Why would Kucinich choose Obama over Edwards?

[Roxy66]

He asked his supporters to caucus for Obama....I like Obama, but Edwards seems closer to his positions. Is it because of his vote for the Iraq War?

[maximusveritas]

1. Obama is actually much closer to Kucinich if you look at their records

in the Senate. The war probably had something to do with. As did Edwards' efforts to throw Kucinich off the debates.

[lvx35]

2. I think honestly its that Obama was polling higher when he made the call.

He just wants the race to stay open, which means stopping Hillary however its effective. I'm not fond of this move at all, though...Its ruined my image of the Kucinich the idealist.

[helderheid]

8. I think you're right. He doesn't want Hillary and thinks Obama has more support than Edwards. That's

how I see it.

[AmBlue]

39. And he would be wrong.

Edwards is going to win this. I have friends who have flown to Des Moines this week and all the cabbies and hotel employees are saying it's Edwards' supporters who have flooded their town. It's Edwards signs that they see. Nearly none for BO or HRC. All the buzz is all Edwards and the energy is building.

Dennis couldn't be more wrong and obviously HASN'T bothered to go to Iowa lately. Too bad.

[helderheid]

40. TOTALLY agree. I voted for Edwards today (absentee)

[gateley]

3. That would make sense - about the Iraq vote...

I haven't been following it - did he issue a statement?

[scarletwoman]

13. No, it actually doesn't make sense. In 2004 DK told his people in Iowa to support Edwards.

The IWR vote was in 2003, so why would it be a factor now when it wasn't a factor then?

sw

[gateley]

16. I didn't know that - this is the first time I've been paying attention. And you

have a good point. I retract my statement. :)

[scarletwoman]

25. I've been paying attention for far too long, I think. I'm utterly disgusted with all of it. (nt)

[EFerrari]

4. Because Edwards is more nearly his close competitor?

:shrug:

[rwheeler31]

7. bingo

[Pastiche423]

61. Dennis and johnnyboy are worlds apart.

Dennis is anti-war. johnnyboy co-sponsors it.

[EFerrari]

62. I don't think they're twins, lol, but Edwards is closer to him

than the others are.

[Pastiche423]

65. Maybe johnnyboy's mouth is closer

But his actions are no where close.

[Inspired]

5. Dennis has been in a little snit for months now.

It really doesn't matter. He hasn't campaigned in Iowa and has little support.

He should really just drop out....especially after leaking his caucus night plan early.

[maximusveritas]

10. Dennis is the only one running a truly progressive campaign

It's insulting to say he should drop out. We need him in the campaigns and we need him in the debates.

[Inspired]

30. What campaign? I don't see him campaigning. n/t

[Kip Humphrey]

44. Er... The MSM doesn't cover Kucinich's campaign therefore it doesn't exist.. Then again,

of coarse, his brother just died. Perhaps he had to attend to some personal family matters.

[Inspired]

74. Kucinich hasn't campaigned in Iowa. Period.

[maxanne]

50. you need to get out more

He's in NH right now.

[Inspired]

69. Are you nuts! I live in Iowa....I couldn't be MORE aware.

He isn't running a freaking campaign in Iowa. He has very little support here.

This little deal he made with Obama means NOTHING. Obama doesn't need it.

[Le Taz Hot]

56. And he just threw his votes to OBAMA????

Two days BEFORE the caucus? Of the three frontrunners he chose OBAMA? Other than Hillary you can't get any more anti-progressive, corporate shill than Obama. How disappointing this is. I admit I NEVER saw this one coming.

[maximusveritas]

59. No, he's not throwing his votes; it's only if he's not viable

and maybe this should lead you to reconsider your impressions of Obama. I think if you read more about him and his record, you'd see he's the most progressive other than Dennis.

[Le Taz Hot]

63. He thinks boomers

should get out of the way so no, he apparently doesn't want my vote. Somebody needs to tell the little shit that the boomers have only been in power since 1992 and he needs to just sit back and take his turn like the rest of us. Further, I support GBLT issues and I can't see supporting anyone who thinks having a homophobe working for his campaign is just dandy. And I HATE his pandering to the nutso fundie Christian community. In fact, there's not a damn thing that appeals to me about him. And let's not even get into his big donor list. Other than Hillary, it doesn't GET any more corporate. He is SO not ready for prime time and this is a critical time for our country. And that's just the kindest things I can say about him.

As for Dennis, the MSM will interpret and the public will perceive this move as throwing in the towel.

Fuck it. Edwards now has my support.

[Tesha]

68. Le Taz Hot's reply speaks for me as well.

Sorry Dennis, you just sealed the deal on my vote for Edwards
(over you).

Tesha

[CoffeeCat]

6. A few things...

Obama has been against the war from the beginning. Obama voiced his opinion against
the Iraq war, during the run-up, when most Dems caved. Obama flat out said, "This is
not going to work."

Also, Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. He taught Constitutional law for a decade and
he's poised to uphold the Constitution and restore some dignity to the office where our
civil rights and Constitutional Rights are concerned. Obama believes that the "Unitary
Executive" nonsense, is just that, nonsense.

Those are probably two good reasons.

[scarletwoman]

9. Beats the hell out of me. No way will this Kucinich supporter EVER support Obama!

What also confounds me is that in 2004, Kucinich urged his supporters to go for Edwards in the Iowa caucus. That was well after Edwards' 2003 IWR vote. So I really don't see the logic.

Maybe he's thinking that only Obama has a chance of stopping HRC, but personally, I see both HRC and BO as nearly equally odious.

I hate to say it, but Dennis has lost me on this one.

sw

[Paulie]

19. This is just a caucus maneuver

If Dennis' isn't viable (15%) in the local caucus place, his supporters have two choices; caucus with someone else or go home. I don't know the details that made up Dennis' suggestion (and people can do what they please when they are in the caucus), but I don't have to worry about this drama in Illinois, a primary state. I'll vote for Dennis and that's that. :D

[scarletwoman]

32. The weird thing is, in 2004, DK told his Iowa supporters to caucus for Edwards.

I remember well how many Dean people were outraged that Dennis didn't send his delegates to Dean instead of Edwards. At the time, I assumed it was because Edwards had a more populist message going -- looking back now, I'm not really sure at all.

I know all about caucus maneuvering, I live in Minnesota, another caucus state, and I caucused for Kucinich in 2004. Minnesota had a far larger Kucinich base than Iowa did, so he actually had delegates from MN going to the National Convention -- we didn't have to give our votes to a second choice.

If Edwards was worthy of Dennis' support in 2004, I don't at all understand why he isn't now. And if Kucinich doesn't explain this, then he has lost all my respect.

sw

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[orleans]

67. (lol--re: "bite me")

back to topic--i was shocked when i heard the news about kucinich telling supporters to vote obama. i can't figure it out either. dennis surely has some explaining to do (such as why obama and not edwards)

[Le Taz Hot]

57. You might want to read through DU a while longer

before you start with the sophomoric responses. :eyes:

[johnaries]

66. Dude, it's against DU rules to call out another DUer.

And you know everyone was talking about the Primaries, not the GE. C'mon, get real!

[peoli]

11. Because he knows Edwards is a poser.

[brentspeak]

12. Karl Rove, is that you?

[Yurovsky]

18. Take a look at Edwards' house in NC...

yep, a regular "man of the people".

How many homeless Iraq war vets could be housed in the GUEST HOUSE alone???

Does it not bother you the degree of conspicuous consumption practiced by John Edwards? Don't get me wrong, he SAYS things that I agree with 100%. It's just that his actions are not always consistant with his rhetoric. His homes, haircuts, clothing, makeup, shoes, etc. are more of what I'd expect from Donald Trump or a Bushie than a progressive liberal Democrat (which is what he comes off as on the stump). Granted, he's "stuck to the man" in open court, and his clients have benefitted from his efforts. However I'd prefer to see a little more charity and a lot less vulgarity vis-a-vis the lifestyles of the rich'n famous.

Obama, on the other hand, leads a lifestyle that is less flamboyant and more in tune with what most progressives would probably view as a balanced life. Is he wealthier than 99.999% of Americans? I would venture to guess that he is. But it's not F.U. money.

Do I think Edwards would be a better president than the current CinC (Chimp in Charge)? Hell yes. But at this point, I'd rather have Obama than Edwards (since it looks like DK is once again floundering in the single digits ... sigh).

[provis99]

20. whats wrong with Edwards being rich?

I want all Americans to be rich; Edwards seems to want this too. You would prefer a candidate who is poor, and wants Americans to be poor, too?

[brentspeak]

28. I could care less how much money Edwards has

Or how big his house is. Or how much he spends on anything else, for that matter. All I care about is that his policies would be the most beneficial for this nation, and that he would be the best person for the job (President).

Your post is basically a compendium of Fox News' talking points against Edwards, not least of which is the implied smear that he's somehow not charitable; how many homeless Iraq vets are you "refusing" to house in your room/apartment/house?

[iamjoy]

36. Figured It Out In The Past Four Years, eh?

I think Kucinich is a little bitter because he interpreted the remarks Edwards made to Clinton about a "serious debate" as excluding him.

I can't say I blame Kucinich. I like Edwards and a lot of his ideas, but those remarks were not cool - even if there is some truth to them. And Kucinich could have handled it with way more class and humor.

(a debate with serious candidates only? we'll miss you John)

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. Then why did he thow his support to a poser in 2004?

:shrug:

[Adelante]

72. That's what I think, too

Dennis just doesn't believe Edwards anymore.

[ecstatic]

14. Edwards was relentless in his support of us going to war

Doesn't anyone remember that? It's not just the IWR: I remember him detailing why Saddam had to be stopped militarily. And maybe Kucinich doesn't believe the meme the Edwards keep trying to subtly bring up about winning in the South.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Yes, and he supported the pro-war Edwards in 2004, but not the anti-war one in 2008

[Tinksrival]

23. Be careful.......

I was just called a right wing troll for pointing out J.E. many changes in positions.

I posted a few fact and voiced my opinion and then was accused of having a "purple bandaid in my toolkit":eyes:

Here is a quote from Dennis:

"And people have had a chance to see all of the candidates now, and they understand that I am the only one running that voted against the war and voted against funding the war. People get a chance to study this and as the elections draw near the awareness is becoming more and more clear.
There is a moral equation here which history, morality and human decency requires that we look at. What gives the United States of America or our leaders the right to wage war against innocent people? By what law do we assume the right to attack Iraq, a nation that did not attack us and had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda's role in 9/11 and neither the intention or the capability of attacking us? In what right do we assume the ability to launch a grandiose attack against Iran, using 30,000 lb. bunker busters, dropping them down on nuclear research labs, which will create Chernobyl in effect? What right do we have to do this? What right do we have to even think about it?
There is a moral dimension to this that needs to be looked at because it characterizes our times. We've got leaders that feel they are not bound by the law, that proceed in a way that is unconscionable, licensed by the media that becomes complicit in their lack of straightforward analysis and criticism. Our nation is being stained by this. They don’t get that the Patriot Acts took away our rights, they all voted for it. Edwards was a co-author. They don’t get that eavesdropping and wiretapping is against the very fiber of this country."

Dennis Kucinich

Here are some Edward facts:


like his China Free Trade vote and support,
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll ...

and votes for Bankruptcy Bills,
http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/2007/08/19/e ... /

or Yucca Mountain as a depository,
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/200711 ...

and supporting "right to work" legislature,
http://www.joebiden.com/newscenter/pressre ...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/unions ...

while supporting to Expand HB1 visas as a path to citizenship
http://blog.noslaves.com/john-edwards-is-a ... /

later in profiting from Fortress Hedgefunds in multiple ways throughout '05-'07, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte ...
while claiming no knowledge of what Fortress was actually doing in May,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte ...
and his decision in Mid August of this year to continue to keep his money invested in Fortress (read last sentence of first paragraph)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/us/polit ...

not to mention confusion between Edwards' various "help to the poor" enterprises, and which ones did what and for whom - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/polit ...
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1 ...
http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-139.html

Nor does Edwards not doing pro-bono cases while a practicing lawyer bothers .... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921189.htm ...

But of course, his Health Plan is "to die for"...or at least, kinda of maybe better than the rest, or not, or whatever....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/090 ...

meanwhile implying that his race and gender makes him most electable,
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.d ...

but not mentioning the problems we will encounter due to his acceptance of matching funds,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200 ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu ...

While denouncing 527s as interests groups in '04
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/08/23 /...
and using them now that he needs them
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/120 ...
including strange big money
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte ...


and who cares about his co-sponsorship of the IWR while advocating support for war and waiting 3 years to "apologize"?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com /...
nor the fact that he didn't do hi "due diligence" while sitting on the Intelligence Committee
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-se ...
http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/category/for ... /

plus calling out Iran and then changing his tune,
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid= ...

P.S. Thanks to FrenchieCat. :hi:

[scarletwoman]

34. Then explain why Kucinich told his 2004 Iowa caucus supporters to give their votes to Edwards.

Why was Edwards okay then -- just a few months after the IWR vote -- but not now?

(edited to correct the timeline)

[GreenArrow]

43. First it was Iowa only

since it has the stupid 15 percent rule.

Second, Edwards was pro war and generally centrist four years ago, a far cry from his current rhetoric. Kucinich wanted Dean voters, Edwards hoped for Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt voters to look his way. In short, they were not in direct competition with one another for voting blocs. Kucinich said of this deal that the one thing he and John agreed on was that they both wanted delegates.

Third, Edwards has suddenly changed, and rather than moderate war hawk, has assumed the guise of the liberal mantle that DK has been carrying in earnest, and as demonstrated by his record, since he's been in office. AS kucinich has put it, "wouldn't it be great to have a President who got it right the first time?" Edwards got it wrong the first time, over and over and over again, and now that the prevailing political winds seemed to have changed, he is going to change his positions to get credit for things that he didn't even support in the first place? I don't think so.

Fourth, I think Kucinich simply doesn't trust Edwards. While Obama may not be entirely in congruence with DK's positions, the fact is that one of the "top tier" is going to be nominated, and he perhaps feels that Obama is the least egregious of the bunch.

[scarletwoman]

48. That still doesn't explain 2004. If Kucinich wanted Dean voters, why did he tell his people to go

to Edwards? He TOTALLY pissed off the Dean people. I remember it well.

It's "Iowa only" now, too, btw.

sw

[GreenArrow]

49. Probably because Dean insisted on painting

himself as the "only candidate who was against the war," even when called on it. He told his supporters to go to Edwards because he was competing with Dean, not Edwards, for the anti-war vote. Edwards, likewise, was supposed to help Kucinich when, he, Edwards, was not viable.

Yes, it is Iowa only, just as it was with Edwards. Since Iowa insists on persisting with its 15 percent viability threshold bullshit, what is Kucinich supposed to do if he's not viable? His supporters have to go somewhere. (If it were me, I'd probably go non-committed, which would mean going home).

Gravel would seem the obvious choice, bad tax plan notwithstanding, but he's even less viable that Kucinich, so as it is, Obama is Kucinich's stated preference, but he can't hold his supporters to it if they choose to look elsewhere. I know a lot of Edwards people are upset about it, but Edwards has simply talked out of both sides of his mouth way too many times.

When Iowa is over, I'm sure Dennis' expectation is that his supporters will vote for him, since they mostly won't be having to deal with repressive "viability thresholds."

[scarletwoman]

54. What is this "15% viability bullshit" you're talking about?

I live in a caucus state also (Minnesota). The number of delegates allowed per precinct is determined by the number of Democratic voters in that precinct, it has nothing to do with the candidates.

For example, if your precinct is allowed 5 delegates, and 100 people show up at your precinct caucus, you would need at least 20 people at that caucus supporting your candidate in order to send one delegate for your candidate to the state convention. If only 50 people showed up at your caucus, then you would need at least 10 people voting for your candidate to get a delegate.

Maybe it's different in Iowa, but from what I've heard it sounds pretty much the same as Minnesota.

sw

[GreenArrow]

58. probably not much different

If Kucincih only gets 5 percent of attendees, then he is not viable, and his supporters have to align elsewhere. Doesn't seem right to me. Realistically, his supporters aren't going to get 15 percent in most precincts so they are going to have to realign. I suppose I'd think the system fairer if those who came to support whatever candidate actually got to support their candidate, whatever percentage of support they have. This kind of system encourages deal making.


This is from WIKI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

Democratic Party process

The process used by the Democrats is more complicated than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes.

Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a "preference group"). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are "viable". Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the "viability threshold" can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least the percentage of participants required by the viability threshold. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to "realign": the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This "realignment" is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's "second candidate of choice" can help a candidate.

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform.

The delegates chosen by the precinct then go to a later caucus, the county convention, to choose delegates to the district convention and state convention. Most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected at the district convention, with the remaining ones selected at the state convention. Delegates to each level of convention are initially bound to support their chosen candidate but can later switch in a process very similar to what goes on at the precinct level; however, as major shifts in delegate support are rare, the media declares the candidate with the most delegates on the precinct caucus night the winner, and relatively little attention is paid to the later caucuses.

[scarletwoman]

60. It's just a different system than a primary vote.

The truth is, by the time each state's delegates get to the National convention, the nomination is essentially sewn up anyway.

Whether your candidate gets 20% of your precinct's delegates, or your candidate gets 20% of a state's primary vote, the result is basically the same: your candidate won't win the nomination.

sw

[Tinksrival]

73. Link to FrenchieCat's post cause links above are wonky

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3910210

[OHdem10]

15. Kucinich has little quirks- -which make him unpredictable.

[dorkulon]

17. Maybe he just doesn't trust Edwards?

This is my dilemma actually. Edwards' promises/platform are better, but how many politicians have been elected on great promises that never get fulfilled?

[GreenArrow]

24. that's what I think

He remembers the Edwards of four years ago, and where he stood, the issues he ran on, and all of a sudden this new Edwards comes out of nowhere, born again, all aglow in blinding white armor, and it just doesn't all add up.

[dorkulon]

35. It seems to me Edwards sounds a lot like Dean last time, i.e. Joe Trippi /nt

[GreenArrow]

47. Yeah, I think Edwards totally wants to be Howard Dean

He's using the Dean model. Unfortunately for him, he's going to end up like Howard Dean. He'd have more of a chance had he stuck to a platform more consistent with his earlier record.

[maxanne]

51. Edwards

has pilfered a great deal from DK's platform.

[GreenArrow]

55. he sure has

He's totally stolen the superficial aspects of DK's platform, anyway.

[Pastiche423]

64. I don't understand why more people don't see that

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. He thinks that Obama is going to win, and he wants to take credit for it

Edwards had a lot of momentum going into Iowa four years ago and Kucinich bet on the wrong horse.

[TahitiNut]

27. Well, this is just conjecture ... but ...

... candidates (even Kucinich) have their own polling and assessment operations, far more candid and focused than is made public. It's entirely possible that the Obama support in Iowa is EXTREMELY 'soft' and Edwards, due to a far more comprehensive campaign organization in Iowa, is doing better among the hard-core caucus-goers than is made obvious. If Iowa is a runaway 'win' then Kucinich has less of an influence on the eventual nominee's platform and positions. Obama might 'need' the support and it may give Kucinich leverage for longer into the primary season than if he'd merely added to the Edwards margin above whomever polls lower.

Just conjecture. :shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

31. Just to be a jagoff.

[Dorian Gray]

33. Because a lot of people

don't like Edwards. Apparently, Kucinich is now one of them.

[Dawgs]

37. Obama is more progressive than Edwards.

Edwards has you fooled.

[AmBlue]

42. That's hogwash.

Obama is taking corporate money and talking playing nicey-nice with them. Edwards is talking kicking them out of DC. And Obama's more progressive??
:puke:

[maximusveritas]

45. The key word in your comment is "talking"

However, when you look at what they've done (which Dennis is smart enough to have done), Obama comes out on top.

[AmBlue]

46. You're dreaming. Enjoy it while it lasts. n/t

[maxanne]

52. er...

but taking money from the Mellon family is progressive?

Edwards is taking special interest $$. He ain't no virgin.

[madrchsod]

38. don`t know

i`m trying to figure out if it would be obama or edwards i would vote for if dennis drops out before illinois

[OzarkDem]

41. What if he cut a deal w/ Dem leadership on impeachment hearings?

I hope that's not the case, as I don't think you can trust our Dem leadership in Congress, but its possible.

[Tejanocrat]

53. Obama is on the wrong side from Kucinich on so many issues beyond impeachment and funding the war

and inviting homophobic "recovering gays" to campaign with him:

HEALTH CARE

Kucinich offers the gold standard: public single-payer universal health care.

Obama's plan to leave 15 million uninsured is the worst plan of any major Democratic candidate.

MIDDLE CLASS ISSUES

Kucinich gets an "A" on the Drum Major Institute's score for protecting the middle class.

Obama gets a "C" on the Drum Major Institute's score for protecting the middle class.

IMMIGRATION

Kucinich is the most pro-immigration candidate in the race.

Obama voted to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.

PUSHING THE B*SH MEME ON TERRORISM

Kucinich is by far the most pro-peace candidate in the race.

Obama has said he would unilaterally attack Pakistan if General Musharraf did not doing enough to "take out" the "terrorists."

CONSISTENCY

Kucinich's position on abortion has evolved over time, but he has been remarkably consistent on almost every other important issue.

Obama Obama has moved well to the center since joining the Senate.

Hell, Obama even worse than Hillary and MUCH worse that Edwards on thses Key issues:

HEALTH CARE

Edwards offers a universal care plan which would create non-profit health care markets to set for-profit insurance companies in direct competition against a non-profit public health care option based on Medicare (which would evolve into public single payer universal care once the for-profits found they could not compete against the public non-profits).

Hillary offers universal coverage in a plan that doesn’t have non-profit health care markets to force for-profit insurance companies to compete against public health care but includes a public care option.

Obama's plan to leave 15 million uninsured is the worst plan of any major Democratic candidate.

MIDDLE CLASS ISSUES

Edwards has made protecting the embattled middle class a key focus of his campaign.

Hillary gets an "A" on the Drum Major Institute's score for protecting the middle class.

Obama gets a "C" on the Drum Major Institute's score for protecting the middle class.

[peacebaby3]

71. If you compare voting records and life history, Obama is more progressive. n/t