Weighing Kucinich sensibility vs Edwards winnability....

[RiverStone]

My heart is with Dennis Kucinich!

Unequivocally, he represents my vote and view better than any other candidate. His actions on the House Floor this past week elevated his standing in history to one of the few...who tried. His impeachment effort will never be forgotten; and the last chapter on that story is yet to be written.

I do not believe he has a snowball's chance to be president. He does not get near enough credible attention from the corporate M$M, nor does he have the massive campaign chest to compete with Clinton/Edwards/Obama. A man of such integrity and ethics deserves to be president! So does Al Gore (again)! Great to dream, but neither will happen in 2008.

John Edwards, IMO - has the best chance to catch Hillary and win nationally. I have found him to slowly but surely be moving to a more progressive drumbeat. I think if Al were to endorse anybody before the primaries, it would be John. He just picked up the endorsement of Caucus for Priorities (here): http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071109-caucus-for-priorities/

I will own my disdain for a Hillary nomination is driving my Edwards slant as well. I DO NOT want a DLCer to represent our party in the General; hence, I look to the next best "winnable" option and I see JE as that option.

There may come a point in time where we Kucinich supporters have to chose: Go with our heart and remain DK loyal till he is mathematically eliminated from the nomination, or work to elect an acceptable Hillary alternative in JE. Of course, Edwards supporters will argue John should be supported on his own merits anyway - but the reality is unless there is a collaborated effort to organize behind a single alternative candidate, Hillary will win.

Obama with all his exciting rhetoric, has lost momentum by pandering to the evangelicals - I don't think he will get it back.

My heart is with Dennis, but my head says we need to get behind John to beat Hillary. Anybody else feel the same?




On Edit: kant spel

[B Calm]

1. Edwards/Kucinich 08

[lonestarnot]

2. That'll work too!

[stuartrida]

3. Neither my heart nor my head is with Kucinich

as he has been a bad executive. There is much more to being president than being right on the issues. He and Hillary are my last choices, but we all know Hillary has a good shot of being nominated, and Kucinich has none. I haven't decided who I will support, as they are all better than Hillary, Dennis and Gravel, but have their strengths and weaknesses.

[zalinda]

4. Kucinich has earned his place in history

and will not be forgotten. While Kucinich is ballsy to say the least, he won't be nominated and certainly wouldn't get elected. Kucinich looks too much like Dukakis, do you remember this picture?

Cartoons galore were made from this picture, and it may have lost him the election. Kucinich has too many quirks that could get ripped apart by the media and cartoonists. And the one that may have the most impact is that he is Vegan. Vegan automatically says nutball to the general population. You know, Vegan equals hippie, which equals drug user, which equals the great unwashed who wouldn't fight in the war. And, yes I know that that isn't what a hippie was or is, but that is the impression a lot of people have. I know, I was a hippie, probably still am. And while the public hates this war/occupation they want someone who will stand up to the bully. Right now, on the progressive left we have Kucinich and Edwards fighting for the lefty hearts and minds.

You could almost compare it to the geek and jock running for student body president, I would vote for the geek everytime, but the jock always won. In this case though, we have a jock that could actually do something that is for us, the people who don't make over $100,000 a year. This year we will have a guy who the guys want to hang out with and the girls want to date. I know that's shallow, but we got Bush, because he was someone you could have a beer with. And, yeah, look where it's got us, but that is our shallow electorate and we might as well take advantage of it.

zalinda

[undeterred]

6. Kucinich has moral and political courage

and he is more of a man than those who mock him will ever be. Those who criticise him for petty superficial reasons deserve exactly what they get - a president who is taller and better looking, but with less moral and political courage- which you can impose on the rest of the world. Congratulations on learning nothing from the last 8 years.

[Orsino]

8. Unfortunately, history has already branded him "UFO Guy."

Oh, you meant real history. Yeah, if there are still libraries then, he'll be one of the Few Who Were Right.

[LWolf]

5. My heart and head are both with DK.

My heart tells me he's the obvious choice for getting to work and creating change.

My head tells me that if voters have the same courage and determination that he exhibits, they are the ones with the power to turn the tide, one vote at a time.

If he can stand up against the goliath of corruption and destruction we have become, often all alone,

I can stand up in the voting booth and cast that vote.

If enough voters can gather the courage to do the same, we will prevail.

[RiverStone]

9. May one of us prevail!

Either way I'd be happy.

I agree that Kucinich can turn the tide "one vote at a time" - I just don't think he has enough time to do that before the 2008 primary season. Down the road, DK could very well do that! It takes time to win over the uninformed; remember, most folks don't pay even 1/4 the amount attention that DUers do.

He already stands up against goliath! Look what he did this week.

I just hope he has a major role both at the convention and with running the future Dept. of Peace. As much as I want DK, I want NOT TO HAVE Hillary as well, hence my reasoning for my 3rd choice of Edwards ---Gore, Kucinich, Edwards--- who can win in 2008.

With more time and exposure, DK may yet achieve his goal, we may just have to wait another election cycle.

[RainDog]

7. yes

I think Kucinich is unelectable. But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. If the dems win a majority, can Kucinich exercise more power over the party in general?

I also do not support Hillary or Obama, just for the reasons you mention. Before last week I was interested in Obama. No more. One of my main reasons for this is the Salon article I noted this week -- a guy who was a believer in Bush 2000 is "informally advising" Obama. There is NO LOGIC for having such a person as a democratic nominee consultant. In fact, it is represensible to me that Obama seems to think "the democrats" are a problem. Where has he been for the last twenty years?? The democrats are only a problem because they have tried to work with republicans who view bipartisanship as date rape, as Norquist so honestly noted.

Hillary is the status quo, the DLC, the deflation of hope for good govt., imo.

So, those opinions led me to Edwards this week. He at least talks about labor, a group that seems like they're pariahs to the DLC. He respects the idea of a strong middle class, which is the foundation of democracy in ANY nation.

I am disgusted by demos that think they can lure republicans by being republican lite.

oh, Lieberman, btw, is being floated as a possible v.p. for whoever wins the repuke nomination. I hope Hillary is glad she supported him, rather than the actual DEMOCRATIC candidate in the mid-terms. Lieberman makes me ill. He was the hardest part of the Gore nomination for me. A waste of space on the ticket.