I don't get this beating up on Kucinich

[quinnox]

I've seen much to my surprise two threads critical of Kucinich for entering the presidential race. I don't get this, he has every right to run for president, it doesn't matter what his chances are of winning, even if they are zero. Would these same people complain if Al Sharpton ran again? I think not. Kucinich can bring up important issues and perhaps cause some of the other candidates to alter their thinking in various subjects. More power to Kucinich for having the courage to run for president!

[LSparkle]

1. I agree with you -- he consistently wins re-election in Ohio

a state we NEED to win in '08, and he doesn't sit out the 4 years in between, standing on the sidelines as Sharpton and Nader and hosts of other candidates have. He has shown his COMMITMENT to public service, so he deserves to run, to keep his (and my!) issues in focus.

[dad]

27. Do you think he could win a state-wide election in Ohio?

[fujiyama]

45. He constantly wins HIS district in OH

If he has a chance to win statewide, he should run for a statewide office first to prove he has greater appeal.

But criticizing his choice for running seems silly. He has a right to run. And he brings issues to the table....and he was right about the war from the beginning.

[Options Remain]

2. Yay Kucinich!

His being in the game puts a smile on my face.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. More important, Kucinich tells the truth. He has done so since

I have first started following his career. The same people who criticize Kucinich here are probably the the ones backing Israel's smashing of Lebanon last summer. (Just a guess :)

When is the last time you heard a Dem call for cutting the defense budget? Well, Kucinich has over and over again.

[cali]

12. Wow. Talk about

a logical fallacy. Hey, I put up two threads today about Kucinich. Guess what? I didn't back the Israeli incursion into Lebanon. What does that due to your ridiculous little theory?

[The Magistrate]

4. There Are Several Basic Lines Behind Such Criticism, Sir

There is the reasonable expectation that the gentleman will garner something on the order of two percent of the over-all primary vote. This makes it from many angles a frivolous exercise in mere vanity candidacy.

The amount of verbiage expended on this candidacy by its supporters strikes many as wholly out of proportion to its actual prospects. At this time, when speculation over the '08 race strikes many as exaggerated and premature even in relation to leading candidates with real prospects of victory both at the convention and in the general election, this will certainly rub some the wrong way.

Some are using the Kucinich candidacy as a vehicle for attacking a variety of main-line Democrats, and this is bound to arouse supporters of same to an angry back-lash.

Some fear Kucinich will be artificially exaggerated in the primary campaign by media coverage, since he is certain to hang in to the end, not being a serious candidate with any real prospect of nomination, and are wary of him being used to make the Democratic Party in general seem naive on matters of war and foreign policy, at a time when the reputation of the Republicans for superiority in these fields is under serious assault, and the Party has a chance to recover from a long period of difficulty relating to such issues.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Sir, he greatly exceeded 2% in states where his supporters were able to

pressure the local media into paying attention to him. Cases in point include Minnesota, Maine, Washington, Hawaii, parts of Wisconsin (not in Madison, interestinly enough, but in Ashland and Viroqua, where he had well-organized supporters), New Mexico, and yes, Iowa, where his 3% of delegates meant that he got 15% or more in at least 3% of precincts (especially those that volunteers from Minnesota focused on) and unknown numbers in other precincts, since he cut a deal with Edwards to join forces when his own delegates were fewer than 15% of a given caucus.

People who actually heard of DK and learned about his platform were invariably favorably disposed toward him, excluding only the usual yuppie suspects, who most likely disdained the unfashionable assortment of union members, elderly people, state legislators, students, African-Americans, Hmong-Americans, medical personnel, stay-at-home mothers, small business owners, attorneys, and other ordinary folks, whose efforts garnered Kucinich 17% of the vote in Minnesota, 27% in the Twin Cities.

Countless others said, "I love him, but he can't win." The people who said that would have been good for at least another 17%.

Some will taunt me for claiming press bias, but in this case, I stand by the claim. Before a single caucus had been held in Iowa, the New York Times ran a series of articles outlining the positions of the ten candidates on a number of issues. Each article devoted at least a paragraph to the positions of Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, Dean, Graham, and the other fellow, whose name escapes me at the moment, on issues such as health care, foreign policy, defense, taxation, and energy, while Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, and Sharpton were relegated to a sentence each, if that, in the final paragraph.

At the first televised debates, he received four minutes of air time, while the other candidates averaged nine.

Cameras from the local television stations were at his third appearance in the Twin Cities, which attracted 1600 people, but only one station mentioned him at all, while the others spent most of their time on the "important" story of a rural sheriff who was having an affair with a deputy's wife.

He received his own article in the New York Times twice that I can remember, once when a supporter(?) arranged a blind date for him, and another occasion when the Times sent out a young woman who wrote a snide article, sounding like Suzy Sorority dishing about how uncool the "granolas" are.

Kucinich's problem was not a lack of seriousness. He is exceptionally well-informed, can speak to a crowd with such skill and empathy that Kerry should have taken lessons from him, and consistently wins re-election in his blue collar district.

The problem was that he colored outside the lines. He said things that people in official Washington aren't supposed to say. He suggested policies that hadn't been vetted by the wonks or approved by the big-money contributors. He revealed some of the secrets that might be embarrassing to certain people, such as the amount of money that the Pentagon can't account for. He didn't speak in vague, meaningless phrases designed on K Street.

The experience of working on that campaign was deeply disillusioning for me. I know that only one person can win the nomination and that Kerry had the lead coming out of Iowa. However, I also saw from a close vantage point how difficult it is for someone who defies conventional wisdom to get a hearing in the mainstream media. If he had received his daily paragraphs in the New York Times, his nine minutes in the debates, and equal time with the adulterous sheriff on the local newscast, I would have said, "So it goes."

But I now know how the deck is stacked against anyone who strays outside a narrow ideological frame. I will vote for Kucinich in the Minnesota caucuses, but I fear that in November 2008, I will be forced to vote for some bland non-entity whose major virtue is that he doesn't offend anyone.

[leesa]

41. Great..."naive on war and foreign policy"...because he doesn't advocate the tried

and true method of bombing countries at random that works so well for us, eh? THIS attitude is a big part of the problem in this country.

[endarkenment]

5. During primary season (which is anytime that isn't election season)

We take turns beating up each other's guy or gal. Not to worry, it is all normal.

[Eurobabe]

6. Who cares how far he "gets" as long as his voice is heard?

Kucinich had some great ideas in 2004. And he never voted for the war before he voted against it.

DK was my #2, even though by the time the primary came around to my state he didn't have a shot in hell (neither did my candidate, who I was campaigning for!)

[blm]

7. I think they may not actually believe in small d democracy as much they think they do.

Let all voices be heard, and let the voters decide. Democrats manage to do it every 4 years without stifling voices. The media, on the other hand, does PLENTY of stifling on its own, it doesn't need us Dems to help them.

[leftofthedial]

8. the fake Democratic servants of the corporations

fear the only real Democrat on the list of candidates

Democratic internal swiftboating

[cali]

15. Please.

What tripe. Orwellian cant. Empty sloganeering and boosterism based in nothing remotely resembling reality. Fear of Kucinich. That's absurd. And I don't appreciate people who try and shut down discussion of candidates, and gasp, even criticism of said candidates, by labeling anything other than adoring praise, internal swiftboating.

[leftofthedial]

19. "Orwellian cant"

you crack me up! :rofl:

[zulchzulu]

9. Let Dennis run!

He wouldn't be my first choice, but I like what he says.

[cali]

10. We discuss politics and politicians here.

I've put up two threads about Kucinich's run; one this morning and one just a bit ago. Neither is at all disrespectful. Neither implores Kucinich not to run, or says he shouldn't run. Lord knows, there are a lot more threads about Kerry's running than Kucinich. So if you're referring to my thread(s), you're mischaracterizing it/them by saying that that they were critical. And I've noted that Kucinich running may bring greater attention to important issues. But again, this is a discussion board. Candidates should be scrutinized. I really don't think a bunch of rah rah threads about candidates where everyone refrained from saying anything critical, would be very stimulating.

[quinnox]

14. your thread wasn't the main one

There was a different one called the Kucinich ego that was a newspaper article basically slamming Kucinich for running for president.

[cali]

16. OK, thanks

I really do think there's a difference between slamming a candidate and discussion of that candidate, and why people support him/her.

[Mass]

11. I agree. I am not too sure why people object to his running.

This totally surprised me.

He should run if anything for all the reasons you quote.

[cali]

13. It should surprise you. I doubt the OP

can find one post saying Kucinich shouldn't run, let alone a slew of them.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[nebula]

18. So 90% of DUers are paid Republican shills?

Since thats probably the % of DUers who are strongly anti-Hillary Clinton.

[k_jerome]

22. we are all paid DLC shills. nt.

[Vidar]

20. There are a lot of DLC operatives around.

[The Magistrate]

26. By Which You Mean, In Fact, Sir

Nothing more than that there are people on this forum who hold different views on some matters than you do....

[Vidar]

32. I salute your telepathic powers, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

33. And By What Arcane Means, Sir

Do you convince yourself of the truth of your allegations?

Odd, that you should suggest telepathy....

[Vidar]

35. A fair riposte, Sir. LOL

[rinsd]

28. There are a few pretend Democrats that bitch about DU on other boartds too. (nt)

[k_jerome]

21. everyone gets slammed here. why should he be different. suck it up.nt.

[LWolf]

23. I "get" it.

He scares the status quo, and the supporters of that status quo. No corrupt business as usual with Kucinich, and it's harder to make it look clean, too.

Also, some people are afraid that their more moderate candidate won't be able to carry the "progressive" label if he runs.

[seabeyond]

24. have you ever been in a kerry thread? have you ever beat up

kerry in a kerry thread. geez. even children get beat up at du

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Why is it that "courage" is always used by Kucinich supporters?

Since when does it take courage to do something that has absolutely no ramifications whatsoever? Can anyone answer that for me?

LaRouche runs for President every cycle and has every bit the same chance that Kucinich does (which is to say NONE.) Is LaRouche courageous too now?

[athena]

39. It takes courage for a congressman to run, knowing he can't win.

Kucinich runs only to represent the interests of the liberal base of the Democratic party. Without him, there would be no openly liberal viewpoints heard in the debates. I'm so tired of watching the Democrats equivacate to avoid angering the right wing. Why should the right wing be so much more important to the Democrats than the left wing? It's nice to hear a true liberal speak every once in a while. I support Obama for the presidency, but I have great respect for Kucinich.

[Renew Deal]

29. I have mixed feelings about Kucinich running.

I think that unlike Edwards, Kerry and some others, he's got something to offer. I also think he has 0% chance of winning. I haven't forgotten that he refused to drop out of the race in 2004 and wasn't included in the convention. That's poor form. Like I said, I have mixed feelings. He has something to offer, has no chance of winning, and hope he's part of the team this time.

[athena]

40. Kucinich won 26.1% in Hawaii.

Kerry won 49.8%. You really think it was "poor form" for Kucinich to stay in the race? If that many people feel Kucinich represents their views better than Kerry, why should they not be allowed to vote for him?

[Renew Deal]

42. Kucinich got fewer delegates than Al Sharpton

He didn't get crushed in 1 small state. How many states did he win? How many states did he even get 10% in? Sharpton got more delegates than him. It was extraordinarily poor form. He was wrong. No one is denying anyones right to vote for anyone.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Sharpton got way more publicity, too

:shrug:

[kentuck]

30. I like Dennis....

But I don't think he can win. Does that mean I am "beating up" up on him? I surely do not mean to do that.

[JNelson6563]

31. It mystifies me too

I'm not a Kucinich backer for a WH run but I am a strong Kucinich supporter in what he works to achieve. I appreciate how hard he works toward those noble goals, we could use many more like him.

I see him as making sure certain topics that many would rather not talk about get brought into the limelight. I don't see him doing any harm as a primary candidate but I do see that good can come of it.

Rock on Dennis! Make this nation look at the things they'd rather ignore!

Julie--a Gore supporter

[athena]

36. I don't get it either. Liberals should be supporting Kucinich.

Unlike Nader, Kucinich runs in the Democratic primaries. Like Nader, he knows he has no chance of winning, but unlike Nader, he doesn't hurt the Democrats' chances of winning the general election. He performs a great service by representing the liberal base of the Democratic party, which is all too often taken for granted. The more popular he gets, the more important the liberal vote becomes to the other candidates. Without someone like Kucinich, the center and right are the only voting blocks anyone thinks about. Not only that, but a true liberal like Kucinich may convince more liberals to go out and vote to make their voices heard.

If Nader really cared about representing the left, he would also run in the primary.

[SaveElmer]

37. Could you possibly link to an example...

If it is gratuitious name-calling of the type supporters of Hillary CLinton endure on this board, then yes it is probably out of bounds...

But if it is looking at some of the more shaky aspects of Kucinich's record...then no, seems ok to me!

[rinsd]

38. The ego thread was pretty bad

Other threads such as a few of Cali's recent ones are focused a little more on actuall issues with his canidacy.

[leftofthedial]

44. it is "shoot the messenger"

they fear a progressive message interrupting their business as usual grab for power

he is the main messenger carrying that message now.

[Zorra]

46. Just remember that many of the people that trash DK would vote for

John McCain before they'd vote for Dennis.

Dennis is a wildcard threat to the status quo.

Many folks are afraid of any change in the status quo, even when they fully realize that the status quo is total bullshit.

It's what is generally known as "conservatism".

[Radicalman]

47. Here's A Reason

There have been 2 Kucinich staffers who posted recently on DU, one past and one present, who raise questions about Dennis' judgment in terms of the people he chooses for positions in the campaigns. Critics say that during his 2004 run there was constant upheaval in the staff: People left, some were fired and many demoted they allege. While Dennis preaches democratic values, his top campaign staffers tended to be authoritarian, if not dictatorial. This comes from several California Kucinich operatives I know who may have axes to grind. But, even though, they may be biased, even biased people may speak the truth.

I personally think that, in 2004, Dennis had the best platform and spoke more truth than any other Democratic presidential hopeful. This year, John Edwards has picked up the mantel of the progressive who can win. Read Edwards' recent speeches: He calls for 40,000 troops to leave Iraq immediately, all out by the end of next year and for a universal health plan. No one, not anyone, speaks more eloquently for the poor and forgotten than John Edwards.

Dennis had his chance. I understand why people now still want to support him but, and it's just one man's opinion, ow is the time for John Edwards because he is a winner. Dennis is not.