OK Edwards & Kucinich supporters, gimmee your best shot. I'm teetering.

There was a poll thread the other day asking if there were any uncommitted DU'rs. Well, I am still uncommitted. I honestly do not think Gore is going to run. I actually hope he doesn't because he is doing more good outside politics these days than he could inside. (My opinion only)

Having said that, I must admit that all the candidates have good points but i now find myself leaning much more towards Edwards and Kucinich.

If you like either one, tell me why if you feel that way. Have i missed something about either guy? I'm not looking to follow a crowd, necessarily, i am just looking for that one thing or group of things i might have missed that would convince me to align myself with one or the other campaign.

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration and thoughtful responses.

He at least talks about the poor and health care and has from the start.

I believe the repulic*nts ( * = u ) are afraid Edwards will end up with the nomination.

Because of his experience as a trial lawyer, he is the candidate with the most direct personal experience
fighting corporations on behalf of individuals. :hi:

After all, he narrowly avoided being assassinated by the mob because of it

Not to be snarky and it isn't that the incident of which you speak (an incident that i am unfamiliar with) is not important, but you have more than that, don't you?

He has said he is for impeachment, and he wrote H. Res 333. He has said he is for universal health care, and has signed onto a bill in the house (767, I think) that is a step in the right direction. In other words, he has shown that he works for what he believes in. And we know from his history he won't back down and that he is personally very brave.

I have heard various stories and i admit i am unfamiliar with his stint as Mayor. I know he is strong on all the issues i care about and is very progressive. That is why he is one of my TWO choices. I am just afraid he has too much baggage from years past, that's all.

to sell a local utility company, Municipal Light, called Muni Light locally, to a bigger electric company. He knew if he sold Muni Light, he would get the support of the banks in his political campaigns. He knew if he refused to sell Muni Light, his political career would probably be over. He had first been elected to the CIty Council at 21 IIRC and was elected Mayor at 31.

He also knew that Muni Light would keep the rates lower for the people of Cleveland, so he refused to sell it. The bankers and the newspaper began a smear campaign that cost him re-election. He couldn't get a job in Cleveland, lost his house, and his marriage broke up. He left Cleveland and politics for about 15 years, when people in Cleveland asked him to return and run for the state legislature. He did so and won, serving two terms IIRC before running for the U.S. House, where he is in his sixth term.

So we know he's a guy who will stand on principle at the expense of his career.

Some ten years after he lost his re-election campaign for Mayor, Cleveland's Chamber of Commerce honored him for his refusal to sell Muni Light, citing how much money it had saved Cleveland's citizens.

I am sure there is more to this story (there always is) but i appreciate your relating this information. I was not aware of these details.

Thanks again. It means a lot.

starting with mopping floors and caddying to help pay his tuition to parochial school, working in a steel mill after high school, working as a hospital orderly, a surgical assistant, and a television cameraman. He still belongs to the cameraman's union because of his support for unions.

I don't know about all of them, but certainly many of the candidates grew up in relative affluence, went to college, law school, practiced law, went into politics. Did they ever hold a working class job? I know it did me a lot of good to do so, it was quite an education.

Since you asked about Kucinich and Edwards, it's my understanding that Edwards's father was indeed a textile mill worker but became a supervisor when John was fairly young, which would be "relative affluence" in a mill town, though far from the "relative affluence" that Clinton and Obama grew up in.

Kucinich grew up in poverty, in a family of seven kids. The family sometimes lived in a car, the older children sometimes lived in an orphanage when their mother was ill. His dad was a truckdriver but his pay didn't stretch far enough. Dennis has often said that when he had to think about selling Muni Light, he'd remember his parents sitting at their white metal kitchen table, counting pennies to come up with the money to pay the electric bill, the pennies clinking on the metal table. He thought about all the other people who had to count change to pay their electric bill and what selling Muni Light would do to them.

I think that his life experiences will continue to make Dennis Kucinich support unions and support programs to help the poor and working class, who are often the same people.

We've been lost in the shuffle, and will continue to be, without his voice.


He's channeling RFK, and doing a damned fine job of it.

End the War(s)- put money toward domestic issues
FREE HEALTH CARE!
End the Drug war- get the (quite often) poor people out of prisons
FREE PRESCHOOL AND COLLEGE (tell me that won't help poor people)
Cancel NAFTA- Stop sending JOBS to China!

Edwards just talks about poverty, but I don't see where his platform will help.

Besides that, kucinich has the credibility that we desperately need in our next president.

Kucinich led the effort against the war in Iraq
Kucinich led the effort in the House against the Patriot Act
Kucinich is the only one telling the truth about Iran

To me, this question is a no-brainer.

*THAT'S* the no-brainer.

Being second-tier or third-tier or fourth-tier in priorities will cost more lives of poor folk.

Not that it matters anymore.

I'm sure it's nothing you'll accept, given the way you asked....

Ohh shit... it's not worth it.

Have a good day.

I think it's ludicrous to suggest that Dennis Kucinich has "dropped poverty" as an issue. On tonight's debates, he was the only one to support reparations for slavery and he went on to talk about repairing the breach in income for poor whites as well.

Edwards talks a good line but I'm not sure he'd do anything about it in office. What did he do for the poor in his six years in the Senate?

Yanno, when I was working my ass off for his campaign, we Kucitizens were known for our kindly ways towards others, including rivals.

Those were the days.

Join with the rest of the name-callers. I really don't give a shit anymore. The days of empathy are long gone.

Bye.

you said. Since you're not taking PMs now, you've probably put me on Ignore, too, but I had no way to know you were back online until I noticed a post last night and sent you a PM. I have been worried about you since I hadn't heard from you or seen you posting in so long.

I could potentially be swayed if Edwards would just start using the words "Single" and "Payer" in that order. One thing thing that keeps me on the Kucinich side of the fence is Edwards' insistence on corporate, for-profit health care, a preposterous position to take for one who's putting so many of his eggs in the anti-poverty basket.

Dennis says what he means, and I almost always agree with what he says. He'll almost certainly get my support in the primaries. He'll certainly lose, too, but I don't care, in the primaries, you vote your beliefs.

Except when he doesn't.

Am I supposed to guess at what your beef is?

He started off in '04, strongly proclaiming poverty issues, so I worked my tail off for him.

Spending money I didn't have, using energy I didn't have.

Midway through, with no explanation, he dropped poverty.

Completely.

All wwwaaaarrrr, all the time.

Nope, fool me once... etc.

He hasn't abandoned the poverty issue at all. Fuckin' hell, he's from one of the most poverty stricken cities in the US (I happen to live there, too), he's highly sensitive to it. The war dominated his campaign platform, but to say that he stopped discussing poverty altogether is either disingenuous or flat out ignorant.

As I said, I was there.

Call me whatever names you wish, but don't expect a discussion.

Have at it.

Bye, now

And WTF does "I was there" mean, you were standing right next to him and he turned to you and said "Screw the poor?" I worked for his campaign too, I don't recall him losing his concern for poverty. If you lived in his city you'd know how much he does to help alleviate poverty, even outside his congressional district.

is very sad. I like bobbolink, didn't mean to make her mad.

That is why Dennis is my first choice, Edwards in second

of HR 333 and single payer healthcare.

He wants to decriminalize cannabis, which is a heck of a start.

I had been backing Obama as the best shot at keeping Hillary out of the top spot, but his healthcare proposal sucked. Dennis is right: single-payer is the way to go if we want to realize immediate savings.

This is what's great about DU...sharing the important information. I'd be waiting a long time to find that out by just watching CNN.

(BTW, I alerted on that name-calling post against you the other day. I was coming in late to the conversation, but if it was at all serious, it was way out of line. So, I've got your back.)
:hi:

homework and comes to every situation better prepared than his opposition. He is definitely the hardest working candidate I've ever seen.

No compromise, no bullshit, just the job at hand and calling it like it is. That's why Kucinich has my loyalty.

Of course Edwards may prove to be more electable. Kucinich, unfortunately, comes across like Ross Perot occasionally.

Doesn't matter to me though. Kucinich has my vote.

I think a seminal point in the 2004 campaign was when Ted Koppel referred to him as "The Boy Mayor" during a question in one of the debates. I truly feel he has been MADE to look "unelectable" intentionally.

Your comparing him to Perot is also spot-on, in my observation. This all troubles me to no end. I have been convinced for decades that those Americans most suited to actually representing the American public will rarely get the chance to do so because of such absurd and often forced perceptions.

No one should allow the neocons and DLC to determine who is electable and who is not.

perfectly prove that point I don't know what does.

I don't think it's going to change anytime soon ~ unfortunately.

because i actually did have a little laugh out loud while reading your post. So true.

On the other hand, as far as i am concerned, i see myself much preferring having a beer and a game of darts concurrent with a stimulating conversation about global politics with Mr. Al Gore (Or Mr. Kucinich, Or Mr. Edwards) than i EVER would with that ignorant, illiterate, shallow, supercilious preppie fuck from Kennebunkport.

The rest (except Gravel) are "business as usual." (Gravel's tax positions are far too Cato for me.)

that he's a lawyer, and too many lawyers who will do anything to win a case. He talks a good line but he wouldn't be a millionaire or billionaire lawyer if he couldn't convince jurors, so is he just talking a good line or does he mean it? I've read that he didn't do anything significant in his term in the Senate to help the poor.

and i have no problem with the "Chief Executive" being one either.

Again, perceptions. It is all about our perception of the man (or woman, as the case may be)

Personal injury attorneys I've known have been MOSTLY liberal, principled, hard-working, and genuinely dedicated to fairness and justice.

Unlike some, I found Erin Brockovich to be fairly true-to-life ... and I've had enough experience with corporate wrongs and attorneys to form that opinion. If anything, it downplayed PG&E's corruption.

has voted against funding the war at every opportunity while the other candidates in Congress have voted to fund the war.

Its an issue that has real potential to cripple our future economically. None of the other Dems have had the courage to back it, though in their hearts they know its the only real solution.

but if I had to choose, I'd definitely go with Kucinich.

He's been a life-long liberal with a long record to back that up. He has changed his position on abortion, but other than that, he's stayed pretty consistent. He's the only candidate who voted against the war (Obama opposed it, but didn't vote, while Edwards voted for it). He's the only candidate supporting gay marriage. He's the only candidate to completely oppose the death penalty (Obama allows exceptions for Bin Laden). He's the only candidate pushing a single-payer health care plan. He's the only candidate to vote against the Patriot Act (Edwards voted for it). So there's really no comparison.

Because that is precisely what i am looking for - comparison. And there are comparisons to be made. On health care, on Iraq, etc. etc. etc ad infinitum.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments, however.

He pulled a Joe Lieberman TWICE! Switched to indy when he lost in primary races! Check it out...research it...

With Kooch...it's GWB, but liberal...my way or the highway...

The man fired his police chief on LIVE TV while mayor of Cleveland!!!!

He has ZERO consensus building ability!

Don't get me wrong..I LIKE what Dennis says...but we do not live in a positive/negative/binary world...one must compromise...

Quote: "Uncompromising men are easy to admire. He has courage. So does a dog. But, it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man noble."-Braveheart

apologized for firing the police chief (I think it was the fire chief, BTW) and said he was wrong to do so.
He admitted his mistake and apologized to the man.

I think putting his career on the line for principle in not selling Muni Light to to appease the banks is significant, the other not so important. At 61, I think he's far less likely to make a mistake such as he did at 31, but will still stand on principle as he did back then. Most of us are wiser as we get older.

What is it you think Dennis should compromise on?

On ending the war?

On providing single payer healthcare?

On gay marriage?

On repealing the PATRIOT Act?

On getting the US out of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO?

In reality, presidents have to make some compromises but I don't think the time to do so is during the campaign, which is what some are doing.

-On ending the war?-I think Biden has it right on this issue...there has tobe a plan that leaves the best possible scenario for ALL involved...

-On providing single payer healthcare? Personally I would love it...but not yet...we need baby steps on this issue...JE has the most workable plan at this point...

-On gay marriage?- Both JE and DK have their opinions on this, I do think DK is right.

-On repealing the PATRIOT Act?=Agree with DK on this one as well...(as I think all candidates do)

-On getting the US out of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO? - Here is where DK loses me...He has stated that his first act as POTUS would be to repeal NAFTA...this would throw our economy inot shambles...like it or nor...right or wrong, but that is a fact and this is where Dennis can not see the forest for the trees...

"-On getting the US out of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO? - Here is where DK loses me...He has stated that his first act as POTUS would be to repeal NAFTA...this would throw our economy inot shambles...like it or nor...right or wrong, but that is a fact and this is where Dennis can not see the forest for the trees..."
I don't think it would! I think it would be good for our economy! What do you think would happen?

DK is the best choice IMHO! I could vote for a DK/JE '08 ticket!

No pandering. Pro gay marriage, voted against the war.

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT!!

What else is there?

My gut feeling is that Kucinich is more genuinely progressive but has less of a chance in the primaries. I might support Edwards if it looks like he has a chance against more corporate-seeming candidates. Otherwise I might support Kucinich just to register with the Party my support for his platform.

and i agree with your perspective. Kucinich, like Nader and McGovern and others in our nations political past are just not...oh....."Palatable"? perhaps? to the American public FOR WHATEVER REASON.

The televised debate is so much an "On camera moment" kind of thing. "Say your answer and find the camera with the light on, look at it and smile!" seems to be how it is done. Too much of it without substance, or a serious lack of it, anyway. Kucinich could very well be precisely what this country needs but i fear precisely what this country needs is something it will never get.

Dennis Kucinich has the better platform, and a better record of working for that platform while in Congress. Edwards has more money and more "mainstream" support.

Kucinich earns my vote with his platform and record. While I like Edwards, I haven't forgotten his IWR vote, or his support for the Patriot Act. His message has improved since '04, which is good, but not good enough for me this time around.

Dennis Kucinich is by far the best man for the job, so he gets my vote. I'm not going to be bullied into the "I like him best but..." capitulation.

In my Democratic Primary, I'll cast my vote for the best man for the job.

If you are torn between Kooch and JE, then by default you are opposed to Hillbama....right????

If you recognize that Kooch can not win the primary, then why throw your support there when a vote for JE COULD make a difference?

Just curious?

the primaries if people voted for the guy they really want instead of the guy they think has a better chance.

Please understand that I'm speaking from my heart, from ideals that I hold dear.

First, I am a very leuk-warm Democrat. The only value the Democratic Party has for me is as a vehicle to affect the change I wish to see. I have no emotional connection, no patriotic connection, to a political party. Therefore, if it doesn't look like the Democratic Party, or a Democratic candidate, is likely to affect that change, I don't feel obligated to give my vote. My vote is earned, not owed. Hence my admittedly harsh sigline. Earn it or lose it, but don't play the blame game if you choose to lose it.

I distrust political parties and politicians on principle. Any time people are contending for power, there will be elements of corruption.

My goal is not to put a political party in power, but to put PEOPLE who are the least corruptible, people who can be trusted to keep commitments and work to achieve goals.

Let's be clear: I don't think the Democratic Party, or mainstream Democratic voters, are on that page with me. I think party power stands higher than platform or integrity.

I think, therefore, that the only way that my vote will EVER have any effect at all on the goals that I vote to achieve is to withhold my vote from powermongers. Period.

I can't judge others for choosing 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th best because they think the best "can't win," if I do so myself. And I do judge them.

We'll never get the best unless we have the courage to support the best, and to cast our vote for the best. People who fear to cast their vote for the candidate they think would make the best president ARE the problem, imo. They enable corruption. The enable corporate control of the political process.

I think Dennis Kucinich is the best, based on platform and record, of the current crop. Therefore, he will get my vote. I won't enable corruption and control of the political process.

When it comes to the general election, if a candidate that I cannot, in good conscience, support is nominated, then the Democratic candidate will not get my vote. I think that voting for candidates I don't actually want to hold the office enables the corruption. So I won't do it. What will I do instead? I don't know. I've got about 15 months to decide. Whatever I do, though, my vote is the Party's to win, or lose. It's earned, not owed.

I understand why the Edwards campaign would seek Kucinich voters; they are closer on issues, and it happened in a caucus in '04. I would rather see Edwards go after Obama voters, personally. Obama is "charismatic;" a great speaker, and has lots of money behind him for a slick campaign. His record is weak, and his platform is weaker, imo. If voters could get past the engaging commercials, the passionate speeches, and take a cold, hard look at the platform, I think his support is vulnerable.

The bottom line for me: "Winning" doesn't mean putting the wrong person in office, just because they are a democrat.

"Winning" is working to make the political process honest and fair.

I do however have achallenge for you:

You seem to think that your "vote" is something to be lost, while I believe it is something to be given to the man or woman whom can best suit your needs. Like it or not a POTUS will be elected come next November and you can either do your part to further your agenda (by baby steps if needs be) or you can sit back and sulk b/c others realize that it is compromise that moves the world along...

I can just say this:

My vote is "earned," rather than "lost." I treat it as if it really means something, and I agree with you that it is to be given to the man or woman who can best suit my needs.

The sticking point is this: if I don't think the people on the ballot best suit those needs, then I will not give the vote.

I will compromise in many areas, but not in all. The areas that I will not give on are:

No votes for war supporters.

No votes for those who would reauthorize NCLB. I'm really sorry that they didn't allow every candidate to answer the one NCLB question tonight.

No votes for something bearing the label "universal health care" which includes for-profit insurance companies.

I'm open on much of the rest, although it occurs to me that I might add paper ballots to the list above.

Still, that's a conversation about the general election. In my primary, I don't have to compromise. I'll vote for the best.

If, for some reason, there is no candidate I feel comfortable supporting, I'll still be too busy to sit home and sulk. I'll be busy working on local and state elections, and busy contacting my congress people, supporting issues in every other way I can.

:toast:

Heres to the race and may the best win!

May the best win.

:toast:

I detest the 'gaming' of votes in order to divide and conquer and gain some narrow interest advantage over the vast majority of working people. I must vote my conscience - even if with a write-in.

This is not a judgment; you don't have to defend a position. But if you're looking for issues where one candidate cleary outshines the other, well: Kucinich is FOR same-sex marriage, Edwards against it.

I realize that to most people, gay rights is just one issue among many. However, as a gay man, I'd have to say it's the ONLY issue. Gays are legally second class citizens in this country. Kucinich is willing to say that that's wrong. Edwards, not so much.

DK has great foresight, knowledge of issues, and excellent judgment, and is not afraid to speak his mind:

The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich
The Progressive magazine, November 2002

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip---
We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.
snip---
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.
snip---
If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Bloodstained_Path.html


Obviously Oil
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet
Posted on March 11, 2003

Editor's Note: Although Dennis Kucinich was aggressively attacked by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for suggesting that the preemptive strike on Iraq was based on oil, the Post refused to print the presidential candidate and Ohio Democrat's response. This was especially frustrating, since the Post editorial stance and balance of editorial page columns have been decidedly pro-war. You can tell the Post how you feel about this ommission at ombudsman@washpost.com.

Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes, the obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the President's march to war, just as oil is a major factor in every aspect of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.
snip---
Meanwhile, the justifications the Administration has made for this war can be rather easily dismissed. Contrary to Administration assertions, a war against Iraq will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't have the ability, nor has it ever had the ability, to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
snip---
Contrary to the Administration's portrayal of an Iraqi threat, Iraq is hardly uniquely threatening. Sixteen other countries in the world have or might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have chemical weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological weapons, and 16 other countries have or might have missile systems. Yet the Bush Administration is not on the verge of invading them.
snip---
Contrary to their denials that this war has anything to do with oil, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle wanted to go to war in Iraq long before they became Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In a 1998 letter they sent to then-President Clinton, they stated "it hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction ... a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard... The only acceptable strategy is ... to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

http://www.alternet.org/story/15359/

DK understands the inherent dangers of corporate control of our government:

Corporate Power

The challenge before us today is whether we can maintain a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether we will timidly accept the economic, social, and political consequences of a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
snip---
We cannot stand by idly while powerful economic engines -- virtually unregulated corporations -- violate workers' rights, human rights, and the environment, sweeping aside antitrust laws, eliminating competition.

We need a new relationship between our government and corporate America, an arms-length relationship, so that our elected leaders are capable of independently affirming and safeguarding the public interest. Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state. This begins with government taking the responsibility to establish the conditions under which corporations can do business in the United States, including the establishment of a federal corporate charter that describes and clearly delineates corporate rights and responsibilities.
snip--
I am working to prevent the privatization of Social Security, of water, of municipal services, and of our democracy.

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/issues/corp_power.php

I like John Edwards too, he is my second choice by wide margin. However, Rep. Kucinich's foresight, his addressing of issues such as corporate power, along with his healthcare plan, plan for troop withdrawal, impeachment plan, awareness of the dangers of electronic voting, etc. compel me to see Dennis as the most capable, aware, and knowledgeable candidate.

AND, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY ARE THE CANDIDATES THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT PRESS DO NOT REALLY WANT TO BE HEARD --

has remained relatively friendly. Good job by the DK and JE supporters. (and I say this as someone who has basically tried to ignore the upcoming primary!)

peace lovers (but we'll fight for our rights and any body else's rights!):hi:

has the best position on gay rights.

He has sponsored bills that would make the lending industry more forthright and has even tried to put a cap on interest rates that can be charged.

He would establish a Department of Peace. (What a concept!:applause: )

He has experience fighting corporations as a trial lawyer and champions the poor and middle class.

He supports civil union rights for gays (but doesn't support gay marriage, similar to all other candidates but Kucinich).

video link

watch the other videos of DK at youtube! He's the best candidate IMHO!

Also read his healthcare plan. He wants to let everyone buy into medicare cheaply. This will slowly put the insurance companies out of business. It is a realistic plan to implement. Finally, Thom Hartmann really likes him.

they can't win. They could not beat Rudy. Only candidates who can beat Rudy or Fred need to get nominated. If Kucinich was the nominee, the Democrats would lose by a landslide. That's the worst possible result. Edwards, likewise, cannot win.

Dennis is a person who has a plan for every issue that confronts this country, and Edwards seems pretty genuine, and has a plan for each issue. Too soon for me to make a decision just listening to each of them very carefully.