Selling Kucinich short - Should the media elect our next president?

[Dover]

Selling Kucinich short - should the media elect our president, or should we?

By Adam Penn
Wednesday, October 1, 2003

Is it just me, or is something very curious going on in the race to choose a Democratic nominee for President? First Howard Dean, and now Wesley Clark have charged to the lead, and yet almost every Dean or Clark supporter I speak with says that he or she actually agrees more with the policies of Dennis Kucinich. Many of the articles I read in support of Dean or Clark state the same thing, that Kucinich is actually more in tune with the author's way of thinking, but that the author will support Dean or Clark anyway. The reasoning behind this is usually that the number one priority is to get Bush out of the White House, and that Kucinich is not electable.

I can't help but think that we've got a real-life case of the Emperor's New Clothes going on. Everyone says Kucinich is not electable, it seems, because that is what the media tells them. I'm the little child who has to ask the question - "but if so many Dean and Clark supporters actually prefer Kucinich, and if these two candidates can beat Bush, then wouldn't Kucinich be able to beat Bush if all those Dean and Clark supporters simply voted for Kucinich instead?"......>>

http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/news/opinion/cam_colccpennms10012003.htm

[morgan2]

1. nothing new

There is nothing new about the media choosing the candidates who are viable. A lot has to do with history. People remember what happened with McGovern and take that into account when selecting their candidate. Everyone wants Bush out and are to scared of supporting someone they think has less of a chance of winning.

[Abe Linkman]

5. You didn't respond to the argument

If Clark, Dean and Kerry voters vote for Dennis - then Dennis can win.

[boxster]

15. True, very true. But you'd have to convince them all

that their candidates are "unelectable".

:P

[OKNancy]

21. Yes, but

I think, and I'm sure others agree, that the above three would make a better president. I just don't think Dennis would make a good president. And it's almost like, if you say anything negative about DK, his supporters get their feelings hurt. Dean, Clark and Kerry supporters get mad, Kucinich supporters get sad.

[LWolf]

26. Interesting observation.

You might have something there.

I think all supporters of a particular candidate don't like negative remarks about their choice, and negative remarks generate anger, ridicule, argument, whatever. It could be true that DK supporters get sad. Many of us tend to be idealists, and we want the world to reach for the ideal. We are saddened by fear, hopelessness, or unwillingness to step outside the zone of safety and reach.

Pragmatists win more often. But...if you look at the most powerful models/achievers of good in the world, they are the idealists. IMHO. We have our legitimate place in the scheme of things. We're the ones who dare to dream. And the world is a better place for it.

[JohnKleeb]

27. The ones remembered are idealists imo

Youre right. Well of course we are gonna get a little sad, when someone shoves it down our throat would you rather us sting back because I can sting hard lol if I want to. I tell you, the world remembers the idealist more so than the pragamatist, case in point FDR is remembered, RFK, MLK, and it goes on.

[Dhalgren]

42. The reason sadness is often the response

is because we know that many of DK's detractors actually agree with DK's politics much more than they agree with the candidate they are currently supporting. And that is sad, indeed.
It is also disheartening when even the staunchest Democrat decides that the more Republican-like a candidate is, the more "electable" that candidate is. If even we say that the more a Democrat looks like a Republican the more electable he/she is, then we have already lost - regardless of who eventually wins. How could one not be saddened by this state of affairs?

[foo_bar]

2. I blame the orbital mind control beams

n/t

[bobthedrummer]

51. HR 2977 The Space Preservation Act of 2001 mentioned mind control

as well as several exotic spacebased weapons systems but all of that language was "disappeared" from the revision. Mind control is quite real and once again DK is the only voice in Congress that even attempted to address this highly classified area.

Mind control is an unpopular term but if we take it to mean covert influencing of behavior for an unknown political agenda from many high-tech sources developed over the last 50 years the actuality of whatever you chose to call it becomes striking.

Here is a link to the original HR 2977 text from a mind control website. We are not talking about ufo aliens and other farout themes here. More like spinoffs from the Cold War and SDI as well as the most recent advances in medicine and IT
http://www.raven1.net/govptron.htm

There are many nonlethal weapons related to this-they have US Patents
http://www.datafilter.com/mc/nonlethalWeapons.html

Aerial mind control has been used to influence foreign elections
http://www.raven1.net/commsolo.htm

There was a covert war between the US/USSR to develop these systems-we won that one too.
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~welsh/book.htm

Mind control is quite real. And DK took it on which may add to his electability issues, he is very bold.

[KittyWampus]

3. I Won't Say Dennis Isn't Electable

That is too negative. However, I WILL say that I dropped my support, even though his agenda most closely mirrors my own.

The reason I dropped mysupport is because he has shown that he can't moderate his "tone" and the Hellooooooooo was the last straw.

This is NOT a superficial criticism. Being able to control's one tone and image is part of a politician's "instrument" and always has been. Benjamin Franklin used to wheel rolls of paper to his shop so that people would percieve him as industrious and humble. He WAS ACTUALLY BOTH- but also cultivated that image in the public's mind.

Dennis is like a vioinist who is good enough to make it into a Regional but doesn't quite cut it as a National Orchestra.

Yes, he can perform, but just not to the caliber that would make it in the "National" level where EVERY preformance is expected to be perfect.

Also, I question whether he'd be able to get things done with a possible Republican House and Senate.

Dennis is a shining light in the Senate, I'm glad he's in the debates. He'll do more good in the Senate in 2005 than he would inthe White House.

[cosmicdot]

9. he's actually a Congressman, not a Senator

and, I'm not sure if any Democrat facing a solid Republican House and Senate with a Republican-controlled Media could go challenged-free without cutting the people short ...

why not have a leader who will push the envelope?

It's his ideals which he can promote from a leadership position in The White House and through the powers of the Presidency itself ... and, the inspiration of others to join him by running for office, etc.

the premise of the thread isn't Dennis's electability - we supporters believe he is -- it's the power of the Media in the way it controls the sound bytes and such to influence "opinion" ... "image" ... in selecting our candidate ... which cuts Dennis and his message for the people short ... the more corporate-friendly candidates are the ones the Media favor ...

Let's make 2004 a campaign which will have all the pundits and CEOs with mouths' agape wondering 'what happened?" ...

[KittyWampus]

10. Thank You For Pointing Out My Mistake

Dennis Kucinich definately believes in what he is saying. Sincerity is really at a premium.

[rhite5]

11. I am not hearing the same things you are, cryingshame

When I heard Dennis speak in Eugene in July I was really impressed. He left me feeling genuinely hopeful for the first time that genuine changes can be made. We CAN work together for a better society, we CAN work with the citizens of the countries of the world that are more civilized than we are, we CAN learn and share with them to make the world a better place.

As far as effectiveness goes, watch the effect Dennis has on the US Congress where progressives are badly outnumbered, look at how he is respected in the Progressive Caucus which he co-chairs. Look at how active he continues to be in Congress even though he is in the middle of an election campaign.

His solutions to the critical issues are RIGHT ON. They really cut to the quick, they do not dance around and nibble at the edges:

* Rescind the entire PATRIOT Act, * Out of Iraq NOW. * Restore our participation in all the International Agreements -- from the Geneva Convention to the Kyoto Protocol to Nuclear Non-Proliferation --. * Get rid of NAFTA, get out of the WTO. * Cut the Defense Budget. * Eliminate the Tax Cut -- use the funds to Rebuild Our Cities and Crumbling Schools (creating lots of jobs).

* He is the ONLY candidate addressing Black Box Voting, for heaven's sake.
* And his Health Care plan is the easiest to understand, and covers more people than any of the others, and the only one that is not just a band-aid. ok, some the band-aids are not bad, but I find them hard to understand.

Those who hear his message smile and cheer. I watched it happening in an overflow crowd of 350 people (all ages) in a lecture hall. Then I watched it again last night with a group of young adults in a small room watching him on video, where in fact the phrase you refer to was used.

He has a calming, but empowering effect on me, especially when I watch his effect on his listeners. It is wonderful.

Do not let the media dictate who is electable. They are not covering him at all. If his message is heard by enough people, he very well could be elected. At least he certainly is having the effect of pulling the debate further to the Left than it ever would be without him. We all gain from that.

[KittyWampus]

17. Thank You For Sharing Your Direct Experience.

And your enthusiasm. Sometimes hearing someone speak in a crowd can be very moving... especiallywhen others are as excited as you are!!! It's great to share postive vibes.

I personally did NOT let media dictate anything to me regarding Dennis. The media has absolutely nothing to do with my perception of Dennis K. I watched the debates and his speeches on the House floor with my own eyes and listened with my own ears.

My critique is still valid in my humble opinion. He is not fully in control of the image he projects during debates etc.

As to his positions, he goes a bit too far too fast.

Not ALL of the ill named PATRIOT Act is heinous. One example that I heard is ability to extend LEGAL wire taps to cellulars.

Not all of NAFTA and WTO is an abomination. It might be more prudent to do some radical surgery on them.

I think it would be unethical to pull our troops out of Iraq now. Pull contracts out of American Co.'s hands, yes. Get Iraqi army up and running yes. Get multinational troops, yes. But our troops out NOW. I don't think so.

So it's not just Dennis's inability to moderate his tone and image... it's also his policies (somewhat).

Ideally, his policies are great but pragmatically, they are less than great.

[Dhalgren]

43. See, now this is the kind of discussion that

won't make a DK supporter sad! You have issue-related differences with DK's ideas and proposals - fine. We can argue the merits or problems and flesh out our own ideas and opinions - this is good. But when someone just says "he has to be perfect to win and he isn't perfect", or "he simply won't be acceptable to the American people", then that helps no one but our enemies.

[Rainbows]

33. Senate?

Sounds a bit as if you are a centrist democrat, otherwise a 70's republican. Dennis closely mimics a modern version of FDR in a much more complex world. And last I've heard he is a Congessman from Ohio not a Senator. What Kucinich represents is a return to democratic principles that existed before democrats merged with republicans, sacrificed American workers to Corporate America and globalization, willingly suported wars like in Iraq and Afghanistan without even marginally fighting for ivestigations into 911.
The 107th Congress especially post 911 has been the most pathetic representation of the democratic electorates' ideals I've seen in 40 years of following politics. Dean supported Gingrich's policies in the mid 90's when he was a govenor, Clark has been nurtured by the Military Industrial Complex, has a history of pandering to the 'power of the day' and lobbies for Henry K.
Kucinich represents the return to a party that will fight for the citizens against corporations, and work toward a foreign policy that strives for cooperation rather than dominance over foreign societies. The centrist democrats have joined republicans in both military and economic subjugation both foreign and domestic, Kucinich offers an alternative to this and if he were supported by progressives who have fled to Dean and Clark would lead the field.

[Deja Q]

4. The media is corporate controlled and look who they want. Guess why!!

Dems have to vote for their heart and stop listening to the fearmongering of the media, which is self-centered and self-serving.

Sheesh, there are 100 arguments the Green party makes, like that one, in an appeal to vote for your ideals and not your fears, and now we have to apply them to the Democratic party's OWN candidates instead of our own! This is fricking ridiculous!

No wonder Bush will win in the end. x( Even if Bush loses to Clark or Dean, his interests STILL WIN.

Again, we need politicians to work for THE PEOPLE. Not THE CORPORATION.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Of course not! The Supreme Court chooses the President in America!

nt

[genius]

7. If we let them, then we are pathetic

LET'S DO SOMETHING THAT WILL MAKE FUTURE GENERATIONS PROUD OF US. LET'S ELECT THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB. WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.

[LWolf]

8. Change happens when we don't bow down to business as usual.

So I'm not bowing down. I'm working for Kucinich. I'm working to debunk the "unelectable" myth. Let's get organized and go get it, folks.

[zeemike]

12. I would love to have a president like Kucinich

But lets face the facts the corporate media and the powerful would never stand for it.
The last thing they want is an idealist that cannot be controlled to at least some extent.
They will let us have Dean Clark, Kerry, and Gepahart because they have a record of working with them and compromising. They would probably trust Braun but not Sharpton or Kucinich
We only have a choice when they think it is ok

[rhite5]

13. Gosh, you sound defeated already.

Let your own convictions control your vote. There is time for more DK support to build. Do not help the media spread the "unelectable" meme.

[zeemike]

16. Not at all

I think we can win with a man like Dean. And though he is not perfect I do believe he will change the nature of politics to the point that we can have a manlike Kucincih run and win. It is only a feeling I have but I think Dean really hates the way things are and really wants to change them, but he is also smart enough to see that change has a deadly opponent that must be dealt with in a smart way.

[Rowdyboy]

14. The notion that Kucinich is "unelectable" is really....

stupid. Any one of these candidates (bar Sharpton-I'm sorry, he CAN'T win) can beat Bush if:

1) the economy keeps tanking (and with natural gas prices slated to go through the roof that's likely)

2) the war continues in Iraq and death tolls keep mounting (and it will)

3) the scandals keep coming (and they will)

I noted on an earlier thread, I supported Fred Harris in 1976, Gary Hart in 1984, and Al Gore in 1988. None of them won the nomination. So, do I regret voting for a losing candidate now? Hell No! My vote for Fred Harris was the finest vote I've ever cast. I respect him tremendously. Ditto Gary Hart.

Vote in the primary for the candidate who inspires you most, who wants you to participate in the political system. If he loses, sobeit. At that point, you can reassess. I hope you choose to stay with the Democratic party.

And congratulations on having a candidate totally willing to speak his mind. Its refreshing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I supported Fred Harris

And the media ignored him, too.

No, I have seen how the media treat DK. It's the self-fulfilling prophecy. The media have decided that he can't win, so they're giving him one line of coverage to the "frontrunners'" five, and sometimes failing to mention him at all in articles about issues that he is strong on. For example, they frequently act as if Dean is the only candidate who was against the Iraq War or Gephardt is the only candidate who is strong on labor rights.

[JohnKleeb]

29. who was Harris

In fact and no offense to Gephardt but Kucinich is just as good or even better, Gep youre a good guy I could support you but Kucinich spoke out on Taft-Hartley, when I read that I was like WOW this guy is amazing. It really shows his committment to labor and hes in a union himself. We can win this thing I know we can.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. Fred Harris was a Senator from Oklahoma

Yes, he was a very liberal populist Democrat from a red state. I read his platform back in 1976--similar in many ways to Kucinich's--and I thought, "That man makes sense."

But he got almost no financial support and/or press coverage and was out of the picture after I don't remember how many primaries. Very few, at least.

Kucinich has much more support than Harris did.

[Rowdyboy]

37. Absolutely, Kucinich will poll better than Fred Harris

Lydia, my favorite professor in college was Harris's state campaign manger so I had an opportunity to work on the campaign a little. In 1976, Carter won the Iowa caucuses with 15-16% of the vote. Harris came in 4th, I think. Then, in New Hampshire, he finished 4th or 5th behind Carter, Udall (God! I loved Mo Udall), Sergeant Shriver and Birch Bayh. He quipped "My supporters are the little people and, evidently, in New Hampshire, they're not tall enough to operate the voting machines!"

He was a class act.

Did you know that Harris was runner up to Ed Muskie in 1968? Hubert Humphrey really liked Harris (who had been in the senate for 4 years in 1968) and gave him serious consideration for the vice presidential nomination before settling on Muskie...

Back in 1975, I bumped butts with his wife (now divorced) LaDonna, who is an activist Cherokee lawyer. We were at a candidates forum in Atlanta where I also heard Birch Bayh and Sargeant Shriver.

[Eloriel]

18. Look, it's like this

Yeah, DK's politics are closer to my own in many (not all) ways.

But I DON'T LIKE THE MAN. Period. End of discussion.

Eloriel

[REP]

22. Don't Like Him and Trust Him Even Less

I'm supporting the candidate who doesn't make me cringe and whose politics are closest to my own. Kucinich will never be my candidate.

[diamondsoul]

30. So if your unthinkable happens

and Kucinich manages to sweep the nomination, then what?

[REP]

54. If That Happens I'll Be Too Busy With the Monkeys Flying Out Of My Ass

[LWolf]

40. I understand that, Eloriel.

I have the same visceral reaction to Clark, for undefined reasons.

You're doing a fine job working for Dean, and I'm not suggesting that you change your mind. I will ask, though...have you ever met/heard Dennis in person? If you ever get the chance, please go meet him. I think it would make a difference!

Tell you what...you go meet DK, and I'll go meet Clark. We can "meetup" to compare notes and see if we've resolved the "dislike" issues!

[Cheesehead]

19. Dennis has my vote any time he is on the ballot

He raised the roof at Fighting Bob Fest here in Wisconsin. That "unelectable" arguement is bullshit in the primaries where a vote for Dennis is also a vote for a Progressive platform and agenda for the party. Lets move the center back to the center where it belongs.

[LWolf]

20. Yes, let's do that!

I have also seen him "raise the roof." A couple of times. The way he connects to people, motivates them, and inspires them has amazed me both times. And I'm a confirmed skeptic where politics are concerned. I don't have any doubts about his electability.

[KittyWampus]

24. Kick For The Dedicated Dennis Kucinich Supporters

:)

[Nederland]

23. You simply don't get it

Kucinich can't win because his positions on the issues are well outside the mainstream.

Sure, he fits well here at DU and among many hard core Democrats, but in a general election he would get clobbered. Just go to his website and look at his positions on Gay Rights, Immigrant Rights, the Death Penalty, Military spending, Trade and Iraq and its clear he can't win. Add in the fact that his flip flop on abortion makes him suspect even among Democrats and you have a recipe for electoral disaster.

Sure, if Democrats voted their conscience he might win the primary, but sensible Dems know that he'd lose the general badly.

[LWolf]

25. We "get" some things that you don't:

1. He works for the direction our country needs to go. We choose to support him with our vote for that reason. Novel concept; cast your vote for what/who you believe.

2. He is not that far outside the mainstream. He is portrayed that way by many, but if you actually look at his platform and record, you'd see that most people would agree/support with much of it. If you listen to people who have actually heard of him and know something about him, it is amazing how many, from diverse segments of the population, say that he "is the closest to what they believe." That's not outside the mainstream.

3. He'll take Bush. Put him in a face to face debate; he'll shred *. With *'s record, people are ready to take him out no matter who they have to vote for. That they could vote for a candidate who is not bought and paid for by corporations, who actually has spent a career working for the average american, and who consistently walks his talk...we'll take *.

I "get" your point. I don't agree. Not with your opinion, and not with your assessment of what I "get" or whether or not, in your opinion, I am "sensible." If you color those who don't agree with your opinion insensible, there's something else you aren't getting.

[Cheesehead]

31. My mission is to do what I can to keep Dennis in the race

as long as possible. The more people who hear him, the more will come to learn that his platform is the real future of the party - the diametric opposite of the Whistle Ass road to destruction. He does not waffle his way to untenable "middle-ground" compromises that inevitably veer right and enable conservatives to keep messing with our societal welfare and civil rights.

[LWolf]

38. My mission as well.

Kucinich record of service to the party and to the progressive cause is stellar. We need him. And we need the rest of the country to hear him.

[Nederland]

50. Response

He is not that far outside the mainstream. He is portrayed that way by many, but if you actually look at his platform and record, you'd see that most people would agree/support with much of it.

I did look at his positions, which is exactly why I said what I said. Did you happened to notice that I specifically mentioned six of his positions and that the phrasing of those position is taken directly from his web site? If you want to prove me wrong your task is simple:

1) Go look at Kucinich's positions on Gay Rights, Immigrant Rights, the Death Penalty, Military spending, Trade and Iraq.
2) Compare these position with those of the majority of American voters.

If you can show me polls that indicate that Kucinich's positions are right in line with the majority's, I will admit I'm wrong. Have fun, I'm sure it will be an education for you to get out from your closeted far left world and learn what most people really think.

[LWolf]

52. Don't bother; not necessary.

You don't have to admit a damned thing. I don't pay much attention to polls; I certainly don't make my choices based on them. I guess I'm a skeptic when it comes to the reliability and validity of most.
So I sure won't be frantically searching for them.

In my sometimes humble opinion, it is extremely arrogant, ignorant, and just plain ill-mannered to say something to someone like, I'm sure it will be an education for you to get out from your closeted far left world and learn what most people really think.

Arrogant, because you assume you know better than I. Ignorant, because you assume that I live in a closeted far left world. Ill-mannered because it is patronizing.

Just to set the record straight...I've lived the last 23 years in a hard-core, right-wing republican stronghold. My neighbors, coworkers and friends. My family are confirmed moderates, and so are their friends. I have a little bit of an idea what "most people really think." Since you were concerned.

And what I've found, when talking to them, is that if I present one of Kucinich's issues to them without mentioning his name, or that it belongs to a political candidate, they all think it's a good idea. When I tell them there is actually someone with that platform, they're intrigued. I've tested this on healthcare, dept of peace, military spending, Iraq, trade, and Gay rights. I haven't tested it on immigrant rights or the death penalty.

Of course, that's not a scientific poll. But when we sit around and discuss the issues of the day, those folks around me who are not in a closeted, far-left worldseem to think Dennis' ideas are good. Not a poll; not scientific; not anecdotal. Just my personal experience. No patronizing responses necessary.

[eridani]

53. I've had the same experience...

...when you actually talk issues uncontaminated by snarl words like lefty-pinko-commie

Kucinich is a candidate whose position on critical issues is 100% mainstream, though labelled in the media too 'far left' to be a serious candidate. A couple of cases in point--

1. Universal health care. Two other candidates advocate it, but our guy actually has a real plan on his website. 8,000 doctors (Dean NOT among them) endorsed single payer in a major medical journal. The Pew Foundation published a survey this last July showing that 72% of the population preferred to use the Bush tax cuts to fund universal health care (including 51% of Republicans!). How much more mainstream can you get? (Of course Physicians for a Natioal Heath Plan had to cite Al Jazeerah on their website to convey this news--American media didn't cover it for the same reason they are not covering Dennis.)

2. NAFTA and WTO. The vast majority of the public is seriously concerned about deindustrialization and opposes NAFTA. Kucinich is the only candidate to come out explicitly against both. The punditry of course regards these treaties as acts of God that it would be silly to attempt to reverse.

3. The War on Some Drugs. Medical marijuana initiatives have had broad popular support, and imprisonment for minor drug offenses is increasingly regarded as a really stupid way of spending public funds. Yet for some reason, taking a position in line with the majority of people is regarded as wild-eyed insanity.

So what do we say to the people we run into all the time who say, "Of course he has all the best positions on the issues, but he can't win."

First step--ask them how important the issues on the Kucinich platform are to them. If they are important, there is no reason not to back the only candidate who promotes such a platform. To do otherwise is to make a personal statement to the effect that it is just plain not possible to successfully act against powerful interests that are causing serious harm to most people. If that is in fact the case, then any political activity on behalf of the majority of the public is pointless. If you are serious about wanting change, this is a completely untenable position.

[tlcandie]

32. Too far left .. too far left .... have we gotten that point yet? NOT

electable!!! <Bangs head on wall then looks around and pushes the gd hammer that keeps trying to hit me over the head away>

No matter who gets president there will be compromise! If you take centrist ideas before repug congress/sentates you get.....?? RIGHT OF CENTER...???

Isn't this where we are now?!

If you want something more than the thoroughly watered down rhetoric that has been pitched to us 24/7 for years now (and gotten us where I might ask), then you had better use this as a wakeup call (bangs the gong LOUDLY) to elect someone WAY LEFT of center in order to get ourselves even partially centered.


If you want to take some time to read the following, you might get a new perspective, a renewed passion about our fight in the upcoming 2004 election and what it is we REALLY want for our country. Just imagine that this is talking about the democratic party and the tories equal the repugs! Let it soak in... ENJOY!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3153002.stm

<snip>
May 1997 was a unique moment. An abundance of expectation surrounded our arrival. A sense of hope beyond ordinary imagining. The people felt it. We felt it. Instead of reining in the expectation, we gave it free rein. It was natural, but born of inexperience.

We thought change was a matter of will.

Have the right programme, spend the right money and the job is done.

But experience has taught us: the job is never done.

If we expected bouquets every day, we should have stayed in Opposition. We shouldn't want thanks. It's a privilege to do the job, however tough.

And in Government, you expect things to happen but the things that happen are not the things you expect...
<snip>


<snip>
Up to now there has been a ritual to Labour Governments, Euphoria on victory. Hard slog in Government. Tough times. Party accuses leadership of betrayal. Leadership accuses Party of ingratitude. Disillusion. Defeat. Long period of Tory Government before next outbreak of euphoria. We've been far better at defeating ourselves than the Tories have ever been.

Apart from 1974-79, which was fragile from the first, each Labour Government has been a spasmodic interval punctuating otherwise unbroken Conservative rule. For too many of our 100 years we have been a well-intentioned pressure group.

We fight injustice. We argue our causes.

But our psychology has been that of people who know, deep down, someone else is the governing party and we are the ones championing the grievance.

So, after a time, after we have righted the most obvious wrongs of the Conservatives, we fold up. We return to our comfort zone.

Then came New Labour.

From the outset, our opponents hated and feared us. They believe the Tories have a divine right to rule Britain and we are usurpers. They look at their own Party and feel contempt. And they hate us even more because they think we're responsible. And in a sense we are. By occupying the centre ground, by modernising, by reaching out beyond our activists, we helped turn the Tories into a replica of what we used to be. A narrow base. Obsessed about the wrong things. Old fashioned. In retreat.
<snip>

<snip>
they keep trying to reinvent themselves. From cuddly Conservatives to compassionate Conservatives to caring Conservatives. When are they going to realise it's not the first word that's the problem, it's the second.

But one thing they have succeeded in. As they always do. Right from the beginning of New Labour they set up the eternal false choice of progressive politics. That in Government we either revert to the past; or we stand for nothing.

That we are either incompetent or compromised.

That if policy is modernised, belief is betrayed.

And it plays to our own fears.
<snip>


These are excerpts from the poodles 2003 labour party speech. He surely has a way with words and a PASSION for what he believes in. I apologize for so much snippage, but I wanted to get the point across and not require you to read through the whole transcript.

There's still a bit more towards the end of his speech that relates as well, if you have the time to check it out.

At any rate, it would be nice if we, the dems, could take this and make it or something like it into our NEW policy or goals instead of settling for less than we have the right to expect!

AND no I'm not promoting the poodle, but it doesn't mean he might not have a way with words! :hi:

ON EDIT: I'm beginning to wonder if FEAR of TRUE, SINCERE, RADICAL change isn't the TRUE issue behind the, "He's not electable quote", we continue to hear from our fellow dems :shrug:

[Matilda]

55. The poodle does have a way with words, but it's deceptive ...

he does sincerity very well. He's not really a very good guide, because in fact all of his policies are against everything "Old"
Labour stood for - he's heavily into privatisation, welfare cuts,
and union bashing. In fact, he modelled his policies on those of the Australian Labor Party under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, and
they modelled themselves on Margaret Thatcher. Blair got into power with the backing of Rupert Murdoch, and there's no way that Murdoch would back anyone even vaguely left of centre.

This brings me to what - from a distance, I'm Australian - is the
difficulty Dennis Kucinich faces. It's not that the U.S. media
thinks he couldn't be elected; they don't want him elected. Because the mainstream media outlets are all controlled by big corporations,
and they hate everything that someone like Dennis stands for. So
they will never, ever give him an even break. And as we've seen with
California, media coverage is worth more than truth and substance.
I wish there was a way of fighting this right-wing media domination,
but I really don't know how it could be done. Pre-television, someone could get out there and hit the stumps, but nowadays more
people are just going to rely on television to form their opinion
rather than bother to go find out for themselves. How is Dennis
ever going to reach these people?

[maha]

34. The premise is false.

"First Howard Dean, and now Wesley Clark have charged to the lead, and yet almost every Dean or Clark supporter I speak with says that he or she actually agrees more with the policies of Dennis Kucinich."

I haven't heard of ANY Dean or Clark supporter who is closer to Kucinich on the issues. People who are closer to Kucinich on the issues tend, I suspect, to support Kucinich.

[charlie]

35. Keep your eyes open

You'll meet some of them here.

[Padraig18]

39. I agree wholeheartedly. n/t

[MuseRider]

41. Sorry

but they tell me that all the time. I did not save any of it to give you proof but I hear almost everyday the statement that Kucinich is the closest to my real desires but.... it is almost always from Dean people. Quite a few of us started with Dean, I was on a Dean thing from the beginning when is name was just being circulated. I spread the word far and wide but eventually went with who best represents me, Dean let me down.

[RichM]

45. Here's a DU poll from last week indicating you're wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=451145

The question was: Which candidate do you prefer, based PURELY on positions & ideas?

DK won this hands down, with 52% of the vote. Some of the responders specifically said that they were supporting someone else. DK has not placed first in ANY poll on DU, when the question was simply "Which candidate are you supporting," without any qualifier.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. Threads like these keep me voting for Kucinich

Thanks, Dover, when I'm feeling down about having to pull the level for one of these Bush-Lite Republicrats, I just remember that this primary I have a chance to vote for a real live populist Democrat, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and show that we are a voting block to pay attention to.

[birdman]

46. If the election was going to be decided by

the proprietors of restaurants called the Veggie Planet
in places like Cambridge MA then of course Kucinich would
be electable but it's not. Kucinich proposals like
the Department of Peace and the attempt to ban space-based
mind control weapons would make him the endless butt of
jokes on late night TV and allow the opposition to portray
him as a whacked-out loony. His flip-flop on abortion and
the recall when he was mayor of Cleveland are the kind of baggage
that would keep him on the defensive. And, sad to say, his physical
appearance would work against him.

It's simple reality. Kucinich could never become President. There's
nothing at all wrong with supporting the person who is most
ideologically compatible with you but understand that DK will
not be around much past New Hampshire. Have a second choice and be
prepared for the fact that you're going to have to support
someone who is not going to give you 100% of what you want but
is the only chance we have to rid the country of Bush.

[RichM]

47. The standard pitch of Dem Party sellouts is to say "Be prepared to

support someone who is not going to give you 100% of what you want." Translation: "Be prepared to support someone who is going to give you 5% of what you want."

[birdman]

48. For a politicians policies to have any relevence at all

they have be able to attract 51% of the electorate
and Kucinich simply cannot do that. You're never going
to elect someone who rails about corporate America and the military-industrial complex because the public doesn't
see these things as issues.

If all of our politics are going to be endless whine about
how all the Democrats are just so unworthy then we're going
to have people like Bush (and worse) forever.

[janekat]

49. I'm a Clarkie but I agree with you - Deaniacs should vote for Kuchinich

First let me state that I am a Clark/Kerry/Edwards/Gephardt/Kuchinch
supporter - in that order.

Kuchinich people you really need to start informing people of Dean's record as Governor. It's downright scary....

A lot of the people who are Dean supporters seem to be quite "progresive". Why they would go for someone who has a horrible record on the environment, tried to funding that assisted defendants with mental disabilities, supports the death penalty, is against the Kyoto Treaty, told defense attorneys "my job is to make your job as difficult as possible"

As Governor, he cut funding to public defenders and vastly increased funding to state’s attorneys, police, and corrections. He made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants.