Hansen: Unconsciously, many favor Kucinich

Hansen: Unconsciously, many favor Kucinich
By MARC HANSEN


Don't panic, but there's a chance you aren't supporting the presidential candidate you most agree with on the issues.

As we stumble toward the primary/caucus season, millions of voters (or at least dozens) are going online and taking surveys that match them with candidates. And they're not automatically matching up with their favorite candidates.

This happened four years ago when the Democrats were trying to figure out how to beat George Bush. Most of them wanted Kerry or Edwards or Dean.

But surprise, surprise. When they punched in their select-a-candidate surveys, Kucinich's name kept blinking back at them on the computer screen.

That's the Dennis Kucinich whose poll numbers were below sea level, the Kucinich nobody took seriously, the Kucinich who never had a chance.

more...

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071023/NEWS03/710230386/-1/NEWS04

for those who best represent them on the issues, then we will finally see the change we wish to see.

and when people stop judging their candidate on looks or "charisma". Who gives a shit about "charisma"...get the f*cking job done.

the ability to build coalitions, record wrt getting meaningful legislation passed? Those things count in my book.

don't think he'd make a good president, largely because of the things I mentioned.

:shrug:

that Bernie got passed. And Kucinich just has not been able to demonstrate leadership in the House.

So Feingold's a war profiteer? There are dozens of Progressives who have demonstrated leadership, and coalition building. Dennis hasn't. Bernie, for example, has. And he's not even a dem.

and said there was no evidence for war and that it was about oil. If there were others that could have been leaders instead of the followers they were, we could have avoided the destruction of a whole country and saved thousands of lives. That is TRUE leadership, standing up for the people when it counts, even if the system has other agendas on their mind that don't represent the best interest of our country. Where are the leaders standing up and asking for impeachment, asking for investigations into the hunt oil deal or the privatization of Iraq's oil or asking for the patriot act to be repealed. I don't think its a negative on him that he represents the people and cant get help from the those who don't represent us. We should be frustrated with them, not the one that is speaking for us.

best and most prescient speech of anyone who stood against the war. And I've read dozens of those speeches. BTW, Dennis was hardly alone in opposing the war, as the MAJORITY of those in the House, did so.

True leadership isn't just talk. It's getting people to follow or join you. Talk is cheap.

I don't believe any of our candidates have showed the leadership that he has on the war and I want to vote for someone who cares. As for the other candidates, they were great leaders but they lead us down the wrong path, I will take the person that is trying to take our country in the right direction over a leader that is successfully taking our country down the wrong direction. That to me is the real issue with the rest of the candidates, no matter how great they are at leading, if their agendas have us going the wrong direction, I am not interested in them running the country. Give me someone who cares and can get the American people revitalized and out of their seats, so we can have some real change in this country. If Americans continue to see the same kind of politics and bad decisions that we have been seeing lately, no one will ever believe in our political process again and thats where we need the change. The American public is asleep at the wheel and needs to believe again.

I appreciate his work, but he's really not relevant to this discussion, is he?

I'm sure he would have gotten universal single-payer not-for-profit health care, impeachment, bills to end war and bring the troops home, bills to require hand counted paper ballots, bills to end NAFTA, and more passed if he'd decided those were important to bring to the floor, right?

Except that he didn't, and he isn't running.

People favor Kucinich, unconsciously or not, because he stands with them on issues and he represents them on those issues in Congress. Those who favor him aren't favoring him over Bernie Sanders, but over the rest of the announced candidates.

and building coaitions in the House. That's the relevance. Dennis has done very little in the House. That's relevant. And it's why though I may vote for him in my late and meaningless primary as an endorsement of some of his ideas, I don't see him as able to be an effective president. If he hasn't been an effective rep and he hasn't been an effective candidate, why should anyone think he'd be an effective president.

All that's really moot. Dennis isn't seriously running. He's out there to broadcast his ideas. I think that has value in and of itself, but there's substantial evidence that he's not seriously running. You don't ignore Iowa if you are.

And there is something that Dennis did last time around that I find troublesome: He threw his Iowa caucus votes to Edwards, when Dean was the only other anti-Iraq war in the bunch.

The comparison is irrelevant because Sanders is not running against DK for office. If we were choosing between them, it might be relevant.

Then again, since he hasn't introduced and "gotten passed" the legislation that DK supports, as noted, it might not be that relevant after all. If someone supports DK specifically for his support of that legislation, then someone who does great work on other things, but not on the specifics you are going to the voting booth to affect, might not weigh that heavily.

While I was paying attention to the caucus in which you refer to, I fail to see what that has to do with Sanders or with the point of the OP. In addition, I don't believe that DK "threw his caucus votes." I believe there was an agreement for mutual support should one of the candidates fall below the margin needed to stay viable, and I believe that supporters were encouraged to shift to the other camp should one of them receive less than 15%. The key word being "encourage," which, of course, left each individual free to make his/her own choice on the matter. I also know, having read their statements at the time, that their difference on Iraq, noted in the OP, was noted. It's not as if they've suddenly noticed that they don't agree on that issue. It seems that this time around Edwards has come to agree with DK; hence the apology.

I believe that shifting to other candidates when your first choice doesn't make the first cut is a normal, expected part of a caucus. I believe that all of that shifting around is negotiated as part of the process as well. We are certainly expected to do so at the convention, aren't we? All of the candidates who aren't crowned at the convention will be expected to fall on their swords and support the nominee, as will their supporters. It will still be a choice, if strong-armed. All part of business as usual.

...Dennis Kucinich has plenty of charisma. He is informed, direct, and passionate, and is on the right side of the issues. I personally find him inspiring, and always watch the videos with him. Basically, he is the only candidate right now who speaks HIS OWN mind, not what his "handlers" have told him will "play in Peoria".

I so hope that more and more people become aware of the fact that when they do the blind taste test, for the majority, it comes up Dennis!

:)

who actually wants to do the job we want done.

I'm not hearing that or seeing that from too many of the candidates.

As long as people cling to corporate media, they allow that control. We can turn it off. We can dis-empower them by not allowing them into our lives.

That would at least cut them down to size while we went about the business of electing people who would enact tougher anti-trust laws and some modern variation on a fairness doctrine.

100% public financing of elections and campaigns, with a few months to announce and campaign, equal air time and $$ for all, and no outside advertisements, money, etc. might be a move to think about, as well.

Debates that actually gave all candidates equal air time and allowed them to answer all the questions....

"Kucinich" and "liberal" have been very effectively demonized by "free press" that is nothing more now than a huge propaganda machine. 24/7 it grinds away making sure that social democracy NEVER, EVER happens. AT ANY COST.

Bomb a foreign land that was no threat to us? Sure. Not a problem. They'll cheer lead for it.

Strong unions?......?......??............. um, Paris Hilton said a dumb thing today.

most kucinich supporters are indeed unconscious. :+

(relax. it's friday. I'm playing around)

Unconscious means "without consciousness" and is synonymous with "comatose"

Subconscious means "existing or operating below the level of consciousness."

Subconsciously, many favor Kucinich...

I agree with him on 95% of the issues, but someone who wants to ban handguns merely strikes me as naive.