Don't blame Kucinich for his attack--he's forced to take these risks

Kucinich gets either ignored or given a pat on the head by all major media. When Dean gets billed as the true antiwar/liberal candidate, I can imagine DK feeling that some clarifications need to be made. I don't agree with Kucinich's tactic, but he has to do things of this sort to stay alive in the primary. It seems some DUers often proclaim their admiration for Dennis, but only as long as he doesn't make waves and spins his progressive message in a little corner. It's not just Dean supporters, either--many people here do this. Sort of an "I love Dennis--too bad for all those clods who think he's unelectable! Will we ever see a rainbow? In the meantime, I'm forced to support (insert candidate); oh woe is me."

I don't like attacks from anybody, but Dennis needs to show why he has the liberal and antiwar record to trump all others, and Dean isn't going to explain why Kucinich is better on the war, NAFTA, medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, and neither is Gephardt going to explain why DK is better on labor. The problem is, Dennis' methods will stand to turn off a lot of people. Not only that, but the major media will still try and ignore him: on C-SPAN some twit from Time magazine refused to even mention his name or actions, which were the big story there, even when asked a question if there was any negativity! Hello-o-o-o? This should be expected from those on a magazine that reported Lieberman as the stand-out at the Rainbow/PUSH forum. Sharpton, anyone?

What attack did DK make?

Took after Gephardt for the WTO as well. This was at the AFL/CIO forum; it should be on CSPAN's site.

He was known to do anything to get elected in Cleveland.

You seem to have it in for Dennis Kucinich. But all you do is spout one liner put-downs without anything to back it up, but waht appears to be some personal vendetta against DK.

Please provide us with the 'proof' of you assertions.


TWL

The guy is one of the most ethical and moral politicians in Washington, D.C. right now. But, Dean is the guy running who is wiley enough to beat Bush and who has a set of positions that are a decent improvement over Bush's positions.

The Wiley Doctor! hehe..

He really is though. His marketing team is great at getting attention. A different little gimmick to get him into the press' scope every few days. Online dogs, baseball bats and Cheney Challenges, monthly MeetUps that now guarantee good coverage everywhere for the days that follow them.. he's really great at grabbing headlines.

How very.. wiley.. :)

then he has to prepare himself for a pounding.

Sharpton carries himself with more dignity and even commented on the attacks with some disdain, reminding the panel (Kucinich) that they'd agreed to wait until September.

Sharpton was most impressive coming out of that gathering.

with Dean "mischaracterizing" Kerry's positions and have to apologize and Lieberman bashing Dean...Ya gotta be kiddin' me!!

One thing, though, these are not PERSONAL attacks. These are legitimate differences ON THE ISSUES.

wait til then pound him on choice.

Man, your boy better think before he gets so cocky.

other on issues is an important part of all elections.

I believe that they are both unelectible. I wish it weren't true but when the country has been pulled so far to the right it will take some time to move them back to the left.

I want someone a little to the left of Bill Clinton because I think the candidate still has to appeal to as many voters as possible and no disappointed Republican is going to vote for a real left-wing candidate.

Funny how left-leaning folks will write off Sharpton or Moseley-Braun as unelectible and gush over Kucinich. Why? Because he is white?

better job than some of these "power white men" but do you think that the country will make a giant leap to the left in 2004? I don't. The herd turns slowly and it has always been thus.

Braun isn't my pick because I think she needs more experience before landing in the WH; but I hope to see her busy working her way up. I'd love to see her in the next president's cabinet, or in the house, or as a governor, etc.

I like Sharpton a lot, but he lost any chance of my support in this debate. He strongly supported NCLB, a bush weapon of mass public ed destruction.

I think at a time when people are more and more disillusioned with all the "media money politics as usual" and more and more wonder whether the present Administration has betrayed them, a refreshing idealistic canidate may really be very electable, by pulling back into the process the half or so of the electorate which has become so alienated that they don't even bother to vote. Kucinich can also mobilize young peoples activist energey effectively. Celebrities noted for their authenticity, such as Willie Nelson, have come out in favor of Kucinich.

The media has certainly shifted to the right, but the people may not have turned to the right in any way that's going to help Bush. Lots of Libertarians consider the Bush Administration the very worst ever, an Administration which has treasonously betrayed the constitution. Libertarian's have done some really good research on the Bush Administrations complicity in 9/11, for examples see http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm And this most rapidly growing part of the right actually really respects JFK and RFK, strangely enough. Kucinich could certainly find some cross-overs here if pitted against Bush.

The ability of a canidate like Kucinch to win an upset will depend on how much of the extremely scandelous, but still usually hidden by the corporate media, information about the Bush Administration gets out. And if that corrupt center of Washington power is properly discredited, canidates from Joe Lieberman to Bob Graham may find they have a bit of a complicity problem. Politicians who have pretty much been playing by the same rules as the Republicans will not be able to mobilize the fiercely alienated group of citizens I see growing every day.

attack in good faith, and I don't think accusing Dean of currently wanting to raise the retirement age to 70 was in good faith.

On the other hand, Dean should not have said he "NEVER favored that" -- just that he made an 8 year-old error in judgement at a time when the fiscal solvency of SS looked particularly desperate.

I really dislike having 6 people in this race getting a free ride. The time for the Democratic Party to start cleansing itself is now, not after November 2004.

candidate who opposed the war. Wrong again Howie. What about Kucinich and Graham who actually had to cast votes in the matter?

Face it Deanies. Dean is NOT a straight-shooter. He will lie and villify to gain support. I watched poor Dennis stew as he watched Dean make this ridiculous assertion during a previous forum. I suppose Tuesday night's "attack" was payback of a sort. Go Dennis!

CALLER: Yes, hello. Many Democrats voted to go to war, why are they now seeming to back track and withdraw their support to President Bush. And do you agree -- do you not agree with the war any more and trying to win the 2004 elections because no weapons of mass destruction were found? I think...

KING: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut her, but I think we get the gist of the question -- governor.

DEAN: I'm not sure the caller understood that I did not support the war and only one of the four or five candidates that you have spoken for tonight. All though, Bob Graham didn't support war and Dennis Kucinich didn't support the war either. But the candidates you have spoken about Lieberman, Senator Kerry, Representative Gephardt and Senator Edwards did all support the war. I didn't support the war because I don't think the president made the case. I supported the president, as I said before, in Afghanistan because I thought that was a matter of national security. I supported the first Gulf War. But you don't send troops to war without explaining clearly and frankly to the American people why they have to go. And what this president said was, mainly, gave -- made a number of assertions that were not factual.

The argument that I make and some people say as Senator Lieberman did if you didn't support the Gulf War you can't be elected president. I actually believe, that if you're a Democrat and did support the Gulf War, it calls into question your judgment in one of the most serious question or actions any president will have to take, which is sending American citizens to die on a foreign land. When you make that decision you ought know the facts. You ought to ask a lot of questions. If I can figure out that the facts weren't accurate, why couldn't they figure that out in Washington? So, I think not supporting the war is an advantage principally because it shows that I am willing to use very, very tough judgment and it stands against the grain of the president of the United States and many Americans and standing up for what I believe in. Just as John F. Kennedy did in during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html

eom

Clarkies claim Dean is a flaccid candidate that will get steamrolled on issues like defense and gays, and then say he is a muscular candidate that "lies" and "villifies" to gain support.

Is Dean super-strong or super-weak? :crazy:

several times mention Kucinich and Graham voted against it.

Julie

He said that he was the only top-tier candidate who opposed the war. He then apologized for implying that Bob Graham wasn't a top tier candidate. No mention of Kucinich.

Yeah, that'll work. Good for the party and the
Progressive cause.

I'm sure the voters will fall over one another
to support the screaming munchkin.

(Birdman- this is a general rant cause your reply is not really worth a specific rant....a bit emotional with the namecalling btw- how "liberal & progressive" of you.... another "example" for my rant that follows below)


I cannot believe the degree of emotionalism on this board...this can be said for each candidate!

Deaners get pissed cause their man is not the hero they think...he gets called on his spin & suddenly its "boo hoo...why are people peicking on my man??" The same goes for every candidate....its like a battle zone..no one can say anything without getting jumped by every other candidate's supporter!

Dean & Kerry & others have both been on the attack since day one...DK finally speaks and/or shouts out and what happens? People call him all kinds of nasty names. People here are unbelievable...rules for one candidate are not applied equally to all.....

You like one guy's stand on all the issues but you won't support him...however you will support the person you simply settle for cause you think he might be able to beat *?? He's got that magic aurua of "electability"....sigh....

well I say this is all BS and if we as dems don't find some kind of common ground then we deserve another 4 years of the repubs. It is OK to support a candidate here on DU & not feel you have to personally attack the others...in fact I would say that probably does more to have non dems look at us & say...gee, they still have freedom of thought & choice & not get torn apart in the process....maybe their way can work....maybe its not necessary to shred others to get what we want ...

BTW- did DK personally attack the others or was it their stand on the issues? IMO it was calling them out on their previous statements/actions.

As I've said before- this election is about a lot more than just getting* out....we are being distracted from a lot more larger issues by all this infighting...from now til the primaries...support your choice...but use some of that anger & energy to make sure our votes count...or for some other cause. Our bickering on this board is not helping advance all the best things about being liberal....

Ok...back to it then...I'm sure my 2 cents has made not one bit of difference here...

Peace
DR

but his behavior the other night was bizarre and
became more and more annoying. He's the most
minor of candidates so it's not going to matter much.

But nobody is going to listen to somebody who's
act consists of shouting and screaming.

If it was really stategy it was the worst I've seen
in some time.

I think Dennis is our rainbow, and I should know.
Even if he does not get the nomination, his ideas and visions need to be out there. He is wonderful.

He is pissing me off big time.

Politics.

than Kucinch. I like Kucinich but perfomances like that one merely firm up my belief he is entirely unelectable. The reich-wing media would have a field day painting him as an extremist.

Julie

The corporate media obviously hates Kucinich and wants him to shut up as soon as possible.

Kucinich has no chance. All that he is doing is weakening the future nominee and building up his own ego.

I don't care about Kucinich's ego or lack of one, I want him to run so I can vote for him. Kucinich has a chance at the nomination, just like everyone else. His presence and the votes he gets will have an influence on the other candidates as well.

You may as well say no Democrats have a chance against Bush, and that they are all just feeding their ego. That would be just as false.

And even if her would be able to win the nomination, he would be unelectable in the general election. He is just too far out there for the electorate. Democrats realize that. That is why may opposed to the war have gotten behind Dean rather than Kucinich.

Dean could win the primary, but would lose the general election.

Now explain how exactly Kucinich is "too far out there"? What issue makes him too far out? Serious question.

1. Opposed to the death penalty

2. Wants to create a "Department of Peace"

3. Wants to withdraw from NAFTA

4. Want a single-payer health care system

NAFTA has NEVER had the support of the majority of Americans, and a Canadian style single payer system has always had a lot of support.

Over the last few years, several polls have asked whether NAFTA has been good or bad for the US. Since late 1997, these polls have generally found a plurality expressing a positive view of NAFTA's impact on the US. Most recently, a May 2000 Gallup poll found 47% saying NAFTA has been good for the US, while 39% said it has been bad. Similarly, in an October 1999 PIPA poll a plurality of 44% viewed NAFTA as good for the US and just 30% saw it as bad.

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/intertrade/nafta.cfm

When was the last time we elected a President who opposed free trade?

There was an attempt to implement a single payer health care system during Clinton's first term. He couldn't get it through a Democratic controlled Congress, and his and his wife's popularity plummeted due to this plan.

Looking at your link, it seems that the majority of people are NOT satisfied with NAFTA as it is, and wants changes. I also strongly object to NAFTA being called a "free trade agreement" since it has little to do with the exchange of goods and services between countries, and more to do with the power of corporations over democratic governments and tax policy. It's an investor right's agreement, not a free trade agreement.

Hillary Clinton's plan, at least the final version, was little more than corporate welfare, and not at all a Canadian-style single payer system.

Question: This year marks the anniversary of NAFTA. After observing how NAFTA has worked between the United States, Mexico, and Canada over the past few years, do you think America should continue the NAFTA agreement, should America pull out of NAFTA, or should it be continued with changes?
May 2000 May 1999 May 1998
Continue 23 24 23
Pull out 15 18 16
Continued with changes 42 40 47
Undecided/Don't know 20 18 14

As many of the Democratic candidates for President are calling for. But very few people want to pull out completely, as Kucinich does. He knows that the Congress will never go for this.

the union gig in Chicago. Bordering on incoherent sometimes.

Julie

Nobody is ever FORCED to do anything. People are sometimes willng to die rather than give up their convictions.

DK and GWB both choose (I can't spell that word) to do what they do. Nobody is forcing them. Bush chooses to lie because it will get him what he wants. DK chooses to attack because he thinks it will get him what he wants.

So do I get an award for being the first person on Earth to equate DK and bush?

if he starts getting a lot of media attention: a record of anti-choice voting that belies his recent turnaround on the issue. I take him at his word but there are plenty of people who I'm sure would be very glad to bring that issue up.

Only Bush gets to pass the Buck. Not getting any press is no excuse for attacking other candidates.

Nor do I think that it is a bad thing to point out the differences between other candidates and yourself, but if you are going to attack your fellow candidates, then you have to except the blame.

I do think it is a bad thing to attack your fellow candidates in order to get publicity. If that is the only way DK can think of to get pubclicity, he probably doesn't have what it takes to be President. I am not singling out DK either. All Democratic candidates who attack other Democratic candidates are undermining the party.

I have no need for those made-for-tv dog and pony shows. I am interested in the issues.

If so-called big, brave Democrats don't like being attacked now, how will they handle Republican attacks?

By the way, the news article that I read in the local mainstream newspaper was favorable to Dennis Kucinich and Dick Gephardt about that event.

and maybe I have just not seen him enough to compare that performance with others. The few times I have seen him he was quiet while others hollered over him then he peacefully killed them with the truth. I liked him better that way but maybe that is just me. He needs to do what he needs to do but being aggressive does not seem to fit him well. He is still my guy for now.

what he feels is necessary to be heard. I disagree w/his method of accomplishing that.

Because of his (until very recently) life long anti-choice stance and his vote for the flag amendment, he was holding a tenuous #2 spot on my list of candidates.

After witnessing his screeching attack mode on the AFL-CIO forum, he has sunk further down on my list.

I do not want to be shouted at by a president, no matter the context of his shouted words.

and screamed....People are just so used to DK quietly and passionately putting forth the issues and solutions, that they cannot imagine that he would yell?

THIS IS OUR NATION AND THE WORLD THAT IS GOING DOWN THE TUBE, but he should not point out the detrimental mistakes in the labor agenda of others in front of a LABOR audience?

between the way Bobby shouted and the way Kucinich screeched.

Of course he can point out the agendas of others. But he does not need to screech. His screeching, not the words was what turned me off to someone that was already precariously on my list.