actually failed. It is a recipe for disaster.

[Mairead]

68. "I have read a great deal on this"

3) He ran Cleveland into the ground. Despite anything else, he is the only person to have been in charge of a city that has gone into bankruptcy in America since the depression. I have read a great deal on this - and not all of it was his fault (in fact, very little of it was directly his fault) - but in the end he did not stop it from happening. It is the responsibility of our elected officials to keep situations like this from happening and when he had the opportunity, he was not able to keep Cleveland afloat. After the destructive economic situation we have had under Bush, I do not think it would be wise to not only put a "unproven" leader in, but one who has actually failed. It is a recipe for disaster.

Honestly, if you want to be fair then you need to go back and read more, and more carefully.

- the city was in debt before Dennis took office

- the debt was in large part (according to a federal investigation) due to unfair business practices on the part of the for-profit power company.

- the only way the banks that financed that debt would let Dennis off the hook is if he sacrificed Muny Light. He'd been elected on his promise to not do that very thing. So he said No.

- it was one of those banks (who were in bed with the schemers) that caused Cleveland to go into default, not Dennis. Dennis offered several compromises, and was turned down.


If you really mean to be fair, then go back and get the real story. It's not for nothing that the city council voted him thanks for his courage and sacrifice. He saved Clevelanders a minimum of $250M in 12 years, and it can only get better.

Go back and read, if you're really serious about being fair.

[Roark]

75. I already have..

I said, in my original post, that very little of what was wrong with Cleveland was directly Kucinich's fault. Your post confirms that. 1) The city was already badly in debt - check, not Kucinich. 2) the debt was in a large part due to unfair business practices - check, not Kucinich. 3) He stood on his campaign promise - this was a decision and one that led directly to the bankrupcy. 4) You assign blame, it was not a factor.

Pure and simple, Kucinich had a rat-bastard situation in Cleveland. He had a raw, raw deal. He walked into a den of vipers and lost. All of that is 100% true.

That still does not excuse the fact that based partly upon decisions that Kucinich made, Clevelend went into bankrupcy. He decided to stand on his ethics (a noble and great thing in a politician - rare as well) but his decision had very real consequences. The city went under.

I'm sorry man. Life isn't fair. I wish it was. In the end, Kucinich was entrusted with the city of Cleveland and he dropped the ball. Just like * is responsible for what is happening to and in American today, Kucinich was responsbible for Cleveland. His failure there does not translate into a winning resume for the Presidency of the United States.

[GreenArrow]

85. You still need to look at the long term

DK's decision had immediate ill effects, including costing him his job, but in the long run, the city benefited greatly from it, and accorded him recognition. He didn't take the easy way out--he took the right way out.

[Roark]

88. He had to burn the city to save it?

I'm sorry guys, we are talking about a Presidential candidate.

We have to field a candidate that can take * out. Kucinich is not that candidate. Being the serving Mayor in the only city to go bankrupt since the depression is not going to win Kucinich the support he needs to win. The * Cabal will have a field day with him.

Kucinich is probably the best candidate out there, ideologically. I would give my left arm to have him as President. That being said, I see that it won't happen. I'm glad he is in the race. I'm glad that he is bringing issues to the table that the other candidates run from. I'm glad to see a strong voice in the Democratic party that forces the pseudo repukes like Miller, Lieberman and Mcauliffe to be honest with the voters of our party.

In the end, however, his record is not going to get him elected. You and I know that what Kucinich did in Cleveland was the best that could be done, but all the average voter is going to hear is exactly what I have been thrashing in this thread - the only city in America to go bankrupt since the depression. * will win in a landslide and for his encore performance, he will give the country to Enron.

I can't support that.

[snoochie]

102. Unreal.

I can't believe, with your sig file, that you're supporting anyone but Kucinich.

From the logic in this subthread, it seems like you'd say that our government giving in to big business and letting profitable multinationals get away with paying little to no taxes is a good strategic decision, because if we didn't they might move their business elsewhere.

?!

[Roark]

107. I know...

In the end, I am afraid i'm just too much of a realist. I am envious of those of you who can rally behind Kucinich because out of the nine candidates, he is the one that matches every single one of my personal beliefs. I admire him for his integrity. I think he is the best man in the field.

I just can't get around the fact that I know he would lose. Its the same reason I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 - even though I wanted to. I just knew. Kucinich as the nominee would ensure our loss come November and I know that whichever Democrat does win will be better than Bush.

In the end, it comes down to not being able to endure thinking about four more years of Bush. If McCain had won in 2000 and the alternative as not AS BAD as it is now, I would be all behind Kucinich. I still am behind Kucinich - just not as our nominee.

::Sigh:: Maybe in 2012 once our guy serves his two terms.

[snoochie]

112. Sorry but your argument just makes no sense to me.

Nader had no chance because he was a third party candidate. This is a rigged, two-party system. Kucinich is a Democrat.

Bush has nearly no chance of re-election, all he has is money and propoganda, and against a campaign of real progressive values, he can't win. Against Kucinich in a debate... let's just say it would be very hard for the pundits to act like Kucinich didn't win. People like his ideas. (But you know that. :) )

We just look at it differently. To me the big risk is putting someone up against Bush who is a centrist. No contrast.

[Mairead]

87. Check your facts

Cleveland 'went into bankruptcy' is false. They missed a payment. 'Went into bankruptcy' is wealthy-elite spin.

You might want a guy as Prez who'll fellate the elites on demand, but I don't: that's why we're in Shite Creek up to our chins right now, whispering 'don't make waves don't make waves'.

Dennis is the only guy who has proven he's got a spine, and that's exactly what we need.

[Roark]

90. Um...

"Cleveland's bankruptcy was hard decision but right decision

Q: The one time you had executive responsibility, as mayor of Cleveland, the city went bankrupt. Some will say that you'll do for America what you did for Cleveland.

KUCINICH: In Cleveland, that default ends up being a badge of honor for me, because I stood up for the people of Cleveland against a takeover of our municipal electric system by a utility monopoly. Now imagine a president who's willing to stand up to the Enrons of America. Imagine a president who's willing to stand up to the monopolies in energy and in health care and in transportation and communication. Imagine a president who comes from the cities and will fight for working men and women and will fight for the poor. I have every expectation that I'll be the next president of the United States because when the test came, I put my career on the line to save a municipal electric system for the people of Cleveland. And today people of Cleveland know that I did the right thing. And soon America will know that as well. "

On his campaign website, Kucinich admits it was a default. The question says it was a bankrupcy. Perhaps Mr. Kucinich needs to check his facts too?

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Corporations.htm

[Mairead]

131. "Default" and "bankruptcy" are not the same thing

Default is a declaration by a creditor that you're in breach of contract.

Bankruptcy is a declaration by a court that you're incapable of paying and are going to have nearly all your assets sold off (obviously not what happened to Cleveland!) or that you're under the court's protection while you try to get your act together (also not what happened to Cleveland). There was never any question of Cleveland not being able to pay up, so there was no bankruptcy.

In the citation you gave, Dennis himself used the correct term: default. I don't know why he didn't take the 'went bankrupt' bait. Possibly he never heard it because it was edited in post-hoc, possibly he felt he would sound too legalistic and nitpicky, or possibly some third thing I've not thought of. The 'nitpicky' would be my guess, but I cheerfully admit it's only a guess.

[Hep]

35. We should get on the same page Re: terminology

I think some people use Anti-War when they mean Anti-THE-War.

Dean didn't rule out the use of force. He was against Bush's actually going to war.

[JohnKleeb]

43. I was under the impression that a lot of you all opposed the war

:shrug: It sounded like the wrong idea from the gitko. I thought a lot of people opposed this war all together and it wouldnt have mattered who the president was. I shrug for eternity. Sorry if I offended anyone but I thought the war sounded like a bad idea. I felt it was odd that Bush made Saddam to be a great big threat.

[Hep]

52. Again you are right

I opposed the war, but I didn't rule out the possibility that we might need to invade. I was never convinced that we were being threatened.

[JohnKleeb]

71. lol thanks

I really didnt see it honestly. Thanks for not attacking Kucinich and mocking us like some people are below :(.

[blm]

108. It depends what thread they're on, John....

if it's a Kerry thread Dean's antiwar and Kerry's a warmongerer and when it's a Kucinich thread, it's yeah, but, Dean was more for a variation of the military force, he's no wussy.

[Hep]

140. Poor guy

You can't even participate in a decent, open thread without insulting people. That's just sad. Some of us are making an effort here. I guess you consider yourself too good for that.

[0007]

31. That is indeed is a hard one to figure!

I like what I hear coming from Kucinich and Dennis will go after anyone.

But, everyone sez the same thing. "He Can't win!!" There are only two hopefuls that I don't care about, and one of 'em isn't Dennis Kucinich.

[Kamika]

36. Because we want a democratic president

See id LOVE Kucinitch but the majority of people will JUST NOT vote for him.

Thats why im going for Dean right now

[redqueen]

38. This person seems to get it.

click here

"Others, quite a few, have become adepts at the art of Magical Thinking. The same policies, reworded and dressed up in something a little more metrosexual and upscale will TOO be an improvement, they chant, willtoowilltoowilltoo.

The phrase "change their government," after all, cannot exist without the word "change," and change is scary, change is difficult, change is messy, it is not guaranteed to be either predictable, controllable or devoid of surprises, and is quite fond of bouncing people cheerfully and unexpectedly out of their comfort zones, unwrapping fingers from security blankets and dyeing those blankets electric purple and hanging them in the window."

[stinkeefresh]

44. one very significant reason

people like me support Dean even though Dennis' policy proposals are better is:

Dean's campaign is run shockingly well. His politcs are close enough to mine that I think he'd be a great pres. But his campaign is breaking boundary after boundary of what is supposed to be possible. I mean taking the difficult decision of matching funds straight to the people in a vote? GodDAMN that's good. And that's why Rove is afraid of Dean.

And you know that's true every time a GOP stooge stumbles over to try to get us to think that Dean can't win.

[RichM]

46. DK is a serious challenge to the status quo, thus must be muzzled.

The powers that be are very frightened of people who think like Dennis -- and they have reason to be. He is capable of saying things that will "majorly" rock the boat. The system is always going to shut down someone like this. It's guaranteed that he will get no media attention for his ideas, because the ideas are too attractive and make too much sense.

You saw what they did to the CBS Reagan movie. When Dennis Kucinich talks about cutting the Pentagon budget and creating universal single-payer health insurance, that is a hell of a lot more threatening to the status quo than the "Reagan" movie was going to be. Dennis Kucinich could explain to the public how the political system systematically robs them, & funnels all their money to well-connected defense contractors. If the public ever was really made to understand the magnitude of this looting, there would be rioting in the streets.

Therefore, every single influential element in the political system - the party pros, the Washington elite, the media, the kingmakers - is determined from the outset that Dennis is not going to be treated seriously. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, was treated like royalty by all these players. A bona fide lummox & lout like Arnold -- THAT is who is given lavish media attention and taken seriously by the media!

[Kanary]

48. there you have it

"DK is a serious challenge to the status quo, thus must be muzzled."

Then we go complcitely along with the program, even though we see it happening. Look at all the posts saying "DK is the one who most closely parallels my views, but I won't vote for him."

I think this is where the phrase "We get what we deserve" fits in.

Then, when the one who *does* win disappoints us, we feel we were tricked and wronged. Nope, we go willingly.

Kanary

[GreenArrow]

63. That's it,

in a nutshell.

[Aidoneus]

130. exactly

very astute, as could be expected. :toast:

[Astarho]

146. well said

The status quo must not be opposed. Look what happened to Cynthia McKinney.

[kimchi]

147. Agreed.

The media can't possibly be fair to someone who wants to shake up the system--not a little, but a LOT! Department of Peace? Well the Pentagon, under any adminstration, can't have THAT!

Yes, they are afraid of the little man with funny ears. They can't handle the truth--that our planet needs SERIOUS help, FAST. As long as they get their fat paychecks, they will refuse to see reality. So sad.

The man is way ahead of his time. If people refuse to see the evil that is Bush, they sure won't see the genius that is Kucinich. I'm still praying for a miracle, that people will wake up and vote for this jewel. Screw public perception-if we really wanted change we'd work for it. Sounds like lots of people even here at DU don't really believe that we have the power.

[redqueen]

47. No media conspiracy here... just a collection of dumbasses...

with no concern whatsoever for the fate of our democracy.


"Why have so many journalists taken it upon themselves to decide for their readers which candidates are electable and which aren't? On the road with the Dean campaign, Nation reporter Matt Taibbi posed that very question to the candidate's press contingent:

"When I asked the reporters on the plane what the value of this kind of reporting was, I got an interesting answer. No fewer than four journalists replied to the effect that unless the electability issue was addressed, 'someone like Kucinich' might get the nomination.

"'Hell, if it came down to a battle of position papers, Dennis Kucinich might win,' laughed Jackson Baker of the Memphis Flyer, incidentally not a horse-racer and one of the true good guys on the plane.

"'I think its value is that it helps to explain to the reader why I'm spending so much time with one candidate,' said Mark Silva of the Orlando Sentinel. 'He needs to know why I'm reporting so much on Howard Dean, as opposed to, say, Dennis Kucinich.'"

[TLM]

53. Have you heard him speak?

have you seen him? There is no way he can win.


Why did so many progressives go for Dean and not Kucinich... maybe because they want PROGRESS?

[GreenArrow]

66. "maybe because they want progress"

no, they don't want progress, they want status quo. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to leave the cozy, safe, warm, fuzzy, selfish coccoon-like system they live in. They don't want to think, they want to be led.

[TLM]

97. Yeah and you wonder why they won't support your guy...

when you get done insulting them and thelling them how stupid they are, maybe you can ask them why they've rather vote for a pragmatist that can win than an idealist who will lose.

[robsul82]

58. There is no conspiracy.

It's not the media, it's not "evil" people of ANY party. The failure of the Dennis Kucinich campaign lies with one person - Dennis Kucinich. He didn't CHOOSE to be a midget, but he DOES choose to be shrill. He didn't CHOOSE to look goofy, but he DOES choose to be a flake. He didn't CHOOSE to be a dork, but he DOES choose to whine and complain ad nauseum.

The reason why Dennis Kucinich will never be President is half genetics and half himself. Bank.

Later.

RJS

[redqueen]

60. Yep.

And the people of this country were lied into supporting a war because pundits just love wars, right?

That's the reason they slanted the coverage, right?

Right?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Mairead]

73. Check your facts.

You forgot to put any in.

[robsul82]

77. You refuted with none.

So why should I?

Later.

RJS

[Newcastle]

133. Just once

it would be nice if people in this country voted their own best interest instead of voting for the guy they think would look good as an action figure. Just once I wish voters in this country would look at substance over image - and completely manufactured and fake image at that.

It's easy to shrilly whine that someone else is a flake. It's more difficult to actually engage that person's ideas. I find Kucinich to be the most substantial and honest of the Democratic candidates. He's a true progressive (on all but the abortion issue, as has been noted repeatedly). I guess all progressives are flakes, then, in your book. I can live with that because there is no substance behind your charge.

[Murky Waters]

70. he doesn't fit the mold

He is 100% an individual.

His message hasn't morphed into a self-conflicting amalgum of popular whimsy.

[messiah]

83. Simple

he is not a moderate! he's the status quo. I guess people don't like change so they vote for conservatives.

[paulk]

84. The media needed a dark horse

and they chose Dean. Kucinich wasn't telegenic enough. The whole "little known governer/outsider taking on D.C." scenerio is great for ratings.

Now that Dean is surging in the polls, they'll spend the next few months tearing him down.

That's my "I'm feeling really cynical tonight" take on it.

[CWebster]

91. Are you asking Kucinich supporters or Dean supporters

Part of it has to do with how we are personally. For me, it might take me a while to reach a decision, but once I do, I stand behind it.

Kucinich is a bit too much the immature ideologue to me. I prefer an earthy practicality, a common sense intelligence and a steely resolve to confront these times. That doesn't mean that Kucinich isn't a essential participant, his input sets the tone, but his broad appeal is limited during a time when Republicans control so much of the debate.

I was disappointed to hear him say a heart murmur kept him out of the service. For what he champions, I wondered why he felt compelled to participate in that particular contest.

[GreenArrow]

100. "I prefer an earthy practicality, a common

sense intelligence and a steely resolve to confront these times."

Sounds a lot like GWB to me (well, maybe not the intelligence part, but his supporters would praise him for all those attributes)

It's funny how perceptions differ, because DK seems to me to be the only one offering real, practical solutions to the problems at hand. Personally, I'm thouroughly sick of "resolve" steely or otherwise, which is a favorite word of BushInc. I'd much rather see, and the country is in dire need of flexibility, a sense of cooperation, and an ability to admit when wrongs are done coupled with a willingness to correct them. That's probably too much too ask, with a populace that is apparently drugged beyond perception of anything other than rage or fear.

[Julien Sorel]

111. I actually think you're on to something here.

A lot of Deanites are mirror images of Bushites, and no two candidates in the entire race mirror each other closer than Bush and Dean -- it's uncanny. To paraphrase CMB, they look similar; they have similar upbringings; similar ethics; similar approaches to politics; even their core political philosophies are identical, religion aside.

Bush 'won,' and he has no operative political ethos besides the desire to win at any cost; many Deanites apparently find that an admirable trait, and they've found his 'Democratic' counterpart to rally around.

[CWebster]

115. And the fact that you have Billy

the biggest, baddest Dean basher of all, lauding your words tells me what a cesspool your remarks are dredged from. Sour grapes brings out the ugliness in some folks reactions.

Billy Boy only reaffirms in my mind a negative reflection on Clark, he compares Dean to Bush, when Clark couldn't even decide whether he was a Democrat.

Nope, didn't like Kucinich when he was the staunch anti-choice zealot and don't care for his insistant ideological shrillness now.

[Julien Sorel]

117. As usual, a torrent of words,

a desert of arguments.

Dean and Bush: Wealthy upbringings, mediocre students, party boys, Yalies, both had careers essentially bought for them (Albert Einstein Medical School is as close to a diploma mill as the medical profession allows), both were governors prior to running, both of them believe in small government, neither one of them takes risks (actually Bush is a far bigger risk taker than Dean is, probably because he's dumber), and neither of them is, curiously, particularly loyal to their party's stated ideology: Bush spends like a drunken sailor on leave as a means of staying near the center; Dean is notoriously penurious, again as a means of staying near the center. Both support States' Rights as a means of ducking potentially divisive issues. The differences are so minor as to be ridiculous, other than an issue like abortion, which is a political red-line issue neither one of them can compromise on; outside of red-liners, both Bush and Dean would compromise on just about anything. There are, simply put, no two candidates in the race as similar as these two.

Where in the world do you get 'sour grapes?' Is that some new flavor of Kool-aid you people have cooked up?

[CWebster]

120. Billy's on his mission

character assasination.

Odd that in comparing Dean to Bush you employ the tactics Rove would appreciate.

like I try to tell you, you are not an asset to your cause.

[Julien Sorel]

121. Unless you can actually offer up an argument,

by simply attacking me all you are doing is demonstrating that what I said is correct. Whose 'cause' does that help? Yours? You would do better to, as Clark says, stop digging once you find yourself in a hole.

[whirlygigspin]

159. zap da brain

:freak:

electroshock therapy = Kerry's hair
+ Kucinich's ears
/ Gephardt's eyebrows

are we electing a President or casting a new version of the
the Munsters?

Vote Al Sharpton

[whirlygigspin]

157. Electro shock therapy anyone?

low-

[CWebster]

114. Now, that was a really nasty swipe.

I respect your candidate enough that I wouldn't make a sneering comparison to Bush.

Flexibility? Lol!

[BuckeFushe]

104. Only one reason

Trippi

[brava]

153. That's right. You've nailed it!

His Internet strategy stinks. In fact, he has no strategy. Without the Internet he has nothing.

The tragic thing is that his staff may be sabotaging his campaign without knowing it, simply because they lack Internet savvy.

And dammit, that's a real shame.

[JanMichael]

105. Because the mantras worked? Because people are internally liars?

Or disengenuous by nature? I mean that by..."While I love his Ideas, I'm ok now financially, and I just want a generic Democrat to make me feel psychologically good about myself (Ie. I love the poor as long as I don't have to touch them. AND. I believe in Universal HC yet I've got my constantly changing private insurance and my own self being is worth more than those poor bastards without my questionable policy"). I don't really know or care about Macro issues, they're just too much work to understand"

Basically because that idiot tube in every house has made most "well meaning" people go stupid:-)

That's my opinion but I'm a crazy Socialist and I scare the "Nice People".



PS: Definition of "Nice People"..."I've got mine and don't you dare fuck that up regardless of how many people exist at my expense. Sure I "care" about the "Poor" but you know I'm busy, right? I knew a Black person once, in HS, his dad was a doctor...I really DO care... :-) "

[blm]

109. Brilliant!

True.

[snoochie]

113. BINGO! n/t

[CWebster]

116. This all assumes that anyone who reaches a different conclusion

is some sort of yuppie sell-out. Just a tad elitist, no?

[JanMichael]

119. Yup. I'm a populist "elitist" all reight.

OooooH! Bad me.

[dansolo]

122. Because Kucinich comes off as too angry

I always hear Dean characterized as "angry" and about to explode at any minute, but every time I have seen Kucinich speak, he comes off as far more shrill and angry.

[LeftyLover]

123. Why haven't

Any of our candidates caught fire other than Dean?
I mean there is a ton of political experience between them and it seems that we are spinning our wheels with the in fighting!

Don't they realize that they shouldn't be fighting each other and fight the staggering losses we have had in the past 2 years???

[quaker bill]

134. Not a flame

I like Dennis and his ideas.

That being aside he carries himself as a movement liberal / leftist. His delivery and use of language creates an emotionally shrill and harsh impression. He is a liberal firebrand. Nothing wrong with that at all, in fact I like him for it.

My point is that his demeanor is a lot like Gingrich and some of the other conservative firebrands. The difference with Dennis is that he is smarter, more compassionate, honest, and actually right about things.

[SoCalDem]

124. For the same reason that a 5'8' 250 lb guy does not play pro basketball

Crass?? Mean?? True?? ..

This is a country that puts a lot of stock into looks and demeanor.. Kucinich has great ideas, and a lot of heart, but he's small,has/had a goofy haircut, and big ears..

I like the guy,but he's our Ross Perot without the fat wallet..

[JanMichael]

126. As a 5'8", 175lb (Fit too, just try to take me!) ball of rightious fury...

I find your rote repetition of the status quo disappointing.


Seriously...There ought to be more substantial arguments in my most humble opinion.:-)

[SoCalDem]

128. I'm sorry... I like the guy

but presidential "looks" whatever THAT is, is important..

If you look back through my posts, I have not indicated ANY candidate that is a favorite.. I will support whomever gets the nod, but I am realistic about the looks thing.. It started with Kennedy, and it's still with us.. It's hardwired into our brains...

[REP]

136. He Seems Untrustworthy

He started his campaign by doing a complete 180 on abortion. He may be sincere, but it immediately alienated those on the left and anti-choicers, leaving few people who were really interested in what he'd change his mind about next - maybe the war?

He has a terrible personal style, losing his temper and acting petulant put where it can be noticed - and reported, as Matt Taibbi did in his piece for The Nation. His shrieking, sarcastic manner is widely reported. The media isn't playing one clip over and over again - he supplies them with fresh material.

He has a tin ear. When he says, “I’d nominate any gay to the Supreme Court, or lesbian or bisexual or transgendered person to the Supreme Court as long as they were ready to uphold Roe v. Wade,” he may not have meant to be pandering, but that's what it sounds like. Additionally, people concerned with divine justice may be uncomfortable with the idea of a Justice Divine and turned off to a message they might have been otherwise receptive. His hip-hop Ku-ku-kucinich video for Rock the Vote proved Ella Fitzgerald's saying, "There ain't nothing squarer than a hep square" and turned off another audience, and supplied more ammo the media.

What is his message, anyway? It seems that most of what comes from Camp Kucinich is tantrum-throwing because not enough people are paying attention to him. I've heard about his Department of Peace enough already, and no explanation of how his DOPe jibes with unilaterally withdrawing from international agreements. I've heard that Dr Dean isn't being niiiiiiiice, and boy is he gonna sue. Amusing, yes, but not confidence inspiring. Politics isn't nice, and if he doesn't know that by now, he'll never figure it out.

[bowens43]

137. Because Dean can win the general election n/t

[DealsGapRider]

139. Um, because Kucinich is a space alien who can't be elected?

[brava]

154. What is wrong with calling forth the Goddess of Peace?

Maybe you're the space alien from a planet without women.

[Ficus]

145. Dennis is In

No one is perfect, we'll always take converts...

[whirlygigspin]

158. oh what an original poster

does your candidate have any other great original posters?

[Desertrose]

148. I just read this whole thread....

and ....holy shit!

People are afraid of truth...plain & simple- it requires work on their part to change their thinking......

I really and truly agree with the poster who said we don't want to shake the status quo...I have mine & its not that bad...I just want to make sure my own little world isn't rocked...and ya'll know that DENNIS WILL ROCK YOUR WORLD...he will ask for great changes...but guys, we NEED some changes here...we just can't keep going down this road.....

I don't see any other candidate who is willing to take us out of our "comfort zones/ruts" to do whats needs doing....we are lazy and as long as we can feel secure in our lives , then its pretty much screw the rest.

We were "fine" til 9/11 (not really but thats another tale for another day) and then see how fast we were willing to give up freedoms for the false feel of security? The only way we can ever be secure is to make sure we are not the bully anymore....that greed & power don't control our country and bulldoze over everyone...

Dennis Kucinich has the vision to do that....but as long as we are still being led by FEAR no one will hear him...that is one of the reasons ...and the media is controlled by the corps that make mega $$ off keeping us that way.

Dean is an OK guy...not my choice for many reasons I will not share...but anymore we need more than OK...we need the candidate that so many people say resonates with their heart. Head thinking got us down this road...heart centered actions will get us out.

Flame me, laugh at me, whatever you need to do...but to those who understand what I am saying ( same thing Dennis is saying) you know that it is possible....

DENNIS WILL ROCK US ALL!

Peace
DR

[REP]

149. Must Have Skipped My Post, Then

Many Kucinich supporters seem to have on blinders about their candidate. He doesn't "scare" anyone; he's not a glorious vision clothed in The Truth; he doesn't speak to many hearts. In fact, that "speaking the heart" stuff sounds like the longings of a love-struck teenager more than it sounds like an authentic rallying cry of savvy politicos. A lot of us are interested in saavy politicians; far more than we are in star-stuff and precious dreams of an ill-tempered man who can't make up his mind about whether abortion is a woman's right or the murder precious preborn poppets. Misunderstood or not, the people aren't buying what he's doing a spectacularly poor job of selling.

[Desertrose]

150. Uh no...actually I read it...

guess it didn't make that great of an impression- just more of the same old....
BTW, so- called savvy politicians are the ones who got us into the place we are currently in...do you honestly think they will or even want to get us out of it? talk about blinders...hell, I don't wear 'em- just the opposite...I have a fairly large vision of what it takes to change things...and what is really going on....

By ill-tempered...you are referring to Dean with his sense of arrogant entitlement -that reminds me a bit too much of another so-called "savvy" politican...aren't you?

All I can say is Dennis speaks to hearts and minds that are open...and this is more than a political battle....doubt we'll see eye to eye on this...everyone has their own pov for whatever reason....

Peace
DR

[REP]

152. Nope

This thread is about Kucinich, so I didn't name any other politicians. His fits of pique are pretty well known, even mentioned in an otherwise fawning article in The Nation. He sulks at those around him; petulence isn't a particularly noble or inspiring quality. There is a big difference between pouting and anger. There is no such thing as righteous pouting.

Starting out his campaign with an about face on abortion caused lots of distrust among many people. Some people believe it was an honest re-evaluation; others see it as an opportunistic and insincere pander.

He's a terrible public speaker. He has no discernable message. He speaks neither from nor to the heart - at least among the 97% or so polled who are not supporting him. His campaign has done a terrible of job of campaigning. He may be all that his supporters say he is, but he and/or his campaign has done a rotten job of telling his non-supporters just what it is he stands for. Anyone can preach to the choir; the trick is preaching to the rest without letting on that a sermon is being preached.