Dennis Kucinich is he not electable or what? WTF?

[Imagevision]

He’s too short. He’s not sexy enough. He’s not electable. Yeah, that last one. Not electable. How many times have I heard folks say that they really like Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the stands he takes in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but they don’t think he can be elected? And what would happen if everyone who said that actually got behind Kucinich?

Who decides the electability of a candidate anyway? Party leaders? TV pundits? Campaign contributors? Here is a man from modest beginnings who has been winning political races against well-heeled Republican opponents for decades.

In Kucinich, I see a man of vision, honesty, integrity and heart. Aside from cash what incredible talking points does Obama, Hillary,(when I'm elected president I'll end the war) or Edwards have that make Dennis seem so lackluster?

Example; the top three parrot each other with their impeachment is off the table bit when they have as much research on this matter as the expertise they displayed by not even reading the goto war plans.

None of the top 3 will even consider impeaching Cheney? they have plenty of time, something is wrong with this picture!

[razors edge]

1. No more so than Gravel,

or Paul for that matter.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. people who vote

decide "electability" and Kucinich is not electable. He never broke 3% among Democrats last time he ran for President.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. Well, then, by all means,

let's all vote for someone "electable." I think it was John Kerry last time, wasn't it? :sarcasm: Goddess forbid we vote for the one person who has been right all along about all the issues REAL Democrats care about.

[KittyWampus]

13. Dennis was right when he was AGAINST abortion?

Oh, and Kerry WON.

[Le Taz Hot]

25. Dennis changed his

stance a LONG time ago on abortion. Get current. Kerry won? Who's in the WH?

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Not that long ago

in fact, just before he ran for President last time.

Kucinich is a politician - he's not a god. He changes his positions when necessary, as all politicians do.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. Well, let's just pick some nits here

shall we and ignore the fact that he is now pro-choice. No one said Kucinich is a god, he's just been right about The Patriot Act, the IWR, the Bankruptcy Bill -- can your candidate say the same? Nope. In fact, she's been wrong right on down the line. TAlk about being a politician! Hillary can't fart without doing a focus group. The woman has NO convictions of her own.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. and Kucinich was wrong about abortion

and wrong about a flag-burning amendment.

At least Clinton's always been pro-choice.

[John Q. Citizen]

140. Except for Iraqis!

[ProudDad]

148. That must have been a typo

they meant "Gore" won.

Kerry, we're not as sure about. It's a fact that Ohio was stolen by means of voter suppression and possibly rigged voting machines but the votes that were counted were counted and came up shrub...

[loudsue]

252. Nope. Hop on over to the elections forum, and check it out.

There is MORE than enough research to see that Kerry's votes were switched.

:kick:

[jgraz]

157. "Kerry WON"

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Do you think

kucinich would've done better than kerry in the general?

[onenote]

86. no one is stopping you from voting for him in whatever primary you vote in

But if he can't attract more than 3 percent of the vote...and he doesn't even do that well in his own state, what more can anyone do. Maybe he's not electable not merely because he's short or whatever. The reason isn't really important. The problem is that, for whatever reason he doesn't attract much support and in the end, that is what makes him unelectable.

[Le Taz Hot]

213. He can't attract more than 3% of the vote.

Hmmm. I wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that he has no big boy backing? Hillary does. So does Obama. So does Edwards. Just exactly who do you think has been sold out for those corporate dollars? The MSM ignores him. Do you think all of this is an accident? Do you think that its coincidence the top three candidates are all corporate whores? Poll after poll shows that most Americans -- Democrat AND Republican agree with Kucinich and yet he can't get more than 3% of the vote. Why is that? George Carlin was right. We don't have a choice (with the top 3 candidates) we have the ILLUSION of choice.

Please, think for yourself and vote your conscience. Vote Kucinich.

[RedCappedBandit]

214. You're right..

don't let anybody tell you otherwise. This post is DEAD on.

[loudsue]

253. I second that! Take it away Taz!!

:applause:


:kick:

[onenote]

239. Explain his poor showing in his home state in 2004

He didn't even get 10 percent of the vote in the Ohio primary in 2004. How do you explain that. He was well known to the electorate there.

Blame "corporate dollars" all you want, but the fact is that corporations don't vote in primaries -- Democrats do. And registered Democrats apparently don't find Kucinich appealing.

If Jesse fuckin' Ventura could get elected governor of Minnesota, you would think Dennis Kucinich could get at least 10 percent of the vote in his home state.

[info being]

202. He's totally right about everything....

...but even I have to admit he could use a little work presenting his ideas in a more pursuesive way to the average american.

[BlackHawk706867]

3. I tell ya what, I am totally behind you on this one... Would love to see...

Kucinich as President... He has a great stand on all things that the American people stand for... Against the war from the begining, anything the GWB and Administration stands for, Against anything (Correction, most things that HRC stands for) This guy should be your next President for sure....

ww

[Horse with no Name]

4. He is looking more Presidential to me every single day

Every.Single.Day.
Not in the political sense of the word...but in the purest sense of the word.

[G_j]

102. thank you!

:applause:

[TZ]

208. No. Not to me.Not at all.

Horse, my parents are from Cleveland and I have oodles of relatives there (both conservative and liberal). They regard him as a joke.
And he used to spout some of the worst new age anti-science tin foil hat conspiracy junk although he has toned it down for the last couple of elections to try to "appear" more mainstream.

[Robson]

5. Should we accept being led by the nose?

We need someone that will shake-up the status quo, not more same ole same ole. Should we accept being led around by our nose by pundits and the controlled media? I don't believe so but that's only my opinion.

[557188]

6. Remember how John Kerry was so electable?

Democrats never learn.

[Imagevision]

8. Gimme a break, Kerry lost because of election fraud, my how we forget what happened in Ohio

because the msm failed to cover it is even more suspicious!

[Le Taz Hot]

12. It should have never

been that close to begin with AND Kerry didn't fight for the count. He conceded despite promising the opposite. No one is buying THAT meme anymore.

[Webster Green]

7. Tweety gets to decide who is electable..

Weird but true.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. not true at all

but it's a fair bet that somebody who can't beat 3% in his own party primaries is unelectable.

[karlrschneider]

23. Well, Tweety might think so but he has an audience of maybe 3/4 million

and half of those watch just to catch him in goofs. Ask 100 people at random...like at the mall, what they think of him.
Maybe 2 in 10 will even recognize the name.

[RufusTFirefly]

9. "unelectable" defined

unelectable

SYLLABICATION: un·e·lect·a·ble
ADJECTIVE: Possessing vision, honesty, integrity, and heart: an unelectable candidate.

[MuseRider]

33. Good one. n/t

[Individualist]

If grassroots voters will simply go ahead and vote for him

instead of listening to DLC swiftboaters' meme that he's not electable, then he will be the nominee.

[Toasterlad]

11. I'm a Registered Independent, But I'm Switching to Democrat...

...JUST so I can vote for Kucinich in the primary. He's just about the only courageous person running for president. I'd vote for Ron Paul before I'd vote for Clinton, Obama, or any of the other cowards.

[NotGivingUp]

229. that's the main reason i am a registered democrat...to vote for him in the primary...and yes,

i'd take ron paul before any of the others you mentioned.

[Bryn]

258. Me, too

I am also a Registered Independent, but I really want to vote for Kucinich if Gore isn't running. Do you have to be a registered Democrat in order to vote in the primary for a Democrat?

[old guy]

14. Who decides? All three you listed decide.

The ones who should,the people, don't get a say until the primaries at which time we get to chose from the ones they decided on. That make any sense? Maybe I'm too tired.

[Skink]

15. VP. Back to days when the VP was only supposed to be cooky.

Then he'll weild power behind the mask of cookiness.

[Orrex]

17. He's disturbingly cozy with certain proponents of fringe pseudoscience

'Nuff said, really, but I can provide more detail if needed.

[scarletwoman]

27. Yeah, well, one person's "pseudoscience" may be another person's traditional knowledge.

So either make your specific objections out front, or can the innuendo.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. Please...

he's a first-class woo-woo.

[scarletwoman]

51. That's your opinion. My, and many others' opinions differ.

In deference to DU rules, I will not offer my opinion of YOU.

[MonkeyFunk]

55. well

since I'm not running for President, your opinion of me is irrelevant.

Kucinich is a woo-woo.

[scarletwoman]

58. Your opinion of Kucinich is also irrelevant. (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

64. not as irrelevant as your opinion of me

you see, he's running for President. So the fact that you won't vote for me is entirely irrelevant, since I'm not on the ballot. My opinion of Kucinich is, while largely unimportant, not entirely irrelevant.

[RufusTFirefly]

82. Did someone say "woo-woo"?

Book says Hillary talks to dead
First lady acknowledged 'imaginary' chats.

June 22, 1996
Web posted at: 11:55 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton held imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi as a therapeutic release, according to a new book written by Bob Woodward, says a report in Sunday's edition of The Chicago Sun-Times.

The first lady declined a personal adviser's suggestion that she address Jesus Christ, however, because it would be "too personal," according to Woodward's book, "The Choice."

Ah, but that's different!

[Orrex]

90. If she knew that the conversations were imaginary, then it *is* different

I'm as non-spiritual as anyone you're likely to meet in the next thousand lifetimes, but even I will speak to my lawnmower after a dozen unsuccessful tugs on the ripcord. Doesn't mean I think I'm actually addressing The Great Lawnmower Spirit, though. No reason to assume that Sen. Clinton is engaged in anything more crazy than that.

But if she believes that she's really communing with the Great Beyond, then she's every bit as woo-woo as Kucinich, but she's still a heckuva lot more electable.

[loudsue]

254. "Written by Bob Woodward"?????? I don't believe ONE WORD

that fucking asshole says anymore.

:kick:

[John Q. Citizen]

114. Does he believe in a resurrected savior like Hillary does? Talk about woo woo.

[TahitiNut]

41. Well, we all know that Creationism is far more acceptable than that "new age" crap.

:crazy:

"New Age" ... traditions more than 2,500 years old. :rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

52. Transcendental Meditation is

>2,500 years old? :shrug:

[Orrex]

61. Jeez--I thought that Abbey Road only came out in the sixties?

And now I learn that it debuted in 500 BC? Who knew?!?

[TahitiNut]

108. 1450-1350 BCE

It's virtually identical to the meditation techniques practiced in the Vedic tradition dating back to the origins of Hinduism ... even before Buddha. In fact, Gautama Buddha (b. Sarvaartha Siddha in ~560 BCE) was (in today's sense) regarded as an atheist in the Hindi/Vedic context. Nonetheless, it is thought by many Buddhists that he attained enlightenment engaging in meditation not unlike TM.

The Vedas are arguably the oldest surviving scriptures that are still used. Most Indologists agree that an oral tradition existed long before some of them were written down only during the second century BCE. The Vedic texts were composed, and orally transmitted, in Sanskrit for may hundreds of years before they were written down. The oldest surviving manuscripts are dated in the 11th century BCE. Radhakrishnan & Moore (1957, pp. xvii-xviii) sum up some of the older academic view by saying: "The Vedic Period is dimmed by obscurity, but it may be placed approximately between 2500 and 600 B.C." As used by these authors, the term "Vedic Period" includes the long period of gradual pre-literary cultural developments which eventually gave rise to written texts. Flood (1996, p. 37) refers to the "more sober chronology" of 1500 to 1200 BCE proposed by Max Müller for the earliest portions of the texts. Michael Witzel believes that the Vedic texts were orally composed between c. 1500 BCE and c. 500-400 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

I personally regard it as hilarious that the IGNORATI call that "new age."

[Orrex]

116. Oh, please. Next you're going to say that life goes on within me and without me

"New Age," when used by critics of that fad, doesn't refer to the particular brand of ancient woo-woo-ism that the modern woo-woo can dredge up in support of this or that belief; "New Age" instead describes the trend of selectively embracing a romanticized notion of past wisdom and repackaging it into a form that's pleasing to a certain brand of modern aesthetic.

[TahitiNut]

119. Making demeaning and derogatory reference to the spiritual beliefs of billions ...

... could be easily regarded as religious bigotry. A civilized, decent, and moral person doesn't do that. :shrug:

[Orrex]

130. That's a red herring. I respect their right to believe whatever they want

But in no way does that require me to respect their beliefs as true or correct or even, in more extreme cases, sane.

That's not religious bigotry; that's religious freedom.

[TahitiNut]

136. I see. You respect a person's right to be a (fill-in-the-blank) ...

... you just wouldn't vote for one. Uh-huh. :eyes:

Where have I heard that shit before?? :puke:

[Orrex]

143. Another red herring. Care to try for three?

If a person's membership in (fill-in-the-blank) casts serious doubts on his or her ability to govern rationally, then absolutely I wouldn't vote for him or her. Would you? For what possible reason?

Kucinich's embrace of fringe beliefs that are demonstrably at odds with reality is a clear indication that, while he may be worthy to legislate, he is not fit to lead.

Prove me wrong. Get him elected and show me what a great job President Kucinich can do.

What's that? He can't be elected because of media biases, religious bigotry, and shallow preconceptions? Well, then he fits the very definition of unelectable.

[TahitiNut]

162. It's pretty clear you don't know what "red herring" means. It's also pretty clear ...

... that you have decided to reject Kucinich as a viable candidate for your vote based upon his (somewhat poetic) articulation of spiritual beliefs. You make the mistake of regarding as 'fact' the name-calling you engage in ... including "fringe" and "sane" and "reality" ... when, in fact, those are merely derogations.

Kucinich's presentation of a spirituality that's akin to that of billions of people on the planet (including many millions in the U.S.) is hardly "fringe" ... but surely demonstrates the ignorance of those who'd dismiss it as such.

While I don't personally subscribe to some terms and expressions he's employed, I have more than enough first-hand experience with the faith traditions and spiritual practices of many that incorporate such expressions that I find nothing 'fringe' or 'unreal' about them in any sense. It is not at all surprising to me that a Roman Catholic who subscribes, in spirit, with much of the liberation theology philosophy would explore and find resonance with such beliefs and practices.

Prideful ignorance of such philosophies and practices is not unusual, though, sadly enough.

[Orrex]

170. Right. It's not that Kucinich is an unelectable woo-woo. It's that I'm a prideful bigot.

The fact that billions believe in a thing doesn't make it true. Nor does it necessarily remove that thing from the realm of "the fringe," if "the fringe" is a belief in conflict with demonstrable fact. At best, you can claim comfort in numbers, but that still gets you no closer to being correct.

Would you vote for a candidate who daily consulted a six-foot invisible rabbit? Neither would I, even if a billion other people likewise consulted the same rabbit. Kucinich's embrace of magical yogis is not fundamentally different, regardless of how many share his view.

And I have plenty of experience with other faith-traditions, thanks, so you can't hide behind claims that I'm simply an ignorant stone-thrower. I know that it would be simpler to dismiss me if I were, but it nevertheless remains that I know what I'm talking about, and I know what Kucinich is talking about, and he and I have about the same chance of taking the Whitehouse in 2008.

[BlooInBloo]

You can push the make-fun-of- Carlos-Castenada = bigot all you want...

.... Good luck getting any traction with that.

[Silent3]

201. Respecting a person's right to believe as they wish...

...and respecting that which they believe are two different things. The person's right will get automatic respect from me. The beliefs, however, have to earn respect.

As for bigotry... I think my responsibilities as a member of free society demand that I not persecute others of differing beliefs, deny them housing or employment opportunities, etc. I don't accept any requirement, however, to smile beatifically at whatever nonsense someone labels a "belief", pretend that "it's all good", or to be silent in voicing why I think their nonsense is nonsense.

When it comes to who I'd vote for, I think it's perfect fair of me to consider a candidate's religious and "spiritual" beliefs, certainly to the extent that they might effect policy decisions that we all have to live with, but also to the extent that I think those beliefs reflect the candidate's ability to make rational decisions.

And if you'd want to try to compare that to considering gender or race when voting... think again. People don't choose their race or their gender. Those are incidental characteristics. Religion, however, once you're an adult at least, is a choice, one that reflects on an individual's character and values.

If someone just happened to belong to a religion that required them to treat women and blacks as second-class citizens, and gays as worthy of nothing other than a good stoning, I somehow doubt you'd "respect" that. I can, of course, predict the typical rhetorical gymnastics which follow... "That's not religion! That's a bad person hiding behind religion!" But I don't accept the premise that everything called "religion" is automatically noble and kind and good and... well, automatically everything that happens to fit well into a secular view of morality and ethics which can be had without religion at all.

[TahitiNut]

240. Civil discussion of the impact of beliefs is different than calling someone a "kike" or "cat-licker"

... or "woo-woo." If one cannot ascertain this basic distinction, I doubt that discussion is fruitful.

:shrug:

[Orrex]

247. Again, that comparison is invalid

To call someone a "woo-woo" is to disparage a voluntarily-chosen worldview that is largely at odds with verifiable reality. I don't care if six billion people believe a certain thing; if that thing can't be verified independent of their belief in it, then it can't be said to exist independent of their belief in it, and it's at odds with verifiable reality.

To call someone a "kike" is to attack a person's ethnic heritage, over which the person has very little control and certainly no choice.

To call someone a "cat-licker" (which, I confess, was a new one for me) is to attack a person's sexual identity, over which the person again has very little control, unless you're part of James Dobson's camp.


So it's simply not tenable to equate a dislike of woo-woo-ism with anti-semitism or homophobia. To posit such an equation is to attempt to elevate the former at the expense of the latter two.

If one cannot ascertain this basic distinction, then one's problem is more profound than whether or not to vote for Kucinich.

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

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

[TahitiNut]

73. I got Transcendental Meditation training about 25 years ago.

I still use it and it has been extraordinarily beneficial to me. I never became a 'groupie' and invested the time that some do, but I knew many people who did and they're well-educated, quite successful, and saner than any of the outhouse rats in the White House ... or in some clapboard evangelical churches I've visited.

It's essentially nothing more than meditation techniques that have been practiced for 2,000-3,000 years or more. While it's repackaged and trade-marked for (rational) economic reasons, there's nothing "woo-woo" about it. Taken out of context, I could sneer at people who practice ritual cannibalism once a week, too. Any ignorant monkey can fling feces - and ignorant people emulate them. I guess that's just another reason to believe in evolution, though.

When one is ignorant, lacking any first-hand experience, of something they deride and demean it's called bigotry. :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

87. If it's bigotry to say

that TMers can't fly, then I'm a bigot.

[TahitiNut]

111. I'll take your word for it.

I've not seen much to contradict it. :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

95. They count going back in time years,

[cobalt1999]

236. Actually they are both crap.

I'll leave it up to you to decide which pile is less smelly. Myself, I just want to be as far from both as possible.

[Orrex]

59. Traditional knowledge also says that Negroes have an extra bone in each foot

And that men have one less rib than women.

If you're going to hide behind the aegis of "traditional" "wisdom," then you have to accept that somewhere around 99% is, at best, unverified and/or unverifiable crap. Kucinich's embrace of this gobblydegook may make him a cuddly figure among eager New Agers, but it hardly lends credence to his Presidential aspirations.

Maybe if we all clap our hands and really, really believe, then Kucinich will be President in 2009.

But probably not.



As for citations, please see my post below.

[Le Taz Hot]

31. Cite please.

We'll wait.

[Orrex]

63. Wait no longer

Well, you have to wait while this page loads, but after that...

Wait no longer!

[John Q. Citizen]

117. Does he believe in a resurrected savior like Hillary? It doesn't say. I heard

Hillary in a speech this year claim Americans are the hardest working people in the world.

Do you believe that crap?

You do?

Well have I got a woo woo candidate for you. Her name is Hillary and she's living in fantasy land.

[Orrex]

127. As I mentioned

Even if she's as woo-woo as Kucinich, she's still vastly more electable.

And, for the record, I see no distinction between believing in a resurrected savior and believing that transcendental yogis are levitating their way around Jellystone Park.

[John Q. Citizen]

139. Except there is hard evidence Hillary belives in a resurrected savior. Either

that or she's a hypocritical liar.

There is abosulty no evidence to link Kucinich to trancendental yogis or jellystone park in the op -ed style post you provided.

It was a hit piece first and last. Some guy I don't know posted a post to KOS. Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

[Orrex]

145. Are you a Christian? Then you must stone to death the eaters of shellfish

Either that, or you're a hypocritical liar.

Do I believe everything I read on the internet? Of course not! Do you believe everything you read in the bible?

Look, I can see that you're uncomfortable accepting that Kucinich is cozy with transcendental meditiation, but perhaps you'll believe it if it comes from Kucinich's own site?

[timtom]

203. I think you're spot on with that analysis.

And, interestingly enough, a couple of people who haven't been cozy with transcendental meditation are Bush and Cheney.

And it's patently obvious that they have been quite electable.

Woo! Woo!

[pnwmom]

220. self-delete

[John Q. Citizen]

224. no, I'm not a Christian, and I don't pretent to be. I'm just a single dad raising

my kids, sick and tired of politicians who are pro American empire, sick and tired of politicians who put their large contributors ahead of interests of everyday people.

I'm agnostic.

I have some old friends who are Buddahists, though. They like to meditate, and I don't care if they do.

My Aunt was Catholic, and she liked to meditate, and that didn't bother me a bit.

You got something against meditation? I don't. If Kucinich finds benefits from meditating, who am I to care?

In fact, I don't care if Hillary believes in a resurrected savior.

I do care that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards all want to subsidize private health insurance companies. I do care that all three embrace American Empire, the military industrial complex, and the national security state. I agree that can't really be called woo woo. It would better be called dangerous to my best interests and the best interests of my children, my community and my country.

If "electability" means that a person with that "trait" must also work against my best interests, then I guess I will join the majority of Americans in the general election for Pres. I'm not going to vote for a war-maker, period.

In the meantime, I will vote for a candidate who represents my best interests in the primaries. If that's crazy talk in your opinion, then that's tough.

[Orrex]

231. Hey, that's a pretty good answer!

:hi:

The meat of it is this:

If "electability" means that a person with that "trait" must also work against my best interests, then I guess I will join the majority of Americans in the general election for Pres. I'm not going to vote for a war-maker, period.

In the meantime, I will vote for a candidate who represents my best interests in the primaries. If that's crazy talk in your opinion, then that's tough.

That's not the crazy part. And in fact you've nicely summed up my opinion on the matter. If only you'd posted this sooner, we could have spared everyone a lot of bandwidth.

Unless President Kucinich is consulting the Maharishi before issuing policy, then it doesn't really matter, in practical terms.

But there's a limit, isn't there? If Candidate X had a habit of sleeping in a coffin in Times Square, then I would indicate that his some aspect of his worldview may be sufficiently out of touch with mine that I could not reasonably expect him to serve what I believe to be my best interests while in office. Kucinich's embrace of woo-woo-ism IMO puts him sufficiently out of touch with my worldview.

Regardless, we would be a better nation if politicians stopped professing their faith as a means of pandering to their constituency, because the inclusion of any absolutist religion necessarily poisons the debate and divides the population into "us" and "them."

Think I'm wrong? Who was our last atheist President?

[Yukari Yakumo]

152. Oh yeah...

I remember reading about his Dept. of Peace idea in a different thread today.

I was laughing my ass off for 5 straight minutes.

Imagine what'll happen when the general public finds out about it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

265. Yea.........peace is a b*tch ... isn't it?

:sarcasm:

[TahitiNut]

36. Just guessing: You're not a fan of Marianne Williamson or "A Course in Miracles"?

:shrug:

[Orrex]

57. You are correct!

Neither am I too fond of John Hagelin or the Maharishi Institute. And that's from Dennis' very own site! He's clearly proud of his woo-woo-ism.

Really, that's all the evidence anyone should need, but there's more where that comes from. Kucinich is either a far-out woo-woo or else he's pandering to far-out woo-woos. Either way, if his critical skills are so poorly developed, then he has no business sitting in the Oval Office.

Not that the idiot currently occupying it does, either, but at least we didn't elect him.

[Le Taz Hot]

74. "Woo-woo'ism?"

OK. Now I know where you're coming from. Thanks for the perspective.

KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT!

[Orrex]

77. It took *that* many posts? I'd have thought my perspective was clear from the get-go

If there are any other ambiguities you'd like clarified, please let me know.

Vote Kucinich in 08!
Because Hell just might have frozen over by then.

[slipslidingaway]

85. His critical skills worked just fine when he read the NIE and

voted NOT to give Bush the go ahead on Iraq. There might be others who have poor critical skills and should not occupy the Oval Office.

:think:

[Orrex]

100. By that logic, everyone here at DU is as electable as Kucinich

Vote for every DU'er in 08!
They're no crazier than the guy from Ohio!

[John Q. Citizen]

122. I think Hillary fanacized that Hussain was "the devil" and that's why she voted for

the illegal invasion and occupation.

Fantasies are fine, until you give one of the farthest out a little power.

Now we got 750,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 3500+ dead US soldiers, and a whole shit load of fantasy WMD.

I sure hope she never get's her finger on the button. What will she fantazise next?

You would have to be crazy to vote for bush's war. Wouldn't you?

[slipslidingaway]

132. The three leading candidates would all too easily push the

button IMO, now that is scary.


Clinton

"But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/18/news/14289.shtml

[Radical Activist]

242. The last person I heard call it woo-woo-ism was an '04 Kucinich staffer

and it wasn't used in a complimentary manner.

[BlooInBloo]

93. He's batshit crazy.

[Orrex]

103. That's another good way to put it

Succinct and unambiguous. I salute you!

[BlooInBloo]

110. I felt unsatisfied with the beating-around-the-bush approach. :)

[cobalt1999]

228. Another salute and I agree completely

However, ya'll are going to be double teamed by the Kucinich AND New Agers. :popcorn:

[eridani]

104. Right. Impeaching Cheney, opposing the Iraq war, favoring--

auditable elections and universal health care, voting against the PATRIOT Act, opposing outsourcing--yeah, got to be batshit crazy.

[BlooInBloo]

107. Wow - almost convinced me that's ALL we knew about him...

... Almost.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/113236/176

"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling."

[TahitiNut]

113. Poetry. I like it.

:shrug:

[Orrex]

Super. I can recite a nice one about a man from Nantucket

Does that make me electable?

The ability to string together a bunch of touchie-feelie aphorisms does not a president make. Kucinich The Electable needs to do better than chanting a mantra while howling about flag-burning.

[scarletwoman]

123. That's one of the things that makes me appreciate him all the more.

The world could certainly use more genuine spirituality in its leaders.

[BlooInBloo]

125. We differ on that then. Me, I'd like the wall between state and religion reinstated.

[scarletwoman]

131. You obviously don't understand the difference between spirituality and religion.

Religion is a codified set of precepts and dogma which seeks to concretize and limit inquiry within particular sanctioned boundaries. Spirituality -- which is what Kucinich is about -- is a personal journey of awakening and expanding understanding without limitations.

Organized religion is generally anathema to spirituality. Therefore, the question of church/state separation is irrelevant in regard to Kucinich having a personal spirituality.

[BlooInBloo]

133. Whatever. It's all making-shit-up, which needs to be kept seperate from matters of state.

[scarletwoman]

138. Of course it's separate from matters of state. Are you worried that Dennis would make it illegal

not to meditate?

If you find Dennis' spiritual beliefs unpalatable, then how in the world will you vote for any OTHER Dem candidate -- since nearly all of them take great pains to emphasize their "christian" bona fides?

[BlooInBloo]

149. DK has made clear that his policies are "informed" by his faith...

... And lord knows I wish I had a viable lord-less option.

[scarletwoman]

154. So have Clinton, Obama & Edwards. I trust that you are equally vehement about their unsuitability.

I don't generally follow candidate threads, so I don't know what sorts of posts you've made about the other Dem contenders.

But unless you've been just as dismissive of the invisible sky god candidates as you are of Kucinich, then I call bullshit.

[BlooInBloo]

155. I just said I wish I had a lord-less option. Dunno what more you want.

[scarletwoman]

161. I want to know why you hold Dennis' beliefs against him to a greater degree than

any other candidate. It's very simple. If you think Dennis is too "woo-woo", then I want to know why you don't think the other invisible sky god believing candidates aren't too "woo-woo" as well.

[BlooInBloo]

163. Because I don't see the others creating brand new cabinet positions....

... based upon their religious beliefs.

EDIT: If they were, they'd immediately be off my possible-to-vote-for-in-the-primary list.

[scarletwoman]

167. Geeze! How many damn posts did it take for you get around to saying what you are REALLY

objecting to!

So, you have a problem with the idea of a "Department of Peace"? Why didn't you just come out and say so right off the bat?

And now that you've finally managed to state the source of your objection, may I ask what in the world is objectionable about creating an office dedicated to non-violent resolution of conflicts? Do you honestly believe that militarism is the highest expression of our national character?

[BlooInBloo]

168. It's not the DoP per se. It's the DoP as a part of a religious agenda....

... Like I said earlier, it's the joining of church and state (pace terminological quibbling) that I'm against.

[scarletwoman]

176. I call bullshit. I've read all about his Department of Peace proposal from way back.

I was aware of it even before he ran for president in 2004. There's no "religious" agenda to it at all. It's based on the philosophical principle of non-violence. It's not about "religion", any more than the establishment of Social Security was about religion. It's about creating a more just society.

Did Martin Luther King, Jr. endanger the separation of Church and State by advocating for civil rights based on his Christian belief of the inherent dignity and worth of humankind?

I find your argument increasingly absurd.

[BlooInBloo]

179. I see - it's "philosophical" when we're talking about politics, and it's "spiritual" otherwise...

... And King didn't run for President, so his views are neither here nor there.

[scarletwoman]

186. Alright, tell me what spiritual belief informed the creation of Social Security.

Or do you simply reject anything that promotes the common good?

Non-violence IS a philosophical principle that may arise out of any number of spiritual or religious beliefs -- as well as out of a strictly secular-humanist ideal of social justice.

If you want to reject the idea of non-violence out of hand, then do so honestly. It has only a peripheral connection to any sort of spiritual or religious belief, and can exist quite independently of either as an issue of simple social justice.

The only "belief" required in the promotion of social justice is the belief that humanity has the capability of progressing beyond violence, tribalism and barbarism.

[BlooInBloo]

189. Me rejecting non-violence is nothing more than you making shit up.

[scarletwoman]

192. I'm merely asking you to explain your objection to the idea of a DOP.

You seem to be saying that your objection stems from your general distate for spirituality. All I've done is ask you to clarify your stance.

[BlooInBloo]

194. Asked and answered.

[scarletwoman]

200. Not really. You asserted that the DOP is "part of a religious agenda", but you have not supported

that assertion with any data or citations. I'm just asking you to defend your argument.

[Greyhound]

166. What these people don't understand would fill libraries if anyone wished to catalog it.

The very fact that they are genuinely blind to their own bigotry and think that voicing their lack of tolerance is acceptable behavior is sufficient evidence of a profound deficit of understanding.

[BlooInBloo]

169. By contrast with you know it alls.

[Greyhound]

172. LOL!

:rofl:

thanks

:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

173. Wow!!! Project much?!??

:rofl: :rofl:

[Orrex]

174. Hmm...

I can see how it would be preferable to repaint one's eager acceptance of unverifiable claims as a sort of latter-day enlightment, rather than as a testament to one's eagerness to believe.

Nothing is more prideful than mistaking one's naivete for wisdom. And nothing is more naive than claiming that a rejection of spirituality is equivalent to bigotry.

Show me strong evidence that any spiritual claim is verifiably true, and I'll embrace it. Until that time, you're just witnessing.

on edit: "Spirituality" should not be misconstrued as "a sense of community" or "familial affection" or the like, unless one wishes to reduce spirituality to a metaphor.

[Greyhound]

183. Once again you expose yourself. You apparently assume that I share

Dennis' beliefs; nothing could be further from the truth. OTOH, I do know enough to know that I do not know, and have seen that different beliefs work for different people, though I feel no compulsion to follow any of them. I see no difference between DK's beliefs and those professed by those "electable" candidates that fail to practice those beliefs on a daily basis.

I'll take a person that honestly believes and practices that which makes other's lives easier, no matter how different it may be to me, over the most pious hypocrite any day.

[Orrex]

187. Nope. Please don't tell me what I assume

I don't know whether you share Kucinich's beliefs, but I'll take you at your word that you do not. It doesn't really matter, to be honest.

And spare me the "I know that I do not know" routine. Anyone who's sat through Philosophy 001 knows that one, and frankly anyone (not you, necessarily, but anyone in general) who alleges to have achieved some measure of spiritual/supernatural/religious epiphany is throwing the "I do not know" claim out the window. There is also a measure of intellectual dishonesty in a person who, thinking to have achieved that epiphany, does not subject it to rigorous objective scrutiny.

When you, yourself, engage in transcendental meditation, what exactly are you transcending?

[TahitiNut]

175. At one time, I could see myself saying such things.

But I survived my teens and felt obliged to at least preliminarily explore philosophies and practices first-hand that might offer something of benefit to me in other ways than just as targets for derision.

It occurred to me, in passing, that I might expose myself to "brain-washing" or indoctrination that would be harmful ... but then I decided that if my brain were that easily washable it really wasn't much of a brain.

:evilgrin:

So, I can understand how someone with a more washable brain might not choose to learn. Primates flinging feces is an even longer-lived 'tradition' than meditation.

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

178. rofl! Religions really *are* all the same - condescending to the nonbelievers.

[TahitiNut]

180. Well, not being a "believer" myself, I wouldn't know. Insofar as 'condescending' ....

... I'll bow to your far greater expertise in that area.

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

181. I can live with that!

[Orrex]

182. Note to self: rejecting nonsense = choosing not to learn. Got it.

I've heard that same line of garbage for decades, and it's no more convincing when it comes from a person whose idea of a clever rejoinder is to (twice) identify people with a differing view as "primates flinging feces" and who don't have "much of a brain." Very enlightened of you.

Like countless woo-woos before you, you equate the rejection of non-verifiable claims with closed-mindedness, and that's simply not true.

[TahitiNut]

188. Let me guess, again. The observation "you'd rather be right than be happy" ...

... just doesn't parse sensibly in your mind, does it? It suggests drugs and/or delusions, right? You might value experience ... but regard "truth" and "fact" nearly equivalent. Right?

If I were to suggest that 'truth' is a cargo and the vessel can be composed of either myth or fact, that wouldn't make much sense, would it? (That, for my money, is the basic epistemological error made by "Creationists" too.)

For the record, you have not merely presented a "differing view" ... you've demeaned and derogated others for their expressions of spiritual viewpoints based on their personal experience. Yet you seem to have none.

That's really too bad. :shrug:

I'm not at all unfamiliar with people having little confidence in their own resilience and who avoid all manner of first-hand experience in a quest to comprehend that which may not be reducible to language in some convenient way. Many of such people never learned to ride a bike or swim ... because reading a book didn't help much. There's a whole universe of things that cannot be comprehended without trying them.

Before there was "psychology" there was a side to religious practice that was based on an oral tradition - first-hand experiential teaching by a "wise man" or rabbi or priest or guru or teacher. In Judaism, that was all but wiped out in the Holocaust. What remains is rabbinical/Talmudic ... the written tradition. Much was lost ... a whole body of knowledge that served to treat the multitude of "psychological" ailments that beset humanity. Some sense of that kind of history, all over the world, should serve to motivate any intelligent, curious, and growth-oriented person to explore - trusting in their own conscience and "inner compass."

NOBODY can do it for another. It's a "do it yourself" process. I would no more try to give you mine or impose it on you than I could fly. Can't be done. It's your job and yours alone. Others can only help.

But don't bother. Billions and billions of other people must be 'wrong.'

:rofl:

[scarletwoman]

190. "...'truth' is a cargo and the vessel can be composed of either myth or fact." Elegantly said!

Beautiful, TN, just beautiful.

:loveya:
sw

[TahitiNut]

191. Thank you, very much!

I will take (shameless) credit for that one - a metaphor of my own invention after studying (among others) Joseph Campbell some years ago. I'm horrible at remembering where I might've heard something - and don't keep a mental bibliography - but that's mine. (Now I'll be ashamed if I find that someone else said it, too.)

I think it's WONDERFUL that you get it. But we've both known that for years, haven't we?

:loveya:

[scarletwoman]

198. You've distilled your own fine elixer from all the fruits you've gathered. I'm delighted to give you

full credit! And I'll remember it and pass it on -- with full citation, of course!

What's most wonderful for me is that you have so skillfully expressed that which we both "get" -- a most difficult and delicate endeavor, language being such a dim reflection of the fullness of the experience itself.

Namaste,
sw

[Orrex]

230. False dichotomy. Wow--you're a font of fallacies, aren't you?

"you'd rather be right than be happy" just doesn't parse sensibly in your mind, does it?

Given your comments in this thread, I hardly think that you're in a position to lecture me on what "sensibly" means. Nevertheless, the phrase "rather be right than be happy" parses very cleanly, and it's an obvious false dichotomy. Why should those two options be posed as opposites? Why not ask if I'd "rather be enthusiastic than thirsty" while you're at it?

It suggests drugs and/or delusions, right? You might value experience but regard "truth" and "fact" nearly equivalent.

"Fact" is that which is verifiably the case. "Truth" is a contextual label that in convesational parlance is somewhat consistent with but largely independent of "fact."

Any other questions?

For the record, you have not merely presented a "differing view" ... you've demeaned and derogated others for their expressions of spiritual viewpoints based on their personal experience. Yet you seem to have none.

Of what do I "seem to have none," in your esimation? "Spiritual viewpoints?" "Personal experience?"

I'm not at all unfamiliar with people having little confidence in their own resilience and who avoid all manner of first-hand experience in a quest to comprehend that which may not be reducible to language in some convenient way. Many of such people never learned to ride a bike or swim ... because reading a book didn't help much. There's a whole universe of things that cannot be comprehended without trying them.

WTF are you talking about?

Some sense of that kind of history, all over the world, should serve to motivate any intelligent, curious, and growth-oriented person to explore - trusting in their own conscience and "inner compass."

NOBODY can do it for another. It's a "do it yourself" process. I would no more try to give you mine or impose it on you than I could fly. Can't be done. It's your job and yours alone. Others can only help.

The assertion that "nobody can do it for another" is a convenient way of avoiding any need to verify one's claims, and everything is thereby equally valid, no matter how wacky or self-contradictory.

But don't bother. Billions and billions of other people must be 'wrong.'

You've misunderstood.
Unless those "billions and billions of other people" can verify their claims, then they have no business making any statement about the universe beyond the scope of their own opinions. They are wrong to use "their own conscience and 'inner compass'" as justification for issuing statements of fact or about how the universe is, unless they disclaim that they're simply stating opinion.

If you want to contemplate your navel and chant om until the cows come home, by all means go for it. But once you make the claim that something external to your introspection is like this or like that, then you've voluntarily offered your views for critique, and you can't complain when someone calls "unverifiable bullshit" on you.

I may accept that the guy over there believes that he's Napoleon, but as soon as he claims that he really is, then it's up to him to verify it. From this, I think, you can infer my opinion of religious or spiritual belief.

So make whatever claims about spirituality you care to make. If they remain internal to your own perceptions, then I'm 100% fine with that. But once your spiritual claims interact with the world external to your perceptions, then they're fair game.

In putting his woo-woo-ism into the public forum, Kucinich demands that we assess his overall Presidential suitability with that woo-woo-ism in mind. If you think that makes him a better candidate, then vote for him.

[Greyhound]

184. LOL!

:rofl:I have a new motto; "Primates flinging feces is an even longer-lived 'tradition' than meditation.":rofl:

[eridani]

209. Not very different from Obama and Edwards going on about their spirituality

New Age isn't really all that different.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

212. "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."

eom

[Warren DeMontague]

137. You mean he went with Obama to "court the Evangelical vote"? nt

[TahitiNut]

18. For my money, Dennis is the MOST 'electable' ... he gets it.

I'm tired of the guy that drunken morans want to have a beer with.

[Toasterlad]

28. OMG, THANK You!

It makes me SICK whenever I hear the media say so and so is popular among voters because he's a "regular guy". What the FUCK??? I want a president who's SMARTER than me, thanks very much! I want a president who doesn't have time to have a beer with me because he's too busy thinking about HOW TO FIX THE COUNTRY! I want a president who understands leadership and integrity and hard choices. I do NOT want a "regular guy"! :nuke:

[DKRC]

94. Well said

and Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[karlrschneider]

19. The best person is rarely chosen. It's an unfortunate fact of our system.

The fact is simply that - he has zero chance of winning either the nomination let alone the general election. If it's any consolation, realize that Jesus Christ would never have a snowball's chance either. And there is some food for thought.

[Zavulon]

20. Sad to say, he's simply not.

I'd be happy to see him elected, but he's the Democrat version of Newt Gingrich - everyone on his side likes what he says, but he can't get anywhere near the traction required.

I think a fair number of DUers would be happy with my presidency, too, but I'm not electable either. That's just the way it goes.

For the record, I didn't think Kerry was electable either (although he certainly had a higher electability factor than Kucinich), and he basically proved me right: he utterly destroyed a sitting, horrifically unpopular pResident in three debates and still lost (and although I see lots of validity in the notion that the 2000 election was stolen, I am not sold on the idea that the 2004 election was).

The concept of electability is a strange thing. This is one of many, many reaons why I don't want to see Hillary nominated.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. Yes, electability is certainly a trait I'd trust...Hitler was elected. Reagan was elected twice,

See, how that "trait" pays off?

[Zavulon]

43. Um, point of order...

...I never said that "electability" was a reliable factor in choosing a good leader, it is simply a reasonable way of judging who does NOT have a chance.

Dennis Kucinich simply has no chance. It doesn't mean he wouldn't be good at the job, he simply has no chance. Do you disagree with that? Every time a presidential election comes up, the press whips itself into an "electability" frenzy and in doing so kills off worthy candidates. Kucinich is simply fresh meat for this sort of journalism.

If you think he can get elected, I'd love to hear how - or are we arguing different points here?

[John Q. Citizen]

66. I prefer to vote for a good leader than a leader who the corporate media considers electable.

In fact, one of the traits of a bad leader is that the corporate media considers them "viable" which usually means that they are in somebody's pockect.

As I recall, Jimmy Carter wasn't considered electable at one point. Neither was Paul Wellstone in his bid for US Senate.

The problem with "electability" is it is purely perception based.

I intend to vote for Kucinich unless Gore enters the race, and then electability will enter my calculations, but only to a small degree. But I will not support someone in the primary just because they have been deemed by the NYT, CBS or FOX News as "electable."

[Zavulon]

71. I vote the same way. Maybe we're not arguing the same thing here.

I agree 100% with your "The problem with "electability" is it is purely perception based." I also agree 100% with your "In fact, one of the traits of a bad leader is that the corporate media considers them "viable" which usually means that they are in somebody's pockect."

My original post was simply in response to the question as to whether Kucinich can be elected or not. I say he can't. You sound like you'd vote for him, I would too (unless, like you, Gore enters the race). That doesn't mean he can win.

My saying that Kucinich can't win is not an indication that I like Edwards, Obama or Hillary more than him. In fact, I don't. All I was doing was answering the OP's original question. I simply said Kucinich can't win, and then later I asked you if you disagree. You didn't answer' you simply said you'd vote for him. I would, too, but for the purposes of the original question that's not relevant.

I ask you again: do you think he can win? If so, how? It doesn't matter that both of us would vote for him, he needs more than two votes. Again: all I was doing was answering the original question. It seems that overall you and I are on the same track, but do you think Kucinich could win? My guess is that even if he had my vote, he'd get shelled.

[John Q. Citizen]

112. Kucinich can win, but he probably won't win. Of course neither will 9 out of 10

of the declared candidates.

One interesting number I keep looking at is that if one adds up the numbers of the top three candidate's poll numbers, there is still a very large chunk of voters who aren't supporting any of the three at this point.

I'm hoping for a brokered convention where none of the current top 3 have enough delegates to win outright. I think Gore might be able to top 50% if he gets in the race.

[Zavulon]

129. Actually, I'm hoping for the same thing. However,

I disagree with your notion that Kucinich could win. If you take a look at the mean-spirited dialogue that passes as discourse among the assholes that permeate talk radio and Faux "News," and hear the dumbass insults they throw around (keeping in mind that millions of clueless dolts take their marching orders from these sources), Kucinich is cannon fodder. He's short, he comes across as nerdy, he doesn't come across as nearly the sophisticated statesman as they want (and even if he did, look what they did to Kerry and Gore) and they'd chop him to pieces. I don't think he could win a single state, much less the nomination.

A goddamned shame, but that's the way it is. "Electibabilty" is as bullshit to me as it is to you, but it is an important factor when you consider that tons and tons of people who don't know shit about politics vote anyway.

I note with great interest your "One interesting number I keep looking at is that if one adds up the numbers of the top three candidate's poll numbers, there is still a very large chunk of voters who aren't supporting any of the three at this point," but I simply don't think Kucinich could make headway there. Gore, however, could - which is why I'm hoping he runs. I fully agree with your notion that Gore could top 50%.

[OzarkDem]

34. He's looking better and better

especially in contrast to the rapidly deflating crowd on the ticket now. He's looking more viable every day, compared to candidates who sound like programmed robots.

[demnan]

22. Kucinich is anything but lackluster

I was still supporting Edwards but we were lobbying in DC, my activist Impeachment committee, the Virginians for Peace and Accountability. We had a meeting in the House with our Congressman's committee staff member. The day we were there, PDA people came in so we sort raided their meeting with Dennis Kucinich in his small office at the Rayburn House office building.

The guy lights up when he's around other liberals or progressives. He was speaking and we sort of barged in, and he said, "come in" and he was talking about his stragegy. This was a week before he introduced H Res 333. I handed him a button that said IMPEACH HIM. And he talked about this.

This is what this wise man told me:

"You can't do this out hatred, you have to do it out of love. You can't pursue the adminstration that way. I'm not an angry person. I don't do things out of anger"

I want a man like that for President.

[MuseRider]

39. That is lovely.

He is so correct. I wish I could remember that advice in my own life but somehow I am not good enough to get over the angry to do things the correct way. Lovely. Thank you for sharing that.

[TahitiNut]

45. Yup. That's what I want, too.

:thumbsup:

[John Q. Citizen]

24. I'm voting for the candidate who tells the truth, doesn't pander, and isn't for empire.

Kucinich all the way.

[rubberducky]

26. If Gore does not get in, my vote goes to Kucinich.

[shanti]

267. that's my plan too

i don't find any of the others palatable at all. well, maybe edwards a little, but i'd still pick kucinich over him.

[Swamp Rat]

29. That Kucinich is not electable is an M$M fiction.

Sans Gore I will support Dennis Kucinich.

To me, those who say "impeachment is off the table" are unelectable and will NOT receive my vote.

[IChing]

38. Agree Swampy....how the studies going BTW?

[Swamp Rat]

48. oh shit!

You busted me again! :yoiks:

I really fell off the wagon! :blush:

OK, tomorrow is a new day. If I am not here, that means I am doing my work like I am supposed to. If I do post again tomorrow, then I obviously need an intervention. :D

[lonestarnot]

218. Here's some intervention.

Now you get busy studying! Or... :loveya:

[karlrschneider]

54. It's not a fiction, Swampy, and it's not a M$M invention. It's just a fact.

You can't go out on main street and find 1 out of 10 people who ever heard of him, and half of those who have don't like him (even if they can't say why).

Sometimes I think we DUers are inordinately insulated from the reality of what we often derisively refer to as the 'mainstream' but like it or not (I don't), they are the people who vote.

And as much as I like what Kooch says, I'm not really convinced he has the rocks to be President. Not that Dubya does, of course, but we really do need somebody with broad support. Not sure if such a candidate exists though unless Al decides to jump in.

[John Q. Citizen]

97. We tend to react to the situation instead of create the situation. People also claim

Americans don't want single payer, people claim Americans don't support impeachment, and people claim Americans think this way or that.

The truth is the vast majority of Americans don't vote.

It's not because they are stupid, it's because they know the system is rigged so only the "electable" proponents of the status quo have any shot at all to become president, Senator, etc.

Sure there are a very few exceptions, but never enough to make a change, just enough to support the illusion of representative democracy.

The fact of the matter is about 90% of our elected leaders are unelectable, which is why the majority aren't electing them!

[karlrschneider]

109. Well, if what you say is true, and I'm not really disagreeing,

our experiment in Democracy has flunked the test of history. Maybe a benevolent dictatorship really is the only feasible form of government over the long haul. Hell, maybe a MALevolent one is the best...sometimes I wonder how the majority would go between the carrot and the stick. Do humans in general actually have the ability to express altruism? I just don't know.

[John Q. Citizen]

135. 2000 showed us clearly what has happened to our so -called democratic republic.

But ponder this.

In Reagan's first election, about 50% of the potential electorate were registered to vote.

About 50% of the registered voters actually cast a ballot.

So Reagan won with something on the order of 13-14% of the potential electorate actually voting for him.

If that's representative democracy, well, I'm the king of Montana.

Notice how election coverage never delves into those numbers, such as what percent of the total potential electorate are casting votes for candidate x? There ain't no damn cat and there ain't no damn cradle!

Yet we do get to hear on a regular basis about just how wonderful our great democracy is.

Since the game is fixed, I'm voting for Dennis because I like him, I like his stands on the issues, and I already know there's no way in hell that the corptocracy is going to allow him to be president, no matter how many votes he gets.

Kennedy found out what happens if you get elected and don't tow the line. So did Carter, but they took care of him a little more discreetly and with more sophistication.

[Swamp Rat]

115. I guess we have different "Main Streets."

Folks in New Orleans know and like Dennis.

How do I know? My research requires me to be out on the street talking to and interviewing people.

Personally, I think Kucinich has the 'rocks' and so does Gravel, but they do not have the M$M approved image nor the financial backing from corporations like the others. They will likely not be nominated because they will not get the same media coverage nor corporate sponsorship as the others, which means less people will know about them, or see them in a favorable light - so I certainly agree with you on that point.

My point is the M$M controls the message and therefore who will become president. It works this way in every other country that I have lived (well, when I was living in Austria I did not pay much attention to events involving their political system, as I was more interested in what was happening in Croatia and Serbia at the time, in 1991). In Brasil, no one gets elected unless Rede Globo (like FOX, and unfortunately the ONLY national station) approves. I was surprised by Zapatero's victory in Spain, but my belief was reinforced by Segolene Royal's defeat in France. Then there is Il dolce Berlusconi...

[Jed Dilligan]

257. Hey Swampy!

Anthro forum needs your wit and witticisms! Pop in for a spell, will ya?

Sorry to be massively off-topic, but I love Anthro forum!

[Imagevision]

30. Perhaps it simply boils down to key Campaign contributors...?

[trashcanistanista]

35. If we all vote for him,

he is electable.

[Individualist]

42. Bingo!

All that's needed is for voters to vote for the best candidate - DK.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. but that's the thing

the vast majority of us don't want to vote for him.

[RufusTFirefly]

91. Why not?

[MonkeyFunk]

244. I can't speak for others, but for me

I think he'd be an awful president.

Advocating good things doesn't make you an able leader. He has a very poor record of accomplishment in the congress. Presidents don't get to just impose their agenda - they need to work with congress to get it done, and Kucinich has no record of being good at that.

And, as said above, I find some his beliefs wacky.

[John Q. Citizen]

144. Nor do they want to vote for 37% Hillary. 2 to 1 don't want to vote for her. That's

pretty vast.

And she's even got lots of name recognition.

[karlrschneider]

67. All 5000 DUers?

Uh huh...

[OzarkDem]

44. Big money doesn't always win

ask Bob Dole. He out-raised Clinton by a wide margin but still got his ass kicked.

Today's Dem candidates are looking like a lot of Bob Doles next to Kucinich.

[Stardust]

53. Oh now, ther ya go, being all logical and stuff...since DK won't accept money

from Special Interest Groups, well, reality bites, doesn't it? I wonder if Abe Lincoln could get elected in today's world.

[RufusTFirefly]

47. I'd vote for a candidate who supports the following...

Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans.

The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.

Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.

Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.

Fostering a world of international cooperation.

Abolishing the death penalty.

Environmental renewal and clean energy.

Preventing the privatization of social security.

Providing full social security benefits at age 65.

Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"

Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.

Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.

Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.

Ending the war on drugs.

Legalizing same-sex marriage.

Creating a balance between workers and corporations.

Ending the H1B and L1 Visa Programs

Restoring rural communities and family farms.

Strengthening gun control.

Supporting a candidate almost always involves making a concession or two. For example, I didn't see eye to eye with Howard Dean on gun control, but I respected his differing position and supported him wholeheartedly.

I can't remember the last time I supported every single item on a candidate's platform. I agree with everything on this list from DK's platform. Too bad he's "unelectable."

Now, repeat after me:

"(Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama/John Edwards) is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

There. Don't you feel better?

[ProudDad]

153. Wait, wait, don't tell me

I think I know the person you want to vote for...

It's coming to me....


Ah, that's right, Dennis Kucinich... that's it...

[TahitiNut]

195. (lol!) Well said!

:thumbsup:

(Let's hope they stay away from that Queen of Hearts, though.)

[HughBeaumont]

221. Come ON! He's a "woo-woo"! A "woo-woo" I tells ya!

Seriously, what the fuck is a "woo-woo" anyway? I remember that stupid phrase being tossed around by the flame-happy, "your government is right about EVERYthing" curmudgeons in my Red X toilet a lot. So is Hillary NOT a "woo woo" for believing the words of the biggest Grand Cyclops liar forced upon this populace by unscrupulous corporations and a paid-for SCOTUS?

I challenge ANYone to find ANYTHING about that platform that's unreasonable . . . or "woo-woo". :eyes:

[RufusTFirefly]

225. Nooo! Whatever you do, don't talk about Kucinich's actual platform!!!!

Don't you see? That will ruin everything!!!

You obviously haven't read the memo. The goal is to talk about whether Dennis is woo-woo or not, just like the goal in talking about a Michael Moore movie is to complain about Michael Moore. Heaven forbid, we should have to discuss the actual issues facing this country -- like an illegal war, a lawless administration, a torn and tattered safety net, a dangerously consolidated media, an unsustainable pattern of over-consumption, and a broken health care system.

Quick, where's a Paris Hilton thread?

[Imagevision]

49. Maybe I'm wrong but perhaps Kucinich should revamp his campaign manager and statagies (?)

[MedleyMisty]

60. You see, Limbaugh might say something bad about him

and apparently the idea of Limbaugh or the rest of the Republican hate machine doing what they do best causes a lot of people to shake in their boots.

I have never seen evidence that "unelectable" means anything other than "The media won't support him." so I guess yeah, the media gets to decide who the candidate is. Hey, maybe the media is the branch of government that Cheney belongs to.

Why let other people control you? Vote for who represents your views the best, not for who the fascist propagandists like the most. I thought the goal was to stop the slide into fascism?

[hootinholler]

62. Not at all electable, just like Truman!

:P

-Hoot

[MonkeyFunk]

65. Truman got more than 3% in the primaries

[RufusTFirefly]

70. When Truman was elected, we had a vibrant press.

There weren't just nine gigantic media conglomerates that define most of what we read, see, and hear.

[MonkeyFunk]

88. Kucinich's problem

is not with the press - it's with Kucinich.

[southerncrone]

68. The "unelectable" thinking is what got us here to start with.

The right to vote for the person we feel will represent the best ideals for America is what our FREEDOM is!
Choosing a candidate on the "electable" theory is operating out of FEAR. This is another MSM & GOP tactic to deter voters from picking the BEST candidate, instead voting for the "safe" candidate, which usually is not the BEST for the avg. American.

If we have a candidate that is VERY GOOD & stands for what we believe, WE SHOULD VOTE FOR THEM!!!

I am not afraid to vote for DK, our world is changing, there are many, many dissatisfied independent voters out there who resonate w/what DK represents. Especially the IMPEACH CHENEY bill.

I VOTE KUCINICH because he is NOT a CORPORATE CANDIDATE & HE HAS VISION!!!

[Individualist]

79. Well said!

:applause:

It's time to elect a progressive and get rid of DLC.

[warren pease]

105. Yup, and...

I object to a system that automatically excludes Dennis Kucinich from the "real" contenders just because our fair and balanced media can find no shortage of fucking lard ass think tank types -- usually from the Heritage Foundation or the AEI or some other Neanderthal group with a vested interest in weeding out any who might threaten the status quo -- who will testify that he's too far from the mainstream, isn’t tall enough and besides he doesn't have the greatest hair.

Kucinich just happens to be the only candidate to advocate impeachment NOW, single-payer universal health care, getting out of Iraq NOW, impoverishing the Pentagon for a change, and using the money to fund sustainable energy research, ending the fictitious "war on terror" and going after the actual terrorists using proven police methods rather than invading armies, and reversing both patriot acts and the military commissions act NOW.

Now that's a candidate I can support and, in fact, have with money and other stuff. But we all know it's just pissing up a rope because we're going to get two pre-packaged cardboard cutouts -- one called a Democrat and the other a Republican -- who will stand for most of the same things, the Democrat a little lighter on domestic fascism, the Republican advocating spilling vats of blood all over the planet because "we're at war, dammit."

And, because we're treated as children by mass media and the US political movers and shakers, we're supposed to troop dutifully to the polls to ratify one of these two chosen representatives of the status quo. And we're even supposed to believe that, in a country with about 300 million people, these are the two best we could find.

If I didn't care about federal judicial appointments, creeping fascism at home, single-payer health care for all, rampant acts of state sponsored terrorism abroad, state sanctioned ecocide, and the draining of what's left of the treasury to further enrich the execs and shareholders of the machinery of war, I'd damn well stay home myself.


wp

[fujiyama]

69. One simple reason

He's a House Representative who has never won a state wide race.

Hey, if he had proven that he could run and win a statewide race in OH, I'd look at him a lot more seriously. Say he was popular in OH as a whole, I'd consider him more closely.

As it stands, he didn't even win his own district in the '04 primaries. And he came in at what...fourth place in Ohio's primary? Now some will say Ohio's Democrats were taken in by "electability"...Well, usually the favorite son appeal is very strong, and he didn't really have that.

Now, I'm not saying I don't agree with his stances and I'll be the first to say he's been consistently correct on the war, he's right about wanting to establish single payer healthcare, and impeaching Dick Cheney.

But being right doesn't mean you'll win 270 Electoral Votes.

[RufusTFirefly]

72. Bravo fujiyama!

Truly, that's the first sensible objection I've read thus far in this thread.
As a general rule, I support candidates who have proven their ability to win a statewide election.
In other words, a Senator or a Governor.
Too bad the rest of the field is so goddamn barren this time.

UPON EDIT: Given what happened in Ohio in 2004, I'm not sure the voting tallies from that state serve to support your point though.

[Imagevision]

89. Which is why I say DK. needs to revamp his campaign methods & strategies...

it's 2007, the right campaign strategy & manager could quite possibly put Kusinich back in the race, they have some excellent talking points but are experiencing difficulties getting them exposed properly.

[Mind_your_head]

76. Well, Abraham Lincoln didn't do so very well in his previous elections either

but 'he' turned out to be 'pretty okay', didn't he?

Check it out for yourself!:-)

[RufusTFirefly]

78. Right. Rigid adherence to precedent can eventually prove to be self-fulfilling. n/t

[Orrex]

80. And the electoral landscape is completely unchanged in 140 years, right?

We'll really get this paperless ballot thing sorted out, once we get those newfangled "electric" lights I've been hearing about.

[Mind_your_head]

83. That IS a problem......

but that doesn't mean that human 'hearts' are any different from what they were then.

FAIR elections.....Yi.....who would ever think that we would have to WORK, YES WORK for that!

[ashling]

75. In answer to your question,

Who decides the electability of a candidate anyway?

actually, I am the decider.

There! It needed to be said.

:bounce:

[Kazak]

81. If Gore's name isn't on the primary ballot,...

I will likely put a check mark next to Kuke's name.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

84. K&R!!! Too many of us are too superficial for our own good!

I bet Jesus was about the same height!:eyes: As far as charisma, I personally think he has plenty! Gore/Kucinich would be great and that way we would be honored to have a great vice President for a change! He is a great man and a lot like Al Gore! They are both Heros! :loveya:

[Perky]

92. the correct answer is "what" (?)

"Original Message
Dennis Kucinich is he not electable or what? WTF?

[Turn CO Blue]

96. Sort of OT rant: but if I see anymore posts about height

and anyone man or woman being too short to be President, I'm gonna lose it.

I am married to a 5'6" man. He is funny and brilliant and kind and very good looking. He still has a hot bod after 20 years together, too! And I know he's been discriminated against a few times because he is SHORT (I hate that word) and he is hispanic. He has a degree in music composition and a Masters in Business Administration, so he is obviously brilliant, articulate, educated well-rounded and well-spoken -- but all some types of people (including women) care about is some stupid ideal of "tall" men being leaders and the only powerful, desirable men. It hurts me to think of the times I have heard people openly teasing him or insulting him about his height (he plays keyboards in a band on the weekends). He ignores it and I try to, but it seems to be the last acceptable prejudice (and hate speech) allowed in public. People think "short people" should be teased and are less worthy and apparently that we "got no reason to live".

It is the same despicable crap the ever-present "they" push out about very young, thin, blonde women being the only ideal for women -- instead of diversity and wisdom and beauty within -- yet some people are still buying into this propaganda!

The other thing is, I am only 5'0" myself - a short, petite person, so his 5'6" towers over me. Just right.

[slowry]

98. Kucinich doesn't represent anywhere near the majority of the Democratic party.

Thus he isn't really a Democratic candidate, thus you should be BANNED!

:sarcasm:

[eridani]

99. If you support him in the primary--

--that will push the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction.

[SammyWinstonJack]

101. We shouldn't let them tell us who is electable and who isn't!

We should just stop listening to the CORPORATE WHORES WHO DO NOT HAVE OUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART! When will we ever learn? :banghead:

[elocs]

106. This is all academic since he will not get the nomination.

Yes, in a perfect world where there is no mass media or other personal perceptions he might have a chance, but welcome to the real world. It's like when you are a teen and you cannot understand why everybody does not love your music. People don't and won't.
Yes, Kucinich is not electable for many reasons some of which are that millions of people do not agree with him, even some Democrats. Imagine that? And it has nothing to do with his stature.

[Imagevision]

121. This is all academic? - I would think by now this is old news with a serious campaign manager, deal

with it or be replaced!

[SammyWinstonJack]

126. Kucinich isn't electable because the "MSM" tell us he isn't, plain and simple and disgusting, imho.

:banghead:

[elocs]

211. It's really more simple than that: most Democratic voters do not support him.

It's very convenient to have the MSM as the whipping boy and excuse for why Kucinich cannot be elected. Just because his supporters view him as a god doe not mean that everybody else does, but they just cannot seem to grasp that. It's always some kind of plot or conspiracy to keep him down. My own Senator Feingold has the courage of his convictions and some good ideas, but even he realizes that he cannot be elected president (even though he is not short) and that there is no point in wasting time and money in running for president. He works to be the best senator he can be and I think he gets his message out there.

[antigop]

226. And it is being echoed by those at DU. Sad, isn't it? n/t

[Individualist]

234. Not surprising.

Neocons and their DLC enablers are getting more and more scared of DK's appeal to voters. They know that DLCers are a very small minority in comparison to grassroots voters. DLC and their cheerleaders, like their neocon pals, ratchet up their attacks and lies against anyone who's a threat to them.

If grassroots voters will simply ignore the memes being thrown around by neocons, MSM and DLC cheerleaders and instead vote for the candidate who will be the best president, DK can very well be the nominee. No one should allow his/her vote to be influenced by memes and propaganda.

[antigop]

237. The noise machine is cranking up big time. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

118. Al Gore is electable. If he gets in, I won't have to vote for Kooch in the primary.

As it stands, now, though, Edwards lost me with his gay marriage comments. (Might vote for his wife, though.) The other two? Coke vs. Pepsi? No thanks.

[Tom Joad]

120. Only candidate to oppose oil privatization and the complete withdrawal of

troops and contractors from Iraq. and takes attacking Iran off the table, puts impeachment on.

If you want dems to support an alternative agenda, Kucinich is your man.

If you want dems to suck at the tits of corporate money... you have other choices.

[in_cog_ni_to]

124. I cannot vote for anyone who would ban flag burning by voting for a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

to prohibit it. 3 TIMES no less. The last vote was just 4 years ago.


Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.
Desecration of Flag resolution: Vote to pass the joint resolution to put forward a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Note: A two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting (284 in this case) is required to pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
Reference: Resolution sponsored by Thomas, R-CA; Bill HJRes.4 ; vote number 2003-234 on Jun 3, 2003

Voted YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration.
Proposing a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Bill HJRES 36 ; vote number 2001-232 on Jul 17, 2001


Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Reference: Resolution proposed by Cunningham, R-CA; Bill HJ.Res.33 ; vote number 1999-252 on Jun 24, 1999

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Civil_Rights.htm

[Imagevision]

128. Dennis Kucinich Will Be A guest On The David letterman Show Friday Night (11:30)

[scarletwoman]

142. Thanks for the heads up! I'll have to stay up to catch the show! (nt)

[Rex]

134. Dennis Kucinich is the best thing to happen to the Democratic party

since Paul Wellstone. You know he is telling the truth, people can't stand being told horrible news. Truth hurts.

[trashcanistanista]

147. I've returned from the Pres. Forum on PBS (Left coast).

I WANT Kucinich for President. He was right on EVERY answer. I will SEE TO IT that he is elected, electable or not. Are you with me??

[Rex]

150. Yes!

I'm with you!!! This country needs DK and I think people know it now more than ever!

[ProudDad]

156. Just watched it

Dennis WON the "debate" if substance over style was the criteria.

It was great fun watching the Kucinich - Gravel one-two punch.

The others couldn't even come close although Hillary did have a couple of good moments.

[TahitiNut]

196. He was superb!

It was sure obvious that he had a well-informed and progressive audience, too. (I would've loved to be there and wallow in the "vibes.")

:pals:

[southerncrone]

164. You're right! We must keep him off small planes!

[2Design]

141. people just need to vote for him in primary and forget about the media

the media wants to pick a loser so their republick dictators can rule since it is great for their profits.

He is electable if we elect him

[ProudDad]

146. If Kucinich had Hillary's hundred millions

He'd be a shoe-in!!!

[trashcanistanista]

151. If he wins the primary he will

get the money.

[ProudDad]

159. I'm afraid that's the catch-22

If you ain't got the (corporate) money you got NO chance in most of the primaries.

[Greyhound]

177. The primaries have become nothing more than corporate screening systems, ensuring

that no real choice is available. If Wes Clark should decide to run, it will be the primaries that will be his biggest hurdle and nearly inevitable defeat. The choices made available in either party will ensure that there will be no major departure from the status quo.

[slick8790]

158. Yeah, sure, he's electable.

Maybe. That is if only DU voted. And still probably not. He doens't appeal to most of the sheeple. And like it or not, they pick the president.

[ProudDad]

160. If the sheeple were allowed to hear what he says

and actually cared a little, he'd be a shoe-in...

The MSM won't allow that to happen.

[trashcanistanista]

171. I don't know, it's early.

This country is going to hell on fast track. Anything could happen. The Supreme Court decision today, are they going to outlaw abortion next month? an impending war, there could be a perfect storm setting him up for a primary win. The democrats are not looking good to say the least (blow back?). The majority of Americans are severely unhappy and may not perceive Kucinich as that "out there" as some here do. He has the potential of being regarded as the only sane one left.

[TZ]

207. Are scientists who are kind of known for thinking skill sheeple?

Most people I know in the science field regard him as a pseudoscientific nutters. He has learned to keep his mouth shut of late, but he used to spout all sorts of unproven unscientific junk. And oh, btw, I have OODLES of relatives from Ohio, particularly from the Cleveland area, and they all dislike him INTENSELY. Outside of his district, he has like a zip approval rating in his OWN home state.
In fact, my relatives(some whom are conservative, some who are liberal) consider him a freakin JOKE. These are not people just being influenced by the MSM, these are people who have seen this guy in action for years. People like Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich are a 1,000 times more popular in Ohio than Kuncinich.

[ProudDad]

246. Most of the "scientists" I've known

are so myopic it ain't funny.

They know their narrow specialty and are nearly uniformly uninformed about anything outside of that narrow focus.

Not a great judge of a statesman's character.

Where did you get this?

"he has like a zip approval rating in his OWN home state"

I looked and couldn't find anything on the web about Kucinich's Ohio approval rating.

[Orrex]

250. Citation

Where did you get this?

"he has like a zip approval rating in his OWN home state"

I looked and couldn't find anything on the web about Kucinich's Ohio approval rating.

Page 30 of this PDF shows him with about 9.01 % in Ohio in the 2004 Presidential primary.

Not a great showing for our esteemed statesman, I'd say.

[Yukari Yakumo]

165. The reason he isn't electable.

It's rather simple.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/113236/176

An amateur campaign manager can easily spin Kuch into being an unhinged loon. Trust me, If he were remotely competitive in the polls, we'd definitely hear him being called "Kuch the Kook".

But he's not even remotely competitive. In Ohio, his home state, he has never tread higher than 3%.

[cgrindley]

185. Utterly unelectable (nt)

would be beaten soundly by all but the most frighteningly crazy republicans. Even Cheney would probably beat him.

[DemBones DemBones]

193. Those who won't support Kucinich are going to

deserve the president we get stuck with.

[19jet54]

197. Media image - Hollywood - History

I mean no disrespect, but America watches too many adds of young, slender, tall & beautiful people. The marketing hype is "only beautiful people are smart" or "only the young are smart"?

In my opinion, America will never elect a short, old, skinny man who is only a mustache away from an exact visual match with Hitler; Even though he is one terrific, smart and dedicated peace loving Congressman! Simply put, but brutal, his looks ARE working against him. Happened to JFK vs Nixon and Clinton vs Perot vs Bush I?

[Fire Walk With Me]

199. In a society that badly, badly needs Dennis' and Gore's values, we're nuts to ignore them.

And the reason I'm having difficulty being supportive of Gore is -solely- due to the inevitability of the negatives dropping endless diversion and derision upon him, interfering with getting the job done as it needs to get done, to reverse and remove said negatives.

The country is overdue for a return to anything approaching honor and decency. Just because people like Rove -can- shove wrenches into the gears doesn't mean that they should, but of course, this is the nature of selfishness and dishonour. That we tolerate it at all is amazing. We've grown so inured to the utterly despicable that the honorable appear impossible to elect.

Want a reference? Read Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" and Vaclav Havel's speeches, especially the ones at the beginning of his office.

Meanwhile, BushCo make unification that much easier by ignoring subpoenas, forcing the pendulum to swing away from them.

[cui bono]

204. Right on! nt

[TZ]

205. I'm originally from Ohio and I have tons of relatives there..

and he couldn't even win a statewide vote. They think in general he is a little strange if not outright nutters. The district he represents is BY FAR the most liberal district. And Ohio isn't really a "red state" any more (look at all the dems that they just elected). If you can't win your home state, you aren't going to win anything nationally.
Personally I dislike him..he is kind of anti-science. He has toned his talk down since running for president (he's just as hypocritical as any politician, he's not DIFFERENT despite what people say) but he tends to "cherry-pick" what science he finds "acceptable"..Evolution, Global Warming since those are democratic platform beliefs, yes he believes in them. But he has spouted some woefully ignorant things in the past when it comes to medical science and biotechnology etc. And yes, I am not about to vote for someone who talks about new age harmonic conversion, which is junk psuedoscience.

[ProudDad]

245. We're aware of your prejudice against Dennis

I'd be interested in knowing what authoritative basis you have for this view?

Your friends and family and a couple of "scientists" don't like him, probably because the MSM cherry picks any Kucinich sound bites they put on the air to make him look like a kook.

He sure as HELL didn't look or sound like a kook last night!!!


On Edit: Here's another guy that was considered un-electable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brown

Gov. Moonbeam...

[Orrex]

248. I don't remember President Brown's term

When was that, again?

Kucinich does poorly even in Ohio, except in his home district. He has no chance of winning a general election, and not much more chance of winning a Dem primary.

What Kucinich's most ardent supporters don't acknowledge is that he might simply be unelectable all on his own, before we even get to arguments about unkind media or corporatist stonewalling.

It's convenient and more satisfying to blame Kucinich's unelectability on external forces, but he'd be pretty much equally unelectable even if these alleged negative pressures were eliminated.

[Vidar]

206. The last good man to be elected was Jimmy Carter, & he's

still scaring the hell out of the powers that be. Dennis is "unelectable" because he is similarly a good man, & he has my vote. Anything other than the corrupt status quo is a long shot, but so what. Real progress is the cumulative product of doing the right thing despite an improbable outcome.

[Virginia Dare]

217. The only reason Abraham Lincoln, a very good man,

was ever elected was because he was so hated by the Democrats in the south that the powers that be knew that his election would push us into a civil war, and that is exactly what they wanted. Once the war was over, he had outlived his usefulness and was promptly disposed of.

[Vidar]

223. Not to mention Theodore Roosevelt, who was backed for

vice president to marginalize him & get him out of New York politics.

[Virginia Dare]

235. Back to your point about Carter...

his downfall came about because he was the last President who told the truth to the American people, and they didn't want to hear it. He was honest about how our non renewable energy resources were going to begin to dry up and cause us major problems in the future, so we'd better start finding ways to conserve. That was a very hard pill to swallow, and something that the corporate power elite didn't want known.

Along comes Ronald Reagan, the great communicator, who cheerfully tells us that is all nonsense, that America can retain it's benevolent power throughout the world and keep up the mass consumption, as long as we get rid of the nasty Russians and give tax cuts to the rich! Yay!!!

[Vidar]

264. Yup, the famous "malaise" speech, all of it true, was used to sink him,

along with Reagan's duplicity on the hostage crisis.

[JTFrog]

210. What's with all the projecting

and spewing of the crap that the "CM" has been shoving down our throats?

My vote isn't for sale to the highest bidder. Is yours? Sure sounds like alot of folks would sell theirs and dismiss DK because "insert your favorite "CM" excuse here".

Did anyone actually listen to the reaction of the crowd last night during the debates? The only person getting the huge applause was DK. I was amazed. They loved him. He got the biggest cheers of the night anytime he mentioned defunding the war and using the money for education and health care.

But nevermind all that, go back and watch some show that will bring Ann Coulter on and let them tell you who to vote for.

:mad:

[bleedingheart]

215. Dennis has to develop a drinking problem so that people will want to have a beer with him

cuz that is the thinking of the average voter apparently..

[Virginia Dare]

216. That is the cold brutal truth...

sorry to say. I'd love to see it, I have sweet dreams about it, but no, it will never happen. Don't blow that bubble because it will be burst.

[pnwmom]

219. He's not electable -- in the general election --

because he's significiantly further to the left than the average Democrat -- and even more so than the average American. Also, he's too philosophical and ethereal to appeal to the vast majority of voters.

Many of us still remember the pain of watching George McGovern, another a great progressive, win only ONE state in the 1972 election -- Massachusetts.

And anyone who thinks that the American public is ready for a first lady with a tongue ring is dreaming.

[Algorem]

222. Letterman's voting for Kucinich (or not who knows)

Kucinich is a funnyman on Letterman'

http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1183106362269070.xml&coll=2

Friday, June 29, 2007
Mark Dawidziak
Plain Dealer Television Critic

...Funny thing, though: Kucinich equals Letterman in the laughter and applause department during a taped appearance on tonight's edition of the CBS show. It airs at 11:35 p.m. on WOIO Channel 19...

"It's coming along fine," Kucinich says, according to a transcript of the interview provided by CBS. "They had a national poll released last week that showed me at 3 percent. Which means that some people with a margin of error believe I actually exist."

He gets the laugh, setting up a genial conversation about the candidate's beliefs and backgrounds. When Letterman asks him if he has thought as far ahead as a possible running mate, Kucinich says, "Have to be somebody who would stand for health care for all and for peace."...

You don't need to take a poll or consult a political spin doctor to know how Kucinich fares in the Letterman den. The gap-toothed one provides the verdict: "Well, you got my vote."

[antigop]

227. Here is why people have to spread the myth he is "unelectable"

http://opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00003572&cycle=2006

Dennis scares the shit out of the corporatists.

[BrainGlutton]

232. I want DK for president, but he is NOT electable.

And it's not mainly because he's short, has a funny-sounding name, etc. Sad to say, DK is not electable mainly BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT OF HIS POLITICS. The American people, while their political views are actually pretty far to the left of what the MSM acknowledges (see this recent article in "The Nation": http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein ) are still not ready for a message THAT far to the left.

[BrainGlutton]

238. I DO plan to vote for him in the primaries, BTW.

[EndElectoral]

233. Kuccinich has been "right" all along....The only true Progresive currently running

I get tired of this "does he look Presidential (in other words pretty enough)? does he have a chance? Is he electable?"

We let our media inform us otherwise, and people are sold madison avenue advertising so that substance is lost in favor of appearances and double talk.

Currently, Kuccinich is the only one running on the Dem ticket I could get behind in the primary. He's got it right on health care and the Iraq War and on trade as well.

[Radical Activist]

241. He's a piss poor manager who would probably wreck the country.

The way he handles his campaigns is evidence of that. He's great on the issues but the thought of Kucinich managing the country scares the crap out of me. He's unelectable because he keeps screwing things up for himself.

[Ron Green]

255. If you think the President "manages" the country, you've studied different civics than I.

What we need is a President with the messages Kucinich delivers: health care, peace & diplomacy, sustainable energy and environmental practices, living wages for workers, fat taxes on fat cats, and so on. There are plenty of competent people to manage such policies, once the citizens of this country realize, and thereby pressure their representatives, that we can have these things.

[Radical Activist]

259. Appointing the cabinet, other top positions

and leading the federal bureaucracy are all managerial tasks. The President does a lot more than give speeches. Based on the fact that last time around he had two different incompetent campaign managers who had never even worked on any campaign at any level, it suggests to me that this is not who I want filling administrative positions that will run the government.

If he wants to deliver a message he can do that as a Congressman or citizen activist, at least if he ever gets his act together enough to learn how to earn better media coverage. That can't be entirely blamed on others either.

[Bake]

243. So vote for DK in the your primary. Urge others to do so.

But when (perhaps I should say "if") he fails to get the nomination, please support the Democratic NOMINEE and don't whine about it.

Bake

[Silent3]

249. Hear, hear! n/t

[Strawman]

251. I think about this alot. Utlimately we are acting as citizens, not analysts

or pundits, or prognosticators.

I agree with DK on the issues. But I do worry about "wasting my vote." I wonder if it would be better spent on a candidate who seems to have a better chance like Edwards who is also preferable, I think, to the others.

I worry that if DK were elected he might not be a sucessful president. He would be sabotaged at every turn and might not prove flexible enough to make sensible compromises.

But ultimately, maybe I can't worry about that other stuff. Maybe when I put on those hats and try to do those other jobs I'm neglecting my actual job as a citizen. Maybe Howard Zinn is right when he writes:

"We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do."

http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0507

Hopefully, I can remember that. Take off the pundit hat. Be a citizen.

I think now would be a good time for me to contribute to Dennis Kucinich.
http://www.actblue.com/page/du-presidential

If he loses, so be it. I'm going to vote for the candidate who reflects my beliefs and I suggest everyone else do the same.

[lonestarnot]

260. What a long old thread. Did we figure it out yet?

[antigop]

262. Yes -- the noise machine is cranking up big time and Dennis scares the shit out of the corporatists

n/t

[lonestarnot]

263. Sick 'em Dennis!

[Orrex]

266. Everyone has figured it out

Except those of us who mysteriously maintain the belief that Kucinich is electable.

[lonestarnot]

261. Dennis is electable, yes he is.