On withdrawal answer, Obama cheered once; Edwards 2x; Clinton 2x; Kucinic 5x

[antiimperialist]

On the question of how they would approach the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, that's the number of times the audience in tonight's debate cheered for each candidate during their answer.

http://www.univision.com/content/channel.jhtml?secid=206# click on link labeled "plan de regreso para las tropas."

[Colobo]

1. If cheers equated votes, Dennis would win by a landslide.

[jobycom]

2. Hunh. So DK won the handsmack poll!

:rofl:

[antiimperialist]

3. You always focus on "he won't win" instead of "he's right"

Sad. I know he won't be close to winnning the primaries. But I am able to vote for someone based on the issues, not the chance of winning.

[The Wielding Truth]

4. He'll win if we vote for him. I definitely hear and see the best

leadership qualities from him.Every day I think more people are getting him. He is standing for the America we want. He could win.

[jobycom]

7. Um...

:shrug: I didn't say anything about him winning or losing. I just thought the OP was being cute.

If you want my opinion, and you did raise the issue, I won't vote for DK because I believe he is wrong for the job, not because I don't think he can win. I don't think he has the emotional make-up for the job. I don't see anything in his history that indicates he's ready for it. And I don't fully trust him. Back in 02, when he gave his "Prayer for America" speech, I was the first one on DU to add "Kucinich for President" in my sig line--long before he ever began talking about it. Since then, his position on abortion, his sudden change on that issue, and the way he's handled his campaign in general (too many issues for me to go into) have convinced me he's not a good choice for president. He's smart, he's right on most of the issues (meaning, he agrees with me on most of the issues :) ), he's even a vegan, for Chrissakes. I have a friend who has worked with him somewhat closely, even, and this friend thinks the world of him. But I don't think he's able to handle the job. (Neither does my friend).

I'm not sure where you formed your opinion of my opinion on DK, but I hope that clears it up.

[Ron Green]

8. Wrong for the job - because he changed his position on abortion?

And if there are "too many issues" (regarding his campaign) for you to go into, how many can there be? Ten? Fifty? How about name 2?

I'd like to know what the emotional make-up for this job ought to be, in your opinion, and how DK's lack of it would cause you to vote for someone whose ideas about this country are NOT the best ones, the ones we desperately need to include.

[jmatthan]

10. But Hillary and Edwards are OK?

Are Hillary and Edwards OK because they changed their position on the invasion and occupation?

And is Obama OK despite the fact he has not changed his position on bankruptcy?

[Ron Green]

12. Changing a position is not as serious as continuing to hold a wrong one.

By that measure, Edwards beats Hillary by miles, and not just about the war. But Kucinich beats 'em all, because he's actually a politician that tells the truth.

[jobycom]

15. Out of curiosity

Do you think a scornful attitude will win votes?

Not that I give a shit what you think of my criteria, but I'll list a few issues. As I've said, I don't trust him. His abortion record is one issue--he had a solid, heart-felt opposition to abortion that showed in his voting record. He changed that belief overnight when he realized it wasn't popular. That's one--he's not as pure as people want to believe. Two, I didn't like his early reliance on religious beliefs when he first started running, and even though he has dropped them, I'm not sure where he stands. He used to work "God" into every speec--as an atheist, I don't like that. I don't like it much with the top three candidates, either, but they don't do it as often and as gratiutously as he did. That ties in with his abortion vote, too. What criteria does he use to make his decisions, and why do they allow him to switch from "abortion is wrong" to "abortion is okay" overnight? Three, I heard his early interviews on the abortion issue. He stated that he wasn't going to answer questions on abortion because he didn't think that it would be an important issue in the race. That's naive or disingeniuous, or both, and it doesn't give me a lot of confidence in his ability to make wise and consistent decisions.

Four, he's incalcitrant to the point of being counter-productive on issues. He refused to support a timetable for withdrawal because it wasn't immediate, for instance. This goes back to his time as mayor, when he took a hardline stand on issues and acted as though he were king, rather than a democratically elected official (that's the emotional makeup issue). Five, he's autocratic. People who worked on his last presidential bid said he refused to listen to anyone's advice, and stubbornly stuck to failed strategies even after they had failed, rather than adapting and adjusting. That's counter-productive for a president, where most of the job is working out compromises with opponents, whether those opponents are lawmakers or foreign leaders. (That's also what I see as his emotional makeup).

Six, though Kucinich is brilliant, he's never attained office higher than the House of Representatives, and he's not very high in the command chain even there. This doesn't prove he couldn't be successful at a higher office, but it doesn't inspire any confidence for me.

Those are the types of objections I have to him. I love his speeches, I love his ideology, usually. But I don't think he can do the job. It doesn't matter how pretty a candidate's ideas are if they can't get them enacted. Nothing in Kucinich's history makes me confident that he could accomplish any of what he wants to accomplish.

I'm not telling you what to think about him. I'm telling you what I think of him. Vote for him if you like. Attack the overwhelming majority who don't support him if that's what you feel you must do. I'm just telling you why I'm not voting for him. It's not out of ignorance of him, it's not because I don't think he can get elected--that's never an excluding criteria for me. It's because I don't think he'd be a good president, or at least, I don't think he'd be better than the top four or five other Democrats running. I'd pick him before Gravel or Biden, and I'd consider him over Dodd. So if Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson drop out, I could vote for him. But even so, I wouldn't see him as some great example of purity. He's just not.

Obviously I'd vote for him in the general elections, if he were the nominee. He's way better than any Republican.

[penguin7]

19. He refused to support a timetable for withdrawel

because they are funding bills in disguise.

[jobycom]

21. Which is exactly my point.

He accomplishes nothing with his symbolic gestures.

[GreenArrow]

22. it could also be said

that the "timetable" was nothing but a symbolic gesture. Are symbolic gestures more acceptable when there is consensus on them?

[Ron Green]

23. "He accomplishes nothing with his symbolic gestures."

One thing he has accomplished is to give hope to people like me (I first voted in 1968) that we really may be able to turn away from an imperial world and toward a peaceful and sustainable one.

Thank you for your response above, for taking time to explain your points. I disagree, obviously, and see his stubbornness as a necessary quality to bring to light and to action the issues we so desperately need to address. His spirituality, which he has admittedly toned down (surely on the advice of smart people), nevertheless is EXACTLY the kind of talk about "God," in my view, that the world needs. Atheism will not save us, but love and acceptance will.

edit for tpyo. :-)

[Nederland]

24. Well said

That sums up my problems with DK as well.

[eridani]

29. He started voting "present" on abortion issues in 2001

His change took place gradually over time. I'm sure he still opposes abortion personally, but he became aware over time of the anti-woman agenda of "pro-lifers" and proposes sex education and access to birth control to reduce abortions.

[snowbear]

5. How did Governor Richardson do?

Trying to watch the video of the debate is just too hard with two people talking at once..

[antiimperialist]

6. His response on Iraq did not elicit much excitement

Although I didn't watch the debate, just that question.

[snowbear]

11. Thanks for the info antiimperialist and to Orrex...

... love that cupie doll! How cute!

[Orrex]

13. Glad you like it!

It's the work of my uber-talented wife, known here on DU as House of Kewpie.

Check out her site if you'd like to see more--that's not a sales pitch, just an opportunity for me to "show her off," so to speak!

:hi:

[snowbear]

14. Ok dokey..

She should make candidate-kewpies!! (Just put little candidate t-shirts on them)

Seriously.. who doesn't love those things!

[Orrex]

9. Many a resurrection has been achieved by hand-clapping and fervent belief

Well, one, at least.

And Kucinich has about as much chance of winning the primary as she does.

If he's right, let him be right in his current job; if he starts to show effective leadership there, perhaps one day he'll make a viable candidate. It would be a start, anyway.

[Yukari Yakumo]

16. If Kuch ever become a credible contender...

Expect his past actions and statements to come front and center and get incredibly scrutinized.

Then watch his numbers spiral back down to the 1% area.

[Silence Dogood]

17. and the personal attacks will begin on him and his supporters-

[LWolf]

18. What do you mean, they'll "begin?"

They've been going strong since he announced, regardless of his poll numbers.

If he is so damned unelectable, why are some so threatened by his campaign?

[Forkboy]

25. For the same reason that Nader is both "irrelevant" and the cause of all world ills since 2000.

The party apparatchik are terrified of the left actually standing up for themselves.

[LWolf]

28. That's the truth. n/t

[Orrex]

30. "If he is so damned unelectable, why are some so threatened by his campaign?"

1. Because he's baselessly lauded as a courageous advocate for the Left, when in fact he's simply howling at the pulpit like an also-ran who has nothing to lose. If he were in any danger of risking his success in the general election, I suspect that his handlers would be much more aggressive at reining him in.

2. Because his general manner is seen as a caricature of the mindset and style of the Left Wing of the party.

3. Because his failure to demonstrate any qualities of true leadership while in Congress has helped to foster the impression that the Left can have no leaders. By "true leadership," I mean the ability to galvanize a group to act in a manner that it wouldn't have acted anyway.

4. Because the change in his stance on certain key issues (of which abortion rights is only the most obvious) gravely undermine his credibility and, by extension, the credibility of the party that would put him forth as a candidate.

5. Because some of his views are sufficiently wacky to risk damaging the credibility of the party as a whole.

6. Because, no matter how dismal his poll numbers, his supporters still act as if he is the One True Candidate for the Democratic party, and any who don't support him are accused of being brainwashed by corporate media. Well, some of us can look at him objectively and say "no chance," independent of the input of CNN or MSNBC. To suggest that opposition to Kucinich is based wholely (or even predominantly) on media-brainwashing is to betray a serious misunderstanding of political reality.

That's six reasons, just off the top of my head. I can probably come up with a few others without much trouble, if you think that it would help.

[Fly by night]

20. Who is 'Kucinic'?

[superkia]

26. People dismiss Kucinich because the media has brainwashed them!

No one holds their candidates accountable anymore, period! Why is it that only Kucinich is standing strong on war in general, why is it hes the one speaking out about the governments attack on our constitution, you know the most important issue on the table! Anyone that doesn't demand their candidate stand up for the constitution and our rights as Americans is one who stands with the government on destroying it. Without our rights, there are no issues for us the people. If you give a ride to a friend to the bank and he robs it, you are a part of it. You cant say he didn't tell me, when he had a gun, mask, note and a bag. When a candidate is running for the Presidency of the United States, the constitution should be their number one priority, not what they need to say to get elected. If you don't think the constitution is being attacked by the government, you can go feel good about supporting your favorite candidate like your favorite american idol contestant. We are electing the next president, you may want to vote for someone that will stand for us and so far there is only one STANDING UP!

[goodhue]

27. excellent