Last Minute Moves In Iowa - Kucinich Urges Supporters To Back Obama, Nader Supports Edwards
By Logan Murphy Monday Dec 31, 2007 9:01pm
Presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich, has written a letter to his Iowa supporters asking them to support Barack Obama in precincts where he believes he will not be successful:
"I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change." Read on...
Another endorsement that may have run a bit under the radar -- Ralph Nader is supporting John Edwards in Iowa.
In an 11th hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" Edwards by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected. Read on...
The Kucinich endorsement admittedly caught me by surprise, but should it have? Any time Ralph Nader shows up in a post here at C&L there is usually a great deal of debate about him and his past political career -- but could this signal a new direction for him? What, if anything, does his endorsement do for John Edwards at this stage of the campaign as he tries to win over voters who may still consider him a second choice candidate?
Login or Register to post comments.
Kucinich is consistently smart and puts his country ahead of his personal interests. I really like him. Barack Obama earned Kucinich's respect and that is a big deal. Vote Barack Obama in '08
If it stops Hillary, i'm happy.
It is interesting to see Kucinich back Obama. With Kucinich you can clearly see where he stands on the issues. With Obama, it is about appealing to the center, regardless of where the center is or what the centre believes in.
Yeah, but Mitt Gets the Endorsement of The Stepford Wives
Edwards is a first choice candidate to me, based on the field I see right now. We'll see what the folks in Iowa think real soon.
Everyone keeps saying Obama is "center"...hey maybe that is what will elect the Dems to the Whitehouse. Sure hasn't been Kerry, or Gore, so hey, why not.
Gee Ralph - thanks allot for the advice. Maybe if you would have kept your own arrogant ass out of the race 8 years ago we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in today.
Nader's a decent guy, but a bad gambler. I'll admit that Edwards might get some red states, but he doesn't have the drive and determination to take it to the next level. He stands out as the white male candidate of the party, but that's about it. If he really wanted to impress me, he'd attack Kerry and Gore; and he'd try to demonstrate that he can learn from his mistakes better than them and Obama. He's only standing on "principle" now, because it's convenient, which puts him closer to Gore than Obama. As much as people admire the new Al and John, I'm sure they would rather vote for candidates who didn't simply pander to them, but respected them the first time around.
Orangutan. @ 1:
SCREW OBAMA! He is JUNK! He doesn't believe that the president or vp has committed impeachable acts.... obama just wants a get out of jail free card or is CLUELESS.... im thinking clueless....
im very surprised by kucinich's statement....
I'm still voting for Kucinich in the primary. I'm holding on to hope that the American people will come to their senses...I have no idea what I'm basing that hope on.
well I guess I won't be takine Kucinich's advice. I'm voting for Edwards. Obama is too center right for me. Edwards has the best chance of brining in a victory for the Democrats!
Neil @ 7:
No kidding. The way he ranted against Gore really looks silly now.
I was favoring Edwards, with a nod to Dodd.
Edwards/Dodd is the way to go. Obama is too fakey.
sorry but as much as I like his ideas, Edwards comes off as a little too effete to win the whole enchilada.
As much as I admire Kucinich, I find his support of Obama to be bordering upon loathsome. Obama is against the immediate withdrawal of the troops from that abattoir in Iraq which Kucinich supports. Obama is in favor of keeping the option of bombing Iran on the table which Kucinich opposes. Obama is against impeaching Cheney and Bush which Kucinich logically supports. Obama's health care plan is in favor of keeping the insurance companies in the equation, which means keeping profit over the interests of the people while Kucinich sees the wisdom of advocating a universal health care plan for everyone in this country.
Kucinich seems to be close to repeating history, when he ended up endorsing Kerry in 2004, whose position on the Iraq War should have been anathema to Kucinich's anti-war position vis a vis Iraq. Given Kucinich's bizarre position regarding Obama, progressives may want to think about casting their votes this year for the Green Party candidate.
I'm taking a page from Obama's playbook and not actually VOTE for him, just vote 'present'.
Way to split the anti-Hillary vote Kucinich (just like Hillary wanted).
Oh, and by the way you're an asshole for betraying all your progressive supporters. Obama is OK, but CLEARLY your supporter's politics favor Edwards, by far!!
I hope the payola/job offer was worth it. Jerk.
Orangutan. @ 1:
We agree on many things Orangutan but not this one. Not by a long shot.
Using the word "consistent" in the same sentence as Kucinich and saying he puts his country first rings awfully hollow. In 2004 Kucinich had a chance to throw his support behind the only other serious Anti-War candidate in the field, Howard Dean. Instead he put his personal animosity ahead of country and threw his support behind John Edwards in Iowa. Now he's got a chance to support the only other candidate to renounce lobbyist-based corruption and instead throws in not with the man he thought was good enough 4 years ago but with a man who has openly stated that lobbyists are a necessary part of governing and seeks counsel from Joe Lieberman regarding important foreign policy decisions.
Dennis Kucinich strikes me as a political opportunist, desperately struggling to stay relevant in a field of people far more capable than himself. He seems to be the absolute worst kind of panderer as today's endorsement so blatantly illustrates. Anyway... That's my personal take and I'm sure we're bound to hear many more.
Neil @ 7:
Ditto that!
:)
abarts @ 16:
Or send a letter to him saying you supported him, but didn't see the need to vote for him.
Whoever wins the democratic nomination will be the next president, and I hate to say it but it looks like Clinton is winning. Nader is right about her, she is as corrupt as her husband. The Republicans would LOVE it if she won, because they have a better chance of winning with her.
I would love to see a woman in the White House. I really would. But not her. :-(
I'm very upset that Dennis is basically giving up. I feel betrayed that he wants me to support Obama. But if he's gonna throw in the towel, I'm backing the only other anti-war candidate (besides Edwards). I won't mention him by name , but he's not a democrat.
When people like Peggy Noonan, George Wills et al call Edwards effete, I start to think he must be macho...
Ok...I was willing to give Dennis the benefit of the doubt; but knowing what I know about Obama, and his identical voting record to HIllary Clinton's, I can't see why dennis is being dishonest with the "change" mantra.
There's room to move in the Democratic race; I'm voting for whomever gets it...but I want honesty between them. Yes, I am voting for Hillary...I just do not like it when people are dishonest and misrepresent themselves.
I looked at the voting records side by side of Hillary, and Barack....they're identical except for 4 votes, which were minor...
Change? Compared to what?
kooch must have made a deal with obie.
I like Edwards...I just don't understand why he can't get traction across the country?
But once again...ANY DEM OVER ANY REPUBLICAN
I am really rooting for Edwars and now that I know more about Obama and his more centrist views, yes I am worried. Let's pull for Edwards. Obama is better than Hillary though
The idea was that all the progressive candidates would support the most progressive front-runner -- at least that's how I saw it. That means Nader, Kucinich, (New Gore™ has to remain neutral, but we know where his politics ended up), even Dodd might vote for Edwards. Richardson will whore out for either Hillary or Obama, whoever promises him the most juicy pay-out, though he is perpetually up Clintons backside.
The difference is Nader learned from his past mistakes, Dennis is too arrogant or selfish to learn. I would STRONGLY encourage any of the Kucinich campaign contributors to make your anger known to Dennis and the campaign in Iowa. Naders commitment only serves to highlight just what a betrayal this is by Dennis, in my opinion.
That's your money that he used, where do YOU think those caucus goers should end up? If Hillary offers him a better job, do you want your votes going to her? Or Edwards?
I'm actually pretty surprised and pissed off by this. There's no link on the page, are we sure this is legit?
Sure, Obama has flaws, but he doesn't have blood on his hands like Edwards. He seems like the kind of guy who would make the right decision when it counts, not when it's too late. People supported Billary, because he promised free health care; and then he ended up being the most conservative President in the Democratic Party! I'd rather have a guy who has his head on his shoulders than a guy who makes big promises he won't keep.
Kucinich's comment that the thing he and Obama have in common is "change" is idiotic.
The change Kucinich was supposed to represent was a change from corporate domination of the government.
Obama is up to his ears in corporate money.
Kucinich spoke often of the need to impeach Bush and Cheney for their criminal actions and defilement of the Constitution.
Obama is against it.
Kucinich was for a change in national policy regarding Iraq. He wanted immediate withdrawal. He voted against funding.
Obama is for no change. He votes to fund the war. He is opposed to immediate withdrawal of troops and envisions them lingering there indefinitely. He even campaigned on behalf of Lieberman last year.
Kucinich spoke about the obvious assault on civil liberties posed by the Patriot Act. Obama voted for it.
The only change that Obama represents is a racial one. He has garnered support from some liberals citing his "face" or his "identity" as a reason to vote for him. They think that if Obama is elected, the Muslim world will say, "You know, the Man is alright".
Either Obama or Edwards needs to quit or Clinton will win, and that would really suck.
Orangutan. @ 1:
I want to know what deal was made.
Without qouting the several negative comments, let me add mine. What the hell is up with Kucinich? Who's his next "endorsement" ? Rudy?
I'm in NH so like it or not my vote counts more than most of you here (unless you're in Iowa or my state). Just tonight I was telling the better half that for the very first time in nine presidential primaries I could vote "for" someone instead of "against" someone. Dennis was my guy. But if this news is true he has lost my vote.
I hope Edwards wins the nomination. All the conservatives can say against him is, " How dare you talk about helping the poor and middle class when you're rich! " Fortunately, all he has to do is reply, " All I want to do is restore to the poor and middle class the opportunities that I used to achieve my success. You shouldn't have to start rich to become rich. Not in America."
I am VERY disappointed in Kucinich's endorsement of Obama and certainly won't take his advice personally. There's hardly an inch of difference between Obama and Hillary on Constitutional matters, which must be restored before government can effectively operate again. John Edwards has his weaknesses, too, but his stand on keeping corporations out of politics and restoring middle America is very important.
Somehow, the Democrats are missing a really good candidate this go-round, strong in all areas, though the final candidate will probably be the next president since the Republicans have such loser candidates. I just hope it isn't Hillary, and I don't feel much more enthusiastic about Obama. So I'll pull for Edwards in the caucuses and primaries since Kucinich has given up the ghost and passed his mantle quite unwisely to Obama. They aren't similar politically AT ALL.
Nader is being refreshingly pragmatic while Kucinich is being predictably selfish.
Kucinich is a petty player hater when it comes to his POTUS bids.
nader gave us bush!
Otay @ 23:
I dyke and a closeted queer passing judgement on a good ole boy. Now I've seen it all.
Frankly I'm not afraid of the "centrist views" of any Dem candidate in this race. Fact is, its the way you have to get elected right now, especially if you're a Dem. Remember how chimpy won by running on a centrist theme in 2000? How nobody thought there was much difference anymore between the parties? SSDD here folks. You gotta look past the center and think about who will do the best to carry out a real liberal agenda as POTUS.
I am a strong supporter of Kucinich but he may have just lost me. A vote for Obama is a vote for Republican-Lite. A vote for Hillary or Barrack is a vote for status quo and big business and making insurance companies richer. I think I am switching my support to John Edwards. He is the only progressive candidate with a chance.
Edwards 08
Edwards is the advocate for the consumer. One of Obama's few votes in the senate was with the Republicans on limiting consumers' right to sue in a class action suit.
Kucinich is wrong on this...and also used Obama's republican pejorative against Edwards: "Trial Lawyer".
And what the FUCK Is wrong with that when he's fighting the corporations??
Sure enough. From his campaign website.
He isn't giving up, he'll still run in New Hampshire.
He just made a deal with Obama for payola to stab Edwards in the back -- screw the issues, and fixing government.
Again. Dennis, you are a jerk and a have betrayed us all. Thankfully you're only selling out 2 or 3%, but if Edwards slips by that much: congratulations. You're the new Nader.
Politico has an article on Nader's endorsement.
Nader, your off my shit list. Finally.
Anthology @ 30:
Well said. My comments at #15 echo much of what you have said. What Kucinich has done amounts to a betrayal to the faith that many progressives had placed in him. As for Edwards, it is important to keep in mind that he, like Obama and Clinton, is against impeachment and that he could not promise that he would withdrawal all the troops by the end of his term in 2013. Also, Edwards, like Obama and Clinton, had said that he could not promise to take off the option of bombing Iran, which would mean the deaths of thousands of innocent Iranians. True progressives may wish to seriously think about casting their vote for the Green Party candidate.
I want the money back Kucinich. I didn't give it to you so I can get advice as to whom to vote for other than yourself . To endorse a corporate idiot like Obama is sickening and making me more angry as I sit here reading comments.
I'd trust Kucinich's advice and instincts. Obama knows how to play the game to get elected. JFK had to do that too. It's part of the deal.
These days, what the politicians call "center" really means "not upsetting the 30% backwash, because their voices are louder than the 70% who want a swing to the left".
The big news should be that in 2004 Kucinich told his supporters to do the same for edwards (the night of the caucuses). I wonder what changed?
OliverDreams @ 41:
I could not put it better.
If you folks are only seeing Obama for his senate votes, you are missing a pretty huge part of his equation.
I don't understand why Kucinich would back Edwards in 2004 but now won't. Does he know something about Edwards that we don't?
His policies are definitely closer to Edwards' than to O'Bama's. Why would he back O'Bama? Maybe Kucinich watches Oprah. Maybe O'Bama offered Kucinich a role in his government. Who knows. I just hope Kucinich can clarify his position better than "change".
Neil @ 7:
Ah, the eternal whine of the Democrats.
Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine...
Gore won in 2000, it was rigged, he drew progressives to the polls to the benefit of local candidates.
your "spoilers":
250K Florida Dems who voted for Bush
The Supreme Court
Katherine HarrisJeb Bush
Tennessee
Al Gore
He did NOT get Bush elected.
[Lose the personal attacks and insults and the childish, all-caps/bold 'screaming' or sit on the sidelines and read other people's comments for a few weeks. -Sitemonitor]
I would imagine that Kucinich favored Obama because, unlike Edwards, Obama's record actually matches what he preaches. Edwards preaches change and populism but consistently voted against the popular republic when he was in senate. Obama has always been consistent with his values and principles.
So what if Edwards is anti-corporation now?! He allowed the biggest corporate shill of a President to run the country into the ground. That alone automatically cancels anything he's stood for in the past, present, and future. I'm not going to reward him for only "seeing the light" after the damage was done!
Mike @ 53:
I meant Nader drew progressives to the polls to the benefit of local candidates. Not Gore.
Orangutan. @ 47:
Normally yes, I would trust Kucinich. You're spot on on his instincts.
But enough of "the game." Say something to get elected and do something else once you are? Isn't that what "they" do? It's "the game" we're trying to get away from.
And try not to get so soft and creamy about JFK just because he had good hair and fucked movie stars. He approved the Bay of Pigs invasion and got us into Vietnam. Have you heard the Oval Office tapes that came out earlier this year. He wasn't in office a week before they were having daily discussions about which foriegn leaders they could have the CIA whack.
Mike @ 59:
Boy you make a lot of great points there. Touche.
No, just one. I try to stick to the topic unlike wingnuts who tend to go unhinged in any direction but the one expected.
Kucinich is just being peevish. He's no more similar to Obama than I am to Queen Elizabeth. Puh-leeze! I once had some respect for the man.
Gary @ 2:
Me too!
Anyone but shillary!
Kucinich always has a desire to take out the candidate he feels has pulled away most of his supposed, "would be" supporters.
Last election he endorsed Edwards to help take down Dean, this year it's Barack to take down Edwards.
Kucinich is player hating yet again. In his mind, he thinks he should be positioned where Edwards is, so he's gonna punish Edwards for it....just as he did with Dean.
His campaign strategies are petty...i remember it was about this time in the primary cycle in 2004 that he was saying he was the only candidate that could stop a full on draft...and that if you didn't vote for him, there would be a draft under anyone else.
Unfortunatley, DK puts petty personal vendettas above helping advance the most progressive platforms.
I thought Dean's platform was more progressive than Edwards in 04' and I think Edwards platform is much more progressive than Obama's this time.
Too bad DK doesn't think this pragmatically...
Neil @ 7:
Always amusing when we hear how smart it is for the Democratic candidates to shit all over progressive voters (you know, like picking Joe Lieberman as a running mate . . .) and pander to the wingnut voter (usually phrased as "running to the center"). It's the "winning strategy" you know. Then when progressive voters naturally look elsewhere, here come guys like Neil whining and crying because the progressives didn't run out and vote for their guy anyway. Boo fucking hoo.
For the record, Gore won anyway. He wasn't up for the fight, though. Guess that's Nader's fault too . . .
below_me @ 9:
Is it just me, or are the anti-Obama people getting increasingly over-the-top in the last few days? He must be doing really well to have so many people so agitated all of a sudden. I think a number of people are worried about the viability of their own preferred candidate and are venting irrationally here.
So he doesn't want to impeach? That makes him no different from the majority of the Democratic candidates. While Bush and Cheney richly deserve impeachment, there is something to be said for moving on towards repairing the damage, instead of spending the next year bogged down in hyper-partisan impeachment proceedings that would almost certainly not succeed anyway.
for what it's worth i'm for edwards. but seems everytime i donate to or ask others to support a candidate they explode in the most awful way. maybe it's a test. see if you can take it edwards.
Since the Kucinich "recommendation" isn't an endorsement, and is "good for one time only" in Iowa, I'm having a hard time seeing it as anything other than tactical (although with no Iowa presence, it's hard to see what Kucinich has to be tactical about).
Given that it's tactical, I don't see the Kucinich statement as burnishing Obama's progressive credentials one iota, although his fan base would like to see it that way.
Now I'm confused. Thank God I'm in California and it'll all be decided for me long before I fill in the blank space between the arrows. Oh, wait a minute - Happy New Year's to me!!! I've been supporting Edwards by way of Kucinich for months now. I gotta really question myself about why I would change that to Obama. And then Nader, well, as a Green in Democrat's clothing, I'm so relieved. It's like having your uncle released from prison after his DNA clears him.
Otay @ 48:
What you said, Otay!
Neil @ 40:
Unmitigated nonsense. The center of the American public is, at this point, to the left of the Democratic party establishment on most issues. The pretend center between the two parties is where wacko right wing extremists were 20-30 years ago. Our politicians have moved much, much further right over recent years than the public has. Edwards is probably about as centrist as politicians come, and he's run by far the left-most campaign of the Democrats with a realistic chance to win.
oh you silly liberals. anyone who considers themselves a progressive would do wise to listen to the advice of ralph nader, as he is more progressive than anyone running on the D ticket in the last 3 national elections. gore lost the election because of (1) vote fraud, (2) the supreme court handing it to bush, and (3) gore running a horrible campaign that was virtually the same as bush's. if any of these awful candidates win the white house, nothing will change. just like nothing's changed now that they control congress. the two party's are different wings of the same entity. they just have different ways of pandering to you. "conservatives" pander to religious fanaticism and "security", while the liberals pander to do-gooders. in the end, the policies are the same; only the means of enforcing them differ.
kucinich wants obama , fuck bothe of them , no more of my money goes to the kooch!
for some reason Jeremy at #65 says:
"So he doesn’t want to impeach? That makes him no different from the majority of the Democratic candidates. While Bush and Cheney richly deserve impeachment, there is something to be said for moving on towards repairing the damage, instead of spending the next year bogged down in hyper-partisan impeachment proceedings that would almost certainly not succeed anyway."
-------------------------
jeremy, says: if we ALL roll over and not just play dead but join in killing our own selves then we win! yay! usa!usa!usa!
don't make a fuss! heck, if we all just forget about the crimes against humanity and the war crimes and the trashing of our constitution and, tc, etc then allll will be swell:)
let's all forgive and forget and go shopping or to a footfuckingballgame and cheerlead like we have sold tomorrow.
Mike @ 53:
I see a bias in the choice of photos for this thread. Notice Edwards hand? Weird.
Steven @ 63:
if true, that is a very disturbing revelation about kucinich.
Rob J @ 70:
Yup, see "Overton Window."
As far as Obama, I *still* can't figure out what he stands for. What the hell is this "change" he talking about? Enforced profits for HMOs? He for that. Occupation of Iraq for another four years? He certainly won't disavow that. Somebody here said "Hillary lite," and that about sums it up. The ONLY change I want to see is the country returning to how it was when I grew up.
As far as his electability, see "Wilder Effect." Most of the Republican candidates would whip his skinny ass every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
As long as Biden doesn't win, I'll be happy enough. Is it too late to recruit Russ Feingold?
disco inferno @ 75:
He's telling Nader to back off. :)
swarmofmonkeykillers says:
"I would STRONGLY encourage any of the Kucinich campaign contributors to make your anger known to Dennis and the campaign in Iowa. Naders commitment only serves to highlight just what a betrayal this is by Dennis, in my opinion."
----------------------------------
i let them know how i felt just after kucinich said that he'd consider ron paul for a running mate.
what the hell? every one of these guys that i think is ok at first turns into the very devil the next month or two...what the hell?
i suppose edwards and dodd will grow horns soon--everybody else has.
i'm still hoping, what else can i do?
Otay @ 56:
I must be on the same trip because I agree completely.
WHat happened to all the folks who were going to vote for Dodd when he stood up against telecom immunity? Just curious if he did anything to fall out of favor or if all that "Support Dodd" talk was just a load a crap. I'm still planning on voting for the one guy willing to stand up for us while the others were busy campaigning.
Jenny'O @ 66:
I listeded to Edwards for the first time today on CNN "Ballot Bowl" He was really GOOD today and he has my full support and for the first time with $$ The problem is the media has had a boycott on him for a long time. I really started to like him when at Thanksgiving I overheard my diehard republican father in law say to my mother in law while they were watching the news (about Edwards) "He's nothing but a silver tounged snake a sneaky devil" with all the seriousness of a heart attack and I think that is what will happen to the Republican Party if Edwards wins the nomination - they'll have a collective heartattack right in the heart of the borg.
Hillary is going down.
And it is great to see Dennis supporting Obama. He is a great man of principle and my respect for him went way up after hearing this. For everyone supporting Edwards - give it up and put your support behind Obama, so we can be sure to beat the bitch. I love John Edward's message, but he can't win. Perhaps Obama will pick him as VP, but he's done. Obama right now is the candidate for change. The corrupt Clinton's have ruled and polarized Washington for too long. It's about time to kick them the hell out and Obama has a JFK like aura around him and he will be the next President.
Stupid Git @ 82:
Edwards and Dodd "here"
Anyone here remember the performance Edwards put up against Cheney in the Vice Presidential Debate. It wasn't memorable or good for that matter. We need someone different than the Edwards/Clinton crap we've gotten in the past. I respect Clinton as a Senator. She seems to be good and I like women in office, but we don't need another Clinton in the White House. Edwards seems like a fighter for the poor which I respect, but he couldn't out debate Cheney. That was sad to see. I don't see how he can make it to the White House with those debating skills.
That leaves Obama. Which we don't know much about except he has a tendency to vote along with the Democrats and Hillary in the past. His debating skills might be better than Edwards though. I'd like to see.
Stupid Git @ 82:
That was all theater and no one will waste their vote on Dodd. In Iowa it doesn't matter because you are basically being forced to vote for her highness, obama or edwards. A vote for Edwards is kinda like a vote for Hillary though. Obama wins Iowa and it's going to snowball to NH and he will win the nomination.
budda @ 84:
There goes Kucinich's calls for impeachment. What a hypocrite that guy is. I sure am glad I did not contribute a dime to him. He deserves nothing from anybody that wants a Democrat in the White House.
disco inferno @ 88:
PUT SOME SOAP IN YOUR MOUTH!
squiggs @ 46:
same here ,its the last time i send any of these cocksluckers my money!
budda @ 87:
If Obama gets the Democratic nomination you can kiss the Democrats taking the White House back GOOD BYE!!! I'm just saying.
Orangutan. @ 86:
You pick at the Edwards or Clinton scab and you'll find a lot of puss. Obama is the cleanest candidate right now and he is the only one that can pick up those dumb so-called "moderates" and "independents." Hillary is just downright corrupt and corporatist. Edwards was a failure in 2004 - didn't preach the same message he is now. Obama is new, but damn it he is like a fresh air to clean out the smells.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
crazylikeafox @ 81:
Oh yeah? How do all of these points take away from the fact that Nader took votes away from Gore? And I am not even making a value judgment here, just asking how the hell these side excursions takes away from this fact? Not to mention his snide remarks about Democrats in general, just because some pointed this out.
disco inferno @ 85:
Glad to see some folks are still voting for our best interests as opposed to star power and electability/marketability.
Erroll @ 45:
To be fair, Edwards doesn't talk a lot about impeachment because, like us, Edwards is not in the Senate or Congress. He really can't do anything about it (kind of moot by the time Edwards is elected)
Obama, Hillary, Kucinich, Edwards, and Biden are. They could make it happen. Yet here we are, impeachment stalled, despited Kucinich talking and talking and talking about it. You want to ding Edwards for that? No, I don't think so.
And I'd like a link proving that Edwards said he'd bomb Iran... Of course you can't link, because he didn't. Like Obama (or any other sane person) he said he can't speculate as to what the future holds. He isn't psychic. Obama has NOT categorically said he will never bomb Iran either. That's simply not true. But neither is for preemptive war, and Edwards has a clear agenda that focuses on government reform and domestic improvement, NOT warmongering.
54 says:
WTF? Obamas record reads (voted present, voted present, voted present, hates unions after pretending to like them for votes). Honestly, the man has played the slippery fish on his real positions, and I think that is too bad.
That's why Obama's negatives shot up 20% lately. We are all onto his game and tired of it. In other words, you are lying.
Edwards was:
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes
Said, I was wrong to vote for Bankruptcy Reform Act.
Rated 15% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record [A GOOD thing in my book]
Rated B- by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record
Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record [Another GOOD thing]
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record [Obviously]
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record
And so on...
But that's the past. He's more experienced now, and is tired of the capitulating Democratic apparatus that let him down in congress. I'd be disillusioned too with that crowd. Can't we finally see that yet? Let's not forget he was WAY out front with the best and most detailed health care proposal, the details of which Hillary and Obama later copied.
Now, he wasn't there long enough to do much one way or another (Democratic minority) with the environment, and this had me concerned for a while. His LCV rating was originally mixed -- but lets face it, not a lot of the Republican majority were really interested in environmental compromise for anybody. He did vote against ANWAR drilling when it came up and against Gale Norton. But it turns out he's got pretty good positions there too -- his latest detailed plans are really good. Then there's this:
Now with Nader's endorsement, hopefully that will alliviate some concerns in that area. But really, new "green collar" jobs are at the very heart of his economic proposals, so... it all kind of fits together.
Eh. Enough cheerleading -- it ain't my preferred sport. You'll have to make your own call on that and a few other issues if you are hung up on the past, but obviously I think he means to do things the right way.
But Dennis picked the wrong guy. Period. Oh @ 80 ... Argh! Exactly, don't even get me started on the Kucinich + Ron Paul love fest... just WRONG. Wrong as mustard on ice cream... Wrong as gummy bears and pot roast... wrong as... well, many things...
budda @ 84:
I've always heard that stupid people are happier than the rest of us. Can you tell us all if that is true?
Why would you NOT vote (or just support if you're not in an early primary state) for someone whos message you "love" ? How iyou can tell Obama is the candidate for change I do not know. I've read all his stuff and it's all either gradual incremental change that he want's to ask the other side to come along with (which they will never do) or "can't we all just get along and find common ground" (which we know will NEVER happen.) Which one of his missed votes makes you think he's for this "change" thing he keeps talking about? Or maybe it's his talk of negotiating with the far right wing? We need more than a man of principles, we need a fighter.
Up until now I thought it was Kucinich, but now it's Edwards or Dodd for me.
And please, no more comments that refer to JFK. See #58 above.
Otay @ 94:
Actually, Gore took those votes away from Gore when he picked a Republican running mate . . .
Ralph may be a true progressive, but he's a horrible realist. The public does want change, but it doesn't expect change from people who were helped contribute to the need for change in the first place. Gore "lost", because he was considered part of the status quo, and didn't try to hide that fact. Kerry "lost", because he pretty much agreed with Bush. Edwards might disagree now, but he showed no sign of his divergent opinion when it was required of him. The public isn't going to forget that, even if John is the most progressive candidate in other areas. The public expects a leader, not a follower.
Haha @ the ron paul and dennis "dream ticket." That's a mismatch if I ever saw one. I have a lot of respect for what ron paul is doing over on the republican side, but I'll be pretty damn happy when this is all over just so the ron paul spam will finally stop. It's like everyone of his supporters is online trying desperately to get support. But it's like why reading "go ron paul" everywhere would make me want to vote for him? The only reason I like him is because he's for marijuana legalization and a "humble foreign policy." But besides those two issues he's a nut - a cool guy, but still a nut - like Traficant.
Anyway, can we all accept the fact that as good as Edwards sounds we need to back Obama? We can't be all silly and bitchy right now finding every fault. Obama looks like an angel compared to Hillary. I could write her faults and it would take hours to complete it. Her and her slick husband have ruled the democratic party right into the ground. These DLC people are scum. It's about time they loosen there control of the democratic party. They took it from the party of FDR to the party of the Clinton royal family - and damn it we are going to take it back in this primary.
Okonkolo @ 51:
On the national stage, that's all he's got. His senate votes & his meaningless "Present" declarations. You think those aren't good enough to form an opinion of him as POTUS? I think they're exactly enough to form an opinion of him. Maybe his campaign should've promoted his non-senate record instead of running his Oprah annointment loop ad nauseum?
Tequila @ 29:
Yeah.....
The right decision...
Like:
Voting in support of the Patriot Act.
Voting to censure MoveOn.org....just free speech...who cares....
Missing the FISA vote....
Supporting Ned Lamont....not!
Voting in support of every funding bill for The MeatGrinder the Murderer-in-Chief asked for..gave him every Billion the little fucktard asked for pal.....
Yeah, if ya likes yer Democrat 'Lieberman style with a heapin' side of McCain' why Ol' Barrack is yer guy!
He's really got a head on his shoulders.
Problem is he uses it for one thing: Getting himself elected and
SatanHuckaBee! take the hindmost.I really recommend you take a little closer look at Ol' Barrack.
kali yuga @ 64:
Gore wasn't up for the fight? That was one hell of an hallucination wasn't it? I mean all those court proceedings and the SCOTUS selecting Bush for President. Yep, I must have been dreaming.
kali yuga @ 98:
Hehe. True enough, one of Gore's big mistakes. It's almost possible for me to believe Lieberman as a vice president would be as bad as Bush as president...shudder...
Rahm_Emanuel_Is_A_Tool @ 96:
The Clinton royal family has ruled the democratic party for how long? It's been either a Clinton or Bush for how long? We are going on decades here. Atleast with FDR he was doing good things in all those years of control, but what has the corrupt Clinton family brought us? NAFTA, numerous scandals, war in Yugoslavia, black hawk down, end of an independent counsel (which would have served us well with Bush), failure to bring health care change because of incompetence, a democratic party afraid to cut off funding, drastic increase in arrest for simple possession of marijuana, growing drug war, growing interventions around the world, etc. I could go on and on. The Clinton gang can go to hell.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 94:
Great exposition of the lies Obama cultists swallow so easily.
One thing to add: Edwards has repeatedly said, and it's on his fukin' website if anyone cares to look, that he will withdraw all troops except those needed to guard the monstrous embassy Bush cronies erected in Baghdad within nine months of his taking office. Last time I looked that was a lot earlier than 2013...but, who knows maybe Obama's gonna change the calendar in the spare time he has from making nice with the ReThuglicans?
Really, really tedious reading this lie about Edwards position on this. As Jon Stewart would say....
'Stop hurting America with your lies...'
Governor General wants to help Africom more.
NATO does too.
EU does too.
Putin does too.
Otay @ 101:
------------------------
if gore had have made it to office he would have had a little ol accident and lieberman would have been puppet in chief.
A.Citizen @ 100:
But are you people not getting the fact that it will either be HILLARY CLINTON or Obama. Obama has his faults, but when you put them against Hillary he is downright saintly. List her faults. You are not going to find a pure candidate, so find the best candidate for the job. It's about change here because we have seen where Clinton control of the democratic party has brought us. Obama made bad choices, but I'm sure he never pressured for an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal for shady land deals. I'm sure he is not sticking with his wife just to become President. I'm sure he ain't never said "i never saw those papers" and then investigators come to find his fingerprints all over them.
budda @ 103:
Don't understand why you quoted me when your post changes the topic to the Clinton "dynasty."
On which I agree. Even if I agreed with Hillary on everything (and I do not on most anything) I would like her out for the very reasons you cite.
Hows THAT for "finding common ground."
Kucinich has really betrayed me on this one. I'm soooo disappointed. But my second choice was Edwards and that's who I'll vote for. I will NOT vote for Clinton even if the Dem's choose her for candidate; which I'm sure they will. They don't seem to listen do they?
budda @ 81:
no body going to vote for obama!!!!!!!!!!!
Rahm_Emanuel_Is_A_Tool @ 56:
JFK didn't kick off Vietnam. Ike did. Read: Trapped by Success: The Eisenhower Administration and Vietnam, 1953-61 . David L. Anderson . New York Columbia University Press , 1993 , 276 $16.50 (paper). JFK wanted to bring the troops home (Of whom I was one) in February of 1964. Unfortunately, he never saw 1964.
budda @ 106:
Why is that?
A.Citizen @ 99:
Project Vote Smart - Senator Obama - Voting Record
The NVs are probably the MOST TELLING.
squiggs @ 22:
Grow some balls and yes it is Ron Paul, he has my vote as well.
Tequila @ 29:
That's bullshit.
Obama voted to fund this fucking war every time Bush demanded it. He is just as responsible as the rest of them.
hmmm...puzzling.
i like dennis though. and obama IS better than hillary, so, yeah. i dunno, whatever.
just vote ron paul.
CoIntelPro @ 112:
Hey, why are you guys bringing facts into this?
Don't you know that supporting Obama is about looking past the substance (or, preferably, ignoring it completely) and focusing on the faith . . . the faith and the dreams and the hope . . . yeah, the audacity of all that hope . . .
Hang on a second. Lucy is setting the ball up again.
I've never voted for Nader, but he does put a mirror up in front of the Democratic Party. Ralph knows how money and power corrupts both parties. His comment there is one party wearing two-suits is right on. This never meant there is no difference. Nader meant both parties are purchased by Corporate America. The Repugs are more blatant about hating the poor and middle class. It wasn't a Republican speaker who said, "Impeachment is off the table". If it gives you pleasure to blame Nader for Gore losing the election he didn't lose, go for it. Please ignore that Ralph didn't chose Joe Liarman for VP. Ignore Gore couldn't even carry his own home state. Uh, Bush did. Ignore Butter Fly ballots and the fixing of Florida's results by Jeb and K. Harris. Gore ran an arrogant, incompetent campaign and still beat the fake cowboy from Conn. handily in the pop vote and the electoral vote. Nader wasn't on the grassy knoll, wasn't captain of the Titanic and was not now or ever responsible for the fascist crew destroying our Constitution now. I'm voting for Edwards in the primary. He actually is a progressive Democrat.
And the guns here are all pointing inward.
What a surprise - this is exactly what the Rethugs want. Once we're defeated by our own infighting bullshit, they'll just walk over us. And they just LOVE that Racist Ron is picking up steam among the paranoids of our side - fewer votes for a REAL candidate.
Congratulations, kids, you're going to fuck us over for another four years. Thanks just loads.
Ryan @ 115:
Yeah. If you want no social safety net and zero regulation of corporate behavior, Ron Paul is your man.
"It's really not very complicated: people who are or stand with workers, the poor, women, queer folks, people of color and immigrants will need to look far beyond this candidate. Despite his supporter's efforts to ignore the man behind the façade, it's time to get real and deconstruct the pretense. Ron Paul is a free market capitalist who doesn't care for the rights of workers or the poor; he is a gun-loving friend of the NRA, he is a radical Christian conservative who thinks that school prayer and intelligent design have a God-given place in public schools, that a woman's right to choose should be crushed, and that same-sex marriage is repugnant; he is a Congressman that has voted against affirmative action and thinks that desegregation somehow violated the Constitution; and he is a candidate that hates immigrants. Yes, we are sick and tired of Washington, but just because Bush has failed so deeply does not mean we can latch on to the very first presidential hopeful who wants to bring the troops home immediately, yet simultaneously destroy the rights and benefits we have struggled for centuries to achieve."
http://tinyurl.com/3d8cmv
A. Citizen: Like others have pointed out, those votes put him in the same league as most of the Dems. The difference, though, is that, if given the chance, he can work within the system to change it. Edwards is only talking about change, because he believes that's what the public wants to hear, not because he'll follow through on it if he wins.
Volum: He didn't vote to start the war, though. Whether you like it or not, that's what makes the difference.
Tequila @ 120:
On what do you base this knowledge that he alone, out of all the candidates, can work within the system?
Tequila @ 120:
Tell me why you don't think Edwards won't follow through on his proposals if he wins?
As for voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq or voting to continuing funding it, I don't see much of a difference.
nader was right, you Dems just cant admit it! THey totally caved on the war,...just one issue.
I was going to cast my primary vote for Kucinich as a vote for Universal Health Care - but not now - Edwards gets it all the way. Can't take any chances.
This is the second dumbest thing Kucinich has done. The first was not ruling out a certain republican as a possible running mate. I'm done with him.
I too watched Edwards on CSPAN. And his wife. They both have certain things in common: Intelligence, sensitivity, and plain speak.
He hasn't accepted a penny from corporations. Somebody asks him a question, and he answers it in a way that everybody understands.
It was so refreshing hearing this man. I'm confident that he's a good person inside, and that's who I want representing me.
Some of you have trashed him so badly. You have an agenda for doing this. If I made a mistake in the past, and you held it against me for the rest of my life, then you are the twisted one, not me.
Edwards has admitted mistakes. I like that.
He takes no money from corporations. I like that.
He was a poor man who worked hard for his success. I like that.
He's got a published plan to get the troops OUT of Iraq. I like that.
He's got universal healthcare on his mind. I like that.
Barrack, like Clinton, takes money from corporations. I despise that. For this election, I cannot forgive that, as the corporations have turned the USA into a fascist country.
We need change, and we need it now. It's not the time to give credit points for being female or black.
We need change.
For as long as he's been in Congress, Kucinich has been a progressive voice crying out in the wilderness of the DLC-dominated party. Is it so hard to believe that he favors the only non-DLC frontrunner?
Perhaps if Edwards wins the nomination he will continue to run from the left. But that's not what his record in office suggests. Maybe the scales did fall from his eyes, and he really did realize that joining Zell Miller and Jesse Helms as co-sponsors of the Iraq Resolution was a mistake. But has he repudiated his membership in the DLC's Senate "New Democrat" Coalition?
For the time being Hillary has the DLC money to herself, and Edwards would have no constituency if he ran as a centrist. But if Hillary falls out of the picture, Edwards is an acceptable second choice for the DLC. He has a fondness for populist rhetoric, which is not their favorite thing; but so did the DLC's first chairman, Dick Gephardt.
In politics, it's not what you say; it's who you owe. Edwards is running a progressive campaign, but that's not the wing of the party where he made his name, and Kucinich is calling him on it. If progressives are to have a voice at the table, we need a candidate who doesn't owe their career to the DLC machine.
Damian @ 118:
It's not about what the Rethugs want. It's about what the corporatist power structure wants, and that is a candidate who will do its bidding. These candidates are preselected and presented to you by the corporate power structure via its mass media outlets. The power structure doesn't care about the "infighting bullshit," so long as in the end we select one of its handpicked candidates (i.e. a Hillary or Obama type on the Democratic side), which we no doubt will . . .
Oops, I didn't mean to have double negatives in my question to Tequilla.
Hillary is really getting serious in Iowa. She told the cattle auctioneers that they could look in her mouth if it would help them decide.
kali yuga @ 119:
well said kali
hope:
He managed to succeed in Illinois...
oncall:
He wouldn't stand up for what was right, when he thought he'd lose. Clinton was the same way.
Obama's just trying to make the most of a stalemate, until the political winds shift for good in '08. Edwards' lack of a spine is why we've had to wait another four years for the war to end.
Tequila @ 131:
He wouldn't stand up for what was right, when he thought he'd lose. Clinton was the same way.
Obama's just trying to make the most of a stalemate, until the political winds shift for good in '08. Edwards' lack of a spine is why we've had to wait another four years for the war to end.
Edward's lack of spine!? Did you happen to check out the site on the voting records that CointelPro provided the link for? The things Obama did not vote on is eye-opening. It looks like a pretty clear case of CYA.
Tequila @ 131:
I'm sorry. When again has Obama shown any spine? Scroll back up to 99 and you'll see a whole list of lack of spine. "Spineless" is the very essence of Barack Obama's Senate career . . .
i can't believe some of you actually believe universal healthcare is a good idea for a nation that has over 9.3 trillion in foreign debt. it is honestly beyond me.
dump the dems and vote ron paul if you want to get this country back on track.
Ryan @ 134:
I can't believe you think this country needs another republican in the White House. That's bizarre.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 93:
At one of the early debates, all three of the top tier candidates said that they are leaving the option open to bomb Iran and that option includes nuclear weapons. You can deny that they said that but that will not alterthe fact that all three did make that statement whereas Kucinich did say that he would never leave the nuclear option open against Iran.
Ryan @ 134:
Did you read kali yuga @119? If that's "back on track", be very afraid.
Nader knows who really is for the working man,its not Obama,or Hillary.Obama is nothing more than a Cosbycrat.
Baudelairien @ 126:
I've obviously become an unabashed Edwards supporter (especially after this). But you do bring up some good points. I have some related thoughts on this, if not actual "answers".
The relationship is both ways. I know you might think it inconceivable that Edwards would not capitulate to the DLC, but why would he? Honestly, if he takes Iowa and rides that to New Hampshire (medium-long shot, but certainly doable) why would the DLC be in the position of power? Who the hell else will they support? Ron Paul? Run Hillary and Bill as independents? Don't discount the possibility that Edwards really IS pissed off at the right wing of the left party, and is actually serious about some major change. The arrogance of the DLC, and their flawed "east coast only" ideology has failed long enough.
As far as a "candidate that owes their career to the DLC machine", I know you're not talking about Edwards. Because he walked away from that career in disgust. His experiences with the contempt and arrogance (and general incompetence) of the Kerry staff certainly seemed to reinforce that disgust. In this campaign, he is his own man.
And of course, the irony of Dennis Kucinich -- the honest guy that supposedly is going to "change" everything -- is playing old school factional politics. Paying homage and making sacrifices to the behind the scenes "dons" of the petty little fiefdoms of the party, in antiquated and obsolete ritual. Talk about phony.
But the slippery bit that gives you away is saying this:
"Perhaps if Edwards wins the nomination he will continue to run from the left. But that's not what his record in office suggests."
Pray tell, what do you mean? Completely unsubstantiated of course, but worse it is logically backwards. Edwards career has been a steady progression from center left to the progressive left. Yet you are trying to imply the opposite. Nice try, but I'm not buying it.
There are no guarantees in life, but personally, I look forward to Edwards getting the nomination, and the DLC trying to screw him. Should be interesting to expose these cowards for the cloaked Republicans they really are. If Edwards wants to step up and be the man to do that, great.
Maybe you're right, who knows. But the time of this supposed institution of the left shoving the face of the poor in the mud, and driving them even further to the right is over. They just apparently haven't realized it yet.
All of this strikes me as hilarious.
Firstly, it's disappointing for me to see Kucinich backing Obama, because Obama's 'Vote for me if you love hope and change!' populist gimmick is just that - all bluster. I don't hold it against him, because he's a politician and therefore he will attempt to market a caricature of himself just like anyone else. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, Obama's actual track record leaves much to be desired.
Similarly, it's disappointing to me that Nader has bought into the anti-Clinton hype. I could write essays regarding the silly talking-points popular amongst Republicans and radical liberals (there seem to be plenty of them perusing the internet, which does not surprise me), but the gist of my ire is that Nader is the last person who should be preoccupied with a person's political image over their political history. While some like to paint Clinton as a corporatist, warmongering she-Nazi, her record is a very liberal one. Her biggest 'problem' is that she is a business-minded realist, and honest about it, whereas individuals like Obama and Edwards try desperate to convince us that they're good, common folk whom you could share a beer with. For Nader to be oblivious to these things is pretty disappointing. But then, Nader's always been a confusing and difficult politician.
Edwards is my homeboy.
Erroll @ 136:
And this explains why Kucinich made a deal with Obama, who is far to the right of Edwards politically, why exactly? That was the question at hand. I agree that only Dennis answered differently. If their answers were the same, why not pick Edwards instead, as Kucinich supporters ask?
Yeah, and so what if Obama didn't make immediate decisions on certain legislation?! Wasn't a point made in "Farenheit 9/11" about legislators who endorse the laws without actually reading them? Wasn't the issue which Bush won on but which cost his party in '06 the fact that he stuck to his "gut"? It takes a lot more courage to not take sides until you're sure you have all the information than to[I dunno.] support the invasion of a country because you think it'll look good on your resume. Hell, most of Feinstein's sheeple only side with her, because of her rank, not because they necessarily agree with her. I'd rather vote for someone who takes time to get it right, than someone who stops caring about getting it right, once they're elected.
Shawnmeat, go back to beating your meat.Hillary is a whore for money.
Tequila @ 29:
It's pretty original how you refer to a couple as one entity. And cute, too!
Though, I do agree that Clinton was a terrible President. I mean, he was successful in far too many quarters for me to be happy. And the national surplus? Give me a break! What a conservative monster he was.
the libertine @ 144:
With such a convincing argument placed in front of me, how can I not masturbate furiously?
PS: the libertine is a whore for money.
Tequila @ 143:
While he was taking his sweet time to get it right, decisions were made without his input. I don't think there's a lot of these issues he didn't vote on that he gets to have do-overs on.
Obama just took off his mask,oh my god its Jason Whitlock.
Tequila @ 143:
Obama had five years to read the Patriot Act. And he still got it wrong.
:
Obama's success in the Illinois senate elections was a fluke. I like him and voted for him, but he was losing to his Democratic rival until a scandal took that guy out of the race. The Republican candidate had no chance after his exwife revealed that she had been forced to participate at sex clubs for his entertainment. That is the reason Obama won the election. At the same time the Republican governor was embroiled in a huge controversy - one for which he is currently spending time in jail.
Holding Edwards responsible for Kerry's decision not to more aggressively contest the 2004 election results is a weak point. Edwards was the Vice-Presidential candidate and did not have the authority to make those kinds of decisions. There are some reports however that he vociferously disagreed with Kerry's decision.
To say that Obama is trying to make the most of a stalemate is cynical at best on his part. Making the best of the situation would be to vote against any funds for the Iraqi war and supporting impeachment as well. I know that the current Congress will never be able to impeach and convict Bush, but if "making the best" of a stalemate means playing politics when innocent people are getting killed, then that person's claims that they will approach politics with a fresh change are deceptive and dishonest.
Login or Register to post comments.