I think Kucinich should run in the primary against Obama - I mean it

[CTLawGuy]

and when Kucinich gets crushed, we will see where Democrats really stand on Obama's leadership.

I think primaries are good and healthy thing for a party with such divergent views. They are especially good because the party ends up unified at the end, unlike in other methods for sorting out internal strife.

If, somehow Kucinich were to win, he would get my vote in the GE as a loyal Dem, and if by some miracle he wins, I will happily spend 4 years watching his golden image fade away when, for the first time in his federal political life (he did so WELL as mayor of Cleveland), he has responsibility to actually govern, and deal with the complexities that come with it.

It's real easy to take a purist position when you get to go on TV from your back bench position in Congress and wag your finger at a president who has to deal with an intransigent Republican minority (which, incidentally, just put out a very shocking memo on how to minimize progress on the health care bill by using the filibuster at every conceivable turn, and by offering endless useless amendments that they force to be read in their entirety, for example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/read-it-gop-senator-pens_n_377386.html), blue dog dems with way too much power BECAUSE of that minority's actions, and a party full of Veruca Salts being egged on by a certain outrage mongering cable station that is quickly becoming the left's Fox News. Good luck getting shit done in THAT environment.

And if Kucinich wants to run on the issue of Afghanistan, which has magically transformed from the sensible war we should have been concentrating on, to VIETNAM!!11!, hope you all remember that he voted for it. Yup, only Barbara Lee voted against it. He'll have fun explaining that one.

So bring it on Dennis, bring it on.

[Kahuna]

1. He probably will. It would be a big waste of time. You still have to poll

a certain percent to be considered viable and debate-worthy. Has Dennis ever polled higher than 3%?

[CTLawGuy]

3. in fairness he has never run one on one

I could conceivably see him getting 20% of the vote going one on one. He'd be getting the protest vote, which doesn't really exist in a normal open primary, from people wanting to express their displeasure at Obama. But I don't see him getting over 20%

[Kahuna]

5. I'm sure that will make a biiig difference..

:sarcasm:

[WonderGrunion]

43. After Dean dropped out, he was one-on-one against Kerry

Dean proceeded to win his home state of Vermont after he dropped out. Dennis never won a single state, not even his own.

[CTLawGuy]

57. true

NT

[Ikonoklast]

60. Dennis wants to be senator. He wants Voinovich's seat.

Never happen.

Outside of his district, in a state-wide run, he'd get creamed in Ohio.

[saltpoint]

76. Agree. Ohio has elected damned few liberal Democrats to the U.S. Senate

over many decades, with Howard Metzenbaum likely being the most liberal.

Sherrod Brown is the johnny-come-lately liberal and I like him a lot, but he's only been in office a short while.

Your analysis is correct, IMO. Kucinich would run well in working class voting districts, and particularly that kind of district in the NE. He would be competitive in certain of the districts of Franklin County. He would do well, but would still lose, Montgomery County.

In every other county of southern and southwestern Ohio, he would be mauled. The totals running up against him in those counties would not be enough to offset closely-won or narrowly-lost districts in the northeast.

His Republican opponent would destroy him. On the networks it would be among the very first red state announcements on the night's electoral map.

[LastNaturalist]

2. I agree.

Can we primary that ego-case already?

[Sebastian Doyle]

52. Oh, look another Rahm "Message Enforcement" troll here to trash a real Democrat

They're really putting new interns online now just to bash Dennis?

Really?

Didn't that shit get old in last year's primary? :eyes:

[mkultra]

65. of the two, your the only one trying to silence someone.

[ima_sinnic]

70. "ego-case"? you're not very up on things, are you? (nt)

[mcablue]

4. Kucinich voted against funding the war as early as 2007

We wouldn't be there anymore if it was up to him.

[boppers]

83. As early as... 2007?

Isn't that kind of, oh, late to the party by six YEARS?

[elocs]

6. The truth is that in elective politics, Kucinich has risen as high as he will ever go.

I highly doubt that he could ever even be elected to the Senate from Ohio. He may as well remain in the House to rise in power there and be a voice for those who agree with him and he can do the Harold Stassen routine and run for President every 4 years.

[LastNaturalist]

7. Yeah, but that won't stop his ego from trying to reach the stars.

...where his politival views are too, by the way.

[timtom]

8. A man stands for social justice over and over, and

you want to talk about his EGO??!!?

Who ARE you?

[LastNaturalist]

9. Social justice?

Really? So you don't think it could be the attention or limelight he receives, for instance, in joining GOPpers and conservative Democrats in voting against healthcare? Hey, alright, "social justice."

[cornermouse]

12. If you're talking about the health insurance giveaway that's in Congress

now, YES! Bad legislation is bad legislation.

[timtom]

21. "Social justice?"

"Health Care" you mean. (Note the quotes.)

[Enthusiast]

59. You can call it health care,

many of us call it insurance care.

[mkultra]

28. dont forget that hot chick he was able to attract with his publicity

thats a win win for all of us.

[tekisui]

27. All politicians run on their ego.

DK is no different than Obama in that regard. He using what little attention he can get to move the debate to the left. I agree he is likely as high as he will get, but his message is still valuable on the national stage.

[HamdenRice]

14. I suspect he may already have taken advantage of Murphy's Law -- & will lose his seat

After all, just look at all the good having Kooch in Congress has done for Cleveland -- I mean all that practical political stuff congresspersons do to bring federal funds back to their districts.

:sarcasm:

If his Democratic opponents were not to split the vote in the primaries, I doubt Kooch could get the nomination against for Congress in his own district.

[Orsino]

18. Yeah. For Kucinich to win a higher office...

...this would have to be the sort of nation that could elect Kucinich to a higher office.

We're not there yet.

[treestar]

37. True.

He would have done far better in 2008 if he had much chance in the near future.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Kucinich could be elected dogcatcher outside a small area in northeast Ohio

But yes, by all means.

[avaistheone1]

80. Does Obama have the northwest area tied up?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

11. I hope you realize you are being completely dishonest in your OP

something Kucinich bashers on DU do constantly about the subject of his supposed "war vote". The facts are these, he voted on September 14,2001, 3 days after 9/11 for this:

BILL TITLE: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

It is a familiar meme of the Kucinich bashers to use this vote to say "See See Kucinich loves war like all the rest of them, he is a fucking hypocrite". A bill authorizing force against the people that attacked us 3 days after 9/11 isn't the actions of a warmonger it is the actions of someone still reeling from the events of 9/11 and probably wanting to bring who carried out those attacks to justice. Notice it says nothing about Afghanistan in that bill.

My only question on that vote was why did Barbara Lee vote NO?

Dennis Kucinich voted NO on the Iraq War Resolution, but I am sure you know that and just chose to leave it out of your post because it didnt support your argument.

Kucinich sought support for defunding the Iraq war as early as 2004, when it was nearly political suicide to do so and he heard it from the right and as I am sure you are all too familiar with, from the left.

Your tactics out you as someone who is desperate not to upset the status quo, if that is your desire dont let me stop you. But at least be honest about Dennis's record when you do.

[mkultra]

29. and afghanistan was the responsible party

regardless of weak claims by some that the Taliban tried to "hand him over", the Taliban invited bin laden to take refuge AFTER he had bombed us interests and refused to hand him over without "evidence" even after BL had claimed responsibility for 911. They also refused to hand BL over to the US but instead, offered to hand him over to another Arab nation. They never once offered to just hand him over to us for trial in the US.

Yes, the Taliban are not innocent in this affair. Anyone who wishes to cast them as such is just walking into a mine field. These are anti-western religious zealots, just like AQ.

[timtom]

31. "after BL had claimed responsibility for 911"

the REAL bin Laden denied any complicity whatever in that event.

The FALSE bin Ladens, on the other hand...

[mkultra]

32. lol.

[CTLawGuy]

45. so because it's vague as to the scope of military force

he gets a pass. St. Dennis the Perfect has special rules.

[Buzz Clik]

13. K&R.

I have no doubt that DU will side with him.

[HamdenRice]

15. Too bad, I can only rec once! nt

[jefferson_dem]

16. Sure. C'mon Saint Dennis. Run...

[stray cat]

17. Kucinich runs on a semi regular basis and his lack of national showing hasn't made much impact

on those who think the entire US is waiting for Kucinich to lead them to the promised land.

[HamdenRice]

19. The fact that 99% of American voters don't want Kuch will never sink in with hardcore Kuchifritos

[dionysus]

24. 99% of americans have never heard of dennis, let alone want him.

[Algorem]

20. most of you people will be too busy killin up a mess of Muslims in Afghanistan then to vote

probably,kicking their ass and taking that gas,so maybe he has a chance.

[dionysus]

23. LOL

[mkultra]

30. so you think we should just let AQ go

and forget about the whole thing. Its not really a complex issue. I mean, it us up until the point where action is involved. At that point, all thought becomes binary. Either you go after them, or you don't. Since you claim the moral high ground on this, i would like to hear your answer to the question and your reasons.

[Algorem]

34. ooh."all thought becomes binary".you're so smart and stuff.

sorry,your act is just too phony,the "mkultra" and subgenius thing.please come up with something more believable,something more you.

[mkultra]

40. ad hominem attacks will not help your point

you still have to face the fact that you are criticizing the actions of someone who must make a choice. Your easy chair luxuries are not his. Essentially, you are a pedantic. Your ideological stance fails in delivery as you fail to recognize that idea must at some point be translated to action or its meaningless. The fact that you mock the concept of application demonstrates that you are devoid of any real world experience. You need to get with the next level.

Essentially, you are just another mouth breather trying to touch the sky.

[Algorem]

41. damn that's a lot of ad hominem attacks for such an intelligent feller

[mkultra]

49. and attack on the substance of your argument is not ad hominem

try to remember today's lesson.

[Algorem]

53. have you finally gotten back into your clown car and honk-honked away?

[mkultra]

54. you afraid you missed your ride?

no al gore. We would never forget you.

[dionysus]

22. i'm not a fan of the guy but i see no need to see him humiliated.

[beachmom]

25. I agree about primaries. As in somebody should primary Kucinich.

He is useless and didn't even vote for health care reform. He has spent too much time in Washington, and needs to go.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. He knows better than to pull something like that

Emmanuel would see to it that he had a well-funded primary opponent for his House seat.

[salguine]

33. If he did, I'd work my ass off for him.

[SIMPLYB1980]

35. K&R

[PBS Poll-435]

36. At least it would get him out of Congress

Or maybe not.

Ron Paul is still in Congress. :crazy:

[Splinter Cell]

38. Amen.

[slipslidingaway]

39. Another Kucinich thread - on one hand people say he does nothing and ...

is ineffective. On the other hand he seems to scare some people enough to constantly marginalize him - Kucinich is not the only Dem opposed to the escalation in Afghanistan, but he is the only target at DU.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7145924&mesg_id=7145924

Kucinich did not vote to authorize the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, he did vote, along with EVERY other member of Congress, except Barbara Lee, to use resources against those who committed or aided the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01.

As Kucinich is now speaking out against the escalation, this vote is being used as an excuse that he voted for the war in Afghanistan.

He has NOT voted to continue funding this war.

Kucinich Statement On Authorizing Force On Those Responsible For Recent Terrorist Acts Against The U.S.


"On Friday, September 14, 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) spoke on the House floor explaining his reasons for supporting the resolution authorizing the President to use force on those responsible for the recent terrorist acts against the United States. Following is the text of his statement.

Washington, Sep 14 -

I will support this resolution authorizing the President to defend our country. Whatever forms of action we choose must reflect our democratic principles and distinguish us from the mentality of terrorists and destructive violence. Our actions must pursue a path towards reducing violence, not escalating violence. Launching weapons of mass destruction or collateral attacks against innocent civilians would be no different than the terror we have already had brought upon us. An eye for an eye mentality is unacceptable. We are a nation with civil and moral values and we must show the world that. These terrorist attacks were clearly a crime against humanity. What does a democracy do to punish criminals? We put them on trial, if found guilty, we imprison them.

U.S. military action should be centered on arresting the responsible parties, and the governments should place the suspects on trial. That is how we win this. This is how we should show the world that we are a humane and democratic nation. That is what gives us the moral high ground. That is what we need to do to prevent future attacks. Future attacks will not be prevented because terrorists fear our military. To kill them does not scare them. That is an honor for them to be killed. But for our democracy it is important to rise above their violent attacks and punish them with unquestionable moral superiority. That will vindicate our highest principles. Violence is reciprocal in nature. Peace is also reciprocal. The direction we take will speak volumes about our democracy. We must and we will defend our country. And we must and we will pursue and arrest these criminals. We must do so in a manner that upholds democratic principles."

[Hansel]

42. Yes, because we can all use a good laugh. nt

[RoyGBiv]

44. Unified in the end?

Depends on when that end is and what you mean by unified.

I know a lot of people don't like to think back farther than Bush's first term. Indeed I'm well aware that for many a political conscience did not exist prior to the 2000 election. But if one wants to understand just how damaging primaries can be, especially for Democrats and most especially primaries against sitting presidents, we do need to look back in time. The lessons learned could tell us a lot about where we are now.

The 2008 primary was contentious, and all you have to do is look around you to realize how un-unified we are now. People will cast blame here and there, suggest that an opportunity existed but that someone or some group screwed it up. Well, that's wrong. Democrats have not found a common voice for a very long time, and what you see happening now is in many ways a direct result of something that happened in 1980 and then in 1984.

The primary between Carter and Kennedy wasn't the most dramatically contentious in my lifetime, and it's certainly not as famous as the '68 campaign and Democratic convention. But it and events afterward illustrate how long-lasting and harmful the divisions created can be. We need not revisit all the reasons Kennedy chose to challenge Carter except to say that one was ardently liberal and one more conservative because those are the important elements in what came next.

The Democratic party was so devastated by this campaign that the best it could do in '84 was throw out Mondale as the sacrificial lamb while Jesse Jackson protested. The party structure itself was broken. In the wake of Reagan's rise to power, the party splintered into dozens of minor coalitions that could do little or nothing against the GOP onslaught. Some of this was in fact planned and encouraged by Republicans, but not nearly all of it. As late as 1988 when another poor sot was put forth who looked a lot better on paper than he did on a television camera, people were still referring to the damage done in '80. It's one of the reasons Lloyd Bentsen was chosen as a VP candidate, not because of where he was from (the Dems would not and knew they would not take Texas) but because he was a strongly conservative Democrat with a pedigree.

But before all that happened, Democrats got together to try to heal the party. What happened next did in fact eventually lead to a great Democratic surge and the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, but it also laid the foundation for much of what has happened in recent years, both good and bad. Many on this site have heard of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), I assume. Well, the DLC was formed because of the 1980 primary and because of the disaster that was 1984.

And the DLC has done an amazing job of getting Democrats together and behind a common purpose, a certain segment of them at least. The basic intent of the DLC was to marginalize the more liberal voices, such as Jackson and Kennedy, whom they blamed for failing to take a pragmatic approach to politics. I do not opine on whether they were right or wrong in doing this, but I will suggest that for those who hate the DLC, you might examine the irony of the situation we now have.

The DLC came into existence in an attempt to finally rid the party of the deep, violent contentiousness of the 60s, the "malaise" of the 70s, and the fracturing of the 80s, which they blamed by and large on liberals. But without the actions of a liberal in the forms of Kennedy and Jackson and what they did during two presidential primaries, the argument they put forth would not have had much evidence to support it. Because they did have that evidence, they were able to bring a large number of Democrats under their banner to the point where, today, the DLC mindset controls a significant portion of the Democrats in national office.

To ask what would have happened otherwise is a counter-factual that cannot be answered, but I can't help but wonder about it.

I suspect Reagan would have won in 1980 regardless of Kennedy. He did not, I don't believe, cause Carter to lose. But he and the fight between him and Carter did start a chain reaction. Had Kennedy not run and had Reagan still won and had the party not been torn asunder into bitter, feuding camps, how differently might 1984 have been?

Kennedy was rumored to be running in '84 ... back in '78. What if he had, given the differing circumstances?

We can't know, of course, and I don't pretend to know. I just know things would have been different in some way, perhaps a better way. But, the fact remains that a primary against a sitting president can create disastrous results for everyone involved, and in this case the most disastrous outcome from a political perspective was the segment of the party that sought to improve their lot by running that challenge.

And frankly, I don't know if the liberal wing or the Democrats generally can handle another of those. Some Democrats will actually like that idea. It feeds the vision of a strong, liberal third party. But I guarantee you I know who likes that idea more than any Democrat ever could.

[CTLawGuy]

46. well I think

as to the GE we were unified and it got Obama elected. Otherwise, interesting points.

[RoyGBiv]

47. Possibly ...

I don't know if we were unified so much as desperate, a different kind of unity that is inherently temporary.

We as a nation are suffering from George Bush fueled PTSD.

[LWolf]

48. It would give me a Democrat to vote for.

I like the rare opportunity to vote FOR someone, instead of against someone else.

I'm not naive enough to think the party is smart enough, principled enough, or evolved enough that he would win. I'd still like to have a decent choice on the ballot at least at some point.

[billh58]

50. It's not the "Party"

that needs to be convinced -- it's 50% plus-1 of the American voters who would need to anesthetized in order for DK to win the Oval Office. Winning the Democratic Primary election would be the easy part...:sarcasm:

[LWolf]

58. I disagree. Or maybe not.

I can't tell which part of your post is supposed to be sarcastic.

I don't think voters need to be anesthetized. I think they'd vote for him if the gatekeepers didn't spin him the way they do.

And I think the primary is the more difficult; he gets no respect by too many in his own party.

[billh58]

63. I was being

sarcastic with the last line: the probability of DK actually winning the Democrat Primary. As far as the excuses given about DK's "lack of respect" by the media, or by his own political Party, isn't respect earned, rather than given?

Kucinich has been an adequate Congressional Representative for his District, but he is just not Presidential material. If he had managed to get even 25-30% of the vote, then just maybe he would have a shot. I have absolutely nothing against Kucinich, except for his arrogance (like Ron Paul, Lyndon LaRouche, Ralph Nader, and other perennial "also rans") in believing that he could actually win after his first dismal attempt. Each time he runs, his only function is as a "spoiler."

Most Democrats I speak with believe that, like other non-starters, DK uses his small, but very vocal, "base" as a bargaining chip in order to attempt to bully his way into the movers-and-shakers crowd of Democrats. The shame is, that his ploy doesn't work, he is NOT on the "inside," and his base has been poorly used.

[LWolf]

69. Some respect is earned.

Some is given. For example, respect for the humanity of another, whether or not you like them or agree with them, or their choices, is not earned. I give it. Respect for other living things is not earned. I just give it.

Respect for the character of another, based on their actions, is earned.

Politicians are another story. Politics is about power, and politicians are fair game. They may have earned some respect, but that doesn't mean they'll get it from those who have something to gain by withholding it.

DK may or may not be presidential material; but, until someone who IS presidential is as consistently correct on issues, both in word and action, he's got my support if he needs it. His function is not as a "spoiler." It's to give those of us who oppose the status quo and the centrist candidates we're offered up a voice. He does it well. Since he won't be running against the D nominee in the general election, he can't possibly be a "spoiler."

This Democrat that you are speaking with thinks that the "insiders" ought to be booted out for corruption and/or incompetence, and replaced by some "movers and shakers" who aren't bought before they make their first move. I think DK is a strong voice for those of us who are left-of-center, and I don't think we're as small as you do. We're vocal on DU, which still bills itself as a 'left-wing" message board, but our voices are generally drowned out by the mainstream in the real world.

[billh58]

72. I totally agree, and

until we can convince our legislators to introduce legislation that may be harmful to their "political health," (term limits, public financing, etc.) we will be faced with the perennial dilemma of the "lesser of two evils" choice.

I am over 68 years of age, and in my experience with politics, most Liberal Democrats are, and always have been, "left of center." Then again, when the "center" keeps moving as a result of the antics of the contemporary Far Right, AND the Far Left, labels tend to take on slightly different meanings to different people. The DLC-wing of the Democratic Party is in reality, the Neoconservative Republican-Lite wing of the Party. The Far Left fringe of the Democratic Party is much harder to define, and the only way I have found to identify them is by their use of essentially the same tactics as the Far Right: open hostility, vitriol, a high degree of "moral certainty," and fiery self-righteous rhetoric.

Peace,

Bill :toast:

[LWolf]

95. I can agree with most of that,

except that you left out the neo-liberal status of the Democratic Party. We've become a neo-conservative nation on social issues, and neo-liberal on economic.

Since I AM that far left fringe, I can honestly say that I'm openly hostile to the neo-liberal "center," and I have a high degree of moral certainty that their policies are harmful to the nation and the planet.

[billh58]

99. The DLC

"New Democrats," sincerely believe that they are the contemporary neoliberals of the world, with their mantra of "centrism," and the Third Way movement as their platform.

I really don't have much use for labels, but the fringe extremes of both viable political Parties don't seem that much different in their methods and actions to me. I also believe that a majority of Middle Americans (average Joes and Janes) remain fiscally Conservative, and Socially Liberal, and that mindset hasn't changed much since the first Great Depression. There are, of course, geographic pockets where that description does not apply, and that is a direct result of the PNAC-inspired Neoconservative movement's purposeful efforts to divide Americans along ideological lines for their own political (and economic) gain.

The political representatives that we send to Washington, however, are a different matter altogether, and until we can enact campaign finance reforms, and impose term-limits on Congress Critters, they will remain for sale to the highest bidder. That is, I believe, where the disconnect between those who are idealistic, and those who are realistic lies. Although I am not a religious person (spiritual yes, religious no) the Serenity Prayer comes to mind...;-)

[LWolf]

104. Well said.

I am an idealist who lives in the real world. That sometimes makes me a cynic, and I do often struggle with accepting the things I cannot change. ;)

Campaign finance reforms may move to the top of my priority list, because it seems that we won't get substantive work on the others done without it.

[avaistheone1]

81. Well Obama is not going to have a second term. We should consider Dennis.

There are other good Dems who deserve our consideration too.

[LWolf]

96. I'll consider any candidate

that has a consistent record of being correct on issues.

[marshall]

51. Somebody will have to be the sacrificial lamb to make the point

It might as well be Kucinich.

[Jennicut]

55. Doesn't he run every for President every time now?

I have no doubt that the two major political parties are going to split apart. Could be in the next twenty years or so but the big tents are not working so well anymore and I see 4 parties if not 3.

[CTLawGuy]

56. problem is Jenn

is that, in our system, the existence of more than two parties is problematic. Nobody wants to split the vote and see the greater of two evils win. That's why third parties can't get any traction.

It's better in our system to have robust primaries and control WHICH candidate survives to the GE rather than flooding the GE with more candidate who only split up the vote and ensure the victory of the greater of two evils.

[Jennicut]

64. I totally agree with you but people scream for purity and eventually they may get it.

There are issues with parliamentary systems too though that seems to be the way many people want to go these days.

[Phx_Dem]

61. You would. ROLF.

Dennis Kunicich has as much chance of being President, against anyone, as I do. It's funny that progressives actually believe he would win a primary against anyone, let alone the presidency.

:rofl:

[Thrill]

62. Running a primary against your own sitting President is a good way to ensure the other party wins.

[avaistheone1]

82. Well given the current admin is pretty much running things as the Bush folks did,

I think many of us would like to see a change of leadership in 2012.

There doesn't seem much risk in doing so perhaps we could actually get some change.

[jeanpalmer]

66. He had to deal with

"an intransigent Republican minority" to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan?

[ClassWarrior]

67. I believe he should run because he can pull Obama to the left.

NGU.

[babsbunny]

68. i had that same thought!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[ima_sinnic]

71. whether or not he runs, I will be voting for him in 2012

or some equally principled and true Democrat like Russ Feingold. I've voted for Obama for the first and last time, in a primary and in a GE.

[dionysus]

75. well, you sure showed us.

:rofl:

[ima_sinnic]

87. I'm not "showing you" anything

but I know I'm not alone in saying my vote can no longer be taken for granted by "democrats."
If candidates with a true commitment to public service and the guts and principles to avoid being bought off by wealthy pigs want to run as Democrats, I will vote for them.

[flvegan]

73. Because settling for half-assed and worthless leaves us something to bitch about.

That really is the mantra of the modern dem party.

I love status quo cheerleaders.

[saltpoint]

74. Dennis-Bee stings but he cannot redirect the life of the hive.

I don't expect him to challenge President Obama in 2012.

If he does he will be crushed, as you say, soon and soundly, for his third consecutive disastrous run for the White House.

[saltpoint]

77. Without any scheduling changes, Iowa and New Hampshire remain

the first two states on the 2012 primary / caucus calendar, isn't that right?

Kucinich did not win Iowa last time out, or the time before. Obama beat him in Iowa convincingly. HClinton and Edwards were more competitive, certainly, but Obama defeated them as well.

I'm not seeing the rationale in Iowa Democratic caucus-goers to change from Obama to Kucinich in January of 2012. Obama will win handily in Iowa once again. There will be a percentage protest vote but it will fall well below competitive levels. Tough and smart county chairpeople will not endorse Kucinich because they know he is unelectable.

In New Hampshire, Kucinich will encounter the New England pragmatist voter and find that that pragmatism is likely to give the incumbent the benefit of the doubt. Kucinich has never done well in New Hampshire and there's no reason to think pragmatist Democrats would suddenly support him in 2012. See also under county chairpeople.

If he challenged the president in the Democratic primary he would be mathematically eliminated very, very soon. He could remain in the race to "case-shape" the party platform, but there's no suggestion in the past that he's ever been able to do that. They'll schedule his convention address for 2:45 a.m. and there he'll be, thundering purist rhetoric to an even tinier percentage of participatory Democrats than were listening to him in the last two cycles.

There's no victory in the cards for Dennis Kucinich. There's no discernible impact on national policy. He's a good man. I like him. But he is not ever going to be president and he is increasingly marginalized by circumstances.

[merh]

78. Didn't he run against Obama in 2008?

I think he should run and get the pants beat off of him again.

The left is not the universe, the extreme left is not as big or as popular as many on this board think.

[saltpoint]

79. New Hampshire's Democrats are a sturdy bunch. They gave Kucinich a

whopping 1.4% of their total votes in the 2008 New Hampshire primary.

I'm not seeing Kucinich doing any better than that in a potential 2012 challenge.

Advantage Obama.

[smalll]

84. In some ways, I think Da Kooch has his place --

I actually appreciate his single-payer support. But you are right -- let his leftbagger-deviationist militant-pacifist anti-American ass run against Obama over Afghanistan, and we will crush him. :shrug:

Plus, it would be fun to have GD : Primaries all over again. Every four years, we really need the right to bash each other unmercifully, without fear of tombstoning. :evilgrin:

[depakid]

85. What you may well find is a far more formidable opponent

to challenge the continual advocacy of half measure excuse making fail.

[burning rain]

86. Kucinich would make *some * president.

Would he veto every bill because none ever measured up?

[jeanpalmer]

88. If he were to adopt just a basic populist plank

1. end the wars 2. stop the jobs from going overseas 3. campaign finance reform- stop the bribery 4. money to people not the banks

he would win easily. His problem in '08 was he got lost in the crowd of candidates. And his message was somewhat muddled. But put him one-on-one with a war-waging president and the above message and the economy still weak, and he becomes Eugene McCarthy.

[saltpoint]

89. Kucinich has made two national pitches for the presidency and

came in well under the threshold minimum to register as a persuasive, viable choice.

People in his own party voted against Kucinich in overwhelming numbers in 2004 and in 2008. There is no reason to think that this would change in 2012, especially against Barack Obama, who as incumbent would not be without resources.

I do not know any Democratic Party county chairperson who would put their candidates up and down the ballot at risk by endorsing Dennis Kucinich. That is not going to happen.

[HamdenRice]

91. Kooch's problem is not that he got "lost in the crowd". It's the question of his sanity.

Any time the threshold question a candidate poses to the voters is, "Is this guy insane? A nutjob?" then that candidate has a serious electoral problem.

That's the Kooch's problem.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

90. A Kucinich hating thread written by a Patriots fan

Double FAIL! Who Dat!

[saltpoint]

94. Hey now. That 'Dat' is signalling to me that you harbor Saints loyalties

for which I loudly cheer ye.

I don't dislike the Patriots and root for them at all times over the loathseome Colts but I am hoping this year belongs to Nawlins.

If Drew started a church I'd probably go to it.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

98. I am a lifelong Saints fan

It finally feels good to be one.

[saltpoint]

102. I'll be sending 'em good vibes.

[ShortnFiery]

92. It won't change my vote for Dennis Kucinich in the General ... even if I have to write his name in.

;)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. He would need a better campaign manager than the one he had in 2008

I'm convinced that there was sabotage involved in that campaign, because otherwise, why would the campaign blow off successful volunteers (ones from states where he got double digit percentages in the primaries) from the 2004 campaign who inquired about starting up again and not get back to them (asking for huge monetary contributions instead of time) till DK was just about to drop out?

CTLawGuy, I think you underestimate how much anger there is out there.

If the Dems can't tap into this populist anger (which Obama did during his campaign by running as a fake populist), someone else WILL.

Either Obama needs to tell the Wall Street Boys and the militarists where to stuff their conventional wisdom and morph into the populist he pretended to be, or he will face a far worse challenge than Kucinich: former Dem voters refusing to vote or else voting third party or even voting Republican out of spite. I'm hearing all three.

[inthebrain]

97. I didn't vote in the last presidential election

mainly cause my employer didn't allow us the time to go.

Also cause I didn't think the candidates were really worth raising a stink over. The primary process all the way up to the election was largely the corporate elite shaping the whole shebang via the third estate (meida) which they also own and control. Not to mention the candidates.

I'm sick and disgusted by the whole the thing.

DK MIGHT have been enough to get me to go and possibly raise a stink. I'm not sure.

[ruggerson]

100. Kucinich would get crushed with or without Obama in the race

n/t

[Honeycombe8]

101. I'm sure you DO mean it. That's why you're not a campaign manager. nt

[ClarkUSA]

103. His politically convenient change in his lifelong anti-choice stance is all about running for Prez.

I don't doubt that St. Dennis will run in 2012. Looking forward to his answering some more questions on UFO's.

:rofl: