I'm having some trouble with cognitive dissonance

I've only been on DU for about a year now, but it seems to me that the number one complaint DUers have is that Democrats are not willing to position themselves in stark contrast to the Republicans.

Take the Iraq War as an example: Everyone here bitches about the Iraq war vote, and even the recent vote to fund $89 billion for continuation of said war. We all complain that the "war on terrorism" is a farce and many seem to think Bush ought to be impeached over the lies he has used to bring us to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

So what candidates can be supported, given this view? Correct me if I am wrong here, but wasn't Kucinich the only one of the nine candidates who actually voted against the war? Then there is Dean, who has positioned himself as anti-war (and I like Dean, keep in mind)- but to be honest, it is one thing to say you would have voted against it and another thing to have actually been in the position of risking your political career to do so. Finally we have Clark, whose main beef seems to be not that we went to war, but just that we didn't do it the right way.

Then, if you look at progressive values, which it seems most DUers are in favor of. Things like alternative energy, universal health care, progressive taxation, closing corporate loopholes, and education. What candidate takes the most aggressive stance on these issues? It sure isn't ring-wing Lieberman and it sure isn't "toe the line" Clark. Edwards is big into the labor issues, but doesn't seem to address many of the others. Kerry's thing is alternative energy, but again, he holds pretty much the DLC point of view on everything else. Gephardt seems to be reasonably in favor of all of these issues, but still with the same caviate of not rocking the boat too much.

So who stands out as the champion of the anti-war message and the pro-progressive values platform? Dennis Kucinich.

He wants to create a "Department of Peace!" And don't forget, he organized 130 some odd members of the House to actually vote against the Iraq war, even though it was clearly not politically expedient for them to do so.

I can't see any other candidate doing anything more radical to "make war itself archaic", as DK likes to say. Furthermore, he is the *only* candidate to my knowledge that advocates cutting the Pentagon budget...and if he isn't the only one than he IS the only candidate that I BELIEVE when he says that.

Sorry this post is pretty much a rant, but there is a point: AREN'T WE HYPOCRITES HERE AT DU?! Here comes a guy who stands for everything we want the Democrats to stand for, who isn't afraid to stick his neck out for what he believes in. In short, everything DU has been clamoring for. And yet he has very little support here at DU. WHAT GIVES???

(Before you flame away: I am not necessarily a Kucinich supporter. At the moment I think Dean is my favorite because of his ability to change the image of the party and the way politics works as a whole. Thus, I am not a jealous Kucinich supporter who is just pissed off because my canddiate isn't winning.)

Kucinich is the only candidate who does not seem to be playing politics, but to be expressing his long standing ideals.

My position is simple: Kucinich in the primaries, then ANYTHING but Bush in the general election.
I am not a political strategist, and I will leave this part of the equation to the delegates at the Convention.
It is a sign on how distorted one Nation's thinking has become, when DK is the least electable candidate, and the only one who actually voted the way he speaks...

It is a sign on how distorted one Nation's thinking has become, when DK is the least electable candidate, and the only one who actually voted the way he speaks...

ITA. It seems to me that everyone is willing to forget principles just to get power. I'd vote for my dog Daisy before I'd vote for a Republican, but if we're going to distance ourselves from the Republicans it seems to me that we have to distance ourselves from the Republicans... not buy into their frame of mind.

I do think the Democratic candidates are all good men (some better than others), but I wonder why Democrats are afraid of supporting Kucinich? Who says that he isn't "electable"?

that should be the function of the state dept. and the UN

... not a part of the U.S. government.

Maybe the State Department OUGHT to be a Department of Peace but the fact is that it is not. It never was, either.

We also have a legal justice framework, but we don't have an economic justice or a social justice framework in this country.

Our Constitution is great as far as it goes, but it is not comprehensive. There are many areas where it is silent. It certainly does not forbid a Department of Peace though. So, let's try and see how it goes. What's to lose?

It's hard to argue with anything you say. My observation is that people are not jumping to Kucinich because they question whether his is electible. I know, that's not a very fair characterization, but fair or not, it's an impression.

If the intention of your post is simply to engage in an intellectual examination about DUer's possible hypocricy, then you've made your point. However, if you really think that Dennis is deserving of more support and attention, then do something about it. Send him money, and volunteer for his campaign. Posting on DU is not, nor will it ever be a meaningful effort in support of a candidate.

I think you are right in your sense that what we, as DUers, really want is to have a clear contrast between our party and the Republicans. However, I think it's less about what the issues you discuss and more about your final disclaimer regarding Dean's ability to change politics. We want someone who will convince us that Republicans are purely political and that we are better than that.

Given all the hatred directed at the DLC, Al From, and Lieberman, it is pretty clear that most DUers are upset with the Democratic party's move toward the center. What we really want is to be convinced that the Republicans work for the corporations while the Democrats work for the people. Unfortuntaely, corporate donations to the Democratic party and policies like NAFTA and the WTO have made it pretty hard to maintain that illusion. We're pretty much starting to look like we're cut from the same cloth as them, and we HATE that.

What Dean offers is not the most liberal standpoint for us to hold against the right wing ideology. He offers instead a chance for the populist ideal to finally work the way it's supposed to, and show us that our faith in the Democratic party representing the people is not misplaced. They're the ones holding $2000 a plate weinie roasts, while thousands of us just give Dean what we can and trust him to fight for our causes. Dean may not be the most liberal candidate, but that's enough of a contrast for me.

"and another thing to have actually been in the position of risking your political career to do so."

Well, Dean WAS kinda doing that back when it was QUITE a bit more unpopular to be against this "very popular wartime President."
and his nonsensical war.

If the war turned out to be the cakewalk that Perle and Wolfowitz prattled about, Dean probably would've severely fucked his chances at the nomination and the Presidency.

As it turns out, oh gee - he was right. Those who voted for the war resolution to "get the war issue off the table and concentrate on the economy" are the ones looking mighty stupid these days.

It doesn't make sense to denigrate Dean for not being in a position to vote against the war. His early stance against the war was certainly not without political risk.

Personality matters, it isn't all that matters otherwise Clark's slick package would be the only factor considered and Al Sharpton would rule the day. The reality is Kucinich hasn't got much in the way of personality and that is a political reality. Sounds superficial, I know. Sorry.

PS: You kind of blew your entire argument with your final sentence. ;-)