Gravel, Dodd, Kucinich all irrelevant, step out and reduce dilution

[dusmcj]

It's time for a first round of winnowing out:

Gravel has played a useful role as barking dog woofing at all the other candidates. The value of that is coming to an end and it's time for him to exit the campaign.

Dodd displayed how deeply coopted he is by being part of the Federal political system and in particular the Senate community. He barely avoided referring to Senate traditions when hedging on pork allocations in bills - "easy goes, let's not rush into these things and upset the apple cart, after all, c'mon in, the water's warm (cause enough of us pissed in it)". He gives the clear appearance of being part of the problem, rather than a potential part of a solution. Time to leave the Presidential arena and work hard to be a stateman in the legislative branch (and thank you for your service to date in that arena, Senator, keep up the good work).

Kucinich is a poster child for the irrelevant left regarding foreign policy, which for better of for worse will be the single pivot issue on which the next administration (and our country with it) will stand or fall. "Peace" is a great idea, but using it as a cathartic in the same way as the Repubes use "confident", "trust", "firm", "resolve" and "under control" is the province of the "hordes of ignorami" who've administered a coup d'etat to the normal public's ownership of this nation and its political process over the last 15 years. His ideas on trade and globalism are excellent, but unfortunately Iraq, the WOT and US international security policy need to be addressed first, and in those arenas Kucinich is as irrelevant as members of Trotskyite factions seen during a NYC demonstration fighting over dogma and who's more compromised. Time to return to your job representing the progressive left in the House, Dennis.

[pstans]

1. Dodd's leadership on the Iraq Supplemental Bill is hardly irrelevant

[The Count]

2. You are a poster child for the clueless party operatives - signed - irrelevant leftie

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
You think we should be bombarded with meaningless, undiluted rhetoric from what you consider "relevant"?

[Individualist]

3. Hear, hear!

:thumbsup: :applause:

[Bucky]

8. Hey, Count, thanks for turning the thread into a excuse for pointless insults.

Name calling is so childish. I would think a Sesame Street fan would know better than to act so immaturely.

[Forkboy]

13. Two quotes by you.

Name calling is so childish

He's just being a snarky old dude.

[The Count]

14. Yeah, I get this way when war is considered a "strategy".

All the candidates you want, play politics with people's lives. If "maturity" means not giving a damn, I'll stay childish.

[Czolgosz]

10. Talk about the clueless serial Democratic candidate attacker calling the pot black!!!

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Nicely said!

[earthside]

27. Ditto

One of the most arrogant posts I have seen in a long time.

[dusmcj]

44. Glad to oblige, someone has to do it. nm

[Richard Steele]

29. Indeed. nm

[TahitiNut]

34. Word! The opportunity to hear these voices speak out is valuable.

The corporatist wing has more than enough 'exposure' to make a nudist blush.

[dusmcj]

40. they're not the only ones who ultimately should leave

it's just that they increasing the noise to signal ratio beyond the point of usefulness.

Start the bloodletting too early and we have the usual "progressive" circular firing squad.

Start it too late, and we get a lot of mental masturbation on the national airwaves while the Republicans build a majority one vote at a time.

It's happened before. I suggest that it's time for a first boildown. The remainder is what should head for the primaries.

Phase 1: get rid of the ones who are diluting the conversation.

Phase 2: let the primaries send home those who are trying to get ahead based on their packaging by hired handlers as opposed to policy content they themselves show mastery of. No more CEO Presidents. The corporate model sucks dick in the business world, so why expect it to be any better in politics.

[Individualist]

There's that worn out meme again

Finally, the "firing squad in a circle" line has been a DLC favorite for years. DLC chief Al From has been pimping it at least since the last presidential race. It's time we officially retired this line, which is really just a sorry take on the lame old high-school guidance-counselor saw: "Now, Jimmy. When you shoot spitballs at Vice Principal Anderson, you're really shooting spitballs at yourself." And little Jimmy thinks: No, actually, I was shooting spitballs at Vice Principal Anderson . . .

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows/print

[TheWraith]

157. It's a cliche because it's true.

What do you think the history of the Dem party has been? What do you see around DU on a daily basis? The reality is that there is a very strong tendancy on the left to go off in every direction, and getting unity on anything--including a presidential candidate--is like getting cats to march in a parade.

[alittlelark]

78. Thank You!

[Bucky]

4. I agree with losing Gravel. He's just being a snarky old dude.

Kucinich, whom I disagree with profoundly, is a much needed voice in the debate. I don't care for his politics but he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He needs to be kept in the debates and the larger debate for the next few months.

I also think Dodd is doing quite well. He makes sense and he often makes points that nobody else is making.

[The Count]

9. Without the "snarky old dude" you'd all be drafted and shipped where W wanted ya

If not you, your kids. He ended the draft you soulless politicos.

[hfojvt]

19. He did? I thought it was Uncle Milt.

I am not sure about ending the draft. It has allowed for the 'backdoor draft' of millions of reservists and guard members, and has allowed the American public to think 'ah well, they did volunteer, and hey, it's not MY kid' :shrug:

[Sanctified]

66. Gravel struck the killing blow in the Draft.

Reservists and guard members are not a back door draft, you don't sign up for service and not consider that there may be a chance that you may go to war.

[hfojvt]

111. speak of the devil

:nuke:

Yes, you sign up for the guard to make a few extra bucks on the weekend. Do you think the recruiter emphasizes the fact, that you may be pulled into a war? I highly doubt it. My father and my uncles and George W. Bush and Dan Quayle went into the guard to AVOID going to a war. If either of thes gulf wars had drafted the same number of people that got called up, there would have been much larger protests for them.

[Sanctified]

129. Before I enlisted, the first question everyone asked me was...

"What are you going to do if we go to war?" If you think anyone enlists without hearing that question you are dreaming.

[SOS]

159. Gravel says he "ended the draft".

Further research shows confusion regarding this claim.
Gravel's filibuster was in 1971, which delayed draft re-enactment by 5 months, but it was re-enacted and there was a new lottery in February 1972.
The draft didn't expire until 1973.
This was informative:

"The end came after a series of lawsuits challenged the draft upon its re-enactment and renewed conscription in 1972 without regard to the 90-day waiting period required in Section 20 of the original draft law . A series of challenges to the draft under Section 20 in 1971 and 1972, led to an injunction by Justice William O. Douglas against induction in the area encompassed by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It became so difficult for the Selective Service System to unwind the mess caused by Section 20 cases, that the draft was quietly ended -- just in time for the wind down of the Vietnam War."

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems Gravel's claim is self-aggrandizing.

Gravel also made huge errors in almost all of his answers last night - official/national language, German-style national service and the amount "borrowed" from Social Security every year.
If he's going to bellow at his fellow Democrats (who he refers to as "these people"), it would be nice if at least some of his answers were accurate.

[Echotrail]

137. While I do agree with Kucinich I also agree with you that

Dem strategists like DK to stick around for a while as a token, a remembrance if you will, of liberalism to keep those votes in the tent.

The funny thing is, the strategists are in denial about how sick people are of the complicity and empty rhetoric that we have been served up for the last eight years. I don't think the party should take the left wing for granted again.

[evlbstrd]

5. This whole process started way too early.

But, rather than "winnow down", again, way too early, construct better venues for the ideas to be heard. I hate all of this horse race crap.

[graywarrior]

6. Gimme a break. Kucinich is necessary.

[dweller]

7. Ted Koppel, is that you?

:eyes:


dp

[The Count]

11. Hmm, I thought maybe Tweety...but Ted is no less clueless.

[Individualist]

12. Sounds more like Harold to me.

[Desertrose]

15. Sorry but they are NOT irrelevant.

Gravel has nothing to lose and I am glad he is there speaking up. He does point out the truth in many instances, like it or not.

Kucinich has every right to be heard as well. The irrelevant left? ExCUSE me. I don't think so.

Dodd has also made some good points which I was not expecting.

From what I can see..the rest are just spinning.

[LWolf]

32. Well said, friend!

:hi:

[Matsubara]

16. The "winnowing out" is called the primaries.

I don't care for Gravel or Dodd one bit, and although I am a huge admirer of Kucinich, I also recognize that his candidacy is largely symbolic, but hopefully his presence will help force the other corporate-whore dems to say and do the right thing more of the time.

They will be winnowed out by the voters, that's what primaries are for. Why are you in such a hurry?

[MonkeyFunk]

17. This debate happens every four years

there are two, very valid, very legitimate sides.

On one side is the idea that people like Kucinich and Gravel need some exposure before they can gain some traction, and that their constituency deserves that.

The other side is that most thinking people can realize that they have zero chance of actually gaining the nomination, and that there are literally HUNDREDS of people who run for President, and not all of them are equal. Gravel does not deserve equal time with Obama. To make that claim would mean that dozens of people you've never even heard of deserve to be at the debates.

It's a chicken/egg argument, but at some point, rationality comes into play and we all know Gravel is not going to get the nomination, or even come close. Same for Kucinich, and probably Dodd.

At some point, the debates have to be narrowed down to those who actually have a chance to win.

[EFerrari]

20. Would that be the irrelevant left that got Democrats into majority?

[dusmcj]

49. you misspelled "disgusted moderate voters"

No, I don't think the left produced the voting majority in 2006. I think it was normal people of any registration who are finally getting disgusted at the dogmatic extremists on all points of the political spectrum who are hard to differeniate from the Taliban or the Immoral Minority in their urge to tell others how to behave while not bothering to formulate working solutions to the problems facing us all. I'm tired of having my time wasted, your party affiliation might have mattered once, but in this particular moment it doesn't. I'm a democrat with a small 'd' first, then a 'D'emocrat.

Of, By, For. Regardless of party affiliation.

[EFerrari]

55. You may be right. n/t

[jgraz]

132. Then why did so many lefties win primaries over the party favorites?

Everything I've seen points to a massive mobilization of progressive voters.

[mudesi]

21. Kucinich is right about pretty much everything (nm)

[lonestarnot]

24. Everything.

[still_one]

31. not on bin laden.. bin laden isn't a world leader, and he called an attack on him

a political assasination. That is just plain wrong

[camero]

38. Technically wrong but logically right

Technically because he's not a head of state but logically because he's the figurative head of a vast political organization.

Capturing and prosecuting him before a world court would be the better route to take than an assasination. Also, with a court he may even spill the beans on world leader's complicity in the acts. But I doubt that because they wouldn't let him live if that was the case.

[still_one]

41. Perhaps, but that position would never be accepted by most people in the U.S.

[camero]

46. Unfortunately you're most likely correct

Too much macho bloodlust in the American electorate. Even though I could be surprised. The people I work with are actually discussing limiting wealth which as a discussion was unheard of just a little while back.

The pundits will be all over that quote from him though and stir up another frenzy even though he is logically correct in his assessment.

Sad really.

[Solon]

92. He should have just said that trying to assasinate a single person with a missile is stupid.

It was a ridiculous scenario, period.

[dusmcj]

102. It worked on that sheik

the dude in the wheelchair the Israelis sent a Hellfire after ? I thought that was pretty funny actually.

[Solon]

107. Why don't we just nuke the shit out of these countries...

I'm sure you will find that absolutely hilarious.

You don't bring a chainsaw into an operating room, you use a scalpel.

[dusmcj]

126. no, but firing a rocket from a helicopter at a terrorist sheik in a wheelchair

fits my definition of "armed response". That seems about as scalpular as you can get before you go to the 800-yd sniper shot.

[Tesha]

138. Word. I'm pretty sure that, this cycle, I'm not voting for...

> Kucinich is right about pretty much everything

Word. I'm pretty sure that, this cycle, I'm not voting
*ANYONE* to the right of Kucinich*. And Democrats can
gain or lose my vote by the choices that the fat guys
with cigars make in their smoke-filled rooms.

I'm tired of people mocking the left and assuming that
they can count on our vote no matter how badly they
treat us.

Tesha


*One exception: I'll support Al Gore with all my heart
and soul, not so much because of his positions (which
are "OK" but not "Freakin' great!"), but because I think
it would make a very, very important political point
for the guy who had his election stolen in 2000 to come
back and kick the Republicans out of the White House
in 2008.

[eleny]

22. Primary voters and donations will do the "winnowing out"

It's the American way.

[Fovea]

23. Generally, it is considered smart to wait for a primary

before you start throwing people overboard.

[ChiciB1]

25. Kucinich Is "The Firebrand" Against The War & I Agree With Most Of

his positions, but I think that most people will NOT vote for him. It's not whether he's relevant or not because he tells it like it is, but if Democrats want to win the election MSM has pushed three candidates for the most part.

While I won't dis Clinton, I'm so NOT wanting her to be the candidate! It's not only because I don't like the "two family" choice we seem to take between the Bushies and the Clintons, it much more than that for me! Where are they getting all this stuff about "woman" wanting Hillary? Most women I know, DON'T support her. But I live in Florida and that may be some of the reason.

But to have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush and then elect another Clinton... no I'll pass. We are going to have a choice between Edwards, Clinton or Obama and as far as I see it... Edwards will be the strongest candidate in the South! I know many people in Texas and Florida who are ALWAYS sending me negative stuff about Clinton! It has not stopped since Bill left the WH!!

[MadHound]

97. Why let the MSM decide who you vote for in the primaries?

Do you let the MSM decide other important affairs of your life? Do you not think that the MSM(which is literally controlled by a handful of corporations that have both direct and indirect ties to the war) has a political agenda of its own?

If you like a candidate, agree with most of what a candidate speaks for, then be honest with yourself and vote for that candidate no matter what the MSM says. Why let the MSM have this kind of control over you?

[ChiciB1]

143. YOU Seem To Be Missing My Point. I've Made My Decision About

who I support mainly because (unless you've been living in a box) what MSM reports has and STILL has overwhelming control of what far too many Americans are guided by. Personally I would prefer Feingold as a candidate or even Bernie Sander, but IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!! Better yet, my idols were Bobby Kennedy & Paul Wellstone (who died on my birthday) and that's sad.

Personally, I've never even watched ONE American Idol program, but I SURE know who Sanjia is, if that's how you spell his name. And I don't give a FLIP who the father is of Anna Nicole Smith's baby is... so you tell me??

Has it even occurred to you that most so called middle-class Americans have been voting against what is really in their best interests?? Take a look around, who is feeling the crunch?? Is it because The Idiot CARES about them??? I say NO!!

So again FWIW, I actually prefer having a Democrat over a Repuke, but sometimes wish we as Americans could actually have a REAL VOICE about what we want!

Let me give you an example of something I just heard on Washington Journal this morning. WAPO states in their so-called "polling data" that 52% of the American people support the Immigration Bill that is going to be voted on. Personally, I DO feel ILLEGALS should not be given special treatment, but DO NOT want to break up existing families and am not a racist in many way. But from all that I hear from MOST people I talk to, THEY say NO to this Bill! So tell me, HOW DO YOU think the Congress will vote of this bill?? If I were a betting person I would say... CORPORATIONS will win this one.... AGAIN!!

Do I respect this kind of stuff? I DO NOT... but REALITY is REALITY... Never forget what NADER did in Florida, please. His issues were important, but there would have been no QUESTION at all had he not taken so many votes away from Al Gore. And I'm one who STILL, to this day believes Al Gore WON the election. But it was made much easier because those who supported Nader went out and voted what was in their heart! I respect that view, but I CAN'T say it did "We The People" ANY good!

Until I see that we are willing to actually have enough of a REVOLT here in this country, I don't have much control over MSM, no matter what I MYSELF say!! That's almost akin to saying, that even though I'm not a supporter of Clinton, that I WON'T vote for her if she's the nominee! How much sense does that make??

Do You Hear Me NOW?? When the system changes then perhaps people like Kicinich will have a chance!!

[MadHound]

146. So, in other words, you are will to continue being a slave to corporate MSM

Allowing these corporations to guide your decision of who is to be president. Congratulations, you are part of the problem.

There is already too much corporate influence in our electoral process, and actions like yours only extend that influence. Do you realize what interests these handful of corporations really have. Let's see, the NBC network is controlled by GE, you know, that corporation who brings good things to war. Fox, well do we really need to go there? Vivendi, ooo let's privatize everything, including water(ask Atlanta how that worked out). CBS, sister company to Westinghouse(whose brand is still licensed out for profit), a company that continues to make military gear. Do you get the picture now? Do you understand? You are allowing people and entities whose basic beliefs are utterly opposed to yours guide your electoral decision. How fucked up is that?

The only way that we're going to have a real voice in this country is if we start using it. One way in which you and I can use it is to press for publicly funded elections. Biden brought that up last night, Kucinich is for it also. Yet this is heresy to corporate America, and one key difference between the corporate, so called "top tier" candidates and people like Kucinich. They realize the problem, and they have no strings holding them back from solving it. Let me know when Hillary starts pushing PFEs so I can be appropriately shocked.

You say you want the system to change, then by God, be that change that you envision. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, if Kucinich had a vote for every person who's said that they like everything he says but fear he's unelectable, the man would be in office today. You can't wait on change friend, you have to go out and be that change, live that change, each and every single day. Start doing that and you will start seeing change happening.

Hell, this is the primaries here, you are supposed to vote your conscience. Why not try doing that instead of letting a corporate MSM, whose best interests certainly don't coincide with yours, make the decision for you? Sorry, but such a self defeating action simply isn't logical.

Oh, I really don't want to go into this all again here, but Nader didn't cost Gore a damn thing in '00. If you don't believe me, go look up the DLC magazine Blueprint, the Jan 23, 2001 edition, and see what Al From has to say. It is online. Also read Greg Palast's "Best Democracy Money Can Buy," just to see how Gore shot himself in the foot time and again, including pissing off almost 600,000 registered Dems or self described liberals in Florida to the point that they voted for Bush. Hint, it has to do with offshore drilling.

[ChiciB1]

151. I'm Well Aware Of What Corporations Are Doing... If It Were Left Up

to me, and I saw there was some real chance that there would be publicly financed elections, you bet I would be for it. Most of the time when I get involved with activities where I live I get to attend alone. Sure I meet up with like-minded people, but the group is generally pretty small. I always ask others to come along, some say they will, but when it comes time to go I get excuses. I have 2 neighbors who own businesses, but even THEY register as Repukes because it's better for their business. I find that disgusting. They DON'T vote in the primaries because it would have to be a Repuke primary.

Therefore, when it comes to the National Election they do vote and they vote Democratic. I will take your advice and look up the information you have offered, but I can't say it will change my mind about the fact that Gore really didn't lose Florida, regardless of Nader. I could be WRONG about him but I live here and Cruella became MY REPRESENTATIVE after 2000! When you have brother as Governor and someone like Katherine Harris who actually didn't file her papers on time to run for office, it's pretty hard to jump so many hurdles!

I also worked in the hot sun to get petitions signed so we could have a paper trail for our elections, but then the County Commissioners voted it down. Kindra Muntz led the way and it went to court and we won. STILL, Kathy Dent is fighting against a paper trail. I know the state legislature states that all counties in Florida are required to have a paper trail but that's not until 2008. I will believe it when I see it. Sure I'M part of the problem, but I'm one who's ready to storm the Bastille if need be. Even with A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, I see NO action from them. We call, we send petitions, we write letters and yet are we being heard? Jeez, the House Election in my County is still up in the air. Do I think Vern Buchanan is going to listen to me? Hell no! Then my Senators aren't exactly fire-brands either. One a Repuke and the other very DLC. Neither Buchanan or Martinez EVER answer any of my letters or acknowledge I exist, but THEY do send me pamphlets and letters asking for donations!

So, you say vote for Kucinich in the Primary... well I can tell you this much I don't like throwing my vote away because by doing that, I just MAY have to vote for Clinton as a nominee. Kucinich is almost a foreign name where I live. Would I like it changed, OF COURSE but Sarasota County RARELY even gets the nominees in the General Election to come to this county. I ALWAYS have to travel to see them speak. I recall driving 5.5 hours to Gainesville once to see Bill Clinton speak. Plus, I thought about joining up with the Green Party here... want to know how many people attended? It was small.

Maybe it just more difficult for me to try and change the system. The amount of time I would have to devote to that won't be enough. I also have a mother-in-law with severe Alzheimer's who has lived with us for 8 years and am unable to do it justice!

Yeah, the problem is ME!

[still_one]

26. mighty nice of you to say who should and shouldn't be in he debates /nt

[dusmcj]

53. they can be in the debates, I'm suggesting they leave the campaign.

I don't see them contributing valuable content to the discussion any more. If the winnable candidates don't maintain their sights on the ultimate goals of reshaping American foreign policy away from rednecked dickwaving and corporate profiteering then they'll lose, and deserve to. They either need to start showing that they can "handle" it without Kucinich reminding them that they need to, or we need to find that out now, and find a new set of candidates to replace them. Enough is enough, on both sides of the aisle.

[LWolf]

28. You want to winnow? Ok!

Clinton and Obama were never relevant to me, AT ANY TIME SINCE THEY ANNOUNCED.

They go first. They aren't going to get my vote in any race.

Edwards, who was irrelevant, has increased his odds just enough to stay in the mix. He's hanging by a thread.

Biden, who was irrelevant, is still irrelevant, but I like him better than I did. He can go, though, just to narrow the field.

Gravel? I don't think he's irrelevant. I think he brings up good points and has things to add to any discussion. If there is a way to keep him in the conversation, he can drop out. Otherwise, he should hang in there awhile. He's not going the distance, but I still like him.

Dodd? I don't consider him irrelevant, but I also don't consider him presidential material this time around. He can go.

Richardson? He needs to stay. He's not my top pick, but I'd vote for him in the general.

Kucinich? Light-years ahead of the rest on every damned issue. Is he relevant? You bet. I hope he stays in to the end again, and if he doesn't get the nomination, I might just write him in.

Funny how "relevant" and "irrelevant" is a matter of perspective. I've winnowed out half of them, leaving:

Kucinich
Richardson
Edwards
Gravel

[scarletwoman]

100. Excellent! Beautifully said!

I'll happily go with your list! :toast:

sw

[StudentProgressive]

30. They say popular things no one else says; HOW IS THAT IRRELEVANT?

Your contempt for democracy is appalling.

[dusmcj]

61. but I want relevant, not popular. This is not a fucking beauty contest

although you wouldn't be able to tell it based on the proportion of time and effort spent on brand packaging.

In case higher education has informed you that there's no such thing as absolute truth and everyone's opinion is equally valuable, know that that's a conservative position (see the neocon discourse on how the content of policy is unimportant compared to how vigorously the policy, whatever its content, is fought for). I don't give a flying fuck for popular, and if that's democracy for you, you've forgotten the concern the Founders, far smarter than either of us or anyone else I'm aware of on the current political stage, felt about marjoritarian tyranny.

ultimately, it's about what's right, and about what's in the public interest. That's not something that the public will always immediately identify, and just because a majority holds an opinion doesn't mean it's a good choice. Legislators are an example of this; just like all human beings they're inclined to opt for the lowest common denominator, and what least perturbs their habituated comfort zone (hence Dodd's enthusiasm for Senate tradition). In order to make good choices, they need to be motivated to exert themselves to become immersed in a problem and know it intimately so they form an intuitive understanding both of it and of the ramifications and implications of any proposed solutions.

[StudentProgressive]

75. If it's not a beauty contest why are Hillary Obama and Edwards running?

They all supported at one time or another extremely unpopular policies of the Bush Administration.

This is a corporate-subsidised BEAUTY CONTEST and the fact that the true populists are allowed in the Debate must really tick off the multinationals.

Sorry it offends you. Learn to practice democracy!

[arendt]

80. Oh but it is. A corporate beauty contest to see which whore can give them the best...

BJ. And you want to winnow out the few people who refuse to suck off the corporations.

This thread is a provocation. How dare you tell anyone to drop out now, six months
before a primary.

I hate this money primary BS, where the corporate media select the questions and the
corporate media proclaim who won immediately. Gee, James Carville, paid for by
Hillary, as a commentator.

This whole two year primary is a deliberate distraction. It allows politicians to never
ever have to just govern. They can spend all their time campaigning.

Tell me how this worthless, staged beauty contest has any relevance to a primary
that won't happen for at least six months. What anyone says today can be completely
upended by events.

It is a total waste of time and money whose only purpose is to convince Americans
to let the media and the big money boys pick our candidates.

arendt

[dusmcj]

96. content-free voices don't help that condition

Gravel and Dodd are content-free, and Kucinich can be pointed to and laughed, and doesn't offer enough other valuable content to make up for it.

It's time to address the seriousness of the situation. We already lost 2 elections we should have won, against fascist retardates with low pressure between their ears. Imagine a GOP prettyboy buttlicker like Romney in office, or worse one of the unvarnished Talibicans. This is not time for a house party and discussion circle; that's not an alternative to corporate candidacies, but rather a reaction to it. It's time to MOVE because the Talibicans certainly are.

>This thread is a provocation. How dare you tell anyone to drop out now, six months
>before a primary.

Excellent, it worked. Judging from the quality of what passes for discourse on average among the opposition to the Talibicans, as evidenced both in tonight's debate and in the public sphere in general (with distinct, but individual, exceptions, and exceptions they are) maybe at the end of the day I'll have ended up doing a small public service.

[Tesha]

144. You have no idea what you're talking about.

> content-free voices don't help that condition
>
> Gravel and Dodd are content-free, and Kucinich can be
> pointed to and laughed, and doesn't offer enough other
> valuable content to make up for it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I can only
presume you've never had the pleasure of hearing any of
these three gentlemen speak *UNFILTERED BY THE MEDIA*.

I have heard all three.

Tesha

[SnoopDog]

33. Better yet – lose Clinton, favor Kucinich, and pray Gore runs again.

Clinton is the Republican candidate of choice and will further ruin America.

Kucinich could literally turn America around and be the country it was before the 1950s (or 1960s…before they killed Kennedy).

Al gore could do the same…

[mvd]

39. I'd so like to see a Kucinich Presidency

It's never been tried. He'd be what Mondale could have been in the 80s, but the country was too far to the right back then, too. We have never really had truly liberal President this and last century - even Roosevelt went too far with internment of the Japanese. Let's give it a chance!

[SnoopDog]

62. Everybody, it seems, is afraid of doing the right thing...

Why? I don't know.

Kucinich has answers.

Kucinich is probably the most Democratic Democrat around.

His decisions would be for America - not corporations.

America is dying - we so desperately need a man/woman with the proper conviction.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. I Agree With You. I'd Rather Listen To Real Candidates As Well.

Kucinich said a few things that I liked overall, but when it comes down to it he doesn't have a clue of what it would take to be President. Gravel, on the other hand, is so insignificant that he makes Kucinich look like he COULD actually be president LOL. I do enjoy some of Gravel's remarks though, as it is a humorous counterbalance to the talk carefully crowd. I liked some of what Dodd had to say as well, but I can't for the life of me see him in the role of President. I think he is made to be a Senator and don't see him progressing past that.

So though I know you'll undoubtedly deal with a lot of flames, I agree with where you're coming from and consider what you're saying to be quite realistic.

[question everything]

48. Same here

Our candidate will have to appeal to all voters and those three never will.

[Quixote1818]

60. Realistic is the key word

My handle may have Quixote in it, but even a real life Don Quixote could read the hand writing on the wall with those three. Time to narrow things down!

[annabanana]

36. What's your rush? Hmmmmm?

You do know the election is in November of 08, right?

[sniffa]

37. oh fucking yawn

:eyes:

gLad to know biden is reLevant though.

[stevedeshazer]

42. So, you are against peace? That is what DK is running on.

The left is irrelevant regarding foreign policy? Give me a break.

A reminder is in order.

Another guy in my lifetime spoke of peace. He was President John F. Kennedy.

Here's what he said on June 10, 1963:

"I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

---

Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY candidate speaking to this issue today.

There is no single issue more important. No task more urgent.

I dissent.

[Hardrada]

50. Agree with you. DK must stay.

The Beltway boys seem to be having a failure to communicate here.

[dusmcj]

70. That's why it's the John F. Kennedy special warfare school

JFK was a swinging dick Irish boy and a patrician to boot who was well-schooled in the standard techniques of enlightened empire for maintaining its benevolent control. Thank God we have folks like that for times when we need to send people into harm's way, as the phrase goes (and yes, such times do exist, you'll be wasting my time at least if you proclaim they don't) but the enlightened vision expressed in the above was spoken out of the reference frame of the reactionary anticommunism of the 20th century (which was in turn an early death gasp of degenerated "liberal" (in the original socioeconomic sense) society of the 19th) and was thus sadly diluted by it. JFK represented the best of the war generation, but the intervening 40 years of human evolution have been necessary. The reaction is more clearly identified as the core human problem, and we need the resultant willingness to decisive, and appropriate, action, without the bindings to ego and self-aggrandizement. Peace as opium of the masses is not helpful but instead just another distraction as the usual suspects go about their usual business. Peace without justice is slavery.

Of, By, For.

[stevedeshazer]

79. Okay, so you are against peace.

Honest answer, I'll give you credit. The rest is just gobbledygook.

I'd like some of what you're smoking. :smoke:

Peace, I believe, is peace. Not opium.

[northzax]

122. this from the guy who signed off

on the invasion of Cuba and the ramping up of military presence in Vietnam? that peace-lover? Kennedy talked a good game, but he played weak hardball.

[WilliamPitt]

43. That's what primaries are for.

:think:

[Czolgosz]

45. I think Biden and Richardson add nothing to the debate, but I wouldn't exclude them because that's

the role of the primary voters.

[cascadiance]

59. Biden DID add public campaign financing today though!

That's a subject that in my book is THE most important and is sorely under discussed, largely due to the corporate media forming the questions of course!

[Byronic]

142. Aw, come on............

We all know that Joe is a debate in himself.

He brings plenty to the table. In fact, he often brings the table.

[scarletwoman]

47. As a member of the "irrelevant left", I'll be happy to step aside & let you have the Dems to yrself.

Really. Knock yourself out. I'll happily just stand aside.

sw

[KG]

52. kinda funny how irrlevant we are till the centrists are begging for us to vote

for war enablers and corporate tools. :hi:

[KoKo]

58. Yep....you said it... true...but with all that money and hopes of Repug and Indie turnout for Dems

they might push us under the bus earlier rather than waiting around for our votes that they consider so irrelevant.

[KG]

65. the dem party has spent the last 25 years trying to get repugs to vote for them, then acted

shocked, SHOCKED! when real progresives said fuck it and voted for s real progresive party in 2000.

apparently they still haven't quite figured what they're doing wrong.

[scarletwoman]

64. Word on that. But this time I fully intend to remain "irrelevant".

I'm pulling my chips out of this suckers game.

sw
:hi: back atcha...

[KG]

84. rock on, sistah. going back to voting my hopes instead my fears.

[Echotrail]

139. LOL!

Well said.

[libnnc]

124. I'll be happy to stay home on election day too.

Since I'm irrelevant--just in the way and all.

Wanna take our irrelevant selves and go grab a coffee?

The "top tier" have everything under control.

They don't need us around anyway. :shrug:

[Colobo]

51. Gravel, Dennis and Dodd are a waste of space and time on the debates.

[stevedeshazer]

57. Why?

[StudentProgressive]

104. True, only Wall Street's candidates should get to compete

Love your contempt for democracy, bud.

[cascadiance]

54. Careful, we've heavily criticized the Repubs treatment of Ron Paul...

We carry the same risk ourselves if we try pushing out these guys too!

I thought each candidate had some good moments and each had some bad ones, including folks like Kucinich and Gravel, etc.

Gravel was on point noting that even though the budget was balanced it was through still leaning on borrowing against Social Security for the last two decades+.

Kucinich was on point when he noted that free universal health care will also help small businesses financially in addition to being the right thing to do. The crowd there cheered them for these comments.

I even give credit to Biden, though I distrust him otherwise, for bringing up my big issue in public campaign financing, but he loses me on his stance on funding the war.

We need Gore to get in the race!

I think as long as the comments remain constructive in terms of offering suggestions/solutions and not personal towards other candidates, having many voices still talking here is a valuable thing! The media certainly doesn't give us a diversity of views on issues, etc. Hopefully having this many voices can continue to help Americans hear more diversity.

[fishwax]

56. a first round of winnowing out? We're still seven months from the Iowa Caucus

I think we've still got time to listen to a diversity of views :eyes:

[Peggy Day]

63. Maybe more debates might be better. We do own the airwaves, right?

Maybe they should stop trying to make money off of the news.
As far as Kucinich being irrelevant regarding foreign policy, I disagree. Peace is a very important goal. That 20 minute question was unfair. Clinton is right to reject those stupid raise your hand questions. Everytime they try it, they should all talk at once, like they did at the last raise your hand question.
I don't think Kucinich will be chosen, but he is my favorite currently running. I voted for him in the 2004 primary (Kerry had it sewed up by the time I voted-California), but might have changed my mind if I could see he didn't have a chance, and Kerry would have lost.
My real favorite is Al Gore.
IMO, it is important to have different viewpoints. Maybe all the time analyzing before and after the debate could have been shortened and given to more debate time. Who cares what Carville thinks? I can form my own opinion thank you.

[thethinker]

67. Gravel, Dodd, Kucinich should drop out?

Says who? Don't I get to vote first? Or is voting and democracy some sort of old fashion idea?

[dusmcj]

76. I'm expressing my opinion that they will shortly start decreasing Dem effectiveness

Our goal is to win in 08, isn't it ? I guess the question should be asked given our performance in the last two iterations. Oh, I forgot, I'd rather make a symbolic gesture and then run backwards and impale myself on a Republican sword. What a plan, we've executed it so well before.

[Solon]

87. OK, how about a deal, since the left is "irrelevent" why don't we sit out this election...

but only on the condition that you don't bitch about us costing you guys yet another election like in 2000. Deal?

[scarletwoman]

94. That's precisely what I plan to do. I figure, no harm - since I'm irrelevant anyway, right? (nt)

[Solon]

98. Exactly, and then, when they turn around and bitch about us costing them the election...

we can turn around and point out that THEY are the ones who said we were irrelevant. Hell, they don't even like the idea of PRIMARY challenges anymore. They just want us to shut up and vote their way, and to be frank, I'm sick of it. If the Democratic party doesn't represent my interests, and even wants to shut down one of the major ways to affect change within the party, then why the fuck should I vote for them?

[dusmcj]

112. I don't have truck with anyone who claims the left lost the Dems '00 and '04

I just think that the establishment doesn't need any help losing, they're already really good at it by themselves. All quarters need to pull together and work for pragmatic convergence in service of truth and the public interest (vs. either politically correct dogma, irrelevant delusion or corporate accomodation and unimaginative status quo preservation) rather than "challenging" each other and operating in adversarial mode. Eyes on the prize, one goal, stop our local Taliban before they stop us.

[Solon]

119. If you actually believed that, then you directly contradict your own OP...

Calling the left irrelevant doesn't help your cause much.

[LWolf]

136. My goal is to WIN in '08, not to "win."

I don't consider putting a corporate "D" in office a "win." That D isn't going to represent me.

A real WIN is putting a candidate not controlled by corporations into the wh.

Therefore, if we want to WIN, and want that laser focus on one candidate this early, all the corporate owned candidates need to drop out now.

Like that's going to happen. :eyes:

[Tesha]

140. Our goal isn't to "win" an election. Our goal is to RESTORE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

> Our goal is to win in 08, isn't it ?

Our goal (or at least my goal) isn't to "win" an election
in 2008. Our goal (or at least my goal) is to RESTORE AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY. If the Democratic candidate is supportive of that
goal, then I'm supportive of the Democratic candidate.

But it seems pretty clear to me that some of the folks on
that stage *AREN'T* supportive of my goal. Instead, they're
just looking for a job or looking for power. Their demonstrated
track record is that they'll gladly toss the Constitution and
our Democracy under the bus if it will get them their next hit
of power and influence. Joe Biden gladly votes for corporations
over living "natural" persons. Hilary and Edwards voted for
the war when they thought it was politically expedient.

The party has a choice: it can either go *ALL OUT* to support
the restoration of our Democracy or it can count on my vote
going somewhere else.

Tesha

[Sanctified]

68. Yes the solution is to go with Option A or Option A.

Lets eliminate Option B because well it's not Option A.

[Le Taz Hot]

145. LOL!!!

Very good! Spoken like true smart ass.

[BlooInBloo]

69. (shrug) They already don't get much time.

[DemBones DemBones]

71. Kucinich is the best candidate we have.

It's a shame so few see that.

[klook]

74. I'm with you on that.

And he came across very well tonight on almost everything.

[DemBones DemBones]

163. Kucinich was great tonight being interviewed by Paula Zahn, too.

I'm highly annoyed that three candidates got fifteen minutes apiece in an auditorium with live audience while the other three merely got six minutes apiece with Paula Zahn, two not even in the studio. Dennis was in the studio, looked good, gave great answers.

[klook]

72. So how do you propose they be eliminated?

Did I miss something? We're still having primaries, right?

[StudentProgressive]

77. Why don't we behead them?!

This poster's contempt for democracy may extend to that.

[dusmcj]

88. you want to win in 2008, or you want to have a philosophy colloqium ?

Time to get a little hard-nosed.

[StudentProgressive]

103. The fascists always use fear mongering to suppress free speech

My experience isn't as limited as yours. Remember that.

[dusmcj]

113. if your speech isn't useful, you've wasted your freedom and made hot air. nt

Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one, and most have shit close by.

[Le Taz Hot]

147. Actually, I want my country back.

But thanks so much for representing the predator class so well.

[nealmhughes]

73. Well, I guess you aren't in the Puritan Branch of the Party, then.

Oh, well, continue on the old tired "Best Government Money Can Buy" candidates and see what you get. It is a sad day when a Democrat calls Kucinich "irrevelent."

The invocation of Trotsky is usually used for opponents of the neo-cons, not for an analogy involving Democrats, by the way, though I am sure the DLC, a group with which I shall never be invited to lunch, sees Dennis as a Trotskyite . . . all the theory and not pragmatic triangulation, an eternal revolution in American morals, foreign relations, and business until all is right with the world.

Well, we need someone to tell us what is wrong point blank and not mince words while playing footsies with the bank. Someone who has a complete view of the world and seeks to improve it, not continue on an old course that is becoming our own downfall.

I am sorry that Mr. Gravel is old and Dennis is "funny looking," by the way. They are rather accidents of nature and neither preempt them from having their voices heard.

In short, "How about a nice steaming cup of STFU?"

Go worship at the feet of the sheep in the herd, following the media anointed shepherds, if you wish, but any Democrat who is willing to run has a right and a place so to do without a single Democrat's opposition. We have a whole train load of "Terra! Terra! Terra!" yellers to fight, not Democrats.

[dusmcj]

85. Trotskyites are poster children for the irrelevant wing of the left.

>In short, "How about a nice steaming cup of STFU?"

You drink first.

The Trotskyites I refer to were to be seen at a 1983 demonstration in NYC against Raygun's fucking around in El Salvador, and one buffoon in particular attempted to waste my time declaiming about how his brand of Trot, the World Workers' Masturbators or some such, were pure and uncoopted while the brand across the street, the Global Labor Yappers or some such, were the lackey running dogs of fascist captains or something along those lines.

Now, given the history of infiltration of CISPES and other COINTELPRO-style activities of that time, one can allow that this fellow was made paranoid by real events in which case one can only feel sorry and not blame him for his stupidity.

However, assuming this is not the case, he has served me as a personal reference example of the archetypal self-indulgent masturbatory "radical" shadow of the bourgeoisie who has provided the foundation for the irrelevance of the anti-establishment establishment (no typo or redundancy there...) which has plagued "progessive" causes for the last 100 years. There's a reason why the phrase "circular firing squad" frequently is preceded by the adjective "Democratic". I'm tired of the effect, it's become too expensive to be funny any more.

Eyes on the prize, Of, By, For.

[camero]

89. 40 hr work week, minimum wage, Social Security, Progressive taxation

Yeah, we were plagued by this wing of the party. :sarcasm:

[dusmcj]

101. the labor movement might be a little offended

by your comparing it to Manhattan poli sci students with too much time on their hands

[camero]

105. Actually you're the one doing the comparing

It was these "radicals" and "irrelevent lefties" that got us where we are today. Hell, if we kept the "relevent" centrist tact, we'd still be debating Jim Crow laws today.

[Solon]

108. Dude, you don't know history, the "irrelevent left" WERE the labor unions!

Gods, I swear, some people just wallow in ignorance, the BASE for most unions, and their chosen political parties were Socialists, for crying out loud!

[dusmcj]

115. yes and most of what passes for 'radical' these days doesn't hold a candle to them

I'd like the see how many of the current 'progressive' and 'radical' crop would do on a picket line against a bunch of headbusting strikebreakers. That's a heavy mantle we're trying to assume here, let's not strain ourselves, we might not be able to take the load without a little more practice.

[Solon]

116. Uhm, what the fuck do you call the WTO protests in Seattle almost 10 years ago now...

The various anti-war protests, the lines of Unions who also joined with others to protest the FTAA in Miami, hell, I can go on, but plenty of leftists have had their heads busted for various causes.

[nealmhughes]

118. Well, I saw a one-man band leading a llama on Jane Street in 1986.

Shall I use it as a framing mechanism?

Neither sight, in and of themelves, was astonishing. What was astonishing was seeing them at night. With no audience. On Jane Steet in the Village and together.

Likewise, the Democratic candidates, with the exception of Kucinich, leave me largely in the mood I was in prior to having witnessed the one-man band leading a llama in the streets of New York. Seeing someone actually willing to expose his llama to traffic (followers by extension) and to have what is essentially a novelty act (his one minute speeches on the House Floor) and to do so in public view with no sense of ridicule, is what is amazing. By the way, the one-man band was rather good, able to keep up a rousing kazoo tune as he slapped his knee cymbals together. The llama was rather quiet and subdued, and I never learned if it had any tricks.

A stupid monkey-flinging exhibition is not an apt analogy to the Kucinich campaign, to which your Trotskyite tiff referred. I much prefer my one-man band with llama to your brushing up on Old Lev.

[ClassWarrior]

81. Yes, let's try to limit debate as much as possible.

Hate for any real discussion to emerge.

:eyes:

NGU.

[johnnie]

82. Politics as usual

Most people like the safe bet, it is warm and comfy. Sorry, but I am getting tired of it and I think we need a change.

[alittlelark]

83. There are also quite a few 'long time' DUers that are irrelevant

most of them don't donate, and come in to snark 'at the right time'.

I am going to use your advice... I want them all to step out and therefore reduce the DU dilution by planted operatives.....

:evilgrin:

[dusmcj]

86. ooh, the dollar is the currency of political discourse after all

I hadn't noticed it was time to renew, sorry.

Spend less effort being clever and more being effective, it'll be appreciated.

done. And pardon the crack about being clever.

[alittlelark]

91. I'm not sure which of us is more effective.

I'm 'hands on' (not generally the keyboard).

I assume that you have noticed the $$$$ is the currency of political discourse (lobbyists...?%$&^$)- at least until we get federally funded elections.


The internet graces us with a voice but $$$$$ makes it go round through the 'tubes'.

[GeneCosta]

90. Our WORLD would be a better place if any of these 3 men took office

Not just our country, but the WORLD.

I will continue to donate to Senator Gravel, and vocally support Dodd and Kucinich.

The Republicans had Bush and Reagan -- too FAR right Republicons. Its time for the Left to have its equivalent, not some conservative-lite who will pander to discrimination.

[tavalon]

93. Irrelevant left

checking in here.

Thanks for noticing me and so many others.

Edited to correct my spelling. My irrelevancy requires it.

[cascadiance]

95. Sounds like we need to make a t-shirt of this one...

Something like:


Member of the "Irrelevant Left!"

Scared yet?!!

or the like... I think that the Italians used some sort of admonition of themselves similarly on t-shirts, banners, etc. to get rid of Berlusconi too!

Updated:

Here it is... They all had t-shirts that said "I'm a moron!" that was a response to Berlusconi's label of anyone who would vote for his rival as being such.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5332752

[dusmcj]

99. You succeed in being scary and I'll applaud.

It takes more than sending emails to each other with the word 'fight' in the subject. If you can do better you have my support.

[MadHound]

106. Ah yes, time to comfort the corporatista wing of the Democratic party.

Can't have those pesky leftists running the show. Can't give those candidates a chance, even a year out, to get their message out there. Nope, nope, must keep only allow the DLC corporate candidates in the ring to fight it out:eyes:

What a horribly undemocratic position that you take! Why do you hate freedom of choice? Why don't you want the people to at least have a voice in who their presidential candidate is? What the hell are you so scared of, unbounded democracy?

[dusmcj]

117. do you claim that all the remainder are corporatista candidates ?

Biden
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Richardson

They're all corporatistas

and that means they all have to have the concomitant complete lack of policy content and be running purely on gesture and image

and Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd are all not corporatistas

and instead have a valid and content-rich policy platform which it is vital for us to bring to the White House ?

OK... if that's how you want to look at it I hope it works for you

I think it's time that we work on converging ideals and viability. In terms of foreign policy, environmental decay, monetary stability and social decay we can't afford to lose in 2008. We couldn't afford it in 2000 and 2004, but this time there's a difference (because current trajectories will make it possible to justify an overt police state before 2012). This one counts.

[MadHound]

120. Go look at who has contributed to their campaigns

Go check out who they're courting. Do your own research into who is controlling whom, I have for I think that it is important to know such things. What, you don't?

But you are trying to dodge the questions I ask in referring to your OP: Why do you hate freedom of choice? Why don't you want the people to at least have a voice in who their presidential candidate is? What the hell are you so scared of, unbounded democracy?

What harm is it to have these candidates in the race? What, are you afraid that they'll speak some ugly truths, like Kucinich did tonight? Oh well, the truth hurts sometimes, for this war can now be laid at the feet of the Democratic party also.

[dusmcj]

125. harm if the winnable candidates can't start fighting the Repubs

instead of their fellow Democrats. It's a timing thing. If the full set lasts too long it becomes like the 7 dwarves of 1984 who enjoyed prancing around on stage more than kicking Ronald Reagan's butt. Start converging on the best front(wo)man and work together on a policy platform that the American people like and the Talibicans can't dismiss. There's a war on you know.

[MadHound]

135. That's just lame, so very lame

We're a goddamn year and a half out from the general election, plenty of time for attacking the 'Pugs. Besides, Hillary and the rest are already doing so, while they are taking each other on, all at the same time! Wow, multitasking:eyes:

Besides, if we had followed your advice in '92 we wouldn't have had Clinton in office. Or Carter. Sorry, weak arguement.

[Doremus]

109. Kucinich is the only candidate with the integrity to say what needs to be said.

No other candidate supports single-payer healthcare.

No other candidate wants to end the war immediately, right. now.

Dennis has a crucial role leading up to the primaries -- helping clueless voters see the possibilities, if only they'd stop swallowing the corporate pap spewed forth from all the other bought candidates.

He's not middle-of-the-road, but I personally consider that an asset.

[Jim Sagle]

110. Let the voters decide who's in or out.

[MadBadger]

114. Dodd shouldnt step out

He wasnt given a fair shake in this debate at all by Wolf and crew.

[magellan]

121. Win at all cost. Toss the irrelevant left overboard.

This is what you want for '08? Sounds like what we've got right now.

[flvegan]

123. Kucinich is irrelevant?

Nice buy in.

Whatever.

[upi402]

127. Kucinich and the truth - irrelevant in America

You might be onto something. Did you know/mean to say that?

[MadBadger]

128. Kucinich doesnt represent the truth.

He represents an unrealistic view of the world.

[WilliamPitt]

148. Hm.

This seems pretty goddam grounded to me. Verbatim from Iowa 2004:

The first stop on Saturday was a Democratic party gathering at the Grand River Center in Dubuque, a large, modern facility on the industrialized banks of the Mississippi River. Hundreds of people were in attendance. The event was supposed to be a three-way stump spot for Kerry, Edwards and Kucinich. Kerry, however, got marooned somewhere else in the state because of bad weather. John Edwards showed up in a huge oceanliner of a bus and hit the room to the sound of some orgiastic rock anthem.

His supporters, the youngest of any candidate present, screamed and waved signs as Edwards took the stage. His speech was strong, vibrant and suffused with echoes of the vibe that so electrified the Clinton speeches of yore. His strong performance in the caucuses the following Monday came as no surprise after watching him work on Saturday. The endorsement from the Des Moines Register probably didn’t hurt, either.

Kucinich came on next. It was clear that many in the crowd were not familiar with him. That was about to change.

“I come from Cleveland, Ohio,” began Kucinich. “I’m the oldest of seven children. My parents never owned a home, and as the family grew, we kept moving because we outgrew the apartments that we lived in. During the 1950s, there used to be ads in the newspapers that would say ‘No Children’ or ‘One Child Only.’ If you had a large family and didn’t own a home, you were out of luck. So our family kept moving from place to place. By the time I was 17 years old, we had lived in 21 different places, including a couple of cars.”

“That experience,” he continued, “growing up in the city of Cleveland, and living in so many different neighborhoods, and moving from place to place, that experience informs greatly my passion for public service, and my reasons for running for President of the United States. I know that it matters to people to have a job, to have a living wage, to have decent health care, that their kids can go to decent schools, that they live in decent neighborhoods, that they have a roof over their heads. I understand this. I understand it because these are the kinds of concerns that my parents had to deal with when we were growing up. These are the kinds of concerns that many families have to deal with today.”

“In this time of rising unemployment,” he said, “all the government will tell us is that the statistics indicate that things are looking a little bit better. The truth of the matter is that there are many people not even reflected in the unemployment numbers anymore, because they stopped looking for jobs, because there aren’t any jobs available. And that’s the truth. The truth is that so many American families have breadwinners who are working part-time because they can’t find full-time work. The truth is that people working both part-time and full-time are locked into low-paying jobs. The truth is that this country is letting working-class and middle-class citizens just slowly find their economic position deteriorating without any great cause in America to lift people up, to give people the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labor. What is this government doing for all of our people?”

“We see the priorities,” he said. “Tax cuts for the wealthy. $155 billion for a war we didn’t have to get into. A bloated Pentagon - half the discretionary spending in the federal budget goes to the Pentagon. Cuts in veterans benefits. Cuts in health care. Cuts in education. Cuts in housing. Cuts in jobs programs. This country is losing its connection with its people. My Presidency will be about reconnecting America with the practical aspirations of the American people.”

By this time, the crowd had risen, somewhat surprised with itself, to its feet in approval several times. Dennis Kucinich? Rocking the house?

“I want you, the taxpayers, to think about this,” said Kucinich after the applause had died down again. “If we’re in Iraq for a few years, the cost will be over a half a trillion dollars. That’s going to come out of our budget for housing, for education, for health care. Casualties are now over five hundred, and could go into the thousands. Why? When is enough enough? I say enough is enough right now, and that’s why we need to get the troops out, and that’s why I’m ready to lead in that direction.”

“All across the country,” he said, “we see the infrastructure of many states crumbling. Bridges, water systems, sewer systems, roads in disrepair. States don’t have the money to fix them, and local communities don’t have the money to fix them. I intend to take a page from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who in the 1930s recognized the need to rebuild America, recognized the need to put millions of people back to work, and have a new WPA program to repair our bridges and water systems and sewer systems. We will put Americans back to work, we will build a new infrastructure, we will build a new chance for America. I am running to lead the way on that.”

“I am talking about a quest to ensure the economic stability of America,” he said. “In my campaign around this country, I have visited so many communities where I have seen plant gates locked, and have looked through those gates to see grass growing in parking lots. These are plants where they used to make steel, where they used to make textiles, where they used to make car parts and washing machines and bicycles. All around this country, we’ve seen this same story of one manufacturing plant after another being closed. We are told that this is inevitable.”

“We’ve had three million manufacturing jobs lost,” he said, “since July of 2000. Three million. I explained earlier where I am coming from on this. I understand job loss. It is not just a statistic. It means a home that is threatened. It means someone in the family is not going to get the education they hoped for. It means the loss of health benefits. It means retirement benefits at risk. It means instability in a family. It could mean a family splitting up. Tremendous economic pressures are being put on so many American families today, and I’ll tell you one of the reasons.”

“Ten years ago,” he said in a rising voice, “the United States passed agreements called NAFTA and the WTO which created conditions where global corporations are setting all the rules for trade. You know what it is about? You know what it is about. It is about cheap labor. Wherever they can drive down wages, they do it. Wherever they can get someone to do a job for less than nothing, that’s what they are looking for. They don’t care about child labor, prison labor, slave labor, they don’t care about crushing workers. What they care about is being able to make more and more of a profit. They don’t care if they close down a community.”

“They don’t care if they crush small businesses,” he said, now in full roar. “They don’t care because they have the power, with NAFTA and the WTO, and all these trade agreements, to just move jobs out of this country, move out the manufacturing jobs, move out high-tech jobs, move out any kind of job that exists in this country that they can make a better buck off in another country by crushing workers rights. I’ve seen it. It is time to put an end to it.”

The thunder of the audience shook the room.

The rest: http://www.opednews.com/pitt0102_kucinich.htm

[upi402]

158. BEING RIGHT ALL ALONG = UNREALISTIC, IN CORPORATE MEDIA AMERICA

“We’ve had three million manufacturing jobs lost,” he said, “since July of 2000. Three million. I explained earlier where I am coming from on this. I understand job loss. It is not just a statistic. It means a home that is threatened. It means someone in the family is not going to get the education they hoped for. It means the loss of health benefits. It means retirement benefits at risk. It means instability in a family. It could mean a family splitting up. Tremendous economic pressures are being put on so many American families today, and I’ll tell you one of the reasons.”

“Ten years ago,” he said in a rising voice, “the United States passed agreements called NAFTA and the WTO which created conditions where global corporations are setting all the rules for trade. You know what it is about? You know what it is about. It is about cheap labor. Wherever they can drive down wages, they do it. Wherever they can get someone to do a job for less than nothing, that’s what they are looking for. They don’t care about child labor, prison labor, slave labor, they don’t care about crushing workers. What they care about is being able to make more and more of a profit. They don’t care if they close down a community.”

“They don’t care if they crush small businesses,” he said, now in full roar. “They don’t care because they have the power, with NAFTA and the WTO, and all these trade agreements, to just move jobs out of this country, move out the manufacturing jobs, move out high-tech jobs, move out any kind of job that exists in this country that they can make a better buck off in another country by crushing workers rights. I’ve seen it. It is time to put an end to it.”

<the truth shall set you free>
Thanks WilliamPitt, for that and all you do!

[DemReadingDU]

164. That is a great summary of Kucinich

Really, out of all the candidates, Kucinich always tells the truth, never wavers.

[AnOhioan]

130. Sorry, but your post is BS, based on false premises.

[Skidmore]

131. It's way too early to winnow anything.

These voices are needed now. I value their input. Attempts to frontload the process last cycle got us into a whole bunch of pain. I think we need to slow things down a bit.

[Ariana Celeste]

133. That's great.

Because Gravel is probably the only candidate that truly speaks for me.

[jgraz]

134. Maybe we should "winnow" candidates who are out of step with the 70% majority

[seemslikeadream]

141. In two out of three cases NYT agrees with you

BTW CNN lost this debate

[Zodiak]

149. Once a poster says "irrelevent left" and "trotskyite"

I hit my ignore button.

It is an indication that the poster has no desire to debate in good faith. I've had enough of the Benchley's of this board.

[cooolandrew]

153. Yeah, they are such bad liars only republican voters could buy it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

150. Thanks for giving me something new...

to add to my sig line! :hi:

I guess will have to pass along a few $$$ to the campaigns of all three of those folks you mentioned so they can stay in the game, because I feel their voices are an important addition to the Democratic debate. And besides, their continued presence will irk the shit out of fucktards who hate the ideas of democracy and primaries. :)

[cooolandrew]

152. I think Gravel was a lot weaker this time round, but Kucinich was bang on message.

[cooolandrew]

154. Kucinich rocked he had the perfect solutions, he is the way forward.

[Yukari Yakumo]

155. Loose translation

They should drop out to prevent the Nader Effect.

Candidates who have no realistic chance of winning the nom should consider dropping out in hopes that their supporters will switch to Edwards or Obama in the hope that candidate will surpass Hil.

[TheWraith]

156. Agreed.

As much as Dennis is a good guy, "irrelevant left" is EXACTLY the right phrase, since he represents a lot of ideas that are never going to get traction. Gravel: good guy but not a victor. Dodd--who?

The more time can be spent with the heavyweight candidates, the better we are when it comes time to choose between them. Frankly, I personally would probably add Richardson to the list of people who aught to take a powder soon. I get what he's saying, but he doesn't really come off as having the ability to express it simply, and leans rather heavily on his having been a governor as an argument for himself.

[LWolf]

162. One small problem with that.

I don't see a point in choosing between candidates I don't want to be president. I'm not voting for any of the "heavyweights." I don't want them in the White House.

I am not the only one.

By purging the field of the better candidates in favor of the corporate/media weighted "heavyweights," the chosen heavyweight will enter the general election not so heavy; lighter by many voters. Once those better candidates are purged, it's too late. The party has lost my support for this round.

[Enrique]

160. you like your pablum straight

no "diluting" it with real debate, you like the concentrated form of the same old shit.

[ddeclue]

161. Although I believe they don't have a chance I disagree that they must quit now.

Let the field get winnowed out naturally based on their ability to finance.

Doug D.

[mmonk]

165. Bite me. How long is it before

the party bosses want the coronation? It's a long way out and screw what the party bosses and media want.