If Dennis' candidacy is "quixotic" why are denouncing him for running?

Can't have it both ways, folks.

Can't say the guy doesn't have a chance and they waste your time ripping him a new one.

What exactly is it about Dennis' candidacy that you guys find to completely intolerable?

Are you really that scared about a candidate who talks about issues and has a dream of a better world?

Can a Kucinich candidacy really harm anything?

What up, dawg?

Him running means bringing his ideas to the table. Ideas a lot of DLC'ers don't want to hear.

I'll send Dennis my money, but not my vote.

:rofl:

He has no chance - I'm a supporter and I know that.

But they don't want him bringing all those pesky non-DLC approved topics into the ring

I know the DLCers are going to relentlessly try trash him and move their candidate into place, but he needs all of our support.

certainly agree with him on lots of things. I love his ideas and bravery in stating them despite what people might think, and will continue to listen.
His views on getting out of Iraq got my attention; use the existing money in the pipeline to get the hell out. Sounds really good to me. This country should be feeling desperate; out now in any way possible.

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

that there are Dennis supporters out there.
As for anyone/everyone running, we're seeing pro and con opinions, and that's a good thing. Hopefully people are bright enough to get the real story and formulate their own opinions.

I agree with Kucinich on about 90 percent of the issues, and admire his courage and honesty and am always impressed by how thoughtful he can be in the right interview setting.

But he is wasting those talents and his role by running these futile candidacies for president. IMO he is a voice that needs to be heard, but he overshadows that by becoming a new version of Harold Stassen. He is not presidential timber, and it makes his shortcomings more important than his strengths.

I'd much rather see him use his position in the House to continue to forge a truly progressive movement in the Democratic Party.

Also, I'd much prefer to see the energy of progressives in terms of the presidential contest focused on bolstering the liberal/progressive base of more serious pressidential contenders like Edwards, Clark or Obama -- pushing them to the left rather that wasting energy on a campsign that will never win....That seems a better way to send a message.

Dennis Kucinich is a believer in a progressive America I will give him that, and, he is a true voice of the left in an age where that voice is very faint. Watered down by centrist opportunist and right wing nut jobs but Bill Maher had a great quote about Bush.
"Bush is a lot of things, a pussy is not one of them" now I think that this is a telling quote and one that this debate always ignores when it comes to Dennis Kucinich. The 800 pound Gorilla if you will. Dennis Kucinich looks and sounds like the guy you beat up in high school and laughed at in college. If it's true that politics is Hollywood for ugly people this guy is Tom Cruise. He is a much better floor fighter in congress than President.

He doesn't have the charisma that a candidate needs. Walter Mondale was a good man, too...but look where that got him. :(

Candidates who stand out as being farthest on the end of the stick, either way, never get the majority of votes. Americans feel safer voting toward the middle. That's why candidates, despite their true philosophy, end up positioning themselves closer to the center. The honest and pure of heart like Kucinich might benefit in votes by fudging a little in their message, but if they did that then they would lose the base that adores them for their integrity. Catch 22.

Quixano is obsessed with tales of valiant knights, and deludes himself into believing that he is himself a heroic knight- don Quijote. He becomes a confused, impratical, idealist.
Perhaps people see poor Dennis as quixotic because that's what he is?
--
On another note, I've yet to see any DUer "denounce" Dennis for running, "rip him a new one", or find his candidacy either "intolerable" or "scary".
You end by asking "Can a Kucinich candidacy really harm anything?" Probably not, if his friends can keep him from falling off his horse.

No complaints from this DU'er. I say the more dissent from the left the better, to keep those swinging too far right from controlling the agenda.

Good luck Dennis! :hi:

Kucinich represents all of those that opposed the war before it even began. Kucinich represents those that want to stop the war cold now, and not play another variant of "stay the course." Kucinich represents those that want to hold the Bush regime accountable for all the war crimes, crimes against humanity, human rights abuses, and violations of international law that they have committed. Kucinich represents those that do not want a pardon for Bush and Cheney. Kucinich represents those that want to reorder our national priorities away from rampant militarism and toward investing in the people in our country.

The ruling class fears that people will realize that American freedom and democracy are an illusion, and that people will decide to take power unto themselves and topple the ruling class from power.

But were you doing a Boris Badenof imitation with the post title?

"Is not Dennis, is what he represents. Moose and Squirrel must die!"

Dennis colors outside the lines of what the Washington inner circle has deemed "acceptable" and "sensible," the lines that prevent the American people from seeing the corporate lobbyists and their bought-and-paid-for pet legislators for what they are.

In 2004, other candidates talked about subsidizing private health insurance, while DK talked about single payer.

Instead of mushy platitudes about "policies that benefit working families," DK spoke plainly and fervently about "poverty as a weapon of mass destruction" and about the destructive effects of corporate "free" trade.

Instead of calling for "a stronger defense," DK revealed that the Pentagon cannot account for $3.2 trillion of the money allocated for it in the past 25 years, which means either massive fraud or massive black ops, or more likely, a combination of both.

That's why he had to rely on guerilla publicity from supporters. The more guerilla publicity he got, the better he did, and in unexpected places, like Ashland and Viroqua, Wisconsin (but not Madison, interestingly enough) and Decorah, Iowa (where Minnesota Kucitizens concentrated their efforts), as well as in Minnesota, Hawaii, Maine, Washington, New Mexico, and Utah.

If we had a non-corrupt political culture, Kucinich would be the norm, not the exception.

PB

It's just Dennis being Dennis: ego trip.

I hear alot about the fear that our incredibly wonderful US skill at foreign policy might be at risk if he were to run.

So you're saying that any candidate but Kucinich is a Republican?

Putting words in your mouth? No...

Here is what you said: "...the DLCers want to run Republicans again?"

When has the DLC ever run Republicans and who were they?

then the idea that he's wasting people's time would be intolerable. At least that's my take.

My only beef is that vanity candidates like him and Lyndon LaRouche will be feeding at the public of federal matching funds for their campaigns.

Larouche is insane and a fascist. Dennis is just a guy you disagree with. You need to retract that kind of a slander right now.

And there is no way we'd be better off with only bland centrists running.

The situation is in flux and the people are open to a new vision of the country and the world. The centrist hacks you like don't have anything worthwhile to say about things like that.

Freddie, if you don't want us to nominate a Democrat, that's your call.

But you're pointless insults(like the lie that Dennis' campaign in 2004 was "half-hearted"-hint: half-hearted campaigners DON'T stay in the race all the way to the convention and Dennis didn't gain anything financiall from runnint)serve no purpose.

(BTW, regarding your avatar, history PROVED that NAFTA only benefited CEO's. The workers(y'know, the people Democrats are SUPPOSED to fight for) all got screwed. Gore would not still defend that agreement today.)

for his Presidential campaign long after it Kerry had secured a majority of delegates, while he was running for reelection for his House seat.

Dennis also used some it it, probably, to set up PDA. Both of which were legitimate, legal and HARMLESS activities that no one has any reason to condemn.

It wasn't a gravy train. Dennis is not personally getting rich off running. And it wasn't DENNIS' fault he wasn't married to a Republican ketchup heiress.

And it wouldn't have gained Kerry a single vote for Dennis to withdraw from the race earlier. There was never this huge group of people waiting for the Democratic contest to become a liberal-free zone. A Clintonite Kerry would have taken the exact same vote that Kerry took in the end anyway. He would have received the same vote if he'd taken Bill's bigoted advice and "ditch(ed) the gays."

Kerry lost because he didn't respond to the Swift Boaters, because he flip-flopped rather than DEFEND Democratic values, and because he pissed away millions of dollars on pointless court challenges to Nader's ballot status, challenges that served no purpose but to goad Nader into staying in the race.

Dennis didn't cost us the 2004 election. The DLC and the Beltway boys cost us the 2004 election.

Dennis doesn't deserve your hatred.

Oh course he didn't get rich from the campaign. But he did get to travel all around the country (including Hawaii) on someone else's dime. He even kept this up after Kerry secured a majority of delegates.

(And the polls showed that a lot of people who voted for other candidates actually agreed with Dennis on the issues more than they did the candidates they had voted for).

He was trying to keep the movement alive.

There isn't an issue here. Dennis did nothing wrong in continuing to campaign. You've got no reason to keep dwelling on this, and it doesn't make a case for opposing Dennis this time.

voted for other candidates? :shrug:

Which worked just as well as Dukakis' "I'm electable line".

The question of when Kucinicn got out of the race last time is a non-issue. He didn't hurt Kerry by staying in, and everyone knows it.

It looks like 2008 will be a repeat.

n/t.

Dennis got caught shaking Bush*'s hand, similar to the Lieberman kiss.

He also refused to drop out after Kerry had surely won the primary, scarring our unity and questioning our chosen candidate.

And both of us know Kerry's defeat was the result of his not standing for a clear agenda and his not telling the Swift Boaters to fuck off.

And shaking Bush's hand when you oppose him on everything is not the same as kissing the guy when you love his war.

Don't DARE to compare Dennis to Lieberman. Dennis' hasn't gotten anybody killed through his stubbornness and arrogance.

I know you want us to nominate another candidate who doesn't have clear opinions on anything, but you're just being vicious here.

Shaking the hand and questioning the clear winner are two reasons why.

I know you want us to nominate another candidate who doesn't have clear opinions on anything, but you're just being vicious here.

No you don't.

That an earlier withdrawal on his part would have made no difference.

Dennis and the progressive wing of the party bear no responsibility whatsoever for Kerry's failure in 2004. That was Kerry's own fault and his improvements since then indicate that he knows it.

And everybody shakes the president's hand when he walks by them on joint session night. It's not like Kerry or HRC refused to.

Joe Lieberman got people killed with his stubbornness. Dennis Kucinich has harmed no one.

And how nice it is to see you using the same brilliant tactics that gave us Congresswoman Duckworth.:eyes:

???

Also, DK is "capital D" party DEMOCRAT- Lieberman is a 3rd party conservative with strong ties to Bush and his agenda- so there is another huge reason why they are not similar.

n/t

:)

defenders of the corporate status quo fear the message that Kucinich brings to the debate

And besides, one pesky Quixotic annoyance that does arise is seven vanity candidates crowding the debate so everyone gets scant time to respond. The truth is that their manipulative ploy at free attention makes sure no messages are really heard.

(you know, the ones who don't stand for anything like your favorites)should be in the debates and everybody else should "know their place".

n/t

And remember. Harry Truman was short and homely too.

But Truman was the VP of a most beloved President/war hero- and no one had TVs back then. Still, you have a point!

Dennis is using the Jimmy James/NewsRadio motive of trying to find a hot wife.

Oh wait, mission accomplished.

trash Kucinich at every opportunity. A Kucinich Presidency would end corporate control of our government and cause a return of that radical ideology known as democracy to the US.

Stop Kucinich Now!
;-)

If Kucinich *were* to win the primary then the Democrats would lose the election, but as there's no risk of that it's not a factor.

That means that the issue is how he will effect the result, and how he will effect whoever *does* win. I can see several issues.

:-He will take up progressive votes in the primary, possibly benefiting more centrist candidates at the expense of more left-wing ones.

:-He will effect the reputation of the Democratic party, making it appear further left in the actual election. That will win it some votes, but probably lose it more, especially in tighter races.

:-On the other hand, he will pull the "spectrum" to the left, making whoever wins appear more moderate, perhaps helping them in the actual election.

:-He will generate internal friction within the Democratic party.

:-in 20012, candidacies further left will be viable that would otherwise be the case as a result of him running.

:-He will raise left-wing talking points.


Whether or not that makes his running a good thing is debateable, but I think one could certainly make a strong case that it is.

I assume it wouldn't bother you if the man was actually elected in November.

Kucinich, I want to weigh in here. In no way did I denounce him for running. I said I believe he's running to shine a spotlight on issues that he believes are vital. I have no problem whatsover with Kucinich running. I confess that I find it curious that people think he actually has a chance at capturing the nomination, and those are the folks my post was directed at.