Yellow Times: "Two measures of American desperation: Clark and Dean"

[hippywife]

Enthusiastic support for front-running Democratic presidential contenders Wesley Clark and Howard Dean from liberals and some progressives reveals the dismal state of oppositional politics in America.


<more> http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1640

[bowens43]

1. The author seems to be saying

that if you don't vote for someone who is unelectable then you are desperate. I don't see it that way. Wanting bush out isn't desperation, it's a necessity. Of course , being progressives and leftists, we would prefer the proposed policies of a Kucinich or a Sharpton , but that's not realistic. Most Dems are not progressives, most dems are not as far left as those of us who post here. Then there are the independents and those who vote for the person that they 'like' the most. All of these voters have tobe considered. To nominate someone who has no chance of winning the general election would be a huge mistake.

[maha]

2. What is a progressive?

progressive

SYLLABICATION: pro·gres·sive

ADJECTIVE: 1. Moving forward; advancing. 2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. 3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership. 4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924. 5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school. 6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax. 7. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis. 8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
NOUN: 1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. 2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party. 3. Grammar A progressive verb form.

Going by this definition, who among the Dem candidates (other than Lieberman) is not a progressive?

Put another way, since when does progressive = "flake"?

[hippywife]

6. Maybe , just maybe Maha

it's because the Dem party has become so lackluster that anyone but a Lieberman seems progressive. We've lost so much ground since Reagan took office, even a snails pace is acceptable to those who prefer to fight for their rights from the comfort of their chair.

[maha]

7. I get frustrated with the Dems, too

But Sharpton and Kucnich? Gaak! Why do we have to choose between stodgy and flakey?

[hippywife]

9. It's a sad day for the party

and the country when someone as forthright and intent on service to the people is viewed as flaky. It's a clear indication of the self-centered politics into which the party and the country has fallen.

The Progressive vision embodies the belief that we move forward and take all those less fortunate with us. This country and this party have long since left that ideal behind as economic times boomed and we had our hands in the cookie jar. There was money to be made and anyone who couldn't compete was left by the wayside as homelessness grew in this country yet little was done about it.

I can still remember as a 10 year old watching the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement as TV "brought them into our living rooms" for the first time. I can remember being energized and at the same time frustrated that I was too young to join the others putting themselves in the line of fire for these causes.

I am sad that, after all that has been fought for and gained,it will take yet another counter-revolution to set us back on course and it will be at the cost of a split in the party that once made these things possible.

[maha]

12. Clark and Dean

"and the country when someone as forthright and intent on service to the people is viewed as flaky. It's a clear indication of the self-centered politics into which the party and the country has fallen."

Clark and Dean are both very forthright men who are intent on service, yet you put them down. A little hypocrisy, there, toots?

Your selfish-centered little smear of Clark and Dean because they are beating the socks off your cult leader Kucnich is a pretty damn good example of self-centered politics, btw. I haven't seen a better in a long time.

It's very likely that one of those two will be the next president of the United States, and either one could do a good job and could lead us into a new progressive era. Deal with it.

[hippywife]

15. I didn't write the article

I posted it for discussion and happen to agree with it's premise. The fact that you can't ever in any thread engage in actual discussion without becoming snippy and rude seems to hint at much more than you are willing to tell.

There is not cult surrounding DK except those that wish to see this country doing what it should be doing for ALL of its citizens and those of the world. That's why while the others tout their celeb endorsements, DK has backers that are entrenched in the work of helping their fellow humans and trying to steer a course of true peace in the world.

I don't put anyone on ignore but real discussion with you is useless.

[maha]

26. You posted the article. n/t

[hippywife]

5. I find it odd

that there are Dems who will espouse this view at the same time also saying that a ham sandwich could beat Bush in the next election. Maybe the connection is that they plan on voting for the ham sandwich rather than a real candidate who is dedicated to bringing about real and substantive change and take the Dem party back to the core values it once espoused.

Clinton was the worst thing to ever happen to the Dem Party. His presidency took the party farther to the center than it had been in recent memory. In other words, it knocked the heart and soul out of it. The party stopped standing watch over the liberties and civil rights it had fought to gain, and in some cases willingly has handed over the keys to the government of this country to the right-wingers.

Electing another Clintonesque candidate will only cement that position in the minds of young Dems who were not yet born when the party was alive and vibrant and progessive.

All of those who have professed to believe in what DK stands for and refuse to fight for those beliefs, who opt to take the easier stand by electing the charismatic front-runner du jour, are nothing short of cowards.

It's easy to go to a few MeetUps, give a few dollars, vote for whoever the media has declared is ahead because the have a "D" after their name, and go home at the end of the day.

Many here like to rant against the Green Party but I salute their bravery. While others, calling themselves Dems have moved on toward a more self-centered approach to the country and the world, they have stayed and held onto the heart and soul of what used to be the Dem party. It's the others who need to call themselves by another name and form another party.

Complacency where true "liberty and justice for all" is concerned has gotten us where we are. More of the same will get us no farther.

[maha]

10. Ham Sandwiches for America!

"that there are Dems who will espouse this view at the same time also saying that a ham sandwich could beat Bush in the next election."

I'm one of the more optimistic DUers regarding our chances next year, and it might be that a ham sandwich could win, and might actually be a better president than Bush. However, to most people, Kucinich and Sharpton are much less appealing than a ham sandwich.

In poll after poll Kucinich barely scrapes along at 1 percent. If he's got only 1 percent support from Dems, what would his support be in a general election? I think you'd need a microscope to determine that one.

Reality:

First, we have to nominate someone who would do a good job as President. That leaves out DK and RS. DK couldn't even run Cleveland, for pete's sake, and RS has never administrated anything in his life.

Second, we have to nominate someone who doesn't scare independent voters. Again, leaves out DK and RS, who are fairly terrifying to the unindoctrinated.

Third, we have to nominate someone the Dem base can support. A candidate who can't get above 1 percent among Dem voters aint it.

[hippywife]

14. Not necessarily so.

Maha, you've seen the evidence for what happened in Cleveland and the fact that DK has since been commended for the stand he took and the fact that his decision continues to save money for the working poor in excess of the already $200 million they saved at the time of the commendation almost 10 years ago. The fact that you continue to come back to this when his own city long ago saw the light, is nothing but pure hateful rhetoric.

DK didn't scare this Independent voter. As a matter of fact, most of the DK supports I meet with are or were Independents or Greens who departed the Dem Party for their failures to continue to man the ship. You can blame the right wingers and their agenda all you like. They did some stealthy underhanded things, like lying, in order to make the gains they have. But there is absolutely no denying that the Dem leadership left the door open.

Listening to all here and everywhere that say ABB and that they will vote Dem no matter who gets the nod, means that any Dem we run can and will win. That being the case, the time is now to bring the ship back into tow on the course it has wandered from.

Putting another Dem in office that will be more of the same as the Clinton administration will not do that. Were you better off during the Clinton administration? Probably. But ask those that never had a leg up to begin with, those that are unable to compete in the job market due to physical, mental, or socio-economic issues and ask them the same question. The answer will be stikingly different.

It's time for leadership that will lift us all up together. I only see one candidate dedicated to making that happen.

[maha]

24. So just once

... can you express support for your boy without wrapping it inside a smear of the other candidates who are beating the socks off him? CAN you do that? I haven't seen it yet. Just wondering.

All you have to do is write something that says, "this is why I support Dennis Kucinich for President," and list your reasons, and NOT say anything negative about the other Dem candidates while you are doing so. Is that so difficult?

Regarding Cleveland, some may disagree on the power plant issue, but that isn't what lost him his job. He lost his job because he and the cult groupies he hired to help run the city alienated everyone with their arrogance and nastiness to everyone who dared express a doubt about their boy. I have links.

[Eloriel]

53. Hold it right there, hippywife

You've crossed the line.

An aside: one thing I notice about Kucinich supporters is a stridency that is about as shrill as he is. Very nasty toward non-Kucinich supporters.

I believe in most of what Kucinich believes in. I'm a little unsold on the Department of Peace (depending on what he intends to do with such a thing), and I'm a little unconvinced about his pro-Choice conversion -- not that I don't believe he converted, I thought his explanation wasn't very sincere-sounding.

Be that as it may, the real reason I don't support him is that I CAN'T STAND THE MAN. Add to that that he's unelectable, and you've got a loser on your hands. I ain't no coward, and your calling non-Kucinich supporters COWARDS is way over the line.

I have for the most part tiptoed around most Kucinich discussions AND supporters (aside from admitting now and then that I don't LIKE him and no one can MAKE me LIKE him), but I'm frankly a little tired of the abuse non-Kucinich supporters get around here.

And I don't care HOW DAMNED GOOD his policies are, you are NOT going to make me feel guilty for supporting someone whose policies are entirely acceptable-to-wonderful to me, and who is doing something equally or even more important -- something which could even create a space for moving the country to as far left as Kucinich is, and someone who's also electable.

And YES! If all the people who consider Kucinich "unelectable" would vote for him in the primary, he probably WOULD get the nomination. But there is absolutely, positively no chance he'd win the general election. None. Zero. Zilch.

That's NOT why I don't support him. The reason I don't support him is that I like someone else better, by something like an order of magnitude. Quit the resentment toward those of us who aren't buying what Kucinich and you have to sell.

Eloriel

[hippywife]

54. Entirely acceptable???

(I wasn't feeling particularly "shrill" when I wrote that. I didn't even use one capital letter in the whole thing! ;) )



I don't care HOW DAMNED GOOD his policies are, you are NOT going to make me feel guilty for supporting someone whose policies are entirely acceptable-to-wonderful to me...


Where the lives and well-being of people are concerned entirely acceptable is a sad commentary. It may be acceptable to people doing okay-to-well but as I stated above, ask the poor if another Clintonesque administration is "entirely acceptable", and you are likely to get a different answer by an "order of magnitude."

Ask a mother that has to leave her children alone to ride a bus more than an hour to get to one of her minimum wage jobs which doesn't begin to cover rent, utilities, and food let alone child care or health care how well "entirely acceptable" has ever worked for her.

I can't see Dean doing very much about their plight when he was a strident welform reform governor and may well insist on balancing the budget regardless of the shape of social programs.

State budgets are already in a sorry state of decline, in large part due to unfunded federal mandates as well as lower tax revenues due to the newer jobless. There will be much ground to make up and balancing the budget while leaving a bloated Pentagon budget off limits, isn't going to cut it by an "order of magnitude."

Eloriel, I take exception to the issues of the candidates and not how well I like or dislike someone. There is too much in the balance to run this as a popularity contest.

[maha]

57. You don't understand.

You are not supposed to not like Dennis!

DK has a history of collecting a cult-like following who worship the ground he walks on and cannot fathom why the rest of the world doesn't worthip him as well. Why? Beats me; I look at him and just can't see the appeal.

To see what I'm talking about, read this article from April 1978, or this one from January 1980.

DK's compaign is clearly going nowhere -- he consistently remains at 1 percent in poll after poll -- so what's his game? I'm predicting that eventually he'll do a Nader and go third party.

There've been a number of DU polls indicating that Kucinich supporters don't have a #2 choice (or if they do, it's Sharpton). If DK isn't the nominee, they plan to write him in. Whenever it becomes clear to him and to them that he really has no hope at the nomination, don't be surprised if he leaves the Democratic party in a major snit because we're all corrupt and stupid and cowardly and can't see that DK walks on water.

[blindpig]

64. how good of you to speak for all DK supporters.......

listen bucko, the only cult I belong to is that of the Sacred Artamoose. and that of Good Beer.
it's the Program, man. go to his web site. read his proposed plan of action. what's not to like? compare it to his competitors. it is by far closest to the New Deal, which i thought was something like the holy grail.
yeah, some supporters go overboard with the cult of personality bs, but compared to the deanies & weaselites its small change.
honestly, we need to leave handicapping at the track & personalities at Mao's tomb. television is much to blame for this. a return to the days when you voted a straight party ticket becase you knew what the party stood and didn't worry about personal pecidillios would be refreshing and more honest

[maha]

72. Excuse me?

Are you mistaking me for a Kucinich groupie? I sure hope not.

As I said, there have been a number of polls and threads here on DU in which Kucnich supporters overwhelmingly said they wouldn't vote for any of the other Dem candidates, only for DK, and if DK doesn't get the nomination they will write him in. I assume they mean what they say.

Please note that as time goes on I have come to believe that DK is one of the few politicians in America who could screw up the nation as much as Bush has. However, I am certain I won't have to face a choice between Dumb and Dumber this time next year, so I'm not breaking my brain worrying about what to do if Kucinich is nominated.

[Classical_Liberal]

70. I don't believe Dean is Clintonesque

He is smashing the DLC corporate funding of campaigns formula and that is a good thing for progressives in the long run.

[mmonk]

19. Being leftist doesn't necessarily denote progressive.

Progressive thought evolves as conditions and realities change. What was progressive in the 50's or 60's isn't necessarily progressive in 2003. It changes as as society progresses and changes.

[hippywife]

20. Progressive thought

is about being human and treating others as such. That ideology never changes.

[mmonk]

30. And why would Clark not

fit in that category? When he was commander of NATO forces, he requested more people on the ground because he felt bombing campaigns from high elevations would harm civilians.

[hippywife]

39. There are still too many

doubts in the minds of many people, mine included, with regards to his role and performance as commander of NATO forces.

Also, I don't see him as a president willing to taking the necessary steps to remove the occupation forces from Iraq. I can't support a stay the course approach when it is our military presence there that feeds the instability of the country. I am definitely in favor of paying for what Bush broke at this point, but it seems that as long as we maintain an occupation force, there will be much more broken that will need to be paid for since it creates an atmosphere of animosity so vile that even the humanitarian agencies can't safely operate to actually HELP those that need it most.

[maha]

43. There is plenty of information

... out there to resolve the doubts about the General's record in Kosovo, one way or another. The General has made his entire military history public and written two books. Other people who were with him (and not with him) have written copious articles and put forth documents supporting their claims, one way or another. Nothing is hidden. So if you have "doubts," this means you aren't working real hard to find out what happened.

"Also, I don't see him as a president willing to taking the necessary steps to remove the occupation forces from Iraq."

Again, this just shows you aren't paying attention. He's spoken and written about this matter and has made it plain that the U.S. will have no choice but to evacuate from Iraq, possibly sooner than would be good for Iraq. Because of his experience he is uniquely qualified to get us out of Iraq with the least damage to us and the rest of the world.

A couple of sources of info on Clark's position on post-invasion Iraq:

PBS interview

Clark discusses an exit strategy

Clark's handicap in this matter is that he has enormous experience plus an intellect's grasp of all the details and complexities of the situation in Iraq. It's so much easier to be an impractical ideologue and come up with simplistic plans that look good on paper but won't work in the real world.

Please note: NONE of the candidates, not even Lieberman, is in favor of an indefinite occupation of Iraq. They are all saying that we have to get out eventually. They differ on details -- what steps should be taken over what period of time. I did a comparison of all of their positions a few days ago, here.

[mmonk]

47. He wants to internationalize

the Iraq situation and take the American face off the invasion and occupation. He doesn't want to leave a vacuum (breeding ground for terrorism like Afghanistan). He said he wouldn't have been there in the first place. He says the Bush outlook and geopolitical strategy is 19th century in concept. He wants to restore America's name and good will with other countries. May I ask what's so bad about that?

As far as NATO goes, he is attacked mainly from people that were against the overall NATO involvement in Kosovo and the right wing especially because they don't look at trying to contain ethnic cleansing as a reason for US forces to be involved in that NATO operation. A big contention they had with him was the attention he was getting as well as his desire to end the high elevation bombing. Also, there were no American casualties under his command there. A site better success than is currently going on.

He also wants the administration to be investigated for pushing apparently false data in order to go to war. He also wants other investigations in the whole matter concerning Iraq, intelligence, and 9/11.

[hippywife]

51. Quotes from the article above

* In an article published in The Times of London, April 10, Clark savors America's great "victory" over Iraq: "Liberation is at hand. Liberation -- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph. … President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

* As the U.S. and its client Israel are presently focusing the crosshairs on Syria and Iran, we have Clark writing in the same article: "But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice -- indeed, may have been already -- that they are 'next' if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns."

Sounds straight out of the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century playbook!

Many Clark supporters were stunned when he told the New York Times on September 19 that he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to attack Iraq: "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question." After pausing to consider his statement, Clark repeated: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

In response to the shocked reaction among supporters to the "antiwar" candidate's statement, Clark backpedaled the next day: "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war. … I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."

Clark's claim to having a consistent record is simply false. In October 2002, Clark traveled to New Hampshire to endorse Katrina Swett's run for Congress. The Union Leader newspaper reported that "Clark, who supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, said if Swett were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate." (October 10, 2002)

You're Either With Us or Against Us

Clark's oft-repeated claim that the U.S. should act in concert with the international community to reach a diplomatic solution on Iraq is belied by statements he made on CNN before the war:

* "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." (1/21/03)

* "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us. … The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with." (2/5/03)


These are his quotes with documentation of dates and attribution.

[maha]

56. No links -- no quotes.

Some of those quotes don't sound like Clark. So until I see the entire article(s), I must assume you are lying and he didn't say those things.

[hippywife]

65. Yeah, coz...

everybody heard him wrong. :eyes:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html


As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

<snip>

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

http://blackcommentator.com/59/59_cover_clark.html

As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan… I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned." – Wesley Clark, page 130, Winning Modern Wars.

If Wesley Clark is to be believed, he kept this Pentagon conversation – and his deep concerns – to himself for nearly two years, going public only when it suited his purposes as a purveyor of books and newly-hatched Democratic candidate for President. There is something – no, there are many things – very, very wrong, here.




Or maybe his own article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

<snip>

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

<snip>

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

<snip>
Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.



This isn't smearing a candidate. This is asking serious questions about where his head actually is.

[maha]

71. You believe FAIR?

You realize this organization exists to smear liberals? And you take their propaganda at face value?

Everything you post is just more proof that you don't think at all. You're just a conduit for propaganda.

[maha]

29. Dennis evolves fast.

Just a year or so ago Kucinich was anti-abortion rights and anti-stem cell research. So just a year or so ago he was neither "progressive" nor "liberal" in any meaningful sense of those words.

Evolution at warp speed!

[dpbrown]

59. We will win the general election by nominating the "anti-Bush"

The nation has suffered under nearly 16 years of the BFEE. In that amount of time, we've been (apparently effectively) indoctrinated to lower our expectations.

Democrats and Republicans have been lured in by the spider of electioneering and its dubious 40/40/20 breakdown of voters, giving people who refuse to become well-informed and can't make up their mind undue influence over politicking. We're told we must pursue the "Independents" and the Republican turncoats in the center, barely 20 million (only half, or 10 million in the last national election, which either side has any chance of capturing) apparently to the exclusion of the nearly 50% (80 million, in the last Presidential election) who don't vote, and the disenfranchised 4 or 5 million who enthusiastically vote third party.

Bush got about 50 million votes last time, and he lost.

Let me say that again. Bush got 50 million last time, and he lost.

Does anybody reasonably think that Bush will get any sizeable number of the Democrats who crossed over to vote for him, the Republicans who have a conscience, the Libertarians, and the "Independents" who supported him last time around? Hardly.

The Democratic nominee will become the next President of the United States, if Republicans fail in their plan to undermine the electoral process through black box voting, and the Democrats nominate someone who is the most clearly the "anti-Bush."

It's as simple as that.

Democrats would do well to rise up from their prostrated position of obeisance to Republican (and election consultant) control of the political conversation. The best candidate should be the candidate who most clearly claims the ground that should be the Democratic traditional high ground - an end to unfair trade agreements, universal health care, an accountable Pentagon keeping us safe without wasting our money, an end to the death penalty, and empowering family farmers by getting them involved in power production and food distribution.

Unfortunately, there's only one candidate who espouses all those traditional liberal Democratic positions.

That candidate is also the one who most clearly represents the "anti-Bush."

That candidate is also the one who's beaten three separate incumbent Republicans (this is clearly "appeal to the center").

That candidate is also the only one who's taken on CEI/FirstEnergy (the company that just caused the biggest blackout in North American history), and won.

That candidate is the one best able to beat Bush like a drum, and to not only "take back" America, but to actually do something with it once we win it back.

That candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[maha]

60. Kucinich barely polls at 1 percent of DEMOCRATIC voters.

You'd have to use a microscope to find his support in a general election.

So when will Kucinich drop out of the Dem race and declare a third-party candidacy?

[dpbrown]

62. Kucinich has beaten three incumbent Republicans - Dean, none

Kucinich takes 74% of the vote in his district. He takes 50% of the Republican vote.

He's beaten three separate Republican incumbents.

Dean has never beaten a Republican incumbent.

Every office Kucinich ever held in Ohio and in the US Congress is now held by a Democrat.

Every office Dean ever held in Vermont is now held by a non-Democrat.

Kucinich's re-elect numbers have increased with each election to the US House.

Dean's re-election margin for Governor (a role he fell into when Governor Snelling died in 1991) dropped every single election until he slipped out the door to "run for President" rather than being turned out by the voters. His Lt. Governor then went on to lose in Dean's place against Republican Jim Douglas.

Dennis Kucinich has done a better job fighting for Democratic principles, and championing causes that wash over into securing enduring Democratic holds on seats than Howard Dean has done.

George Bush won't get the votes he got in 2000, and he lost then. It's ludicrous to argue that we need to "settle" on a candidate who can't even apparently keep the good intentions of the lily-white "independent" voters of Vermont when we have a candidate who champions traditional liberal Democratic principles and wins.

Dean is more likely to drop out and declare a third-party candidacy than is Kucinich. Dean has already pronounced himself an "outsider" and would be more than willing to be the Perot of 2004 if he's ultimately spurned by the Democratic power-brokers and Democratic voters wake up to his mediocre positions, needless belligerence, and Bush-lite positions.

There are plenty of people who are not angry, predominantly white Democrats who make their voting decisions on issues and not braggadocio who are ready to reject or sit out a candidacy by Dean or a candidate who doesn't seem to know what to do with America once he "takes it back" from the BFEE.

And that, frankly, is the only thing that will bring the election close enough for the Republicans to steal next time with their no-paper-trail black boxes - run a candidate who barely differs from Bush on the death penalty and on the continued war-rape of Iraq, and who will be smeared mercilessly by pundits as "tax and spend" for having no better idea what to do with the broken health care system than throw more federal money at it.

No, thanks.

[maha]

73. Awesome!

You have to WORK at being that delusional. Remarkable!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. THAT's the kind of snarky comment I was referring to

And I have not called Clark a Republican or Dean a racist, nor do I think they are.

[mmonk]

3. Why isn't it that

some of us may actually like them? I happen to like what Clark has had to say ever since he kept appearing on CNN criticising the war in Iraq. The more I heard and read from him, the more I wanted him to run for president. How is that desperation? How come they are not considered oppositional? The writer seems more to be against military people. That and the fact that he isn't pure enough. Same old charges over and over. But where are the attacks on Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, and others for their resolution votes and support for the war in its concept (which isn't Clark's position)? Same old hypocrisy and bilge over and over again.

[maha]

75. I'm sure it's a syndrome.

The Kucinich people seem to genuinely believe that DK is everybody's favorite candidate, or would be if we knew more about him. They cannot fathom that people might actually investigate DK and the other candidates -- and prefer the other candidates. If that's true, they think, it must be because we're brainwashed or there's some factoid that we're not aware of, hence the desperate attempts to link Clark or Dean to the DLC or the Clintons or something else to show us that we're wrong and only DK is pure and good and liberal enough to lead us to the light.

I don't know exactly what sort of syndrome we're looking at here, but it's got to be one.

[Vogon_Glory]

4. Even Onetime Moderate Conservatives Are Forced Into Opposition

I realize that this may come as a shock to the hard-core liberal faithful, but the Far Right has so altered the political landscape that even onetime moderate conservatives who want balanced budgets but also believe that a solid infrastructure, a healthy and educated citizenry, and taking care of the aged, the infirm, and the helpless is part and parcel of a good society have been forced to part ways with a Republican Party that works against all those things, regardless of its deceitful rhetoric.

I voted for Reagan back in 1980 because I thought that he'd die early and that his vice president George H.W. Bush would bring the Republican Party's policies back towards the center. Shortly thereafter, I learned I had fooled myself, even as the Republican Party shifted even further to the right.

There are millions of moderates like me who realize that to vote Republican is to be a useful idiot for the right-wing reactionary counterrevolution.

I like to think that many of us are angry and that we do vote.

[ablbodyed]

31. My experience too....

many thoughtful long-time Repubs can't stand where this country is going. Of course, the bully-boy WhiteHeteroMales that ae so frightened by anything that threatens their mean-spirited world are happy as clams at the duck-anus in the WH.

[mmonk]

8. I also think that those who have such an anti-Clark

attitude are not listening to anything he has to say, but are voicing opposition to a characature they created in their minds.

[hippywife]

11. That would be true

if it weren't for the fact that many of us are still thinking individuals who can read and make these assessments for ourselves. You give us little credit for that.

At the same time, as I do read and research, I wonder why people support him so whole-heartedly when there is so much to question about him. My only conclusion is the fear that drives so many to do things they would otherwise not do such as that which drove some in Congress to vote for the IWR and the Patriot Act. Fear doesn't allow much space for reason.

[maha]

13. "many of us are still thinking individuals "

Yes, and thinking individuals are flocking to Dean and Clark. People looking for a cult leader flock to Kucinich.

Whatever you do, don't drink the Cool-Aid.

[hippywife]

16. Like I said

real discussion with you is absolutely useless. You can't support your reasoning so you disolve into spiteful and hateful rhetoric everytime. :eyes:

[maha]

25. And I could say the same about you.

If you could express your reasons for supporting Kucinich without smearing the other Dems, we wouldn't have these little problems. It's the smears that piss me off.

Write something about Kucinich's policies WITHOUT smearing the other candidates, and I'll discuss it.

[ablbodyed]

34. The snideness is.....

off-putting. I don't like to get personal, because the is counter-productive, but your hostility to the other poster is unnecessary. I LIKE DK. I think he would be a good president. I was a long-time conservative, but, as a gay man, the religious right terrifies me. So my fears forced me to re-think my social and political beliefs. I am now very liberal and feel that DK is the only one 'expressing' true progressive ideals. Maybe he has nothing to lose; maybe others believe them as well but are loath to express them. I admire him, and trust him to take moral actions.
Of the other candidates, Lieberman is the only one I could not WHOLE-HEARTEDLY support, should he/she win the nomination.

[mmonk]

37. I like DK too.

I think having your candidate attacked as much as Clark produces a little fire among the Clark faithful, especially when many of the attacks are not specific and involve generalizations.

Like you, the only candidate I would have problems supporting is Lieberman.

[maha]

40. OK.

If you could whole-heartedly support other Dem candidates (except Lieberman, of course) you are a very atypical Kucnich supporter.

I object less to DK than to his followers. When DK first entered the race the news stories called him "left wing" (OK by me) and said he opposed the Iraq War, which is also OK by me. He said somethings in the debates that were very sharp. This doesn't mean he was one of my favorites, but I had him in a "let's wait and see" category.

But his followers here in DU are a terrifying bunch. IF these people are not cult followers I will eat my pantyhose. They persistently smear and lie about the other candidates in their frantic attempts to get more support for their boy, and I HATE that. The first message in this thread is a perfect example of their tactics -- repeat lies and gratuitious insults about Dean and Clark.

If Kuncinich can't bring himself forward as a viable candidate without smearing the rest of the field, that tells me he's not a viable candidate.

I also resent the claim that Dennis is the "only" real progressive or liberal in the field. Just a few months ago he was against abortion rights and stem cell research, which tells me he wasn't a true progressive or liberal until this year. Yet his followers say the other candidates, most of whom have been firm supporters of reproductive rights for years, aren't "real" progressives because their policies on health care or the military or yada yada represent some compromises with moderates and conservatives.

Well, sorry, but this is called living in the real world. Good government is not about being ideologically pure, but about doing what's possible to help people. Since a majority of congress has been moderate to conservative for the past several years, it has not been possible to legislate an undiluted progressive agenda.

What killed Kucinich as mayor of Cleveland all those years ago was his "style" of governing, which was "my way or the highway." Apparently he managed to piss off everyone in the city because he refused to compromise on ANYTHING. Possibly he has softened this attitude a bit, but his supporters sure haven't.

(Read all about Kucinich as mayor here.)

I'm not sure why DK would be a better candidate on gay rights than others. If you want to explain your thoughts on this, I'd be happy to listen.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Pot, meet kettle

When we raise personal misgivings about the candidacy of someone who comes out of nowhere with a bunch of gung ho ready-made followers and is still tentative and vague on his domestic issues and has no experience in the real world of politics and has hobnobbed with the Republicans as much as or more than with the Democrats, we're "bashing" and "doing Karl Rove's work."

When other people come onto the Kucinich threads and make pointless, repetitious hit and run jibes that are the equivalent of "nyaa-nyaa-nyaa-nyaa=nyaa" and we defend our candidate, then we're "cultists."

If supporting someone who actually thinks that Democrats can be as bold in making policy initiatve as Republicans are makes me a "cultist," then fine, call me a Kucinich Kultist.

[mmonk]

50. OK

we won't reply to unprovoked attacks (like saying Clark is a republican or his positions are republican or he is a Rove plant, yadda, yadda, yadda).

[maha]

58. Right; we're not allowed.

We're supposed to let the Kucinich supporters smear the other candidates without resistance because, you know, we're not worthy to doubt Dennis.

[dpbrown]

63. Dean = Cult Leader, Kucinich = Traditional Democrat

Dean is attractive to two types of people:

1. Angry, predominantly white voters frustrated that Democrats seem to have been unable to "grow a spine", and

2. Republicans, who see Dean as mincemeat in a run against Bush.

Kucinich has a better position than Dean on:

1. Universal Health Care.
2. Abolishing the Death Penalty.
3. UN in, US out of Iraq.
4. Family farmers into electricity production.
5. Ending international trade agreements that don't work.
6. Making us safer by making the Pentagon accountable to the taxpayers.

Bush won't get the votes of many of the 50 million people who voted for him last time, because he's worked so hard to piss people off. Therefore, fearing a loss in a general election if the Democrat's positions aren't close enough to Bush's to be indistinguishable is completely unfounded and insupportable.

The candidate most likely to produce a sizeable margin of victory, one big enough to cover the "black box voting" spread, is going to be the one who differs most from Captain Unelected.

The candidate with the most experience beating incumbent Republicans, and who offers the clearest alternative to Bush, is Dennis Kucinich.

Picking a President isn't a popularity contest. It's nonsensical to pick a candidate who will muddy up the water between the candidates with barely differing positions when we already know Bush can't get 50 million votes next time (especially in the nomination process). The best way to ensure a wide margin of victory is to pick a candidate who clearly embraces traditional liberal Democratic principles, and who offers a stark contrast as an "anti-Bush."

That candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

[Fovea]

67. I find it interesting that after excoriating HippyWife

for 'shrillness', you are willing to take a shot as cheap as a Jim Jones reference. Reserve that crap for the actual enemy, or drink the damned cup yourself.

I also am unimpressed by the rhetoric about Kucinich supporters not having a second choice besides Sharpton. I personally think either Dean or Clark would be great in comparison to Bush. I cannot imagine a sentient being that would not agree.

I am not looking for a cult leader. I am looking for a platform that embraces the traditional ideals of the Democratic Party.

I believe that Dennis's platform is the right one, and I believe that he is sincerely committed to that platform. That is why I support him.

[mmonk]

17. I don't support Clark out of fear.

I take issue that my support for Clark isn't made out of reason.

[hippywife]

18. As I, too, take issue

with being told that I am merely forming an "attitude" against him based on a charcature rather than his own words and deeds.

[mmonk]

21. So you don't like him.

But what points have you expressed that doesn't fit the consistent characature that has been painted by his critics (Kosovo, business links concerning security firms, a Clinton or DLC creation, etc.). Which of his ideas have you discussed and why do you think they are bad and not progressive?

[hippywife]

23. For one...

his healthcare plan.

From his website:

"The Clark plan also would allow Americans without access to job-based insurance to purchase coverage through the same system that insures members of Congress."

He still leaves the health and lives of Americans in the hands of the profit centered insurance companies.

Or the fact that he is only slowly revealing the depth and breadth of his platform week by week. How can anyone support a candidate when they're not sure what the candidate plans to do? It leads me to believe he is building his platform based soley on public opinion and which way the winds are blowing.

And as far as his critics, they aren't all on the right side of the aisle. With all candidates, I try to critically listen to ALL sides and try to decide for myself what the character (not characture) of the candidate actually is on the balance.

[maha]

27. OK.

Now, can you say, "I prefer the Kucinich health care plan over Clark's because ... (list reasons) without throwing in a pack of gratuitious insults at Clark? Give it a shot.

[mmonk]

28. He's putting forth a healthcare platform

that he hopes could pass congress. Access to such a system that members of congress have would be less expensive, more affordable, portable, and less discriminatory than through those options that currently exist for the general public.

Better to come up with carefully thoughtout positions that try to explain a position thrown out early that sounds good, but could later be picked apart by others. He entered the race a little later than some others. But he has good conceptual thinking skills and an ability to work out solutions.

[hippywife]

36. When there are a majority

of Americans which is comprised of both parties would support a Canadian-style universal singlepayer plan, any congressperson who would not would be bending to the insurance companies and their lobbyists and not the constituency. What's new, huh?

It's not like this plan is a whole new idea, and as someone once said, (and I wish I could remember now who) "It's not like there are nations around the world who are scurrying to emulate our healthcare plan."

As in any issue, the key is active education, not half-measures. The lives and health of people are still at stake when half-measures are in place.

[maha]

41. News from Mars

Since when would a majority of Americans support a Canadian-style health care plan? I doubt very much that is true. Even a lot of people I know who want national health care don't like the Canadian model and would prefer something else.

[hippywife]

45. The WP and ABC have affiliates on Mars?? News to me!!

http://www.healthtogether.org/healthtogether/resources/news_universal_health.html

http://www.calhealthconsensus.org/nw/nw000043.php
http://www.calhealthconsensus.org/st/

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Jan/28/ln/ln14a.html

http://cthealth.server101.com/universal_healthcare_is_cheaper.htm

The cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has been affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office.

The GAO has written:
"If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."

Over the years, groups and individuals as diverse as Consumers Union, labor unions, the CEO of General Motors, the editorial boards of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Physicians for a National Health Program have endorsed a single-payer approach.

[mmonk]

48. Tell you what,

when congress passes a single payer plan and delivers it to a President Clark and he refuses to sign it, then you can say he was beholding to the insurance interests.

[maha]

55. Thanks for the Proof

You don't know what you're talking about.

You said that a majority of Americans of both parties "would support a Canadian-style universal singlepayer plan."

And I said, "Since when would a majority of Americans support a Canadian-style health care plan? I doubt very much that is true. Even a lot of people I know who want national health care don't like the Canadian model and would prefer something else."

You you slap up some links to "prove" you have a clue what you are talking about. Let's take a look!

Link 1 says there is 2-1 support for national health care, but says not one word about a Candadian-style system.

Link 2 says that a coalition of doctors, nurses, etc. are working for national health care, but the article does not mention Canadian-style health care.

Link 3 is a link to a bunch of consumer stories about how awful the health care system is. Well, you're preaching to the choir, toots. I've been in favor of a single-payer, national health care system for at least twenty years. I could add lots more horror stories to these. The question at hand, however, focuses on the Canadian model as opposed to, say, the British model.

Link 4 is about Hawaii; not a national story. And, once again, Canadian-style is not mentioned.

And the final link is an article by two doctors about how universal health care will save money. I've been saying this for at least 20 years. That's not the issue. The issue is, are we talking about CANADIAN-STYLE health care or some other model of national health care.

As I said in my earlier message, which apparently you didn't read, a great many people who have advocated national health care for many years do not favor the Canadian model.

You do realize there are other models of national health care out there than Canada's, don't you?

Now that, perhaps, you have grasped what my actual comment was about, kindly be sure your tin foil hat is in place and explain to me why we're only supposed to consider the Canadian model of national health care?

[maha]

22. Tell us what Clark policies you don't like.

Or just pick one. Find a position Clark has taken on any issue and explain to us why his position is not "progressive."

[ablbodyed]

32. I like him, but....

I worry that he is a plant to deflect and discombublate us. Is he too good to be true? I HOPE NOT.

[mmonk]

33. Plants aren't drafted.

[ablbodyed]

35. I knew someone would....

try to deflect the message by attacking the word. YOU KNOW FULL WELL WHAT DEFINITION OF PLANT IS INTENDED.

[mmonk]

38. Planted by whom?

Qualify you accusations (I hate innuendo).

[ablbodyed]

44. Sorry....

I misunderstood you. You weren't reacting to the use of the word plant as in something growing out of the ground.
In relation to his post, I don't trust the Repugs at all. Rove CAN (and probably will) do anything. So it's not out of the realm of possiblities that Clark is a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing. What political faith I do have is that the people behind him are confident that he is the real article. I believe that he is, but I'm not SURE that he is. You ignored the title of my first post re: Clark.

[mmonk]

46. Actually

I was wondering if you thought the DLC planted him. They have 2 candidates running (Edwards and Lieberman). Don't see how Clark fits in as a Repub plant (can't see any characteristics in Clark since he doesn't attack the other candidates, and is repeatedly attack fodder from the right). Since some of his primary concerns are erosion of democracy, the neocons, suppression of dissent over the war, and it took months to convince him to leave a lucrative retirement of books, speeches, and business interests, being a republican plant doesn't look logical. If you are concerned that he voted for Reagan when he was in the military, Reagan didn't win without democrats and independents who were frustrated about the Iran hostage situation as well as double digit interest rates, inflation and unemployment of the time. Imagine if the repub's had rejected Reagan because he was a former democrat (and Clark was an unaffliated voter who has also voted Clinton/Gore and Gore/Lieberman).

He has been asked to serve by some of us (who joined the draft Clark movement) and after a long thinking through process, accepted the challenge. He said liberal is not a dirty word and that our heritage is one of living in a liberal democracy.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Fascinating leap of logic...

in this article.

It's spot on that the country has been ripped to the right, but then says that the answer is to field leftwing opposition candidates and proceeds to trash two of the leading contenders.

HUH?

May I repeat my mantra that this is still some semblance of a democracy and that we field candidates who can WIN?

Since the country has been ripped to the right, what gives anyone the idea that it will respond to messages from the far left? It's fun to talk about policy and positions, but the voters ultimately call the shots, and if they won't vote for left wingers, what on earth would be the point?

So, maybe Kucinich and Sharpton have great messages. Maybe they are helping to keep the debate honest. But what the hell is the point of pushing for candidates who aren't even popular within their natural constituencies? Just how would these people somehow magically win over the vast numbers of other votes needed if they can't come up with decent numbers among Democrats?

Does anyone really think there is any rational reason to run someone who would very likely take the whole party down in a blaze of ideological glory and sens Wahington even further to the right?

A ham sandwich can NOT beat Shrub next year. A ham sandwich is a devil they do not know.

If you don't like the moderate who can win, you still have a much better chance of getting his ear than the putz who's in there now.

And it's a step in the right direction.

[carpetbagger]

52. Maybe we don't want to remain in the opposition.

If Gore were president, a bet a good number of things the opposition is opposing wouldn't be on the table.

While it would be bad for the professional and hobbyist whiners of the world, it would be good for the world for us to not be in the opposition.

[bpilgrim]

61. was this moved from gd?

yellow times getting a lot of activity in editorials is definately a good thing ;->

peace

[hippywife]

66. Nope

Figured this was the place for it. ;)

[tedoll78]

68. I'll say it right now.

I currently support Dean. He's the only candidate I have ever sent money to. The only candidate I've rallied for. The only candidate I've really tried to sell to others.

But - if March comes around and the polls show Clark almost-definitely beating Bush and Dean almost-definitely losing to Bush, I'm switching in a millisecond. I want that bastard chimp out. And any of the nine here would be much, much better. Including Lieberman. Now is NOT the time to be picky and pussyfoot around, only to chance another 4 years of this bullsh!t. I'm going to go with the most electable.

*flame suit on*

[MISSDem]

74. Amen!

Bravo!

[tedoll78]

76. Thanks!

I mean it. I don't remember where, but I saw a recent poll showing that around 75% of Democratic Primary voters would consider switching their votes. I hope that the electability issue is what will guide them, no matter which of the candidates we end-up with.