Rumor from Obama's blog: Kucinich tells supporters to support Obama if he's not viable

[Colobo]

That's what some of the supporters who are in contact with Obama's central offices in Iowa are saying. I asked for links, but there are none. Still, interesting possibility.

[IndianaJones]

1. that should pick up about 2 or 3 dozen. nt.

[CoffeeCat]

Actually, when I caucused last time in Iowa...

....if I'm not mistaken, Kucinich instructed his people to go to Edwards.

I was for Dean last time and completely shell shocked when my husband and I were
his only caucus supporters, so I could be wrong on this. Please correct me if
I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's how it went down.

The thing about Kucinich supporters is that they are fiercely loyal and they
will swim through shark-invested waters to get to the caucus. They are tuned
into the political process and they are proud to stand for Dennis. There
are usually many of them.

Last time, they joined the Edwards group and it REALLY helped Edwards. It gave
Edwards another delegate (in my caucus, you needed 8 supporters to gain ONE delegate),
and I remember that Edwards was one more supporter away from gaining another delegate.

This could make a significant difference at some of the caucus sites.

It will be interesting to see if Dodd does the same thing, with another candidate.

Richardson is a two-tier candidate, but he has some respectable support in Iowa. I doubt
he will instruct his supporters to go to another candidate. However, his supporters
will have to join another group if they want to count--because Richardson probably
won't be "viable." A candidate must have 15 percent support from the room to be "viable."

So Richardson's people will most likely be joining another candidate group. This will also
make a difference. My guess is that his people go to Obama or Edwards, because Richardson
is more progressive.

[Pirate Smile]

24. There were five DK supporters who did switch to Edwards in my caucus also.

It did help him. It increased his numbers enough to get another delegate also.

Our breakdown ended up being 4 for Kerry, 3 for Edwards and 2 for Dean. Nobody else had enough for any delegates.

[durrrty libby]

2. I bet those 10 people will make a huge difference

:wow:

[zanne]

3. It's easy to check for the truth. Here is the official Obama website link...

obamaforamerica.com

Check it out.

[Colobo]

4. That link doesn't work.

[zanne]

6. Sorry. Here's the corrected link.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Thanks.

[LeftCoast]

5. Why would he pick Obama when Edwards has the more populist message of the two?

:shrug:

[cali]

7. Why did he pick Edwards over Dean 4 years ago?

It seems to come down to personal feelings for Dennis.

[IndianaJones]

10. Dean is a moderate. nt.

[cali]

12. Dean was far more liberal than Edwards four years ago

and anti-war. And being a Vermonter, I can tell you that it's not correct to label him a moderate. He's a strange mixture- neither fish nor fowl, but definitely more liberal than not.

[zanne]

17. Before Edwards started campaigning, he was a rubber stamp for Bush.

[Colobo]

19. John's position has "changed" dramatically...

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Bullshit

They have not. You've made the accusation, so please show how his policies have changed appreciably on civil rights, health care, the environment, corporate power, taxation, rural infrastructure, or a host of other issues. His policies are very much what they were then on these domestic issues, and those who would have one believe anything else are either deliberately deceptive or suckers for the distortions of partisans.

It's all very cute to blithely tar someone as someone who's policies have changed, but you've leveled the accusation, so please substantiate the distortion. Read a bit; you might learn something.

More than anything, you've made the accusation; please substantiate it. He's suffered mightily at the hands of the corporatists for being the populist that he is, and this is now being distorted as some kind of newfound decency; it isn't. He was marginalized and derided by the powerful the last time around precisely FOR his populism. Why do you think that Kucinich named him when asked by Jon Stewart as the one he felt closest to? Why do you think Kucinich had his supporters caucus for Edwards in Iowa if he became unviable? You are flatly incorrect, and it's either from ignorance, and an ignorance that you see no duty to the community to at least represent as sketchy awareness, or it's deliberate deception.

N/T text dittoing of snarky dismissals are more the habit of Bush supporters--like you used to be--than they are of nuanced pluralists who prize fairness as the glue of society.

[PurityOfEssence]

41. That's ridiculous

Dean was the most conservative of the candidates with the possible exception of Lieberman. Take away Lieberman's "Israel above all" warmongering and his tight-assed pornography and morality-in-media stances, and his record at the time wasn't all that bad.

Having said that, Dean was still squarely centrist, but in a good way. He's not an extreme corporatist in the Clintonian sense, but he's hardly a leftist.

I've truly come around on the man and think he's done a bang-up job as Chairman, but there's much about his '04 campaign that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. He claimed credit for the health care in Vermont, even though it was well in the pipeline before his ascendancy. He flatly claimed to have always been against the IWR, when statements in the time leading up to it show this to simply not be true. He claimed that all the Senators voted for the Bush tax cuts, when they all had voted against them; this is especially scurrilous, but not as bad as Clark repeating it later on. Breaks given to business for the sake of economic development are also an issue.

His stance on the IWR vote is hardly cut-and-dried, and neither is Clark's nor Obama's. The only way one can tell how one would vote on a bill is if they actually have to stand up and be counted. Praise goes to Kucinich here, just as Edwards, Clinton, Kerry, Dodd and Biden have some 'splainin to do.

All in all, though, the characterization of him being to the left of Edwards on social or economic policy in the 2004 primary season is simply incorrect.

The forces of revisionism have declaimed mightily from on high that Edwards was some kind of blue dog Democrat and only recently became a populist. It simply isn't true. Edwards was the candidate in the '04 election decrying predatory lending and the shifting of the tax code from wealth to wages; if one listens to his early stump speeches in '03, it was all about worker issues like these.

You have been admirably modulated of late, even defending Edwards in a situation where someone was agreeing with you but damning Edwards to a degree you considered unwarranted, and I know that you don't like the man that much, so pointing out the grey area that so many deny is much to your credit as a person. I'm afraid history just isn't with you on this one, much as so many suffer from the same mischaracterization. It's the biggest jaw-dropper of the media coverage of the '03-'04 fight: that Dean was the liberal of the bunch. It's also the reason why many of us were so turned off to him initially; when he claimed to represent the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party", he was pissing all over a bunch of very decent people--virtually all of whom were more liberal--and doing so from the safe haven of not having had to be held to account for things like the Patriot Act or the IWR.

This isn't to say he was a closet reactionary or anything, but the very idea that he was more liberal than Edwards in '03-'04 is completely untrue. As you can see, it's a very big sticking point for me: it has been "accepted" as "fact" that Edwards is some expedient poseur who has only recently found the decent causes of the people, when he's been a champion for the poor, the workers, minorities, women, fair trade, unions, health care and other unpopular populist causes from the beginning. It's sad that so many people have just let this false depiction go unchallenged, and fairness cries for a bit of history here. Part of the reason it was so hard for Edwards to get traction is that corporatists have had it in for him from the beginning; people on this board are unwitting dupes in this, and it could stand some illumination.

[LeftCoast]

18. I always thought he was mad at Dean for taking way 'his' platform.

Just my opinion of course.

[GreenArrow]

43. no, he and Dean were competing

for the same anti-war voting bloc last time. Edwards was running as a centrist war hawk, and wanting those voters that might have otherwise have gone to Kerry or Gephardt. Kucinich said of the deal that if he were looking for someone he agreed with on the issues, he wouldn't have found him, but one thing he and Edwards did agree on was that they both wanted more delegates. In Edwards' case, it worked.

In 2008, with the reinvention of John Edwards, they are competing for the same votes. Now that Edwards is a top tier candidate, unlike 2004, he has no need to make deals with anyone, and assuming that Kucinich asks his supporters to go to anyone, Obama seems the logical choice, particularly since Kucinich was right from the start about any number of issues that Edwards was on the other side of, but has now changed his mind on.

As one who intends to vote for Kucinich, Edwards would be last on my personal list.

[Cameron27]

9. Kucinich isn't happy with Edwards' senate record,

and he's taken him to task for his sponsorship of the IWR, and the China trade deal. I never expected a repeat of 2004.

[hayu_lol]

11. Obviously this is really dirty disinformation coming directly from...

some of those Obama surrogates. Obama must be triangulating again.

[Colobo]

14. I'm just posting what is being posted over the Obama blogs.

It would be interesting if it's actually true.

[zanne]

20. I've been an Obama volunteer since June. What blogs?

I have a feeling these "blogs" you speak of are not made by Obama supporters. If you want rumor and inuendo, go to a blog. If you want the truth, go to the official website. Here is the link

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

I know that you probably won't bother going there because that's where the truth is and it might just not satisfy you.

[Colobo]

25. Zanne, let me help you a bit.

Obama donor since January and memeber and poster in www.barackobama.com here.

This is where it comes from. Laura is a very respected poster over there, as you probably know:

Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Laura Hubka Today at 11:52 am EST
My calls are getting better and better everyday!

finding pockets of Obama support everywhere.

Committed caucus goers!

Hopefully you all got my message yesterday that Kucinich told his people that if he is not viable(prob. will not be) to go to Obama. That one or two persons or more per caucus will help push us over the top.

Did anyone watch Morning Joe this AM? Joe said it was gonna be Obama and Huckaby in IOwa. He is right!
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By yesterday gone Today at 11:55 am EST
Hopefully you all got my message yesterday that Kucinich told his people that if he is not viable(prob. will not be) to go to Obama.

that's good news.

: )
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Laura Hubka Today at 11:58 am EST
It is just the begining of the good news. It will keep coming as the days go by.

Most people who like the 2nd tier (K,R,B,D) candidates that I talk to are picking Obama for 2nd.

It should be a smashing win in Iowa. Hold on to your hats!
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Mary Kay in St. Louis Today at 12:21 pm EST
Thanks Laura,
The 2nd tier folks will make the difference I think. I'm getting worried about people picking Edwards as the "safe" choice. My son and his girlfriend are south of Dubuque until the caucus. They think things look very promising there. I'm going to be on pins and needles until Thursday night. But I'm so proud of my son and his girlfriend, giving up New Year's Eve and spending a week in 2 feet of snow to get our guy elected!!
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By JediMasterMatt 49 minutes ago
Thanks Laura.

I look forward to your posts, because I am so tired of hearing from all those nervous-nellies and their predictions on the polls.

Keep up the great work!
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Gretchen 36 minutes ago
Laura, so glad to hear about Dennis K. saying that. I have a couple K supporters in my precinct that told me we'd be their 2nd choice. The wonderful thing is that these Kucinich folks are usually very outgoing and politically astute. They will be great at persuading other 2nd tier folks to come our way the 2nd round. Remember, respect, empower, include!:)
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By PhillyLady4Obama Today at 11:59 am EST
oh, my goodness -- that's GREAT news!

i just finished watching barack in perry, which was live on cnn.com. HE WAS FANTASTIC.
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By PhillyLady4Obama Today at 11:59 am EST
oh, my goodness -- that's GREAT news!

i just finished watching barack in perry, which was live on cnn.com. HE WAS FANTASTIC.
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By P.Licavoli Today at 12:06 pm EST
I did see you post that and then couldnt find it reported anywhere. Is there an official announcement somewhere?
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Laura Hubka Today at 12:11 pm EST
It is from Des Moines. They may not release it. Until last minute. Only because Kucinich is not concededing. I got it from Obama Central.
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Laura Hubka Today at 12:13 pm EST
"considing" or how ever you spell (giving up!) lol
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By P.Licavoli Today at 12:28 pm EST
ah ok, sweet :)
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By dude4hope 36 minutes ago
Yesterday,
Do you have a link to the original source of Kucinich's statement? I would like to have something to show Kucinich supporters at the caucus. I've heard that some of them intend to leave if they aren't viable rather then join a second preference group. It would be great to be able to get them to join us in our corner.

Fired Up! Ready to Go! Obama '08
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By dude4hope 32 minutes ago
Opps, that should have been directed to Laura Hubka . Laura, could you please share your source for the Kucinich statement?
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Theresa in Maine 22 minutes ago
Kucinich did that? God bless that man.
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Ryan Today at 12:11 pm EST
Do you have a link to that story where Kucinich said that? Or where did you hear that from? Great news though!!

OBAMA 08

-Oregon Democrat stationed in Virginia
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Roxanne from Bowie 57 minutes ago
Thanks Laura for the constant updates!!

I have no doubt that Barack will win Iowa.
Re: Do not worry....From Iowa | Report to Admin Reply
By Brian S. 48 minutes ago
Did Kucinich really say that? That's awesome!! ...and I suspect, just the beginning!!!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CgHX#comments

Here is the link. Have a good day.

[BringBigDogBack]

30. That would be big

I expected Kuch to jump behind Edwards.

[zanne]

27. NOBODY WANTS THE TRUTH.

Why bother posting? If I post a nasty one about somebody else's candidate, it'll get replies. If I post an actual website where you can get the truth, no replies at all. Let's face it. We'd rather fight. I'm outta here.

[Colobo]

28. Dude, did you see post #25?

[Pirate Smile]

34. There is a blog on the official Obama website. That was where that post was from - in the comments

section.

[zanne]

15. Here is Obama's Health Care Plan, pure and simple.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ Take the time to actually find out what it is before a rant and a rave, or a smear.

[zanne]

22. What? No comments? How telling. nt

[peoli]

31. because Obama is more Liberal and he OPPOSED THE WAR

[TeamJordan23]

36. Edwards co-sponsored Iraq War resolution...Obama opposed the war from the start. nm

[Adelante]

8. Hmmm, somebody said something here yesterday about Dennis liking Obama

Interesting rumor.

[Cameron27]

13. I respect Dennis's opinion,

and I think it may help Obama.

[Colobo]

16. Hopefully it will.

[LSK]

21. probably be split between Obama and Edwards

[nickinSTL]

23. Forgive me if I don't necessarily buy it from Obama's blogs

I'm sure Obama's supporters would like it to be the case...that doesn't make it true.

Personally, were I caucusing for Kucinich...if he wasn't viable, I'd make my own decision, rather than doing what Dennis told me to do. I know that's not necessarily how things work in the caucus, though.

[Colobo]

26. Check post #25.

[KingofNewOrleans]

29. Haven't Kucinich people already picked another candidate?

Kucinich hasn't even put forth 1/10th the effort he put into Iowa last time.

[no name no slogan]

32. If Kuch said it to his supporters, don't you think he'd post it on HIS blog?

[FreeState]

33. Couldnt pay me enough to vote for Obama

granted Im not in the caucus but as a Kucinich supporter I would never vote for Obama, even if Kucinich asked me.

[zanne]

35. So don't. nt

[flvegan]

37. "if I'm not viable" doesn't sound like something Kucinich would say.

[Debi]

39. He said it four years ago - well, his spokesman said something about it

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/

[indimuse]

38. I like Dennis...

and feel the media shamefully erased him from this race. He has a lot great ideas and I find him fearless.:hippie:

[Tejanocrat]

40. I hope that's not true. If so, I'm done with Dennis.

[Franc_Lee]

44. Kucinich even endorses the right candidate, Dennis is right.... go Obama!