Didn't Kucinich request his delegates support Edwards in Iowa last time around?

[dave29]

If it didn't look like he would win?

In my opinion this whole thing reflects poorly (once again) on both of them.

a) Kucinich seems to feel he's being left out of the party, so he throws a tantrum, but in this case the party is actually backroom politicking.
b) Edwards clearly likes to strike deals with other candidates rather than stand on his own platform and have it speak for itself.

Say what you want about anyone's (including Hillary's) explanation of the conversation, they shouldn't be striking deals with one another, rather they should be expressing these ideas publically, not in private with each other... just stinks up the room when it comes out like this.

That's my two cents. Say what you want about this years election maneuvering, last time around I was deeply disappointed in both of them for doing the exact same thing.

No wonder Al Gore has fallen out of love with politics.

God, I wish he was running.

[EFerrari]

1. I don't understand why DK is perceived as throwing a tantrum.

Could you say more about that?

[dave29]

2. that may be a bit harsh, agreed

that's my perception based on all of the articles I have read, andmy personal recollection of what he has done in the past when he feels he is not increasing his poll numbers. He was all too happy to send his delegates to Edwards last time around, in Iowa. I think he feels a bit betrayed by Edwards, in that regard.

[Cameron27]

3. Or he just doesn't want to ge thrown out of the debates...

He actually was very reserved when he spoke about it, the press elevated it to lashing out, bashing, etc.

[dave29]

5. Ask yourself this:

Why was he so quick to throw his delegates behind Edwards last time around? Kucinich was making the same arguments last election about not getting enough attention, and yet he was certainly not hesitant at all about throwing his supporters in Edwards direction in Iowa.

I guess maybe I still have some bitterness about that as a Dean supporter. It pissed me off then, and I guess I just feel like Dennis may not be as authentic as some here presume him to be. Ditto on Edwards.

[Cameron27]

6. I don't have the answer to that question,

but maybe some of his supporters would have an explanation. I know there were a lot of nasty backstories with some of the candidates in 2004, I just didn't focus on Kooch vs Dean.

[EFerrari]

4. I was just really looking for another perspective because

it seemed to me that he had an honest complaint. Just checking.

(And I expect him to be excoriated in the party and in the media.)

I didn't pay attention to what he did with his delegates last time. Good info to have.

[dave29]

9. yes there was a last minute "deal" struck between Edwards and Kucinich in Iowa

as a Dean supporter then and now, it still pisses me off. Perfectly legal, but it just stank.

" At the last minute Edwards also reached a deal with Kucinich for all of Kucinich supporters to go to the Edwards camp if they were not viable in their caucuses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

[Cha]

10. I was a little outraged meself

because Edwards had voted for the IWR and Dean was an early non-supporter of the bogus War On Iraq. That's why I went for Dean.

Kucinich is fine..I'm glad his voice is in the debates and Elizabeth Edwards says they just want to break them up into smaller groups. Maybe this is being made puposefully antagonistic by the corporatemediawhores to disgruntle the Dems?

[MADem]

8. Well, because he DID in his press release--he said he was OUTRAGED

Yet, when he went to news interviews and TV live feeds about it, he was adorable and smiling, as though he was making a campaign appearance. He quickly morphed, in two interviews I saw, from "Oh well that was wrong and they shouldn't do it" to changing the subject and starting in on a stump speech.

He was conning the media for free airtime. He'll have a tougher time selling fake "outrage" next time he pulls this shit.

He's desperate to bump his numbers --and his campaign contributions -- to remain eligible for public financing. He needs people to throw a few bucks at him as a result of this stunt so he'll get more federal matching funds.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml

[EFerrari]

11. We are. n/t

[MADem]

15. Well, you may be, but he sure wasn't when he went on TV and tried to respond to

"Why are you angry?" with "Why I want to be President."

Fuck him. He's NOT serious.

[EFerrari]

16. He reframed the question intelligently and that makes him

not serious?

Oh, come on. :)

[MADem]

17. Reframed the question? Give me a break. It's called changing the subject.

When Republicans pull that crap, we don't let them get away with the "reframing" excuse.

If someone got an interview with OJ Simpson with an understanding that he was showing up to discuss how he killed his wife, and then he decided to talk about flower arranging, you don't think the booker and anchor would be a bit pissed? You don't think the interview segment might not go over too well?

What makes him "not serious" is one percent in March, April, May, June and July. He's NOT resonating. He's reached his critical mass.

He was only using "Faux" outrage (and he used that very "outrage" word in his press release) to generate free airtime, buzz, and contributions qualifying for federal matching funds--and it was really obvious once he was interviewed by the talking heads. The press release was just bait to get the bookings.

It's obvious what he did. It was a stunt. And it went over badly. His "respect" quotient is going down as a result of it.

Funny how those two sneaky conspirators didn't mention any particular names of "unserious" candidates in their few-sentence conversation, but it's fascinating how he automatically ASSUMED that he was on that list.

Which sorta says something.

[EFerrari]

18. Yes, it says Dennis has a pair where the anointed ones have a committee.

And no, I won't trade you.

I object to being manipulated in any way. Maybe that's my major malfunction. So, no, I don't appreciate Senator Clinton's efforts to narrow the scope of this debate for me.

[MADem]

19. Huh? Who said anything about trading anything? You weren't referring to that 'pair,' I hope.

If you don't like being manipulated, you sure seem onboard with the DK "bait and switch" technique.

That was some pretty classic manipulation on his part, if you ask me. And I'm not the only one who noticed it.

[EFerrari]

20. We're gonna disagree, MADem.

:shrug:

[MADem]

21. I know. I just didn't get the trading comment. It didn't go with the previous comment at all. NT

[EFerrari]

22. It was stupidity and if we can, let's work on the things we agree on.

And there's plenty of those. :)

[Clark2008]

12. Stunt?

How is a "stunt" to be angered by having two other supposedly Democratic candidate try to usurp your ability to debate?

And, I think the champion of the phony "adorable and smiling" award would go to Edwards - not Kucinich. After all, that's about the only thing Edwards has going for him - besides his ability to sincerely apologize the next day for whatever stupid thing he voted on, said or did the day before. :eyes:

For the record, I don't have a candidate, yet, so I'm not necessarily sticking up for Dennis. I know he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning either the primary or a general election.

[MADem]

14. A stunt is what you pull when you 'pretend' to be outraged to get free airtime.

When you write angry press releases that are ON FIRE, and then go on TV with a big grin. The TV bookers read that angry diatribe, and they go to the trouble of setting up the interview, getting the satellite time, doing the Q and A backgrounders for the anchors, and they're expecting DK to give them detailed reasons about why he's pissed off--because that is WHY they INVITED him.

But when he was asked about the press release, the REASON for being on TV, on at least two occasions that I saw, he quickly dispensed with the question (It's wrong, but let me tell you....) and instead tried to answer with a generic STUMP SPEECH. The question wasn't "Why does DK want to be President?" but that's the bullshit he pulled.

That's a STUNT.

Please don't throw Edwards out there at me, like you're "hurting" me with that shit about his smile or his hair. I, too, am an UNDECIDED VOTER. I've DECIDED that I am definitely not going to vote for KUCINICH, though, after this asinine performance--not that he had my vote anyway. But he did have a measure of my respect, and he LOST that with his "stunt."

I'd like to see the top tier candidates go after each other. I'd like to see the second tier candidates do it too, but not in a crowd of ten. Small groups, small debates, with the lead dogs butting heads FIRST. Then mix it up.

This election is too important to diddle around with one percenters. If they can't bring SUPPORT, they need to step aside.

[Bucky]

7. Disagree on both counts

Kucinich doesn't seem very whiny in all this. He's standing on principle. I don't like most of his positions and I'd probably even vote for Clinton over him if it came down to the two of them. But that said, I really admire the way he's handling this. Our eventual nominee should get some backbone lessons from this guy.

[mmonk]

13. Dennis has the right to call them out when

the process already tries to limit candidates and their exposure.