Dennis Kucinich's candidacy is as quixotic as

[cali]

Harold Stassen's several runs. I don't believe for a minute that he thinks his chance at winning the Presidency is any better than my chance of winning powerball this weekend. Now, I have no objection to Dennis running, I think he does so too bring issues that he deems vital for the country into the limelight. But I can't help but wonder at those DUers who actually believe he has a ghost of a chance. It just seems so out of touch with reality to believe that Dennis can win the dem nomination. As is oft said, politics is the art of the possible. Dennis winning the nomination, simply isn't.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Here is how to tell if Kucinich is running another half-hearted campaign:

Is he running for reelection for his House seat. He did that last time. If he does it again, it is a sing that he knows he probably won't win. But he will still take the campaign contributions and travel around the country anyway.

[cali]

2. Of course he'll run for his House seat

and there's nothing wrong with that, it's the belief that he actually has a chance that I find so odd.

[Ken Burch]

98. Dennis doesn't have to risk going into the political wilderness to prove his campaign is real

And you don't have a candidate who's worth progressive support.

[Radical Activist]

112. Watch to see who he hires to manage his campaign.

I think that will be even more significant.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katzenjammer]

4. Why does the prospect frighten you so much?

If he were really a nobody that you didn't have to worry about, you could completely ignore him. You wouldn't have to keep repeating your magical mantra.

What about his politics bothers you?

[cali]

6. You just took a giant leap

towards an erroneous conclusion. Sorry to disappoint but I'm not quaking in fear of Dennis. Reread my OP. It's simply an analysis of why I believe he's running, and if he can bring issues such as getting out of Iraq post haste, to greater prominence, that's great. But Dennis as a serious candidate? Silly.

[Katzenjammer]

45. No, I don't think it was a leap. I ignore people like Landreau, Biden, et al.

because they're not important and I know it. I'd only stop ignoring them if I thought they were getting somewhere and were becoming a serious threat. I don't believe that I'm unusual in my responses.

[Ken Burch]

102. Now that Feingold won't run, there is NO OTHER CANDIDATE worthy of progressive votes in the primary

And you know it.

If you support Hillary or Kerry or Obama or Warner before the convention, you're abandoning your principles forever.

[DaveinMD]

118. untrue

but carry one with these fallacies and misguided judgments about what others are doing.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. "What about his politics bothers you?"

That, of course, is just a troll.
I'll admit to not being well informed about minor candidates like Dennis, Vilsak, or Huckabee. Would someone care to point us to DK's platform or a position paper laying out what he's fer and agin, and how he want to achive those goals?

[cali]

11. Here's a link to his

website:

http://www.kucinich.us/node

[MethuenProgressive]

78. Thanks cali, I've seen his site, just weanted to know more

[Katzenjammer]

44. No, it's not a troll at all. Anyone who claims a progressive identity should be deeply

interested in promoting his candidacy, not disparaging it. He's a "minor" candidate only on the MSM's say-so.

I know of only 2 politicians who flushed their career down the toilet to stand up for principle. He's one of them. Jeanette Rankin was the other. She did it in opposition to war. He did it in opposition to the corporatocracy.

[cali]

48. Oh, please.

Stop with the line that anybody who supports progressive politics should be into promoting Kucinich's run. That's such nonsense. There is no party line for progressives. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I much prefer Bernie's brand of progressiv politics, to Dennis's, and I'll bet that Bernie- a hard headed realist- will NOT support Dennis in 2008.

[OzarkDem]

54. I'm confused

Bernie Sanders, great guy that he is, is an Independent, not a Dem. I thought we were talking about the Dem primary, not the Independent one.

I hope we're not promoting a Ross Perot style 3rd party candidacy here. That would only hurt Dems and anyone who promotes it has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

[cali]

56. No, I'm simply

pointing out that progressives don't march in lockstep, and come with differing perspectives. Also, that Bernie, much beloved in progressive circles, didn't support Kucinich last time, and probably won't this time either. No, he's not a dem, but he is a progressive. (Also, in many ways he's a de facto dem. The dems didn't run anyone against him this year. In fact, they supported him, and he's always voted with the dems for organizational purposes)

[Ken Burch]

97. Well, we know Bernie wouldn't prefer Clinton or Kerry or Obama.

You can't quote Bernie Sanders to call on Dems to forsake the only progressive presidential candidate who's going to run.

Or are you just saying we shouldn't even BOTHER to get a progressive nominee, but settle for another soulless, passionless big-money centrist hack campaign?

[DaveinMD]

119. no we don't

but carry on.

[Ken Burch]

133. We do know this, because if Bernie wanted Dems to nominate

a moderate or conservative again he'd have endorsed Kerry or Clinton. But Bernie has never said anything about who Democrats should or should not choose as their presidential candidate.
And this whole thread has been built on a false comparison between Bernie and Dennis. Of course, it goes without saying that if Bernie were to run for president in the Dem primaries he'd be a stronger candidate than Dennis, but he isn't going to do that and he's never called on Democrats to make damn sure we DON'T nominate Kucinich.

And I'll agree with the arguement that, at present, Dennis is not exactly the frontrunner. But it remains true that he is the only candidate worthy of progressive support in the primaries. It's a waste of progressive votes to support any other candidate before the convention because that candidate will do nothing to reach out to progressives. We know HRC won't, we know Kerry won't, we know Edwards(despite his poverty talk which is nice but which still hides a tight-budget suburbs uber alles DLC mindset) won't.
The only chance progressives have is to have a convention where they holding the balance of power. Without that, all the candidates will ignore us. And no good has ever come to the party of ignoring us.
We aren't the enemy. And our policies generally have majority support, as opposed to centrist policies which have majority tolerance.

[DaveinMD]

139. Kucinich

is not worthy of any support.

Progressives like Obama and Edwards are. They both with reverse the redistribution of wealth to the rich. They both will stop lying to get us into war. They both will stop the pitting poor whites against minorities. They both will protect reproductive freedoms. They both will stop cuts in education, health care and the environment. They are very worthy of progressive support. And they can win and they haven't run a major city into the ground.

[Ken Burch]

143. Kucinich is the only peace and social justice candidate in the race.

Obama will never say or do anything that the suburbs won't tolerate(which would have to mean, of course, that he'd govern as a Clintonite).

And Edwards, while he sometimes mentions the poor, isn't really interested in redistributing wealth TO THE POOR, which is the only thing that CAN end poverty. He's still into targeted tax cuts for the rich and shit like that. He's DLC in a Bobby Kennedy mask.
Nobody who's promising to keep a tight budget as president is interested in fighting poverty.

[DaveinMD]

152. this is all nonsense

Edwards entire compaign is about addressing the gaps in wealth. Tight budgets are a reality. You can fight poverty by reallocating money within those tight budgets and by rescinding the Bush tax hikes and by ending the war in Iraq. Obama and Edwards are both progressive candidates whether you admit or not. Kucinich is a complete non-factor in the campaign except to those who are more likely to vote for Nader anyhow.

[Katzenjammer]

73. Why don't you clarify your politics for us by telling us what policies of DK's you disagree with?

Or if that's too hard, how about the parts of Bernie's politics that you like and that Dennis doesn't share? If you prefer Bernie's politics to Dennis's, you must know what the differences are, right?

[cali]

74. Sure.

Bernie's been my rep for 15 years or so. I'm glad to tell you what I like about his politics. Bernie is grounded in the nitty gritty. He offered few, (if any) lofty bills, and many practical amendments. In the era of repuke control, some have passed, many have not.

Here's a bit from a RS article about Bernie and his meticulous work on offering amendments to bad legislation:

I had no way of knowing that Sanders would be a perfect subject for another, more compelling reason. In the first few weeks of my stay in Washington, Sanders introduced and passed, against very long odds, three important amendments. A fourth very nearly made it and would have passed had it gone to a vote. During this time, Sanders took on powerful adversaries, including Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, the Export-Import Bank and the Bush administration. And by using the basic tools of democracy -- floor votes on clearly posed questions, with the aid of painstakingly built coalitions of allies from both sides of the aisle -- he, a lone Independent, beat them all.


Now if you follow the link, you'll see that the repukes managed to roll back the amendments, but that's not my point. Another snippet from the article:

Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representatives. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker -- not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi -- has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalition.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7539869/four_amendments__a_funeral

An example of Sander's activism is that he was the first legislator to take a bus load of seniors across the border to Canada to purchase prescription drugs, as a way of bringing to public attention the obscene way big pharma conducts business in the U.S.

I don't know as much about Kucinich's legislative history, but it seems to be much more about big ideas- like a department of Peace, that I see as more symbolic than realistic. Bernie doesn't make a lot of those kinds of proposals or speeches- he's too busy working on things that effect the daily lives of his constituents and all Americans, right now.

Part of it's style, too, I confess. I like Bernie's down to earth blunt style better than Kucinich's tinged with new ageism style.

[Katzenjammer]

80. You misread, I guess. I asked about the parts of his *politics* you like

In other words, what do you like that he stands for and DK doesn't? What exact outcomes does he strive for that you like, but that DK doesn't strive for?

[cali]

82. I though I made that clear.

I like that Bernie stands up for working people and the poor, for civil liberties and for anti-corporatism in very concrete ways that can be measure by the his legislative history. DK seems to be about big ideas, but he doesn't, to my knowledge, have a history of the kind of success or innovation of practical solutions (like the bus/drug thing) that Bernie does.

As I said in my OP, politics is the art of the possible. You can admire noble speeches, but you can't eat them, or get healthcare from them. I know Dennis has a healthcare plan, but what has he done to concretely improve peoples' lives in the years he's been in Congress? Can you point to specific achievements in that vain, the way I did regarding Bernie?

Just to be clear, Bernie stands for his constituents. He never forgets what's important in their lives, and he acts on those issues.

Now, what has Dennis done, beyond proposing stuff?

[Katzenjammer]

87. here are their respective legislative histories in this session.

1. <109th> H.CON.RES.321 : Providing that the new permanent Council of Representatives of Iraq is encouraged to debate and vote on whether or not a continued United States military presence in Iraq is desired by the Government of Iraq.
12/16/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

2. <109th> H.CON.RES.364 : Supporting the goals and ideals of St. Patrick's Day.
3/16/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.

3. <109th> H.CON.RES.450 : Calling upon the President to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions.
7/19/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

4. <109th> H.RES.170 : Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain information to the House of Representatives
respecting a claim made by the President on February 16, 2005, at a meeting Portsmouth, New Hampshire, that there is not a Social Security trust.
4/27/2005 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 29.

5. <109th> H.RES.505 : Requesting the President of the United States and directing the Secretary of State to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their possession relating to the White House Iraq Group.
11/10/2005 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 117.

6. <109th> H.RES.515 : Of inquiry requesting the President of the United States to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in his possession relating to the anticipated effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United States.
11/15/2005 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 119.

7. <109th> H.RES.685 : Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their possession relating to any entity with which the United States has contracted for public relations purposes concerning Iraq.
3/16/2006 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 156.

8. <109th> H.RES.718 : Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their possession relating to the Dubai Ports World acquisition of 6 United States commercial ports leases.
4/7/2006 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 163.

9. <109th> H.RES.950 : Calling for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
7/26/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

10. <109th> H.RES.1066 : Requesting the President to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in his possession relating to United States policy toward Iran.
9/29/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on International Relations, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

11. <109th> H.J.RES.54 : Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.
7/1/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.

12. <109th> H.R.2070 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profit tax on oil and natural gas (and products thereof) and to allow an income tax credit for purchases of fuel-efficient passenger vehicles, and to allow grants for mass transit.
5/5/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

13. <109th> H.R.2420 : To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by prohibiting the basing of weapons in space and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit, and for other purposes.
6/21/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

14. <109th> H.R.2969 : To amend title 9 of the United States Code to exclude all employment contracts from the arbitration provisions of chapter 1 of such title; and for other purposes.
7/25/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

15. <109th> H.R.3760 : To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
11/7/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

16. <109th> H.R.3800 : To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend for 1 year the qualified individual (QI) program of Medicare cost-sharing assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
11/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

17. <109th> H.R.4923 : To abolish the death penalty under Federal law.
3/9/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

18. <109th> H.R.5266 : To provide additional protections for farmers and ranchers that may be harmed economically by genetically engineered seeds, plants, or animals, to ensure fairness for farmers and ranchers in their dealings with biotech companies that sell genetically engineered seeds, plants, or animals, and for other purposes.
5/11/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research.

19. <109th> H.R.5267 : To prohibit the open-air cultivation of genetically engineered pharmaceutical and industrial crops, to prohibit the use of common human food or animal feed as the host plant for a genetically engineered pharmaceutical or industrial chemical, to establish a tracking system to regulate the growing, handling, transportation, and disposal of pharmaceutical and industrial crops and their byproducts to prevent human, animal, and general environmental exposure to genetically engineered pharmaceutical and industrial crops and their byproducts, and for other purposes.
5/9/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research.

20. <109th> H.R.5268 : To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of genetically engineered foods, and for other purposes.
5/15/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

21. <109th> H.R.5269 : To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to require that food that contains a genetically engineered material, or that is produced with a genetically engineered material, be labeled accordingly.
5/25/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture .

22. <109th> H.R.5270 : To ensure that efforts to address world hunger through the use of genetically engineered animals and crops actually help developing countries and peoples while protecting human health and the environment, and for other purposes.
5/16/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology.

23. <109th> H.R.5271 : To assign liability for injury caused by genetically engineered organisms.
5/15/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman .

24. <109th> H.R.5754 : -- Private Bill; For the relief of Theresa and Stefan Sajac.
7/10/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

25. <109th> H.R.6114 : To assist States in establishing a universal prekindergarten program to ensure that all children 3, 4, and 5 years old have access to a high-quality full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education.
11/2/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

26. <109th> H.R.6200 : To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require States to conduct Presidential elections using paper ballots and to count those ballots by hand, and for other purposes.
9/27/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

27. <109th> H.AMDT.86 to H.R.6 Amendment permits 30 communities to apply for grants to invest in alternative fuel vehicles
under the Department of Energy Clean City program.
4/21/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A017) as modified Agreed to by voice
vote.

28. <109th> H.AMDT.94 to H.R.6 Amendment requires the Secretary of Energy to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a study to determine the feasibility of using of mustard seed as a feedstock for biodiesel.
House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A025) Agreed to by recorded vote: 259 - 171 (Roll no. 127).

29. <109th> H.AMDT.241 to H.R.2744 An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill for the approval or process of approval of an application for an animal drug for creating transgenic salmon or any other transgenic fish.
6/8/2005 By unanimous consent, the Kucinich amendment was withdrawn.

30. <109th> H.AMDT.246 to H.R.2744 An amendment to require the Department of Agriculture, at the request of a producer or processor, to test ruminants, ruminant products, and ruminant by-products for the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy subject to reimbursement by the producer or processor of the costs incurred by the Department to conduct the tests.
6/8/2005 Mr. Bonilla raised a point of order against the Kucinich amendment (A023). Mr. Bonilla stated that the provisions of the Kucinich amendment seek to impose new duties and thus change existing law constituting legislation in an appropriations bill. The Chair sustained the point of order.

31. <109th> H.AMDT.317 to H.R.2745 Amendment sought to require the President to direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to work to strengthen and expand the Social Protection sector of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in order to allow the ILO to issue more field and regional units of the ILO, to increase site inspections of working conditions, and to issue more reports on such conditions to the international community.
6/17/2005 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A024) Failed by voice vote.

32. <109th> H.AMDT.323 to H.R.2863 Amendment reduces and then increases by the same amount, funding for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation for the Army.
6/20/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A003) Agreed to by voice vote.

33. <109th> H.AMDT.326 to H.R.2863 An amendment to add a new section entitled "Space Preservation Act of 2005".
6/20/2005 Mr. Young (FL) raised a point of order against the Kucinich amendment (A006). Mr. Young (FL) stated that the Kucinich amendment sought to change existing law and constituted legislation in an appropriations bill. The Chair sustained the point of order.

34. <109th> H.AMDT.475 to H.R.2601 An amendment numbered 23 printed in part B of House Report 109-175 to require the President to direct the U.S. representatives to the United Nations to commence negotiations for an international treaty banning space-based weapons.
7/20/2005 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A022) Failed by recorded vote: 124 - 302 (Roll no. 391).

35. <109th> H.AMDT.871 to H.R.5384 An amendment to reduce the appropriation for expenses of the office of the Secretary by $1.
5/23/2006 By unanimous consent, the Kucinich amendment was withdrawn.

36. <109th> H.AMDT.880 to H.R.5384 An amendment to direct attention to the funding levels provided for BSE (mad-cow disease) under the enhanced surveillance program.
5/23/2006 By unanimous consent, the Kucinich amendment was withdrawn.

37. <109th> H.AMDT.937 to H.R.5441 Amendment sought to increase funding for FEMA by $500,000.
5/25/2006 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A002) Failed by recorded vote: 170 - 251 (Roll no. 211).

38. <109th> H.AMDT.999 to H.R.5522 An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to implement the Northern Zone Investment Plan in El Salvador with respect to the Northern Transnational Highway.
6/9/2006 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A015) Failed by recorded vote: 118 - 288 (Roll no. 246).

39. <109th> H.AMDT.1009 to H.R.5576 Amendment increases funding for the Federal Railroad Administration Safety and Operations
account by $70,000.
6/13/2006 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A003) Agreed to by voice vote.





1. <109th> H.RES.864 : Recognizing the importance of shared housing in the United States.
6/12/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.

2. <109th> H.J.RES.27 : Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.
6/9/2005 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On passage Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 86 - 338, 1 Present (Roll no. 239).

3. <109th> H.R.417 : To provide incentives for investment in research and development for new medicines, to enhance access to new medicines, and for other purposes.
3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

4. <109th> H.R.594 : To amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to provide for expanded dental coverage under Medicaid and State children's health insurance programs and to provide for funding for expanded community oral health services.
2/25/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

5. <109th> H.R.728 : To withdraw normal trade relations treatment from the products of the People's Republic of China.
2/25/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.

6. <109th> H.R.1157 : To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to exempt bookstores and libraries from orders requiring the production of any tangible things for certain foreign intelligence investigations, and for other purposes.
5/10/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

7. <109th> H.R.1440 : To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from imposing penalties for indecent broadcasts on providers of video over cable television systems, satellite carriers, the Internet, or non-broadcast providers.
3/22/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

8. <109th> H.R.1474 : To designate certain functions performed at flight service stations of the Federal Aviation Administration as inherently governmental functions, and for other purposes.
4/5/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.

9. <109th> H.R.1619 : To amend the Truth in Lending Act to protect consumers from usury and unreasonable fees, and for other purposes.
5/19/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

10. <109th> H.R.2240 : To provide assistance for the development of indoor disease prevention and health promotion centers in urban and rural areas throughout the United States.
5/31/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

11. <109th> H.R.2457 : To amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to allow community reinvestment credit for investments and other financial support to enable employees to establish certain employee stock ownership plans or eligible worker owned cooperatives.
6/3/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

12. <109th> H.R.3492 : To amend the Truth in Lending Act to protect consumers from unfair practices of credit card issuers, and for other purposes.
8/24/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

13. <109th> H.R.3601 : To require the establishment of a Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers to compute cost-of-living increases for Social Security and Medicare benefits under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act.
10/12/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

14. <109th> H.R.4052 : To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect pension benefits of employees in defined benefit plans and to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enforce the age discrimination requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
11/17/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

15. <109th> H.R.4333 : To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish performance standards for fine particulates for certain pulp and paper mills, and for other purposes.
12/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

16. <109th> H.R.4420 : To repeal tax subsidies enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for oil and gas, to repeal certain other oil and gas subsidies in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and to use the proceeds to carry out the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 and to provide weatherization assistance.
3/27/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

17. <109th> H.R.4697 : To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to replace the Medicare prescription drug benefit adopted by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 with a revised and simplified prescription benefit program for all Medicare beneficiaries.
2/17/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

18. <109th> H.R.5034 : To redesignate the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the State of Vermont as the "Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area".
4/4/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from Interior.

19. <109th> H.R.5157 : To designate certain National Forest System land in the State of Vermont for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation system and designate a National Recreation Area.
4/26/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.

20. <109th> H.R.5245 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair
Haven, Vermont, as the "Matthew Lyon Post Office Building". Became Public Law No: 109-263

21. <109th> H.R.5761 : To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to improve the material control and accounting and data management systems used by civilian nuclear power reactors to better account for spent nuclear fuel and reduce the risks associated with the handling of those materials.
7/17/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

22. <109th> H.AMDT.196 to H.R.2419 Amendment increases Energy Supply and Conservation funding by $1,000,000.
5/24/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Sanders amendment (A003) Agreed to by voice vote.

23. <109th> H.AMDT.280 to H.R.2862 An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
6/15/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Sanders amendment (A033) Agreed to by recorded vote: 238 - 187 (Roll no. 258).

24. <109th> H.AMDT.381 to H.R.3057 An amendment to prohibit any o the funds made available in the Act from being used by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to approve an application for a long-term loan or loan guarantee with respect to a nuclear project in the People's Republic of China.
6/28/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Sanders amendment (A011) Agreed to by recorded vote: 313 - 114 (Roll no. 332).

25. <109th> H.AMDT.423 to H.R.3058 An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to provide for the competitive sourcing of flight service stations.
6/30/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Sanders amendment (A030) Agreed to by recorded vote: 238 - 177 (Roll no. 347).

26. <109th> H.AMDT.840 to H.R.5386 Amendment increases funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's EnergyStar Program in K-12 school systems by $1.8 million.
5/18/2006 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Sanders amendment (A007) Agreed to by voice vote.

27. <109th> H.AMDT.883 to H.R.5384 Amendment provides $1.5 million for the National Agri-Tourism Initiative under the USDA Rural Community Advancement Program.
5/23/2006 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Sanders amendment (A013) Agreed to by voice vote.


=============================================

I don't see any clearly substantive differences. Am I missing them?

I'll also just mention again that DK sacrificed his career for the public good. Did Bernie ever do anything remotely similar? Not that I'm aware.

[cali]

90. Yes, you're missing something.

Sanders authored and managed to get passed, substantive amendments. And not just in this leg session, but in session after session. Kucinich didn't. Surely you must have some idea of how difficult it is for member of the minority to garner enough support for something like an amendment to the Patriot Act to pass, and how much work and skill that takes?


Reading through both men's records makes it clear that Bernie is a far more effective legislator. And it's not just this year. It's year after year, after year.

Again from Rolling Stone:

Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representatives. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker -- not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi -- has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalition.

What about that isn't clear?

As for this statement of yours, "I'll also just mention again that DK sacrificed his career for the public good. Did Bernie ever do anything remotely similar? Not that I'm aware." I haven't a clue what you mean by it. Just how has Kucinich sacrificed his career?

My point is simple: Bernie has accomplished concrete things that improve the lives of Vermonters and other Americans during his tenure. Kucinich doesn't have that kind of a record. His strengths may well lie elsewhere, but they don't rest in his career in the House.

[Ken Burch]

101. The sacrifice was Dennis' decision to fight against the corporate demand

that Cleveland privatize its electrical utility. Dennis' defeat was bought by big business in Cleveland. Virtually anything that went bad in Dennis' time as mayor was due to corporate retaliation for his fight to prevent the ratepayers of the city from being gouged by the massive increases in electrical rates that privatization would have to have caused.

Bernie is a great guy, but there's no good reason to pit him against Dennis. Dennis is running for president. Bernie will NEVER run for president. And Bernie would never argue for nominating a corporate Dem(I.E., any other possible Dem candidate now that Feingold is out)against Dennis.

Why are you using Bernie to argue that progressives should abandon their principles and support Clinton or Kerry or Obama in 2008? A centrist Dem CAN'T be worth electing since a centrist Dem would have to be exactly the same as Bush.

[Ken Burch]

103. But BERNIE ISN'T EVER GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

So why are you even bringing Bernie into this? He didn't support a bland centrist against Dennis last time. Bernie didn't support ANYBODY for the Democratic presidential nomination last time. It's a total bullshit-covered strawman to invoke Bernie to attack Dennis.

[Ken Burch]

100. You're way out of line in making this a Dennis Vs. Bernie question.

Most Kucinich supporters LOVE Bernie Sanders. It isn't a choice between them. Who the hell do you think Bernie would prefer? He couldn't think Hillary or Kerry would be better, and he'd never argue for nominating a DLC'er, so what's your freakin' point here?

[Ken Burch]

95. You can't deny that progressives would be wasting their votes

If they voted for Clinton or Kerry or Obama in the primary. If they were nominated sure, but is there any good reason not to vote for your principles BEFORE the convention? Why piss your vote away on a big-money centrist hack who doesn't respect you?

Frontrunners should NOT get progressive support until the convention. They should have to work for it, rather than simply expect it as their liege right.

[MethuenProgressive]

77. Your awswer is a bit confused

You say he's a minor candidate only in the eyes of MSM, but then you say he's "flushed his career away," so which is it?

[Katzenjammer]

85. He made a comeback the hard way after sacrificing his career. This is his second time around.

The number of other people who've (a) sacrificed their career for the public good and then (b) come back from the political dead by (c) taking a seat from a GOP incumbent (d) during a GOP sweep

...is zero, as far as I'm aware. I'm not even aware of any other politician who's done a and b. Or even a. Can you name any?

[OzarkDem]

53. He's not a threat to other declared Dems

So far, the Dem candidates who have announced or are considered front runners are not the kind of Dems who will attract votes from Kucinich supporters. So why would they care if he's running? They're not interested in liberal Dem voters, so what's the harm in liberal Dems having their own candidate to support?

Can someone explain how this is a threat?

[GreenArrow]

59. I think the point is that he's not a threat

in any way, shape or form, so therefore, why should he even bother to run. He isn't electable, he's a media joke, virtually unknown to the public at large, at odds with the corporate money men who run politiks in this country, lacks charisma, and looks funny: he can't win, and he will not influence the debates; hence, his efforts are "quixotic".

I say all that as a Kucinich voter in 2004, and one who expects to vote for him in 2008. But he can't and won't win and we'll get yet another stale, shiny, shallow, myopic, co-opted and generally fake candidate offering cheap chap-book homilies through shimmering vaselined teeth and the gentle scent of vanilla on his (or her) breath.

The whole fucking thing is fake.

[cali]

61. I respect the hell out

of you and what you just wrote. There's a lot of truth in it, and you're honest with yourself about Kucinich's chances.

[GreenArrow]

83. no use in pretending otherwise

As politicians go, Dennis Kucinich is about as good as it gets -- there are few with his level of honesty, -- but he doesn't have a chance.

[LittleClarkie]

79. I asked a question a couple of days ago about why Dennis was running and what his motivation was

I suspect he knows, like Biden knows, that if you're a candidate for president people listen, or pay a bit more attention to you. It gives him a forum he doesn't have otherwise.

If nothing else, he is good for the debate. We need his perspective. But I too don't see him winning. Sadly, many of the people around me couldn't even remember his name when they tried to rattle off all the people running last time. Unless he gets a much better organization, I can't see that situation improving.

I, myself, will vote for Kerry again if he runs, and if I get a chance, since I live in Wisconsin and most of it is decided before they get to me. Do I think Kerry can get the nom again? Well, he's surprised people before, so I'm not counting him out. But I'm not voting for him because I think he can win necessarily. I like him. He reaches me. So maybe you and I and our chosen votes are kind of alike in a way.

[Captain Hilts]

5. He can have an influence in debates. Pull them left rather than right.

I'm glad he's in the race.

[Lowell]

7. No so quixotic

when you look at the alternatives. I would much rather have Dennis as an option than Hilary or Obama. Hiliary has become an enabler of this administration with her stance on the war and pursuit of non issues like flag burning. And we simply don't know much about Obama. He has no record to stand on. Dennis on the other hand is well known and has opposed the war since day one. I'll take Dennis hands down over HRC or BHO.

[cali]

8. How is he an option to Clinton

when he has no chance of winning the nom? That's the type of thinking I just can't fathom.

[Ken Burch]

106. What is your point?

Are you saying that progressives should give up on 2008 already?

That's what not backing Dennis means, you know.

Voting for anyone to Dennis' right in the primaries is a pointless act of surrender.

And yes, there are other people in the world and in the party who have principles and a conscience, but none of them are running. Every other candidate is a soulless, passionless hack. None of them are on our side.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Even Kucinich voted to amend the Constitution of ban flag desecration:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll232.xml

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. As was the case with Nader in 2000,

voting for Kucinich only helps Clinton or Obama win. You're telling me there's no other viable option for you? Not Gore, Clark, Vilsack, Richardson, etc?

[Ken Burch]

104. Vilsack is DLC. Clark hasn't improved from last time. GORE ISN'T GOING TO RUN

And other than the environment, Gore's STILL basically a corporate centrist.

And Bill Richardson lost any right to ever ask working people to support him again after he led the fight to get NAFTA through the house. Nobody who STILL backs "free trade" has any right to claim to be a Democrat.

Why should we bother with candidates who won't fight for workers and the poor? Why should we bother with candidates who will move right after the convention and tell us we have no right to see this as betrayal
Why should progressives sit in the back of the Democratic bus?

[Radical Activist]

113. Its your own fault if you don't know Obama.

He has held elected office for ten years and has an excellent progressive record.

[Ken Burch]

132. He's moving to the right.

He voted for the corporate, screw-the-people banruptcy bill.

He says "you and I may disagree on what is progressive".

We don't need a weasel who thinks appealing to the suburbs is all that matters.

[Radical Activist]

156. I find no evidence of that.

He voted no on this bankruptcy bill:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

Is there some other one I don't know about?
I geuss the sell-out meme is always there and easy to use against anyone you're looking for a reason to dislike.

[MadHound]

12. Gee, I seem to remember a couple of other people who weren't supposed to get the nod

Bill Clinton
George McGovern

There's a long way between here and the convention, and you never know what could happen. People will be viewing Kucinich in a more favorable light, since it seems that he is the one candidate who has been consistently correct on the stances he takes. Also, with Clinton and Obama running, many people within the party are going to be looking for a progressive alternative.

Sorry, but your statement about a Kucinich loss is just as premature as others' statements of a Kucinich victory. Before you make such pronouncements I would suggest that we actually have some primary elections already ended. Everything else you do is sheer speculation.

[cali]

13. Comparing Clinton and McGovern to

Kucinich is a mistake. Both men were firmly established in the power axis of the dem party. Clinton, of course, was long considered a rising star and had forged strong ties with party movers and shakers. Clinton was a governor- always an advantage.

There's nothing unsafe about my prediction that Dennis will not get the nomination. Sorry, but he's a marginal figure within the dem power structure. I would literally feel comfortable betting everything I own that Kucinich will not get the nomination. It's quite simply not within the realm of possibility, not only to his lack of connections, but due to his lack of appeal to a broad base, his lack of "charism", and his less than inspiring speech abilities. Yes, the last two are only opinions, but they're shared by a majority. That won't change.

[MadHound]

18. Oh puhleeze, stop viewing the past through rose colored glasses

Clinton was nowhere near a rising star, he was considered a country bumpkin from Arkansas that would have trouble holding onto his own state's constituents. Hell, he lost his gubinatorial re-election bid in 1980, he was damned near booed off the stage for his address at the '88 Democraticu convention, and quite frankly, if Ross Perot hadn't been in the race, he would have lost in '92.

And McGovern was so "firmly established in the power axis of the dem party" that when he suprisingly won the '72 nod over Ed "Ibocaine" Musky, the party power axis withdrew all of their support from the man, leaving him to essentially run a campaign without party support, which is why he lost so badly to Nixon.

Sorry, but your prediction is both crass and premature. If Kucinich is so little of a threat as you claim, why does there seem to be such an inordinate effort on the part of yourself and others to denigrate the man, to drag him down before he's even gotten started. The man has every goddamned right to run for whatever office he wants to, including the Presidentcy. Yet he you are, stating that he shouldn't. Now that's really American of you:eyes: What, afraid that the conscience of the party, the man who has been spot on correct for the past six years will show up your corporate controlled, DLC, centerist candidates for what they are?

And frankly, I don't know what this "charism" is that you're speaking of, but I do know that in person, and on television(in the rare appearances he gets) Kucinich is a charismatic speaker, with excellent speaking skills. And best of all, unlike most of his other potential competitors, Kucinich speaks the truth, wow, a refreshing concept.

Please, go reread your history, your lack of doing so is telling.

[kentuck]

19. Clinton was no "country bumpkin"...

He was chosen to lead the NGA (National Governors Assn). Some people have to consider you competent to get that position.

[MadHound]

21. Umm, that was indeed the perception of Clinton

Throughout most of late '70s and '80s. Sorry that reality doesn't match up to your personal vision of a godlike Bill, but hey, reality is a bite like that sometimes:shrug:

Clinton was in no way, shape or form a rising star in the party. In fact the establishment Dems considered him a boor. Like I said earlier, he was damn near booed off stage at the '88 convention, and the applause that came that night was when he said "In conclusion. . ."

[kentuck]

23. Ummm...no.

Why do you think he got to speak at the Democratic Convention? Because he was a country bumpkin? Hardly.

[MadHound]

26. He most likely got to speak due to the same reasons that others get to speak

A person is either a major headliner(Clinton wasn't at the time), or somebody who owed somebody a favor put Clinton on the docket(most likely scenario) Clinton was only scheduled to speak fifteen minutes, yet droned on and on for over thirty minutes. Hell, Clinton himself admitted that it wasn't his "finest hour" on the Carson show years later.

Reality is a bear sometimes, but it is better than living in a fantasy land friend.

[kentuck]

31. What does his droning speech have to do with being a country bumpkin?

You're talking apples and oranges, my friend.

[MadHound]

37. This was the perception of Clinton *at the time*

He was from Arkansas, and people already had preconcieved notions of him. His speech at the '88 convention only solidified these opinions of his ability, and it damn near cost him his political career. Clear now?

[kentuck]

39. No.

Yes, his speeech dragged on but I have read nowhere that it damn near cost him his politial career? Where did you get that information??

[MadHound]

43. Go dig into back issues of various news mags of the time

Go run through the archives of CNN, etc. Many pundits at the time thought that his speech would cost him dearly at the national level.

[cali]

52. That's true.

And why did they think that? Because he was a rising dem star; that's why.

[KoKo]

68. It was nothing but CNN bloviating once again....The power people knew

Clinton wasn't a bumpkin and those of us who were "aware" knew about the founding of the DLC and the Renaissance Weekends in Hilton head where POLICY was the Agenda.

CNN no more credible then at "educating the masses" than they are now.

[cali]

32. I'll say reality is a bear.

Bill Clinton was chosen to introduce Dukakis in 1988- remember him? He was the nominee. This wasn't some booked into the marginal time slot speech that you're making it out to be. That he botched it big time is irrelevant to the fact that he was chosen to introduce Dukakis.

[MadHound]

36. This is what happens when you rely on wiki friend, you get things confused.

Clinton was the opening night speaker, and yes, in some vague way could be said to have "introduced" Dukakis. But Clinton was relegated to a fifteen minute spot, that he dragged out for over thirty minutes amongst boos and jeers, in a speech that many thought would end his nascent political career. It wasn't the nomination night introduction, it was a late opening night slot, a small one, designed to give a boost to a potential player.

Again, stop relying on wiki friend, it is bogus history.

[rinsd]

64. Wrong again. Clinton delivered the nominating speech.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0710FF3E5A0C708CDDAE0894D0484D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill

Here's the speech. Listen to the first line.

http://www.npr.org/news/national/election2000/demconvention/past.1988.html

[sabbat hunter]

99. clinton rising star

actually he was a rising star, that is why he was given a keynote slot to give a speech. he blew it by making it long winded. however he quickly overcame that when he appeared on the Johnny Carson show and made jokes about himself and the speech.

[cali]

27. You are absolutely correct.

I just responded to Madhound and included this from wiki:

"In 1992, Clinton was the early favorite of Democratic Party insiders and elected officials for the presidential nomination; therefore, he was able to rack up scores of superdelegates even before the first nominating contests were conducted."

There are a ton of scholarly papers about Clinton's rise. I've read several. I've never read that he was perceived by dem insiders as a country bumpkin and scorned by the party movers and shakers. Quite the contrary.

[MadHound]

38. Then why not bring out some of those "scholarly papers" of yours

And stop relying on Wiki to back up your position. It would lend you much more credence if you do so:shrug:

[cali]

42. Why don't you bring out anything

at all to back up your claims? And you can simply google Clinton and rise in dem politics to find them yourself. Honestly, it's not that hard. You want 'em, go and get 'em.

[MadHound]

49. Again, you are the one making assertions about Clinton's party status in '88 and '92

It is up to you to bring out the proof of your assertions. And please, no wiki.

Besides, most of my sources are sitting on shelves and in drawers around me right now, and I am without a scanner or other means of digitalizing such things. Sorry, but I have this thing about primary sources and all.

[rinsd]

63. Translation: You are relying on memory

Which seems to be faulty because it ignores some very obvious things about that campaign.

Why was Clinton on 60 minutes right after the Super Bowl(right after Iowa) in 1992 if he wasn't considered a favorite?

Why was Clinton called the Comeback Kid for his 2nd place showing in NH?

If he wasn't the favorite, what was the comeback?

[cali]

25. You couldn't be more wrong.

From Wiki:

In 1992, Clinton was the early favorite of Democratic Party insiders and elected officials for the presidential nomination; therefore, he was able to rack up scores of superdelegates even before the first nominating contests were conducted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

Let's repeat that for you.

BILL CLINTON WAS THE EARLY FAVORITE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSIDERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.

The above is widely known by anyone who follows politics.

Now Wiki does go on to detail his poor showing in Iowa and his early stumbles, as well as the lousy speech he made in 1988, but the central point remains the one above.

You do have a point about McGovern, but he absolutely had more substantial ties to the party than you credit- or than Kucinich has now.

As for your utterly moronic charge- yes, moronic, that I'm shaking in my boots over Dennis' threat to centrist evil that you evidently believe I support- nonsense. I support, for example, Bernie, who I think is a much better legislator than Kucinich, and who has demonstrated his support for real concerns of the working poor in far more concrete ways than Kucinich ever has. Please, please tell me that Bernie is a centrist corporate shill.

Oh, and ooh, I made a typo and left the a off of charisma. Aren't you brilliant to figure out that was what I meant! Kucinich has about as much charisma as Mr. Rodgers. Hell, he has less charisma than John Kerry. The charisma and speaking virtues that you extoll, didn't seem to work in 2004, did they?

You also fall into the absolutist trap of believing that only Dennis speaks the truth. I can't abide the tendency that some have of canonizing their chosen candidate. It shows such black and white thinking.

Finally, I think it's good that Dennis is running because he brings his own agenda, and if it gets wider exposure, if, as someone said upthread, he pushes other candidates to the left on the war or health care, that's a good thing.

But,

Dennis has virtually no chance at all of becoming the next dem nominee.

[MadHound]

33. You're relying on Wiki as your source?

:banghead: Sorry friend, but you're going to have to do better than that. Wiki isn't allowed as a source for all college course work, and most high school course work, and for a good reason. It contains bias, opinions, and factual errors in great abundance.

Quite frankly, the '92 primary race was a toss up in the months and weeks leading up to it. Many of the heavy hitters like Gephart and Cuomo sat it out, frankly writing off the '92 election to Bush. What you had left were a bunch of relative unknowns, Clinton among them. Harkin won Iowa, Tsongas won New Hampshire, which is where Clinton pulled into second and started building his momentum. But to say that Clinton was an early favorite is just flat out wrong friend, and that you are having to go to Wiki in order to back up your point just goes to show how wrong you are.

And yes, I find it very strange that people around here, youself included, are spending so much time attacking Dennis, even though he's supposedly "no threat" and "won't win". You yourself are speaking out of both sides of your mouth friend, on the one condemning his run, and yet in the above post stating "I think it's good that Dennis is running" Why all the double talk? Why all the contradictions?

And all of this frantic activity coming over two years before the first primary test:eyes:

How sad, pathetic and laughable.

Next time, please study some real history friend, not wiki history. There's a big difference.

[cali]

40. For fuck's sake

You have the stones to challenge me on source when you use none at all???
Merely your opinion? Unbelievable. I'm also relying on memory. My mother, long time dem activist, and a Clinton delegate in 1992, as well as a Carter delegate in 1976, was an early supporter of Clinton's. She's the furthest thing in the world from a country bumpkin herself, and she certainly didn't see Clinton as one.

This is, I believe, the first thread I've started on Kucinich, though I have made comments on his running recently, and you'll find I've said the same thing: I think it's fine that he's running, and could have a beneficial effect on the race by bringing his perspective on issues into the spotlight. I've hardly spent much time commenting on Dennis one way or the other. You are, yet again, just wrong. As for your bullshit accusations of doublespeak, etc; paranoia much?

Finally, your claim that "Wiki isn't allowed as a source for all college course work, and most high school course work, and for a good reason. It contains bias, opinions, and factual errors in great abundance." is more of the bullshit you seem so adept at shoveling.

There's tons of evidence to the contrary, easily found by googling. Some schools and professors discourage it, some don't. But your statement that it's not allowed is absurd. Wales himself, has said that it may not be appropriate, but it is NOT a widely prohibited source.

Wiki isn't allowed as a source for all college course work, and most high school course work, and for a good reason. It contains bias, opinions, and factual errors in great abundance.

Wiki isn't allowed as a source for all college course work, and most high school course work, and for a good reason. It contains bias, opinions, and factual errors in great abundance.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Use+of+wikipedia+for+college+work&btnG=Search

[MadHound]

47. Sorry, paper and programs don't go through the computer very well,

Especially since I don't have a scanner. Being a historian at heart, I find it best to go with primary sources. I suggest that you go to your local library and look some up.

And frankly, being in the academic world myself, yes, I can safely say that the overwhelming majority of colleges and high schools don't allow Wiki as a source. But nice to see that you found out that wiki is OK at community colleges:eyes:

You are the ones making the assertions that Clinton was some sort of well known godlike Democratic figure back in '88 and '92, it is up to you to source it, and please, do so without resorting to wiki.

[cali]

50. I gave you a google link.

Use it. And I don't give a hoot about someone who touts their academic creds on an anonymous discussion board. Why should I believe you, particularly in the light of your blanket claims with nothing to back them up and your absurd assertion about college students' use of wiki being banned at all colleges. I found that was a prevarication in about 2 minutes googling.

You really are being stunningly hypocritical here. You have made claims with no evidence for them- not even wiki, and no google links.

[MadHound]

55. I don't give a rat's ass about google links friend

As I have said repeatedly, I rely on primary sources, and for that era, it means that it is all paper. If you wish, let me have your addy and I can mail you a ton of copies. But you probably won't want to do that. Therefore, I would suggest that you go down to your local library, better yet a university library, and do your own research. Yes, I know that it can be boring and dull, but damn, you might learn something other than the crap that is spouted these days.

Sadly, I do have to go now, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Peace:hi:

[cali]

60. You sir,

are clearing honing up on your bullshit artist skills. You have a way to go.

[rinsd]

62. Really? Clinton wasn't the favorite? Who was the favorite then?

Is that why he went on 60 minutes right after the Super Bowl in 1992(ie: late Jan) to talk about his marriage problems?

They gave that shot to a country bumpkin?

Why did he go on 60 minutes? Could it have been because the Flowers thing had just exploded seemingly dooming his candidacy alah Gary Hart? Could it be that he was kicking evryone's ass in Iowa prior to the Flowers shit. You do realize his 2nd place finish in NH got him the nickname Comeback Kid? Why would he have to make a comeback if he was never considered a favorite? The story would have been the out of nowhere surge.

And check out this google link to newsarchives (that you have to pay for) for 1991

http://www.google.com/archivesearch?q=clinton+early+favorite&as_ldate=1991&as_hdate=1991&scoring=t&sa=X&oi=archive&ct=title

In December, Clinton is described as the red hot candidate.

[cali]

65. Thank you so much

for posting that! It's ridiculous to claim that Clinton was this unknown country bumpkin with no support.

[rinsd]

70. These Kucinich threads are more trouble then they are worth.

No one wants to listen to why someone with a great message but poor fundraising and organizational skills is unlikely to win a party nomination let alone a general election.

Clinton worked FOR years leading up to his run 1992.

His book My Life is very interesting in that he met and was close with quite a few future party heavyweights as he went thru school. It is an nearly insufferable read at 900+ pages but the bio and campaign stuff is great.

[bananas]

84. Absolutely correct

The only reason Clinton won the primary is because all the real candidates didn't bother running - they knew they couldn't win against Bush, it would be a waste of their time and money. And the only reason Clinton won the presidential election was because of Ross Perot.

"Quite frankly, the '92 primary race was a toss up in the months and weeks leading up to it. Many of the heavy hitters like Gephart and Cuomo sat it out, frankly writing off the '92 election to Bush. What you had left were a bunch of relative unknowns, Clinton among them."

[cali]

86. Baloney.

There's plenty of documentation on this thread by rinsd that refutes such a claim. Yes, the heavy hitters sat it out, but no Clinton was not a country bumpkin or someone who had little party support.

[rinsd]

88. Real candiates run. Who are these "real" candidates you speak of?

Cuomo pussed out. Gephardt got his ass handed to him in '88 in the primaries and wouldn't try another run until 2004.

[Hippo_Tron]

129. Got any evidence to prove Clinton would've lost '92 without Perot?

Every study I've seen shows that Perot's votes were split relatively 1/3 Clinton 1/3 Bush and 1/3 would've stayed home. On the electoral college side I've seen nothing, except from Republicans, that says Clinton would've lost the electoral college without Perot although it would've been closer.

[NoPasaran]

35. Something few people seem to remember about McGovern

After the disastrous 1968 Convention, the Democratic Party appointed a commission to revise the party rules. The chair of that commission, which introduced things like goals for gender equality in delegations and did away with winner-take-all primaries? George McGovern, who was thus well-qualified to take advantage of the revised processes once Muskie's campaign imploded. Anyone who doesn't realize the HUGE advantage possessed by those who understand the rules has not been involved in a political battle worthy of the name.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. The rules were revised to make the primaries more democratic

and less a game locked in by the well funded insider candidates. McGovern 'took advantage' in the sense that he was actually the popular choice of Democratic voters across the nation.

[Ken Burch]

136. And the political ancestors of the DLC then showed their true allegiances

By sabotauging a candidate that had done nothing to them and by making sure that Nixon carried 49 states.
Can anyone STILL defend the Democrats for Nixon/DLC tradition?

[Ken Burch]

105. BERNIE WILL NEVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT. LEAVE BERNIE OUT OF THIS!

And you KNOW that no one else is worthy of progressive votes in the primary. Bernie would never sell out and support Clinton or Kerry or Obama in the primaries.

[cali]

72. Ha Ha!

It's petty of me to mock you, but oh well, it's not like you weren't begging for it. Another poster, (bless you risnd) has provided links, proving definitively that your claims of superior knowledge are bunk.


You claimed that:

"Clinton was nowhere near a rising star, he was considered a country bumpkin from Arkansas that would have trouble holding onto his own state's constituents. Hell, he lost his gubinatorial re-election bid in 1980, he was damned near booed off the stage for his address at the '88 Democraticu convention, and quite frankly, if Ross Perot hadn't been in the race, he would have lost in '92."

He was a rising star in the dem party and in the public eye, and he putative front runner in the race for the nomination prior to his stumble in Iowa.

I take great pleasure in throwing your own words back at you:


"Please, go reread your history, your lack of doing so is telling."

edited to add: I'll be surprised if you post again on this thread. But I won't forget this little exchange, just to ensure I take either any historical view you put forth, or any political prognostication, with many grains of salt.

[Hippo_Tron]

128. You have any evidence to show that Clinton would've lost in '92 without Perot

Every study I've seen not done by Republicans shows that he would've won the electoral college but with a slimmer margin.

[QuestionAll...]

66. yes, he does seem to be consistently correct.

but who wants that nonsense.
lets vote for the known liars because we know 'they' have a chance.

cripes.
it really does sound nuts, and it is.

[nealmhughes]

15. More people might be tired of pretty corporate candidates in our party

who continue the pay to play game and equivocation than people realize...

It is time for a differentiation between the parties to be pronounced, not nominal. Kucinich does that: he forces the centrists to deal with the issues on HIS terms, not those carefully prepared by handlers and focus groups.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Kucinich is so minimalized that he forces nothing at all.

And if DK served in nearly any other Congressional district in the country, or if he ever tried to win a statewide race, he would either lose miserably or do exactly what it is you think he's so noble for.

[cali]

17. Do you think Dennis is the only

progressive in the dem party, or even the only progressive who is running or may run for President? Do you actually believe that there's virtually no differentiation between the dem party as a whole and the repub? Do you think if Al Gore had been President we would have invaded Iraq? Or passed the MCA? Or gutted one envionmental administrative rule after another? And the list goes on.

Yes, both parties are mired in corporatism, but Dennis has chosen to remain part of that party, unlike, for instance, Bernie Sanders. One of Bernie's chief reasons for not belonging to the party is corportism.

[dmallind]

20. Yet again

..we see the tired assumption that centrists are the product of focus groups and carefully prepared equivocation.

Why is it so hard for far-left types to believe that some of us actually BELIEVE in centrist policies? In my case this is because of my utilitarian underpinnings - what politicians would cause the greatest overall benefit (or the greatest reduction in harm). To me it's obvious that a centrist politician who will focus on achievable consensus on long-term sound policies will do much more good than someone at the 90th percentile of political beliefs who will strive, in vain of course, for "pure" ideas of dubious value and nonexistent chance of success.

[MadHound]

24. Perhaps it is because we on the left find it hard to believe that a person would support

A candidate who has been consistently wrong on the war, our civil rights, and domestic policy. Meanwhile, these self same centerists are selling their asses out to the highest corporate bidder. Yes, we on the left do have a hard time believing that voters support candidates like this, because in our view it would take a complete lack of ethics and morals to do so:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Wonderful post!

And welcome to DU!

[dmallind]

71. Thanks

I've been here quite a while though - just not posting a lot of messages.

As for the less welcoming response I'm at a loss. Someone not only managed to divine who I preferred as a candidate but to work out my moral basis for doing so.

For the record I'm a fan of a hope just as forlorn as Kucinich. Bill Richardson would be my choice. Since my morality is utilitarian then that should explain well enough the basis for that choice.

I'll take pragmatism and common sense over ideology any day.

For the sake of our chances at the WH in 08 I hope enough people who vote in the (few) meaningful primaries agree with me. Not for Richardson - I know that's a lost cause - but for someone with a snowball's chance in hell of winning enough moderate voters (you know the ones who actually decide elections) to get elected. And who has policies that won't ruin the damn economy if they do.

[cali]

76. Please, pipe in more often!

We need more voices of pragmatism and common sense on DU, and imo, a little less ideological purity.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

94. Pay no mind to that other guy.

Zealots have very few uses. Unfortunately, they are loud and tend to make others believe they are the majority, when in reality they are anything but.

The only reason I don't like Richardson is that he has been very quick to criticize other Democrats from afar while he has the security of not having to dip his toe at all into most of the issues, being that he is not a legislator. I don't like those that make it a habit to put down the rest of the party to make themselves look better, and Richardson, sadly, has fit that bill as well. I say sadly, because like Feingold, I happen to like his ideas. I just don't like how he's playing the game.

[kentuck]

22. Everyday, DU seems more and more out of touch with reality...

I think quixotic is as good a description as any for Kucinich's run. However, that does not mean his message is without merit. There is little likelihood he will win even one primary. We cannot wish away the reality.

[cali]

29. I agree that his message is not without merit

and that if he can spotlight some of his key issues that's a good thing. And I've said that. Repeatedly. My observations had more to do with some of his out of touch supporters, and their slim tether to reality. It is predictable that despite that, I'm seen by some as an evil centrist quaking in fear of Kucinich's powerful message.

[kentuck]

30. I agree..

:)

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[cali]

46. Coming from you that's laughable

You're the one that started in with the attacks and nastiness. No one else. I responded in kind. Yeah, I'll toss back shit when it's thrown at me, with no compunction whatsoever. You're the one who piously brays for sources while providing none for your claims. You are the very embodiment of a Classless Act yourself.

Now how about some scholarly source to back up your claim that Clinton was viewed by dem party movers and shakers as an inconsequential bumpkin?
Or do you simply hold yourself to a lower standard than others?

[MadHound]

51. LOL, if you think that my first post to you was an "attack", then you have a thin skin indeed

I simply disagreed with you, and laid out the historical reality as is percieved by most thinking people:shrug:

As far as sources go, well, if I could stuff a convention program through the 'puter I would. But as I've said repeatedly, I don't have a scanner, and since I tend to rely on primary sources, that makes presentation of such material difficult. If you really want, I could mail you copies:shrug:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[cali]

58. Instead of mailing anything

why don't you simply give me all the names of the articles that back up your claim that Clinton was a nobody in 1992, and had no significant backing within the power structure of the dem party? As your problem is that you don't have a scanner, not that you don't have the material, that should be no problem, right?

Nah, I don't have a thin skin, or I wouldn't still be here exchanging posts with you. I made an observation, that you're the one that moved this conversation out of the realm of civility.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

93. Still waiting on those citations...

[Ken Burch]

145. No, you're seen as a jerk who's bashing a good man for no reason.

Why go to such great lengths to trash the guy? What did Dennis ever do to you?

And why did you insist on setting up this false opposition between Dennis and Bernie, with the implication that Bernie would prefer us to sell out and nominate a "mainstream" Dem?

If, as you say, Dennis has no chance to be nominate, his presence in the race can do the party no harm.
He will be the only candidate mentioning the poor(Edwards is a phony since he's still a fiscal conservative and thus committed to not actually doing anything) the only one who actually cares about stopping the war(a subject Obama has said NOTHING good about, that HRC still hasn't made a clear antiwar statement about, and that Edwards can't be trusted not to be a Carolina good ol' boy about when the chips are down)and the only one even mentioning corporate power(y'know, the big business control of politics that has made it impossible for Democrats to BE Democrats since 1980 or so?)

If we reject Dennis out of hand, we send these messages:

1)The Poor Don't Matter.
2)Union Workers Don't Matter.
3)Stopping The War Doesn't Matter.
4)Activists Don't Matter.
5)Principles and Ideals Don't Matter.
6)Only the Suburbs and the Big Donors Matter.

In other words, we are sending the message that all we care about is victory in name.

[KoKo]

67. Who says Dennis is running to WIN the NOMINATION? He's running to

keep the Bush Crimes of WAR and Occupation on the front burner. Who could ask for anything more? He has as much a right to run as anyone else. :shrug:

[cali]

75. Yes, I know

Did you even read what I wrote? I never hinted in anyway that he doesn't have every right to run. In fact, I said explicitly that it's fine that he runs. And if he can keep a focus on the war, and perhaps push some of the others running to the left, that's a worthy thing. I don't think there's any guarantee that he'll be able to do that, but it sure can't hurt.

[Taverner]

69. Dennis isn't running for the nomination

Trust me - he knows he can't win.

BUt the point is that his being there brings dialogue to the table that simply would not be there.

That's why I plan on sending his campaign money, but I probably won't vote for him in the primary.

[Ken Burch]

107. Dennis can ONLY bring that dialogue if he demonstrates vote-getting power.

Thanks for the donation, but you need to vote for him in the primary.

[SaveElmer]

81. If by some miracle Kucinich started to show strength...

Say by winning a primary...

He would be ripped to shreds first by his primary opponents, then the media and Republicans on his time as mayor of Cleveland...

His record, whatever defense you can come up with for some of his actions, looks extremely shaky...and in a campaign would doom him.

He has been given a pass on his record up to this point because his candidacy is not seen as a serious attempt to actually get the nomination.

[Katzenjammer]

89. You should really look at his record in Cleveland

He got in trouble because he went up against the corporatocracy. Which, supposedly, is exactly what we want politicians to do. Isn't it?

[SaveElmer]

91. He also...

Got in a well publiciczed and apparently childish dispute with the chief of Police...appointed a teenager as a city service director, and a 24 year old with 8 months as a stock broker under his belt as the finance director...

The city also went bankrupt shortly after he was mayor, and he was nearly recalled.

The CEI decision in hindsight was the correct one, but he did it in such a confrontational way he was defeated for reelection...

He was also named in a poll of historians, sociologists, urbanologists etc as one of the 10 worst big city mayors in American history..

Some of this can be rebutted perhaps...it is likely the city may have gone bankrupt no matter what Kucinich did...and there is no doubt he has matured over the years...

But there is plenty of fodder here for the media and his opponents to make hay out of...politicians have been beaten on far less...

[Ken Burch]

96. And YOUR candidate would be destroyed by reminding people of the Nineties.

Hillary can't beat the right-wing spin machine and you know it. Why waste your time on someone who's going to be roadkill?

She's better off in the Senate.

[SaveElmer]

121. Why are you afraid to talk about Kucinich's record?

Why do you always try and turn it around to someone else?

Stick to the topic...there are about 100x more Hillary threads than Kucinich threads...yet you seem unable to stick to Kucinich's record on one of the the few that attempt to discuss it.

[renie408]

108. You know what they say, "You can't win it if you're not in it" n/t

[renie408]

109. I think he SHOULD run. Not that I think he can win, but he can force

some viewpoints that might otherwise be overlooked to be examined. I think that has merit. And while I used to think that 'extra' candidates muddied the waters and dilute the Dem voting strength, I have started to think that maybe it is up to the other guys to WIN those votes over...or not.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

110. sadly, I agree

He would be a great President, a wonderful President, but he doesn't have much chance to win. I'd also like to see him in a Dem Cabinet post, he would do a lot of good there and it wouldn't be such a long shot.

[Radical Activist]

111. I wish people would come up with a less patronizing argument against DK.

There are some. Saying nothing but "he can't win" is defeatist in a way that not only hurts Kucinich, but all progressive candidates. It denigrates anyone who holds similar views. Try to be original.

[renie408]

114. Huh?

Not sure I understand. Do you want people to ITEMIZE why they think Kucinich can't win? I think people are using 'can't win' as shorthand for the various reasons they feel that a Kucinich run is doomed to failure. And I don't necessarily feel like it denigrates people who hold positions similar to Kucinich's to say that he is a Presidential non-starter. The problem with the Presidency is that it is, ultimately, a popularity contest. I have a huge amount of respect for Dennis Kucinich's courage in standing up for what he believes, no matter how well recieved the beliefs sometimes are. But he is generally felt to lack charisma. And he's short. No matter how ridiculous I think it is for someone's height, hair and 'friendliness' to be a factor in determining the leader of the free world; the fact is, they are. Whether we like it or not.

[Radical Activist]

115. People who support him know these things.

They aren't stupid. They choose to support him for other reasons despite his long chances or else they choose to live a life of hope rather than doubt. To keep saying in effect: "Don't you idiots know Kucinich can't win!" over and over again insults their intelligence and their beliefs. Its extremely patronizing.

I also think a lot of people are suggesting he can't win because of his views, which is not a statement I agree with.

[renie408]

116. Check

I think I understand you. I am just not sure that I think that, in and of itself, saying 'Kucinich can't win' is patronizing or insulting to anyone's intelligence. I said it and I am an admirer of Kucinich. Seems more like a statement of perceived fact to me (Please note the 'perceived' part of that).

You also have to admit that there is something disingenuous (maybe 'naive' is a better word? Or is that the patronizing thing again?)about those Kucinich supporters who absolutely refuse to see that he has electability problems. A lot of his supporters refuse to believe that electability is even a real thing. Mostly, I think, because he has electability problems.

[Ken Burch]

117. Doesn't it even matter to you that most of the Dems who DON'T have "electability problems'

Basically wouldn't be worth electing?

Is there any good reason for progressives to vote for the other candidates, all of whom are non-progressives and none of whom can be worthy of passionate support in their own right, BEFORE the convention? I mean, if you're a progressive and you vote HRC in the primary, aren't you basically voting to surrender?

I mean, fine, we'll settle for what the corporate hacks allow us to have after that. But can't we keep our sould until then?

[DaveinMD]

120. they are very worth electing

they are not corporate hacks and are good men. But you disparage away. You do that very well.

[Ken Burch]

131. They're going to keep tacking further and further right

And Joe Klein will keep on gloating about how gloriously "mainstream" and "moderate" they are. Which will mean, of course, that if they do get elected they'll feel obligated to never be even a millimeter to Clinton's left. You would agree that electing someone like that would have to be a waste of time, I hope.

[Ken Burch]

138. Anyone who says "I'm a pro-Business Democrat" is really saying

"Vote for me and I'll be just like Dubya". That's the only thing "pro-business" and "centrist" can mean.

[DaveinMD]

all the Dem candidates

will not support further tax give aways to the rich. They will all support more money for health care, the environment, education. And they all won't appoint right wing judges. Yeah, no difference betweeen them and Bush. Your line of reasoning is what gave us Bush in the first place instead of Gore.

[renie408]

122. No, it doesn't.

Or, if you want, I actually think that there might be a good ELECTABLE candidate out there. Gore could win and I like him. I think Edwards, Obama and Clark all have a decent shot and I would far rather have them than any Republican that I have seen in the past fifteen years. I appreciate your passion, but I personally (just me...my personal opinion....just the way I see it) don't think that Hillary is electable. I think that a Hillary candidacy would be a disaster for the Dems. She will drive Repukes into the voting booths in droves.

[Ken Burch]

137. We're on the same page about HRC. She has to be stopped if we don't want another defeat.

And the strongest approach we could present would be Gore, Edwards or Clark running on Dennis' program. If one of them did that, Dennis would get out of the race in a heartbeat. Dennis is about the issues, not his own ego.

[Dr Fate]

124. Problem is, the GOP nominee voters wont give us that same courtesey.

I think the reason people are worried about looks is that we know the GOP will not also nominate a short, not-so-handsome guy.

Ultimately, way too many swing-voters WILL vote based on looks, "can I have a beer with him?", stature,etc.

We could all vote for the short guy in the primaries- but it is like bringing a knife to gun fight unless the GOP does the same. Many DEM voters are not willing to lose the next 3 or 4 election cycles while the public catches up with the concept that the best looking guy might be the worse man for the job.

I know this does not help (I love DK), but it IS reality. Reality sucks, I know.

[Ken Burch]

130. We nominated the taller, better looking guy LAST TIME.

So much for that.

[Dr Fate]

134. And we will next time too. So will the Republicans. I'm just pointing out facts. n/t

n/t

[Ken Burch]

135. Uh, it isn't actually possible for BOTH parties to nominate the tallest, best-looking candidate

Unless each of them is constantly going in for plastic-surgery and leg-stretching.

[Dr Fate]

144. It will be one of a few deciding factors for years to come...

...unless you have a magic drug that can change how the average voter thinks overnight- I'm not sure what you are arguing at this point.

DEMs will nominate a good looking man- my guess is Repubs will also nominate a handsome or charismatic man. I'm not sure why you dont see this as a fact.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

147. Tell it to the "American Idol" & "Desperate Housewives" watching voters. Good luck. n/t

n/t

[Ken Burch]

148. Invoking those shows hardly disproves my point.

For example, JFK was handsome, but he really didn't give a fuck about the poor or civil rights or anything progressive. Jack was about invading Cuba and getting laid. Period.

Bobby was homely, with buck-teeth. He saw the truth in the country and died trying to help the poor and get an insane war stopped.

Big difference.

Attractive people are basically heartless, Republican and stupid. They aren't of use to us.

Are you saying that our country should only be governed by cheerleaders and quarterbacks?

[Dr Fate]

149. I dont know what point I am supposed to disprove

Your point is that you dont like the fact that people vote for handsome politicians over smarter or more capable ones- we get it.

You dont like it to the point that you would even refer to Bobby Kennedy as "homely" to make that point- even though most people think he is quite dashing and handsome.

I have no doubt that most handsome politicians- if not most politicians in general, handsome or not, do not always have our best interests in mind.

I have no idea what we are arguing about- My point is that the average voter considers looks & charisma when they vote.

It will require a seachange in American culture to change that- good luck with that one.

Perhaps we both agree that they should not consider these things, but they do. That is all I am saying.


Doc

[Ken Burch]

150. Well, Christ, you sound like you're endorsing the "cult of the attractive"

I guess I don't like the idea that only the people who'd towel snap me in the junior high locker room should be our presidential candidates.

I wouldn't refuse to vote for someone just because they had that shallow good-looking look. But there'd be good reason not to trust them as much. Guys that look like high-school quarterbacks tend not to have much human empathy and compassion. Maybe you don't have a problem with that.

And, really "we can't vote for Dennis because he's short and homely" is a total cheap shot. Democrats are supposed to be better than that. Endorsing that logic is endorsing the logic of the bully.

[Dr Fate]

151. Anyway, you lost me when you said Bobby Kennedy was homely.

Sounds to me like you WANT your political heros to be homely underdogs who were picked on in high school, whether they are or not.

Perhaps you are the one endorsing a cult- one of homeliness?

And now we are back to high school too- complete with locker rooms, football jocks and school yard bullies? You need to let all that stuff go. Last time I checked, Wes Clark, George Clooney, Keith Olbermann, John Edwards, Warren Beatty and a host of other Democrats were pretty handsome- so no, you dont have to be homely to be a good, decent guy.

We agree that Americans should not value looks over substance- what we cant seem to agree on is that this fact wont change by '08 in time for DK to win the nomination and the general election.

Fair enough- good luck to you and your candidate of choice- I look forward to hearing his take on the issues- DK is a great example to all when it comes to honesty and passion on the issues.

Doc

[renie408]

153. That was a joke, right? n/t

[Dr Fate]

154. It is if you consider Edwards, Clark, Olbermann, Bawldwin, Penn and other handsome progressives. n/t

n/t

[cali]

125. I'm under no obligation

to be "original" as you put it. And what you label as defeatist, I call realism. And it's ridiculous to assert that it either hurts Kucinich or other progressives to say his campaign is about something other than winning the nom.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. It's not that he can't win, my argument against him is that he doesn't even try

He has horribly run campaigns (just ask Will Pitt) and he doesn't even try to become Governor or Senator before President. I don't waste my time on people that don't even try.

[Dr Fate]

123. I look forward to hearing DK debate the issues in the primaries...

...one thing about him,, win or lose, his honesty and straight-forwardness should be a model for all candidates.

If DK was as tall and handsome as Obama, you would not see threads like these.

Me? I like Kerry, Clark and Gore-but DK is cool- if he had better looks, more stature and a cooler sounding voice, it would be much harder to paint him as "out of touch" on the issues. Fact is, he has been right more often than not.

I say he should run and make the best of it.

[LWolf]

126. As long as his chosen windmill continues to be

the corrupt, elitist corporate power structure that makes a mockery of democratic principles, and his "fair maiden" the underclasses of the U.S. and the planet herself, I will gladly be his Sancho Panza, lol.

At least we're tilting at issues of substance, whether or not we can bring down the monolithic machine powering the corruption.

Personally, I think he may be more like Arthur, if you want a fictional character to compare him to.

[Hippo_Tron]

127. Kucinich doesn't understand the concept that it's not enough to be right

His campaign last time war horribly run last time around and he refuses to try and run for Governor or Senate before running for President.

As someone who intends to go into political consulting I don't waste my time with people who don't do what is necessary to win.

[Freddie Stubbs]

140. I truly believe that he is smarter than that

He knows that he will never be President. He probably just likes traveling around the country and making speeches while having his expenses paid for by gullible donors.

[Ken Burch]

142. Why is it, Freddie, that you can't accept that Dennis just might be running

because he sincerely believes that we need to have an antiwar progressive in the race?

If you don't like the guy, don't vote for him, but you've got no right to question his sincerity.

Dennis is not running to get on the friggin' gravy train. Vegans don't believe in gravy.

[Ken Burch]

141. What good would it have done for Dennis to run for the Senate

or governor when he'd have had to give up his House seat and end up permanently in the wilderness if it didn't go his way?

You're basically attacking the man for not committing political suicide.

[Hippo_Tron]

155. Then he can't be elected President if he can't be elected Senator or Governor

So why should I support someone whose loyal supporters even admit that he can't win?

[Ken Burch]

158. Lincoln couldn't get elected Senator

And he was butt-ugly too.