Kucinich Supporters Hard-Pressed to Name Second Choice

[wyldwolf]

Interesting article, although my experience says otherwise. Of course, I'm limited to the deep south so there is probably a different breed of Kucninch supporter here (NASCAR Kucinich supporters?) :)

One supporter said he'd probably vote Green if Kucinich doesn't get the nomination.

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200310/POL20031007a.shtml

[w4rma]

1. ABB! Supporters of any Democratic candidate cannot legitamately ask other

Democrats to fall behind their candidate, if said candidate won the Democratic primary, if that candidate's core supporters would not do the same for another Democratic candidate who wins the Democratic primary, IMHO.

[wyldwolf]

2. The REAL democrat litmus test..

NOT how long you've been a democrat!

NOT who you voted for or spoke nicely of in the past!

WILL YOU SUPPORT THE PARTY?

[tinanator]

3. only if they give you a choice

which they usually dont.

[w4rma]

4. That's not a litmus test

Whether the candidate plans to endorse the Democratic Party nominee is a huge indicator of that candidate's credibility, particularly whether they'd use the political office to strengthen or weaken the Democratic Party.

That goes for the supporters also. I support Dean, but I will stand behind the Democratic nominee, no matter who that is. I expect the same from supporters of other Democratic candidates. The supporters who will not stand behind the Democratic nominee have no credibility in asking other Democrats to fall in line behind their chosen candidate.

Its a two way street. If you aren't going to promote party unity in the general, then there is no way you should expect party unity in the general for your chosen candidate if that candidate won the nomination.

[wyldwolf]

5. Isn't that what I just wrote...? But with less words?

[w4rma]

24. You said: litmus test, I said: not a litums test

You said "how long you've been a democrat" and "who you voted for or spoke nicely of in the past" are not good litums tests. I think both are measures of some amounts of credibility, albeit perhaps not much.

You said "Will you support the party?" is the *real* Democratic litmus test and was a summary of my post #1. I said, "That's not a litmus test". It is a "huge indicator of that candidate's credibility". I also said that it is a huge indicator of that supporter's credibility.

Note, should I rule out a candidate because a supporter said they wouldn't support the party? No, IMHO, I should rule out that supporter's opinion.

[wyldwolf]

38. Well, you made my point...

should I rule out a candidate because a supporter said they wouldn't support the party? No, IMHO, I should rule out that supporter's opinion.

Right. So, to apply the same rules to everyone that that some have applied to Wesely Clark...

Length of time as a democrat.
Past involvements, etc.

If they make Clark a non-democrat, they make {i]anyone a non-democrat.

So, I still contend, the best judge of one's party loyalty is their support of the party not their length of time as a party member.

[Mairead]

27. Is that 'my Party, right or wrong'?

Once criticised by paraphrase: 'my mother, drunk or sober'.

[stickdog]

35. Sure, I will. I promise to support the Party through thick and thin

once I'm nominated for President ...

[LWolf]

6. Arghh!

It's too early in the morning here for me to be sure I'm following you, w4rma. Just paint me :wow:

I think what you are saying is that people who plan to desert the party if their nominee doesn't win shouldn't expect other democrats to stick around in the same circumstances?

That would apply to some people from most of the front runners here at DU; I've heard the "I'm taking my toys and leaving the party if my guy doesn't win" from supporters of more than one candidate. Thankfully, a small minority. And, honestly, I don't think I've heard that from a Kucinich supporter, other than the single person mentioned in this article. Since I am one, I listen closely to what they have to say!

The article is correct in that many of us don't have a chosen "runner-up." Many of us would put Sharpton or Braun in that spot, but know that if anyone drops out, they'll go before DK.

What is absolutely true about the Kucinich campaign is this:

He is drawing many, many supporters from outside the party. Former dems who left to join 3rd parties. Folks who have never belonged to a party before. He is drawing them in because they believe in him. IMHO, this is a wonderful, crucial thing. We need to bring the disenfranchised former dems back to the fold. We need to reach out and stretch that tent to include all the folks who don't walk in step with the DLC. If they are coming to the dems for DK's vision, some of those 3rd party/independents may leave if he doesn't get the nomination. Many of those that I've spoken to at Kucinich meetups have an abiding distrust of the democratic party; they view the party as selling out to the mushy middle. And they won't support a party that doesn't stand up for their principles. I understand that.

In the efforts of defeating *, I think we should all stick around. I will. I don't have a second choice for the primary. If I am forced into a compromise candidate, I'll still vote. The important thing is that I will vote against GWB in 04; and so will every last DK supporter, whether they back a runner-up primary candidate, or not.

In the bigger picture, I see a fracturing of the dem party. A party that does not clearly define itself. Perhaps the future of the party is a party of centrists; if so, then we can hardly blame the non-centrists if they organize around a party that actually supports them. If the party is going to continue to be a "big tent," then marginalizing or disenfranchising the members who aren't solidly in the middle is not the way to go. The party will have to equally value progressive voices. And that's the issue; progressives don't appreciate having their voice muted.

[w4rma]

30. some small clairification

Should I rule out a candidate because a supporter said they wouldn't support the party? No, IMHO, I should rule out that supporter's opinion.

Also, if the Democratic Party fractures, we'll all lose. We do not have a parlamentary system in America. Our system cannot support, at higher levels of government, more than two major parties. All 3rd parties can only act as spoilers within our non-parlamentary system.

IMHO, the way to pull the politicians to the left is via the media. Big media is too corporate and right-wing. Work on building an alternative, instead of building a spoiler party, IMHO.

[LWolf]

63. This makes sense.

And I agree. It's easier reading at 6pm than 6am, apparently! :hi:

[stickdog]

37. Take hope in Dean's campaign if not his candidacy.

Once we move the center back to the center, the same model of campaign could work for DK or at least someone with his message.

[HFishbine]

14. Disagree

I'll make up my mind about supporting a candidate based on the candidate's qualifications, not on speculative generalizations about his or her supporters.

[w4rma]

18. Nothing you said was mutually exclusive from anything I said, HFishbine nt

[HFishbine]

25. Not mutually exclusive

but tangentially argumentative.

[w4rma]

34. You admit that your explanation was

of superficial relevance, if any, to what I said and that you were just being argumentative.

[Karmadillo]

7. townhall.com is a source of "Conservative News and Information"

Its favorite links include the National Review, the Washington Times, and the Weekly Standard.

http://www.townhall.com/about/

Townhall.com is the first truly interactive community on the Internet to bring Internet users, conservative public policy organizations, congressional staff, and political activists together under the broad umbrella of "conservative" thoughts, ideas and actions.

more...

Lame article. The vast majority of Kucinich supporters will support the Democratic nominee. That he's been able to reach out to voters who would not normally vote Democratic speaks well of him (not that a conservative news source wouldn't attempt to use the fact to sow dissension in the ranks of its opponents). However, if center-right Democrats fear they might lose the progressives who support Kucinich, maybe they better start reaching out to them.

[salin]

8. Townhall: "Conservative News and Information", now thats

a source I would turn to, to learn what Kucinich supporters think. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

10. Posted to spur discussion...

take it anyway you will. :)

[RebelOne]

9. I'm in the Deep South, too.

I live in the Atlanta area, but I am definitely not a NASCAR Kucinich supporter. In fact, I don't even like NASCAR. But I am a 100% supporter of Dennnis. But if he doesn't get the nomination, I will still vote Democratic. Anyone but Bush. If Dennis is not nominated, my 2nd choice is Howard Dean.

[veganwitch]

12. what the hell is a "NASCAR" supporter

i guess i missed that one.

[wyldwolf]

13. Here is an article on "NASCAR dads"

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6890853.htm

[xJlM]

11. DK, or "unnamed democrat"

My hope is that the American people are given a real choice in 2004, but if not I will vote for Lieberman or Westly or Howard Bean, or whichever name is opposite GW. Dennis would be the right decision, but you can't trust the American people to make the right decision. Only time will tell, though, and I've got to be willing to give Dennis the best support I possibly can.

[HFishbine]

15. As an Indepent

I have no intention of supporting "the party." But since I hear that the party wants my vote, all you have to do is nominate the best candidate.

[xJlM]

16. That's your decision

I dread even the idea of four more years of Bush. But what would be worse would of course be four years of just-like-Bush, or a stealth repug, so maybe you have a good point. I just know whoever is opposite Bush will have my vote, enthusiastically or not.

[HFishbine]

21. Exactly

In reality, chances are very, very slim that I won't vote for the dem candidate and there is no chance in hell I'd vote for Bush. But there are two considerations for me:

1) Is the candidate an improvement over Bush?

2) Will the candidate, as president, re-establish the democratic party as a true opposition party, repudiating the Bush world view of fear and suspicion?

[bobthedrummer]

17. I'm an independent voter, a DK supporter and will vote for him in the

February 17th WI primary, I like Howard Dean as second choice, in any event I will vote for the Dem. nominee in November and hold my nose if necessary.
* must go if not impeached.

[maha]

19. Clark a truer Democrat than Kucinich.

After reading this thread, I'm persuaded that Kucinich is a stealth Greenie candidate.

[xJlM]

20. Right

Voted for Nixon, voted for Raygun, and now he wants to be a democrat. I say let him run for mayor or state congress or something. You don't just come to this party and get folks' votes by mouthing a few gracious platitudes and making promises. That even sounds republican.

[maha]

23. You still don't get it.

We're in a mortal battle to save America here. And Clark (voted for Clinton, voted for Gore, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-civil rights, and liberal to the core) is a better Democrat that Dennis "vote for me or be damned" Kucnich.

[xJlM]

36. Let him run for township trustee

Here where I live he'd get laughed out of the race. These folks here are mostly older, wiser, DEMOCRATIC voters. They've heard lies and bullshit from the mouths of repugs for years.

I don't want to live in any country that thinks war is some kind of positive solution. War is a last resort, or at least it should be.

[stickdog]

39. Is CAPPS II pro-civil rights?

How about the Markle Foundation?

That's pro-civil rights?

Just asking.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

70. maha, you make me want to vote for Clark less

I really like Clark, I've met him and read all his speeches and seen him on television. I think he's great, and I think he fits in with the Democratic party just fine.

But reading some of his supporters like you just hardens my support for Kucinich, and makes Dean seem a credible alternative (and I'm the biggest Dean basher on DU).

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. and Clark was NEVER even a Democrat until last month!

[bpilgrim]

31. lol

someone who became a dem a week ago is 'truer' then someone who has been one for years.

ah, fools rush in...

peace

[Mairead]

33. I think that says more about you than about Dennis or anyone else here

[Forkboy]

59. typically well thought out maha post

:eyes:

[Tinoire]

65. Do you even know what a real Democrat looks like?

Or are you one of those people who thought that Reagan and the Bushies were better than the Democrats running at that time? That's about the only explanation I can find to explain your obvious confusion and ridiculous post.

You must be a stealth Greenie come to disrupt the Democratic elections. How else to explain you?

[Tinoire]

66. Do you even know what a real Democrat looks like?

Or are you one of those people who thought that Reagan and the Bushies were better than the Democrats running at that time? That's about the only explanation I can find to explain your obvious confusion and ridiculous post.

You must be a stealth Greenie come to disrupt the Democratic elections. How else to explain you?

[Tinoire]

67. Do you even know what a real Democrat looks like?

Or are you one of those people who thought that Reagan and the Bushies were better than the Democrats running at that time? That's about the only explanation I can find to explain your obvious confusion and ridiculous post.

You sound like a stealth Greenie come to disrupt the Democratic elections. How else to explain?

[Tinoire]

22. Why are Clark supporters so worried about this?

Why are the supporters of the only candidate pandering to Republicans always asking this question? It seems the DLC is absolutely desperate for ABB because they full well know that yet again, they are imposing their choice on the people.

I'm frankly puzzled. I'm also frankly puzzled why there's thread after thread on this subject while your fellow supporters are bashing Kucinich and his supporters in other threads: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=483743

No offense against you but this is about the30th thread on this subject. Let me ask you, will Reagan Democrats stomp their little fight and go to their other home if Wesley Clark doesn't get the nomination? Someone should tell the DLC to start focusing on Democrats for a change and give us the type of candidate we've been screaming for instead of insisting on imposing their golden-boys and fear-mongering. I fully intend to vote for someone/something- I will no longer allow my vote to be usurped into voting against just so people in power can keep dictating who will be President. I have several candidates on my list but I am not ABB. It's high time Democratic candidates started focusing on earning votes. I hate Bush probably more than most people here for reasons I won't go into- but I won't allow that hatred to be exploited by people and organizations bent on imposing their candidate.

[xJlM]

32. All the stunning victories the DLC brought us in 2002...

You'd think they would give up and quit trying to pervert the word democrat to mean "just like a repug". I mean, what else was their message in 2002? I heard absolutely nothing.

[Tinoire]

47. The DLC is less worried about victory than they are

about keeping the corporations happy. And then they wonder why people don't get energized to vote for their version of the "New" Democrat.

[Code_Name_D]

49. How many Clark suporters have a "second choise?"

Just gata love this hypocracy.

[Tinoire]

68. The chutzpah's amazing isn't it?

How much more of this Johnny-come-lately hypocrisy and Gestapo tactics of questioning people's allegiance are we going to be treated to.

Ah the joys of a tent so big that someone is telling Republicans and confused Reagan Democrats to "come right on in", "make yourselves at home", "re-arrange the furniture" and "just take over"...

I'm just glad I know what party I've always been in and who I voted for.

The mendacious audacity simply boggles the mind.

It is out of respect for exactly 3 Clark supporters on this board that I am holding my tongue.

You have to admit, it is kind of funny though to watch them destroy their own candidate out of sheer stupidity.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. Carol Mosley Braun...or Al Sharpton...are my seconds

[chadm]

44. I agree

They are good choices too. The three of these individuals should be in a different party.

[MadHound]

29. The party has left me way behind, why should I have any loyalty to it?

I like Dennis Kucinich, I feel he is the best hope for this country that we've had come out of the Dems in a long while. And while I have been a long time supporter/contributor/voter/worker for the Democratic party, they have taken my support for granted while drifting so far to the right that they are now simply another right leaning corporate whore who is out for the bucks. Why should they expect support from me when they not only fail to address my concerns, but work actively against them?

Look, I will vote for Kucinich in the primaries, and if either Sharpton or Mosely-Braun win I would support any of them in the general election. As for the rest of the corporate whores that are running, well if they get the nod, I'll be voting Green. This country needs a real change and none of them will provide it, they will simply do like Clinton, and make it a kinder, gentler screwing that the country is getting. We would still continue down the path towards corporate facism, just at a little slower rate.

As far as expecting support from other Dems if Kucinich wins, well that is up to them. If they feel that he is the best person to vote for or not, either way, they should vote their conscience. Part of the mess we're in today is because people were led to believe that they had to comprimise their vote, that they had to vote the lesser of two evils. Well, you're still voting for evil if you think like that, which is something I refuse to do any more. As more people wake up to that notion I think you will see a profound sea change in politics. I feverently hope so.

[w4rma]

40. Then don't expect anyone to

consider your opoinion about supporting your candidate just because that candidate is a Democrat. If you do not promote party loyalty, you should expect none back.

[morgan2]

41. whats the point of party loyalty?

If a party doesn't support a candidate you agree with then you don't support the party. The Democractic party isnt your family they're a political party who will work for who they have to win elections. If they dont nominate someone who agrees with you on at least the core issues then they havent earned your vote. If you continue to support them no matter what they will just take you for granted. There may be plenty of people in the party who truly care about people, but the party itself isnt a person. The party moves to where the votes are.

[MadHound]

46. Who died and made you Elvis?

First off, I expect absolutely nada from the Democratic party, they stopped listening to me and people like myself long ago. As far as others on this board considering my opinions or not, well I would say that is up to each individual, not some self appointed loyalty commisar.

By the by, if you are hoping to win back any more disgruntled Dems next year(and boy howdy, are you going need them) let someone else do the talking. Apparently tact, diplomacy and reasoning aren't your strong points.

[Selwynn]

53. It's not about party loyalty, nor about your pity party, nor about ...

idealoigical conviction.

It is about the fact that this republic cannot stand four more years of Bush. It is imperative to support whoever has the most chance of beating him.

Which do you think would give you a better stance on gay rights?

A Democratic candidate that wasn't your first choice, or BUSH?

Which do you think would give you a better stance on forieng affiars?
Which do you think would give you a better stance on jobs and fair taxation?
Which do you think would give you a better stance on court appointees and the legal system?
which do you think would have a better chance of turning the enonomy around?
Which do you think would have a better stance of privacy rights?
Which do you think would have a better stance on civil liberties.

You can take your fucking self-righteous, self-serving idealological BULLSHIT and shove it up your ass. You are killing the country this election cycle. If a democrat doesn't get elected, I promise you PRESIDENT BUSH will have FAR FAR LESS concern for ANY issue you care about.

It is disgusting and morally reprehensible to stand on ungrounded abstract principle in the face of such a horror as we have in office now.

[Mairead]

42. I refuse to sacrifice my rights simply because other people want a frisson

or a more-Republican candidate or a daddy-figure. Whether check-off or write-in, I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich, the candidate who is best on the issues and the record. Dennis Kucinich is the adult choice.

Everyone should be voting the issues and the record, because that's the adult thing to do. We shouldn't be treating this as though we're trying to find someone to get us 'excited', or a marriage partner, or an ersatz daddy or mommy, or a new saint to venerate, or a drinking buddy, or a date for the weekend, or anything else. We should be looking for an employee. Someone whose record is one of working hard for her/his employers, and who is prepared to meet our needs rather than expecting us to compromise and accept less than we need and deserve. That's all we should be looking at.

Ask any hiring manager who's recognised for bringing in good staff: the key attribute is attitude. A smart employee with the right attitude will get better at doing the job over time, but a smart employee with the wrong attitude will only get better at blowing smoke.

Any adult should be able to understand this. It's not rocket science. It doesn't require a doctorate from MIT.

[Selwynn]

51. Unlike you I refuse to support GEORGE BUSH 4 more years

[Mairead]

56. Sorry, a pathetic attempt like that buys you nothing.

If you can demonstrate in a rational way -- no speculation or opinion, cold fact and syllogism only -- that some other candidate has a stronger record and a better set of policies than Dennis Kucinich, by all means have a go.

Until then, you have no credibility at all.

[chadm]

43. I hope Kucinich goes Green if he doesn't get it

I don't think I could vote for any of the other Dems. They are unelectable.

[Mairead]

45. He won't. He's a Dem.

You could consider doing what I'm going to do: check-off or write-in, Dennis gets my vote.

[blm]

54. Dennis would disagree mightily with you.

Dennis is not the anarchic lefty as many portray him. He's a common sense lefty with common sense solutions. He is a LOYAL Democrat who loves his party and loves his constituents.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. I have no second choice

but I will vote for the Democratic nominee in 2004. I must admit that none of the other nominees even comes close to Dennis in my mind. Dean seems like style over substance, and I'm still suspicious of the way that Clark came out of nowhere to become the media darling. (So I've now managed to offend both the Dean and Clark supporters. :-) )

Yeah, I'll even vote for Lieberman if he gets the nomination, although I hope that the primary voters and the high pooh-bahs of the party aren't stupid enough to allow that.

The question is what to do after 2004. There is no question that Bush needs to take early retirement in Crawford, or even better, in Leavenworth along with all his major advisors, so the choice in 2004 is clear: vote for unBush.

We can't always predict how candidates will act once they're in office. However, if a Dem gets in and then sets up an administration of business as usual, with a preferential option for big business, an interventionist foreign policy, sermons about how the poor need to get their act together, and just enough piecemeal attempts at damage control so that he doesn't look entirely like a Republican, instead of trying to reverse the utterly harmful Reagan-Bush policies, then I will shift my support to the Greens or anyone else who is interested in real change and look toward 2008. (I will not shift if the Dem makes a sincere attempt to reverse the Reagan revolution but is stymied by Congress.)

The Greens are not currently ready for prime time, but Greens (not Ralph Nader worshippers) throughout the country are winning local offices, which is how you work your way up the political ladder in most cases. One or more of them might be ready for Congress or the Senate in five years.

For over twenty years, I have been frustrated with the lack of alternatives who are as far left as the Republicans are far right. Right now the country needs someone as bold as FDR, but I fear that it's going to get someone who is channeling Herbert Hoover.

I'm willing to be a Democratic loyalist long enough to get Bush out, and I will never vote for a Republican unless they all see the light and become peace-loving idealists, which will happen about the same time that Hell wins the bid for the Winter Olympics. But I left the church denomination that I was raised in when it no longer reflected who I was, and it would be dishonest of me to remain in a political party that sometimes seems afraid of its own shadow.

[Selwynn]

50. By not naming a second choice, we name BUSH

I'll say this again

I'm not going to point any kind of finger at you. I'll only speak for myself. I'm a Kucinich supporter. Well I don't know if that's really true. If I had my way, Kucinich would be President, but I also believe there is no chance, so much so that I've been looking at other candidates I believe are more viable. So maybe that doesn't make me a "supporter."

At any rate, for me personally - it is morally reprehensible to let ideology of politics cloud one simple truth -- Bush and his regime are some of the most evil and vile people ever to hold political office, and I'm not sure our Republic can handle four more years of that without serious and lasting effects. Because of that I will support whichever opposition candidate has the best chance of beating Bush.

If we ran some loser who was polling at 15%, and the Republicans happened to run a challenge candidate to Bush who was polling high enough to show a real chance to beating Bush - I'd vote for the republican. That's because I believe Bush and his cohorts are particularly bad, particularly extreme. Their not just Republicans, they're ignorant arrogance fanatical extremists as well as terrorists by every definition that matters.

I believe I have a moral duty to do everything I possibly can to get Bush out of office, and I'll use whatever tactic I have at my disposal. I will not vote stand on some ideological principle - not this time. I will not vote for some third party candidate with no chance of being elected that pulls away liberal votes from the base just so I can say I stood on "ideological" principle. Not this time. I will not refuse to support the party's nominee simply because my guy didn't win. Not this time. Do I believe Dean or Clark are great and perfect choices? No I don't. But I believe that the Bush experience is so horrible, so devastating and so evil that I will pragmatically and strategically look for who has the best chance of beating bush and throw my complete and total support behind that person.

And I said I wasn't going to point fingers but I changed my mind. I will say that I am ashamed of any person here who wouldn't do the same.

This is not a "normal" election year with a "normal" incumbent president. This is like having the base sum of all evil in office, and the quibbling and bickering about which candidate should displace him from power --- the answer is ANYBODY! The first step back towards real democracy is the ousting of Bush from power. THEN, we can start fine-tuning that and voting in a more nuanced way for the candidates of subtle difference.

Sel

[Seneca]

52. DU flame wars: 2005

I can see it now: The new round of Green/Dem flame blame if Bush manages to get away with another steal. Now Kucinich supporters are being roasted for sticking with their candidate and possibly not voting Democrat if he doesn't get the nod. Democratic loyalists are being burned for wanting Bush out so bad they will hold their noses at the ballot box if they must.

Guess what? Both sides are right because both are acting on their own code of ethics and philosophy. It is rather sad, and yet, hilarious to watch both sides try to one-up the other with rhetorical smackdowns and snarky retorts.

Democracy, if there is still such thing, is messy and complicated, and no one is under any obligation to act under another's principles. This goes for BOTH sides in this silly GD ritual.

[MuseRider]

55. Senca, thank you.

I have avoided answering any of this because it has made my blood pressure skyrocket. As much as I have loved DU and learned from DU I am almost ready to leave DU. What is this shit? I will vote for DK because I have never felt anyone represent what I believe before. That is my right, that is my cause and really it is no one elses business except I have chosen to "wear" his name proudly as my avitar. I have been a Democrat for 30 plus years and I resent like hell all of these people who think that supporting the only candidate who is at all different from Bush* (this is my opinion) means I am not a "real" democrat. Most of you people here saying these things are what I see as the problem with the party. THIS IS MY OPINION. I thought I was entitled to it here of all places. Anyway, now I have said it, I feel a little calmer. My response to these threads and the abiding feeling that we are not "real" democrats is to get over it. I am not going anywhere. I will hold my nose and vote for who you think is the right guy, whoever it is, but don't ever tell me I have to like it. RANT! Sorry but I had to say it.

[Tinoire]

69. Please don't leave. There is a concerted DLC tactic at play here

to push away all Greens, Progressives and Liberals who would force the Party to stop this catastrophic right-ward shift.

The play is within the Party and on the DU board itself. Once you leave, this progressive board we spent years building will suddenly be used to trumpet right-wing Propaganda and presented to less informed people as the "voice of the Progressives".

For every voice like yours that gets shut up and chased away, PNAC scores one more.


Don't go. Stand up for your rights! Ignore anything even faintly reminiscent of a Storm Trooper. We shall get through this commando raid.

[goodhue]

57. so what

What an absurd straw man of a post. I support Kucinich and am hard-pressed to name a second choice. I will however vote for the eventual nominee as I personally always support the Democratic nominee. The Kucinich candidacy is about working for change within the party. Why in the world should I be pressed to name a second choice when none of the other candidates in my humble opinion is working for dramatic change within the party.

The Kucinich candidacy is also about bringing disaffected voters back to the Democratic Party. Many who identify with the green and natural law parties support the Kucinich candidacy. They will support Kucinich but if he doesn't get the nomination they may not support the party. Why is that surprising? In fact if Kucinich doesn't get the nomination it will likely confirm their feelings about why they left the party to begin with. Which admitedly would be a shame since the Democratic party has a bleak future without them.

And this is what really bugs me about the whole electibility canard. Kucinich is the only candidate who precludes a Nader candidacy. If Kucinich gets nomination he will not run, but if he doesn't then he will. 3-5% of vote is important and could easily lead to Bush beating nominee in otherwise progressive strongholds like Wisconsin, Minnesota and New Mexico. Four more years of GW, because the democrats are blind to the detrimental affect of their rightward shift. It might make one give up on the democratic party all togehter.

But as I learned in Pol Sci 10 from Prof Wellstone working for social change within the mainstream parties is central to creating positive social movements. Never give up. This is our party too. Stand up. Keep fighting. This is the moment.

By the way, I suspect that a similar story could easily be written that Dean supporters are hard-pressed to name a second choice. All that would tell me is the depth of their commitment. Not that they are somehow traitors to the party. What a joke.

[MuseRider]

58. That was good.

Especially the last paragraph. Depth of commitment.

[goodhue]

60. a red herring

not a straw man?
sorry for my misuse of concept

[goodhue]

61. or is it a straw man after all?

See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=488421

[youngred]

62. Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Sevent, Eighth, Ninth

ABB

[Deja Q]

64. Can't blame 'em all

Don't hate the guy voting Green. He just sees things differently than everybody else.

Might be good.

Might be bad.

Oh well.

At least he's different.