Don't yield the weight of unified voices - Kucinich is the Party's soul

[dpbrown]

Politicians think in terms of percentages.

Because they see themselves as "representing" the views of the constituencies they represent, they consciously or subconsciously incorporate the views of their constituents based on the "weight" that they give those views.

Weight is measured by "voice."

In a primary season, "voice" is put into action by vote and by caucus.

We all know, of course, that Dennis Kucinich, as President, will do the most to heal the damage done to this nation by the Bush Family Evil Empire (BFEE).

There is only ONE way to show the other politicians running for the Democratic nomination how SERIOUSLY we take the platform and positions of true Democratic populism espoused by Dennis Kucinich.

There is only ONE way to show the other politicians running for the Democratic nomination how DEEPLY flawed is the strategy of accommodation in reining in the BFEE.

There is only ONE way to show the other politicians running for the Democratic nomination where the SOUL of the Democratic Party resides today.

There is only ONE way to show the other politicians running for the Democratic nomination how much WEIGHT to accord the desires of the true populists at the core of the progressive bell curve.

There is only ONE way to show the other politicians running for the Democratic nomination WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STANDS FOR!

And that ONE WAY is to support Dennis Kucinich with every fiber of our being from now through the Democratic Party Convention.

What is the risk in supporting Dennis?

NONE. We will nominate a capable Democrat and that Democrat will beat George Bush in November of 2004. Support for Dennis won't change that ONE IOTA.

What is the risk in NOT supporting Dennis?

HUGE.

The only reason the OTHER candidates running for the Democratic nomination are talking about UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is because Dennis is fighting for it.

The only reason the OTHER candidates are having to equivocate on their support of the Iraq invasion is because Dennis wasn't taken in by the BFEE lies leading up to the invasion and led the fight to stop it in the House of Representatives.

The only reason the OTHER candidates are forced to take a position on a federal law protecting the rights of loving people to marry regardless of gender is because Dennis is the ONLY candidate favoring federal protection of those citizens, our brothers and sisters.

The only reason the OTHER candidates are forced to defend the circumstances under which they would support enforcing the death penalty in the only industrialized nation holding onto this barbaric practice is because Dennis has fought to end this racist and archaic penalty once and for all.

The only reason the OTHER candidates are discussing an exit strategy for getting out of Iraq and saving our soldiers' lives is because Dennis is the ONLY candidate to put forth a detailed plan for bringing stability to Iraq, ending the privatization of that country, and bringing our soldiers home in 90 days.

_______________________________________________________________

Al Gore agreed with George Bush THIRTY-NINE TIMES in the second Presidential debate in the year 2000.
_______________________________________________________________


If you want this election to be about something MORE than coddling the opposition, more than finding areas of "agreement," and more than the same old corporate politics, you'll support Dennis Kucinich from now until the Convention and beyond.

The alternative is silence.

The alternative is turning our unified voices into weightless, drifting motes.

The alternative is abdicating our responsibility to take CHARGE of the direction our Party is headed.

The alternative is turning our back on the soul of democracy.

The alternative is a future...that's not much different from the present.

Courage, America!

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. Heart of the Dem Party kick!

:kick:

[kiahzero]

2. Yes, Al Gore and Shrubya are exactly the same

If Al Gore were President, we'd certainly be in the midst of a war with Iraq, while simultaneously suffering the worst loss of jobs since Hoover.

Wait a second...

[Terwilliger]

5. No one said they were exactly the same EXCEPT for you

so you could flesh out your extremist point-of-view

I am not convinced that Al Gore would not have gone to war to get Iraq out. After all, he and Clinton did everything the Pukes told them to do in Iraq during their presidency.

[kiahzero]

6. That's odd

I seem to recall an invasion of Iraq in 91, followed by an invasion of Iraq in 03... which of those was Clinton around for?

PNAC was pushing for the invasion of Iraq during the Clinton administration... how does not invading constitute "doing everything the Pukes told them to do?"

Could the sanctions have been designed better - absolutely. But are you really arguing that we shouldn't have contained Saddam?

If your point with the "Al Gore agreed thirty nine times" line wasn't that Al Gore and Bush were substantially similar, what was it?

[Terwilliger]

8. well, I didn't write it

so, that's a big fact you should think about

Also, if he agreed 39 times in a debate...what differences was he articulating?

Saddam was contained in 1991 and we let him stay in power. I think all actions surrounding Iraq have been American lies, Saddam's actions notwithstanding.

And I'm really sick of people suggesting that Saddam was some tyrant bent on world domination and national aggression. He was a tin-pot dictator suckling on the American teat...he DIDN'T like fundamentalists...he had NO INCENTIVE to try to build up weapons...he had NO INCENTIVE to bite the hand that fed him continuously. Painting Saddam as Hitlerian in attitudes and goals simply plays into the idea that he was some sort of imminent threat, which he NEVER was to the US, and BARELY was to his neighbors.

[kiahzero]

15. ...

Sorry about that - I was at work, so I wasn't paying close enough attention.

"Also, if he agreed 39 times in a debate.."

Perhaps you forgot that Bush played close to the center throughout that entire election? "Compassionate conservative", and such? I'm not prepared to go on a research project digging through the debates and position papers, so I'm afraid I can't give a very indepth answer.

As for Saddam, he certainly was a threat to his neighbors, at least - Iran-Iraq War and invasion of Kuwait come to mind.

Since you seem to disagree with the way that Saddam was handled post-Gulf War... what specifically would you change?

[Terwilliger]

22. I would have removed him in 91

and did my best to help the Iraqis get back on their feet

what other course of action is there?

[dpbrown]

9. The point is that Kucinich forces a highlight of the differences

The "fact" is what it is - Gore and Bush had a debate, and they ended up agreeing on a bunch of stuff.

On the other hand, Kucinich brings the party back to its basics, and makes the other candidates debate the issues because he takes strong stands on those issues in favor of traditional Democratic Party positions.

And because he is absolutely unimpeachable in his consistent opposition to Bush's rampage through our national heritage, our safety, and our liberties, he's the best person to oppose him.

But, as importantly, Kucinich provides the spine for the other candidates in the race to borrow to show they are different from Bush.

Some people say they won't support Kucinich because he's not "electable" or there is some early need to "rally" and all that's just an illusion, because 1) we're going to nominate a worthy Democrat who's going to beat Bush, and 2) supporting Kucinich means sending a signal to the Party about what direction we demand that it go.

If we abdicate our responsibility to define what the Democratic Party stands for, we're accepting whatever level of sameness the politicians we give in to feel like giving us.

Neither Kerry, nor Dean, nor Clark, nor Edwards would be discussing some of the issues that Kucinich has brought to the fore, if Kucinich wasn't in the race.

This race isn't just about beating Bush.

It's about choosing a new direction for this nation.

Supporting Kucinich all the way through the process sends the strongest signal possible to the Democrats about what direction we choose.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Desertrose]

13. "This race isn't just about beating Bush."

Amen Dan

Sure wish more people could figure this out.....

Great post!!

Peace
DR

[dpbrown]

29. I wish more people would see the fight for the Dem soul here

The fight is for what one of the two major parties is going to stand for going forward.

The only way to claim legitimate ownership of the direction is to take over the party and redirect it toward a progressive future.

It's a symptom of a short attention span when people are distracted enough that they think we can just "beat Bush" and then it's all magically going to be alright.

It's not going to be alright until we demand from our elected officials and our government synergy with our issues.

DK is the soul of the party right now. There's no doubt about that. It's even more important right now to keep DK in the race.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[The Magistrate]

31. Not True, Ma'am

Evicting the criminals of the '00 Coup from office is the need of the hour: unless this is done, there is nothing else good that can be. Everything else is mere distraction, and to the extent that it might interfere with this purpose, constitutes aid and comfort to the enemy.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Terwilliger]

32. Sir, You're Either With Us Or You're Against Us

:eyes:

great

[The Magistrate]

34. Indeed, Mr. Terwilliger

A person either means the overthrow of the criminals of the '00 Coup, or numbers among their enablers, if not their active supporters. Claims that there is some other question at stake but the eviction of these wretches from usurped office this year divides fire, and increases the chance these reptiles will retain the office they stole. You will find me, Sir, quite inflexible on this point.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Terwilliger]

38. Sir, The Enablers of George W. Bush are the Democratic party

or was it someone else who conceded the election to the thieves?

I'm sorry, if the Democrats in 00 thought it was ok to concede to Bush and let him into the halls of power, then theirs is the responsibility.

[redqueen]

39. Well said!

:toast:

[The Magistrate]

42. A Wrapper For Fish, Sir

It is true Vice-President Gore was in error to place an early concession call: it hamstrung future activities politically once it became clear how fraudulent the count was. Nonetheless, those who voted for Nader, and not for Vice-President Gore, in Florida, out of an excess of purist zeal, must bear the greatest weight of responsibility for the current situation.

The situation today is what it is, regardless of how it was arrived at: those who would place any other concern higher than the eviction of the criminals of the '00 Coup from office are assisting them to remain in office, and doing that is a damned odd way to demonstrate attachment to left principles....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Desertrose]

46. fortunately we don't have to agree with you...

just as you don't have to agree with us...

time will be the determining factor here...for those who have the vision to see beyond the immediate, we are already pretty clear on the outcome.

Peace
DR

[The Magistrate]

51. Of Course Not, Ma'am

And we shall indeed see what we shall see. The window, though, is always open for small wagers....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Terwilliger]

53. aren't candidates who attack other candidates unconcerned?

aren't they helping Bush? maybe they don't believe in any of the prinicples "the left" does?

[The Magistrate]

60. Indeed, Mr. Terwilliger

Candidates in this primary who seek to prosper by smears and slurs against their opponents do a great disservice to the cause and the Party.

[Terwilliger]

65. but, in effect, you don't really have a problem with them

My one vote is more destructive to the goals of the progressive movement than "progressives" who shoot themselves in the foot?

When are they held accountable? When Bush wins again?

OH I FORGOT! There were no repercussions for the failure of the Democratic party in 2000.

Silly me...thinking anything will ever change.

[The Magistrate]

70. My Opposition, Sir, Is Not To An Individual

But to a tendency to which some individuals adhere: not a great number, granted, but a number sufficient to mischief.

The tendency of the left toward splinter and purist abstention is one of the great secrets of reactionary success. Any close reading of history will bear this out. Those on the left who are most prone to such tendencies ought to be, as the most committed, the ones leading the charge for effective blows against the worst elements of reaction, rather than diverting their efforts into theoretical quarrels over who is more perfect, and strivings for an un-obtainable perfection. The most committed elements on the right do not make this error. No hard-core rightist pretends there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats; rather, they exaggerate all differences, to demonstrate the one is all good and the other pure evil, and thus they prosper....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Terwilliger]

101. purist abstention

sounds good! :hi:

[OhioStateProgressive]

49. inflexibility is a sign of low intelligence

there IS a bigger question, and you folks that think the only thing needed is to remove Goerge W. Bush are truly blinded

[The Magistrate]

56. My Lack Of Intelligence, Fellow

Is legend around here: how acute of you to point it out....

"It is a mistake to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

[dpbrown]

35. We need a plan for what to do with it when we get it back

I think that goes without saying.

Kucinich espouses the absolutely best plan for what to do with our nation once we get it back from "those Bush bastards" as you put it.

Storming the castle to take it back and then just patting ourselves on the back for having taken it back doesn't give us anything. It's a medieval concept of what's happened to the nation, and ends up, unsurprisingly, proposing a medieval solution to the problem.

The reason Bush I was able to hand off the Presidency (after a Perot-induced hiccup) to Bush the Stunted was because they have been profoundly able to manipulate the shredded and partially privatized fabric of our social compact to their advantage.

As Kevin Phillips points out in his recent book, the Bushes have been moving inexorably toward this day from the days of Sam Bush and George Walker war profiteering and their involvement in setting up "private" corporate investigation agencies, the progenitor of the CIA.

Trotting out puff-piece candidates makes a nice sideshow against the ignored backdrop of our national meltdown, but only Kucinich keeps the race focused on the real needs of the American people, and the changes that must be implemented to put an end to the corporate-political incest that allows people like the Bushes and the Cheneys and the Rumsfelds to thrive.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[The Magistrate]

37. Mere Wheel-Spinning, Sir

The thing must be got back; fantasias of what to do afterwards are mere castles in the air till that is done. Planning, divorced from responsibilty and understanding of consequence and opposition, is worse than useless. It is a beseting vice of the left out of power, and disputes concerning it are a leading cause of left disunion, and hence of reactionary success.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[redqueen]

41. I think there are a lot of people who would agree

that winning with another 'Clintonesque' candidate is not winning at all. It's an illusory win in which the poor will keep getting poorer, the workers will continue to lose rights bit by bit, the uninsured will continue to wait for help, the constitution will continue to be degraded, etc. etc. etc.

I doubt I'm alone in thinking that electing anyone but Kucinich will not change the direction our country is in (racing towards fascism / one party *corporate* rule), but instead will merely slow it down a bit.

[The Magistrate]

44. Not Very Many, Ma'am

President Clinton was an excellent President, and remains very popular with the rank and file of the Party. Among other things, during his administration there was a rise in the real wages of working people.

Even were your view that electing anyone but your candidate would merely slow a thing you oppose down, Ma'am, surely slowing it down is to be preferred to speeding it up, which will be the certain consequence of victory by the criminals of the '00 Coup.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[redqueen]

47. Disagree strongly

Clinton presided over the biggest losses the Democrats had experienced on the hill in decades.

He is popular, indeed, but I chalk that up to the same reason that Bush is very popular. The media props up shills so they can get their cut in the US taxpayer payola game.

Where you cite that the real rise in wages was something to admire, I look at it as a crumb that he tossed out to the peasants. If he truly cared about working people, he would have addressed some real problems, not given them short shrift as he actually did.

You insinuate that nominating anyone but Kucinich will ensure us victory over Bush -- are you so sure of that?

[The Magistrate]

54. Some Fair Points, Ma'am

President Clinton's administration did coincide with a serious reverse in the Congress. This stemmed, to my view, from two factors. First, early in his administration he and his advisors had a lapse in counting skills; they began to act as if his plurality of election had been a landslide majority, and thus solidified a good deal of opposition that might otherwise have been finessed or coopted. Second, the Democratic caucus in the Congress showed an appalling lack of discipline in its operation, particularly in the matter of the administration's health care proposal. These people had grown so used to individual self-preservation in the face of a Republican executive they could not unite behind a Democratic one into an effective voting block. They paid a dire consequence at the polls.

President Clinton did what was possible during his term, Ma'am. The rise in real wages was signifigant, and was the first in more than two decades. Change is not a rapid or abrupt thing in any large and complex system.

My view is that to run Rep. kucinich is to guarantee victory to the enemy. Other candidates may not be certain to achieve victory, but certainly offer a better liklihood of it. The rank and file of the Democratic Party, or "people" for short, would seem to be in agreement with that judgement.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[redqueen]

58. You made some good points

But I simply cannot reconcile his votes for the Welfare Reform Act, the Telecommunications Act, nor the continued savaging of Iraq (our former buttboy), with any progressive ideals.

I give him kudos for the FMLA, attempting to veto the Securities Litigation Reform Act, and as you have pointed out, for fighting for the first real rise (however slight or less-than-necessary) in workers' wages.

Regarding your belief that Kucinich as the nominee would guarantee victory to bush -- I couldn't disagree more. I don't think that the Democratic voters preference will amount to a hill of beans in the GE.

It's a whole different ballgame at that point, IMO. Instead of having Democrats (widely known for their varying views) fighting over who would be the best candidate, we would be able to see the one nominee in sharp contrast to bush.

How sharp will the contrast be? How much difference will that make? These are questions that only the 'average' American (Joe and Jane Sixpack) can answer. Time will tell...

[The Magistrate]

63. Thank You, Ma'am

The Telecommunications Act was indeed a damned raw piece of business, that ought not to have been supported by any. On the other two matters we remain in disagreement, although that should come as no surprise. The system of welfare in place at the time required reform; it was an appalling system that did little for the purported beneficiaries, and served mainly to provide careers for a variety of bureacrats, and various perverse incentives for the disadvataged portion of the population. The new one is not much better, but seems to me in some ways a small improvement. The containment of Hussein was a proper policy, and seems to have been successful in its aim of maintaining him in a disarmed state.

You may well disagree with my view of Rep. Kucinich's prospects in a general election, and there will never be a trial of it to demonstrate which of us is correct. My view remains that, were he the nominee, the event would make Reagan v. Vice-President Mondale seem a closely contested race by compare.

[redqueen]

67. Thanks once again

for the immensely civil discourse. :)

However I just wanted to state for the record that in fact I believe we're mirrored opposites wrt Kucinich's chances in the GE. I believe it would be just like Reagan v. Mondale, only I believe it would be a landslide in favor of Kucinich. (NAFTA - and CAFTA coming up - combined with healthcare, I believe, would be more than enough to ensure it.)

[The Magistrate]

71. Always A Pleasure, Ma'am

Our disagreements would seem to be mostly concerning means rather than goals, and the proper reading of the Racing Form. We would doubtless be on the same side of most barricades, if on the opposite ends of most wagers....

[dpbrown]

76. The "rank and file" aren't the people participating in caucuses

The Democratic Party "enthusiasts" are the ones who are participating. And if the "rank and file" were the ones participating, they'd find themselves in far more agreement with the positions of Rep. Kucinich than with any other candidate.

Two electoral political theories support this conclusion.

An analysis of the 2000 election using the "40/40/20" rule shows barely 5 million conservative "centrist" votes at risk of those who voted for Gore.

As Kucinich's positions on the death penalty, universal single-payer, getting out of NAFTA, and putting farmers into energy grid production all come out of his strong traditional Democratic Party position base, Kucinich risks no votes other than these paltry five million voters who voted for Gore but wished he were more "conservative." This assessment is blunted, however, by the factual knowledge that Kucinich takes 50% of the Republican vote in his own district. This means his intrinsic attraction (probably due to integrity), with "Reagan Republicans" has been sorely underestimated by the "enthusiasts" running the caucus/primary show.

An analysis of the 2000 election numbers as compiled by VNS's exit polling during the 2000 election is even more telling. More than 35% of the voters who voted for Gore considered themselves "liberals" compared to the projection under the 40/40/20 rule that only 10% would label themselves that way. The exit poll analysis did solidly reinforce one thing, however, and that was that there were only five million voters who voted for Gore calling themselves "conservatives" and that's precisely the number predicted by the 40/40/20 analysis.

And because the Nader vote is worth 3 million votes, and Kucinich is the only candidate who will take all or most of those votes, Kucinich is the only candidate who will beat Bush by a margin decisive enough to avoid the possibility of theft by Black Box or "sibling as Governor" syndrome.

Kucinich is the only candidate who can LOSE Gore votes and still beat Bush.

You can read the details here:
http://www.imwithdennis.com/article-print-312.html

I have yet to see a cogent argument made by supporters of any other candidate that refutes the contention, grounded in the above two analyses, that Kucinich is the only candidate running who can beat Bush without needing a single former Bush voter to do it.

Because every single other candidate will need former Bush voters to win, we risk diluting the message and dumbing down our ability to reach to the core of progressive populism necessary to win the White House from this incumbent, by being forced to cater to former Bush voters to win.

This, not running a candidate who will take the core of the progressive bell curve, many Republican votes, and the Nader and Natural Law voters in a huge groundswell of progressive populism, is what will "get those Bush Bastards" out - not mock posturing and tossing firecrackers at one another like some dusty figures in a Sun Tzu novel.

Kucinich is the candidate who will win with the greatest margin, but more importantly, he's the one who will remind the other candidates where the issues are that will motivate the voters, and he'll continue to have plenty of spine left over to lend to them the next time they start sucking up to the BFEE.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[The Magistrate]

78. Good Luck, Mr. Brown

People do not vote on issues, but on identification with or against a person. It is fairly common for people to agree in isolation with a person's position on issues, and yet reject him decisively in favor of some other, because they cannot identify with him as a leader or a serious figure. This is the fate of Rep. Kucinich. Creative massaging of figures will not alter it....

[redqueen]

83. What do you make of all those

that readily admit they prefer Kucinich, but have been convinced somehow that they should actually support someone else? How does this kind of self-betrayal wrt your choice of platforms affect your analysis of people who will select the person they identify with?

IMO we're being manipulated at every turn, and many know it. I expect that those who are disgusted with both parties would vote for Kucinich easily.

Your thoughts?

[dpbrown]

90. Identifying "with" a person requires that person to stand for something

So you've just come around to my position, and I commend you for it.

Kucinich is the candidate who most represents an unimpeachable difference from Bush.

Therefore, Kucinich is the candidate most distinguishable from Bush.

Therefore, applying your logic, Kucinich represents the candidate most likely to attract the most voters because he gives people the clearest:

a) candidate against Bush, and
b) candidate for traditional Democratic values.

Thanks for verifying the obvious, that Kucinich is the best option for both the voters looking for "against" and for "for."

People who offer nothing but demagoguery in the face of logical arguments are the ones doing the "massaging" - hoping to win with emotion what they lose if people apply their own internal wisdom to the facts at hand.

Coincidentally, demogoguery is the same way mobs are born.

But then again, that's what this is all about, isn't it.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[The Magistrate]

93. Hardly, Sir

The most usual point of identification is as their champion against what they fear and loathe. The other is a feeling that the person is just like them, and so can be relied on to do about what they would do were they themselves in office.

[OhioStateProgressive]

50. why do you insult people by saying Ma'am or sir?

don't ever refer to me that way

[redqueen]

52. I know it's used rudely by morons everywhere

but it's actually a term of respect.

When you grow up Southern, these things have a way of becoming habit. :)

[charlie]

55. Don't be insulted

Genteel cordiality is the Magistrate's style. I think he's wrong here, but he's not using a condescending affectation, it's the way he's always spoken.

[youngred]

97. This is true

having served with him in the past as a moderator, and having often viewed his posts with pleasure I know this to be the case, no need for offense to be taken

[veggiemama]

95. I think your thinking is completely correct!

DK--as Studs Perkel said so early on "Kucinich is the one". I voted for him in the NH Primary (absentee ballot from abroad), and I hope to vote for him again in November.

"We"--Dems, Progressive, "the people"--need a man with a plan, and that man is Dennis Kucinich. Yes, we've got to get rid of Bushco, but then what? Let our country sink deeper in to war, debt, and unemployment? What are the other candidates plans for ending the war, stopping and paying the debt, and stemming the flow of jobs to India, etc? And that's not a rhetorical question. NAFTA and GATT have to go! Will any of the DLC annointed address that?

All the way with DK!!!!!!!!!!!

[no name no slogan]

99. Removing Bush with no plan for after is like toppling Saddam's statue

If we are out only to "REMOVE BUSH" as they say, we'll have done little more than topple that statue of Saddam in Baghdad. What would be different, other than the head at the top of the beast?

Sure, Bush will be gone, but what will we do in place of him? Continue along the same failed path where corporations still run this country in their best interest? Where our schools and infrastructure crumble? Where we still have no universal health coverage?

Removing a leader is the easy part-- the true test of victory is what you will do AFTER the tyrant is gone.

So far, most of the Democrats in this race are acting like Bush/Cheney in Iraq: no real change, just the color of the uniforms. Only Kucinich is the one saying that not only do we need to clean house, we need to patch the foundation, too.

[Desertrose]

45. "Planning, divorced from responsibilty ...."

.....and understanding of consequenceand opposition, is worse than useless."

I think you just made our point.
You say get bush out.....what are the plans afterward?
.....where is the responsibility to replace it with an improved model?

...and what ARE the consequences if we have no better replacement??
.....where is the change then??

Peace
DR

[dpbrown]

69. I hope you can see your horse in your cart's rear-view mirror

Because the way you "get" it back is by motivating the people who do the voting to believe that you represent a better alternative.

Kucinich's candidacy is the only thing that has engendered necessary debates on universal single-payer health care, an end to the death penalty, an exit strategy for Iraq, ending Halliburton sweetheart deals, and a federal law protecting couples' rights, among others.

Lose Kucinich and you muddy the focus.

Lose the focus and you lose the voters.

Lose the voters and you lose the battle.

Lose the battle, and you lose the White House.

I'll wait while you lead your horse back around to the front of your cart now.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[The Magistrate]

74. No, Sir

People are most surely rallied against a peril than for a hope.

In elections, people must be convinced to identify with a group against another group, and they must already feel some stirrings of identity with the one, and against the other: these things cannot be contrived of whole cloth, but must be natural outgrowths of existing tendencies.

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

[dpbrown]

80. People don't recognize a "peril" when our team "agrees"

Additionally, your theory doesn't support the election of Reagan over Carter. The "team" assembled to propel Reagan into office was cut from the whole cloth of "hope" dripping as glib sound-bites from the lips of an actor.

Kucinich is the only candidate who is keeping our "team" focused on what makes our team the "opposite" of their team.

As I mentioned in the original, Al Gore agreed with George Bush 39 times in the second Presidential debate.

I submit that a team is as readily, and probably more handily, assembled from a group of individuals who agree on a common purpose than a team assembled from the other end of the kaleidoscope - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Kucinich represents what our team stands for, its common purpose, and our best hope for assembling a team of great, good, populist purpose.

And in that purpose resides our ability to unseat Bush.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[The Magistrate]

86. The Fly In Your Ointment, Sir

Is that only the splinter purists are claiming the parties are identical, and that candidates like Sen. Kerry and Gen. Clark are no different from the criminals of the '00 Coup. The rank and file of the Party does not agree with that proposition; indeed, most react with some anger against it.

You sadly misread, Sir, the events of 1980. The mobilization by Reagan was around fear of Communism, evident national powerlessness as evidenced by events in Iran, and fear of economic distress, and further deterioration in that regard. All of these were real and wide-spread among the people at the time, who had come, unfortunately, to view President Carter as ineffectual. It is always a mistake to imagine, Sir, your defeat are best explained by the people being dupes or sheep or fools: they are not, and despise those who say they are.

[dpbrown]

89. Your straw man is "splinter purists"

I'm not even claiming that the parties are identical.

My contention is that the Party has to clearly stand for something that differs from what the opposition stands for in order to motivate both the 80 million who didn't vote in 2000 as well as the 103 million who did to "choose" it.

Your contention is that it is enough to "win" because the only thing that matters is getting revenge against Bush.

And the same picture conjured up by mislabeling progressives as "splinters" who are out of touch but willing to fight to the end for their cause - that of the mouse flipping off the owl right before being devoured - fits even better the picture of those who urge "winning" at any cost without a) a platform to motivate the voters, or b) a sure idea of what it is you're winning for, as it does the so-called splinter purists you seek to denigrate.

The analogy that fits your contention that people are motivated most by fear and loathing is that of the "mob."

Mobs are moved by fear.

Mobs are duped.

Mobs are sheep.

Mobs are fools.

Therefore it is the person who claims that we only win by "defeating" the (purported) enemy (conveniently identified for you by someone else because we recall you've already relied on the contention that people can not be rallied through reliance on their own ability to assemble based on common purpose through an examination of the issues), who makes the voters into dupes, and who therefore should be despised.

If anger is the cause, lynching is the result.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[The Magistrate]

92. A Civics Textbook, Sir

Is a poor guide to practical politics.

It is one thing for the politically dis-interested to opine that "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the parties: for persons engaged politically to do so is nonsense, and reveals a fundamental frivolousness. One of the difficulties is that you seem to imagine there is wholesale opposition to the way the country is arranged among the people, and that only a strident opposition to the customary arrangements can be acconted a difference. But there is no such fundamental opposition: many people want certain alterations, but want these with a view to improving the system rather than to its profound alteration. What people want is for the thing to work better for them, in their own lives. A great number of people understand by now that they fare better themselves under Democratic rule than Republican. It is the proper course for left and progressive persons to seize on this real difference and raise a great din over it, to motivate and mobilize the people to act toward their own advantage, rather than to cry that this difference is not real, and the people ought not to pay any attention to it.

Vengeance has no real part in my insistence on evicting these reptiles from office: their regime has done great harm to the people, and proposes to do far more. This must be prevented, and reversed. To call those who insist on left purity as the primary requisite in a candidate a splinter is quite accurate, Sir, for the number of persons who hold this view is very small, and far short of that needed for denomination as a bloc. This splinter is, unfortunately, situated to cause some mischief where, as is now the case, the electorate is pretty closely divided between the two majot camps. If its prescriptions are followed, the enemy will gain a great advantage, and if it sulks when it does not get its way, the enemy is similarly handed some advantage.

[dpbrown]

96. You call my way "splinter" I call your way "mob"

But I'm not insisting on purity.

In fact, very few people I know who are supporting Kucinich hail from the "purist" camp.

So you've continued down the straw man lane making an argument against a position that's not in contention. Yawn.

You, however, are continuing to insist that only by retaliating against the "reptiles" as you label them, do we move forward.

I think you're wrong.

I think the mob rule way of proceeding is wrong.

I think the thought that once Bush is out everything's hunky-dory is an illusion, whether or not people think they're "better off" when a Democrat is in power - a tangential statement that does not support the underlying contention that the Democratic Party needs to continue to address the issues that trouble those same "people" in order to continue to find relevance with them.

My original statement in this thread says explicitly that we lose nothing by supporting Kucinich through the convention, and that we will nominate a competent Democrat who will beat Bush.

The whole argument that we shouldn't pay attention to the issues Kucinich is bringing up is just "ignore the man behind the curtain" Wizard of Oz sleight-of-hand, if candidates and supporters of candidates think the comfort "people" have with Democrats in power is a static they can rely on forever.

And it doesn't take a "purist" to understand that.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Desertrose]

40. Sorry, sir I do most heartily disagree...

If the people are not awake or aware enough to realize we need not only to evict bush but to carry a new message forward, there is no point and, quite frankly, the American people deserve what they get from another 4 years of what already occupies the WH.

I really hate to think we will be so foolish as to be distracted from the basic isssue -which is that we allowed bush to do what he did....by looking the other way when this country continued down the road we are going...by having no real standards and ideals and vision.

Not much difference (for the most part) between a *D* or an *R* behind a politicians name. Dennis reminds us what it is we need to fight for.

By getting another who is merely a D but has not the conviction courage or vision for change, will only slow the train wreck.Voting out of fear is not an answer, but voting for hope is.
Peace
DR

[The Magistrate]

48. Well, Ma'am

In my view, the people of our country do not deserve what has been done to them these last several years by the most virulent reactionaries in our polity, and do not deserve the worse things that will be done to them if these reptiles are continued in office. This must be prevented at all costs, and certainly ought not to be gloried in as a deserved punishment for failure to see the light by persons who conceive themselves as the vanguard champions of the people. That is petty and mean-spirited, and no way at all to build mass support: even should the people be driven to desperate measures by their wretched condition, it will not be people who have gloated over that, and cry, "I told you so!" to whom they will turn for succor.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Desertrose]

57. I do not wish this on our country...

in fact I am doing everything I can to stop it from happening...

I do not consider my self a *vanguard champion of the people*...I am merely a woman who cares about the future of her family and friends and all the connected links that make us a country and beyond that, a global family. What we do affects the entire planet. We have ben led down a long dark road and many still don't know it. My suggestion is that perhaps it will take more than what we have already experienced to make people aware of this and that they have the power to change things. Even now we look to socalled *leaders* who have no vision but merely promote and maintain the many same things that have caused us to be where we are now.

I see your solution as shortsighted and born out of fear which will not, ultimately, solve our problems but only exacerbate them in the long term. I do not appreciate your pronouncement that because I do not scurry around and settle for an "electable" candidate , that I am helping keep bush in the WH. That sir, is utter nonsense and all your fancy language does not disguise the truth of it.

You read me wrong if you think I would *glory* in having things continue as they are...I despise what bush has done...to call me petty and mean spirited because I want to change things in a different way shows me the fallacy of your thinking.

and for what its worth....I do not use the term "I told you so". I would appreciate that you do not put words into my mouth that I do not say. I am truly hoping and working towards removing bush et al ....my heart truly cries for all the sadness and injustice in this country...I do not deserve a scolding from you on your high & mighty perch.


DR

[The Magistrate]

59. We View These Matters DIfferently, Ma'am

It is not an unfair reading of your remarks above that if the people are not aware enough to adopt your view, they deserve what will befall them, and my reaction was to that statement. If it is your purpose to prevent such travail, that is one thing, but if the actions taken to carry out that desire will tend to promote, instead, an opposite effect, that too may be fairly pointed out. Vanguard is a technical term for a party that believes itself in advance of the people's understanding, and sets itself the task of acting in the best interests of the people, regardless of their actual expressed views. It seems aptly applied to those who argue as you have in this question. It does not seem to me worth much to denounce a policy as born of fear: like pain, fear is nature's way of telling you to act otherwise towards self-preservation, and is a far better councilor than hope, which is the leading cheat among advisors toward conduct, and produces more catastrophic disasters than any other form of mis-judgement.

[Desertrose]

68. Yes we do come from very differing points of view

and I simply contend that hope is always a better choice than fear.

It has been my life experience that to act from fear is simply that..a reaction, which, yes, is sometimes needed in a life threatening situation...but what comes after that to prevent the same circumstance from happening again?

There is more than living life from a series of "reactions" and my contention is we do not create from fear but create from hope and being in a place of stillness able to take a breath and see the larger viewpoint. we are at a point in this world that we need to create something other than what we have- however if you are satisfied with what you are currently experiencing, then perhaps you do "deserve" it.

My hope is simply that we can get out of fear and of "reacting" and into positive creative change that will ultimately lift the world.

"Fear is......a far better councilor than hope, which is the leading cheat among advisors toward conduct, and produces more catastrophic disasters than any other form of mis-judgement."

Our worldviews will obviously never coincide.


.... are you not "guilty" of setting yourself the task of acting in the best interests of the people? Isn't anyone who promotes thier worldview over anyone elses?

Peace
DR

[The Magistrate]

72. Again, Ma'am

Vanguard is not a term of vituperation, merely of description.

We do seem to be verging into larger questions that can hardly be resolved by debate, as they are not susceptible of proof. It is my view that people's ability to create their own reality is rather severely restricted, if only by the realities created by all the other people around them, which must be equally valid and just as real.

[Pithlet]

66. No one deserves what Bush has done to this country

The number one priority to me is getting rid of Bush, even if what we replace him with doesn't see things exactly the way I do. I want to see things move forward also. It will be guaranteed that this won't happen for a LONG time if Bush gets 4 more years.

I'm very aware that things need to go further in this country. That is why I want to get the huge obstacle out of the way first. Otherwise, it won't matter what we do.

I will vote and fully support whomever gets the nomination. To do otherwise only helps in handing the victory to Bush. To me, that is worse than having a candidate who isn't quite as progressive as I am, but is better than the horrible alternative.

To borrow from your analogy; better to slow the train wreck than get it rolling downhill with even more steam

[youngred]

18. As the point flies right over your head

whoooosh

[izzie]

3. We could call him Mr Party. A very good man.

n/t

[redqueen]

4. We're marginalizing ourselves

We give them the ammo they use to mow us down with.

[Virgil]

7. Great points.

He also says we must stop using depleted uranium in weapons. We can already bomb everything twice with every weapon imaginable. He is the only candidate I have heard speak on DU. We surely were not trying to help the Iraqi people when we gave them radioactivity that will be with them for two and a half billion years.

People that love, love Kucinich

[Snivi Yllom]

10. I love his views

but DK is going to be TKOed tonight.

[iowapeacechief]

11. TKOed? How so exactly?

Will someone escort him from the arena?

Will he turn in his candidate's license?

[dpbrown]

12. He won't be, but it's a shame some want to "do him in"

Kucinich is the one that's speaking up for bringing the Democratic Party forward to its legacy.

Kucinich is the one who's been fighting for 30 years for real people, not corporations.

Kucinich is the only one whose top ten contributors includes NINE unions.

Kucinich is the one who's dragging the other candidates to discussion of real issues that affect real people - abrogating NAFTA, ending the death penalty, universal single-payer health care, and a clear exit strategy in Iraq that ends pirate privatization by Halliburton.

People who crow about knocking Kucinich out of the race aren't doing the nation any favors. Knocking Kucinich out is choosing to go back to "politics as usual."

No, thanks.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[MuseRider]

14. Amen

Did you hear him on the Hannity show this afternoon? He was great, I have not seen a thread about it but I just got home. He was calm, reasoned, did not back down and Hannity was actually cordial and respectful. He is supposed to be on the TV show tonight. He is everything you say and I will not quit. It saddens me that we are all so afraid of Bush* that we think we need a rock star or more the usual to beat the man when the true opposite is right there, ready and willing to go to bat for us. Not electable? PAH!

[dpbrown]

16. Kucinich is the only candidate who is unimpeachable in opposition to Bush

I wish more people would get their heads around that.

From Prayer for America, to putting the Diebold memos on his Congressional website, Kucinich has stood in fearless opposition to the direction Bush is dragging the country.

Electable in spades.

DPB

[Hippo_Tron]

17. A Kucinich supporter I know told me this...

She knows DK won't win the primary but she says he is essential to the race because even though the media ignores him, the frontrunners follow his every move.

[youngred]

19. yep they do

BBV, Anti-War, hell even Dean's new slogan is a take off on Kucinich's

[progressivebydesign]

20. Yeah.. but he displayed zero sense of humor on Comedy Central..

The other night, one of the Daily Show "correspondents" did a dorky piece about trying to talk to the candidates. He walked up to DK with a bagel in his mouth, trying to talk and chew at the same time. DK looked at him with disgust and said, "get out of here", and walked off shaking his head. The other candidates laughed and seemed to understand it was a joke. Okay.. I admit, the off the camera stuff is what I look for. My favorite part of CSPAN is when they leave the mic on for a while after the candidate speaks, so I can hear what they're really like.

So... I have no exposure to Dennis. Does he normally a sense of humor. His supporters here tend to make him sound solemn and introspective.. and monklike. Is he someone I'd like to have pizza and beer with? That's what the voters look for.. sad, but true.

[dpbrown]

21. My perception is that DK has a fabulous sense of humor

But mostly, because he's never worried about "spin" he's just refreshing to listen to.

I've heard him speak several times, and seen him interviewed, and he's always got exactly the right combination of intelligence, self-deprecation, and humility.

Those qualities, along with having an amazing platform with which to recapture the Democratic Party for what it's supposed to stand for, is why I will never give up on Dennis Kucinich.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. And he got a whopping ONE percent of the vote tonight

Will Kucinich listen to the "voice" of NH primary voter?

[Terwilliger]

28. and how many Democrats are voting on "electability" this year?

99.4%? more?

[The Magistrate]

36. That Sounds About Right, Sir

The rank and file of the Party wants nothing more than the eviction of the criminals of the '00 Coup from office, and means to achieve that. In the words of the old Maoist slogan: "Learn from the people!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[redqueen]

43. If they're criminals

What does that make the people who let them get away with it? Co-conspirators? Enablers at the very least, right?

So we oust those criminals and replace them with our own?

Help me out here.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Silly Democratic voters!

They would rather send Bush packing than promote fringe ideology. What are they thinking?

[Terwilliger]

62. fringe ideology...like free and fair elections?

Like people held accountable for their actions (or inactions)?

The fringe ideology of asking Democrats to act like Democrats?

[redqueen]

64. Yep

You missed it... Nixon's platform from '68 is now considered 'fringe leftist'.

Manufactured consent, indeed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Cutting the Petnagon budget by 15% and creating a Dept. of Peace

That kind of stuff won't fly in the the post-September 11th world.

[redqueen]

75. Are you so sure?

How much have the huge incrases in spending helped? How much has the missile shield helped? The truth is that we're no safer. This is no secret to anyone. You can poll people for sentiments but the experts have spoken and the reality speaks for itself. The candidate is free to share that information if they choose to.

Kucinich is not a fool. He'd certainly keep funding programs to keep us safe, but the Osprey and Star Wars are not included in that group. Is it really only the 'fringe' that knows this? I think not.

Also, I consider it's quite realistic to expect that after a year of watching Iraq smolder and our soldiers die or return wounded, that people would be quite receptive to a Department of Peace.

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. Apperently some people are receptive to those ideas

But apperently 99% of New Hampshire Democrats are not. And it doens't look like any other states are that different.

[redqueen]

79. But we don't know that

Because so many are voting for someone other than the one they prefer. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

82. That, Too, Ma'am, Is A Supposition

There are not too many people, even in exit pollings, who say they would prefer Rep. Kucinich but have voted instead for someone else. It has always seemed better to me to take people at the value of their deeds: if a person votes for someone, that is the person they prefer.

[redqueen]

85. Hmmm - I could have sworn

I heard otherwise on NPR earlier this week. I was shocked to hear it discussed so openly -- that people were admitting they preferred Kucinich but were voting for the candidate they perceived to be more 'electable'. I didn't know there were exit polls which indicated that this wasn't the case.

I really do believe we're being badly played here.

[The Magistrate]

87. It Seems To Me, Ma'am

That if the number of such people were appreciable, they would have discovered one another, and the perception of electability would have changed among them.

[redqueen]

88. Good point

I guess I'm thinking this is happening still, and that we'll hopefully be seeing this continue throughout the early primaries.

[diamondsoul]

94. Good afternoon, Magistrate.

I respectfully submit that is exactly what is not happening. You see those of us who are working for Congressman Kucinich hear it constantly, and the reason is not because they don't know about each other- it's because they don't believe the centrist voters will support him, and that this will be enough to prevent us from ousting Bush.

They know about each other, and in the back of their minds they know Kucinich has a lot more support that the numbers would indicate. They are simply more afraid of losing to Bush than they are of voting against their own consience.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Again, Dennis Kucinich leads everybody else follows...

He won't win but I'd love for his consolation prize to be Speaker of the House.

[dpbrown]

25. We keep the Party honest by supporting Kucinich

I disagree with you to the extent that if everyone who thought to themselves that Kucinich best represented their views, Kucinich would be doing very well right now.

But more importantly, to the extent that it begins to look like there's a "frontrunner" again, I think people need to give money to and to vote and work for Dennis Kucinich, because without Dennis in the race, some of the most important issues that have been discussed so far would fall off the table.

Even now we're seeing a push to get an "exit strategy" for Iraq pushed off the table.

Without Dennis, debates will go back to unfunded platitudes on the national health care emergency we're facing instead of having universal single-payer health care on the agenda.

Without Dennis, corporations will again be rubbing their miserly hands over suing governments under Chapter 11 of NAFTA for daring to enforce the law against them.

Without Dennis, we all just shrug our shoulders and accept that we're going to be the only industrialized nation still killing prisoners with a system that's racially unbalanced and imprecise.

Without Dennis, we stop pushing for Holt's paper-ballot bill.

Without Dennis, the contest is less honest, less in opposition to Bush, less aspirational, and less challenging of the status quo.

Now is the time to give time and energy to Kucinich's campaign. Show ALL the candidates that we demand Kucinich's platform form the foundation of the Democratic Party's vision for the future.

Seize control of the process now, or have it seized from us.

That's the opportunity. Let's not sleep through this thing.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[diamondsoul]

26. Actually, I go a step further-

Without Dennis the whole race becomes talk. Nothing but pretty words, and empty rhetoric. Kucinich's determination to ACT on the issues is what makes me support him. He doesn't stand around telling me what I already know, he actually tries to DO something about it.

[dpbrown]

27. Putting the Diebold memos on his official site comes to mind

Kucinich acted, others waited.

Dennis has also missed fewer votes than any other candidate. He is still busy serving the people who elected him.

Dennis has done a lot to make the lot of his constituents better.

This makes him the best possible Presidential contender - he's ready to make all of us his constituents.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[diamondsoul]

30. "Ready to make all of us his consitituents"

AHHHH, But Dan that's one of my key selling points for Kucinich- He already HAS made ALL OF US his constituents! What other candidate has sued the sitting President TWICE on behalf of the American people? None as far as I know.

What other candidate has organized a method to monitor the vote in this election and vowed to go head to head with the EVS makers? None as far as I know.

What other candidate actually took to the streets and marched to protest the Iraq invasion? Sharpton I believe is the only other with that distinction.

What other candidate has so thoroughly exposed and steadily spoken of the lies this administration put forth? None as far as I know.

What other candidate has consistantly introduced legislation RIGHT NOW to change the things they claim are wrong with the country, among those who are able to do so? Kerry has done a few things, but comparatively they're only half-steps to undoing the damage. Kucinich wants to undo it all, for ALL OF US.

[redqueen]

33. Boil it down: what other candidate deserves our vote?

IMO - only Kucinich.

[dpbrown]

98. In my opinion, only Kucinich

I read on some corporate website just the other day how the candidates are getting ready to "put Iraq behind them."

Not surprising considering none of them has a plan to get the UN in and the US out in 90 days.

Very tired, that status quo.

Tired indeed.

DPB

[redqueen]

100. Sounds about right

Just like the '02 midterms.

Ow, my head.

[mvd]

81. Great post

Kucinich is about as un-politician as a politician can get.

[genius]

84. We have to keep in there.

I figure Kerry, Clark and Edwards are going to divide up the front runner spots when the voting goes south. Dean has super delegates. When it comes to the convention, the Kerry, Clark and Edwards supporters won't want anything to do with Dean and the Dean supporters won't go for Kerry or Edwards. That leaves Dennis as the most liked candidate and the one most likely to come out of a brokered convention.

[dpbrown]

91. A brokered convention should be the goal

This keeps the differences at the forefront throughout the primary contest, and allows for the widest range of opinion and speakers to address the convention.

I hope no runaway front-runner emerges.

DPB

[genius]

102. It's definitely my goal.

I think that if the convention is brokered, either Dennis or Gore will wind up the nominee. My guess is that it will be Dennis.

This week, in addition to seeing Dennis rise, I'm hoping that Edwards and Clark do well. However, I really don't want to see Dean make a comeback. His record scares me.

[dpbrown]

104. Scares me, too

I see someone who took a 74% re-elect and pounded it down to barely 50% in 2000 before opting to "run for President" rather than getting beaten by a Republican.

I see someone who chose his issues so narrowly that both the progressives and the Republicans grew while the Democrats lost power on his watch.

I see someone who didn't do himself any favors through the way he handled governing Vermont (as shown by his failing re-elect numbers), and didn't do the Democratic Party any favors either (as shown by the rise of both progressives and Republicans inspired by his narrow, niche conservative/centrist agenda).

If Dean goes further, we'll see the same thing nationally that we already saw is Dean's legacy in Vermont - falling popularity personally and the espousing of failed principals for the Party, inspiring an even faster growth of the Green and other parties, and a strengthening of the stranglehold the Republicans have on the national conversation.

Don't take my word for it, just look what he did in Vermont!

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[DemBones DemBones]

103. You are absolutely correct. It is essential that a large percentage of

Democrats support Dennis Kucinich in their primary.

The primary is the time to vote your heart, not a perhaps cynical strategy that your head may lean toward.

Many primary voters will "know who the nominee is" by the time they go to the polls. Being in a Super Tuesday state, I expect the race to be pretty well decided by then. It's especially important for Kucinich to get a lot of support in the late primaries, too.

The more votes and the more delegates that Dennis Kucinich takes to Boston, the more he can influence the party's platform and even its choice of nominee.

It's possible DK can win the nomination in a brokered convention but if he doesn't, he'll be the one fighting to get the right things in the platform and fighting to get the best nominee -- the one most likely to do the right thing about ending the US occupation of Iraq, the one most likely to take action about the drain of US jobs resulting from NAFTA, the one most likely to give us universal health care, the one most likely to reverse Bush's tax cuts.

[govegan]

105. For oppressed people all over the world

From Dick Gregory's Callus on My Soul


I didn't understand then, Momma, but I do now. I didn't understand why your shoes were worn-out and your dress wasn't. They were a symbol of a weary soul. You were walking for all the Black mommas, for all the Lils, for all the Black daddies, for oppressed people all over the world. I understand now, Momma, I understand the calluses on your soul, because I now have my own.

America's descent into a neo-fascist monopolist-capitalist warfare state did not begin in 2000, but perhaps in 2004 we can hope to turn the corner.

As a true activist and reformer, Dick Gregory expresses what many may feel who have seen this descent and known the brutality of its arrogance.

Kucinich's voice is vital and deserves to be heard.