Do any Kucinich insiders know why he chose to advance Clinton over Edwards?

[ConsAreLiars]

My views are closer to Kucinich than anyone else, but when he endorsed the front runner Obama over Edwards he essentially depressed Edwards' numbers relative to Clinton's. Edwards is clearly closer to Kucinich than Obama in terms of issues, and if left to choose for themselves I think most Kucnich caucus members would see him as their next choice. Assuming the caucus members who followed him blindly might be worth 1-2-3% of the final tally, he effectively made Clinton a close 3rd (virtual tie) compared to Edwards, rather than a more distant third.

I doubt this was his intent, but this was what he did. Or maybe it was some kind of deal? I have no clue. If any knows anything of substance regarding his decision to draw votes away from Edwards, I would be interested in learning more.

[rocktivity]

1. Rachel Maddow said it might have something do to with Obama not being on the ballot

in Michigan.

:shrug:
rocknation

[SharonRB]

3. Neither is Edwards

That doesn't make any sense.

[yourout]

2. I read it had somthing to do with the debate snub.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. What a fucken wonderful reason to throw in a monkey wrench.

Kooch is losing cred with me mighty damn fast lately. He's showing himself for a vindictive little twit.

[scarletwoman]

14. I'm done with Dennis -- regretfully -- since his crappy little Obama stunt.

I sent $50 to Edwards last night, the first campaign donation I've made this season.

I kept putting off sending money to Dennis this time around -- LAST time around I sent him mucho bucks and caucused for him. I was a Kucinich delegate to my state convention. But this year I just couldn't get all that excited. Now I'm damn glad I didn't send him any money.

sw

[Raine]

4. I *think* he wanted to knock Edwards out

cause they split some of the same votes. I'm no insider though...it's just MO.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. That might make some "great game" sort of sense.

But that assumes Kucinich would somehow become a contender if Edwards lost votes. I doubt he believed that. As it is (no surprise) it just meant that Edwards' lead over Clinton was reduced somewhat.

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. It doesn't matter

Kucinich followers are not like Koresh followers... sheesh. I'm sure they made up their own minds as far as who to move their votes to, based on their conversations with other Kucinich supporters and their own research. Here on DU the VAST majority of Kucinich supporters have already chosen Edwards as their second choice and are unlikely to be instantly swayed by his suggestion to move their votes to Obama. I'm sure that was also the case in Iowa - give them credit for being able to think for themselves. I would be willing to bet that the issue that put Obama over the top was Edwards' accepting of public financing. The Kucinich factor is really a non-issue and it is probably time to move on from it.

[FogerRox]

7. Obama won on a good ground game and hi turnout

Hillary was supposed to come in 3rd. Kooch never spent much time in Iowa.

[Cleita]

8. I don't think he had any viable support in Iowa

considering he was pretty much stepped over and snubbed by the Democratic Party nabobs in Iowa. He probably didn't have enough votes to do Edwards any harm. I think he endorsed Obama to send Edwards a message about that little conversation a few months ago that Edwards and Clinton had when they thought the microphone was off about eliminating the fringe candidates from the debates. Dennis knew it wouldn't cut into Edward's votes but that it would get his attention. I supposed we will never know who would have voted for Dennis in Iowa, but I don't think it would have even been 1% considering how blatantly he was ignored there by the Democratic Party.

[DLnyc]

9. Just a theory, but perhaps DK's personal, working experience with the two

of them (in Congress and on the campaign trail) leads him to feel that Obama is more likely to actually effect real change than Edwards, even though clearly Edwards talks a better line sometimes.

[scarletwoman]

13. Kucinich told his Iowa people to caucus for Edwards in 2004.

It's kind of surprising to me how many DUers are apparently unaware of that particular historical fact.

If Edwards was good enough for Kucinich in 2004 when Edwards was still in the Senate, then I see no logical reason why Edwards wasn't good enough for Kucinich this year.

The only explanation I can come up with is that Edwards was stealing too much of DK's progressive/populist thunder, so Dennis decided to monkey-wrench JE.

Dennis is turning into Nader, imho.

sw

[DLnyc]

15. I'm quite aware that Kucinich sent his people to Edwards in 2004.

Perhaps because he didn't like Dean claiming to be the "only candidate against the war".

Having followed, and appreciated, Dennis Kucinich for many years now, I'm more inclined to try to see what he is seeing, rather than throwing him under the bus. Hype does not always reflect reality precisely.

Also, as far as stopping HRC, Obama 8 points ahead of Hillary rings a good bit better than pehaps Edwards 3 or 4 points ahead of her. So throwing support to the leader makes sense in terms of fighting against the DLC.

But the honest answer is that I really don't know the whole story. I would love to hear more from DK.

As far as "Dennis is turning into Nader" : The difference for me is that Dennis actually proposes and moves progressive legislation every day. Nader, as far as I know, hasn't done one concrete useful thing in a decade or two.

I can understand your bitter feeling, but I don't think you should necessarily jump to conclusions yet.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. 1-2-3% ??????? 1-2-3 individual supporters, maybe.

1%? No way.

[Peregrine Took]

12. He's an enigma wrapped in a riddle. Why did he back Edwards over Dean

in 2004 when Dean was the only other anti-war candidate? I like what he says but I don't like him.

[ConsAreLiars]

16. Well, maybe Obama's victory speech is the answer to my question.

It was as uplifting as his 2004 Democratic convention speech, and although he never identified the real enemy, as does Edwards, it was an inspirational call for working together for the common good. I hadn't heard that kind of talk on the Mass(acred) Media before, and maybe Dennis saw this kind of populist appeal and just thought he would toss his few pennies in that direction, rather than toward the Edwards variant.

(Edit to add) Of course, this is just guesswork. I'd like to know how Kucinich sees this decision, if anyone knows.