I don't understand liberal Democrats

I understand conservatives - when they have the choice they support a candidate who votes and expresses the same beliefs as they do on issues. They will go out and vote for school board and county council for a conservative Christian candidate on a snowy day.

What I don't understand is this:

"I really agree with Dennis Kucinich on all the issues, but he's too far left to have a chance - so I'll support (insert name here) because I like them and they might have a chance."

It's not just the Congress that caves in on the issues, its the whole goddamned Democratic Party and we its members who do that. We crap out on what we believe in. Over and over I talk to people like that. I don't understand the defeatist attitude our people have. They couldn't get mobilized to demand impeachment, and impeachment is warranted, they can't support someone who won't provide funding for the war, instead they support half-way measures by default. This is wrong! You start at your base - you might have to compromise later, but if Dennis Kucinich could just have the vote in the primaries based on the online polling, we might have a chance to push the agenda in our direction, even if its 20 percent, you know, you guys.

That's how politics works. The right-wing evangelical Republicans understand this, but our side doesn't which is why we will always lose to them based on what we are doing now! They vote with a passion. Where is the passion on our side - who the independents might like?

Some of us are mobilized enough go to DC and march around every couple of months and we accomplish nothing. The Democratic Party laughs at us because, "hey, we don't want to rock the boat now, and put down your silly anti-war and impeachment signs and habeus corpus is not important."

Why is that? Who gets elected? The ones who get elected are the compromise candidates. The ones people felt, "hey, he might have a chance because he's toward the center". Bullshit!

Is that how the Republicans took over the House in 1994? No way, they worked for and elected people they believed in, give them credit for that. Are we so cynical and tired that we can't do the same? Do we believe in the principles of our party, or are we just jerkin' off?

Think on this one, my friends, because the Constitution, our former Republic, the lives of millions of people in the Middle East and perhaps the fate of the world is at stake.

:kick:

I don't think he'd be a good president. He has not been an effective leader in the House, and he doesn't seem to have the skills to build coalitions and pass legislation.

Nevertheless, I will vote for him if he's on the ballot in my March primary, just to give his ideas an endorsement.

I know it pisses people off, but I see Dennis as someone who talks a good game, which is an important thing, but isn't capable of persuading more than a handful of his colleagues to work with him on very much at all.

I think it's also partly because Liberals have been so trashed and downtrodden by the media, etc. that we don't really believe we can win ourselves because we're told it so much. I also am skeptical about how large the Liberal base is anyway...at least recently.

But most importantly, Christian conservatives just have a much better machine. They had a movement which put them in firm control for years. Liberals simply don't have the kind of machine that the Christian Right has. Through the radio, PR groups, and just flat out political support.

You start small, maybe you take a stand at school board or county supervisor or state delegate. Maybe that is the key to our problem - we need to organize locally and globally.

Now I am the Northern Virginia Coordinator for Dennis Kucinich for President.

Why is that?

I've never done anything like that in my life, but I'm stepping up.

It's time to step up, we are so in danger of losing it all and so many people are apathetic. If we had passion, they might too.

And thank you for your eloquently expressed OP, which clearly speaks for many of us.

It would seem you should be blaming the people who are unwilling to join in with his ideas, at least to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2194659&mesg_id=2194659

Follow the link to the Philadelphia Bulletin. It sorta puts the kabosh on the "Dennis can't get legislation passed" meme.

I don't blame anyone - I merely point out that we should be willing to work for the passions we believe in. I'm talking to the anti-war, pro-impeachment community and I'm trying to energize them to take a place in our party by voting for the candidate who supports their issues.

good leaders inspire others and motivate others to join them. It's really that simple.

for the people they represent or one who stands up for honest, OPEN government... but you know that, don't you??

It's just like Gee DUHbya trying to turn Muslims into Christians... it ain't gonna happen. Period.

Dem majority no vote for the IWR in the House. He's an active member of the progressive caucus

He just won't sell out because someone tells him he should. When he says "No, I'm not going along with something I know is wrong," then people try to smear him with this shit. The same thing happens to anybody who can't be bought, they try to bring social pressure on them to conform to those who can be bought.

These same smear - Meister's always then go back when Dennis was 32 and taking on the monied interest in Cleavland. Yeah he pissed a lot of fat cat power brokers off. More power to him. I wish some more of our go along to get along spineless Dems would do that. They just don't have the personal confidence and center to take that kind of heat. Harry Truman got the same bad rap.

Yeah, Dennis already said it was a mistake to fire his insubordinate Chief of Police on TV on good Friday. But that was 30 years ago. He's learned a heck of a lot since then.

Here's Kucinich's record. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400227


Cali tries to attack Dennis by contrasting his record with another great progressive, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and tries to make the charge stick that 'Dennis doesn't work well with others.' However, when we look at his record over the same time period, we see that he hasn't had more success than Dennis in the GOP controlled house (up until Jan of 07)that both have had to labor under, not to mention the regressive attitudes of many in the Dem caucus.

Dennis in fact, has co- sponsored more bills than Sanders, and gotten more bills voted out of committee. Dennis has gotten 9 bills out of committee to Sander's 2, and both Sanders and Kucinich have gotten one bill enacted into law.

Why Cali tries to pit two great progressives against each other to smear Dennis is beyond me. Perhaps someone should ask her.



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400357


And finally, here is the record of Nancy Pelosi, former minority leader of the house and current Speaker of the house



Notice anything here? Dennis has gotten more votes out of committee, sponsored and co-sponsored more bills than Sanders or Pelosi, and all have enacted one of their sponsored bills into law.

Kucinich is doing a great job, and should be very proud of his record. He entered the House in 1997 as a freshman. Pelosi entered in 1987, and Sanders in 1993. Dennis got right down to getting things done, Cali not with standing

Wellstone and Humphrey, liberal, happy warriors they...they could pull people to their sides, and they also understood the unfortunate necessity, and judicious use, of quid pro quo.

did that in the house- despite being a grumpy curmudgeon.

GOT PASSED while the Repos controlled the house?

Thanks.

You have said this before, but you have never backed it up.

But of course, that's the fault of the one fucking indy in the crowd, eh?

Bernie's in the Senate now. But hey, READ up on what he did do, if it matters so much--here ya go, here's a cite to get you started!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Sanders was reelected six times and was the longest-serving independent member of the House. Despite his independent status, he only faced one difficult contest. That came in 1994, in the midst of the Republican Revolution that swept Republicans into control of the Congress. In a year when many marginal seats fell to Republicans, Sanders managed a narrow three-point victory. In every other election, he has won at least 55 percent of the vote. In his last congressional campaign, in 2004, Sanders took 69 percent to Republican Greg Parke's 24 percent and Democrat Larry Drown's 7 percent.

Sanders' lifetime legislative score from the AFL-CIO is 100 percent. As of 2006, he has a grade of "C-" from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Sanders voted against the Brady Bill and in favor of a NRA-supported bill to restrict lawsuits against gun manufacturers in 2005. <4> Sanders voted to abolish the so-called "marriage penalty" and also for a bill that sought to ban human cloning. Sanders has endorsed every Democratic candidate for president of the United States since 1992. Sanders is a co-founder of the House Progressive Caucus and chaired the grouping of mostly left-wing Democrats for its first eight years.

Sanders voted against both resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 1991 and 2002 and opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He later joined almost all of his colleagues in voting for a non-binding resolution expressing support for U.S. troops at the outset of the invasion, although he gave a floor speech blasting the partisan nature of the resolution and the Bush administration's actions in the run-up to the war. In relation to the leak investigation involving Valerie Plame, on April 7, 2006, Sanders said, "The revelation that the president authorized the release of classified information in order to discredit an Iraq war critic should tell every member of Congress that the time is now for a serious investigation of how we got into the war in Iraq, and why Congress can no longer act as a rubber stamp for the president." <5> Sanders supports universal health care and opposes what he terms "unfettered" free trade <1>, which he argues deprives American workers of their jobs while exploiting foreign workers in sweatshop factories.

An amendment he offered in June 2005 to limit provisions giving the government power to obtain individuals' library and book-buying records passed the House by a bipartisan majority, but was removed on November 4 of that year by House-Senate negotiators, and never became law.<6> Sanders followed this vote on November 5, 2005, by voting against the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which would have exempted the Internet from the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Bill).

In March 2006, Sanders stated it would be impractical, given the "reality that the Republicans control the House and the Senate", to impeach George W. Bush after a series of resolutions calling for him to bring articles of impeachment against the president passed in various towns in Vermont. Still, Sanders makes no secret of his opposition to the George W. Bush administration, which he has regularly attacked for cuts in social programs he supports.<7><8><9>

Sanders has also criticized Alan Greenspan. In June 2003, during a question-and-answer discussion with then-Federal Reserve chairman, Sanders told Greenspan that he was concerned that Greenspan was "way out of touch" and "that you see your major function in your position as the need to represent the wealthy and large corporations."<10>

Republicans have attacked Sanders as "an ineffective extremist" for passing only one law and fifteen amendments in his eight terms in the House.<11><12> Sanders responded by saying that he had passed "the most floor amendments of any member of the House since 1996."<13> Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean has stated that "Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time."<14>

quid pro quo is the rule, rather than the exception. Quid pro quo on the war, quid pro quo on FISA, it looks like quid pro quo on the AG nomination.

When will Dems stand up and be Dems?

Wellstone understood that, and still he slept at night. Deeply, happily, ready to do battle the following day.

That's the essence of COMPROMISE, see? Left, right...and that big mushy middle!!! Quid Pro Quo!!!

I find it funny that he, a committed progressive, could see the forest for the trees, and so many people here just cannot, for the life of them, see the solid path he has beaten.

It's kinda...uh...pathetic?

You do what you must to advance the ball towards the goal. It's not a quickie result you're gonna get.

Only an idiot and a hectoring scold takes the immediate gratification of Gingrichesque short-term gains. Because that gratification does not last.

The smart bet is the LONG VIEW, the BIG PIC.

Wellstone got that.


The people who CLAIM to follow him don't get it at all.

...considering the fact that many of his colleagues are led around on the leashes of their major contributors?

There are a mere handful of of Democrats, mostly from urban areas with the support of labor and the black community who are free to represent their constituents. The rest are effectively controlled by big money.

It has nothing to do with his skill or leadership abilities.

Plus, some of us know about Kucinich's record as mayor of Cleveland, and it's not exactly flattering.

That being said, if Gore doesn't run I will have great difficulty deciding between Obama, Dodd and Kucinich.

please go back with a receptive mind and try to perceive what I'm saying.

but obviously that's not happening, so let me explain it to you.

Issues aren't everything for a candidate. Kucinich's confrontational style as mayor and previous support for banning abortion also make some liberals uneasy.

That's how you understand us liberals who make choices like that.

Simple enough?

and he was also serving when the Dems took back control of the Senate. It's much easier to cut deals in that kind of an atmosphere, especially when your are cutting deals with repos who have kids who are suffering from mental illness, etc.

In 1995, Dennis took office by unseating a Republican incumbent during the Repo tidal wave of 1994, in a district that the Repos had controlled for years. Dennis was the only Dem that year who defeated a Repo incumbent.

Dennis was a great Mayor. That's why the City of Cleveland gave him an award, for saving the City hundreds of millions of dollars for sticking by his campaign promises and not selling the Muni utility to the privatizers.

He took it to the mat, and was savaged by the corporations for doing what was right for the City residents, not for the corporations.

The mafia had a contract out on the guy, for crying out loud, probably because he severed the cities ties to their garbage contracts.

I'm not sure what "some of you know" or what "some people say," I just know the history. You might consider reading up on it.

The Republicans held the Senate.

Yet he was still able to build consensus on bills, working with Pete Domenici, Tom Harkin, Patty Murray and others on all kinds of legislation. No matter who they were, Wellstone could find an issue on which to work with them.

"In 1995, Dennis took office by unseating a Republican incumbent during the Repo tidal wave of 1994, in a district that the Repos had controlled for years. Dennis was the only Dem that year who defeated a Repo incumbent."

Nice excuse. You can still build a consensus across the aisle and get things passed, something Wellstone did but Kucinich so far has not been able to do.

"Dennis was a great Mayor. That's why the City of Cleveland gave him an award, for saving the City hundreds of millions of dollars for sticking by his campaign promises and not selling the Muni utility to the privatizers."

Yes, he was right on one issue. Very nice. However his style was often confrontational, like when he fired his police chief and clashed with other Democrats in the City Council on nearly every issue.

When I look for a US President, I want a consensus-builder and someone who is willing to sit there and hammer out a compromise just about everyone can accept. Dennis is good in many aspects (which is why I may end up still voting for him) but consensus-builder he isn't.

"The mafia had a contract out on the guy, for crying out loud,"

So the enemy of my enemy is my friend? I guess I'll support anyone the mafia hates.

"probably because he severed the cities ties to their garbage contracts."

Speculation.

"I'm not sure what "some of you know" or what "some people say,""

Neither do I, because I don't base my opinion on such bullshit weasel words - and I'm disgusted by your apparent inability to understand that we can have a reasonable disagreement on Kucinich without me using such sources for information.

"I just know the history."

You don't appear to know much, other than how to be a self-righteous prick.

"You might consider reading up on it."

I have, thank you. That's a big reason why I'm not gung-ho for Kucinich - because I don't just pay attention to good things he did as mayor, I look at the problem areas as well.

You might consider an attitude adjustment, if you're trying to convince people to support him.

all the time. In fact, under repuke leadership, he got more of his amendments passed, than any dem or repuke. He built coalitions with such people as Paul and that Congressman from Arizona- sorry, I'm blanking on his name- also other repukes like Walter Jones and corporate blue dog dems as well as fellow progressives.

My ballot always has a spot for write-ins. Couldn't think of a better person than Bernie. Thanks for the suggestion.

on, but he lost.

Go back and re-read that Rolling Stnes article you posted, remember?

Sanders didn't get any of those amendments passed.

They called him the "Amendment King" (or something like that) because he offered so many amendments. But they failed to pass.

It's right there in the article. You just didn't read it for comprehension.

"Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representatives. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker -- not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi -- has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions."

And he did get those three amendments the article passed- they were stripped in committee.

I won't hold my breath for your apology.

than either Sanders or Pelosi from 1997 (Dennis freshman term, Bernie's 3rd term and Pelosi's 5th term) until present.

All three passed one bill they sponsored into law.

Kucincih introduced more bills and co-sponsored more bill than either Sanders or Pelosi.

So i think the record show's he's doing a great job.

What I can't understand is why you keep trying to besmirch his record?

as it is?

We agree with him, we just won't vote for him because of what others supposedly think? That's what the right depends on. That we will give in to them, just because they don't agree, and for no other reason!

That's the kind of thinking that got us into this mess. They take more and more and more as we appease them.

Who cares that the right wingnuts can never be persuaded? Of course they can't.

A losing mentality from the get-go.

No, the right does not line up to vote for people who are too far out of the mainstream to win.

He's the best candidate.

that seems to be that we actually make these sorts of calculations. I've always believed that actual "positions" have very little to do with how most voters choose their candidates.

I'm a died-in-the-wool socialist and agree more with Dennis on positons than with the other candidates but simply think he would make a dreadful President. I like the fact that he's around to make his points, but I would no more vote for him than Santa Claus. Kinda the way I felt about Jesse Jackson when he was the counterpoint voice of opposition.

All these plans that are proposed by all the candidates have their good and bad points, but absolutely none of them will ever see the light of day. Getting legislation passed is just too complex to allow a candidate position to actually become law in whole form. More to the point is how I feel a candidate is committed to issues that I care about and will work in good faith to come up with a solution. I'm also far more interested in how responsibly the candidate can work with his or her own party and the oppositon to actually move the country in a positive direction. In ways that I care about.

I have my doubts about Hillary and Obama in those areas, but still have quite a bit of hope that they can come through. I have no doubt, however, that Dennis would be a disaster as President.

Disagree with me on my assesment of Dennis if you will, but please don't misunderstand my opposition to him.

you would have noticed that I don't expect Dennis Kucinich to be President, that was not my point at all. Please go back and read my post in a perceptive manner and then we can discuss.

It is your position people should vote for a candidate on a purely ideological basis. For example, Dennis Kucinich most represents my personal political leanings, ergo I should vote for him in the primaries.

Conversely, I would content political ideology is only half of the equation. The other half is the candidate's ability to perform the duties required by the position he is seeking. Denis can talk of universal health care until the cows come home, but if he cannot get his bills signed into law, what use will he be?

but I wasn't stupid enough to vote for him, because I know that a vote for Nader—who had no realistic chance of winning the election—was essentially a vote for Bush. Unfortunately the same holds true for Kucinich: if hell froze over and he won the nom (which he won't, thank God) it would virtually guarantee a Giuliani win, and that would be a disaster for the country. It's not unreasonable to compromise on some issues and hope for the best in order to prevent an outcome that's guaranteed to be terrible, IMO.

didn't read my post in a perceptive manner. I suggest you go back and reread what I'm trying to say. It's not about Dennis Kucinch being President.

than electing someone who's not going to perpetuate the current police-state? If so, that's what the Naderites believed, too--that ideological purity was the be-all, end-all of politics. I happen to feel that outcomes matter at least as much as principled rhetoric. Call me un-perceptive all you want.

In the primaries you work for your issues - and you press for committment for these issues. So many people are really ignorant of how this works I dispair of trying to teach political action.

and nominate a guy like Kucinich, who's going to get his ass handed to him in the general? Then what, oh wise one? Instruct us, do.

I might be speaking to 20 percent of the Democratic party. I said Liberal Democrats. If you don't consider yourself one, than I wasn't speaking to you.

then what's the point of pretending to "support" his candidacy? It's pretty obvious to me that even HE doesn't think he has a chance. It's great that he's running, and I think his presence in the race does move the debate about an eighth of an inch to the left, for whatever that's worth. But I'll reserve my support for the folks who have a chance of winning, if that's okay with you. And I'm actually somewhat to the left of "liberal," since you asked—more of a progressive libertarian.

"the conservative Christians" they vote for are many times..just Hypocritical goPerverts..go friggin figure.

Really glad you wrote this post, demnan..Rec'd!

If conservative Pugs voted their heart they would nominate Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo for pres and vice pres... The only reason they gravitate toward Frederick Of Hollywood is because they think he is more palatable to Main Street America...

Politics like most sporting events have binary outcomes except for the Olympics where you still get an award for coming in second...

You have people that think they are trying to out smart the republicans with a strategy. But the republicans aren't working from a smart strategy, they are working from an emotion strategy. They play the fear and god card and move their base. As long as we are trying to out smart that we will never make headway, we have to play to counter emotions. Dennis does play to them of love and peace - if only the media would give him fair air time.

And if it means making blatantly or implicity sexist, racist or nativists appeals for votes they will do it..

You, of course, understood what I was trying to say.

If Pugs are motivated strictly by ideology why are the most conservative candidates in the race, i.e., Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter polling at one percent, and why did Sam Brownshirt have to drop out of the race for lack of money and support?

now they don't. Bush has ruined them - they are now as cynical as the Democrats!

I don't think they are worse than folks from other professions but I certainly don't think they are any better...

I got energized working for a man who ran for Congress in my District. He had no money and no name against an obscenely rich incumbent, but through door-to-door and phone calls, he got 44 percent of the vote.

That's a small victory out of the mouth of defeat. We need more heart in this party, we need more on the ground activity and we need more push a little to get some leverage.

On edit: We did get Senator Webb! Our county, Prince William, was crucial in his victory.

Don't ever give up -- don't ever give in -- work for peace -- work for justice.

Nancy

He's anti-war and economically populist but if he wasn't Jim Webb, the war hero who turned his back on the Rethuglican party, I doubt he would be so popular here...

But VA is becoming blue or purple and that is a very nice thing to behold...

Brian

But this also proves my point. You can get lucky in politics. But all that fall I would call people and say, "these candidates are against the war in Iraq" and many people would listen. But we had a large number of people who were against the war and were out there working. This made the difference. Grass roots on the ground is the only answer to our horrible problem in government. Until we are willing to take it back and support candidates we believe it, get out there and call people, go door-to-door we won't ever get it back.

They see him as a compromise who could win. (Didn't they used the see McCain that way, too? Whatever happened to that?)

I also think that on both sides, there's pretty wide variance state to state and in some cases even district to district. That's why Dennis can win against a Republican in his Ohio House elections, but probably not against a Republican nationally. Sad but true -- it's not so much about liberals as it is about moderates, centrists, and right-of-center voters.

Richard Nixon was their Hillary Clinton...RMN was hated, absolutely loathed, by the far right wing of his own party and by the left wing...But they swallowed their pride and voted for him because they knew he would do whatever it took to win...I suspect they didn't realize how overboard he would go...Hillary Clinton is loathed by the right wing and far left wing of her party...

I digress...

They voted their heart in 64 with Goldwater and got their asses kicked...They voted their heart in 80 and 84 for Reagan and won because there was a favorable political environment and he was one of the most charismatic politicians of the twentieth century*...


*That's an empirical observation and not a normative judgement...


As an aside if the conservatives voted their heart in 2000 they would have voted for Alan Keyes...

I appreciate the fact that emotional appeals need to be used if Democrats are going to win a General Election. But I want candidates who show me that they make their policy decisions based on reason and not emotion.

...to believe that they should never trust their own instincts and should be thankful for whatever crumbs they are granted.

That's really been my take as well.

voting for the ideologically superior candidate can divide the left in a way that allows the least ideologically palatable candidate win over the second most progressive candidate.

I'm in Texas and our primary is late. If the nomination is all but sewn up, I'll probably vote for Kucinich. If I lived in Iowa, caucusing for Kucinich instead of a more electable progressive candidate would cause me real concern that I was just helping hawkish Hillary win the nomination.

If Kucinich had even as much as a ten percent chance of winning the presidency, I'd think that was enough of a chance -- and the payoff would be so great -- that'd I'd be all for Kucinich. But Kucinich doesn't have a ten percent chance of winning the presidency.

At what point do I get a better return for my vote by helping a progressive candidate like Edwards or Obama beat Hillary instead of voting for more progressive (but less electable) Kucinich?

To get to a point in the Democratic party where the liberal wing, as it used to, has a voice, we need to express ourselves politically by voting for the liberal candidate.

If liberal democrats do so, perhaps centralist democrats will listen.

Read the post again. Was there any talk of third party? Do Democrats not even know how to read anymore?

any historic perspective. Obama is well on the left half of the Democrats in the Senate. Even Hillary is left of (1) her husband's administration, (2) Jimmy Carter's administration, (3) Lyndon Johnson's administration, (3) John Kennedy's administration, and (4) Harry Truman's administration. FDR was only able to promote a more liberal agenda because America was in financial crisis. Hell, women haven't even had the vote for a century yet!

My views are out of the mainstream. That is true now, but it was no less true any time since WW II and no time in American history other than during the FDR administration.

You are right to long for a more progressive future, but you are historically inaccurate to long for a more progressive past.

who was one of the true liberal choices and anti-war candidates that year, besides Kucinich. John Kerry was just as flaky as Mrs. Clinton on the war in Iraq.

and enthusiastic participants to the Democratic Party, but if you think Dean was more "liberal" than Kerry, you have a non-traditional understanding of the term "liberal."

This is not meant as a compliment or an insult to either Dean or Kerry, but Kerry falls somewhere to the left of Dean.

I referenced the wrong post...

That's because Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter ( as president), and Clinton had a much more benign view , rightly or wrongly, of what American military power could accomplish...

I would argue that economically Truman was as liberal as Roosevelt or Johnson and more liberal than Kennedy and Clinton... He wanted Adlai Stevenson to advocate socialized medicine in his 52 campaign, Stevenson demurred...

On social issues all those cats were way to the right of any the candidates now running...

When some argue the Dems should return to their glorious past I wonder what past they are talking about...

It's not his poll numbers and it's not what he looks like. I don't think he seriously is trying to win and so I'm not going to support someone that doesn't take themselves seriously. He doesn't even have an office in Iowa yet he spends his campaign funds on traveling to Syria.

He's also a congressman with low name recognition who could enhance his chances by getting elected Governor or Senator of Ohio first, especially since Ohio is the most important swing state in the nation now.

and I'm going to campaign in two or three liberal precincts thereof (Arlington, VA) and I'm going to try to make a difference for the Democratic party by proving there are liberals in our party (i.e. vote for Dennis). This is why Dennis is running and that is why I'm supporting him.

"I really agree with Dennis Kucinich on all the issues, but he's too far left to have a chance - so I'll support (insert name here) because I like them and they might have a chance."

I agree with DK on politics. I don't plan to do anything about that because I think he has no chance to win. I also don't think he's an effective leader or coalition builder.

I'm not voting for my dream, or for a saint - I'm lending my support to the candidate who brings the greatest viability to the the closest to what I'd like to see.

I'm a lousy dancer, but I can call people on the phone. The war in Iraq is wrong. The three major candidates -- all decent people, in my opinion -- won't put an end to it in the next four years.

unless we the liberal branch of the party pound their asses with our support for somebody who will say, "Let's get out of the war in Iraq"

one of these will win and not consider it a huge priority.

I would guess that Kucinich has very little support for a number of reasons.

Plenty of conservatives are saying, "I like Mike Huckabee's faith, and the fact that he, like me, believes that the world is only 6,000 years old. But I'm going with pro-choice, pro-gay rights Rudy Giuliani because he has a chance to win."

Big corporations, media groups, rich motherfuckers, all of them have myriad opportunities to shape party policy. We have none of those. We have that primary vote to really get the attention of the Establishment. A vote for DK will wake them up.

The reason Dems have swung to the right is one of the utmost pragmatism-there are more people in the middle than at the poles. Understandable and hard to argue with. However, they are missing something important: the populace, after finally getting a good look at Neo-conservatism and its results is swinging left out of revulsion. Thence the passion for Kucinich: a big-L Liberal whose roots are in the lower classes. A fighter, when we are weary of overly-compromising wimps. A man who lives in a teeny tiny house in his old neighborhood, instead of the clubbiness of politicians who connect with each other but don't connect with us.

OF COURSE DK has gotten things done, and of course he can compromise. He also knows how and when to climb on that soapbox. An example: SCHIP. He stood up an opposed it, voted against it, because of all of the children who would have been excluded: and only voted against it because it was assured of passage. As soon as it came up for the override, he voted in favor of it. WHen unity was required, he did the right thing.

This leads to another key point: Dennis is a loyal Dem. Unlike Nader, DK is helping to expand the tent by including the Left in the primary process, when not much of anyone else is. More voters for our eventual nominee are good things, and DK is helping to get them for us. That alone is a good enough reason to get off his ass.

Finally, just to make sure my post is understood as being relevant to the OP: We have to include the Left in any viable Democratic campaign if we are to win. Trashing DK (or anyone who isn't boring enough) because he's too liberal is short-sighted and foolish. We need to be inclusive, and to defend all of our candidates against the Right-Wing Scream Machine, not aid and abet it.