the left is always told to "blue-sky it" in the primaries,

[ulysses]

but then be pragmatic in the general. Seems to me that this doesn't work well for progressives, particularly in a crowded field. What if we were to turn that around and vote pragmatically in the primaries?

I ask because I'm torn again this cycle. Last time around, although my default candidate was Kucinich, I supported Dean through the primaries and would have voted for him had he not dropped out before the Georgia vote. Dean wasn't the most progressive candidate in the field, but he got (and gets) progressive concerns, and he struck me as the most viable, and happiest, "compromise" candidate.

This time, the media have, of course, crowned Hillary and Obama, neither of whom impresses me particularly for a number of reasons. Not to make this into Yet Another Hillary Thread, but it seems to me that the danger of her, were she to be elected, following her husband's triangulatin' ways and wasting a Dem turn in the White House by getting little of import done is not to be dismissed.

So, what to do? Would all the support the left could muster mean much in the final outcome for Dennis, or does it make sense to look at someone acceptable-to-good (ymmv on this count, of course) who can win over the kind of candidate we know we don't want?

And who would that be? I understand the IWR concerns, but I like Edwards for my money. But that's me. What say you, fellow leftwing freaks? ;-)

[WI_DEM]

1. I would be happy with Edwards. I also like Obama--I just think we

need someone new and fresh and somewhat exciting.

[Selatius]

2. Dennis Kucinich's presence in the race will be affected by the competency of his campaign staff.

In 2004, it seems Kucinich lacked that, but if he had a serious staff established, he could force the whole debate to shift leftward.

With respect to the primary system and the general election system, there is little progressives and leftists can do.

The two-party system is like giving the entire left one microphone and expecting them all to speak in one voice, but the problem is the left is not a monolithic entity. It never was, and it never will be. The two-party system, compared to other representative systems, is simply not as democratic as I would like it to be.

[ray of light]

5. Excuse me!!!! Kucinich had a terrific staff and a great campaign manager

however I have it straight from the horses mouth, meaning the media, that the Kucinich couldn't bother showing up on time for any of their interviews.

He may be a leftie but a leftie who is unreliable isn't going to help us any.

AND by the way...I know the people involved in this directly. This is not a rumor. This is fact. This was straight from the media to Kucinch's staff.

[Selatius]

6. Strange, William Rivers Pitt had a different account of Kucinich's 04 staff

And he was on Dennis Kucinich's staff. Will had a thread on this about a month or two ago on this issue. It might be a good idea to PM him to compare your notes with his.

[ray of light]

17. It's a good idea, but because I actually LIKE

Kucinich I don't want to stir up or say anything more. I just don't like someone blaming staff when I know the staff was extremely hardworking.

Perhaps it's just a matter of different experiences. And besides, I'm willing to forgive and forget as long as the lesson is learned. And something tells me that he won't make that mistake again!

[H2O Man]

3. I hope that

the progressive democrats help to move the party in a forward direction. I think that when one looks at the changes in the national mood in the past two years alone, that it seems this is a good time for the democratic left to be recognized as being correct on the most important issues that the nation has faced in the Bush-Cheney years. I think the democratic left has served -- well -- as the conscience of this country. And that is what I hope we do in the next two years, as well.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Since my primary is so late in the year,

I've never been able to use my vote to influence anything. I do hope Dennis Kucinich stays in the race because he has the soundest ideas that I feel can move us forward into the new challenges facing us.

[ulysses]

8. I hope he stays in too,

regardless of how things turn out. I think that was one of the most significant things he did in 2004.

[mike_c]

7. I have been hearing moderates in the party telling progressives...

...for as long as I can remember, that "This year's election is too important to advance progressive causes, but we need your support." Remember the Kerry convention, and the forbidding of all criticism of the war against Iraq?

What I want to know is when will moderates in the party say "Hey, we've been benefitting for decades from all those on the left who held their noses and voted for centrist candidates so now it's time to return the favor?"

I've finally realized that democracy only works when we support liberal ideas and ideals rather than individuals or the parties they represent.

[ulysses]

9. don't hold your breath.

What I want to know is when will moderates in the party say "Hey, we've been benefitting for decades from all those on the left who held their noses and voted for centrist candidates so now it's time to return the favor?"

You probably knew that. :)

[Selatius]

10. Unfortunately, the two-party system forces you into this arrangement.

It seems this happens:

Voter turnout is highest when ideological differences are most significant. This helps explain why the voter turnout is lower in the US than in all other western democracies , most of which have a multiplicity of parties and proportional representation. In the UK, voter turnout may continue to fall to US levels. Lowering the voting age isn't likely to excite participation in elections when the choice is less and less to do with a clash of visions than mere managerial competence. And without those traditionally big choices, one might well wonder where this is going to ultimately leave democracy.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

[ulysses]

11. one little

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Alas, the fix is in.

Not some grand conspiracy. Just the fact that the monied interests control the viability of candidates. Unfortunately, those most likely to attract the money are the very same that are most likely to surrender to the demands of those supplying it. A vicious circle.

The progressive candidates, who are truly progressive, are by their nature, the most threatening to the monied interests and least likely to attract enough money to run in a media controlled campaign.

We live in an oligarchy controlled by capitalists, not a democracy.

[tnlefty]

13. This left wing freak is still listening and waiting....

Waiting to see who else declares and who doesn't. Listening to hear what comes from the mouths of those who have declared.

At least Edwards has basically apologized for his IWR vote and seems dedicated to ending the clustef*^k, however, I'm still having a hard time because I wonder whether he would show the same lack of forethought, or critical thinking in the future. IOW, if I knew Iraq was based on lies and Bushit**...

Still Edwards is addressing poverty and the inequity in our society and :thumbsup: for that.

Feingold, who had the forethought to vote aqainst the IWR, the unPatriot Act, and who has been loudly warning of the dangers of our little dictator tot, isn't running.

Same with Dennis.

I'm not interested in any blue dogs 'cause I think they get bitten by red fleas. :hi:

[ulysses]

15. it's too bad that Russ isn't running, yeah.

And I understand what you're saying about Edwards' foresight re: Iraq. The fact of his stand on inequity is definitely what's making me consider him so strongly right now.

[depakid]

14. I'm still hoping for a dark horse to appear like Dean did

I'm not satisfied (or do not trust) the field at the moment. I suppose I could get behind Edwards, though I see a number of difficulties with his candidacy (including his prior record).

I think Obama's going to slip up for lack of national campaign experience- and I sure don't want another corporate Clinton.

Unfortunately, I don't think Kucinich has a chance, but he'd be my first choice in terms of policies.

Who will stand up to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party?

[ulysses]

16. I'm not sure there's another dark horse out there.

Of course I'm with DK on policy, but I wonder if we do ourselves any favors relying on one candidate (no matter how good) to drag the rest of the field leftward centerward.