for those of you who were troubled by Kucinich's forum

[Gingersnap]

performance, I have a link that might restore your faith. I did not see the forum/debate (I lack a TV) but I get the sense here that some are concerned that he cannot handle pressure and comes off like a loon.

Before you start flaming me, I realize that there are those of you out there who think DK is a loon no matter how you package him. This thread is not meant for you. It is meant for those who are sympathetic to DK but uneasy because of the other night. PLEASE DON"T TURN THIS INTO A KUCINICH BASH--there's already one of those. :wink:

I can't comment on the forum , but I ran across a link to an audio of a right winger interviewing him on the radio in which DK really keeps his cool and comes off very well. The radio interviewer sounds like Rush, but I think is a local Ohio conservative radio guy.

the audio of this and other Dennis speeches can be found at:

http://www.fluxrostrum.com/MindFlux/DennisKucinich/kucinich.htm

Click on "hostile radio" for the clip I mentioned.

[Egnever]

1. no tv needed

you can see the forum on cspan http://www.c-span.org/ its the second most watched video right now.

I dont think Dennis did himself any favors there. I have seen videos of him talking in other forums though where he came off quite well.

[Gingersnap]

3. thanks, checking it out now (n/t)

[Egnever]

5. Anytime! <nt>

[MuseRider]

2. I posted this on another

thread. I was a bit stunned by his performance the other night but I have not been able to see him many times. I have heard him once on the radio and seen him several times on TV and one of the things that really impressed me above and beyond his agenda was his ability to sit quietly while the interviewers screamed and hollered then when they were done blustering DK calmly nailed them with facts. I am particularly annoyed by the shouting going on these days and the nasty way it is done so when DK pounded and raised his voice I was taken aback by it and not very impressed. He does not wear it well. He will do what he has to do.

[AnAmerican]

6. Please remember...

That the debate/forum was held in front a good number of AFL/CIO people. They seemed to appreciate the way Dennis handled himself. He was playing to the crowd, just as the other candidates were, some were effective, others, (A certain former vice-presidential candidate comes to mind) were not.

[lcordero]

4. I'll stick with Kucinich, Sharpton or Braun

I feel that the other six are getting a free ride. They don't represent my interests so I don't feel that I owe them a vote just because they are a Democrat.

[XanaDUer]

7. He did not bother me at all!

I thought he did very well. I saw the forum twice, and I am not sure what he did that has some people upset.

[genius]

8. Dennis is awesome

He will win the White House.

[genius]

9. Dennis was the best debater in front of the AFL-CIO

He was the only one who received an applause when his name was announced during the final statements. He had to wait for the applause to subside before he could speak. We need someone like him debating with Bush. Dean was the weakest debater of the nine. Shaprton was good except he didn't do his homework on "Leave No Child Behind."

[Gingersnap]

10. watched it twice now

I want to check back in and say that I think Dennis did well. He did seem a bit more nervous and loud than his other speeches (so I can kind of see what people meant--but to me he didn't seem incoherent, shrill or crazy!), but all the others were also speaking very loudly. He showed some spunk--he's a fighter and wanted to have the debate be about real solutions, not platitudes.

Mosley-Braun was great too--I'm so glad someone actually said the word "greed" with respect to this admin. I thought Graham came off as spunky too, I'm growing more and more fond of him. The rest just made me want to glaze over--same old, same old. Coiffed and primped and watered down so as not to offend or rile anyone. I wish I didn't feel that way--I want to be able to feel confident supporting whoever gets the nomination, but I honestly didn't feel like Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards or Lieberman honestly will fight to represent me.

[Mairead]

16. "I wish I didn't feel that way"

Exactly! That's my feeling too. I want to feel good about them all. I want not to care which of them is nominated because they're each as good as the best.

But I don't feel that way.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. Dennis Is A Loony, And He Looks Cartoony

Just kidding. DK has a permanent place in the palatial parthenon of progressive people.

[revcarol]

12. Here the unions had TV-watching parties.

Reports to me are that they all cheered Dennis!! They said "he called the other candidates out!!" DK was the ONLY candidate who decried the PRIVATIZATION of government workers, in his final statement.

For blue-collar, white-collar, anyone who wants a real pension,anyone who wants REAL support for public education, DK is the MAN.

He was ANGRY FOR WORKERS, and angry AGAINST THE OTHER CANDIDATES SKATING BY WITH PLATITUDES ABOUT HOW THEY LOVE LABOR,and then taking actions against labor.

Edit:Do not have time at the moment to click on the orig. link, but anyone wanting to see DK should look at Road to the White House on C-Span archives!!

[Northwind]

13. His raving antics are not what turned me off

I object to all of his unfulfillable promises. He is pandering, just saying he will do things he cannot do.

[AnAmerican]

14. How will we know.....

what it is he CAN accomplish unless he is given the chance. To me your argument is as hollow as the unelectabilty bullshit currently being thrown out there by those who cannot see the hope and promise that DK offers us all.

[Northwind]

15. Try again

He promises to repeal Tafty/Hartly and the Patriot Act. The President CANNOT repeal legislation.

He promises to "cancel" NAFTA. NAFTA is a treaty voted on by congress. The President CANNOT "cancel" it unilaterally.

He promises to do things that outside the scope of the office he is seeking. That is either pandering, ignorance, or a desire to ignore the Constitution. None of the 3 are desirable in a President.

Kucinich promises to be nothing more than a left-wing version of Bush, ignoring the Constitution and insisting on his way or the highway. I do not like that attitude from either side.

[Mairead]

17. He can choose not to enforce it.

The executive branch chooses how and whether to enforce the laws. For example, the mayor of a city can tell the police chief 'no more drug busts' and boom! the city is awol from the drugs war.

Similarly, Kucinich can direct the AG to not assign any FBI or other enforcement staff to the 'Patriot' Act or to Taft-Hartley. Boom! no more P.A. or Taft-Hartley.

He can also extend the provisions of NAFTA beyond the big corporations who are the only beneficiaries now, and he can squeeze them to completely live up to its provisions. He can refuse to participate in or accept the anti-democratic WTO decisions.

And if you don't think all that's a good idea, I have to wonder whose side you're really on. Because opposing justice on procedural grounds is not a Good Thing, it's a Bad Thing. It's like Scalia's assertion that there's nothing wrong with killing someone factually innocent as long as they've been convicted! That's not a standard any rational person should try to support.

[Northwind]

18. So you favor

ignoring the rule of law? You favor a President that picks and chooses what laws to enforce and what treaties we honor? Frankly, that is what Bush does. And that is what you are supporting. The fact that you agree with Kucinich's ideology is irrelevent, you are saying you want him to do the same things Bush does, just for your side. That is hypocrisy. If he does those things he is no better than Bush, and if you support him doing those things you are no better than a Bush supporter.

[Mairead]

19. Let me pose a dilemma to you

A group of people manages to pass a law saying that anyone who drives drunk gets an automatic death penalty. The cops come around and say they believe your spouse/child/friend has driven while drunk, and they've come to arrest and charge her or him. You know for an absolute fact that the allegation is true--the person did drive drunk. Do you lie and alibi your spouse/child/friend, silently let them be taken away, or offer to testify for the prosecution?

What choice will you make, and how do you justify that choice?

[Northwind]

20. I would tell the tuth

While at the same time gathering a coaltition to take the law before the Supreme Court to have it overturned on grounds of, off the top of my head, violating the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Constitution.

The system exists for a reason. If you do not work within the system, you not only get burned, but you weaken the system and make it easier for others to tear it down.

No exceptions.

You, just like Bush and his cronies, want to destroy the system in order to push your ideology, and just like Bush and his cronies, you will invent ludicrous hypotheticals in an attempt to give your views moral weight. The fact that you are ideologiclly opposite means nothing.

Sickening.

Oh, and just as an aside, you are not really ideologically opposite, for though you may be left-leaning in one sense, you are still an authoritarian, just like the current administration, and every other criminal administration throughout history.

[Mairead]

21. Okay, let me take you one step further

Now, instead of drink driving, we're in Germany ca. 1942. Your best friend, married to your sister and the father of her children, has come to you: he's a Jew. There's a knock at the door. It's the men in trenchcoats, very respectful because you are a high Party official. They are looking for your brother-in-law. Do you turn him in? The law says you must, that he is a criminal by virtue of being a Jew in Germany. Do you turn him and your nieces and nephews in?


(I'd urge you to check the definition of 'authoritarian', by the way -- you have it backwards)

[lastliberalintexas]

24. What a ridiculous analogy

Defending the idea of a president acting outside the scope of his office by using the argument that it is the same as someone hiding a Jew from the Nazis? What utter crap.

If you don't like the fact that we have a government based on separation of powers and checks and balances, then work to change it. But please don't be intellectually dishonest and say that DK could do all those things by executive order. We don't live in a dictatorship, as much as it may seem so with Shrub.

Personally, I like DK and hope that he rally means that he would work through all available LEGAL means to pressure Congress to repeal NAFTA, Taft Hartley, the Sherman Act, etc.

[Mairead]

26. Sorry if you don't understand how analogy works

but there's absolutely nothing wrong with the one I posed. The question is whether one should always obey the law because it is the law. Or, put another way, are there laws higher than the ones that governments create. If you say no, there are no higher laws and you must always obey the law of the land, then you are doomed to surrender your brother-in-law and his children (and perhaps your sister). And you can't ever bring the Görings, Eichmanns, Kissingers, Pinochets, Idi Amins, or Bushes to trial because what they did was legal according to the laws they or their masters created.

If you say there are higher laws, then the only question is who gets to draw the line, and how do they get that right.

As far as I'm concerned, the law that created the totally anti-democratic WTO, in which an unelected triumvirate can override democracy and national sovereignity in favor of wealthy elites is as utterly illegitimate as the laws that allow people to be imprisoned forever without trial or charges lodged, the laws that allow the property of totally innocent people to be confiscated and sold by the police, and the laws that allow factually innocent people to be executed. And I would expect any President worth the name to act to turn them off and then get them off the books.

[lastliberalintexas]

32. So I guess you support Nixon and Reagan

who both acted impermissibly beyond their Constitutionally mandated powers, subverted the will of Congress on matters specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, and violated our long-stanidng rules of separation of powers? Is that the model for a Democratic presidency as far as you are concerned? The elimination of checks and balances and an executive beyond reach?

Do you not understand that what you are arguing for allows Shrub to do as he damn well pleases? Congress be damned. Forget using political pressure to get Congress to approve the Iraq war invasion, he would just circumvent them in your world because they become irrelevant and unnecessary. As does any court system, so long as the justice disagrees with Dennis.

That's what Tom DeLay believes, btw. He runs around threatening federal judges with impeachment if they don't rule the way he wants them to in cases. So, we should forget an independent judiciary in a Kucinich administration? The only difference between him and DeLay is the way in which they want the judges to rule, not the pressure to be applied or the weight to be given their decisions?

WE DO NOT HAVE A DICTATORSHIP. Whether that dictator is benign or malevolent is immaterial to whether he or she has that type of power in our system of government.

As an attorney, I find your arguments to be very disturbing. The rule of law and the order that comes from a governed society may not be perfect, but it is far better than any alternative that mankind has found thus far. What you are at the very least implying that you want in a government is a chief executive who does everything s/he can to enforce the laws with which you agree, and spit on the laws with which you disagree. Never mind the powers given to Congress or the Courts by the Constitution. We go from 3 braches of government to 1, an executive who rules by whim.

How do you think the Hitlers of the world have governed? By the very manner you apparently wish to see Kucinich govern. An absolute executive and/or an executive who controls the legislative and judicial matters of the country. That's what allows the Nazis to come to power, not the manner in which they are destroyed.

That type of government leaves absolutely no checks on the power of the executive, and creates tremendous instability for the populace. In no time of American history have the people supported that type of government, since it comes far too close to a dictatorship or quasi-monarchy for our democratic minds to embrace. And I am terribly surprised to hear a liberal advocate for such a government.


And btw, I did not say that you did not use an analogy. Merely that it was a ridiculous one.

[Mairead]

35. You're an ATTORNEY?? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[Northwind]

25. Your analogy is dishonest and false

Did you miss the part of my previous post where I talked about absurd hypotheticals?

Do you understand that people acting outside the system and tearing it down (the way Bush and you want to do) is what allows a regime like the Nazis to come into power?

What you are taking about starts with people abusing power, as Bush does, and as you want Kucinich to do.

The only difference is that you want an authoritarian dictatorship of the left to come to power, rather than the right. (hint: Stalin was as bad as Hitler, he justs didn't get as much bad press)

[Mairead]

27. You really should have looked up the word.

Authoritarian. Characterised by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom. One who believes in or practices authoritarian policies.

You've chosen your handle well. 'Northwind' was an excellent example of authoritarianism at work--that nitwit general and his criminal staff believed that, because they were in positions of authority, they had the right to do whatever they liked without let or hindrance. Just like Smirky McCokespoon and his merry psychopaths.

I'm finished talking with you. You either get it or you don't.

[AnAmerican]

29. I think what Dennis saying...

Is that he will work for the repeal of Taft-Hartley, the repeal of United States participation in the WTO, the repeal of NAFTA.

He is the only one with the backbone to say he will work for us, the ordinary Americans who have watched these ill-concieved laws hammer away at our manufacturing base.

Even if he is unsuccesful in his efforts, I at least will rest easier knowing that the occupant of the White House is fighting for US. NOT for the corporations.

Don't be so quick to assume he (or any Democratic President) will
have to work with a hostile Congress. The current pResident is doing his best to turn off millions of ordinary Americans. The one way to assure a continued right-wing Congress is to campaign as a repub-light.

We tried that in 2002, and got our asses handed to us ion a silver
platter. In 2004 we need the anti-shrub. Dennis Kucinich. With Dennis running, there is a better than average chance that the average American, who has seen his/her job disappear, his/her pension disappear, his/her health coverage disappear, will not only vote the BFEE out, he/she will also vote out a repug Senator or Representative who is unlucky enough to be up for reelection.

A guarantee? No

There is no such thing as a guarantee.

But I like our chances better with someone who has the courage to bring up these issues. Someone who can reach out to the "ordinary American".

Out of the current candidates, DK comes closest to that ability.

[Larkspur]

22. I finally got a chance to watch the AFL-CIO debate yesterday

I had taped it, but hadn't had the time to watch it until yesterday.

Kucinich came off as a Left wing ideologue. He was pandering to the crowd, like he did at the NOW convention. The candidate who is most McGovern-like is Kucinich and Rove would eat him up.

I thought that Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Braun, and Sharpton did the best. Kerry's voice sounded as hoarse as it did during the South Carolina debate, and he came across as aloof. The only thing Kerry has going for him is his Vietnam experience and a voting record, while it has flaws, is more in support of working rights than Bush's. Kerry showed no charisma that night. Graham was totally uncharasmatic, and Lieberman proved that night that if Dean is a liberal, Lieberman is so far to the right that it's no wonder mainstream America can't distinguish between a Democrat and a Republican.

Howard Dean did an excellent job and he looked prepared for the debate. He came across as a charismatic and energized figher for working people but conveyed a pragmatic approach to solving or managing problems and issues concerning working people. He still needs work on formal public speaking at a national level, but he has improved tremendously since the South Carolina debates, which he didn't screw up as much as the media say. It's just that the SC format didn't suit his campaign style and he didn't seem to know how to adjust his approach then. Dean looked very presidential the night of the AFL-CIO debates and he looked very ready to take on Rove and Bush.

I'm not a fan of Gephardt, but he did show enthusiasm, which he seems to lack at other forums, during this debate. I still think that Bush would cream Gephardt and that Gephardt doesn't have the physical and mental stamina as well as the campaign organizational structure to withstand the jingoistic and totalitarian campaign tactics that Bush will unleash next year. Dean has those qualities down pat.

Edward is very photogenic and did convey that he had empathy with the working people. He did a good job of relating his working class background to his positions. But his problem is that he has a lack of political experience period. Dean was re-elected 5 times as governor and was able to take a state from a fiscal mess to a model for other states and promote social justice. Edwards has yet to win a re-election.

Carol Braun is a very eloquent speaker with a sense of humor, and she understands the issues, but I'm not impressed with her campaigning. I definitely want to see her back in power somewhere in Washington. We need Democrats like her, but if she wants to earn my vote for her presidential bid, she needs to hustle as hard as Dean and be as innovative as the Dean campaign is.

While I believe that Sharpton's Presidential run is Quixotic, I want to see him give Bush & Co. a tongue lashing next year. While I don't agree with most of his views, Sharpton is a skilled orator and we need him against the likes of Bush and his Repuke minions.

[plurality]

23. pandering my ass

The only pandering done was by the candidates that had nothing but insults for Bush but no concrete policies of their own. Telling me Bush is bad without any specifics of how you would do it differently is not a way to win a vote. Kucinich is the only candidate that had a concrete POLICY on every question asked of him. Everyone else answered with mostly rhetoric and pandering (re: playing to the obvious hatred of Bush)

[Larkspur]

28. If Kucinich's policies are concrete then they will go over like an anchor

and sink.

Kucinich's proposed policies would never get passed, especially if the Congress is controlled by the Right Wing idealogues that control it now.

Dean has a history of battling idealogues of both parties and getting policies passed. The policies may not be perfect based upon the idealogues view, but they made a dent in resolving whatever problem that the policy addressed.

And unlike Kucinich and the other 7 Dem challengers, Dean is generating his own coat tails and has the best chance of taking back at least one of the houses of Congress, probably the Senate, in Democratic hands.

[plurality]

30. where pray tell are these coat tails?

Do you have any evidence for this great Dean movement that will also swing Congress into overwhelming Democrat hands? I see support for Dean and money for Dean, but not much evidence of that going to anyone but Dean.

[Larkspur]

33. Dean is the only one who is attracting formerly alienated and apathetic

people to his campaign in significant numbers. He's almost up to 280,000 signees to his campaign. He's got momentum, which will translate into more people coming to support his campaign.

It will be these supporters who will be Dean's coat tails. I don't think that we can retake the House of Reps but it is very possible that a Presidential nominee Dean can ask his supporters to help him take back the senate by voting for Dem senate nominees in crucial districts. He would also ask them to make a dent in the House.

Kucinich is not attracting the same voters in the quantities that Dean is.

[plurality]

34. these supporter will probably vote Dean and leave off

they don't know anything about anyone else, hell many of the 'newbies' supprting Dean don't even know much about him, it's all hype. And yes Kucinich is attracting support from disaffected voters as well, but he hasn't had as much time or publicity yet to equal what Dean's done.

[Larkspur]

36. Dean is a much better organizer than Kucinich is and that is another

reason why most "newbies" come to him and stay. Dean keeps his people engaged and gives them hope that they can change the course of history in this country.

[AnAmerican]

31. Does your critique of that event include....

Dean lying to the attendees and the American public? Just wondering.

On second thought, maybe "lying" is too harsh. Let's just say he "forgot" his prior statements.

[corgigrrl]

37. Going out on a limb here

I've suggested that DK might not be an optimal candidate because all he seems to do lately is YELL ALL THE TIME.

I've also been so brazen as to suggest that all these DK supporters don't seem to care that DK completely changed his opinion on a woman's right to control her own body (from totally anti-choice to pro-choice) low and behold about the same time as he was having to decide to run for President in a party that would never accept an anti-choice candidate -- and his supporters want to paint this 180-degree turn as PRINCIPLED???

So I'm just going to say it: as an ardent and mostly progressive DUer, I don't like Dennis, I think a lot of his positions are nuts, and I'm not hiding behind anything anymore. And I'm tired of the "saint Dennis" shit.

I'm going to start saying what no one else seems to be saying: it's not that I'm not supporting DK because I think he's unelectable, I not supporting DK because I find him odious. I find him and his record and his positions -- horrid.

The guy is a lousy campaigner and he has plenty of radical, scorched earth positions that would do nothing but alienate any Congress he ever had to work with, not that the American people would ever elect him. "Cancel" NAFTA -- good luck!

Go ahead, flame me. DK is just as opportunistic and destructive as Nader or many other politicians, and all you newbies, go check out his (every changing) record. Myself, I'm appalled to see how "malleable" all you so-called diehard progressives are on the issue of choice -- I guess it's OK that he had rights over your uterus 4-5 years ago but has now changed his mind, whoopee. I have yet to get a decent answer on the reproductive rights switcheroo, it's a basic human rights issue that causes the deaths of at least 600,000 women a year. sorry, I find other candidates much more consistent

[ErasureAcer]

39. Kucinich changed his posistions before running for president.

He makes his stance VERY Clear on what he would do for president and a woman's right. Have a litmus test for all Supreme Court justices...if you don't support Roe Vs. Wade...a woman's right to choose...you're not a supreme court judge.

Simple as that. He hasn't changed his record on this issue anymore during his campaign(as he hasn't yet) and not when he is president.

Dean on the other hand I have caught lying about the pentagon budget and social security.

Dean is a liar. And I won't be voting for him under any circumstances. We already have a liar in the white house. I won't take another 4 damn years of another liar.

Dean can blow me.

[Larkspur]

41. Dean misspoke about raising SS age limit, not lied about it.

And the time Kucinich called into question Dean's statement about raising the Social Security age limit was 1995, not recently. Can you remember everything you ever said back in 1995?

Even when Dean talked about raising the age limit, it was a suggestion based upon the evidence of the time -- 1995 -- and Dean was not alone suggesting that the age limit be raised.

[Mairead]

42. Your spin isn't working, Lark

There was no 'evidence at the time', just lies. And his memory of his 1995 statement should have been fine, given that it was just refreshed a month ago.

(edit: fixed a "butcher's apostrophe")

[ErasureAcer]

38. How did Howard Dean do the best? HE LIED!

How can you say Howard did the best when he blatantly lied to Kucinich. He even retracted his own statement the next day.

Someone who has to retract his statement in a debate didn't win the debate.

Howard was owned by Kucinich.

[jdspatriot]

40. I love Dennis, but I'm still supporting Dean - here's why

The Progressive Case for Dean
By Nico Pitney

I passionately supported the Greens in 2000 and 2002. I traveled 125 miles to see Dennis Kucinich speak when he came to Los Angeles in May, and had the pleasure of introducing him to a crowd of several hundred when he visited Santa Barbara recently. Kucinich is a guiding light in Congress and, of the nine Democratic presidential contenders, his views most closely mirror my own.

Yet I won't be voting for Kucinich in the Democratic primaries, nor will I vote Green in the general elections. My support will go to Howard Dean.

Yes, I've read the unfavorable commentaries on Howard Dean by writers whose opinions I greatly respect, like Norman Solomon and Alexander Cockburn. And yes, I know that I disagree with some critical components of Dean's platform. Progressives should be well aware that they're going to disagree on a range of issues with every individual who has a chance at being in the White House two years from now. Our choice is not between Howard Dean and the-even-better-candidate-who-has-a-shot-at-winning-the-Democratic-nomination-and-defeating-George-Bush; that other candidate doesn't exist. Neither Kucinich nor Al Sharpton nor Carol Moseley Braun nor any Green will be President. Progressives should incorporate these realities into their electoral strategy, however disappointing they may be.

In a recent column, Norman Solomon criticizes "liberal Democrats routinely sacrifice principles and idealism in the name of electoral strategy," and then argues that Greens are practicing the reverse strategy - "principled idealism" without a coherent electoral strategy. But in the same column he remarks, "Few present-day Green Party leaders seem willing to urge that Greens forego the blandishments of a presidential campaign. The increased attention - including media coverage - for the party is too compelling to pass up." If this latter analysis is accurate, the impetus to run a Green presidential candidate has come not from principled idealism but a rather inconsiderate self-indulgence.

In any case, the role of ideals in the voting booth is hazy. Voting Green isn't necessarily the most effective way to achieve Green policies. More importantly, supporting and voting for Democratic candidates is in no way a personal affirmation of the Democratic Party platform. It is, in part, a recognition of Duverger's Law - one of the few reliable "laws" in the social sciences - which states that American-style, winner-take-all, plurality voting systems produce political structures intractably dominated by two parties. Moreover, it is a recognition that the Democratic Party is simply one network among many (albeit an incredibly powerful one) through which those seeking fundamental political change in the United States can act. Progressives ought to engage the Democratic Party in the same way that we engage any powerful institution; we should creatively test the limits of reform and attempt to produce change that will assist us in our own wider struggles.

The goal of progressives in the coming months, then, should be to continue what we're doing now - organizing, developing alternative social, economic, and environmental programs, and working to raise the national profile of our allies in the public sphere - while supporting Howard Dean and helping him win the primary and general elections. We have to keep close in mind what our country and our world will look like if George W. Bush's administration captures another term and can carry out its agenda without being restrained by reelection considerations. In what will likely be the most divisive and bitterly contested presidential election in decades, let's not use our precious energy and resources on candidates with no chance of defeating Bush. Rather, let's make sure to elect a candidate who, like Dean, at least supports publicly financed elections, instant run-off voting, and a constitutional amendment declaring that political contributions are not free speech, so that we directly strike at the structural stultification of our electoral system that forces us to limit our choices in the first place.

More here: http://deandefense.org/archives/000596.html