Unspoken DU Kucinich Meme?

I know there's some criticism of DK, but on the whole, it seems like criticizing DK makes someone less than a good liberal.
Do people feel as if DK is somehow off limits?

If you have something good to say about a candidate, please do. If you have something earth shattering and verifiable, then perhaps you should say it.

However, why criticize one candidate rather than say something good about a candidate you support? It serves no real purpose except to antagonize the criticized supporters and further damage the attempt to present a united front. (JMHO)

:toast:

I'm not set hard and fast for any candiate at this point. I really like Graham, having lived in Florida since four years or so before he became Governor. He is very good.

But I find Kucinich very interesting...

I'm not advocating bashing a candidate, and this wasn't an invitation to do so. I'm interested in exploring, well, group think. (Not that I don't believe that there's plenty of individual expression here) In addition, I believe examination of a candidate's attributes and drawbacks are fair game. I've yet to bash a candidate, though sometimes I've expressed displeasure with some of the posters.
Politics is a rough and tumble game. Sure, I'm a fan of decorum and civil discourse and tend to adhere pretty closely to the rules of such, but I read the bashing threads with interest. Threads that extoll the virtues of candidate x, y or z are important. Glad they're posted, but passionate disagreement is a big part of democracy as well.

Why gak on Dems, with such a big * just begging for it.

... simply on the grounds that he's a terrible public speaker.

He's easily my favorite of the 9 candidates, but I'm afraid he'll get stomped by Bu$h if he doesn't do a lot of rigorous work with a speech coach very soon.

So, I guess my point is, I'm not just attacking him to tear him down, but I'm hoping that eventually he (or his campaign) will get the message and actually work on that. I really want DK to be the next President of the United States, but people just won't listen to him if he keeps up that ranting/screaming style of talking. I can barely listen to him, and I love what he has to say.

I do have problems with the usual dreck - 'he's not a major player', 'he can't win', 'he should FOAD', 'he looks funny', 'he's too short', 'he has no experience', 'he bankrupted Cleveland', 'he let the river catch fire', et tedious cetera.

But if you have substantive questions or criticisms, I for one am all ears.

I really enjoy your passionate and well expressed support for Dennis. Please read my response response to 1monster on why I posed the question.

As far as substantive criticism of DK goes, I'm not sure this is the place for it, and I'm certainly not sure you'd consider it constructive. It does bother me when I hear DK saying that he'd revoke or cancel Nafta should he become president. I know that's red meat to his supporters (no pun intended) but it's not possible, and surely he knows that.

I agree with you about the tiresome bullshit regarding haircuts, stature and diets. I think most folks who attack DK on the abortion thing are being opportunistic. He changed his mind. That's fine with me.

I know you don't like the electabiliity thing, but no I don't think he's electable. I have yet to decide on a candidate, but for me one of the biggest issues is electability. I don't think we have the luxury of a Candide mentality. We need to get bush gone.

Perhaps you're right, and this isn't a very good place to actually respond to issue-related stuff. But on the other hand, since you're interested in the Zeitgeist (which locally seems to favor Dean) perhaps there's no better place, either.

Apropos Dennis's statements about NAFTA and the WTO...do you think it would make a big difference in the attacks on him if he were to say 'withdraw from' rather than 'repeal', 'revoke', or 'cancel'? Because in fact both NAFTA and the WTO have escape clauses: any member can pull out on giving 6 months' notice.

I suspect he says 'repeal' for the reason you gave -- it's a very definite, exercise-power, 'red meat' sort of word. Much more 'presidental' than the more accurate 'invoke the exit clause', 'withdraw from', 'pull out of', etc.



Apropos the Zeitgeist, I think it's not so much that Dennis is off-limits, but rather that he seems to be very much a what-you-see-is-what-you-get candidate, so it's hard to criticise him on substance.

Allegedly, while standing for election to Congress, he took a position in favor of DOMA. I've not seen anything solid about that, so I'm not going to take it too seriously--someone at DU claimed he actually voted for it, which is a good trick since he held a state senate seat at the time. So I'll wait.

He can be criticised for his anti-Choice voting record, but he seems to have 'seen the light' on that. Was the light the prospect of the Presidency? I don't know. The timing makes it at least possible--the outpouring of support he got for his 'Prayer' speech seems to have coincided, approximately, with the start of his soul-searching. But if I have to guess, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude it would have happened regardless of any political goals...if only because his record is one of doing what he thinks right and damn the political consequences. He's spent a lot of his career swimming against the current, and paying for it.

He can be--and has been, very much including by me--strongly criticised for his flag-amendment vote. All I got back from his campaign as a response to my scathing mail was 'sorry you don't agree' (phrased more politely, of course, but that was the burden).

But that's really all there is, I think. Everything else? He's solidly on the side of the angels. Anyone who works for their living would have to be mad to vote for anyone else, honestly. Particularly since 'electablity' is purely and simply up to us.

What does that mean? I care passionately about this issue--and work hard to ensure that reproductive rights remain available to women in our country. This is NOT an insignificant issue, and I do tire of people continuously dismissing it as if it were. You are, in effect, dismissing me when you dismiss my issues as insignificant.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about DK's physical attributes. I also do like him on so many other issues. In fact, I have always wished he wasn't on the "dark side" on the issue of reproductive rights--because then I'd be one of his supporters. But he has been a strong player for that side. Yeah, yeah, he changed his mind. So what? He did a lot of damage to women in the years before he changed his mind--and that's all supposed to be erased now. I'd like to see him take some positive steps to right his wrongs--then I'd be able to have some faith in him and his conversion.

In the meantime, it has to be said that these attempts to trivialize women's issues are probably not winning women to the party. I'm seriously questioning whether I should continue to consider myself a Democrat in light of these types of discussions.

On edit: I have this feeling of deja vu. We've been down this road before, Maired, and I already know where it ends. As I've said before, other people's compromises are theirs to make. I don't know Kate; I'm sure she's a fine person. But how she chooses to vote doesn't really have anything to do with how I vote.

In fact, I was trying to point out that, were it not for DK's unfortunate anti-reproductive rights record, I would support him. And, your constant attempt to make my point irrelevant is not winning people like me to DK's campaign. In fact, you are reinforcing my fear that this "conversion" is not heartfelt; you're showing me by your total lack of concern for my fear that this is an "expendable" issue for you--and probably for DK. That's counterproductive.

My point is only that nobody has all the information there is to have. We all look to other people as 'extra brains'. The only real question is: who seems like a high-quality extra brain.

If you discount the opinions of other people, and discount the speeches and votes Dennis has contributed since his change of stance, then what can anyone say to you? Most people are less closed than that. Why would you expect someone to listen to you when you won't listen to anyone else?

Choice is a non-negotiable deal for me, and has been ever since RvW. Like Studs Terkel, I made my position plain to Dennis when I urged him to stand for election. Either he responded to the tens of thousands of people sending him the same message, or he responded to something internal to himself. Either way, he seems to have altered his mind, and a fair number of feminists--many of us Crones and far from being naive--believe that his evolution was probably sincere. Since the past is impervious to change, how can we do better than to look to the future? Looking to the future does not mean surrendering our critical judgement, but it does mean being willing to believe in change.

don't think he is electable. I know my views are more compatible with DK, but I support Dean because I feel he can win (nomination and general election). Plus Dean has more charisma. I try not to put any candidate down, and none of this is a bash on DK. We have enough flame wars between candidate's supporters as it is.

Because most people don't think Dennis has charisma until they see him in person. I'd say he has a lot more charisma then Dean.

and that's how 99% of Americans will see them.

I love what Kucinich says, I think he's great for the party, but I honestly don't think he's "electable". Which, perhaps, is too bad.

I love the idea for the Department of Peace. Awesome idea.

I'd like to see Kucinich with a major role in a Dean administration.

I see Kucinich as the conscience of the party, and Dean as the pragmatic leader of it.

Just my two cents.

elect him. Americans CAN realize that staying on the neo-con road is bad for them and that they need a big change.

I don't think Dean would beat Bush* because he's not offering a big enough change from Bush*. Dean is too timid, saying universal health care won't pass, saying he'll just try to tinker a bit with NAFTA, etc.

We CAN elect DK and a more progressive Congress in 2004 just like our grandparents elected FDR and a more progressive Congress in 1932.

"I like Kucinich but he's unelectable" he'd win by a land-slide!

Oh yea of little faith! :)

Liberals, Progressives, Greens, Arab-Americans, Blacks, Muslims...

Thank goodness we have enough time to make people say that saying "he's unelectable" is either a ploy from the other camps who have little to say on the issues or, un most cases, a sad symptom of the defeatist attitude the DLC has instituted in the Left.

So damn, let's toss the DLC 100% and elect the unelectable one who speaks to our issues! There's no such thing as an unelectable candidate unless we withhold our votes!

just right