Daily Kos UNLOADS on Kucinich

[DoveTurnedHawk]

Covering candidates is expensive, and TV networks have every interest in seeing the the field narrow as quickly as possible. It's the reason the early primaries are so important -- primary losses give the networks every excuse to cut back on coverage. The winners get even bigger plans as their press gaggle (and corresponsing media coverage) grows. It's a rule of the game, and the best candidates learn how to play it.

Kucinich has been bitching about ABC's decision to pull its producer from his campaign. However, I see no compelling reason why ABC should've even had one to begin with. Kucinich is a vanity candidate. He has no support anywhere. His "find me a girlfriend" thing is embarrassing and pathetic. He doesn't even give you Sharpton-style comic relief. His pre-election abortion flip was easily the most egregious and transparently self-serving of the entire campaign, by any of the candidatets.

He issued the following statement:
This appears to be another instance of what Kucinich criticized at the debate, namely the media trying to pick candidates, rather than letting the voters do so. In a democracy, it should be voters and not pundits or TV networks who narrow the field of candidates.
This move, before any state's caucus or primary, appears based on a belief that viable candidates can be predicted 11 months prior to an election, a belief that flies in the face of the historical record. Time and again candidates dismissed as "fringe" have wound up either with the nomination or with a significant impact on the convention and in the primaries.

Except that the elections aren't 11 months out. They are next month. Kucinich is fringe candidate, and one that is having zero impact on the race (other than cluttering the field for the serious candidates).

The Ohio Democratic Party is in shambles. Kucinich could do far more to prove his viability by helping rebuild it, running credible or winning races for senate or governor. But to come out of a House seat with no record of accomplishment and no demonstrated base of support didn't build confidence. And his campaign has done nothing to prove his views (far to my left, that's for sure) have found a receptive audience beyond a tiny niche.

Kucinich would rather blame the press than his own self for his failings. But Dean proved that a "fringe" candidate can earn respect and coverage. Kucinich isn't entitled to media coverage, and he didn't earn it.

http://www.dailykos.com/

DTH

[giantrobot_2000]

1. Shh.

You'll upset the minions.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. Personally, I Think Kos Is Full of Shit

And I disagree with his insulting assessment of Kucinich, and with what ABC did.

DTH

[La_Serpiente]

3. HereHere

:toast:

[Ediacara]

4. I agree with KOS's assessment of Kucinich, but I agree with Kucinich's

remarks re: ABC.

[Zomby Woof]

29. Thank you

Though I wished you had said so in your post. I thought most of that was your writing. :-)

(But my post was not directed at you, just the poster who called us DKers "minions", lol)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

34. I Try To Keep My Article-Citation Posts Sans Commentary

Reserving that for the body of the thread (unless it's a RW article, which I will make no bones about slamming). I'd hate to be accused of posting flamebait. Can never be too careful these days. ;-)

DTH

[Zomby Woof]

44. per GD rules

Yes, if it were RW, you'd be required to comment. Still, a little disclaimer at the top would help. I wasn't sure which words were yours or not. I thought "Why would DTH decide NOW of all times, to go after DK?"

You are one of Clark's best boosters on DU, and I don't recall you ever posting threads about other candidates unless it was related to Clark somehow, so this caught me off-guard.

No hard feelings, thanks for clarifying. :-)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

46. Any Time

But the disclaimer is exactly what I try to avoid: I want people to come to their own, independent conclusion that Kos is full of shit, without me needing to prejudice the debate at the get-go.

Happily, most are coming to that exact conclusion. :-)

:toast:

DTH

PS: Oh, and thanks very much for the high compliment!

[Zomby Woof]

27. pot kettle black, and some other points

The 2 candidates with the most sensitive, intolerant-of-criticism supporters on DU are from the Dean and Clark campaigns. Most DK supporters just scoff at the criticism of him, because we find it amusing that the same crowd who dismisses us as "fringe" or "wacko" sure are expending a disproportionate amount of energy getting that point across.

If DK is such a long-shot "vanity" candidate, then I wouldn't think "Daily Krock" or whatever that site is would bother with an ignorant smear.

Don't fool yourself, EVERYONE who runs for president has a massive ego. ALL of the candidates in history have egos. You could NOT want to be president without an ego. But DK is hardly vain, even if his ego is healthy enough to make him want to seek the highest office in the land.

As for the abortion "flip", the myth that he changed his position on it just to pander to the Democratic mainstream is laughable. If that were the case, then he would have switched to being pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO, not support single-payer healthcare, and a host of other platform tidbits that are anathema to the DLC/DNC rank and file. He is still pro-life, but no longer seeks to legislate hostility to choice. I wish other pro-lifers were as enlightened. As someone who is 110% pro-choice, I trust DK to honor a woman's choice and give it full legal protection without seeking to legislate his personal views. Look at his career - he has never flip-flopped. Ever. So if he says he has evolved, he has more than earned the benefit of the doubt.

Kucinich is a necessary candidate on several levels:

1. The progressives of the Democratic party who wish to remain Democrats and change the party from within need a voice in the campaign. It is healthy for democracy to have diversity within the ranks. Plus, it keeps some disaffected Dems from jumping ship over to the Greens. Most DK supporters, no matter how progressive, intend on voting with the party in November, reluctantly or not. The Dems will need all the votes they can get, so alienating us is not wise (hear that Deanies?).

2. He has already proven to be an issues leader with Diebold and the IWR. If he hadn't brought BBV into the campaign, who would have? I also can say without qualification it is a pleasure to vote for the only candidate who voted against IWR in Congress. You won't see anyone parse his words or second guess his positions on the war as has Dean and Clark.

3. Until a vote has been cast in the primaries, no one is unelectable or fringe. Bill Clinton was "fringe" because he polled at 6% nationally in December of 1991. (Source: Gallup).

This is one DK supporter who won't roll over for anyone's ignorant or hypocritical criticism of him.

[Don Claybrook]

84. From a "Deanie"

Dennis Kucinich is a better person than Howard Dean and a better candidate than Howard Dean. I like more of Kucinich's platform than Dean's. I'm politically much closer to Kucinich than to Dean. I would never characterize Kucinich voters as wacko or fringe. And if the polls show that Dean will win or lose the primary in my state by a large margin, I'll vote for Kucinich in the primary, just to make my small point.

It so happens that my pragmatism has manifested a little earlier than yours has. In my opinion, that's not good, nor is it bad, it's just different. And that's why you see the Howard Dean logo next to my name.

I bring this up only to remind you that there are Dean supporters who are not anything like your portrayal of Dean supporters. I'm a Dean supporter who doesn't much slam other candidates. Nor do I ostracize the Greens (as in, 'hear that, Deanies?'). Nor will I claim that my chosen candidate is flawless. But he is good enough to be within my acceptable "margin of error" and at the same time, very electable.

Please don't paint with such a broad brush. Your portrayal is inaccurate. And I fully understand that you didn't state that ALL Dean supporters (and Clark) supporters matched the criteria you outlined, but you did cut a wide swath, and that does have a tendency to cast all supporters of these two candidates in an unfavorable light.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Ficus]

48. minions?

huh?

[morgan2]

5. basically his argument is that

because Kucinich isn't playing ball with the media he doesn't deserve any attention.

[Nederland]

15. No its not

The argument is that the media focuses attention on candidates that are ranking high in the polls. Its up to the candidate to get his or her own polls numbers up--if they do, media attention will follow. The typical Kucinich supporter counter to this argument is that you can't get higher in the polls without media attention. However, as Howard Dean has shown, this is nonsense. Its possible to go from being a nobody to high poll ratings if you have the right message and talent. Kucinich has neither.

[morgan2]

21. the right message according to who?

the media. Dean still had very low poll numbers when he was on the cover of Time and Newsweek in the same week months ago. That had nothing to do with his rise in the polls at all.

[Nederland]

53. No

The right message according to a significant percentage of the voters.

[Cocoa]

61. no, morgan2 was right

Kucinich's message is wrong according to the media.

Ted Koppel declares, in a question to Clark, that Kucinich is naive, that we need to occupy Arab lands so we have access to oil.

Tom Brokaw declares in a question to Kucinich that negotiations with North Korea are doomed to failure.

What polls support Koppel's and Brokaw's views?

[Julien Sorel]

76. How do the voters know who has what message until the media tell them?

Dean was getting more coverage than any of the other candidates when he was at 4% in the polls and had raised almost no money, whereas Edwards and Kerry had both raised several million, and Kerry was polling solidly. Dean was claiming to be against the Iraqi war at a time when 70-odd percent of Americans were in favor of it. So how does that square with your claim that a candidate needs 'the right message according to a significant percentage of the voters?' Shouldn't Lieberman have gotten all the media attention Dean was getting? He was more in line with voter opinion.

[Cocoa]

82. Lieberman was also WAY ahead in all polls

it was ridiculous, no one was anywhere near Lieberman for a long time, and there was never any bandwagon for him.

[Nadienne]

22. Wait a minute...

With all due respect, have you heard of Diebold? Have you heard that Kucinich spends time with protestors?

Oh, so you haven't, have you?

Where do you get your news? Or perhaps the more pertinent question is, who pays for it? (Probably someone threatened by Kucinich.)

[Nederland]

56. Response

Of course I've heard of Diebold. I've been at DU much longer than you and probably heard about long before you. In any case, it has nothing to do with my point, which is that DK has been unable to gather significant support, as measured by his standings in every single poll out there. Wait! Let me guess! Every single polling organization out there is lying about DK. Its a conspiracy! If any honest polling organizations existed they would show DK with numbers far higher than Dean's! Obviously I'm just a clueless pawn of the corporate media...

This is a waste of time. DK supporters have their heads in the sand regarding his popularity.

[Cocoa]

62. I don't care about his popularity

I want his troop withdrawal plan to be reported on, and his single-payer health care plan to be addressed.

Many countries have single payer health, and all countries except for the U.S. are getting by without occupying oil-producing countries, so it's not that crazy.

[Nederland]

64. Then start your own media empire

...where you don't need to care about popularity.

[Cocoa]

69. you're believing something that's not true

It's not about the expense, it's about the message.

Those stupid Laci Peterson cases? The public isn't demanding them, the media is shoving it down our throats.

That stupid computer question at the "Rock the Vote" debate? That didn't come from the questioner, it came from CNN.

Please wake up.

[Nederland]

73. True

It is about the message, and Kucinich doesn't have one that resonates with most voters. He has a message that resonates with a rabid few that delude themselves into thinking that everyone agrees with them.

[Cocoa]

80. Kucinich supporters are not rabid

it's been often noticed that here at DU, the Kucinich supporters are unusually reasonable. That's just a factual observation, you're going to have a hard time disputing it. When the observation is made, hardly anyone has disputed it.

For me, I don't think everyone agrees with Kucinich. I don't even know if I do. I read his troop withdrawal plan, it seems very doable to me, but to be honest, I don't KNOW that it is. That's what the media is for, to evaluate his plan. Instead, they just declare it "naive" with no explanation whatsoever.

Why does Kos have to join in with this nonsense? Why do we? I'm not going to, go ahead if you want, I hope you feel very sophisticated and grown up.

[letthewindblow]

72. We are starting our own "media empire"

by supporting Kucinich.

[Nederland]

74. Good luck with that (nt)

[Rainbowreflect]

24. The important question is, does a candidate not receive media

attention because his/her numbers are low or are his/her numbers low because he/she is not receiving media attention?

[Nederland]

57. Re-read my post

I addressed this issue.

[goodhue]

35. Catch-22

The argument is wrong.
Poll ratings go up only after media attention.
Polls are essentially about name recognition.
Deans dominance in the polls came after Newsweek cover.
The majority of likely democratic primary voters are still not familiar with Kucinich.

PS show me a Dean leading poll that predates his media saturation?

Here is some analysis. I realize folks probably won't read it because it comes from that no-hoper Kucinich, but I would invite anyone who wants to think critically about the issue of media and polls to give it a look.

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_102903.php

Soon after Bush declared "major combat" over in Iraq, Dean saw a surge in TV coverage, with 30 mentions on the three major nightly newscasts in May alone. Kucinich wasn't mentioned at all that month.
The April 23 Gallup poll had Dean at 5% and Kucinich at 3%.

Riding a wave of heavy summer media coverage, Dean grew in the polls, while the Kucinich campaign scrambled to make the Washington press corps take notice. From June to August, Dean garnered 90 mentions on the evening news, while Kucinich received a total of 2. By the summer's end, Time magazine had discovered "The Dean Factor"—while Joe Klein, its political columnist, labeled Kucinich a "vanity" candidate. (To be distinguished, Klein claimed, from "serious candidates who have yet to catch fire," like Lieberman and Edwards.)

[Nederland]

59. Missing Facts

You fail to mention other things that contributed to Dean's rise. How about his ability to leverage the internet to gain a large, passionate following? The amount of money he raised in a short time via the grassroots? Dean had all of these things moving long before his surge in TV coverage. The coverage was merely responding to the Dean phenomena. It followed the movement, it did not create it.

[goodhue]

63. no

the surge in coverage began in May
the surge in polls began in June
look again at graph in analysis link

[Nederland]

65. Read my post again

I was talking about other indicators. Sure, polls started going up in June, but polls are a lagging indicator. As early as March and April, Dean had an enormous internet presence, large meetup attendence, and significant cash coming in. The media saw these leading indicators and smelled a trend. Kucinich had none of these, so he didn't get the coverage.

[goodhue]

77. "polls are lagging indicators"

I realized you had switched the subject to other indicators but I was sticking to the original polls vs. coverage dichotomy and debate.

You stated in post #15 that "Its up to the candidate to get his or her own polls numbers up--if they do, media attention will follow."

My simple point is that polls will never go up without media attention. I don't deny that some compelling things were going on in the Dean candidacy in terms of online organization and fundraising.

Now here in post #65 you acknowledge that polls are "lagging" indicators. Indeed, polls lag media coverage.

Fortunately for Dean, by your account, the media "smelled" the trend and so he got coverage. The coverage predated his rise in polls.

Clearly then, the media's sense of smell was an important factor. Unfortunately, the media's sense of smell is perhaps attuned to certain messages. The media has seemingly been unwilling or unable to smell the Kucinich movement. Perhaps their noses are highly refined or are perhaps held up in the air too highly.

I'm not begrudging the media coverage Dean got. The problem I have is the dearth of coverage given to Representative Dennis Kucinich.

Please don't restate that DK's lack of coverage was due to low poll standing or lack of "other" indicators. More persuasive would be suggesting that media does not like what it smells, and so ignores DK's candidacy.

[redqueen]

83. Another point that's been missed...

Dean was campaigning for how long at that point? A year plus?

And Kucinich was campaigning for how long, after being drafted? A few months?

I rest my case.

[redqueen]

6. Insults from members... insults from pundits

Nothing new here. :eyes:

Thanks for the info, DTH... I'll be going there now to give them a little dose of reality and democracy.

I guess people like him think that democracy is only okay if it's convenient to the media. Jackass.

[Renew Deal]

12. Kos is a joke.

He is taking a swipe at the DK crowd to "make them serious." He sees the DK voter as a Dean voter. It is a political move.

[Karmadillo]

47. I think you're right on this

Maybe things are not looking quite so inevitable as they seemed and he doesn't like DK hanging on to what he perceives as Dean votes. He's preaching to the wrong choir, though.

[blm]

23. Kucinich voters are NOTHING like Dean voters in their priorities.

What the hell could Kos possibly gain for Dean by attacking Kucinich?

And Dean didn't EARN the media support. It was GIVEN to him the day he started attacking the other Democrats and the Democratic party. They muted the real voices that could hurt Bush by focusing on the hot rhetoric from Dean.

Dean was GIVEN a press plane last June.

[KittyWampus]

7. Dennis Switches On Abortion- ONE ISSUE

and this "pre-election flip was easily the most egregious and transparently self-serving of the entire campaign, by any of the candidates."

Dean switches on:
Affirmative Action based on Race
Limiting Patient's Right to sue HMO's
Recognising Native Amercian Tribes only if they renounce Casinos
Raising Social Security Age
Energy DeRegulation

and we are supposed to believe that's genuine "Growth"

Please... give me a break.

[morgan2]

11. dont forget

Clark's switch on..

party affiliation

that one is kind of big too.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. From Unaffiliated to Democrat? Not Big at All.

You might want to educate yourself on the actual issue.

DTH

[morgan2]

19. unaffiliated republican fund raiser

to democrat. Do you listen to his explanation of why? The Republicans came to me and pushed me to run for govenor, and I didn't agree with them. Yeah thats likely. His friends would come and ask him to run without a clue of his political ideas.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. He Gave Speeches for Both Parties

He only gave money to and campaigned for Democrats, however. Were you ignorant of those key facts? Or did you know, but forget to mention it?

Of course Republicans wanted him to join their party. He is a powerful, charismatic and electable candidate. All the better he joined the Democrats, especially since that's where his heart is.

--

MICHAEL MOORE, ON GENERAL WESLEY CLARK

(audio of this transcript available at: www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3)

And then people say, well (in a mocking voice): "But Mike, but Mike, he voted for Reagan, Clark voted for Reagan!"

Yeah? So? So did most of America! You know? Do you wanna win? I mean, the only way you win, you see, is if you get most of America on your side. And if someone who voted for Reagan now says, "I'm joining your team, I don't believe in that any more," we have to open up our arms! This is why people don't like the left! This is why people don't like liberals! You know?

(In a mocking voice): "No, no, no, no, no, he, he voted for Reagan, no, no, not pure, not pure, don't like him, no, no!"

That's why nobody wants to join our side, we're so, like, up on our high horse! You know? What do you say to working class America, there's all these people who voted for Reagan, that now realize, they were duped! They were had! They're worse off now after 20 years of Republicanism!

You know? You, what do you say (in a mocking voice): "Nope, can't come to our side, you voted for Reagan!"

Jeez! I mean, come on, folks! You know? I don't know.

(In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher of Kosovo!" That's the other one. (In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher…Clark was the butcher of Kosovo!"

I've heard, I've heard an alternate version of the story, that was in the New York Times and the Washington Post last week. About why he was fired. Because he was trying to stop the genocide in Kosovo, in a way that would cost, even, that would cost, that would result in fewer civilian losses. I'd like to hear the story, I don't know, I mean, I'm just saying, I don't know, that's why I'm waiting to see, you know, what's being said here. I'd like to know.

But I'll tell you this much, folks. We're not fighting the Kosovo war right now. Don't let the professional left drag you into an argument that is a sideshow. We are fighting the Iraq war right now, that's the war we've gotta stop, and that's the war he says he will stop! That's the war he says he'll tell the American people the truth about how Bush has fought an immoral war! And that's what we need, we need that on our side.

DTH

[morgan2]

37. Oh cause michael moore said good things I must support him

I'd welcome him voting for the right candidate, but him running for President is ridiculous. He has never had to prove himself in anything. He was a soldier, he was good at getting things done under the presidents direction. It shows nothing of his politics. Any idiot who would support someone with no political record has some problems. The fact is we know almost nothing of his political convictions except who he voted for and raised money for. Let him run for some lesser office and come back after he has proved himself.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

41. I'll Take Michael Moore's Word Over a Purist's

Especially when MM says exactly why the purists are wrong.

Support whoever you want, but when you start spreading the same old tired talking points that have been dealt with months ago, you're going to get challenged.

DTH

[morgan2]

42. I don't mean to sound hostile but

How could you possibly just take his word for it and support him.. He has no record. Zero. Just because he can talk nice doesnt mean anything.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

45. Because He's Sincere, His Record That Does Exist Is Consistent, and

I've met the man several times, as well as his family and his close friends. You CANNOT fake that level of integrity and honesty over such a broad number of interactions. No one is that good of an actor.

DTH

[morgan2]

49. his record that does exist is not consistent

he voted for Regan. Thats not consistent at all with what he's talking about. Yes a man can change, but you are just going to take his word for it? I would never underestimate man's ability to lie to gain power. I don't know him at all, but people will do anything to get power.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

51. "HE VOTED FOR REAGAN! NOT PURE, NOT PURE!"

I again refer you to Michael Moore's excellent rant that appears to be speaking directly to you.

Who do you support? Dean? Kucinich? You do realize that both of them have "evolved" in many of their positions, yes?

Clark has indicated that his voting for Reagan was almost solely predicated on the understandable perception that Reagan would be supportive of the military. That does NOT mean Clark signed on for Reagan's whole agenda, or anywhere close. Hell, it doesn't even mean that Clark was all that politically active or aware back then, he was often stationed overseas and seldom had time, or access to a lot of information about the campaigns.

Clark has a history of supporting health care, the environment, affirmative action, the right to choose and gay rights. All throughout his career. That's consistency, much more so than a two-decades-old vote that made zero ultimate difference.

And if Clark is such a liar, he could have just lied about voting for Reagan.

DTH

[morgan2]

58. Ive read his rant

all he is advocating is getting Clark into the debates. His motivation seems to be that having arguments coming from a general will help in defeating Bush whether or not he is nominated. What I'm saying is that supporting him for president is going too far. He voted for Reagan why? He claims it was because he thought he would be supportive of the military. OK I can buy that, but its still taking him at his word. Im not saying he is a liar, I'm saying he should prove himself at a lower level of government first. Like you said, he is self proclaimed as politically apathetic his entire life up to now. Is that a good thing in your mind? I'm just trying to understand, the only reason I can see supporting Clark is I do see him as having the best chance against Bush because he is a general. Personally I don't see any other reason.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

60. First, That's a HUGE Reason, and Second

I'm not sure if you're reading the same rant I am:

--

And then people say, well (in a mocking voice): "But Mike, but Mike, he voted for Reagan, Clark voted for Reagan!"

Yeah? So? So did most of America! You know? Do you wanna win? I mean, the only way you win, you see, is if you get most of America on your side. And if someone who voted for Reagan now says, "I'm joining your team, I don't believe in that any more," we have to open up our arms! This is why people don't like the left! This is why people don't like liberals! You know?

(In a mocking voice): "No, no, no, no, no, he, he voted for Reagan, no, no, not pure, not pure, don't like him, no, no!"

That's why nobody wants to join our side, we're so, like, up on our high horse! You know? What do you say to working class America, there's all these people who voted for Reagan, that now realize, they were duped! They were had! They're worse off now after 20 years of Republicanism!

--

Back to the first issue, Clark DOES have the best chance of beating Bush, and that is an enormously important reason to support him. The most important thing is to get that monster out of the White House, the consequences are too dire otherwise.

Clark has publicly taken a number of positions that are diametrically opposed to the Republican platform. You can't just backtrack from those and say, "Hey, just kidding." If elected, he will be accountable to the American people, and to the Democratic Party. I have the utmost confidence that he will make an extraordinary American President.

We KNOW what we'll get with Bush, and that's disaster. In contrast, Clark is saying all the right things, and has the best chance of defeating Bush. So why not take Clark at his word?

DTH

[morgan2]

66. because winning isnt everything

Yes Bush is horrible, but its not as bad as some of you people make it out to be. Clark has no business being there. I can accept he voted for Reagan, but again I think he should prove himself at a lower level of government before nominating him for president. If we have no ideals and do whatever it takes to win, what does that make us?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

70. Once Again, You Exemplify Michael Moore's Point

If you don't want to win, then you're not really someone I want to be associated with, as a Democrat.

DTH

[morgan2]

75. obviously I want to win

But its not everything. If I wanted to win at all costs I'd support George Bush because thats what he does. I'm not going to support someone that I don't agree with at least on most issues. I'd rather see things get really bad for a bit then get them fixed, than this teetering back and forth on a slow downward spiral to complete corporate control of our government. There is a point where you have to say no I won't support that candidate he isn't good enough. I would probably vote for Clark in the general election, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

[Don Claybrook]

78. Are you saying you'd rather have Bush in office than Clark?

It sure looks like that's what you're saying. Please clarify.

[morgan2]

81. No my point is that he has no political record

and that supporting him seems pretty rediculous to me. I'd probably rather have Bush win than Lieberman though.

[Renew Deal]

14. Yes

from independent to Democrat. Check Deans voter registration in VT. I bet it doesn't say democrat. AR like VT don't register party affiliation.

[John_H]

8. I genuinely hope Kucinich stays in the race until the very end

OK, so he flipped on abortion. He had to if he actually wanted the nomination. But otherwise he has remained steadfastly true to his record, not engaging in a wholesale coverup.

If the left wing progressives were really interested in voting their consciences, they'd vote Kucinich.

[Nadienne]

28. don't know if I would say "had to" switch...

but I believe him when he says he will never appoint a justice that would overturn Roe vs Wade

I always thought his switch was because he gave it some deeper thought and concluded that the only way to protect the health of both the mother and child, before and after pregnancy, was in the context of Roe vs Wade... Using the abortion issue as leverage, as it were. I don't know; maybe I'm wrong about that...

[Zomby Woof]

33. it wasn't opportunistic

What he did was say (my paraphrase) "look, I am still against abortion, and want to reduce the number of them as much as possible (more birth control and sex ed), but I won't support SCOTUS judges, or legislation that prohibits choice in any way - it is a basic human right."

He has found the third way on a divisive issue. But if he were opportunistic, he would be pro-NAFTA and other MOR Demo positions.

[liberalcapitalist]

9. no support whatsoever?

I guess I should tell that to my group of about fifty-- which is way bigger than either the Clark or Dean groups in Toledo, and the other groups don't even exist. I guess I should tell the millions of people who make kucinich.us the SECOND MOST VISITED WEBSITE of all the candidates, next only to Dean.

Kucinich is the best candidate. You know it, or else you should join the other party. He is inconvenient for the corporate fascist state, the corporate media, the military industrial complex, and the other candidates (save for CMB and Sharpton) who are merely "lesser evil" pawns of the system.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

16. I Don't Think You're Right on the Website Statistics

I recently read that Clark and Dean's websites were neck-and-neck in terms of traffic.

GODDAMNIT, I want the Clark fundraising goal posted on the FRONT PAGE of the site, not buried in CCN!

DTH

[Ediacara]

26. He's actually right DTH

According to Alexa.com, Dean's site is #2495 on the net, Clark's site is #8806, and Kucinich's site is #6907 (all are averages for the last week).

It should be noted though that Kucinich's site's 3 month average was close to #28000. In late Nov and early Dec, his site visitations went up like crazy.

http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=379&h=216&r=6m&u=kucinich.us/&u=

[DoveTurnedHawk]

30. I Just Checked

As of right now, Dean is around 3800, Clark is around 8000 and Kucinich is around 27000.

I'm sure it fluctuates, but I read the Dean/Clark neck-and-neck thing in the NYT or WP, I think.

DTH

[Ediacara]

31. those numbers are the three month average

and you're right, I'm sure it does fluctuate too :-)

[diamondsoul]

79. DTH, no insult meant to the good General-

I'm sure you've seen my genuine affection for him, but Kucinich's ratings may be down slightly because of some internet troubles. Somehow we were removed from Google's listings.

Aside from that the ratings are accurate, but then we need to consider how many of us are visiting more than one candidates site and how much that figures into the results.;)

For instance I've recently checked several candidates sites for issue comparisons, and I've just signed up on the DeanForAmerica board.

[Renew Deal]

10. DailyDean speaks again.

Kos is a far bigger joke than Kucinich. Kucinich was talked into running by the anti-war crowd. He was drafted sorta like Clark. DK was right to run. He has ideas to present that are in line with the party. If Dean could run and grow his campaign, so can Kucinich. Should he have run??? That's a different quetion. There are benefits to him running. He is more of a player now than before. His name recognition is up. Does he or did he ever believe that he would win? I am not sure. I think that he was convinced to run by an overzealous bunch of supporters. Good for him for running, but he should get out of the way as soon as it is over for him. Alan Keyes stayed in longer than he should have last time and was a real thorn in Bush's side. I am not sure if we need that here.

[spychoactive]

17. i couldn't agree less

i find dennis kucinich to be quite inspiring and just because the media says there isn't any support doesn't mean there isn't any support...

someone needs to carry the torch he is carrying, and for that alone he should be applauded

one love
spike

[HuckleB]

18. Kos is way off base on this one.

[wysimdnwyg]

20. I'm a Dean supporter...

and I disagree whole-heartedly.

1. Kucinich is NOT a "fringe" candidate. He may well be farther left than any of the other Democrats, but he is still inside the borders of being a Democrat. If you would like to talk about "fringe" candidates, start talking about Lyndon Larouche.

2. The media has never given Kucinich a chance. Yes, Dean was originally given zero chance, but he was able to build his base. Kucinich has also been building his base. His problem is he didn't really get started until the middle of this year, while Dean got going very early.

3. Kucinich is very important to the primaries as he is helping to keep the discussion centered on Democratic values and issues, instead of sliding farther and farther over to the right, where Leiberman and the DLC want it. (NOTE TO LEIBERMAN BACKERS: This is not a slam on Joe. He has as much right to his beliefs as Kucinich has to his. My point is there must be a balance between the two.)

4. I would suspect that a significant percentage of Dean, Kerry, Gephardt and even Clark backers (and yes, CMB and Sharpton backers, too) are closet Kucinich fans. That doesn't mean we like Kucinich more than our candidates of choice. But we're all allowed to like more than one candidate. Hell, I like almost ALL of the Dems to one degree or another.

[Kanary]

25. Dennis' Fight With The Media is Crucial for ALL candidates!

This is an issue that affects ALL.

Ignore his taking on ABC, etc, at your own peril.

Kanary

[PissedOffPollyana]

36. Ummm... I hate to break it to this blowhard, but...

Dennis Kucinich was DRAFTED to run. I know, because I wrote him and begged him to enter the race.

The "vanity" in this race is the assertion that any level of support can be drawn from polls (because most of them are small & open to questions of impartiality) or even donations. If DK is behind in fundraising, perhaps it is because his support comes from the people who have been given the shaft by the "power to the people" candidates for years, the lower middle class and working poor as well as disenfranchised youth. They can't pony up the money that... say... AOL/TimeWarner can.

Is this the standard we want to determine our election process? The election is not 1 month away, the primaries are. Methinks some folks do not want people actually seeing what a real progressive, a real populist looks like for fear their guy won't look so good in comparison.

What are they really afraid of?

First they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win. ~M. Gandhi

[goodhue]

50. great Gandhi quote

But you missed the ever important first step. It goes:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Gahndi

http://quotes.prolix.nu/Authors/?Ghandi

[curse10]

38. This is disgusting

and I can't believe people on this board are propagating such bullshit- without proper commentary in the first post.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. OH PLEASE

This is NOT a RW article, thus there is no restriction. I almost always post non-RW articles sans commentary. Sorry if that's not good enough for you, but I'm not about to change.

I like Kucinich; I just can't stand Kos. I think this article demeans Kos much more than it demeans Kucinich.

DTH

[loudsue]

39. Kucinich and Robert Byrd are my favorite 2 Dems....

I'm not supporting Kucinich's campaign with my primary vote, because I think the repukes would make mincemeat out of him. (although I've contributed, because his message is SOOOOO important for Americans to hear). But he is FAR AND AWAY the finest statesmen in the house of representatives, and I know that his courageous participation in this primary has been critical to putting focus on traditional Dem values.

:kick:

[eileen_d]

40. How charming. (NOT)

I saw in another post in P&C where Kos was referred to as a "prominent blogger" -- what an oxymoron. It's like calling my grandma who lives in a dinky town in Ohio a "prominent Catholic." I've never read Kos and now have less motivation to do so.

[no name no slogan]

52. Kos == completely full o' shit

I used to read Kos on occassion, but completely ditched him when he donned the kneepads for Dean. I can't believe he even makes a pretense of being objective since last summer.

IMHO, Kos is just jealous that Kucinich has been the one raising the "unspeakable" issues like big media and BBV, and wishes that Dean would do the same thing.

Kos is just another Party-weenie toady wannabee who's just looking for a job in a Dean administration. I used to know these kind of people when I was a PoliSci major in college: they like to suck up to power because it makes them feel "important", like they're "doing something to change the world". The only difference between them and the corporate whores is the paymaster.

Good Riddance Kos :nuke: :puke:

[TexasSissy]

54. No, the elections are months away.

There are two in about 4 weeks. A lot of Presidents lost either one or both of those first two primaries.

The biggies are the Super Tuesday ones (is it five states in one day?) That's in early March, is it?

Remember---McCain was a big winner in the polls & did well in IA & NH, then went on to lose. Clinton had less than 5% in the polls in December of 1991, and LOST in both IA & NH, then went on to win the nomination.

Yes, Virginia...it's too early to call the race.

[kerryistheanswer]

55. Kos Sucks!

Its an antagonistic, elitist and totally biased site.

I love Dennis!

[Iverson]

67. Daily Kos is a big poopoo head.

There are already too many voices attempting to narrow the boundaries of acceptable liberalism into a narrow, center-right slice of the political spectrum. An additional one is unwelcome, unhelpful, and undemocratic.

[Cocoa]

68. terrible analysis

Kos is showing pretty much the same blindness that the big media show.

I'm as SICK of all this process stuff as Kucinich expressed at the debate. Did Kos EVER address the substance of Kucinich's message? Does it ALL have to be about polls and money, is there ANY room at all to discuss the feasability of single-payer health or withdrawal from Iraq?

I guess not at Kos.

[info being]

71. What is the basis for the decision?

Polls? Why not wait for a few Primary elections. The problem is that the basis for the decision is to get rid of the three candidates worst for the media. That's it. If you support that...well, I hope you're benefiting financially from the destruction of democracy.