If Al Gore is not running then Kucinich is the man!

[Cascadian]

I suppose that interview on Swedish TV has really put the kabosh on people's hopes for Gore to run in '08. I suppose I will be leaning more towards backing Kucinich now if that is the case.


John

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Glad you have accepted the reality of it. glad you chose someone to support.

[w4rma]

2. Kucinich endorsed Edwards in 2004. (nt)

[papau]

20. And only Edwards health uses Medicare - in a very small role to be sure - but if DK wants

- like I want - Medicare for all to at least get a leg up, Edwards is currently the only choice after DK.

[elocs]

3. Reality check:

The point of nominating a candidate is to have somebody who could actually win the general election. Things are far too important now to indulge ourselves with a candidate who cannot win.
Kucinich in 2008=McGovern in 1968 (been there, done that) which should be painfully obvious and very, very clear.

[G_j]

5. thanks for perpetuating the same old myths

ALWAYS helps to squash any hopes for someone with vision and genuine progressive ideas and solutions

by the way, I was around in 68 so I've been there too

no thank you

[Cascadian]

8. The message is pretty clear from the detractors.

If you are a lefty and a progressive, we want you out of the big Democratic tent. Your leaders and platform are no longer relevent in the Democratic Party.

[elocs]

28. You are welcome, and it is called reality--he cannot be elected. Please come back to earth.

It's exactly like the people who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 since he had no chance of being elected also. I hope they are happy with their decision now. But then none of this makes any difference since Kucinich will not get nominated. I have nothing against him, but the point is to get a Democrat elected in 2008. I am glad you were here in 1972 (which is what I meant), but not everybody was as equally delighted with the outcome of that election and it would have been nice to have a Democrat in the White House rather than have Nixon reelected and continue the war. Elect a Republican in 2008 and just see how quickly the troops get out of Iraq.

[The Sushi Bandit]

9. I am sick and tired hearing about "electability"

That mindset is what screwed us in the last 2 elections.

You should vote for the person who you have TRUST in. Anything else is selling yourself out.

Reliving 1968 is best for hippies who never grew up.

[elocs]

31. The vast, vast majority of Democrats have a different opinion about electability.

After all, getting elected is the point of elections. Also, I wouldn't be slamming old hippies because I bet there are a lot of them here and we vote. Isn't it funny that it is the old hippies who are the ones in touch with reality today? All of this is academic since Kucinich will not get the nomination anyway. The ex-governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, is running for the Republican nomination and there are people who are also convinced he is the best candidate also and the reality is that he will not get their nomination either.

[AshevilleGuy]

12. McGovern was 1972. It was the first time I was old enough to vote.

And I remember January 20, 1973 when Nixon was sworn in for the second time. Yeah, someone tell me that electibility didn't matter that day!!! Or Jan 20, 1985. Or Jan 20, 1989. Or Jan 20, 2005.

Some candidates can win general elections and some could NOT under any conceivable circumstances. It's not so hard after watching a few elections to tell which is which. I want someone to explain to me what good it does to nominate the latter type of candidate. Has any president ever changed anything in his policies because he learned it from his defeated opponent??

And I am not necessarily trashing Kucinich here. We have more than one unelectable candidate running this time.

[elocs]

32. You are right, it was 1972. Those were some tough anti-war years. n/t

[skipos]

23. You don't need to talk people out of Kuc. Let him get his 1%

There is no harm in it at all.

[elocs]

29. If it is not close between the top 2 candidates there is nothing wrong with that.

I did that for John Anderson in 1980 since Carter did not have a chance to be elected by election day. Otherwise it is like voting for Nader in 2000. As in the general election, it will be either a Democrat or a Republican who is elected president and not another person. If somebody does not like the Democratic nominee, then they should not cry if the Republican gets elected.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

4. Gore Repeated Same Thing....

He has no plans to run. Same statement, different day. Still hasn't made a definitive NO, and he repeats same story about no plans.

[Labors of Hercules]

24. Gore CAN'T run for President until the Nobel Prize is awarded...

Whether he will win it or not, if he were to announce his candidacy first, the Nobel itself would "become political" in a way it never has before...

If he is a candidate and receives the Nobel, it would look like the Nobel Committee is using the prize to interfere in American Presidential Politics. The political backlash from this would be appalling.

If he announces first and isn't awarded the Prize, it will appear the committee is deliberately avoiding the shitstorm.

Either way the only decision is for him to continue doing what he is doing, Receive the Prize or not, then make his move if his motivation is strong enough.

[Ninja Jordan]

6. I question your political judgment.

Surely you can see that Kucinich is about as electable as my great-aunt.

[Cascadian]

7. I can identify with his progessivism.

The same progressivism that some within the Democratic Party want to get rid of. They want to silence the lefties and those who are truly liberal. Besides it is MY CHOICE who I want to support.


John

[Syrinx]

10. it's not really his policies that make him unelectable

Though, the Department Of Peace is kind of a kooky idea. I hate this, but it's true, I'm afraid. It's his appearance and demeanor. He just doesn't impress many people as "presidential." I think this is terrible, and perhaps it will change over time, but it won't change by November next year.

[Greyhound]

26. The Department of Peace is a "kooky" idea?

I'm just curious, why would you say that? War is preferable, and spending more to promote war than every other nation on earth combined is sane?
:crazy:

[Syrinx]

33. yes, the department of peace is a kooky idea

It's not a lack of a specific department that is hurting efforts of peace. It is the people that are running the departments and agencies that we already have. If we currently had a cabinet-level Department Of Peace, do you think it would be staffed by peace-loving individuals? Of course not. They'd have the same type of corporate war-mongers that are currently running State. The State Department is in charge of foreign relations and diplomacy. We just have a bunch of neo-con killers running the State Department.

[Greyhound]

37. You're talking about bad administration, not the merits of having a particular

department. It is true that the neocon agenda has been and remains to make government function so badly that the sheep will accept its dismantling, but that doesn't invalidate the reasons for having it.

I think the idea of a department that has the goal of creating peace, as opposed to conflict, is an idea that we should all be in favor of.

[Syrinx]

38. I just don't see why it's needed

Why add another department to do what the State Department is supposed to do? Under a good president, the State Department will do its job. Under a bad president, like the current one, the State Department doesn't do its job, and neither would a DoP.

[Greyhound]

43. Promoting peace is not the State Department's purpose.

Their mission is to "Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."

Nothing about promoting peace, nor peaceful resolution to conflict. The DOS has done exactly the opposite on innumerable occasions, that's exactly why DK wants to create a new department.

Unfortunately, it is frequently to the benefit of the American people to promote, allow, or even to cause wars.

[TheWatcher]

41. The People of thius country need to re-think what Presidential

should mean to them.

Until they do, candidates like Kucinich and others who actually show interest in the interests of The People, will probably not stand one chance in Hell of getting any attention.

And I agree with you, it is terrible, and it needs to change.

Perhaps if Kucinich looked and spoke like JFK, this would be a different conversation.

And change tends to be a slow and painful process in this country.

The bad thing is though, the hour is far too late for us to be learning on this kind of a curve.

Some accelerated enlightenment is needed, to make an "Elephant In The Room" understatement.

[leftofthedial]

11. Kucinich

is the man

the one true Democrat in a field of triangulating hybrids

[Imagevision]

13. Even Reid today is using Kucinich's; "How can you be against the war if you continue to fund it"

Kucinich is making more sense then is given credit for!!

[Stevepol]

16. Exactly. Support Kucinich and you're supporting Truth.

This is how the truth gets into the public arena. The more support Kucinich gets, the more likely it will be that progressive ideas will get a hearing and becone a part of the general campaign mantra, regardless of how successful K is in getting elected himself.

I think Kucinich would also say he's in it for the principles, not for his own glory or aggrandizement. Who else is saying what he's saying?

[kdpeters]

14. I respect your choice, but in this past week, I've settled on Edwards

Edwards and Gore. I can't believe that there are actually two puplic figures in politics that have moved and inspired me. I don't ever remember thinking that we could actually hafe a leader and a man of the people for us, but now there are two. This country needs hope and inspiration. Someone that can lead us through the darkeness. Hillary Clinton doesn't inspire me. I want to vore FOR the BEST candidate. Not the least awful.president. I'm convinced that Elizabeth Edwards as our first Lady is just the strength and guidance and inspiration that can help mend any broken spirits out there.

When have we ever had a leader like that. I'm flipped. I will do all I can to see that Elizabeth Edwards is elected First Lady in 2008. I need her there.

[Jennicut]

25. Edwards and Gore is it for me too.

Thats all that inspires me as well. Obama is too inexperienced and there is no subatance. Hillary, I don't trust or like. I wish Gore and Edwards would run together. Gore has the foreign policy experience and Edwards has good ideas domestically.

[bowens43]

15. Kucinich will never be president.

America will never elect him because he doesn't look presidential. Sad but true.

[AnOhioan]

17. Supported DK in '04, doing so now.

He is the one who most clearly speaks and acts in my interest. He will probably not win, but it will not be because I sold my political soul for the concept of "electability"

[Vidar]

18. I agree, though I believe Hillary has already bought the nomination

in the fine old Boss Tweed tradition.

[papau]

21. If so, I hope she has also bought DK's Medicare for all. n/t

n/t

[cali]

19. He's ineffetive.

We've had plenty of time to judge his performance in the House, and he's accomplished virtually zilch. And it's not because he's Progressive, it's because he'd rather posture than do the hard work. It's not because he was in the Minority until recently either. Compare him to Bernie, who in the last decade, got more amendments passed than any other Rep, dem or repuke.

No one likes to address this. But it's true.

[Greyhound]

27. Assuming for the moment that your propaganda is true. Is it because he is principled

and therefore has to fight against certain corporate factions within his own party as well as the Republiks?

[TheWatcher]

40. Don't expect much of a response

Or much of an intelligent, reasoned debate. He has not much to counter with.

Waste of your time, really.

And the reason no one addresses his points is because none of what he said has any merit.

Not worth addressing.

[Red Zelda]

22. Kucinich????

He couldn't beat mAnn Coulter for president.
Remember: This is Dumbfuckistan. People like Dennis have NO fucking chance.
Don't waste your vote and your time.

[BigDDem]

30. Way to pick a winner!!

Remind me, how did he do in '04?

[Cascadian]

34. It's about sticking to your principles.

Kucinich is somebody who speaks the truth and speaks for me.



John

[Syrinx]

35. I have no problem with him running

I have a big problem with him being nominated.

He can't implement those principles if he doesn't win. And he's NOT going to win.

[TheWatcher]

42. Sadly your logic cannot be argued with my friend.

Because the way things are currently set up, he doesn't have a chance in Hell.

It is also sad that more than likely, the one who prevails, regardless of party will not implement those principles either.

I can pray that I am wrong.

But I know I am probably not.

The Farce of American Political Theater will continue.

And unfortunately, like other poorly conceived farces (Like Lucas' Star Wars Prequals), the Public will flock to the Theater, the Movie will make a lot of money, but the end result won't amount to much of anything useful.

This Country needs an Enema.

[JNelson6563]

36. Not I

I was so unimpressed with his DNC speech, way too much gawd talk and he impressed me as some kind of lunatic. Sorry.

Julie

[TheWatcher]

39. John, John, John. Haven't you heard?

According to a Major League Media Outlet, his campaign has officially become a "laugher."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3199046

Come, my friend, get with the times. Freedom, Democracy, Progressive Democratic Causes, The Interests of We The People, not We The Corporations, all such tired, boring, and frankly out of date concepts.

You need to get with the shiny, sexier choices that have been fed to you. get with the times Brother.

Kucinich is to qualified candidate as Cop Rock is to quality produced Television.

What are you, some kind of Radical?

:sarcasm: