Skip to main content

When talking about Kucinich, I usually leave it at "ugh". I've found that much kinder than actually getting into Kucinich's record. But his supporters are OUTRAGED(!) that I would be so dismissive, and they DEMAND(!) I explain myself.

Honestly, it would be better for your guy if I didn't. But since you all insist...

  1. Kucinich has never proven broad electoral viability. How many presidents have been elected straight from the House of Representatives? Kucinich could gain respect by running and winning in something a little more competitive than an urban 58 percent Kerry district.
  2. Did you know that Kucinich was once ardently anti-choice and anti-stem cell research? From a 2002 Nation article:

    One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.

    His transformation to being pro-choice happened literally overnight -- a week after he announced his 2004 presidential bid. One moment he was virulently anti choice, the next he was a staunch defender.

  3. "Department of Peace"?

    We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. We can conceive of peace as a tool to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. We can move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all wars.

    Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make nonviolence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control.

    "Higher evolution of human awareness"? "Transform consciousness"? "Paradign shift"? What the hell is this crap? I expect this kind of crap out of Deepak Chopra (or Tom Cruise), not a serious presidential candidate.

    And by the way, the "Department of Peace" already exists. It's called the "U.S. Department of State".

  4. The stuff above isn't even the worst -- check out this stuff from Kucinich's keynote address to something called the "Dubrovnik Conference on the Alchemy of Peacebuilding":

    Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

    Clearly, Kucinich resides in a higher plane of existence than I do. But my plane is on the planet earth. I want my president to reside here as well.

  5. The 1999 book The American Mayor by Melvin G. Holli, ranked Kucinich the 7th worst mayor in the nation:

    Only thirty-one years old when elected, Cleveland's "boy mayor" had failings that were not the sins of venality or graft for personal gain, but rather matters of style, temperament, and bad judgment in office. Kucinich earned seventh place the hard way: by his abrasive, intemperate, and chaotic administration. He barely survived a recall vote just ten months in office, then disappeared for five weeks, reportedly recuperating from an ulcer. When he got back into the political fray, his demagogic rhetoric and slash-and-burn political style got him into serious trouble when he stubbornly refused to compromise and led Cleveland into financial default in late 1978 - the first major city to default since the Great Depression. That led also to Kucinich's defeat and exit from executive office. Out of office, he dabbled in a Hollywoodesque spirit world and once believed that he had met Shirley MacLaine in a previous life, seemingly confirming his critics' charges that he was a "nutcake." After that, he experienced downward mobility, losing races for several other offices and finally ending up with a council seat; but more recently, he climbed back up to a seat in Congress. Bad judgment, demagoguery, and default also spelled political failure in the eyes of twenty-five of our experts, who ranked Dennis, whom the press called "Dennis the Menace", as seventh-worst.

    This survey spanned mayors in the United States between 1820 and 1993. Notching the "7th Worst" slot was a serious accomplishment.

  6. He used his 2004 run for president to score dates. Luckily, he's married this time around so we'll be spared that pathetic display of desperation.

Kucinich fans -- I had no intention of writing any of this.

You should've let me leave it at "ugh".

Update: One good point people have made is summarized in this comment:

I'm not a Kucinich fan either, particularly, but some of this is IMO a little unfair. I tend to think he's just utterly unelectable on a national scale in this country, but he should be as free to talk about his "faith" as everybody else is, in theory, right? I mean, you can mock new-agey stuff -- it's pretty mockable in some ways -- but if you back off, is it really any sillier than any other set of faiths?

Here's the difference -- Kucinich is using his "faith" as the basis of his "Department of Peace". In other words, he's trying to inject his faith into the public sphere.

And that's not something I'm willing to tolerate, whether it comes from the Religious Right or from our side.

People are free to talk about the source of their values. But I believe strongly in the wall between church and state.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:32 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  At least you're honest. (11+ / 0-)

    So, the lefties in the "big tent" really can go hang, eh?

    Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

    by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:33:50 AM PST

    •  No more so (112+ / 0-)

      than the "righties" can go hang because I don't like Evan Bayh,

      I'm not legally required to carry water for anyone, in any wing of the party.

      Quite frankly, this victim mentality is quite unbecoming.

      •  Iraq War (37+ / 0-)

        The dude could believe in space aliens, he was still right on the Iraq War, which makes him smarter on the most important issue of the last decade than Edwards and Clinton.

        I agree, he's pretty wacky and agree with the general thrust of your post, but still.  He's been right on a lot of issues.

          •  so don't trash him (31+ / 0-)

            It's one thing to say he's not a good prez candidate.  It's another to mock the guy's sanity.  That's my point.  Sorry you missed it.

              •  What is kos playing at? (26+ / 0-)

                Since when was he so hot on abortion rights? Five minutes ago it was one of those "single issues" that was distracting the Democrats from the important job of getting office by hook or by crook, and those whiny wimmin could go start their own Scoop site if they didn't like it.

                I don't say there isn't a principled case to be made for either position, but whipping out a big pro-choice conviction and wearing it on his sleeve just when he needs it to trash one Democratic candidate (when he's all for sweeping the issue under the carpet when it's a pro-life candidate he likes) is a bit off.

                  •  Dennis Kucinich has principles which devote him (12+ / 0-)

                    ...to peace, transparency, and econcomic justice.

                    Changing his position on abortion doesn't mean he "lacks principles."

                    •  Yeah, it kinda does. (20+ / 0-)

                      If he's willing to change his position on abortion based on political expediency, what about other positions?

                      •  I see... (8+ / 0-)

                        So if we change a couple of words here...

                        If [Edwards is] willing to change his position on [Iraq] based on political expediency, what about other positions?

                        Unless you are saying that Edward's change of position was as considered as Kucinich's, you are saying they both are being opportunistic.

                        Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe Kucinich...

                        "The waging of war, by its nature, is total - but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial." -- Daniel Berrigan

                        by Rico on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:27:53 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Big difference (10+ / 0-)

                          As to Iraq, the facts have changed.  On abortion, either a fetus is or is not worthy of legal protection; no relevant facts have changed.

                          •  Also... (6+ / 0-)

                            ...Edwards position shifted over time.  Kucinich's position flip flopped instantly, and at the exact moment he started to run for president to boot.

                          •  http://kucinich.us/node/3043 (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, Rico, civil society

                            ...
                            "Our Party isn’t really legit on the issue of health care," Kucinich said in response to a question from ABC-TV moderator George Stephanopoulos. The American people can have a national health insurance system that covers everyone "if they have a President who doesn’t have any strings attached, a president who can challenge the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies, and who can challenge his own political party."

                            In his closing remarks, he re-iterated his singular positions on ending the war, health care reform, more equitable foreign trade policies, and economic reforms that benefit working Americans. Of all the candidates, "How am I able to do this?" he asked, his arms outstretched.

                            "No strings" the audience shouted. "No strings," they began chanting. "No strings."

                            "That’s right," Kucinich said, "You need a President with no strings."

                            As he left the stage, repeating "No strings" and with the audience echoing the words, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.

                          •  That was a bit of a non sequitur (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zhimbo
                          •  your candadate has strings (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rico
                          •  Edwards ain't my canidate (0+ / 0-)

                            Although I rate him higher than Kucinich (I'm for Obama).

                          •  lee for VP (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee

                            obama votes to fund the war!

                            i wonder why he changed?

                            edwards and obama might come out with a plan to end world hunger any day!

                            i hope so. (kucinich has had one since 2004)

                          •  you are wrong! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee

                            Kucinich's position flip flopped instantly, and at the exact moment he started to run for president to boot.

                            not so... he changed his postion in May 2002.

                            Peace with Justice / Si se puede! Marcos

                            by poetas on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:04:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  bollox (11+ / 0-)

                            The facts haven't changed over time.  Perhaps people's willingness to do their research changed, but it was obvious in January '03 that this war was being ginned up over nothing.  Otherwise, I wouldn't have been beaten to a pulp by NYC's "finest" for standing in front of the UN with a sign on the sidewalk.

                          •  really. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lorax

                            So the NYPD was aware that there were no WMDs?  Golly, that's swell.

                          •  the NYPD (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee

                            were aware that the protesters were the enemy

                            November 1, 2002

                            Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome

                            See, the doctrine that says, either you're with us or with the enemy -- that still stands. (Applause.) I remind people of it all the time,

                          •  Everybody knew there was no WMDs (0+ / 0-)

                            It was pretty God damn clear to any thinking human being that the Iraq was evidence was about as real as ghosts.  
                            That INCLUDES everybody in the Senate.  We all know EXACTLY what happened.  They voted to authorize Iraq for political purposes and then the Dems tried to claim they were misled.  
                            Bullshit.  They weren't.

                            And neither was anyone else who kept even half an eye on the news and was thinking rationally.
                            In November of 2002, it was clear they were beating the war drums over nothing.  

                            STOP giving people a pass on Iraq.  We're never going to make any progress if we keep allowing bullshit excuses like "I was fooled!" to be given credibility.  

                            Both Edwards and Kerry, among others, can shove the light they've recently seen right back up their ass.

                            As far as Kucinich goes, I don't give a shit about his changing his position on abortion.  I don't believe it was "over night", either.  I'm pretty sure it's just The Nation being a bunch of morons, a la Über-Bitch Maureen Dowd.
                            The time to address that stuff is in the primaries, obviously.  It's pretty clear what Kucinich stands for, just listening to him.  It's also not hard to see how he would be opposed to abortion, given his views on peach and life.  
                            Maybe the guy felt he was more freeto vote his conscience, since he was likely one of the lone House Dems to vote against abortion, but felt differently about it if his votes could have a real effect on the national level.

                            Meh.  I think I'm done ranting for now..

                          •  to a pulp? (0+ / 0-)

                            love to hear about that.

                          •  facts didnt change (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, SVDem, moiv, Rico, suicide blonde

                            you just took a while to realize bush lied

                            kucinich knew back in 2001 that bush was lying

                          •  Give Me A Break (6+ / 0-)

                            The facts in no way changed  Only an incompentent moron would have believed Bush and his merry band of criminals in 2003 that Iraq was connected to 9.11, that Iraq had WMD's, or that there was even an ounce of truth to any of other thousand lines of horseshit that was peddled out into the public sphere.

                            No, the only "fact" that has changed since then is that a bunch of Democratic cowards who were scared shitless to stand up and do the right thing and state the fucking obvious now believe that it's safe to come out from under the rock under which they've been hiding.

                          •  But... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, moiv, PlanetTreasures

                            ...the guy who stood by his beliefs is "unelectable."

                            Maybe that's why less than 25% of people who could vote in this country do so.

                            "The waging of war, by its nature, is total - but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial." -- Daniel Berrigan

                            by Rico on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:52:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The facts have changed? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            moiv

                            Really?  Seriously?  So Iraq was a good idea at some point?  I call bullshit...

                            The only "fact" that seems to have changed is that an overwhelming majority of the American people now want out of Iraq.  Did anyone honestly believe that Iraq wouldn't turn out to be exactly the clusterfuck it currently is?

                            Look, I don't really know much about Kucinich's prior stances on abortion.  Perhaps they are completely opportunistic and politically expedient, I don't know.  But for you to claim that ANY candidate who was so grossly wrong in their judgment about Iraq can be excused because "the facts have changed" strikes me as pretty disingenuous.

                            I do not fault ANYONE who initially supported the Iraq for later changing their minds about it.  Those folks have acknowledged the reality (evident to most of us in advance) that it was a disastrous decision.  Great!  Welcome to the real world!  I'm glad to have you here, especially if it means we get the fuck out of there that much sooner.

                            What I DO fault them for is turning around and then criticizing others' judgment.

                          •  The fact that it was an illegal preventive war (0+ / 0-)

                            was obvious from the start and never changed. Kucinich, like other sane Americans, tried to prevent PREVENTIVE WAR... before the bombs flew on a con; before the occupation got all "botched" and "mismanaged; before, oops, maybe we should have let the inspectors finish and maybe we should have listened to the UN and the world at large.  (And even if they had found WMD, we go to war? It's a given, it's the best solution?)

                            Is that what you mean by "the facts have changed"? Preventive war is okay as long as you play it right, and the Iraqis play it right... by having WMD? Wrong. Preventive war is wrong. Period. You dont experient or go for the experience with that shit. That's what international law, constructed on millions of corpses from other shite "preventive" wars, was carefully wrought to PREVENT. The experience has been experienced.

                            Any senator or rep who voted for that IWR sank far below their paygrade, falling for that bullshit, and most of them were just playing bullshit for political expediency. No bull.

                            I dont like Kucinich's timing on his abortion switch, dont like that he was once against it, but really, it doesnt trump the war vote 180 as expediency, just in sheer magnitude of the issue upon which they pivot, doesnt even get on a par with it. Not even close.

                            Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                            by NYCee on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:31:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  If you look at Kucinich's history, (5+ / 0-)

                        ...some issues (peace, economic justice) are central to him, and some aren't (abortion.)

                      •  kucinich is still anti abortion (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SarahLee

                        he is just no longer for a law to enforce his position

                        are you pro abortion? is anyone pro abortion?

                        we are pro choice.

                        and on stem cells, as olong as 20,000 kids stare every day, many think we need different priorities.

                        a paradigm shift even.

                        •  world hunger (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          SarahLee

                          http://kucinich.us/...

                          World Hunger

                          Foreign Aid

                          It is an outrage that President Bush is proposing to cut core funding for overseas humanitarian aid while millions worldwide face the threat of hunger. The United States should fully fund efforts to eradicate hunger by dramatically increasing our allocation to the UN World Food Program, whose work saves countless lives in over 80 countries, through school feeding projects, nutrition programs for HIV/AIDS sufferers, refugee food relief, and many other vital tasks.

                          Drop the Debt

                          Poor countries facing widespread hunger are being ravaged by debt payments to global institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. $2.5 billion is transferred every year from Sub-Saharan Africa to foreign bankers and creditors, while 40% of its population experiences some form of malnutrition. We should push for the immediate cancellation of all bilateral debts of countries facing hunger, as well as cancellation of debts to the IMF and World Bank.

                          Swords into Plowshares

                          President Eisenhower once observed: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." This year our nation will spend over $360 billion on the Pentagon, but barely more than $1 million on food aid for the world's hungry. It is time the U.S. set an example for the world by proposing a 15% cut in the military budget to help meet pressing social needs, including hunger, both abroad and at home. I have proposed a bill to establish a Department of Peace to mediate international conflicts, negotiate arms control agreements, and promote nonviolence, so that other nations can devote resources to the fight against hunger, not the arms race.

                        •  I am pro-abortion (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          jmcgrew, moiv, NeilDB

                          when it comes to a choice between bringing an unwanted child into the world and aborting (which is what the choice is) I am PRO-abortion.

                          I am PRO abortion not only because I believe women are human beings, but because I believe children are.

                          Being PRO abortion is PRO life.  Being anti Choice is paternalistic, misogynistic, and exploitative and it condemns children to suffering (actual children, not fetuses).  

                          What are you reading? on Friday mornings
                          What have you got to learn? (or teach) on Saturdays

                          by plf515 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:40:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Many people are (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          tipsymcstagger, Ja of Anoroc, jfadden
                          what you characterize as "pro-abortion," and for good reason.

                          Time to open up the Overton window some more: Abortion is a moral good

                          I seriously don't get why people think that it helps anything to hand wring about how terrible abortion is if you're supporting the right to have one. Suggesting that abortion is immoral just reinforces the anti-choice claims that abortion should be banned and it strongly reinforces the anti-choice notion that women who get abortions are moral children who are too stupid to know what they're doing. The belief that women are too stupid to really understand what they're doing is evident in anti-choice measures like requiring sonograms and requiring that women spend a day to think it over before they get an abortion.

                          Having the notion that women are moral midgets and that abortion is an evil, even if you think it's one that should be tolerated, being reinforced by pro-choicers does the pro-choice argument no good.

                          :::

                          To see that abortion is moral, you just need to look at women as human beings with lives that have value.  ...  Taking your own well-being into consideration is called "selfish" by anti-choicers, but I think valuing yourself is a moral good, even if you are female. In fact, especially if you are female, since you live in a world where having self-esteem can be an act of moral courage that requires some defiance.

                          :::

                          Abortion, not just the right to abortion but the actual procedure, is a moral good that helps women and families and should be honored as such. Women who get abortions should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.

                          As someone who has spent the last 14 years listening to women who know at a soul-deep level that abortion is their most responsible, most caring and most moral option -- yes, I am pro-abortion.

                          The TEA Fund: Practicing random acts of kindness

                          by moiv on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 07:28:36 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  I know Dennis and the change was NOT for (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        civil society

                        Political expediency.  You don't know that man or you would not say that.

                        If he was simply positioning for political expediency, he would not have spoken out about the war or for Universal Health Care or for a Department of Peace.  Think about it and your explanation makes no sense.

                        I don't support Dennis this go round, though I did during the primaries of 2004.  And I supported him and worked on his campaign because I wanted Universal Health Care to be part of the debates.  But one thing he is not is someone who does anything for political expediency.  

                  •  "The candidate lacks principles"? (0+ / 0-)
                    The problem with Kucinich isn't that he doesn't have principles; it's that he doesn't have all his marbles.
                    •  right wing media lies (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      SarahLee, Jules Siegel, Jesterfox, samfish

                      he is quite sane

                      http://kucinich.us/...

                      Dennis Kucinich spoke the following words before the Democratic National Committee at their Winter Meeting on Friday, February 2, 2007 in Washington, DC:

                      Watch video

                      I grew up in the city of Cleveland, the oldest of seven children. My parents never owned a home. We were renters, we kept moving, with each new arrival to our family. We lived in 21 different places, including a couple of cars. I know first hand what happens when someone in the family lacks adequate health care, or daycare or doesn’t have the money for college or can’t afford to pay the utility bills.

                      I remember where I came from. My priority as President will be to create economic opportunities and prosperity, to rebuild America’s cities, to repair America’s neighborhoods, to restore America’s industry, to renew America’s schools, to reclaim America’s health. I will ask our Democratic Congress to pass a single-payer not for profit health care plan, Medicare for All, a Universal Pre-Kindergarten bill, a Rebuild America’s Infrastructure bill, and legislation to create a cabinet-level Department of Peace and Non-Violence, which takes Dr. King’s dream and makes it an everyday reality.

                      Of all the candidates for President, I not only voted against the authorization but I have consistently voted against funding the war and I have a 12-point plan devised with the help of international peacekeepers, to bring our troops home and to end the war.

                  •  Just who lacks principles???? (0+ / 0-)
                •  I think the problem is less (11+ / 0-)

                  Kucinich's view on abortion and more that his view completely reveresed just before he ran for president. You're right there ARE principled cases for either position. The problem is Kucinich doesn't have either principled position.

                  It took them 30 years- don't give up hope after 3

                  by js noble on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:15:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The difference is this: (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  redqueen, Porfiry, mtibbens

                  When choosing a Democratic Nominee in a Democratic Primary, these single-issue stances matter. In the general election, they are subsumed.

                  The single-issue canard is raised when "non-partisan" groups go out of their way to support an incumbent Republican over a Democratic Challenger who would be better on the single-issue both individually and in the leadership s/he votes for.

                  Single issues are important, but groups that forward these issues deserve the criticism they get when they start shooting themselves in the foot.

                •  I'd really like to see a blockquote (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vawolf, civil society, Tybalt

                  ...of the line where the diarist displayed any sort of a "big pro-choice conviction." Dig really deep and report back.

                  The (probably fairly valid) point of the diary is that Denny is a waffler and a freako. And in my own case, this is interesting information I'd never heard before...he comes off as the Most Leftest of all the candidates; one would never suspect he used to be anti-choice.

                  So Kos: thank you for the info.
                  Del: Spend a little more time reading the diary.

                  -5.88, -6.00 When the ELGIs are defeated, the GWOT is over. -- Richard Clarke

                  by Porfiry on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:26:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  If you really believe what you just wrote (0+ / 0-)

                  then you really havan't been paying attention to anything Kos has said on the subject. This sort of myopic missing of the point is pretty typical of the whole "single issue thing" Markos isn't so hot on, which is totally seperate from the issue you are conflating with it. Wise up.

                •  New Age Wacko (17+ / 0-)

                  Kos is right about all that New Age stuff. Doesn't Dennis know that the universe was created by a giant bearded guy who's obsessed with our sex lives and whose main goal is to get us to worship his son?

                  What a wacko.

                •  Please give me a break... (0+ / 0-)

                  The implications of your post are so ridiculous and insulting.  First, he whipped out the abortion thing to show that the looney left who supports Kucinich is either unaware of or hyporyticely ignoring the issue.  Secondly, "whiny wimmin" is so fucking condescending and not what Kos or this site has ever stood for.  So taking a cheap shot and playing the sexist card is bullshit.  Consider your bullshit called.  Take your victim mentality elsewhere (which by the way is something Kos magnanimously doesn't say, but I wish he would).    

                  Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                  by MatthewBrown on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:37:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think folks needed their explanation. (5+ / 0-)

                I read that thread too, and commented.

                I sure didn't need an explanation.

                What some folks did express was their disatisfaction with kos' dismissiveness of and disrespect towards Kucinich. This criticism appears to have got under his skin.

                Thus the post, and the tone.

                Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:14:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  A broken clock is right twice a day (7+ / 0-)

              But big whoop.  Kucinich also essentially opposed the war in Afghanistan, which amounts to basic lunacy.  

              "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

              by fstlicho on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:03:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

                •  there was a worse crime omn 9/11/200 (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SarahLee, Big Time

                  http://starvation.net/

                  On Tuesday September 11, 2001, at least 35,615 of our brother and sisters died from the worst possible death, starvation. Somewhere around 85% of these starvation deaths occur in children 5 years of age or younger. Why are we letting at least 30,273 of the most beautiful children die the worst possible death everyday? Every 2.43 seconds another one of our fellow brothers and sisters dies of starvation. Starvation doesn't just happen on Tuesday September 11, 2001, it happens everyday, 365 days per year, 24 hours per day, it never stops.

                  whacky!

                •  true . . though (0+ / 0-)

                  he denounced taking any forceful action against OBL and the Taliban shortly thereafter.  In interviews for the 2004 race he still seemed to be struggling with the idea that force was justified against a terrorist group that had murdered thousands of his countrymen.

                  "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                  by fstlicho on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:35:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  How about: (9+ / 0-)
                  1. You aren't going to win ANY election when 90% of the country supports military action against a country that:

                  A) Harbored Osama Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks
                  B) Disrespects the rights of women
                  C) Destroys its own religious history in service of an extremist, ideological crusade.

                  I don't like how Afghanistan has been handled nor do I appreciate the focus being removed from there, but nobody is suggesting that we withdraw from there either.

                  Why? Because the grounds for the invasion were morally JUSTIFIABLE, based on sufficiently proven evidence. The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is the difference between perpetrating an injustice (on the people of Iraq) and delivering justice (to the people of Afghanistan, a relief from the injustices of their regime, to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, justice for their crimes against this nation).

                  Mr. Kucinich apparently doesn't perceive the difference between unjust wars and just ones. Neither, apparently, does Bush, though hes on the other end of the extreme. I wouldn't want either man as my president.

                  •  Afghanistan was NOT "morally JUSTIFIABLE" (17+ / 0-)

                    it was politically justifiable.

                    With respect to your incomplete (1 but no 2) outline:

                    1. Everyone was hot headed at the time. A leader might have helped the country understand the difference between the need for police vs military response.

                    A. Hello, Pakistan?
                    B. Saudi Arabia? Our own?
                    C. Let's invade any country that doesn't maintain its monuments. Great foreign policy!

                    Keep drinking the Koolaid.

                    •  Police? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TrueBlueDem
                      I'm not sure how a "police" response would have had any effect in Afghanistan, since I doubt the Taliban had any intention of turning over Osama Bin Laden or cooperating with a hunt for him.
                      •  I assume he was refering to a police action. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SarahLee, adrianrf, Tybalt

                        The Taliban were really the biggest gang in a failed state. Kicking them over was inevitable, what came after was really more of a state building/police action exercise. Or should have been at least.

                        I knew an Afghan who emmigrated right at the beginning of the soviet invasion. He said that people where he was from loved the US b/c Carter apparently sent tons of construction and education aid to his town before the Soviets came. Total random fact, but it's saddening how the country's status as a international football has compounded one foolish mistake after another.

                        In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

                        by Windowdog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:18:33 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  The Taleban had offered (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        redqueen, suicide blonde

                        to hand over OBL and asked the US to provide them with plausible proof of his involvement in the attack on the Twin Towers in NYC and the guarantee that OBL would be tried in a regular court of law (and not be diappeared in a torture centre outside the reach of regular US American jurisdiction). The US government declined the Teleban offer and militarily occupied Afghanistan.

                        "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

                        by Ritter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:55:17 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  They were clearly stalling (0+ / 0-)

                          They were utterly dependent on Bin Laden and his volunteers - they wanted nothing more than to stall for time.  

                          "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                          by fstlicho on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:37:29 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, they did not depend on OBL. They were (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            suicide blonde

                            just respectfull of his citizen rights which they took as seriously, as the US American government's claim that OBL was involved in the attacks on the Twin Towers. They did what every country does, they asked for plausible proof from the US General Attorney to initiate the extradition process. And, like EU Member States, they asked the US government to guarantee that the extradited person won't be exposed to unusual cruel treatment and given a fair trial in court of law. The US did declined the offer.  

                            "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

                            by Ritter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:35:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ha! (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm sorry - they were massacring Hazaras, persecuting Hindus, starving half the country - and concerned with due process for a guy who was helping them stay armed and taking out their nemesis Massoud - out of an abstract conception of rights?  Don't kid yourself!

                            "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                            by fstlicho on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:17:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •   abstract conception of rights (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Salvor Hardin

                            What is so abstract about torture, Gitmo, Abu Graihb?

                            "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

                            by Ritter on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:42:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wrong time to change the subject (0+ / 0-)

                            The Taliban were protecting their buddy, not adhering to some idealistic principle of blind justice.  End of story.  We're talking about 2001 not the Iraq War, however hard that may be to believe.

                            "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                            by fstlicho on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 05:47:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  End of story for you - (0+ / 0-)

                            you better start to know your bloody US American history...

                            CNN

                            Link:
                            http://archives.cnn.com/...

                            Taliban renews, U.S. rejects bin Laden offer  
                            October 14, 2001 Posted: 5:44 p.m. EDT (2144 GMT)

                            SUMMARY:

                            U.S. warplanes pounded Afghanistan's southern city of Kandahar on Sunday, a day after the ruling Taliban's spiritual leader rejected another call to turn over suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

                            The Taliban made an offer of their own Sunday, saying they would be willing to discuss giving bin Laden to a third country for trial if the United States ended its attacks and provided evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

                            The White House quickly rejected the offer, and President Bush said the U.S. position was "non-negotiable."

                            The Guardian

                            http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

                            Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

                            9.30pm update: * Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt

                            • Second week of airstrikes starts
                            • Taliban urges US to halt bombing

                            Staff and agencies
                            Sunday October 14, 2001
                            Guardian Unlimited

                            President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
                            Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

                            "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

                            by Ritter on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 01:08:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and you know they were serious because? (0+ / 0-)

                            "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                            by fstlicho on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 03:02:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We will never know whether (0+ / 0-)

                            they were serious because the US American government dismissed their offer.

                            Quote The Guardian: "President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden."

                            And that's what I said in the first place. Capisci?

                            "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

                            by Ritter on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 05:20:45 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Easy now, homes. (0+ / 0-)

                            Given their track record it's pretty clear that they weren't.  Clinton had spent two years trying to get them to turn bin Laden loose for an entirely different set of attacks (with a rather hefty amount of evidence, too).  They weren't having it.  When you consider what else they were doing at the time in Afghanistan, and how much assistance they were getting from OBL, it's pretty plain that all this was a smokescreen.  9/11 was strike three.  It's too bad that you can't realize it.

                            "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                            by fstlicho on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:14:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "There will always be two different views / (0+ / 0-)

                            Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                            "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

                            by Ritter on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:41:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Well to be fair (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Bronxist, Jesterfox

                      The Taliban openly welcomed Al Queda, while Pakistan would gladly stamp them out in their border region if Musharref had the power to do so. Or at least would have at the time, not so sure anymore.

                      Moral wars are about as common as unicorns, but the Afghan invasion was at least a rational response.

                      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

                      by Windowdog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:14:47 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You're a pacifist. Ok. (4+ / 0-)

                      That's fine, but for the rest of us, the Afghan war was more than justified, it was necessary.  

                    •  The Government of Afghanistan (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poliscizac, sarahnity, davybaby, Everest42

                      was materially aiding and harboring those who committed an act of war on this people of this country.
                      The Taliban was a legitimate target as is any government that would do the same.

                      Morally justifiable? Morally imperative!

                      TFYQA - think For Yourself, Question Authority

                      by Niniane on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:31:08 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "an act of war" really? (5+ / 2-)

                        according to bush.
                        so now the dailykos crowd is buying into the Bush meme about "mistaking" terrorism for war?

                        •  War (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sarahnity, ChesCo Dem, antoniomachado

                          Is a state of conflict existing between two sovereign entities. When an act of terror is committed at the behest or with the support of said sovereign entity, it is an act of war. Pretty easy, huh?

                          Please. Comparisons to Bush are like comparisons to Hitler... invoke it and you lose.
                          It is intellectually dishonest and lazy... I'm fairly certain that you can do better.

                          Just because it comes out of Bush's mouth, doesn't make it wrong... although I am aware of the pattern.

                          The "War on terror" is like the "War on drugs", it does not and by definition cannot exist, other than as a bad analogy.

                          But if we can identify a legitimate target, I say kill it.
                          (Legitimate target as defined by the reality-based community, not by BushCo or the extremists on the other side.)
                          We are (for the moment) still the big dog on the block. Every upstart tin-pot dictator or Jihadist wannabe knows he can make his bones at our expense.
                          They aren't going away, until someone else takes our place. (Pretty soon, it will be China's problem, I reckon. Won't that be fun to watch.)

                          Hey, I'm all for Peace. I just know enough to want to keep it from killing us.

                          Anybody remember WWII? If it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor, we would likely all be speaking German today. The peace (neutrality) movement almost cost us our freedom. We we ever learn?

                          TFYQA - think For Yourself, Question Authority

                          by Niniane on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:05:16 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  well, you had me going until ... (3+ / 0-)

                            Please. Comparisons to Bush are like comparisons to Hitler... invoke it and you lose.
                            It is intellectually dishonest and lazy... I'm fairly certain that you can do better.

                            Anybody remember WWII? If it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor, we would likely all be speaking German today. The peace (neutrality) movement almost cost us our freedom. We we ever learn?

                          •  It only seems hypocritical... really. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Salvor Hardin

                            TFYQA - think For Yourself, Question Authority

                            by Niniane on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:20:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.htm (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            suicide blonde, adrianrf

                            >>> From Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power 1919-1933 by James Pool and Suzanne Pool (The Dial Press, 1978), pp 111, 129:

                            "That Henry Ford, the famous automobile manufacturer gave money to the National Socialists directly or indirectly has never been disputed," said Konrad Heiden, one of the first biographers of Hitler.[87] Novelist Upton Sinclair wrote in The Flivver King, a book about Ford, that the Nazis got forty-thousand dollars from Ford to reprint anti-Jewish pamphlets in German translations, and that an additional $300,00 was later sent to Hitler through a grandson of the ex-Kaiser who acted as an intermediary.[88] The US Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd, said in an interview that "certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy."[89] At the time of Dodd's criticisms, the general public was aware that he was speaking of Ford because the press made a direct association between Dodd's statements and other reports of Ford's anti-Semitism.

                            Henry Ford's reward from Hitler finally came in July 1938, when on his seventy-fifth birthday he was awarded the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle. Ford was the first American and the fourth person in the world to receive this medal, which was the highest decoration that could be given to any non-German citizen. Benito Mussolini, another of Hitler's financiers, had been decorated with the same honor earlier that year.[128]

                          •  Oh, come on now (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, suicide blonde

                            Get real.  Hitler never could have governed Russia, Europe and North America.

                          •  There would have been plenty of (0+ / 0-)

                            Collaborators willing to help... remember Vichy France?

                            TFYQA - think For Yourself, Question Authority

                            by Niniane on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:05:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The US did not declare war on Germany - (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee

                            it was the other way around. Germany declared war on the US.

                            "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

                            by Ritter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:04:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you're making way to much sense (0+ / 0-)

                            i predict trouble.

                            dkos - vaya mala leche

                        •  Unnecessary (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Salvor Hardin

                          TR abuse...
                          Uprating to help compensate...

                          Appreciate the discussion... sorry about the fallout.

                          TFYQA - think For Yourself, Question Authority

                          by Niniane on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:10:44 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Beware of the consequences of your words. (4+ / 0-)

                        The US still trains terrorists at the School of the Americas in VA. They also trained the Taleban predecessors in Afghanistan - the mujadihin. The Teleban were educated in Pakistan with your US tax dollars.

                        "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

                        by Ritter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:00:47 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                          Um, the '80s are over.

                          •  The taliban were funded by the US in summer 2001 (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Salvor Hardin, old wobbly

                            They made a convenient target -- somebody against whom Bush could send our legions to get some good ole american revenge -- but nobody in the bush administration was very interested in the rights of afghani women, or the fate of gigantic buddhas, prior to 9/11.

                            Remember the American Taliban? We convicted him of treason. Too bad he had signed up into the army of one of our allies. What was he supposed to do, resign? "Uh, well you see, now that America has decided to attack, I guess I'd just as soon go home."

                            Tell me, was your bloodthirst slaked by the attack on Afghanistan?

                            I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                            by UntimelyRippd on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:32:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, it was (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      varro, davybaby, WinSmith, ChesCo Dem

                      The attack on Afghanistan was not simply morally justifiable, it was morally necessary.  This is THE country that harbored the terrorists that attacked the WTC.  One of the problems with the war in Iraq is it took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, made us invest resources in a country that did not harbor Al Queda and never was a threat to the United States.  Afghanistan, on the other hand, is where the Al Queda was given a safe haven to plan and execute their mission, and the then-rulers, the Taliban, refused to cooperate with us in shutting them out afterwards.  I believe that we would in fact have been morally derelict if we didn't use our military force in Afghanistan.

                      Secondly, yes, a lot of other countries, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia willingly give shelter and money to terrorist groups.  However, neither of those countries protected OBL and refused to cooperate with us.  In addition, not attacking any of those country, even if such attacks could be justified using the same logic, does not invalidate the argument itself, and does not invalidate the justifiability of the attack on Afghanistan.

                      •  Call me when you have a logical argument (4+ / 1-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SarahLee, Ritter, suicide blonde, carlos oaxaca
                        Hidden by:
                        Mister Gloom
                        •  Ha ha ha (0+ / 0-)

                          What better way to demonstrate that you got nothing than to dismiss out of hand.  Nice try, but it's you that's suffering from a lack of logical coherence.

                          •  i'm here all afternoon; try again (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            suicide blonde
                          •  I'm not the one that has to try here (0+ / 0-)

                            I've already succeeded.  You have no substantial answer.

                          •  I am not going to diagram it for you (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, Jesterfox, suicide blonde

                            but take my word that you don't have a single cogent argument. You obviously have no understanding of the meaning of "morality," "necessity," rationality, or foreign policy.

                            If part of your contention (quite honestly I can't make out what else you are trying to argue) is just that the US needed (for some truly unexplained reason) to act irrationally by hitting a whole nation/people because a subgroup harbored one man, then all I have to say is that the man you are looking for is still at large. The Taliban actually asked for solid evidence of bin Laden's guilt in exchange for him. Bush chose to attack. You seem fine to argue this irrational foreign policy in light of the evidence that we have about who the attackers were, who funded them, and the fact that Bush and Co only saw attacking Afghanistan, from Sept. 12 on, as merely a prelude to attacking Iraq. They were never interested in actually (nation) building in Afghanistan. We certainly know this was not their only foible!

                            Can I get your permission to use your post in my logic class as an example of error? I am dead serious.

                            As a final note, I'll add the following adage for your old age:

                            Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

                          •  Yes, you may use my argument (0+ / 0-)

                            in your logic class.  But ONLY on the condition that you use FULL CONTENTS (not snipets) of all of my posts in this conversation, including this one.  And on the condition that you have your professor write directly to me (my email address is provided in my profile) his or her reaction to my argument's logical aspects.

                            Now, on to your points, there is nothing there.  Yes Bin Laden is still at large.  That's due to the incompetence and/or wishful ignorance of the current administration, and that fact has nothing to do with the morality of the Afghan invasion on the day that it was done.  You are making a known logical fallacy of being a consequencialist, that goes something like: "if any of the objectives of a said action remains unachieved, then that action [perhaps retroactively] becomes immoral."  That is not so.

                            Second, you are making another famous logical fallacy here: "If an action was used as a precursor to another action, and if this second action is immoral, then the first action itself must also be immoral."  Again, not so.  I can tell you to positively and scientifically prove that Afghanistan was in fact used as a precursor to Iraq and that the two aren't in fact separable actions - including the intentions involved, but I won't, because for this debate it is unimportant.  The morality of an action, even if I accept the argument that it was done with a hidden intent for a second immoral action, is not solely dependent on the (mal) intent of those taking it (the first action), nor on the morality of any related actions thereafter.  It is possible for an act to be moral without regard to a further immoral action.  For example, if in a certain moral system benefiting financially from an open source software is wrong but building open source software is right, and the software's creators do benefit from it, then their first action, the creation of the software, would be moral, but they would be using it to lead to an immoral action (making money).  Again, in that moral system.  It is important to maintain a constant moral system when you are analyzing logic.

                            Your last point is however, not about logic but what in fact is moral.  There, we have a disagreement.  I don't believe that violence is always the last refuge of the incompetent.  I believe there are such things as just uses of force, even just uses of deadly force.  If you were pointing a gun at me and about to shoot, I would think it would be perfectly moral for me to shoot you first if I could.  And as for old adages, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things."

                            And last but not least, 83 is not my age, it is my birth year.

                          •  War is not the ugliest of things? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            NYCee, Salvor Hardin, suicide blonde

                            Then what, one must wonder would be.

                            The most important thing for you to consider, friend, is that almost all of the foundations of your argument are assumptions that not everybody shares. Your world view -- one that treats relations between nations as if they were relations between individuals, one that assumes that it is better to kill a whole lot of other people to prevent a few people in their midst from killing some people in your midst, one that rates untimely death to hate-inspired violence as somehow worse than all the other untimely deaths that come our way, (caused by things like insufficient access to medical care, or insufficient public transit, or whatever), one that puts a premium on the lives of certain special individuals (US citizens, for example) over those of plain old individuals (Afghani citizens, for example), and on and on and on -- is not my world view.

                            Now, you may think that my world view is lunatic. But if everyone shared my world view, there would be no war. If everyone shared your world view -- well, things would be a lot like they are, with bodies stacked to the heavens, and blood flowing in rivers.

                            I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                            by UntimelyRippd on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:42:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  First off (0+ / 0-)

                            you are making assumptions about my world view that are not in my posts.  Stop doing that.  Every loss of innocent life is regrettable, and I don't assign value propositions to one life over another, and nor do I assign values to one group of people (however large or small they may be) over another, so long as they are both innocent.

                            My world view is simply this: when my country is under attack, I advocate using every avenue, including the might of our military and the power of our diplomacy, legally available.  This world view also includes not making the situation worse by attacking countries that had nothing to do, ever, with an attack on the United States.

                            But if everyone shared my world view, there would be no war.

                            You are absolutely right.  If everyone shared your world view, there would be no war.  And if there never was war to begin with, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  It would be a utopia in certain respects.  However, reality dictates that we do not live in that world.  Given that we live in a world where war does happen and where we did get attacked, in this world, no country can unilaterally stop defending itself.  We do not live in a perfect world.  And therefore a world view needs to be as realistic as it is idealistic.

                          •  Your world view is well summarized in: (5+ / 0-)

                            "When my country is under attack"

                            Your country was not under attack. Your country's sovereignty was never at risk, your country's political institutions were never at risk (until, of course, wicked people exploited your tribalism to begin hammering away at those institutions), not one square foot of your country was in threat of shifting out of the sovereign control of your country's government.

                            Some people from somewhere else attacked some buildings within the geographical boundaries of your country, with concommitant deaths. The number of deaths was a small fraction of those that could annually be prevented if we withdrew all of our military forces from all of our imperial outposts, slashed our defense spending to that necessary to defend our borders, and used the freed-up resources to provide universal, government-managed health care to our population.

                            Here is a question for you: To what extent did you entertain the idea that the attacks on the Twin Towers were the predictable and inevitable results of your country's predatory approach to the rest of the world?

                            Ultimately, wars happen because the bad guys on one side and the bad guys on the other side, each for their own wicked and foolish purposes (usually some combination of vanity, greed, and kindergarten sociology), are able to harness the fears and tribalisms of the mass of people, setting the millions on one side against the millions on the other, when neither side of millions has any legitimate interest in the conflict. Bin Laden and Cheney are two sides of the same corrupt, corrosive coin, and Bin Laden is no more (nor less) my enemy than is Cheney.

                            I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                            by UntimelyRippd on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:18:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ok this is just seriously screwed up (0+ / 0-)

                            the attack on World Trade Center wasn't an attack on the United States?????  That just transcends all logic and common sense.  No one needs to explain that.

                            Here is a question for you: To what extent did you entertain the idea that the attacks on the Twin Towers were the predictable and inevitable results of your country's predatory approach to the rest of the world?

                            And you advocate a policy of non-retaliation?  That's funny.  In one breath you say that it's not ok for the US to retaliate when someone collapses two towers in America and murders 3000 people on American soil, but it's perfectly ok for Al Queda to retaliate against the US because of our "predatory approach to the rest of the world"?  Talk about a double standard!

                            This is a sidetrack question.  I am not going to play that little game.  Nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, justifies attacks specifically and intentionally targeted exclusively to civilians or civilian facilities.

                          •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            suicide blonde

                            And on the condition that you have your professor write directly to me

                            I am the professor.

                            And last but not least, 83 is not my age, it is my birth year.

                            I had already guessed that.

                          •  Ouch (0+ / 0-)

                            I am the professor.

                            In that case, I hope your students are free to challenge the professor.  After all, that IS part of intellectual learning, isn't it?  Also the other conditions remain.  You will give your students full access to ALL of my comments here, not snipets.  Anything less is intellectually dishonest on your part.

                            And so, Professor, you have no answer to anything else, huh?  I guessed that!

                        •  Mister Gloom, thanks for gratuitous troll rating (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          suicide blonde

                          for 2 actually. if you have a beef, post something, a response. explain yourself. c'mon out and talk to us.

                    •  So... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sarahnity

                      Two guys show up and beat you senseless.

                      One runs into a bunker, armed with assault rifles.

                      The other goes home.

                      You recover, and knock around the guy who went home.

                      You are morally vile because you didn't run into a line of assault rifle fire as well.

                      Brilliant!

                  •  You know the Taliban (0+ / 0-)

                    offered us up bin Laden, but we told them to fuck off, right?  

              •  I disagree... (13+ / 0-)

                While we definitely should have responded and brought those responsible to justice, you don't need to start a war to do so. The Clinton administration managed to catch those responsible for the first Trade center bombing without starting a war at all.  We were attacked by criminals, not another country, and in my opinion at least using a police action rather than a war would have been more effective.  Last I checked our war in Afghanistan hasn't brought the main culprits to justice at all and in fact the Taliban are retaking control of the country. So I think Kucinich was right there as well.

                War is never the correct response, unless you have an invading foreign army at your doorstep.  That hasn't happened in the US since about 1812.

                The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

                by cometman on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:51:25 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  taliban retaking the country? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AJsMom

                  guess we might as well roll things up there as well then. you need to send a messenger over to mullah omar's cave because he might have missed the meeting.

                  meanwhile lets all pull back to our doorstep and send an apology to hitler's family. for that vastly incorrect response called WWII

                  •  In that case... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    suicide blonde

                    the US was attacked by a sovereign nation who declared war on us.  We responded appropriately. We were not attacked by another nation in this case but by a group of criminals of unspecified number.

                    My comment about 1812 may have been off base by not considering WW11. Sorry, I was typing quickly.

                    Other than that my comment still stands. criminal action should have a law enforcement response.  And if you really think Afghanistan has been pacified, I have some swampland in Florida you may be interested in...

                    The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

                    by cometman on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:58:11 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Lunacy? (9+ / 0-)

                Going into Afghanistan was the lunacy.  There wasn't and isn't any prospect of "pacifying" this huge, topographically challenging and culturally diverse land.  There were other options we should have tried.

                •  We'll wait for you to name them (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ChesCo Dem

                  And the failures in Afghanistan were those of execution.  It's blindingly clear that the Afghan people were fed up with the Taliban - and that they've been much more patient than the Iraqis.  Bush is failing them, but the possibilities were there.

                  "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                  by fstlicho on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:38:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Iran is focussing on infrastructure (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    suicide blonde

                    in Afghanistan, and from what I've read has had success.

                    I know two people who have served in Afghanistan:  one in the military and one for a private contractor.  They tell me it's an unmitigated disaster.

                    •  No disagreement there (0+ / 0-)

                      But it's Bush's disaster, not a disaster under any president.  Gore would have had the sense to not try reconstruction on the cheap, or to suck resources away to Iraq.  Iran is focusing its efforts on regions where it has cultural inroads; not across the board.

                      And don't you think the removal of the Taliban (Iran's arch enemy) might have freed the way for Tehran to act?

                      "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                      by fstlicho on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:15:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Maybe so-about Tehran (0+ / 0-)

                        I also think that the instability on their border after the Taliban was removed (temporarily, we might add) was a huge concern, with the possibility of hoards of refugees and other problems.

                        Clinton tried to go after Al Qaeda in both Africa and Afghanistan and was ridiculted and criticized by Cheney et al.  

                        I feel pretty confident that neither Gore nor Kerry would have taken rash action nor committed us to unwinnable wars.

                        •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                          Both of them would have been a lot more sensible and a lot less scornful of the finer details of reconstructing shattered states like Afghanistan.

                          "There will always be two different views / Of the same thing, baby / Too many views with loaded pride." - The Fixx

                          by fstlicho on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 10:27:51 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  his own words 'trash' him? (3+ / 0-)

              hey if you like Dennis more power to you, but like kos said, playing the victim card is really a tad over-board.

            •  You make an excellent point WinSmith (0+ / 0-)

              Well stated.

              "In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." Chomsky

              by formernadervoter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:37:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  YOU said he's "wacky," for God's sake! (0+ / 0-)

              Now what was your point, exactly?

              Thanks for slapping those hogs away from the trough.

              by perro amarillo on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:43:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Kucinich is fair game (6+ / 0-)

              He may have been right on some issues, but it's enormously presumptuous and stupid of him to think he should run for President. His flakey persona hurts the Left, undermines every cause he seeks to advance. Yet he still thinks he should be the public face of the Left rather than pass the standard on to some more articulate and credible leader.

              That means he's either completely clueless, or completely selfish.

              Kucinich is a bad joke told completely earnestly, without irony.

              •  Of course... (4+ / 0-)

                Kos readers want their Presidential candidates vetted by the National Press for freshness before they make a decision!

                They want new and improved, hot off the shelf, complete with shallow talking points and triangualtion hardware!

                We can't elect a real person that isn't part of the Washington Beltway Industrial Complex , now can we?

                "The waging of war, by its nature, is total - but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial." -- Daniel Berrigan

                by Rico on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:29:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  The right embrace their fringe... (8+ / 0-)

                ...and in so doing move the entire country rightward.

                The left crucify their fringe with a venom unmatched even by their venom for the right, and in so doing aid the right in moving the country rightward.

                But it sure is personally satisfying, huh?

                -fred

                •  Ummm (0+ / 0-)

                  I disagree with some people on the fringe because, I DISAGREE with them. I am not going to say, hey that's a horrible idea, but if I agree with it maybe the entire country will shift to the left. In my opinion that is worse than triangulating toward the middle because,

                  A) you become associated with unpopular ideas that you don't actually believe in anyway.
                  B) there is some place for compromise and being open to the views of the majority when responsibly leading a democracy. Deliberately polarizing the debate is a cheap trick that will ultimately only destroy what you are trying to gain control over.

                  I'm not saying that radical leftists are bad or should silence themselves for the benefit of moderates, but neither should they expect self-censorship from the center

                  •  Of course, that's not what I'm advocating (4+ / 0-)

                    Agreeing with the fringe just for political gain?  Obviously not.

                    But what are we doing with the far left?  Mocking them, and saying they aren't 'real candidates' or that they're 'nuts' or whatever — in short, marginalizing them, disassociating yourself with them, trying to thrust them out of the political debate entirely.

                    And the right doesn't do that, and that's one of the reasons that they win.

                    I'm not saying that radical leftists are bad or should silence themselves for the benefit of moderates, but neither should they expect self-censorship from the center.

                    As long as we are just as full of vitriol for those an inch to the left of us as we are to those a mile to the right of us, we will continue to lose.  And no, I don't expect self-censorship, I expect tolerance, which is to self-censorship as debate is to hypocrisy.

                    -fred

                    •  I'm not interested in marginalizing the Left (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm probably farther Left than most posting here. But I want us to have effective leaders and spokespeople. And Kucinich is not effective. I'm criticizing him from the Left, not the Clintonian "Center."

                      The Left has ALWAYS been pretty rigorous about self-examination and self-criticism. Fools and scoundrels have not been suffered gladly. Marx saw Duhring and Proudhon as damaging rather than advancing the interests of the workers' movement, and he attacked them pretty savagely. Trotskii was unafraid to call Stalin a fraud and betrayer of the Revolution.  

                      •  And so... (5+ / 0-)

                        I'm probably farther Left than most posting here. But I want us to have effective leaders and spokespeople. And Kucinich is not effective. I'm criticizing him from the Left, not the Clintonian "Center."

                        And so, are you willing to do so respectfully?  Clearly Kos isn't, because the quotes that he posts are basically saying 'isn't this guy a nutcase?' and the book he cites is just flat-out wrong (and I have to guess is probably written from a pro-business anti-government prospective, since right now Cleveland has one of the healthiest municipal power programs in the country, and just about everyone left of McCain agrees that he was right to stand up to the bank the way he did.)  Oh, and every time someone says that X isn't electable Kos gets on his high horse and screams about how awful that is, and then it's his first argument here.

                        The goddamn abortion point, the one that we should be actually paying attention to, the one that was both factually correct and intelligently made, is lost amidst the complete crap.

                        Trotskii was unafraid to call Stalin a fraud and betrayer of the Revolution.

                        Trotsky ended up with an icepick through his skull, and didn't, frankly, do the Soviet Union a whole lot of good.

                        The left has always saved its most impressive vitriol for the left, while being more than willing to have frank discussions with the right.  If we continue to do that, we will continue to alienate the people whom we deride, and we will continue to fragment the left, to our permanent damage.

                        -fred

                        •  Proud to be a "splitter" (0+ / 0-)

                          Stalinism grew from the Ban on Factionalism at the Tenth Party Congress (1921) and the mistaken and very dangerous conviction that there was to be no internal debate and criticism endangering the "monolithic unity" of the Party. By forfeiting the right of members to criticize Party decisions and Party leaders the Party degenerated into nothing more than a rubber stamp, a pep rally celebrating the infallibility of the Party majority line and the omniscience of the Party's leader. Those Old Bolsheviks who remembered the days of a very different, self-critical Party culture were silenced by 1929 and liquidated by 1939.

                          That's what eventually happens when you choke off frank criticism for fear it will divide the Party and embolden its opponents.

                          The Democratic Party may be more undisciplined and fractious than the Republican Party, but I say thank God for that. Because it means we're still free to criticize naifs and buffoons who would make the Party a laughingstock (Kucinich) and self-aggrandizing opportunists who would sell out its most fundamental principles (Clinton). I intend to continue assailing both, and with vitriol, because I take my politics pretty seriously.

                          I'm sorry you find my attitude disrespectful. I don't go out of my way to offend. But I sincerely believe Kucinich is a well-meaning but inarticulate crackpot with delusions of grandeur, and letting the media characterize him as the Voice of the US Left would be a disaster for the Left. How do you suggest I restate that so it sounds "respectful"?  

                          If you want an example of a political organization that values unity and discipline are valued over all else and permits no unkind word to ever be uttered against opportunists (Frist, Bush, McCain) or half-wit fanatics (Santorum, Keyes, a host of others), try the Republican Party. Perhaps their monolithic unity has helped them win some past elections-- but at what cost to the nation?  

                          •  please (0+ / 0-)

                            That's what eventually happens when you choke off frank criticism for fear it will divide the Party and embolden its opponents.

                            There's a big difference between frank criticism and frankly being a jackass.  When it comes to Kucinich, Kos seems determined to be the latter.

                            But I sincerely believe Kucinich is a well-meaning but inarticulate crackpot with delusions of grandeur, and letting the media characterize him as the Voice of the US Left would be a disaster for the Left.

                            The media and most of the country wouldn't know Left if it came up and bit them in the ass.  You want a real leftist politician, you need to get Castro and Chavez up here and running for office.

          •  Ralph Nader is an admirable man... (22+ / 1-)

            I still think he is, and I still wont blame him for 2000 or for 2004, I'll blame the idiots that voted for bush...

            "electibility" is not the highest achievement one can aspire to...

            I don't think kucinich would make a good prez, I'm not even sure I like him, but I like that he voted against the war, and I like the Nader fights for the little guy ALL the time... it's an admirable quality

            -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

            by L0kI on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:23:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  do you wear seat belts and have an air bag in... (5+ / 0-)

            your car?
            That's "so what" you clown.

            "In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." Chomsky

            by formernadervoter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:42:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The difference is (0+ / 0-)

            that Nadir fights for consumer rights whereas Dennis fights for participative citizen rights. Big difference.

            "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

            by Ritter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:37:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nader is the reason for the Kucinich bashing (0+ / 0-)

            The GOP realizes it will be much harder to steal the next election through vote rigging.

            Their new tactic is to marginalize Kucinich, split the liberals from the Dem party and take advantage of the split by running a "third party" candidate.

            Its no secret that the GOP heavily funded Green Party candidates in the 2006 election.  They're likely counting on Nader or another Green candidate to split the Dem vote again.

            Like him or not, Dennis is a good Congressman who takes care of his district. He also gives a voice to liberal voters and their issues in the Democratic Party.  Get rid of him, and you'll be helping the GOP win in '08.

            There is no real perfection, there'll be no perfect man, Just peace is our connection, forgiving all you can - Pete Ham

            by Betsy McCall on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 03:30:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Bingo n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

          by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:43:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Believe in Space Aliens? He's a Ferengi (5+ / 0-)

          The ears are just too much, no matter what he says.  Sorry, but within certain parameters, looks do matter.

          "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

          by Mimikatz on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:56:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Being against going to war (6+ / 0-)

          is a necessary but insufficient criteria for a viable presidential candidate. That said, in general I found DK supporters to be idealistic, with a lot of campaign chops among them.

          •  It's not Dennis' principles I question, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Heart of the Rockies, nocore

            it's his intelligence.

            It's entirely to his credit that he knew instinctively the Iraq war is wrong. This wasn't so apparent to Hillary Clinton, or even Edwards. So chalk this one up to Kucinich.

            But being morally outraged about the war is not enough. Every time Kucinich opens his mouth he shows his positions on issues are all instinct, unsupported by reason. He's never going to convince anyone he knows the way to GET US OUT of the war. Frankly, I don't see him capable of producing tangible results on any front. Congress and the media would eat him alive.  He lacks basic political skills. He lacks credible answers. He lacks policy. The "Peace Department" thing really is telling in this regard.

            Just contrast Kucinich with Clark, who has real military and administrative experience, actually studies issues, and proposes solutions. Clark could convince a lot of people, including disillusioned Republicans and Independents, that he knows the way to get us out of Iraq.

            It's a shame Clark isn't in the race, but clueless buffoons like Kucinich and Biden are.

            •  You just haven't been paying attention. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee, samfish, truthbeauty

              Go to Kucinich's web site, and tell me about any position you are curious about which hasn't been carefully considered and plainly expressed.

              "The waging of war, by its nature, is total - but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial." -- Daniel Berrigan

              by Rico on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:32:45 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Clark, who has real military and administrative (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              suicide blonde

              experience of the most atavistic, primitive form: imparting orders to underlings, who cannot refuse them and have no right to discuss them or even to go on strike.

              You call that relevant experience to run a nation? Well...

              "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

              by Ritter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:23:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

              I'm reasonably certain that a simple Goooooogling will bring up Kucinich's plans to get the US out of Iraq.  

              DON'T say he has no policy or just goes by the gut.  By saying that, you're only showing that you know nothing about the guy.

              Kucinich, to his credit, is one of the few Democrats who ACTUALLY has plans and doesn't just talk of sweeping rhetoric the way certain Democrats (Obama) do.

              The reason he doesn't "produce any credible results" is because there are a bunch of morons out there who refuse to think outside of the box.  
              Same shit, different pile!

              Meanwhile, people keep fucking dying and starving and suffering because we're all to God damned busy debating whether to continue going left or right in our little circle of lunacy.

          •  Kucinich also has (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            redstar, suicide blonde

            a Universal Health Care position I support and if you actually read the Department of Peace Bill, it makes sense.  

        •  credit where credit is due. But still, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wystler, Buffalo Girl

          if being right on the war or a whole bunch of other issues was enough to be president, I'd be running.  Or you, or redstar.  It's not.

          •  Why isn't it? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ritter, PA Progressive, adrianrf

            I think that's the heart of the issue - Kucinich is someone who has grass-roots support, not Washington beltway backing.

            Maybe he's doing what we should be doing, and that reflects badly on our perceptions that typing on a blog is somehow being an "activist" or is putting a part of ourselves on the line for a cause.

            When someone like Kucinich says we should leave Iraq now, it places our willingess to let someone else do the hard work to end this catastrophe in a harsh light.

            "The waging of war, by its nature, is total - but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial." -- Daniel Berrigan

            by Rico on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:38:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because it's a job. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sarahnity, ChesCo Dem

              I don't pretend to be able to do the job.  Some of the reasons stated by kos go to that, but nobody really is talking about how Kuncinich goes from a guy who is forgiven for running several inept campaigns to adminstering the entire federal government.  He hasn't even gotten to the point of seriousness that anyone even bothers to talk about HIS lack of experience in government.

              Being president isn't a reward for being right combined with raising one's hand.

        •  Being right on Iraq isn't everything (3+ / 0-)

          I like many here was against it from the start.  And I like many here would not be the right person to be running for president.  That may be the start of someone's qualifications, but it's not the end.

          "There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who believe there are only two kinds of people, and those who know better." - Tom Robbins

          by beedee on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:28:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  PATRIOT Act (0+ / 0-)

          I can forgive a vote for it the first time around in the emotional heat of the Sept. 11 aftermath, but not so easily those who re-enacted it, with added rubbish, in 2006.

          Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

          by ben masel on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:48:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  He has always been right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          redstar

          about Universal Healthcare as well.  

        •  Nail, meet hammer (19+ / 0-)

          "Kucinich discredits the left"

          I've been trying for 4 years to figure the core problem with DK, and you did it in 4 words.

          You can get pretty far with a lie. But you can never get back.

          by privatewl on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:42:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  True enough on the environmentals here. (21+ / 0-)

          He's clearly not "viable", and he's a bit out there on a lot of things.

          Guess what, though, kos. Not everyone in the so-called "big-tent" fits the mainstream shoehorn you seem to expect here (and I thought you were a libertarian of sorts).

          But you should also know that his term as mayor is subject to debate, and what he did with the municipal electric company caused much of what he is criticised there. And in retrospect, he was right about the one issue he went to bat for Cleveland for, and while your author may think otherwise (at least, this one, who you seem to take as an authority), it is highly subject to debate.

          But Kucinich is most clearly the candidate of the left. Guys like you facilitate the shrinking of the tent.

          Your disrespect speaks volumes.

          Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

          by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:49:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think even Kos should be allowed (21+ / 0-)

            to express his opinion on DailyKos. We all get to have our say so should he. I think he expressed himself well and backed it up.

            "I shall follow the light of reason, express my honest thoughts, help destroy superstition, and work for the happiness of my fellow beings." - Robert Ingersoll

            by JavaManny on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:57:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The attack on his time as Mayor (27+ / 0-)

              is pretty damn slanted.  Dennis was elected to Congress because "he was right" in the end as Mayor.

              •  I'm no Kucinich fan (37+ / 0-)

                and this is the section of Kos's post I disagree most with.

                Kucinich's decision to put Cleveland into default over Muny Light was a profile in courage. His decision, and that of the Republican mayor after him to uphold it (wasn't it Voinovich?), has saved the city of Cleveland millions.

                Dennis Kucinich has many faults, but criticizing his term as Mayor, which was most marred by the Muny Light scandal in which HE WAS PROVED RIGHT, is most disrespectful of the man. Considering that's the very reason the city of Cleveland honors him and continues to elect him with such broad bipartisan margins, perhaps Markos should do some research on this issue and revoke this ONE point of the post. That would be the truthful, and right thing to do- keep the criticism grounded in facts.

                I respect your views, Markos, but you're waaaay off base on this part.

                The "middle of the road" is where the chickens get run over.
                -8.13, -4.15

                by Eddie in ME on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:24:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree.. (22+ / 0-)

                  Maybe this view should balance out some of what Kos said about Kucinich and Muny Light:

                  (emphasis mine)

                  The Charge of the Muny Light Brigade
                  by Joshua Sheer

                  Twenty-eight years ago today, 31-year-old Dennis Kucinich, then the youngest-ever mayor of a major American city, famously pushed Cleveland into economic default rather than capitulate to the demands of a group of bankers eager to gobble up the city's power plant.

                  Today, as Kucinich kicks off his White House bid, he speaks to Truthdig about a stand of integrity that nearly cost him his political career, but which has striking relevance in the current political landscape--where such integrity seems in short supply.

                  This interview was conducted by Truthdig research editor Joshua Scheer

                  TRUTHDIG: Twenty-eight years ago, you were the "Boy Mayor" of Cleveland--the youngest-ever mayor of any major U.S. city. And you were also the first mayor to put a city into default since the Great Depression. What happened there?

                  KUCINICH: When people find out the nature of the default, they're pretty shocked. Because what happened is that Cleveland went into default because I refused a bank's demand to sell Cleveland's municipal electric system as the price of renewal of the city's credit.

                  TRUTHDIG: What happened to your political aspirations because of that episode?

                  KUCINICH: Corporations aren't used to public officials who say no. So I couldn't get a job in Cleveland. I was not able to make a living in this city. It was very tough to win any elected office. But an interesting thing happened: I saved the municipal electric system because I refused to accept this Faustian bargain that was offered me by the city's lead bank, which was: You sell the city's electric system, and the bank will give you--the city--$50 million worth of new credit. But if you don't sell, we're going to put the city of Cleveland into default. And so this was a moment when I had to determine who I was, what I was made of. Was I ready to take a stand on behalf of the people, or was I just about to become like anyone else who caves in and goes along to get along?

                  ...How much people pay for electricity is no small matter. For some people, it is a real hardship to be able to meet the monthly electric bill, gas bill, telephone bill. I remember when I was growing up in Cleveland, standing in a hallway, listening to my parents count the pennies to pay the electric bill. I can still hear the pennies dropping--click, click, click--on our old chipped, white and metal table.

                  So I was sitting in a board room with the head of Cleveland's largest bank, Cleveland Trust, and he was telling me that unless I agreed to sell Cleveland's municipal electric system to the Cleveland Electric Illumination Co., which had many relationships with the city's banks, he was not going to renew the city's credit.

                  And all the time I'm thinking about my parents, back when I was a child. I'm hearing them counting the pennies. I'm hearing "click, click, click," and this banker is telling me, "You had better sell, or we're putting this city into default." And I'm thinking of my folks and everybody like them, to whom it matters what they pay for electricity, to whom it matters that there's somebody standing by, defending their interests--even if they don't know about it. For me this was a moment that brought together everything I ever believed in.

                  ...TRUTHDIG: Did the press vindicate you? Does the municipal power system right now have a lower rate than the privately owned one?

                  KUCINICH: It's still competitive. The answer to the first part of your question is that 15 years after I refused the bank's deal to take Muny Light off the hands of the city of Cleveland, Cleveland Municipal Electric System undertook the largest expansion of any municipal electric system in America. It had saved the people of Cleveland hundreds of millions of dollars in lower electric rates and also in tax dollars, by providing electricity for street lighting and for city facilities. And this year, 2006, Muny Light, now called Cleveland Public Power, observed its 100th anniversary.

                  I take great pride in [having been] mayor at a time when this enormous effort was made to push the city of Cleveland to sell the electric system. It was on my watch. I had to make a decision. I had to decide if I was going to knuckle under to the wave of media coverage that, one editorial after another, one news story after another, basically reconstructed the social and political reality of the city to make it seem like I had no other alternative but to sell the electric system.

                  But there are times in one's life when you have to realize the illusions which surround you; you have to be able to pierce that unreality and to understand exactly what's going on in the moment. And I understood what was going on in the moment. And when I saw things that were not true, I called them like that. And so I had to let the people know, "Look, there's no reason the city of Cleveland should have to go into default."

                  ...The message was coming from all directions. I was told that I had no other choice but to sell. And it was all based on a hoax. It was a fraud. It was a moment when I was called upon to have foresight and clarity and take a stand, and let the chips fall where they may.

                  And I'll tell you something: I knew at that moment, I knew absolutely, that my career was on the line. I knew that if I refused to sell, the banks would put the city of Cleveland into default and I would likely lose the next election because people wouldn't understand what happened. But any of us have to decide at some point in our lives what we stand for--whether we have integrity, whether we really believe that there is such a thing as a government by the people, of the people and for the people.

                  TRUTHDIG: When the chips fell, they fell pretty hard. You were forced out of public life for nearly 20 years. In hindsight, do you stand by your decision to do this?

                  KUCINICH: Every public official or aspiring public official who would read this interview should remember that when you take a public trust, the most important thing is to defend the public interest. There's always some kind of a deal out there where someone is out there to convince you that if you just go along with this particular matter, it'll be good for your career; it'll show people that you know how to come to reason. Deals like Muny Light are out there every day for politicians who want to get in with certain interest groups, who want to advance their career. This isn't condemnation of people who do it, but that's just so much of what politics is about: People decide, "Well, I'm going to do something I really don't like, but I'll stay in office and I'll be able to help people some other time." There are millions of little bargains that take place like that every day. It's just that I saw something else: I saw that this had immediate economic relevance for the people of Cleveland, and also for everyone who was ever in public life who felt like they needed to take a stand and were looking for the courage to do it.

                  Because any one of us can inform all of us that it's OK, that life is going to go on, that you can stand up for what you believe in, that you don't have to sell out, that you don't have to sell your soul, that you don't have to let someone else determine the circumstances under which you are in public service.

                  So this was a wonderful opportunity for me, having been the youngest mayor of the city of Cleveland, who had this chance to stand up for the public interest--at a critical moment, when everything was on the line, and all the odds were stacked against me ... I stood up for the people.

                  And years later they knew I was right. Years later they put me back in the state Senate, and they followed up by putting me in Congress, and I win elections in Cleveland now by huge majorities. And I'm grateful for that. But I knew in 1978 when I refused to sell that electric system, I knew the bank was going to follow up on its threat to put the city of Cleveland in default. I also knew I'd lose the next election--which I did. But there are, believe it or not, some things more important than holding public office. And what's important is that when it comes your turn to make the decision, you stand up, you don't relent, and you--in the words of "Prometheus Unbound" by Shelley--you defy power which seems omnipotent. And that is what it means to be joyous and free. If you are going to want to be a torchbearer for the freedom of the people, you have to be free yourself.

                  TRUTHDIG: There's a lot of debate over the regulation and deregulation of energy companies. But this was not really a deregulation-regulation debate, right? You were trying to prevent a monopoly.

                  KUCINICH: Right. This was an issue of: Do the people have the right to own their own utility? The question is: Is there such a thing as the public domain? Is it appropriate for governments to operate water systems, sewer systems, parks, libraries, public services? The man who founded Muny Light 100 years ago, Mayor Tom Johnson, said something to this effect: I believe in the public ownership of all municipal service utilities, because if you do not own them, they will in time own you. They will rule your politics, corrupt your institutions, and finally destroy your liberties.

                  The issue of public ownership has huge implications today for the people of the United States:

                  It relates to whether or not we can have a public retirement system like Social Security, which has been under attack in a privatization scheme.

                  It relates to whether or not we can have a public health system through a universal single-payer system instead of this system we have today, in which 100 million people are either uninsured or under-insured, because the system is held by private interests.

                  It relates to the question of whether public education is going to be adequately funded.

                  It relates to the theft of natural resources--of oil companies using their power to get leases and mining companies using their power to grab public lands, or everyone looking at public resources as something to be looted.

                  This same destructive impulse is evident in the policies of the International Monetary Fund--the so-called structural adjustment policies, which force communities to give up publicly owned assets in order to gain access to capital, and then the people end up paying exorbitant amounts of money for services which used to be provided directly to the people.

                  This question of public control was at the center of Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech, where he said to beware of the military/industrial complex. Today we see the privatization of war reflected in mercenaries and contractors in Iraq, who will make of the war in Iraq a perpetuating industry.

                  It relates to this destructive ethic of privatization, which is being visited on the people of Iraq right now, with the attempt by interest groups to push changes in national law which pave the way for the privatization of the oil industry.

                  These are the kinds of questions that are central to issues of democratic governance. These are questions that are central to the very idea of a polity which exists for the public interest, as opposed to the private interest. So go all the way back to Dec. 15, 1978, and my decision had implications far into the future. And I can see the same kinds of schemes that are out there today that try to steal or defraud the public of what is really a heritage of the people. And for my part, what I learned in Cleveland in 1978 is that it is possible to stand up; and you may pay a price, but what is the most important thing in life is the triumph of principle; and nothing, no high office, no monuments, no false praise from media working against the public interest, is a substitute for being at peace and one with integrity.

                  I'd appreciate it if folks can take a look at the actual record of the Muny Light sale and make their own decision on wether this was ultimately beneficial for the people of Cleveland.

                  "The waging of war, by its nature, is total - but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial." -- Daniel Berrigan

                  by Rico on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:23:17 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Critics have a hard time with that (6+ / 0-)

                  because they want to say that his change of heart on abortion issues was for political expediency.  Hard to do that, when the guy has gone out on a limb and not backed down from what he thinks is right on so many other issues.  

                  I don't think he is presidential material, but I do believe he is a person of integrity and I can't say I have any disagreements with his current policy positions.  Shoot, he was the first politician I noted to come out and say "water is a right," recognizing the moves to privatize water..

                  He stood on the debate stages and declared the need for Universal Single Payer Healthcare and got called a socialist by the moderator.  He didn't back down from that position after that.

                  He spoke out for repeal of the Patriot Act and  

                  I've read the Department of Peace bill and I've listened to people who are working on community conflict-resolution initiatives declare a need for it.  The Bill encompasses much more than foreign policy, so "The State Department" throwaway line doesn't cut it.  It is about helping successful programs in communities and states and schools  spread that support and provide some of the needed funding to do it.  

                  And spending 1% friggin percent of the defense budget for putting peace and conflict resolution on the table seems like a worthwhile investment to me.

              •  And that.... (9+ / 2-)

                got my TU status yanked.  Grow up Kos.

            •  The issue is the condescension... (6+ / 0-)

              ...with which Kos has been treating Kucinich, and by extension, the people who voted for him and support him. The notion that he has to shield Kucinich supporters from his record (surely, they don't know this. Why else would they disagree with me) is obnoxious. And his decision to shield these poor delicate flowers by... mocking them and smugly dismissing their candidate???!!  

              Kos brings up a few interesting points here, and one very misleading point that has been debunked by other posters. All in all, his argument here against him is weak. Certainly, it doesn't merit the smug dismissal with which he has been treating this man.

          •  Most clearly the candidate?! (5+ / 0-)

            You've got to be kidding me.  Kucinich might be good enough for a low level cabinet post, but not a chance in the world he would ever be a decent Presidential frontrunner.

            Confundo: The mad world; forum-based

            by aerojad on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:58:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You can be right about a lot of things, (10+ / 0-)

            but without political skills and talents, you won't be able to do anything about them.  Kucinich does not have a deft political touch, and the next president is going to need all the political touch they can manage.

            "One way or another, this darkness got to give"

            by wozzle on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:59:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Isn't Kos (7+ / 0-)

              capable to put together something like this

              but without political skills and talents, you won't be able to do anything about them.  Kucinich does not have a deft political touch, and the next president is going to need all the political touch they can manage.

              and instead resorts to "ugh" and "joke" and "farse" and other one-word mud-slingers?

              "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire

              by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:18:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm sure he is, but (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aexia, mightymouse

                I get the feeling he's reacting to Kucinich's fans more than Kucinich.  They were warned.

                I've been around dKos a long time and have developed a great respect for Markos.  I enjoy seeing him address those topics about which he wishes to write, and would consider it an intrusion to ask repeatedly that he write about a topic he'd rather avoid.  

                "One way or another, this darkness got to give"

                by wozzle on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:41:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SarahLee, suicide blonde, adrianrf

                  Kos started the whole saga about two months ago. The reaction came because of his actions.

                  He had a thousand ways to "skin the cat" but chose the one that's wrong.

                  "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire

                  by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:40:54 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Just curious... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SarahLee, Bronxist, Rico

                  I don't care about Kucinich one way or the other, but I'm just curious: if you were passionate about a presidential candidate, and the only think Kos would say about him was 'ugh,' how would that make you feel?

                  And, if we assume you're going to say, 'oh, I'm tough, it's no big deal', can you empathize enough to know that it would make some people very annoyed and hurt?  I can.

                  -fred

                  •  I really wouldn't care what a single individual (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bronxist

                    thought about a candidate I cared about.  After watching Howard Dean get pilloried by coordinated and lying attacks by his own party and then the media, I would find it really difficult to get exercised about what a single person (even a person as influential to Dems as Markos) thought about that candidate.

                    He's giving you his opinion and his reasons.  Honesty can be brutal.

                    "One way or another, this darkness got to give"

                    by wozzle on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:20:12 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So that's a 'no'? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      suicide blonde

                      So what you're saying is, no, you can't empathize enough to know that it would make some people very annoyed and hurt, right?

                      Because for my money, that's the important part of my question, and you conspicuously avoided it.

                      -fred

                      •  No, Fred, (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Porfiry, ChesCo Dem

                        I'm saying that I'm comfortable enough with my own judgement of people not to be too concerned when another individual disagrees with my assessment (even if they do it sarcastically).  I really can't empathize with folks who get annoyed and hurt when someone questions their judgement - but I can and do write (or in 3D, speak) in support of my choice.  

                        If one needs outside validation for one's opinion, it indicates a lack of confidence in that opinion.

                        "One way or another, this darkness got to give"

                        by wozzle on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:38:12 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm confused (0+ / 0-)

                          In the subject you disagreed with me, and then in the body you basically said 'yes'.

                          And that's fine.  But I can empathize with them, because I don't like it when people are sarcastic bastards in my direction.

                          As for your 'outside validation' point, well, I will just point out two things.  One, when you take that idea to extremes, you get George W. Bush one hell of a lot more often than you get Ghandi.  And two, if you go to someone for discussion and he makes fun of your beliefs, neither you nor he is getting anything out of the exchange.

                          -fred

                •  you're confusing cause and effect (0+ / 0-)

                  I get the feeling he's reacting to Kucinich's fans more than Kucinich.  They were warned.

                  Kos isn't being a jackass people people were complaining, people are complaining because Kos turns into a hypocritical jackass whenever the subject of Kucinich comes up, for some unfathomable reason.

          •  Honestly (18+ / 0-)

            I don't need them to fit my ideal. That's not the point.

            I was honestly content with saying "ugh".

            But people asked why I don't like him, and I answered. Just like I've been doing lately with Hillary Clinton. And like I did with Evan Bayh back when he was in the race. And Tom Vilsack. And whoever.

            All of us have preferences and opinions on these people. I was pushed to justify my distaste of Kucinich, and so I did.

            •  And very well, indeed. (5+ / 0-)

              When redstar complains of your "disrepect," s/he ignores your point-by-point argument, choosing instead to trivialize and mischaracterize it. When I read your explanation of "ugh," I wasn't shocked at your "disrespect" or your attempt to "shrink the big tent." Rather, I thought your case was cogently made. In particular, I was surprised and put off by Kucinich's history on the "life" issues.

              Redstar needs to take a chill pill and learn to evaluate and address arguments on their merits rather than mischaracterizing or ignoring them. If s/he wants to be an advocate for Kucinich, fine, but s/he needs to overcome the evident reflexive defensiveness and address the issues raised. Otherwise, s/he loses the debate on the merits.

              And what the "speaks volumes" comment is meant to suggest is hard to figure out. It is merely ominous and vaguely ad hominem.

              "Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system." Walter Benjamin

              by psnyder on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:20:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You should have left it at "ugh" (3+ / 0-)

              or at least put this in the diaries.  It's not constructive to attack a Democratic Presidential candidate like this on the front page.  He's not a serious candidate so shouting his faults from the mountain top only provides ammunition to the Republicans to paint the entire left with the Kucinich brush.

              All that said, I agree with your take on him.

            •  Oh, now I understand... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee, redstar

              So you wanted to protect Kucinich's fans from his own record. Surely they don't know what you know. Otherwise, why would they ever disagree with you.

              And you chose to protect those poor, delicate flowers by... condescending to them, and smugly dismissing their candidate, instead of actually addressing his record???

              Makes perfect sense to me.

            •  then I ask you: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee, redstar

              If shown that some of the "facts" that you posted as your reasons to dislike Dennis (your right, anyway!) are proven false... would you consider take "a time out" and look deep within yourself?

              Markos (wow.. I just realized you and I have practically the same first name ;)... I worked as a low level Kucinich staffer in 2003/4 (and we will see what will be my real staff position for 2008,) but I was able to have a real good relation with the local Dean staffers. Yes, we had ton of discussions, but we were able to respect each other. During the 2004 general election I was in contact with many of the Dean supporters all over Iowa because I was at that time the Hispanic Caucus Chair for the State Democratic Party (and also working for the Art Small for Senate campaign), and I ran into some that harbored ill feelings toward Dennis because they saw him as the "spoiler" of the Dean campaign. Some recovered, some still have the same feelings. And the vitriolic attack of your "ugh" make me think that you are one of them!

              Again, if shown that some of your facts are wrong, will you really look within yourself? (and I already posted some responses about choice and his mayoral record).

              Really in Peace,

              Peace with Justice / Si se puede! Marcos

              by poetas on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:30:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  He is NOT "the" candidate of "the" left. (11+ / 0-)

            A candidate of a (part of the) left?  Sure.

            "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

            by ogre on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:01:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The real left. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee, chesapeake, PA Progressive

              Not the "liberal" left.

              Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

              by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:04:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You get to define the real left? (17+ / 0-)

                I didn't realize you'd been appointed.

                Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

                by clonecone on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:07:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It sure as hell isn't going to be moderates like (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  suicide blonde

                  yourself and many others hereabouts.

                  Objectively speaking, not relatively speaking, when compared with other Western democracies.

                  Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                  by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:09:16 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hey - I am fairly way out to the left (9+ / 0-)

                    90% of the time - and he has NEVER been my candidate.

                    "For me, walking into a nice Jewish deli IS a religious experience." -my mom

                    by ETinKC on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:15:24 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He doesn't have to be. (10+ / 0-)

                      He's not mine either (I don't have one, well actually I do, she's in a tight race in France, those elections are closer for me and I've already voted absentee.)

                      But objectively speaking, unless you are employing a helluva relativist scale of political leanings, none of the other announced candidates represent lefties in a comprehensive fashion.

                      Kucinich does, however imperfectly. Criticising him criticises lefties in the party. I know, because I am one, and I'm not even a Kucinich fan.

                      If people are gonna hate on Greens at every turn hereabouts, and then turn around and also hate on the only guy who actually consistently represents lefties (instead of respectfully letting them have a voice in the party) in the Democratic party presidential field as it is currently constituted, then folks should not be surprised at the reaction they get.

                      We may only be 5% of the population, but we are a core block of votes for the party.

                      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                      by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:21:18 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "Criticising him criticises lefties in the party" (3+ / 0-)

                        What nonsense. Kucinich is a joke and it is an utter disgrace that the left has adopted him as their special candidate. Of course the other candidates are far too moderate to be anyone's favourite socialist, but that is neither here nor there when assessing Kucinich himself. If we don't have a serious candidate, we don't have a candidate, full stop.

                      •  nope (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        jxg, ablington

                        he only represents the anti-war left.  He has a lousy record on a lot of other things those of us on the left care about.

                      •  The apparent unconcern by many at this site, (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SarahLee, suicide blonde

                        about possiby alienating a fair number of the Party's natural allies, as opposed to the attitude displayed to the well behaved wing-nut, has always seemed foolish to me also.

                        Behold the Lambs of Kos.

                        by greeseyparrot on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:42:36 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Natural allies? (5+ / 0-)

                          Those natural allies repeat the myth that there is no difference between democrats and republicans.  Those allies run to third parties when the nominee fails to meet an ever shifting test of purity.  Those allies do everything in their power to ensure that the major party furthest from their beliefs gets another 4 years in office.

                          Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

                          by clonecone on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:26:46 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The natural allies... (4+ / 0-)

                            ...who are far enough left that Clinton, with his failures to do anything about health care and gays in the military, his delight in gutting large chunks of welfare, and his numerous other DLC-like instances of bending over and just plain taking it from the right, turned off of the Democratic party.  Because under Clinton it often felt like things were just going rightward in the country slower than they would have under a Republican.

                            I've said it before: Republicans embrace their fringe, and by doing so enlarge their party and move the country rightwards.  Democrats mock their fringe, with more venom than they turn on Republicans, and in so doing both shrink their base by driving the far left out of their party and assist in moving the country further rightwards.

                            The common mating call of the Democrat is, "I'm a Liberal, and I'm as far left as it's rational to be!  Everyone to the left of me is a loony!"

                            -fred

                          •  What our fringe fails to see (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ChiGirl88

                            is that they are much more likely to get what they want under a Democratic administration. Voting 3rd party does absolutely nothing to advance a progressive or liberal agenda.

                            Would you rather have more Ginsburgs or more Alitos? The Roberts court is the fruit of our fringe's efforts.

                            Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

                            by clonecone on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:00:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Which is to say... (3+ / 0-)

                            "Sure, we abuse you, and taunt you, and frankly spend some of our most vicious attacks against you.  Sure, we're much more likely to make common cause with the moderate right than we are with you, and only partially because they have far more power than you do.  Sure, we basically believe that anyone more than a smidgen to the left of us is a whacko, because we're the paragons of liberalism and no sane person could be further to the left.  Now be good boys and girls and vote hold your noses and vote for us."

                            The really insulting, horrid, awful part is that so many of the 'mainstream left' think we ought to be happy to do it.

                            Would you rather have more Ginsburgs or more Alitos? The Roberts court is the fruit of our fringe's efforts.

                            It really hasn't even occurred to you that they aren't part of your base any more, and that if you want them to be, you have to do something to win them back, has it?  I'm here to tell you that people will only take so much abuse and being taken for granted before they bite the hand that more often slaps than feeds them.

                            I mean, my God, my God, I've heard people on here say that if Hillary is our Democratic candidate then they won't be voting in the general, because she's just too far right, and wrong about the war, and so forth, and people all nod sagely and agree, or at most disagree gently.  I've heard these same people turn around and scream hysterically about how the whole mess is the left fringe's fault.  Jesus, that makes me mad!

                            If you can't get the left fringe to vote for your candidate, because your candidate is acting like a Republican a third of the time, then there's someone to blame, and it's not the left fringe.  And if you're yelling at them, accusing them, making fun of them, being obnoxious to them, then you're the problem.

                            -fred

                          •  No, they are the problem. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise

                            Because the are willingly ignorant of how the election system works.  They are the problem because they are willing to subject the country and the world to GOP rule because they couldn't be adult enough to compromise and vote for a candidate that didn't match their beliefs 100%.  Clinton might not be as far to the left as Nader but she's certainly further left that McCain.  Your vote isn't a message.  It isn't a way to resigster dissent.  It's your primary mechanism for determining the direction this country takes in the years following an election. Vote for the Democrat and you have a chance for a progressive agenda.  Vote for anyone else or simply don't vote and you're rubberstamping everything the Republican Party stands for.

                            You want to take your purist ball and go home?  Fine.  Just be adult enough to accept the consequences of your actions.

                            Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

                            by clonecone on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:52:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, redstar, suicide blonde

                            You want to take your purist ball and go home?  Fine.  Just be adult enough to accept the consequences of your actions.

                            Direct translation: if you won't vote for someone who holds you in utter contempt, thinks that you're insane, and will do very little to nothing about all the things that matter to you, then you are the problem.

                            I hate the consequences of the lost election, but so do you.  But instead of any kind of self-examination, you just scapegoat the Green voters.  Instead of thinking about the fact that if you move right on the political spectrum, you are trying to include some more people towards the right, and you will lose people to the left.  It's just going to happen, and anyone who doesn't understand that has never been outside of a binary worldview.  It sounds to me like you are the one who is unable to accept the consequences of our Democrats pulling further to the right, not me.

                            And it's not like it would take a profound change to bring the lefties back into the fold.  All you'd have to do is show some consideration, and possibly respect, and at least talk about some of the issues that matter to us.  It was within Gore's power to cut down those protest votes, to make it possible for Greens to continue to have self-respect while voting Democratic.  But they, and you, would much rather chase the mythical center, while going all bug-eyed with rage that the left won't just take the abuse and meekly line up to vote for the people who hate them.

                            -fred

                          •  I have a binary world view about voting (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise

                            because that is the world we live in.  Your vote puts one party into power and there are only two parties with a chance to win.  So you vote for the one closest to you and you work like hell to make your voice heard. Or you work against the party closest to you and whine when the world goes to hell due to the stupidity of your vote.

                            It's realism vs. fantasy.  I choose reality.

                            Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

                            by clonecone on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:47:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your opinion (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, redstar, suicide blonde

                            The way I look at it, if the Democratic Party becomes the Republicans and the Republicans move even further to the right, then the Democrats are looking for votes from other people, so why do they need mine?

                            In the case of many Greens that I know, their response was the most rational of all: they realized that they couldn't stand to live under either of the regime choices that they were given.  So they voted for the Greens and moved to Canada, New Zealand, France, or a Scandinavian country.  And are, by and large, a lot happier there than they would be here.  And that is what happens when you alienate your base.

                            Frankly, I look at the conversations going on on here, and I sometimes wish I were resolute enough to get up and go.  Sadly, I love San Francisco a little bit too much.

                            -fred

                          •  Then they are quitters. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise

                            who don't have the guts to fight for a system of liberal or progressive government.  They condemn the world to a Bush presidency with their childish votes and then run off, hide and throw stones from afar.  

                            You know what the difference between a Green and a Republican is?  The Republican are honest enough to admit their vote puts the right wing in power.  

                            Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

                            by clonecone on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:41:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Those lousy quitters (0+ / 0-)

                            ...not to get childish or anything.

                            They discovered that they hated what their country had become, and decided that another country would suit them better.  I wonder if you call people quitters who move away from a town to get a better job and a better life when the town is going downhill?  After all, they could be staying and spending all their energy and life's work trying to improve the town.  Never mind what they actually do with their lives.

                            You know what the difference between you and a Republican is?  You scream and bitch about the problems and the people you see as causing them, whereas they go out and try to fix them.  If the ultra-righties cost them the election in 2008, they will spend the next four years trying to patch things up, whereas you spent the last years excoriating the hard left.  I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to which approach is more effective.

                            -fred

                          •  PS (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, redstar, suicide blonde

                            Your vote puts one party into power and there are only two parties with a chance to win.  So you vote for the one closest to you and you work like hell to make your voice heard.

                            BTW, this is an interesting view, because it perfectly validates the idea that the Democrats should move as far right as they possibly can.  After all, they'll still be the closest party to the left (and anyone from the left would be, in your worldview, stupid and irresponsible, if not delusional, to vote for anyone else, or to fail to vote at all), and they'll capture a lot more people from the right.

                            -fred

                          •  That wouldn't work (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise

                            because there's too many ignorant people on the left who are delusional enough to believe that the US has a parliamentary government.

                            If you vote green you are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party and you'll receive the exact amount of respect you deserve for casting that morally reprehensible vote.

                            Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

                            by clonecone on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:45:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And, conversely... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...if you enable the Democratic party to become more and more like the Republican party, you will receive the exact amount of respect you deserve for making that morally reprehensible choice.

                            That wouldn't work because there's too many ignorant people on the left who are delusional enough to believe that the US has a parliamentary government.

                            What's hysterical is that you seem to believe that it should work, and that the world would be a better place if it did.  Whereas I think that the Green party is a useful brake on the Democrats going totally fucking nuts.

                            -fred

                          •  Great. FF's comment, and mine above it, (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, redstar, suicide blonde

                            (and the comment to which it links), as well as the one above that, all trying to make a point about how we talk to the "fringe", how we need to reason with, rather constantly stomp on them... the response ? same old, same old, "it's them, the source of all ills".

                            Excuse me while I go beat my head against a wall.

                            Behold the Lambs of Kos.

                            by greeseyparrot on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:54:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Can We Please Not Argue About Who's the Leftest (3+ / 0-)

                      of them all?

                      It's always kids like me who suffer most when mommy and daddy fight, you know?



                      You can have your "Under God" back when I get my "Liberty and Justice For All" back.

                      by karateexplosions on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:12:05 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Other western democracies (11+ / 0-)

                    aren't voting for the American president.  I honestly don't give a rat's ass what liberals in France, Germany and Canada think about our candidates.  What matters is whether or not the next president will repair ties with our former allies and get our foreign policy off the crazy train.

                    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

                    by clonecone on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:16:07 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Good luck with that. (7+ / 0-)

                      There will be no repairs unless the US elects a reasonable candidate on war and peace, on the environment and on trade and economics.

                      You see a Democratic candidate like that?

                      Americans are in firm denial how bad the standings are. It's going to take a lot more than Hillary or John Edwards or any of the others.

                      Gore might do the trick. He's a rock star. Beyond that, I'm not seeing it.

                      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                      by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:24:09 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And thanks for all your good wishes. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LanceBoyle

                        As far as good wishes go.  I don't see much help coming either from Kucinich or from people who equate dumping on his candidacy as equalent to dumping on "the left".

                        •  As an exercise... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          SarahLee, redstar, suicide blonde

                          ...or from people who equate dumping on his candidacy as equalent to dumping on "the left".

                          Just as a purely intellectual exercise, imagine that you held a lot of the views that Kucinich does, and imagine that you even understand the language he's speaking and like it.

                          Now imagine people saying he's a whack-job who deserves to be shut away for the good of the Democratic party.

                          And somehow I bet you still don't understand why people might take it personally when you abuse the candidate they believe in.

                          -fred

                          •  So would the lesson be (0+ / 0-)

                            for me, to not dump on a candidate that I really think is a whack job, or for them, to not take it personally?  You got me.  I think it depends on teh candidate.

                            Obviously, redstar thinks that the answer is for everyone to talk nice about his favorite candidate. I'm not so sure he thinks that the answer includes him talking nice about every else's candidate.

                      •  they would ALL improve overseas (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Elise

                        relations, by virtue of not being tight with BushCo.

                        Thanks Tut, Gramp, Choom Gang, and Ray for all the good times. Relentless!

                        by ablington on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:50:47 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Don't kid yourself (5+ / 0-)

                          Speaking from another country, it's going to take a lot more than just not being Bush to win back the U.S.'s former allies in the Western Bloc.  Support for the U.S. in general has been plummeting since the 1980s thanks to a series of presidents who have been, from the position of the political mainstream in these countries, completely unpalatable on foreign policy.  Clinton was, in general, not an exception although he earned significant brownie points over Yugoslavia and generally by the end of his term has restored a small amount of trust.

                          However, on the non-military aspects of foreign relations, the U.S. is still considered the absolute pits.  I think in general (in circles like trade, the environment, and international cooperation) the consensus is that the U.S.'s word isn't worth a fiat dollar, on any subject, and that goes whether a Democrat or a Republican is the one flapping his gums behind the podium.  Not even Conservatives in this country (Canada), who are essentially a branch plant of the Republican Party, take the U.S. seriously at all on matters like trade or border security.

                          (When I say "political mainstream" in the liberal democracies of the West, that's approximately equivalent to the mainstream left as it would be in the U.S.)

                          We (and I see this in mainstream opinion in Europe, and the other "middle powers", as much as in Canada) are not going to coming back to some Democratic president with open arms just because they claim to have some magic fairies plan to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq.  It's going to take serious coalition-building, serious fence-mending, and a serious willingness to do the work that's been pissed away over much of the last decade as the U.S. have tried to throw roadblocks in the way of every major international initiative I can think of.

                          In short, before you guys get anyone else to play along, you're going to have to elect an Administration that is serious about being a team player and a principled negotiator, and not picking up their ball and going home in a huff every time something happens or someone says something that they don't like.  We haven't seen anyone in the White House like that for a long time, certainly not since Ronald Reagan.  And I have to say, from what I see of the candidate roster, there aren't many in the race who can be taken seriously by the world on international issues.  Certainly not the three perceived front-runners.

                          The U.S. is the ten-ton elephant in world affairs.  You can get a lot done just by stamping your feet.  But ultimately, if the U.S. wants to accomplish much more than just scaring what it wants out of other countries (or buying, like in China) then it's going to have to return to honesty.  Which has never seemed further off.

                    •  The fact is.. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ChesCo Dem

                      Redstar is just another extremist who believes that everyone really agrees with him/her.  Most people that espouse the virtues of of the European left don't know jack shit about it.  The Canadian left or European left may be slightly more left than the people here on some issues and way to the right on others.  Europe is not some magical fantasy land of extrmists, sorry Redstar.  

                      Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                      by MatthewBrown on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:11:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am European, so I'd say I know a bit more than (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SarahLee, suicide blonde

                        you about the subject.

                        And I'd have to say that, objectively speaking, you're talking out of your ass.

                        Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                        by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:17:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Why the fuck are you trolling (0+ / 0-)

                          an American politics blog?  Seriously?  Let me guess, you think France is a utopia?  Frankly, I'd love it if the United States moved further left, but your country has plenty of issues as well.  Your rhetoric alone shows the propensity of socialism to breed authoritarianism.  We're not all stupid or misinformed for not being incredibly extreme like you.  And we're not moderates.  And most of your own country does not agree with you.  You are not special nor are your ideas.  So quit acting like an asshole, telling us what the "real left" is or is not.      

                          Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                          by MatthewBrown on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:41:18 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  You're the only one (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    clonecone, Aexia, ogre, DTH, Elise

                    Trying to moderate who is and isn't part of the "real left." This is silly and dishonest.

                    •  Well, if you think it's silly and dishonest, that (4+ / 0-)

                      is fair.

                      But then, it's folks calling people like me silly and dishonest who've facilitate the rightward drift of the US political discourse to far-right territory.

                      Someone needs to call a spade a spade. Don't like it? It's the same to me. But good luck turning the discourse around employing the relativism which seems so rampant among the Democratic party cadres, their apologists and rank partisans.

                      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                      by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:10:00 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm calling you silly and dishonest (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        clonecone, Aexia, Elise, Inland

                        Because you claim others are trying to moderate who is and isn't on the left, when you are the only one here trying to do that.

                        Claiming that facilitates "the rightward drift of US political discourse" just compounds the dishonesty.

                        Asking for honesty in debate is a means of stoping that drift you discribe, and saying it's sending us to "far right territory" is both abominable and laughable.

                      •  BA ha ha ha ha ha ha. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Aexia, Elise

                        It's too funny. You allow that calling you silly and dishonest is fair, but that it facilitates the far right wing.

                        In order to stop the right wing, we can't tell the truth about you.   Gee, who else has used that tactic?  Lemme see...emboldens...it's right on the tip of my tongue.  Well, maybe it will come to me later.

                        And then you say someone needs to call a spade a spade....as if you aren't telling us that it's OUR suit.  

                        Looking like Urity-pay Oll-tray to me.

                        •  That's not quite what he's saying... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          SarahLee, redstar, suicide blonde

                          ...but I see your confusion.

                          He's not saying you shouldn't say bad stuff about people to the left of you if that's how you feel.  He's saying that you should actually try exercising some of the famous Democratic tolerance for people to the left of you, instead of just those to the right.

                          Like the difference between hating homosexuals honestly, and just pretending you hate homosexuals for political gain.  (I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader who I'm actually talking about here.)

                          -fred

                          •  I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise

                            It's actually even worse.  He's saying that we shouldn't say any bad things about the people to the left of me, AND BY EXTENSION not say anything bad about "their candidate", D. Kucinich.

                            As to whether Kos was being intemperate towards Kucinich, I'm sure HE thinks he was being fair.  He thought "ugh" was being fair.  But whether he was or not, it was redstar's first impulse was not to correct the record IHO but to complain that slapping around a primary candidate was to tell all those of a political stripe to "go hang".  And twenty posts later, he's basically ready to take his ball and go home.

                          •  No, Fnord got it right. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, suicide blonde

                            You are free to choose to put word in my mouth, but all I'm saying is that if there's to be a big tent, a little respect is required.

                            And this here, what I'm seeing, is not respectful.

                            Criticise Dennis Kucinich all you want, but he's a Democrat, so do so respectfully.

                            Is that really so hard?

                            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                            by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:28:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Transitive. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise, LanceBoyle

                            It's small steps, but leads to exactly what I was talking about.

                            Saying that Kucinich isn't anywhere near what we want as a president, and why, isn't disrepectful.  Indeed, it's a question that is being begged by his running.  Again.

                            But in a series of small steps, you get to taking it personally.

                            It's disrespectful to simply say that Kucinich shouldn't be president.

                            He's the candidate of the left.

                            I'm left.

                            It's disrepectful of me.

                            I can go hang.

                            I'd feel a lot more respect for you, by the way, if you didn't use such transparent arguments to simply stop people from saying what they really think about Kucinich.  From your first post accusing Kos of telling the left to "go hang",  to the one comparing criticism of you to causing rightwing drift, every post is calculated to get people to simply stop saying things you disagree with.  

                          •  You really, honestly think what kos wrote (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, suicide blonde

                            was respectful, balanced and sensitive to the lefter shades of the big tent?

                            This is a yes/no question.

                            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                            by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:54:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It isn't yes or no, and I think you know it. (0+ / 0-)

                            You really, honestly think what kos wrote was respectful, balanced and sensitive to the lefter shades of the big tent?

                            I don't think it was anything at all towards lefter shades.  That would require that one first think of kucinich as the and the only candidate of the lefter shades and to extrapolate any criticism of him to individual voters.  So I guess the answer would be no, it didn't butter you up and down the way you would like, but yes, it wasn't disrepectful.  

                            I think you are simply trying to equate being against Kucinich as inviting certain voters to "go hang" in order to stop criticism of Kucinich.  "Stop criticizing my candidate or I'll go home", basically.  BTW, are you committing to voting for the democratic nominee?  Because if you aren't going to vote for anybody BUT Kucinich, the threat looks weak.

                            I didnt think kos's post any more intemperate than any of the other primary candidate pieces.  I wouldn't have written it, but it's hardly different from anyone else's.  It just matters more because his opinion matters more than the opinions o fmost of us lumps.  

                          •  No, I'm not saying "no one but Kucinich". Far (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SarahLee, suicide blonde

                            from it.

                            This being said, there are candidates, one of the leading ones, who I will not bother to vote for. I vote Demoratic 90% of the time, but I will not vote for a Joe Lieberman, or a Hillary Clinton, or a Joe Biden. I'm left and mostly realist with strong ideolist tendancies, and I'm not that partisan as to vote for such people.

                            I appreciate your candor. For my part, I saw disrespect oozing from that post, and it was visceral.

                            No explaining the way folks take things, but I note I wasn't the only one to take it that way. And as kos is a bit of an expert at communications, he surely knows two cardinal rules. The first one: know your audience.  

                            And the second one: what your audience hears is what they hear. Not what you think they should have heard.

                            At best, his post was tone-deaf to lefter shades in the big tent. But I honestly suspect he wasn't being tone-deaf at all...

                            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                            by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:21:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right like telling Harry Reid to kiss your ass... (0+ / 0-)

                            in the title of a diary.  Or saying that 44 Dems are "holding Bush's hand" etc. ad nausem.  I'll take your advice to heart.  You're the most hypocritical asshole I've come across on here, and that's saying something.  

                            Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                            by MatthewBrown on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:20:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, that's good on ya. (0+ / 0-)

                            Obviously you didn't take the time to read what the complaint was all about. Guess your a "love 'em or leave 'em" type Democrat.

                            Oh, and have a nice day!

                            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                            by redstar on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:41:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The funny thing is... (4+ / 0-)

                            It's actually even worse.  He's saying that we shouldn't say any bad things about the people to the left of me, AND BY EXTENSION not say anything bad about "their candidate", D. Kucinich.

                            The funny thing is, a lot of people around here really like Obama's 'coming together' message, where the people on the left and the people on the right (not necessarily the politicians, mind you, but the people) come together to get things done, and blah blah blah.  But it is always made clear that this tolerance for the right is never and must never be given to those further left.

                            I've seen so many articles on how to talk to Republicans on here.  How to get through their skins and convince them that Bush is a lousy leader who is destroying the country.  How to gently, carefully, respectfully point out that maybe they should consider something else, something better.

                            The universal attitude towards Greens on here is 'we hate them, the current mess is all their fault, and anything we say about them is fully justified'.  Nobody wants to understand them.  The last thing anyone wants to do is open a dialogue with them.  Absolutely the last thing anyone wants to do is admit that perhaps they have some peculiar brand of honor, for voting their actual consciences.

                            So.  Should we say bad things about people to the left of us?  The message is, 'yes, they're much more fair game than people to the right'.

                            -fred

                          •  Fred gotta step in and say (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            redstar, suicide blonde

                            that I really appreciate your reasonableness in all the comments and this was one fine point you've made.

                      •  Let me guess.. (0+ / 0-)

                        You're like, what, a sophomore in college or something read some Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky and now you think you know how the world should be?  Your scores from that ideology website speak volumes.  You are extremely radical in one respect, and much less so (though still radical) in another.  That readily belies the fact that you are extremely radical when it comes to your beliefs, but have a strong authoriarian bent when it comes to enforcing what you specifically believe to be "right".  It is this exact type of thinking that has helped turn Africa into a cesspool.  

                        Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                        by MatthewBrown on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:23:53 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  well, take this as you will: (0+ / 0-)

                    some of us on the left are going to work to see that folk like you aren't appointed as spokesmodel ...

                    objectively speaking: well, you don't ...

                  •  the left the left... the true left, I'd happily (4+ / 0-)

                    take Russ Feingold for president.  Or Henry Waxman.  Or John Conyers.  However, they all are highly effective where they currently stand.

                    "Support the troops, especially after they come home; that's the hard part." Garrison Keillor, 11/11/06.

                    by vome minnesota on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:26:31 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Clonecone isnt 'moderate' (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Elise

                    He's a proud member of the Constitution Party. get your facts straight.

                    Thanks Tut, Gramp, Choom Gang, and Ray for all the good times. Relentless!

                    by ablington on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:48:54 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Get a clue dude... (0+ / 0-)

                    This site is waaaaay left.  You are just off the deep end.  By the way, could you tell me what "Western democracies" are farther left than the poplulation here.  I always find the idealization of how left Europe is to be amazingly amusing.  

                    Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                    by MatthewBrown on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:00:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  define the "real left" (0+ / 0-)

                I'm gussing it's who ever agrees with you.

                •  Not at all. I disagree with many who share my (4+ / 0-)

                  same basic set of ideals, especially on how to achieve them.

                  But you call someone with a fundamentally neo-liberal economic outlook, like virtually all the Presidential aspirants (save Kucinich) in the Democratic part, a lefty, and I gotta tell you you're wrong.

                  Objectively wrong.

                  Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                  by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:45:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  that all depends (0+ / 0-)

                    On how you define "left." You seem to be defining it in the terms most favorable to you're argument, but many political scientists would disagree with that fairly narrow difinition.

                    •  Left is socialist. Period. (5+ / 0-)

                      Everything else follows.

                      That's the way it works everywhere in the non Anglo-American world. And that's my standard.

                      If y'all don't like that, it's the same to me.

                      But you do seem to need our votes, so a little respectful disagreement might be useful.

                      Respectful disagreement is not what I sense from kos, nor from this thread.

                      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                      by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:07:07 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  all must agree ... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Aexia, sarahnity

                        ... with our comrade

                      •  Well (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SarahLee, LanceBoyle

                        when you say kucinich is the candidate of the "real" left, you're wrong then. Because I'm about as bloody far left as you're going to find in this forum, and he ain't my candidate.

                        I don't see the point in mocking him, and I think he brings some goodness to the debates -- making it impossible for the other candidates to, say, dodge questions on the war or health care or a great many other issues that the more centrist candidates would often rather not touch. I will never consider most of the criticisms kos brings up to be valid ones.

                        But the "real" left -- by which you seem to mean the radical left I'm a part of too, the "leftists" rather than the "liberals" -- is still a broad coalition of people often with very different values. Don't assume they support Kucinich. Some do, some don't.

                        •  I don't, either, as it happens. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          hardleft, suicide blonde, adrianrf

                          But then, I don't see any of the others representing us either. Imperfect as he is, he comes closest, but as I said upthread, he's not my guy either.

                          My point was not to defend Kucinich. My point is that the tone and the language of kos' post was highly unnecessarily disrespectful to a large portion of lefties still in the "big-tent".

                          Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                          by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:00:20 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Do we really need your votes, redstar? (0+ / 0-)

                        How many people selling socialist newspapers at anti-war rallies are there?

                        For each one of you, there are a thousand or ten thousand people of generally moderate views disgusted by the clusterfuck that is the Iraq War.

                        Whoever energizes them to vote for a Dem in 2008 holds the key to the election - not people who strive for ideological purity.

                        9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

                        by varro on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:43:18 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You need the left votes (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          SarahLee, Ritter, redstar, suicide blonde

                          I beleive 2000 demonstrated that.  You also need the vote of Joe six-pack.  Why the hell would he vote for Democrats?  He doesn't care about gay rights and if he cares about abortion, he's against it.  He needs to support his family and have a secure retirement.  Neoliberals won't help him with that anymore than the Republicans.

                          Are the neoliberals going to really change trade policy?  Kerry wasn't.  Clinton and Obama won't.  Hell, Bill oversaw the dismantling of our manufaturing base.  Are they going to provide decent universal healthcare?  Guaranteed vacation and sick leave?  Free college education?  No signs of it yet...

                          So why the hell would Joe six-pack vote for a neoliberal when he disagrees with them on social issues and they are the same as the Republicans on kitchen-table issues?

                          •  The problem is that... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...adhering to a litmus test for leftism limits you - you chase the people at the very far end while losing the Joe Six-Packs who might like some of your other policies.  

                            Wouldn't Joe Six-Pack like some of those policies that you mention?  Well, pitch those to those people - don't go to the base with hippie-dippie nonsense or play dog-whistle politics with sellers of socialist papers!

                            9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

                            by varro on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:34:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't strive for ideological purity. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          SarahLee, suicide blonde, adrianrf

                          I strive for respect.

                          I note that many socialists were able to find respect in the Democratic party, folks like Eugene Debs at the end of his career, or more recently, Harrington.

                          I also note that Democrats are happy to call Bernie Sanders one of their own, though I also recall that this was not always the case.

                          You need socialist votes, if only Sanders. The disrespect is not only silly, it is counter-productive.

                          You can believe anything you want, of course.

                          Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                          by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:08:39 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  considering (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mapantsula, Aexia

                how much damage Kucinich did, prior to 2004, to choice--he is not and never will be the candidate of this particular leftie.

                "I'm not a musician. I'm a rock and roll guitar player."--Little Steven Van Zandt

                by ChurchofBruce on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:53:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, a fundie position. Sorry... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                varro

                I didn't realize who I was talking to.

                Are we backing Trotsky this week?

                "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

                by ogre on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:05:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Socialists who run Europe (4+ / 0-)

                  are far from Trotskyites.  

                  They support things like universal healthcare, free college education, guaranteed vacations and sick leave, guaranteed housing security, real unemployment insurance, paid maternity leave.  That, and they have mostly eliminated poverty.

                  Yea, those are Trotskyites.

                  •  Indeed. (0+ / 0-)

                    I lived in Brussels for three years and have friends in Ireland, Britain, Belgium, France, Sweden and Holland.

                    There's not a thing on your list that I disagree with.

                    My comment about Trotsky had nothing to do with Europe and European politics.  If you honestly misunderstood that, I'm sorry.  My comment was targeted at the absurd purity trolling involved; anyone to the right of Kucinich is dismissed by redstar, and criticism of him is bewailed as disrespect for his supporters.

                    And THAT reminds me of the really inane things that I've heard among the socialists and communists I've been friends with over the years.  Line up and affirm the party position... or else you're evil.  It's a religion.  My remark was aimed at the fundie quality of redstar's posts, the same perfect or nothing ya-ya that drove me out of the Green Party (permanently, I think), despite having been an early organizer for the CA Greens.

                    Clearer?

                    redstar wants the big tent to ensure a polite center ring for his candidate and position.  No one in the tent gets that.

                    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

                    by ogre on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:42:31 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Man, you've sure put a lot of words in my mouth. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      SarahLee, suicide blonde

                      Now, if only I could find one of them that I actually said.

                      I simply said left = socialist, and socialist = not neo-liberal, and that with the except of Kucinich (who again isn't my candidate, I don't have one yet) was the only announced candidate who isn't a neo-liberal.

                      Y'all want to take issue with that, that's fine. But objectively, for most folks in Western Europe outside the English-speaking parts, what I just said is true. And they're not ashamed of being called socialist, either.

                      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                      by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:59:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Uh, no. (0+ / 0-)

                More like "left field."

              •  here we go with the leftist hate speach (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                varro

                we are liberals therefor we aren't real leftists.
                So, who the hell wants to be a leftist?  I find them anything but liberal.

              •  You're not punk rock! (0+ / 0-)

                You're a sellout!  

                I'm tired of this kind of crap, whether in music or politics.  

                Being leftier than thou or criticizing people for not being sufficiently lefty does not win elections and alienates people from your cause.

                9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

                by varro on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:38:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And you've missed my point entirely. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  suicide blonde

                  Oh well.

                  Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                  by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:09:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What the fuck is your point!? (0+ / 0-)

                    So far I've got 1.) Kos shouldn't disprespect a farce candidate who's wingnut supporters come here to shit all over whoever they don't like and on Kos personally.  2.)  France is better than everywhere and utterly devoid of problems or complications.  3.)  Socialism is Left. Period. and also devoid of problems or complications  4.) The "real left" is not here but somewhere at or to the left of your beliefs.  These are explicit.  Your implicit argument seems to be that  America's cultural and political history didn't occur, so your beliefs would fly here.        

                    Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                    by MatthewBrown on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:13:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So far I've got (0+ / 0-)

                      that MatthewBrown talks out of his ass, puts words in other people's mouths and is a clueless dumbass.

                      Does that about cover it for you?

                      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                      by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:59:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thanks for playing... (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm glad you've proved yourself to be a huge asshole.  

                        Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                        by MatthewBrown on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 05:10:58 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  French expression you'd do well to learn. (0+ / 0-)

                          Asshole? Asshole and a half.

                          You come in late, swinging, a boorish, self-satisfied ass, and guess what. Not everyone is going to take kindly to it.

                          Some will ignore.

                          I chose not to.

                          Pot - meet kettle.

                          Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                          by redstar on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 07:40:01 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That's, well, that's just mind boggling.. (0+ / 0-)

                            "boorish, self-satisfied ass".. sums you up nicely.  You were the one trolling, arguing with, I would wager 25 different people all over the entire diary.  Calling names, condescendignly defining the "true left" and by implication indicting everyone who didn't agree with you.  No one could ignore your brand of "self satisfied ass".  That's why you had so many different people calling you out.  The rest of the world is still crazy, right?  It couldn't possibly be you.  So which is it?  Are you American or French?  Whichever "expert" hat you choose to wear at the moment I suspect.  Your in depth knowledge of, gosh, everything is amazing.  I am especially awe struck by your knowledge of all things French.. especially the phrases.  

                            Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                            by MatthewBrown on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:44:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hmmm, hate to break it to ya, but if you look (0+ / 0-)

                            at all the recs going back and forth, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to make the case I was trolling.

                            Here again, you engage in pure projection.

                            Vas te faire enculer.

                            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                            by redstar on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 10:08:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yeah wow... (0+ / 0-)

                            two or three other wingnuts with your particular and peculiar brand of idiocy recced your inane commentary.  Truly, the people have spoken.  Meanwhile, a plethora of long time and highly regarded members were calling out your assholery.  Thanks for the homophobic French slur, btw.  I'll be more direct:  Go fuck yourself.      

                            Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                            by MatthewBrown on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:34:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you spoke even a little French, you'd know (0+ / 0-)

                            there's nothing homophobic whatsoever about that slur.

                            But I forgot - you spoke multiple languages. Guess I know which ones they are not...

                            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                            by redstar on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:59:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're right... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            redstar

                            essentially telling someone to take it up the ass is not in the least homophobic.  You're right.  I've been reading your diaries and comments.  Seriously, I'm genuinely curious why someone comes to a partisan Democratic blog to do nothing but shit on Democrats and repeatedly lament the fact that the U.S. is not more like France or Canada, countries who do not share a cultural or poltical history and indeed whose systems of government are not even the same?  To repeatedly claim that your extremist views, apparently molded somewhere else (well, maybe not, you're alternately European or American where it suits you) are the "true" ideals which "should" take root within a completely different country?  What joy does that bring you?  What is your fucking deal?  

                            Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                            by MatthewBrown on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:05:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My deal is that I am entitled to my views, which (0+ / 0-)

                            are admittedly to the left in the Democratic caucus.

                            I caucus Democratic. I vote Democratic. I have a right to have my Democratic voice heard. And I take extreme exception to your attitude, your put-downs and your attempts to marginalize me (and others) as "wingnuts".

                            And guess what? I'm a dual national. Maybe you've heard of that. And one of the things this gives me is a larger perspective.

                            I invite you to check your tone. I (and others) simply reacted to that tone. Why? Because you came in blazing, late to the game, putting everyone you disagreed with down and launching into ad homs almost to the exception of all else.

                            Usually I ignore, but in your case, I chose not to. Why? Because I suspected you don't like being treated the way you treat others - folks like you, quick to engage in ad hom, usually are thinskinned in return, and this proves to be the case for you, which might give you an idea of how to tone it down in future.

                            And as for idiomatic expressions in other languages, surely you are acquainted with the term "you suck"? You might not be aware of what that really means at root - it too, in the beginning, was somewhat "homophobic" (literally - it meant to suck cock) but given the evolution of the language in American english, it no longer carries such connotations whatsoever. Ditto what I employed, in French.

                            But you can go on feeling persecuted if it fits your narrative.

                            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                            by redstar on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:20:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let's see here... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            redstar

                            I've been around this site for years longer than you have, so I really don't need "lessons" on how to tone it down.  Ad hom attacks are your bag.  I've read your shit now.  That's all it is.  Ad hom attacks, almost exclusively on other Democrats.  Who are the "others" you speak of?  I see none.  I do see plenty of people taking umbrage at your self righteousness and hypocritical and condescending "advice" about civil debate.  You bitch and moan about people not liking people like you.  Maybe you should investigate further why no one, not even democrats, like you or the extemists like you.  You live in a fantasy world.  You bemoan the fact that Republicans "listen" to their fringe.  You know why?  Because they have the discipline not to tell their majority leader to "kiss their ass" and they also happen to make up at least 1/3 of the whole party.  

                            You're the king of comparing apples to oranges, whether it be the U.S. and France or the far wings of the Republican and Democratic parties.  You like to think youre exceptionally "worldly" and therefore smarter than the rest.  That leads directly to your easily deomstable hypocricy and sense of entitlement when it comes to your particular beliefs.  I'll say it again.  There is a reason nobody likes or listens to extremists such as yourself.  Maybe you should consider looking in the mirror before pointing your finger and saying "it's them".

                            Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                            by MatthewBrown on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:40:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're right. You are more worldly than I am. (0+ / 0-)

                            I am humbled by the thought that you would take time to try to show me the error of my ways!

                            I must confess I don't remember addressing anything in your direction at first, only responding to your attacks on me. But I guess it should have known that some imaginary Matthew Brown somewhere might take offense that I might say something critical of a Democrat in any way, and refrained from doing so.

                            I'll try to be more careful in future. Wouldn't want to offend Matthew Brown, you know? Wouldn't want Matthew Brown calling me a clueless windbag marginal wingnut asshole, would I?

                            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                            by redstar on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:45:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I never said I was more worldly... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            redstar

                            I merely implied that you're not the fucking genius you obviously hold yourself to be.  I also didn't tell you to be careful or anything of the sort.  I find you comical.  I find your brand of hand wringing over the Democratic party not listening to your attacks or the U.S., inexplicably to you apprarently, not being France laughable.  I find your  cluelessness at the rank hypocricy of tsk tsking Kos over the "disrespect" shown to Kucinick while simultaneously titling a diary "Harry Reid Can Kiss My Ass" laughable.  I find your commentary laughable, due to its overbearing and cloying attempt to appear as though youre some elite intellectual.  I find your whole stereotypical "I'm so worldly and smart.. look at my dual French citezinship (I'm betting French Canadian actually) to prove it" attitude laughable.  You are a parody and what's truly funny is that you don't even realize it.        

                            Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

                            by MatthewBrown on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:01:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, no, french french. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'd be glad to send you a photocopy of my passport if it suits you, oh worldly one.

                            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                            by redstar on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:07:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't get this (6+ / 0-)

            so Kos is supposed to be "respectful" (an easily abused term) of every candidate who "represents" any part of the tent?  Wouldn't that pretty much by definition mean all the candidates?  Or are you instead implying that Kos equates "mainstream" with "welcome in the party"?  Because I didn't see that here.

            Just because a candidate's views are indicative of a particular Democratic demographic doesn't mean Kos or anyone else can't call them on their failings and apparent pandering.  It seems to me, rather, that pointing those out is part of the point of this blog (the other part being, obviously, to elect Democrats, and I'm pretty sure we don't have to worry about Kucinich surviving the primaries).

            Also, just because a candidate has some leftist views doesn't mean they are "the candidate of the left."  I'm pretty sure most lefties have not, in fact, committed their support for Kucinich, and it's actually normal for them to support a non-lefty candidate (Howard Dean comes to mind).

            This post sounds a lot meaner than I intended it to be, but still I think you're being unfair here.

            Think you live in a free country? Try forming a union.

            by exiled texan on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:15:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  After Feingold, The Left Candidate Became Clark (6+ / 0-)

            Kucinich is clearly the candidate of the left?

            Why?  Because he speaks in smooth New Age bachelor seductions?

            On matters of substance, Russ Feingold was the candidate of the left.  Now that he has exited the race, that mantle now goes to Wes Clark.

            Clark is clearly to the left of Kucinich on reproductive rights.  (But then, so is the whole field.)

            Clark is very clearly to the left of Kucinich on stem cell research.  If you heard the man speak at the Yearly Kos, you'd know he is the premier scientific mind in the field and will be the single greatest advocate of the scientific community.

            Clark was speaking out against the Iraq War well before Kucinich.  Why? Because The General had the geopolitical expertise and the prescient vision to see it coming up over the horizon long before Captain Stardust (or anyone else in the field) could even recognize it as a problem.  And there is also the small detail that when someone like Wes Clark speaks out against a war, people on both sides of the aisle and across the globe listen.  When Dennis speaks out, most of the choir isn't even listening. The General lead the left charge.  

            And we are seeing this scenario repat itself again on Iran.  Clark has been the premier voice of left in speaking out for years against the Bush administration's intent to wage war with Iran.  And he was doing so long before Dennis (or anyone else in the field) even realized it was a topic of conversation.  You can't be the peace candidate if you don't know where war is rearing its head.  Peace doesn't take wishing and poems about "starlit magic," it takes rigorous scholarship and brilliant geopolitical savvy.  Being the voice of the left takes hard work and unbounded intellectual curiosity, and Clark has been preeminent in this regard.

            Clark is also the ONLY 2008 candidate advocating a single payer health care system.  Why isn't Kucinich (or anyone else in the field) if he is clearly the voice of the left? Again, here is an issue where Kucinich is to the right of Clark.

            Being the true candidate of the left takes more than New Age poetry.  It takes substance and scholarship and vision.  Clark irrefutably trumps Dennis on each criterion.  It's not my goal to disregard Kucinich.  But I am thankful to Kos for putting Kucinich's actuality up against his perception.  I'm glad Dennis is a Congressman; I'd much rather have him in there than most of our elected representatives.  But, like Kos, I am fatigued by the myth that he the true lefty voice when he irrefutably is not.

            Wes Clark is the 2008 candidate of the left.

            •  Clark wil never close "the School othe Americas" (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee, Ritter, suicide blonde

              From this leftist point of view, somebody that clearly stated that he will never close the School of the Americas, will never be able to represent the left. Tell me that he changed his position in this regard!!!! and then, we can discuss it.

              For more information about the genocidal "School of the Americas" (the US Army school that trains Latinoamerican armies) go to SOAW's website.

              Peace with Justice / Si se puede! Marcos

              by poetas on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:46:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here You Go (0+ / 0-)

                Just what you asked for.

                Here's Wes Clark on the subject:

                To a woman who aksed him about his postiion on the SOA in Concord: "George Bruno will be happy to take you down there," Clark told the woman who questioned him in Concord. "If you find anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know, and I promise you, we'll close the School of the Americas when I'm president," he said. But if "you find nothing wrong and you see these officers and noncommissioned officers in there learning about human rights, I'd like you to change your position."

                And furthermore...

                "It is unacceptable that some who passed through the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) committed human rights abuses. Those that did should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - as should all who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. In order to prevent such abuses from happening in the future, we must promote a policy of engagement and education with friends and allies in the region.

                I strongly support the reforms that have been implemented at WHISC and encourage careful vetting of students. I strongly support oversight measures that ensure that antidemocratic principles are not taught at the school."

                http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.c...

                Well, there you go.  I repeat, following Russ Feingold's exit from the campaign, Clark is irrefutably the 2008 candidate of the left.

                •  there *you* go (0+ / 0-)

                  sorry, but his response is the response from the army!... WHISC (the new name for the school) has a "human rights curriculum"... and so what?... the proof is in the pudding, and 200.000 dead Guatemalans can attest to that!

                  Also, to call only for the prosecution of the alumnae without calling for a full investigation and prosecution of the professors is the same story that we have right now with the prosecutions of those soldiers involved in tortures in Iraq. We prosecute the ones (and only some) that actually tortured prisioners, but we don't dare to prosecute those that not only allow for it buy encourage it!

                  In other words, saying

                  Those that did should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

                  really doesn't cut it... and.. what law??? US law or the law of the HR violator's country? And those that distribute torture manuals on school grounds... should not be prosecuted? He know, or he should have known about the manuals. It came to light during his command (look further down for more proof of this). And let me remaind you, those are the same manuals that were (are?) used in Iraq!

                  If you want proof of the School wrong doings, go to the SOAW site. I won't post here all the extensive proof on how the school was involved with the worst of the Latino American Arm Forces, and how they are still involved!...

                  Your general shows no compassion toward those vanished and dead in torture camps that were run by SOA alumnae. He did not say "I will check". He asked for proof that a general that had been in charge of the Southern Command should have check at some point.

                  This article from CommonDreams it's quite clear, anybody from the Gral. Clark's staff could have ask for more information:

                  On December 16, 1996, a few months after the Pentagon admission of the torture manuals, Clark visited the SOA, not to demand accountability but to give a commencement speech at an SOA graduation ceremony. Six years later and still, no one has been held accountable for the use of the torture manuals at the SOA. The SOA trained death squad leaders, assassins and military dictators. Its graduates were found responsible for some of the worst human rights atrocities in Latin America, including the El Mozote massacre of more than 900 civilians in El Salvador in 1980, the murder of Guatemalan Bishop Juan Gerardi in 1998 and of Colombian Archbishop Isaías Duarte in 2002.

                  (http://www.commondreams.org/...)  

                  Until the general gives a good explanation of his support of the school, and joins us in closing the School of the Americas (under any name), I will not consider him as a presidential candidate, much less somebody that can represent liberals and progressives. I'm sure father Roy Burgois will be happy to talk with him anytime. I will be more than happy to help arrange such a meeting.

                  Peace with Justice / Si se puede! Marcos

                  by poetas on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:33:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Misleading (0+ / 0-)

                    Poetas,

                    I respect your passion on this issue.  And the in the '80s and prior there were highly questionable things about the school.  So your concern is valid.

                    But you cannot blame someone who came along a decade later and never had any official relationship with the school whatsoever for something that occurred before he even arrived on the scene. Nor can you discount the fact that the school has been radically overhauled in very substantial ways to address the very types of criticisms you refer to.  To ignore this is to be intellectually dishonest.

                    But furthermore, Clark says, in no uncertain terms that if ever again there is ever found...

                    "... anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know, and I promise you, we'll close the School of the Americas when I'm president."

                    That is BY FAR the strongest statement made against the school by any viable 2008 candidate.

                    You cannot reasonably ask for a statement any stronger than his position that if he sees a single piece of contemporary evidence of wrongdoing at the school, he will shut it down.  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.  Clark is black and white on the issue.

                    It is great that you feel passionately about human rights issues.  It is to be commended.  But you cannot place blame where it doesn't belong- even those at Common Dreams would admit to that. Common Dreams, which you keep siting as your reference (and I agree it is a good one), maintains a very nice rapport with Clark. And they continue to publish his writings.  Do you think they'd do so if the thrust of your allegations was sound?  No. Of course they wouldn't.  

                    I repeat, Clark is very clearly the 2008 candidate of the left.

          •  He voted for every anti-choice (5+ / 0-)

            piece of legislation there was before he ran for president. He voted FOR the anti-flag burning amendment when Senator Clinton did not. He voted FOR legislation that allows teens to be tried as adults.  
            He might be the candidate of the anti-war left, but the rest of us on the left have some other issues we also care about.

            •  Here's my question. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee, varro

              Why can't we use him for what he is good for?  We know he isn't going to win, but he can push others to the left on issues we care about.  He is the only person talking about real healthcare reform rather than realigning how the HMO's take our money so we don't notice that our money is still being taken for next to no return.

              The thing I don't get is that this story suggests that there could or would be some huge wave for Kucinich which I think is pretty much impossible.  All I wanted was for him to stay in the race long enough to push some people to the left on Iraq and healthcare and then cut him loose.

              What's the point of a primary if all we get to choose from are Clinton and Obama?

              •  Overton window... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SarahLee, inclusiveheart

                ....while I don't support Kucinich now, he does raise points that other candidates should address - and he was an early adopter of the anti-Iraq War view that has percolated into the mainstream of the Democratic Party (although Hillary has to acknowledge that she was bamboozled by Bushit).

                The New Agey crap has to go, though.  It's the snake handling of the Left.

                9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

                by varro on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:47:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am most interested in his healthcare (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SarahLee, varro

                  plan and the fact that he is not afraid to talk about the highly negative influences of the HMOs on our national heathcare system.  I mean somebody got this party to go from having prominent members sit on Wal-Mart's board of directors to actually getting prominent members to sit outside their stores in protest of their practices.

                  I want Kucinich around in the debates to push the other candidates to take on the HMOs.  That is really all I want from him and he is very credible on that topic.  At this point, I'll take what I can get.

          •  The guy is a goddamn anchor... (0+ / 0-)

            pure and simple.  Talk about a "department of peace" is so stupid on so many levels that the fact the he is a "Presidential" candidate makes the whole party look worse.  His rhetoric only serves to virulently reinforce the stereotype of liberals as hippy dippy idiots with their heads in the clouds.  So yeah, much disrespect.  In fact, much disrespect to everyone who comes to this site to bitch about the fact the even here a lot of people think their rhetoric does more harm than good.  Extremists suck.  

            Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

            by MatthewBrown on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:54:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  C'mon, Kos, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, Buffalo Girl, rgdurst

          let the energy of the stars become you!

          "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

          by machopicasso on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:42:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  you NAILED it, although i'd still defend kucinich (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee

          as an elected representative of our party. I actually like the Department of Peace idea and think it delineates a different set of responsibilities than the Secretary of State.

          I see Kucinich like Fredo Corleone. In public, I have his back. In private (hypothetically), I tell him not to be such an idiot. I also try to keep him out of the spotlight, and away from responsibility.

          there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

          by danthrax on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:37:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  1 rating by 1 analyst is a pretty shallow means.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee, Jules Siegel

          of evaluating Kucinich's tenure as mayor.  Hell, if you read Mike Royko's Boss, you'd be embarrassed to admit that Daley was one of the most important Dems in the country for 2 decades.

          As others noted below, the defining issue of Kucinich's stormy mayoral tenure was his refusal to sell Muni Light.  History has shown that he was on the correct side of that issue.  Obviously, his constituents thought he was right in hindsight--why else would they have repeatedly elected him to Congress?

          So he's running another vanity campaign in which his chances of winning are now marginally higher than Tom Vilsack's are.  I'm not going to support it, but I'm not going to waste my time worrying about a candidacy that will quickly be forgotten w/i days after the IA Caucus.  

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:24:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  actually he did not quit (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee, Ritter

            and was able to get some delegates and even a very good showing in Alaska and Hawaii. He is not forgotten after the Iowa Caucus because, unlike other "progressive" choices he keeps the message going.

            Peace with Justice / Si se puede! Marcos

            by poetas on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:21:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  You are buying the right wing line :( (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee

          Let's be clear. Dennis was hated by the right wing because as a mayor of Cleveland he had the audacity of refusing to sell Muni Light to pay the interests to the banks (a debt acquired before he was mayor).

          The political resurgence of Dennis Kucinich in Cleveland (and in Ohio), came as a product of the electorate understanding how right was Dennis not to sell Muni Light.

          For more info about Muni Light and Dennis as a Mayor, check The Charge of the Muny Light Brigade (a truthdig article by Joshua Scheer,) or check the copy of the Plain Dealer article from May 1993 (is a jpeg copy of the article, on the truthdig site).

          Kos: if you want we can talk about issues like "viability" or even the way that Dennis ran his 2003/4 campaign. I think that will be fair. But I can not believe that you will use the right win propaganda against Dennis to dismiss him!

          Enjoy your trip, really enjoy your kid(s) and I hope you and your partner have a beautiful birthding experience :) (the birth of my last son, helped this time by a midwife was a life changing experience!) (also, if you can afford it, get a doula, they are wonderful!!!)

          Peace with Justice / Si se puede! Marcos

          by poetas on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:59:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wait, wait, wait.... (0+ / 0-)

          Don't you dare tell the kabal of idiots who have thronged to this site to bitch about the "anti-left bias" that their patently stupid hippy nostalgia and new-agey bullshit talk about "The Department of Peace" and "Moving the Overton Window, Man" or the "Facist War Pigs" discredits the left.  Don't you understand Kos?  They're actually the ones who are right about everything and the only ones have done anything useful.  Forget your brand of "winning".  That involves the system, man.  Which we all know is "evil".  

          Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

          by MatthewBrown on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:45:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Stalin (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wystler, DelRPCV, Buffalo Girl, EnderRS

        Tag your Hillary diary with the appropriate Hillary Diary Archetype Number

        by Bob Johnson on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:45:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Serving Senators and Congressman (6+ / 0-)

        How many presidents have been elected straight from the House of Representatives?

        Here's the answer

        US House of Representatives

        • James Garfield - He was assassinated a few months after his election in 1880.

        US Senate

        • Warren G. Harding - He died a bit over two years after being elected in 1920.
        • John F. Kennedt - He was assassinated less than three years after taking office in 1961.

        Very strange that none of the three got to complete their first term.

        A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

        by JekyllnHyde on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:46:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Question for you, kos... (7+ / 0-)

        If you didn't like Bayh, why did you like Warner?

        Tag your Hillary diary with the appropriate Hillary Diary Archetype Number

        by Bob Johnson on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:47:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. you're not. But as a major independant (7+ / 0-)

        commentator who is also a Democratic partisan, you're no simple blogger with a minor audience.

        I don't recall anyone "demanding" that you explain yourself on this matter - seems to me you rather enjoyed yourelf doing so, though.

        There's no victim mentality here - not from me, nor from any of the other posts I read which took issue with your characterization both of Kucinich and of his supporters - I've no illusions about the place (or rather, lack thereof) for me in this so-called "big tent".

        And when folks like you are so gratuitously contemptuous, as you are in this greatly slanted post of yours, the tent gets smaller.

        From personal experience in the place of the world I live (Kucinich won in my precinct - middle class, St Paul MN - in 2004) this is a big mistake, and somewhat irresponsible to boot.

        Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

        by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:02:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hah (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, wystler, Sparhawk

          There's no victim mentality here - not from me, nor from any of the other posts I read which took issue with your characterization both of Kucinich and of his supporters - I've no illusions about the place (or rather, lack thereof) for me in this so-called "big tent".

          No victim mentality here, folks. Move along.

          It took them 30 years- don't give up hope after 3

          by js noble on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:27:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have it your way. (4+ / 0-)

            I get to vote in an election this spring were I have a real choice, a real Socialist, and she's gonna win.

            You think I give a damn another Democratic partisan shit on the lefties once again?

            Me a victim? Nope. The victims are the homeless and the poverty-stricken in this country,  and the innocent Iraqis your government's bombing, and I don't see y'all doing so much on this score.

            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

            by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:16:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Most Hilarious and Self-Refuting Comment Today (0+ / 0-)

          There's no victim mentality here - not from me, nor from any of the other posts I read which took issue with your characterization both of Kucinich and of his supporters - I've no illusions about the place (or rather, lack thereof) for me in this so-called "big tent".

      •  If he is so unelectable then why the hit job? (4+ / 0-)

        I lean for Obama, btw.

          •  Didn't realize Kos had written scientific paper (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            suicide blonde

            It isn't that Kos doesn't cite Kuc. It is the rhetorical mean spiritedness that makes this a hit piece. To wit: Making fun of his call Dept of Peace. Is the State Dept really the Dept of Peace? Not really, is it. Maybe it should be. It presumably handles diplomacy. But it is also not working actively in the service of peace. Like the Dept of energy is working on problems of energy. And what about his "faith"? I personally think that Christianity is a crock of shit. Leave that be. I thought the Constitution allowed us each to worship in freedom. There is a lot more than "truth" in what Kos wrote. To claim otherwise is patently disingenuous.

            •  Department of Peace (0+ / 0-)

              Is the State Dept really the Dept of Peace? Not really, is it. Maybe it should be. It presumably handles diplomacy. But it is also not working actively in the service of peace.

              Do you believe that, under a president like George W. Bush, a "Department of Peace" would truly work to advance the cause of peace?

            •  Personally (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TastyCurry, Autarkh

              As a leftist, I'm in favour of a ruthless hitjob on Kucinich. Far too much of the "left" thinks of politics as an opportunity to express their own half-baked fruity thoughts and demand that others respect them. This is isn't socialist politics at all, it's bullshit bourgeous masturbation, and Kucinich is emblematic of that.

              The whole New Age crap has to be respected because it's like "equally valid" as all the mainstream religion. What nonsense, what self-indulgent nonsense.

              Being "out of the mainstream" is not the definitive criterion of the left. Too many "leftists" have fetished their own position as politically marginal, This is infantilism par excellence.

              Supporting actual policies and actual candidates who are most likely to bring about actual, real world, improvements in the actual well-being of real world people is what socialist politics ought to be about.

              On that score, Kucinich is about as far away from being a proper leftist candidate as Winnie the Pooh.

        •  wtf? (0+ / 0-)

          Kos was asked to explain why he "ughed" him. He did so. That's hardly a "hit job" unless you're trying to spin this into some sort of gottcha.

      •  I love Kucinich (18+ / 0-)

        FOR CONGRESS!

        I've volunteered for him many times, but never during his Presidential ambitions, and I never will. He's not a serious contender.

        I find many of Kos' points against him quite valid, and some a little bit much, but in the end, I think he's a great voice for progressive issues in the House, and wish him many wonderful years as one of the 2 great Members of Congress from the great city of Cleveland, OH (Stephanie Tubbs-Jones being the other rock star).

        Melissa Hart is gone - thank you Chris Bowers

        by surfbird007 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:04:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You are WAY unfair, Kos. (8+ / 0-)

        Listen, Kucinich has, nor will likely ever, secure my vote in a primary, nor will Bayh, (or Al Sharpton).  But these guys serve a valuable role in primaries.  

        Primaries are the appropriate opportunity for everyone who wants to be a Democrat to be heard, whether they be Ralph Nader or Joe Lieberman.  Kucinich doesn't play spoiler in the general, he plays feet to the fire maker in the primary.  Kucinich brings up things that guys like Kerry, Clinton and Obama would prefer to never talk about.  Sure, the DoP is half baked, Kucinich has no chance, and so on... but there's no question he ads something to primary -- a unique element of a broad and inclusive party.

        If it weren't for guys like Kucinich on the right, perhaps noone would see what a hypocrite John McCain is.  I for one, would like us to nominate a candidate who isn't a hypocrite (if such a thing exists).  Whether or not Kucinich is that candidate is besides the point.

        I know it's not your job to be fair or judicious, but it's why I came here and stayed in the first place.

      •  I'm sorry you had to waste the energy.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davybaby, TastyCurry

        People from Cleveland know what a douche Kucinich is. It isn't just abortion. There's a whole list of issues where he has made an about face. There are other candidates who are better people AND right about Iraq. Too many fucking idiots don't bother doing any research about their candidates.

        "Party like a rock star, hammer like a porn star, rake like an all-star!"

        by crazymoloch on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:14:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why do people rec kos? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        redstar

        Random question to no one... but why do people persist in giving kos rec's on his comments? Do you really think he's going to lose his trusted user status if you don't?

        That always amazes me.

        Ok back to the superfluous train wreck thread in progress. Heh, sometimes I think kos feels it gets too boring some days and saves these bombs to set off a healthy round of holy flame wars. Keeps us sharp after all.

        In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

        by Windowdog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:10:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Got comments? Like 802? Goodness. (0+ / 0-)

        It seems that you've hit a nerve, Kos...

        I do not have a negative feeling about a Department of Peace... but being 7th "Worst Mayor" ...

        If you dance with the devil, then you haven't got a clue; 'Cause you think you'll change the devil, but the devil changes you. - illyia

        by illyia on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:50:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What's playing the victim . . . (4+ / 0-)

        by asking if you're blowing off a portion of the Dem tent by your remarks? You're pretty deep into specious name-calling, here, Kos.

        Don't ask me nothin' 'bout nothin'; I just might tell you the truth -- Bob Dylan

        by ponderer on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:06:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bayh might run for Governor again in '08 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brownsox
        I suspect that, as a red-state governor, you'll start drooling all over him.
      •  Go get 'im (0+ / 0-)

        7th WORST MAYOR SINCE 1820????

        New Age thinking is the refuge of scoundrels. Clearly, Kucinich is a scoundrel.

        Anyone who espouses that stuff has no business seeking higher office.

        Don't worry, Kucinich supporters... he won't win.

        And how do ya like that horrid anti-Choice voting record? The only reason none of his competitors brought that up is that they all know he's a fruitcake and not worth bothering with.

        What a freakin' dirtbag.

        "I agree with that Senator Sanatorium... you let things get too far and pretty soon we'd be fuckin' dogs." - Tony Soprano

        by The Lighthouse Keeper on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:39:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  lets the bayh hit piece! (0+ / 0-)
      •  Kos, who's writing your stuff? (3+ / 0-)

        I'm not legally required to carry water for anyone, in any wing of the party.

        Quite frankly, this victim mentality is quite unbecoming.

         

        Legally? Quite unbecoming?

        WTF? You sound like the House of Lords speaking to the unwashed masses.

        You may need to slap yourself around a bit.

        Get real.

        Listen Before You Talk.

        by ormondotvos on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:48:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't always agree with you (0+ / 0-)

        but I thank you for this detailed diary.  I never have paid much attention to Kucinich, figuring him to be just so unelectable, but I have relatives who have backed him -- apparently without knowing how much he disagrees with their beliefs on so many points here.  Now I can suggest that they looks more closely. . . .

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:13:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Correcting history ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jules Siegel

        Kos' post contains some misinformation.

        First, Kucinich was involved in the recall election for Mayor and forcing the police dept. to come under civilian control against a popular police chief which he appointed. As Mayor, he had every right to do this. And as we have seen, the move for civilian control of police depts. - with civilian review boards and everything else - have become very popular.

        Second, while Kucinich did lose reelection, he did so for the best reasons: Standing up to a big corporation trying to take over the public electric company. Kucinich contended correctly that the private takeover of the public facility would have jacked up rates for user during the post energy crisis. Kucinich stood up to the bankers, the public, and even the city council who backed up the private electric company's takeover. In the end, Kucinich was correct but it cost him everything.

    •  All lefties must look at all the candidates (11+ / 0-)

      carefully. If lefites want to vote for Kucinich in the primary, they should go for it. Lefties should be open to debate about ALL candidates.

      THis Lefty sure as hell wont be voting for Kucinich.

      Thanks Tut, Gramp, Choom Gang, and Ray for all the good times. Relentless!

      by ablington on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:40:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nonsense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, ChurchofBruce, Cream City

      Most lefties I know are kind of inflexible on the integrity question--they demand courage of conviction.  Don't you think Kucinich's flip-flop on abortion rights would speak to them?

      Unless they already knew it, in which case I'd be puzzled why they would care for Kucinich anyway.

      To clarify: I can see some lefties supporting an abortion rights opponent, but not without a qualm.  It'd have to be for something else that was much more positive.  After he proved flexible on such a fundamental issue, though, I'd be reluctant to believe Kucinich on any topic!

      So, in fact, I think Kos did them a favor by pointing all this out!

      •  As for this lefty (0+ / 0-)

        I am allowing for people to get smarter, even on "fundamental" issues. This is what allows me to forgive Edwards his vote on the IWR.

        •  Yeah, but "smarter", not smarter (0+ / 0-)

          Because when it happens on the eve of your presidential campaign...well, let's just say it causes my eyebrows to go up.

        •  Yes, but Kucinich didn't even allow (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MissLaura, phenry, Cream City

          that minimal courtesy.  Edwards said, flat out "I was wrong".

          Kucinich -- nah, he just suddenly changed the way he voted.  Never admitted to any error, or acknowledged that his anti-choice votes caused great harm throughout the world.

          That, to me, is unforgiveable.

          Leave the cat alone, for what has the cat done, that you should so afflict it with tape? - Ian Frazier, Lamentations of the Father

          by Frankenoid on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:05:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that people should be able (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          amitxjoshi, Cream City, ThunderHawk13

          to evolve and improve.  But this is not like Edwards saying he was wrong on Iraq.  It's much bigger.  This is like if Edwards had always been totally pro-war, like he never met a war he didn't like, and now he was claiming to be totally anti-war under all circumstances.  

      •  And what I love about this... (0+ / 0-)

        His abortion flip speaks volumes about his lack of integrity, far more than a politically convenient change of heart ever would.

        The man is a vegan. There's no way you can be against eating free-range eggs or freaking honey and think tearing a healthy fetus out of someone is hunky-dory.

        DISCLAIMER: I am pro-choice.

        •  Pro-choice vegan here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee, amitxjoshi

          Most vegans that I know are pro-choice.

          Not a Kucinich guy, though.

          "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha

          by zenbowl on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:06:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  May I ask (0+ / 0-)

            the rationale? I'm not dogging on you, and I applaud your compassion for animals, the environment, or some combination thereof, but it seems that human fetuses rate higher, or are at least equal, on the importance scale compared to chicken eggs.

            I'm honestly just curious and it could be that I'm just not getting it. (I was a vegetarian for a while, mainly for environmental reasons, as I still ate organic/hunted meat.)

            •  easy answer (0+ / 0-)

              I'm not worried about the chicken egg, which is unfertilized, I'm worried about the state of the chicken. There's no such thing as a humanely egg. Even if you were to find an egg outfit where the "free-range" "organically fed" chickens weren't simply thousands of birds crammed into a big open warehouse, the layer of the egg is destined to become Campbells Soup. The egg is just a biological waste product. But I'd prefer not to be a part of the whole mess.

              Plus eggs upset my stomach.

              "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha

              by zenbowl on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:39:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fair enough! (0+ / 0-)

                Do you eat honey? My friend's vegan (and pro-life, for what it's worth) and she does, which disturbs her other vegan pals.

              •  You could grow your own. (0+ / 0-)

                Hens can make great backyard pets and pest controllers/fertilizer manufacturers.

                You can buy or make these little chicken houses on wheels or slats called "chicken tractors" and move them from one spot to another in your yard and let your chickens go nuts eating bugs but still protecting them from predators.

                {sigh}  I want a couple chickens.

                You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. - John Lennon "Imagine"

                by a dumb dreamer on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:33:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If I did have some rescued hens (0+ / 0-)

                  I would eat those eggs, but that's about the only way.

                  It would also entail moving, though, because there's no "farm" animals allowed in city limits.

                  "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha

                  by zenbowl on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 08:38:15 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I'm biting my tongue here... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cream City, a dumb dreamer

          Look, people become vegan because they have qualms about exploiting animals.  Fine.  What has that got to do with abortion rights?

          Abortion rights are about recognizing that the government cannot require a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term.  The government can help, for instance by providing assistance to poor mothers, adoption services, etc.  But since this is a woman's body we're legislating about, we have to respect that as much as we might want there to be no abortions, this only works if we bring about a society in which pregnant women choose to keep their baby.

          Apparently vegans hate imprisoning chickens, but have no issues enslaving pregnant women?

          Are we then challenging "pro-life" meat lovers to either turn vegan or support abortion rights?

          I really hate this "pro-life" framing of abortion rights.  This is about people having autonomy over their own bodies.

          In short, if it's not a choice, then it's slavery.

        •  Free-range eggs have nothing to do with my eggs (0+ / 0-)

          but I'm glad that you didn't call me your "freaking honey," anyway.

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:22:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Kucinich must be only possible "lefty" candidate? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, Geenius at Wrok

      Because I would think that if kos says K. sucks, and that's interpreted as telling "lefties" to go hang, then it's simply impossible for lefties to find another, better candidate.

      If I thought that were true, then all I could say is.....sorry, that's the way it goes, nobody's going to vote for K. out of sympathy, how about voting for someone else?

      But I suggest that there's other lefties out there, better ones.  You tell us.

    •  I Agree with You on the "UGH!, but (7+ / 0-)

      not on the default of Cleveland.
      That was banks trying to seize Muny light, the minicipally power company.
      Basically, the banks had a loan forgiveness program that, when analyzed by any decent accountant, meant that the city would be paying them to take the company.
      Muny Light is why he got elected to Congress, because power is something like a 40% cheaper from Muny Light than from the surrounding private utilities.

      6/24/05: Charlie the Tuna Creator Dies En lieu of flowers, please bring mayonnaise, chopped celery and paprika.

      by LunkHead on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:59:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Snort. (6+ / 0-)

      I'm the left... and DK's not viable.

      He doesn't make his loopiness appealing.  Some people can do that.

      "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

      by ogre on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:00:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  EXACTLY! (5+ / 0-)

      It's that honest lack of hyperbole and red herrings that so endears me to the Kucinich supporters!

      Oh, btw, saying he (and Sharpton and other such novelty candidates) shouldn't be up on the debate stage with the people seriously running for president is, of course, tantamount to censorship and murder.

      Thank you, drive through!

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:04:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  THAT's exactly what he said... (0+ / 0-)

      /snark...

      (and I like the idea of a department of peace)

      -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

      by L0kI on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:21:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I didn't know lefties (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, jxg, cookiebear

      were against women's rights and stem cell research.

      •  There's room for disagreement. (6+ / 0-)

        Maurice Thorez, longtime leader of the French Communist party (lefty enough for you, that?) was pro-life.

        So was his wife, Jeanette Vermeersch. In fact, she was the one who convinced him of that.

        You seem to think that there is some monolithic real left out there on social issues, but you're wrong. The big uniting principle on the left is economics, and it is socialist (as opposed to the neo-liberalism which animates most of the US discourse, including in the Democratic party).

        I hold thngs up to a different standard, but then, I'm only half American. I can vote here, but I can vote in France too.

        Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

        by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:50:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Economics is a very (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, jxg, ormondotvos

          Myopic and narrow way to define the left, and I think you would find very few experts in the field who would agree unequivocally with it.

        •  Any so-called (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Autarkh

          lefty that doesn't see abortion as an economic issue, at least here in the USA, is myopic. Might be different in France, but, here, having a child you're not ready for--especially if you're single--is just about the most damaging thing you can ever do economically.

          BTW, I don't consider authoritarianism at all 'left' so, no, I wouldn't automatically assume that the leader of any Communist part to be "lefty enough for me".

          "I'm not a musician. I'm a rock and roll guitar player."--Little Steven Van Zandt

          by ChurchofBruce on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:03:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't disagree. (4+ / 0-)

            Which is why abortion should be legal and free for all.

            The PCF changed its stance shortly after Thorez and Vermeersch were no longer running the party.

            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

            by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:04:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you don't oppose neoliberal corporate.... (4+ / 0-)

              ...capitalism, you are not a leftist.

              Likewise, you have no claim to the mantle if you do not also abhor authoritian political institutions.

              I define "leftism" as democracy + socialism.  Not bureaucratic collectivism/central planning, mind you, but some form of cooperative paradigm with a robust public sector that addresses "negative externalities". My own preference is for something decentralized, with a substantial informal economy, and market mechanisms.

              •  And guess what. We won't agree on everything. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SarahLee, Ritter, Autarkh, suicide blonde

                Isn't that a concept? The left is far from uniform. And we don't have purity contests, either! Imagine that!

                But you're absolutely correct on what is the core, fundamental value underpinning it all for us. We may disagree on means, and on some of the policy ends, but the core value unites us, and you describe it well in your first sentence.

                Unfortunately, most so-called "progressives," judging from a survey of attitudes here, miss this entirely. (But let's be fair - what do you think the average kos audience is here - the ses skews quite high, and is dominated by urban professionals in the accounting, IT and other related salaried fields. So this is perhaps to be expected.)

                Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                by redstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:23:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Ain't you on a roll today! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Autarkh, suicide blonde

                but some form of cooperative paradigm with a robust public sector that addresses "negative externalities". My own preference is for something decentralized, with a substantial informal economy, and market mechanisms.

                Listen Before You Talk.

                by ormondotvos on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:41:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  No, he's DIShonest, and finally explaining why. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PDiddie, suicide blonde

      Kos has been blatantly lying about Kucinich and his supporters in this community all year, and thanks to readers who called him to the carpet last night, he's been caught in his lies and is finally explaining why he tells them.

      He still needs to apologize and promise it won't happen again.

    •  good point (6+ / 0-)

      Kos needs to bone up on framing and presidential history.
      His idea of who is presidential is pretty lame.

      And since most of the candidates are in Bush's frame on the war, he apparently needs to read some Lakoff.

      "In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." Chomsky

      by formernadervoter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:41:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Settling old scores (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, PDiddie, suicide blonde

      Dennis Kucinich finished a strong second to Howard Dean in Move On's presidential poll in 2003.  The other candidates were far behind the top two.

      Hey!  Nobody chalenges Kos' fair-haired boy, Howard Dean!  Maybe this is why Kos still carries such a grudge.  

    •  dag he slapped you up right quick. (0+ / 0-)

      nt

      Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

      by Cheez Whiz on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:11:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Lefities in the big tent can go hang, eh?" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee

      Yes, when they seek public office, when they are proved incompetent and when their judgment, and perhaps sanity, are subject to serious concern.

  •  You left out (10+ / 0-)

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:34:05 AM PST

  •  And I didn't like him because he looked goofy (8+ / 0-)

    Now, I've got more reasons. Dude is whack.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:34:53 AM PST

  •  No, we shouldn't have. (19+ / 0-)

    Given your visibility in the political world, I don't think you have the luxury of one-word dismissals of any candidate.  At least not any Democratic candidate.

    Correction.  You have the luxury, obviously.  I just don't think it reflects well on you or on DK when you do it.

    And I for one appreciate that you have, finally, laid out your reasons for not supporting Kucinich.  It was long overdue.`

  •  Oh, Yeah, This is Just Nuts (8+ / 0-)

    Violence is not inevitable. War is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this world a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children from fear, from harm, from destruction.

    He's crazy. Lock him up!

    Seriously, you've obviously got a personal problem with Kucinich. Bitch about it to your wife, not here.

    •  Nonviolence and peace are inevitable? (7+ / 0-)

      Yeah, that is pretty nuts.  Nothing is inevitable, and certainly not nonviolence.    

      Shorter Republicans: You guys only won because we were corrupt and bad at governing.

      by bosdcla14 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:37:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  With an attitude like that... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        suicide blonde

        ... you're right.

        •  hey (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thereisnospoon, Tybalt

          i think you're being unfair to that poster.

          nonviolence has NEVER been inevitable.  What little of it we've had has taken incredibly mobilized groups of people working tirelessly for decades. It will never, ever be easy. That still says nothing about whether one thinks it's something to strive for.

          Frankly, despite being, though not a pacifist, someone with a pretty narrow view of when force is ever justified, I think the struggle against pointless violence is never going to be finished. Doesn't mean i'm not committed to it.

    •  I don't have a personal problem (8+ / 0-)

      ...with Kucinich, I just don't trust him.  His conversion to being pro-choice isn't convincing, not to mention, it puts him on par with McCain and Romney.

      Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

      by Barbara Morrill on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:45:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am not a Kucinich fun (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BarbinMD

        but....I think Markos is a little too harsh on him.  Kucinich is not a serious candidate.  Noone really believes that he is running for president.  He just wants to get his message out.  On the other hand, I am a little surprised that he was anti-choice in the past.  

        I was not going to vote for Kucinich of course (I am for Obama), but I was thinking to send him a small donation, so his strong anti-war message gets out.  After reading these things, I will not.  Markos is probably too harsh on Kucinich, but makes some good points.  It would not be a bad idea if Kucinich dropped out of the race.

        •  Maybe, and yet... (0+ / 0-)

          Howard Dean started out just to push his message.  But his messages resonated....

          "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

          by ogre on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:10:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'd like Kucinich better if I thought (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          0wn

          that this was true:

          Noone really believes that he is running for president.  He just wants to get his message out.

          Dennis Kucinich believes he's running for president.  Less than a week ago I sat maybe 4 feet from him while he talked about it.  He has utter conviction on this point.  And I'd like him better if it was just about his message.

      •  he is not a viable candidate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BarbinMD

        I don't think he can answer a lot of complex issue through what he believes. so yeah, I consider him harmless oddball.

        fun to start conversation. But I don't think any sane person is ready to vote for him without a lengthy personal inquiry.

    •  Not to mention (9+ / 0-)

      ...this batshit craziness:

      Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

      Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

      by Barbara Morrill on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:47:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I actually love hearing a politician say that (4+ / 0-)

        he's out-da-box

        "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abe Lincoln

        by faithfull on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:54:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Fifth Dimension? (7+ / 0-)

        When the moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligns with Mars
        Then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars
        This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius...

        Kucinich is one seriously goofy dude.

        Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.

        by Kimberley on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:56:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  More batshit (12+ / 0-)

        Didn't seem to stop 1/3 of the world from believing in this:

        1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
        1. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
        1. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
        1. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
        1. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
        1. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
        1. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
        1. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
        1. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
        1. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
        1. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
        1. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
        1. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
        1. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
        1. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
        1. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
        1. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
        1. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
        1. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
        1. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
        1. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
        1. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
        1. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
        1. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
        1. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
        1. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
        1. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

        And apparently at Verse 27 God fucked up because we've been fighting ever since.

        Question authoritarianism

        by m00nchild on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:56:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Scientifically, It's Not That Far Off... (8+ / 0-)

        I was watching a Nova episode about two months ago, and they were discussing that water molecules were first introduced to earth from meteors, and that basically we are then, "Children of Stardust".

        LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT

        by Jdellaro on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:57:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I really have to ask (11+ / 0-)

        how that's worse than, say, Barack Obama opening a speech by thanking Jesus for bringing everyone together, or whatever it was that he said.

        Seriously.  One could argue (particularly if one was an atheist) that one is just as batshit crazy as the other.

        Money talks, so speak up -- Draft Al Gore

        by Mehitabel9 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:01:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not an Obama fan either (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mehitabel9, chesapeake

          ...so I'm not sure why you're asking me that question.  ;-)

          Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

          by Barbara Morrill on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:05:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because you quoted (5+ / 0-)

            Kucinich being, you know, woo-woo and spiritual, and called him batshit crazy.  I'm just sayin' -- maybe he is batshit crazy, but maybe Christians are, too.  God knows (sorry, God) that there's plenty of evidence supporting the latter supposition.

            Money talks, so speak up -- Draft Al Gore

            by Mehitabel9 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:07:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of course they are (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              varro, Mehitabel9

              At least those that take the Bible literally and/or to extremes. And I've described religious extremists as batshit crazy too (versus the run-of-the-mill Christian who thinks you shouldn't lie, cheat, steal or kill).  So I'm pretty comfortable saying the same about someone who would say,  "soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self."  

              Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

              by Barbara Morrill on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:22:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I guess what makes me a little (5+ / 0-)

                squirmy right now is that I think I'm seeing you equate Kucinich's new-ageyness with rightwing religious batshit-crazy fundamentalism.

                Kucinich may sound a little, I dunno, over the top, but where's the harm in anything he's said?  As opposed to, you know, the kinds of things said by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, which do a great deal of harm.

                There's eccentricity, which I'll admit Kucinich is guilty of, and then there's real batshit-craziness that operates on a whole 'nuther level of genuinely scary.

                I'm just sayin'.

                Money talks, so speak up -- Draft Al Gore

                by Mehitabel9 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:30:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  well, it's longer. (0+ / 0-)

          It's a one sentence and everyone knows what he's talking about and why, like "good morning" and "How about those Colts?".  Can't even figure out where K. was going with it all.

          •  The way is sounds... (0+ / 0-)

            yeah, it could easily have morphed into "and angels float down from the ceiling...".  Sagan sounded breathless and awed, and people made fun of that (billions and billions...).  But it wasn't as loopy sounding and the criticism wasn't as harsh; it was simply observing that he sounded kind of goofy speaking about reality.

            DK's riff, well... it's not.  But it does sound pretty goofy.

            If Multi-Choice Mitt were to launch into an exposition about Mormon doctrine, I suspect people would be as put-off.  It's not mainstream-enough goofiness to get away with.

            "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

            by ogre on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:14:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What's mainstream is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ogre

              a short, succint reference that doesn't mean much.  "God bless you" after a sneeze, "God bless America" after an oval office speech, arcane references on a dollar bill.  It's basically as long and meaningful as a hiccup.  If people want a sermon, they'll go to church.

              In the same way, K.s statments would bore or confuse the audience, because he's not Sagan trying to express the wonder and awe of the universe to a group of people wanting to hear about the wonder and awe of the universe.

        •  Because... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, Inland

          ...professing Christian beliefs doesn't make most Americans think you're a weirdo, whereas babbling like Kucinich does. Whether you think that's wrong or unfair or whatever doesn't matter. It's the way things are.

          For a politician with pretensions toward the presidency, Kucinich needs to understand that when he opens his mouth he's talking to the entirety of America, not fourteen twentysomething hippies sitting cross-legged in a circle.

      •  Stay Away from Quantum Physics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee

        And anything Einstein wrote.

        •  Hmmmm (0+ / 0-)

          Yes, he was talking about Quantum Physics when he made that speech.

          At any rate, my main problem with Kucinich is that I don't trust him.  I don't trust his going from a 95% rating from the National Right to Life Committee while getting 10% from Planned Parenthood and zilch from NARAL to being Mr. Pro-Choice.  As I said above, it puts him on par with McCain and Romney...cheap pandering that says alot about his character.  

          Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

          by Barbara Morrill on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:15:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  BarbinMD - (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, sfflyman

        Is the Big Bang theory "batshit craziness"?

        It says that everything in the universe ultimately came from a star which got more and more dense until it exploded.

      •  Why is his Spirit talk any 'batsh*t crazier' than (5+ / 0-)

        The Bible, The Catholic Mass, etc.?

        •  It isn't. It's just as crazy. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LNK

          And it makes for poor election material.

          Democrats have a mandate. Republicans go on man-dates.

          by HollywoodOz on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:02:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, most christian politicians (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HollywoodOz

            when before a political audience give a political speech, let everyone else go home and THEN read the bible.  What's REALLY crazy is inflicting a mass audience with mystical meanderings that are off topic as if they had come to hear a sermon.

        •  It's not. But who reads an entire Bible? (0+ / 0-)

          I mean, can you imagine sitting in that conference, wondering: a) what is he getting at and b) when is it going to stop, I have to go to lunch?

          If you can find someone reading three minutes worth of Bible at a forum like an international peace conference, you might have found someone as clueless as Kucinich.  But I don't think you can.

      •  Excuse me, isn't your sig line... (8+ / 0-)

        a quote from the Bible? You must really think you have the inside line to universal truth to insult someone for their spiritual beliefs.

        I see below you, like kos and many others, take him to task for "cheap pandering that says alot about his character" regarding his evolving position on abortion. In response I offer this:

        Kucinich rejects the notion that the change in his abortion views is simply a matter of political expediency.
        "People want to make sure that their president has a capacity to grow and a capacity to evolve," Kucinich said. "I've been thinking about this for years. . . . None of us have all the answers on a given day."

        Obviously, being a politician leaves him open to the charges that you make, so what does someone who is politically active on the abortion issue have to say about it? From the same article:

        "Congressman Kucinich has been at work thinking about a lot of these issues,
        and his votes reflect a thoughtful journey," said NARAL President Kate Michelman. "I do accept, and I do welcome, that he believes the right to choose is fundamental."

        http://www.commondreams.org/...

        I hope you don't complain about the tactics that Hannity, O'Reilly, and Coulter use because you've offered no real substance to promote your argument. And kos? He cites a book on Mayors. Allow me to link to wiki citing the same book:

        Melvin G. Holli in consultation with a panel of experts, placed Kucinich among the ten worst big-city mayors of all time for reasons of temperament and performance in the book, Best and Worst of the Big-City Leaders 1820-1993 while Kucinich's supporters say that Kucinich kept his campaign promise of refusing to sell Muny Light to CEI and was brave for not giving in to big business. In fact, in 1993, then-Cleveland Mayor Michael White cited Kucinich's "wisdom" in not selling the utility. In 1998 the council honored him for having the "courage and foresight" to stand up to the banks and saving the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        So, it all boils down to judgment then. Who are you going to believe, Mr. Holli and his panel of experts or the voters of Cleveland along with the Mayor of Cleveland and the Cleveland City Council? Which raises the question, did Kos read the book or did he research on the internet? If he did any research on the internet it is difficult to imagine he missed the wiki on Kucinich and as a result he would know that history has proven Kucinich made a wise decision that wasn't politically popular at the time, and yet there is no mention of this aspect of Kucinich's stint as Mayor of Cleveland in kos' hatchet job on him.

        Then there is the old "he's not electable" line. I wonder why we even bother to hold elections...

        Kos is right on one thing though, he should have just left it at ugh.

      •  This speech makes much more sense: (0+ / 0-)

        "My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward,
        and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom."  
         
        And the speaker actually was a space alien - Kodos.

        9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

        by varro on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:30:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, god forbid we discuss candidates. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia

      Because having a position is a sign of personal problems.

      Kucinich goes astral plane, you go Psych 101.  

    •  he can bitch where ever he wants (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, phenry, varro, thereisnospoon, grog

      It's his blog. And I don't think anybody is blaming Kucinich for wanting to make "this world a gift of peace," although I have no idea what "confirming the presence of universal spirit in our lives" means.

      I was at a House hearing early in Kucinich's career about blood transfusions and "mad cow disease." He babbled out questions that made no sense, clearly did not understand the issue, and berated a fairly esteemed scientist for really no reason other than he could. At the time, I had never heard of Kucinich. But I remember thinking, "This guy is wacked!"

      Facts: he has MANY flaws, of which Kos just laid out a few. He has been anti-war, so he gets kudos for that. But he is not electable nor, in  my view, does he pass the "leadership" test, notwithstanding his Iraq vote.

      I'm all for peace and love. I just want somebody in charge who can actually make it happen.

      Man, I fuckin' hate politics.

      by Whigsboy on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:06:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ROFLMAO (10+ / 0-)

      Yeah Kos, shut up about pointing out huge issues of non-viability of a presidential candidate on a political blog, who do you think you are Kos? Do you think this is YOUR blog Kos? If so, why not change the name to the Daily K...

      doh!

    •  guess you missed this part. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      0wn

      Here, I'll help ya:

      Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

      He's crazy.

      Think you live in a free country? Try forming a union.

      by exiled texan on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:26:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry: (0+ / 0-)

      Having a different opinion than you does not mean he has a personal problem. So, what -- he doesn't like Kucinich as a candidate. Deal with it.

  •  Keeping any other draft 'obits' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    suicide blonde

    lying around?

  •  I'm glad he's in the House (10+ / 0-)

    we need strong progressive voices and the House is the ideal place for someone like Kucinich.

  •  please correct me if I'm wrong... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    klamothe

    but hasn't Kucinich refused to sign the standard Congressional non-disclosure agreement that would allow him to access/view classified data?

  •  How about (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Trix, klamothe, TrueBlueCT

    a double "Ugh Ugh".

    I really feel like saying "Dude Kucinich has a vision of world peace dude."

    I wish he would go away

  •  hey Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    klamothe

    How do you feel about the other prominent mayor from Ohio, Jerry Springer?

    "Dissent and disagreement with government is the life's blood of human freedom" Keith Olbermann -6.25 -6.62

    by Patriot4peace on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:35:57 AM PST

  •  Markos, you have to give props to Kucinich for (4+ / 0-)

    staying in the Democratic race to keep Nader supporters to a minimum.

    He does serve a purpose.

  •  Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Kucinich (20+ / 0-)

    We are stardust
    we are golden
    we are caught in Dick Cheney's bargain
    and we've got to get ourselves
    back to Cleveland

    Well said! Thanks, UserName! n/t

    by Jake McIntyre on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:36:19 AM PST

  •  Kucinich's "nutcakery" (36+ / 0-)

    In discussing spiritual matters, DK, with his beliefs in energy and nmatter is a "nutcake", eh?

    As opposed to those that believe that a human being walked on water 2000 years ago, one that was born not of sex between a man and woman, one that rose from the dead.

    Yeah, Kucinich is the crazy one....

  •  He's just not a credible candidate. (7+ / 0-)

    He belongs in the 3rd tier. The anti-choice record is just the icing on the cake. He is unelectible nationally--the Democratic equivalent of someone like Tom Tancredo on the Rethug side.

    •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, blue jersey mom

      And the fact that they are both House members (as opposed to Senators or Governors) in safe districts shows how unelectable both are to a mass audience.

      Hint the presidental canidates: Win a statewide race first.  Otherwise, don't expect anybody to take you seriously.

  •  Ugh. (9+ / 0-)

    Thanks Tut, Gramp, Choom Gang, and Ray for all the good times. Relentless!

    by ablington on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:36:27 AM PST

  •  You had me at Ugh (17+ / 0-)

    Seriously, I would like my left wing candidates better if they didn't think they knew one of Shirley McClaine's past spirits, in one of his past spirit's lives.

    That is all.

    Completely waste your time at NewPairODimes

    by trifecta on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:36:55 AM PST

  •  Kucinich says everything the Lefties want to hear (9+ / 0-)

    which he can afford to do because he has nothing to lose, he'll never have to face the nationwide electorate.

    •  Bingo (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phenry, Geotpf, 0wn

      That's the problem with people who "love" folks like Kucinich and rail on against people in more marginal districts.  Nothing against the people who can say and do what they want, but the standards of judgment aren't the same for everyone.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:13:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But he says it BADLY . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      0wn

      . . . in a way that makes this lefty say, "Well, yeah, if you put it that way, if I were a mainstream voter, I wouldn't buy it either."

      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

      by Geenius at Wrok on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:28:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rosie O'Donnell does too. Should she run? (0+ / 0-)

      Or would that be just a distraction, and one that would inevitably end in the mocking of all things left?

      See Kucinich, Dennis.

      Democrats have a mandate. Republicans go on man-dates.

      by HollywoodOz on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:04:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not just some one like Rosie (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HollywoodOz

        My congresscritter, John Tierney of MA-6th, has a solid, long-time lefty voting record. Every bit as solid as Kucinich's, and better, by a lot, than Kucinich on choice prior to 2004.

        And John Tierney has that solid left-wing voting record without the space-age nonsense and without the huge choice flip-flop.

        Should a nondescript congressman from the Boston suburbs be running for president?

        I don't get why Kucinich gets treated as anything but a joke. Kos had me at 'ugh', too.

        "I'm not a musician. I'm a rock and roll guitar player."--Little Steven Van Zandt

        by ChurchofBruce on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:15:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Kucinich says everything what (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee

      people in Europe take for granted and enjoy, in the case of Germany, since Bismarck introduced the national health and pension system in 1880. And Bismarck was a conservative feudalist land owner in Prussia. What does that make of Kucinich who wants to partly introduce such a system in the USA in 2010?

      "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

      by Ritter on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:47:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I understand the 'ugh' (7+ / 0-)

    But all of the other candidates cause me to go 'ugh' when they oppose the right of gays to marry, so he is really the only choice I have.

    Believe me, I wish we had a more viable candidate (like Gore) who didn't actually oppose my equal rights - but at the moment he is the only candidate I've got.

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

    by tiponeill on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:37:59 AM PST

    •  Just what we need, a nonviable candidate. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rolfyboy6

      Thanks for slapping those hogs away from the trough.

      by perro amarillo on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:47:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the 'viable' candidates oppose equal rights (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, Albatross, jessical, adrianrf

        what difference does it make ?

        The shame is not mine, but belongs to our 'viable' candidates - Democrats can, and should, do better.

        Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

        by tiponeill on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:50:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh yeah. From your self-description: (0+ / 0-)

          naive, selfish single-issue voter who takes enormous pride in the fact that alleged liberals spend their time troll rating me instead of bashing America.

          Your consistency is breathtaking.

          Thanks for slapping those hogs away from the trough.

          by perro amarillo on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:10:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Honest to the great spaghetti monster (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ogre, SarahLee, tiponeill

          I wish we had a candidate that had voted against the Iraq war, supported abortion rights and gay marriage, wanted to remove the troops from Iraq right now, supported equal rights for all, etc., etc., because I'd vote for that person in a minute, if I thought that person had a chance in hell of being elected.

          But we don't, and I just cannot abide the thought of another GWB clone being in the White House for another 4 years.  So I'm going to swallow hard and pick among the candidates currently running who don't support gay marriage (and who didn't take the right position on the issues above) and support that candidate to the best of my ability.  

          I'm then going to support the democratic nominee in the same fashion.  Because we simply must retake the White House in order to roll back some of the horrible abuses that have been foisted upon us during the past 6 years.

          Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

          by DMiller on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:11:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Im going to support the Dem candidate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DMiller

            because he/she will be better that the Republican one.

            The question here is "picking among the candidates" and as of this point Kucinich is the on;y one that I can support.

            I'm not happy about that - I would live it if sHillary or Obama or Edwards decided that equal rights was a good idea and would support them in a flash

            Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

            by tiponeill on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:20:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yup. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DMiller

            Me too.

            Things are far too dire to let my purity troll evil twin out of the closet.

            I'll vote for the candidate I like most whom I believe is capable of winning.  And then I'll vote D in the general election.  And I can't imagine what it would take to alter either of those positions.

            The Nader movement provided the ultimate example of the harm purity trolls do.  I don't care what justifications they have--and I acknowledge that their cause may be good, just and right.  But being dead right is a stupid choice.

            "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

            by ogre on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:22:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, but this is really stupid (0+ / 0-)

          Single-issue politics has really been the a huge sickness for us.  It has weakened us, allowed the rethugs to beat us repeatedly.

          Yes, we won in 2006, but think how anemic the victory really was!  Shit, if a colossally stupid war which has caused more deaths than 9/11, billions swindled, the constitution repeatedly raped, etc. will only get us a measly 30-seat majority in the House and just parity in the senate (fuck Lieberman), then we are totally in big trouble!

          Put it this way: if despite the shrub and the dick, republicans can block the war resolution in the senate, we know we have a looooong way to go!

          And gay marriage can't be all that matters to you.  How'd you like to be drafted (or your friends, if you're too old) and shipped off to fight the shrub's stupid and corrupt wars?  Social Security gutted?  Abortion rights curtailed?  Warrantless wiretaps, loss of habeas corpus, illegal detention, torture, kidnapping, ....

          I'm not saying these points help you distinguish between Democratic candidates in the primary.  Hopefully all our candidates are on the same side of these issues (although the Iraq war resolution....never mind!)  But the nuances on these issues surely are of some interest?

          But anyway, the major point is, the credibility of the eventual Dem nominee matters, and matters hugely!  NO one issue can be so overridingly important that you would support an obviously odd candidate in the primary.

          •  Actually that is thr problem with the rhetoric (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ma Joad, adrianrf

            of 'single issue' - all issues are not equal.

            Your equal civil rights are not the same sort of issue as tax policy.

            It's pretty obvious that straight people won't take equal rights for gays seriously enough not to trade it off for something like who has the silliest healthcare policy.

            If gays don't take it seriously, no one will.

            Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

            by tiponeill on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:41:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, but what'll it get you? (0+ / 0-)

              Planned Parenthood and NARAL decided that the single-issue game is played by being agnostic between parties, but staying true to their one goal: abortion rights.  So they supported Linc Chaffee for years, even against Democratic challengers.

              And Chaffee duly helped put Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court.

              In the meantime, real people like you and me have more than one interest, and we need to recognize that in the super-partisan era the Newt ushered in, you go with the party which best reflects your values.  Which is why, I suppose, Log Cabin republicans exist.  Or anti-abortion Democrats, for that matter.

              So more power to your top priority.  We agree on the issue, although it's not my top priority.  Now my top priority is the Iraq war, but I'd still vote for Hillary if she got the Dem nomination, even though I have contempt for her position on that issue.  My strong preference is for Gore or Clark, but I'd even have preferences between Hillary and Kucinich.

              All I suggest is that no matter how important one issue is, it can't be the only issue you care about.  And it's also not true that straight people don't give a high priority to gay rights.  If that were true, white people wouldn't care about emancipating slaves either, and I wouldn't care about women's rights.

  •  Kucinch is Harld Stassen of the new millenia (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GOTV, Rolfyboy6, phenry, Geotpf, ybruti, 0wn

    Running for president is a fun hobby probably lucrative also and he gets to go to all the fancy dress balls.

    Kucinich creates a good case for limiting spots on the candidates debate to those who get 5% in the polls.

  •  Oh my.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattes, A Mad Mad World

    I will make sure to never piss you off.  

    •  What's worth remembering (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thereisnospoon

      is that I really don't think that kos is pissed off.  So this isn't the droid you thought you were looking for.

      "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

      by ogre on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:23:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wouldn't trust my own daughter (6+ / 0-)

    if she suddenly switched from pro-choice to pro-life.  I didn't know this about Kucinich.  Suddenly, he's not just a goof ball, but something much more disturbing.

  •  Department of Peace (30+ / 0-)

    There's a pretty good argument that the Department of State is not that, and doesn't try to be. Certainly Condoleeza Rice doesn't view it as a key part of her job description.

    Failure is not an option: it's standard equipment on the BushCo 2000!

    by Elwood Dowd on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:38:47 AM PST

    •  Sure, but . . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jmcgrew, soyinkafan, Marcus Graly

      . . . under the right President, it would be.

    •  That's the administration's fault (15+ / 0-)

      What do you think a Bush-run "Department of Peace" would be doing?

    •  equating the Department of Peace with (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inky, SarahLee, Euroliberal, sberel, B12love

      Equating the Department of Peace [link to real info] with the State Department makes me wonder which one kos doesn't know much about.  I'm assuming it's the former.

      "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." - Nelson Mandela

      by Bearpaw on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:54:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Explain to me (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geotpf, DemInLux

        What a department of peace would do that the department of state of a peace minded president wouldn't. Bet you can't.

        •  You obviously have not read the bill (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          redstar

          either.   Here is a link.

          I don't like everything about it, but it is a good first step to get as many folks on board as possible.  And it is a lot more than foreign policy.

          Current CoSponsors:

          Rep. Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1-D]
          Rep. Andrews, Robert E.E. [NJ-1-D]
          Rep. Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2-D]
          Rep. Boswell, LeonardL. [IA-3-D]
          Rep. Brown, Corrine [FL-3-D]
          Rep. Carson, Julia [IN-7-D]-
          Rep. Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1-D]
          Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5-D]
          Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14-D]
          Rep. Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7-D]
          Rep. Davis, Danny K. [IL-7-D]
          Rep. Davis, Susan A. [CA-53-D]
          Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4-D]
          Rep. Ellison, Keith [MN-5-D]
          Rep. Farr, Sam [CA-17-D]
          Rep. Fattah, Chaka [PA-2-D]
          Rep. Filner, Bob [CA-51-D]
          Rep. Green, Al [TX-9-D]
          Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7-D]
          Rep. Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4-D]
          Rep. Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23-D]
          Rep. Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2-D]
          Rep. Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12-D]
          Rep. Honda, Michael M. [CA-15-D]
          Rep. Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2-D]
          Rep. Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18-D]-
          Rep. Bernice-Johnson, Eddie [TX-30-D]
          Rep. Kaptur, Marcy[OH-9-D]
          Rep. Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks [MI-13-D]
          Rep. Kucinich, Dennis [OH-10-D]
          Rep. Lee, Barbara[CA-9-D]
          Rep. Lewis, John [GA-5-D]
          Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14-D]
          Rep. McCollum, Betty [MN-4-D]
          Rep. McDermott, Jim [WA-7-D]
          Rep. McGovern, James P. [MA-3-D]
          Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6-D]
          Rep. Miller, George [CA-7-D]
          Rep. Moore, Gwen [WI-4-D]
          Rep. Moran, James P. [VA-8-D]
          Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8-D]
          Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC-D]
          Rep. Oberstar, James L. [MN-8-D]
          Rep. Olver, John W. [MA-1-D]
          Rep. Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10-D]
          Rep. Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15-D]
          Rep. Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9-D]
          Rep. Ryan, Tim [OH-17-D]
          Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9-D]
          Rep. Scott, Robert C. [VA-3-D]
          Rep. Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16-D]
          Rep. Sherman, Brad [CA-27-D]
          Rep. Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10-D]
          Rep. Towns, Edolphus [NY-10-D]
          Rep. Tubbs-Jones, Stephanie [OH-11-D]
          Rep. Waters, Maxine [CA-35-D]
          Rep. Watson, Diane E. [CA-33-D]
          Rep. Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6-D]
          Rep. Wu, David [OR-1-D]
          Rep. Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4-D]

          A Historical Rundown

          • 1792 Benjamin Banneker, noted African American scientist, surveyor, and editor and Benjamin RUSH, doctor, educator and signer of the Declaration of Independence suggested the blue print for an Office of Peace.

          • 1935, 1937, and 1939, Senator Matthew Neely of West Virginia introduced bills calling for a Department of Peace.

          • 1943 Senator Alexander Wiley of Wisconsin spoke on the Senate floor calling for the United  
          States of America to be the first government on the world to have a Secretary of Peace.  

          • 1945 Representative Louis Ludlow of Indiana introduced a bill that would establish a Department of Peace.

          • 1947 Representative Everett Dirkson of Illinois introduced a bill for "A Peace Division in the State Department".

          • 1955-1968 Eighty-five bills calling for a Department of Peace were introduced in the House or the Senate.

          • 1969 Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana and Representative Seymour Halpern of New York introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

          • 2001 and 2003 Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace.

          • September 2005 Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

    •  But what (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DemInLux

      Would a department of peace do that a peace minded president's state department would not?

      I have asked this question repeatedly every time this nonsense gets brought up and have never gotten a good answer.

      •  Possibilities (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, Euroliberal
        1. Sponsor academic research on the nature of aggression
        1. Evaluate the human cost of ongoing or potential wars completely independent of US geopolitical strategy
        1. Push for economic interests of poor nations against the economic interests of US firms (e.g., sugar tariffs)

        You could claim that a "peace minded President" would give the State Department a charter to do all that, but it hasn't happened before, and is unlikely to happen given the entrenched bureaucracy and the established relationships at Foggy Bottom.

        Admittedly -- these same factors argue that a DOP would be ineffective.

        Failure is not an option: it's standard equipment on the BushCo 2000!

        by Elwood Dowd on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:09:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not realistic (0+ / 0-)

          one and two could be accomplished either by the dept. of state or by a lesser executive agencies, or by the appointment of a "peace czar" or a presidential committee.

          Three comes close to a point in favor of a peace department, but it defeats itself. If one’s interest was to push for economic interests of poor nations over rich firms, the worst thing you could do would be to create a vast new bureaucracy that would be universally perceived by the existing departments as a direct threat to their respective dominions. You would start a bureaucratic war leading to government gridlock, which would serve nothing, least of all the interests of peace.

          If a president was serious about a policy such as you describe, they would be far more effective in executing that policy by
          A) appointing a strong secretary of state with unimpeachable credentials in this area
          B) adopting strategies used by past administrations trying to effect a vast policy change with an entrenched bureaucracy
          D) purging those department employees who might have a vested political or personal intrest in maintaining the status que
          E) use the powers of the modern presidency over the bureaucracy and of policy implementation to force the department to come along when resistant.

          All of these options are far better then starting a new department from scratch and declaring war on the existing bureaucracy.

      •  Siphon money from war to peace? n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  Switzerland has a better idea, there, IMO. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, varro, adrianrf
      They don't go off on foreign imperialist adventures, but the country is a "peaceful fortress".

      They're far from defenseless. If anyone came over those mountains, there's hidden hangars with fighters that can use the roads as runways, there's bunkers with armored vehicles blended into the landscape, and they can raise a 400,000 man army in 4 HOURS, due to the fact that all able-bodied citizens serve and keep an issued rifle at home in case of emergency call-up.

      They're like a hedgehog. Harmless unless someone tries something, and then instantly a ball of spikes.

      I consider that a good idea, myself. Probably also closer to what the founding fathers wanted.

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" - Sinclair Lewis

      by Loboguara on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:55:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, right... (0+ / 0-)

        Switzerland has a better idea, there, IMO. (1+ / 0-)
        They don't go off on foreign imperialist adventures, but the country is a "peaceful fortress".

        ... Like they'll ever have to use any of it- like some country is going to attack their own banker! That would be real smart. All the Swiss would have to do is threaten to lose all the info in an attacker's secret accounts and peace is declared. It's all about the money. For the same reason, they don't have to worry about nukes being used against them either. After all, doeas anyone know where their money really is?
        A Department of Peace is a great idea to change the dialogue - to get people thinking about alternatives to our obscene war expenditures - but that's all it is. Money is power; in any language; in any country; at anytime.
        That's what accounts for the mess in which we find ourselves today. We spend a huge amount on weapons we don't need. The so-called Defense industry is reaching the saturation point for their products even in our warlike country. All those weapons have to be used once in a while to justify building more and better weapons. What we now call The Department of Defense used to be correctly labeled The War Department. Why was a name change necessary? So that the public would alter their opinion about their mission. Nothing changed except the name and the budget.
        So what we are seeing is a collision between two economic factors which quite realistically, can potentialy destroy our planet; or at least the human part of it: The ascendency of the Military-Industrial-Corporate empire and the end of oil. It would be historically interesting if it weren't so horrible to contemplate. and that's why nothing is being done to stop or even avoid it. We need to call a worldwide time-out and listen to some radical, new ideas; and soon

        •  And your point? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee

          All the Swiss would have to do is threaten to lose all the info in an attacker's secret accounts and peace is declared. It's all about the money. For the same reason, they don't have to worry about nukes being used against them either. After all, doeas anyone know where their money really is?

          Seems like they've come up with a pretty wise solution to the issue of defense, doesn't it?

          "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" - Sinclair Lewis

          by Loboguara on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:02:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Realo vs ultra fundie? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ogre, brownsox

    Kucinich...I just don't get why he keeps "running" I guess i'm just too realo.  I kind of got some of his lingo when I was playing my bongos in the dirt 40 years ago and I still feel a sentimental pull....but.

    Time waits for no one, the treasure is great spend it wisely.

    by mojavefog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:38:51 AM PST

  •  OUCH! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Omen, potownman

    Yeah, I guess it is sometimes better to let sleeping dogs sleep....

    http://www.cafepress.com/...

  •  "NO STRINGS! NO STRINGS! NO STRINGS!" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    retrograde, semiot, lirtydies, jedinecny

    When I saw that, besides thinking it was a total WTF moment, I was having flashbacks to Ed Wood's Glen Or Glenda, with Bela Lugois bellowing, "PULL DE STRINGS! PULL DE STRINGS!"

  •  agree with but #5 (6+ / 0-)

    His tenure as Mayor was much more complicated and ultimately more positive than that.

    But agreed he's beyond unelectable at the national level because he is to far left (e.g., Wellstone)... he's just a little wacko.

    Man I wish Feingold would run.

  •  Actually, as a Kucinich supporter, (44+ / 0-)
    I think this does a lot of good. I would much prefer to see criticism based on the issues. I would hope that we would all like to see all of the candidates held up to public scrutiny, instead of settling for blind hero worship. The opposition to abortion and stem cell research is troublng, and it's something that Kucinich should publicly address. After this, I have to reconsider my support for him.

    This post is a public service and is much better that "ugh!"

    Let's do the same for all candidates, and let the chips fall where they may.

      •  I wait for the next Dkos hit job on Obama (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Unbill

        like we have seen recently on Hillary and now Dennis.

        and I am leaning toward the Obama/Edwards camp!

        •  Have you seen this? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          danno50

          I saw this video on TPM this morning, and it has me leaning Obama for the first time. Note the timestamp. Back then, this was "out there." Now, it seems incredibly wise.

          •  I am an Obama supporter (0+ / 0-)

            I just don't like thuginess

          •  and btw, it wasn't wise (0+ / 0-)

            it was what any of us with brains and hearts thought. millions of us marched in the streets and said the same. i said as much and more to my university students  the day after powell's ersatz "stevenson moment." i lean towards obama, but i am not going to annoint him a "wiseman" for saying the obvious.

            •  Salvor, give yourself some props (0+ / 0-)

              I marched too, but among politicians expressing themselves in the media, his opinions were not widespread. Here is the kind of thing that was more the norm in November 2002:

              "What 9/11 demonstrated was, first of all, what extremism can do and put on the table what extremism married with weapons of mass destruction might do," Rice said. "We know that, to be blunt, bad guys travel in packs. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin managed to make an alliance less than two years before Adolf Hitler brutally attacked the Soviet Union. Bad guys travel in packs." - C. Rice, Christian Science Monitor, 11/15/02

              Iraq probably would not be able to fight for very long after an American-led invasion, Mr. Rumsfeld said, noting that ground combat in the 1991 Gulf War lasted just 100 hours.
              "I can't say if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It won't be a World War III."
              He rejected Saddam's claims that Iraq has no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs.
              "We know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, and we know he has an active program for development of nuclear weapons," Mr. Rumsfeld said. - New York Sun, 11/15/02

              "Look, the truth is we know he's building weapons of mass destruction, and the problem I think, is Blix probably doesn't know where to look." - Fred Barnes on FOX 11/25/02

              These are the extreme, but they pulled the center to the right. As a result, the most common form of dissent in the media was: give then inspectors time, but reserve the right to attack. Obama is thinking past that -- saying attack is simply not in our strategic interest.

              As a university professor, you're not subject to the media punishment that speaking outside of the mainstream opinions can result in for a politician. I'd say that Obama's insistence on answering the questions not with soundbites, but with the kind of concerns you might have expressed, does show a kind of wisdom.

          •  Thanks for posting this! (0+ / 0-)

            Very interesting interview. Obama is smart, articulate and I hope, honest. It's interesting that he foresaw the 'splintering', of Iraq as a possibility in Nov. of '02 when that wasn't the focus of any of the dialogue I remember of the time.

    •  blind hero worship (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, redstar, chesapeake

      That's why I haven't gotten into the thick of primary heat yet. Getting all goo-goo over a candidate, no matter who, is quite juvenile. I know I'm in the minority with this opinion, but I don't care.

  •  Kucinich is viable--he beat Hillary (9+ / 0-)

    in Kos's straw poll.

  •  Give me a Dean Scream, anytime. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ogre, TrueBlueCT

    Kucinich always seems a little bit .. well .. off.

    I'm sorry you had to do the research to demonstrate why.

    (As far as I'm concerned, an old guy with a bad dye job is enough to put me off.)

    Draft Dean for VP.

    Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:39:21 AM PST

  •  I watched the candidate forum..... (6+ / 0-)

    the other day, and I was impressed with Kucinich up until the end when he did his "no strings on me" dance routine.  All I could think of was Pinochio (got no strings to hold me down, got no strings on me).

    And I thought, why does he have to destroy his credibility by acting goofy.  He makes strong statements on Iraq and health care and then ruins the whole thing.

    He is just not a serious candidate and considering that I agree with many of his positions, that is a sad thing to have to say.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:40:47 AM PST

  •  Ugh (5+ / 0-)

    I can hardly wait to see which candidates are on the Kos hit list for next week.  The suspense is killing me.

  •  Ooooohhh... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potownman

    ...snap!

    "I think we ought to have as great a regard for religion as we can, so as to keep it out of as many things as possible."~ Sean O'Casey

    by mhtims on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:40:59 AM PST

  •  Quite a resume 'ole Denny boy! (0+ / 0-)

    FREE TRADE ISN'T FREE!

    by Intercaust on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:41:07 AM PST

  •  I'll never forget how he took me aside in 2004 (4+ / 0-)

    after I questioned Lieberman's intentions as a candidate and he scolded me, "Hey! nobody can question Joe Lieberman's integrity--no matter what his politics are!"

    Huh?

    I'd let the angry elf slip on an elven cloak and an invisibility ring to slay the big dragon though. Then we could share the treasure!

    Directing Your Grassroots Movement Movie at thegrassrootsmovie.com

    by deantv on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:41:20 AM PST

  •  He has a spiritual side! (9+ / 0-)

    So what? For all the bullshit I hear about "people of faith" -- whatever the fuck that means -- what's so bad about having someone with a spiritual side that DOESN'T revolve around some ridiculous 2000 year old fantasy?

    I don't like Kucinich and he is not electable, but criticism for that isn't fair.

    Senator Feingold: American Hero.

    by Basil on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:41:43 AM PST

  •  Kucinich wants to close School of the Americas (17+ / 0-)

    he is one of the chief advocates of closing that wretched factory of genocidal buthcers.....

    •  has he accomplished it? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, Goldfish, HollywoodOz

      Kucinich loves to be on the side of the activists on high visibility issues, but how many victories does he score?

      Bernie Sanders got tons of amendments passed in the GOP controlled Congress.

      What did Kucinich accomplish?

      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

      by Carl Nyberg on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:09:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Almost (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, tiponeill, adrianrf

        The vote last Congress in favor of closing the School of the Americas was just short:

        The SOA/WHINSEC narrowly averted closure earlier this year [2006] when a bill to cut funding to the school lost in Congress by a margin of 15 votes. The mid-term elections saw 34 Representatives who opposed the bill lose their seats.

        I was on vacation when the bill to close the SOA came before the Republican House.  I had been channel surfing and was astonished to see the issue being debated--I mean, who cares about such things?  Kucinich and others including Rep. McGovern were putting up a very good fight....McGovern was particularly impressive.

        Tell me, Carl, who else supports the closure of the SOA....

        •  how long has the Left been working on the SOA? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jxg, HollywoodOz

          two decades?

          And what will be disrupted when the SOA is closed?

          If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

          by Carl Nyberg on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:54:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ughh (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            adrianrf

            Not quite two decades....but awhile.

            Yes, I know it matters not to most.....The symbolism here does count....It is as if the Nazi ovens were now used to bake bread (assuming the SOA really has changed and is only baking bread) .....

            On substance, there is no need to "train" the militaries of Latin America.  Throughout the 20th Century the armies of Latin America were only used against their own peoples.  The only exception was the Falklands war against the Brits--great example, that.  Latin America stayed out of World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the first Gulf War.

            Also,  with Bushco's normalizing of torture, momentum has picked up to close the SOA....

            Yes, you are right, the effort to close the SOA may be futile--but it is the right thing to do.  Anyone who recognizes that should be recognized.

            •  we're about to go to war with Iran (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poliscizac

              and a bunch of Left Wing activists want to symbolically repudiate Ronald Reagan's Central America policies.

              This is why Kucinich and his supporters aren't taken particularly seriously.

              I'd vote for closing the SOA. I've gone to the SOA demo in Georgia.

              But if Kucinich were an A-list legislator, I'd want him to focus on stuff that's more important. IMO, Kucinich is not an A-list legislator, so it's OK with me that he does fuck around re-fighting two decade old battles.

              But don't expect me to say supportive things about him being POTUS when he hasn't even achieved any of the generally accepted pre-requisites: being elected governor or senator, or serving as a significant cabinet official.

              If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

              by Carl Nyberg on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:13:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He won't be POTUS (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SarahLee, adrianrf

                Kucinich is just a placeholder and everyone knows it....

                Yes, the Iran issue is very important.....and so stupid.  After 9/11, there was a candlelight vigil of 10,000 people in support of the U.S.--in Iran.  They and other Shias in Pakistan were the only public show of support for the U.S. in the Muslim world after 9/11.  Now, we are going to war against them to prevent al Qaeda from winning in Iraq?  Can't Republicans grasp that dividing one's enemies is better than uniting them?--even Nixon got that.

                The two decades old atrocities in Latin America are a second tier issue--nothing new there.  In some ways, I believe it is destined to always be so.  It is interesting to note, however, that Saddam was officially executed for killing approximately 200 people in 1982.

                I'm glad you attended the SOA demonstration.  Good on you.

      •  Which of Bernie Sanders' amendments were... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        redqueen, SarahLee, Jdellaro

        ...actually signed into law?

        I like both Sanders and Kucinich, but since that is your standard..

  •  Well (17+ / 0-)

    I'm not a Kucinich fan either, particularly, but some of this is IMO a little unfair. I tend to think he's just utterly unelectable on a national scale in this country, but he should be as free to talk about his "faith" as everybody else is, in theory, right? I mean, you can mock new-agey stuff -- it's pretty mockable in some ways -- but if you back off, is it really any sillier than any other set of faiths?

    What a lot of your "ugh" seems to come down to, kos, is that he pushes your "goddamned embarassing new age hippie" buttons. We know you don't like hippies. That's not a good enough reason IMO to utterly dismiss the guy or his ideas.

    I think you have a point about his stance on abortion and stem cell research; it bugs me, too. His record as mayor, eh, I've talked to a lot of people that lived through it and they all have different opinions about it.

    •  I think it is a shame... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spit, Inky, shpilk

      ...that our world is in such a state that the idea of a Department of Peace sounds silly. I actually think none of our problems will be solved unless we radically change our approach. Unless we decide, as a species, not just a nation, to base our government on principles of compassion and, yes, love.

      That said, I have to agree that Kucinich is an oddball little gnome. You can't elect the guy everyone shot with spitballs back in junior high.

      And isn't that a shame too?

      Kos, you're right. But it sucks that you are.

      •  Not so much. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wozzle, evilpenguin

        I think it is a shame that our world is in such a state that the idea of a Department of Peace sounds silly.

        Why? In the form most people think it is, it's redundant. But now that Kos sheds this light on it, it breaches separation of Church and State. These are very good reasons to reject this proposal, and they're pretty much independent of more immediate geopolitical concerns.

        •  Disagree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inky, SarahLee, evilpenguin

          on this:

          it breaches separation of Church and State

          There's no particular reason that people in office can't use their faith to inform their policy decisions. If he stuck something in the actual proposal about defining Peace according to spiritual principles, you'd be right. But people use their various faiths as a basis for policy all the time.

          Kos is reading spiritual stuff into that department of peace quote above, but I don't read it that way at all. I read it as Kucinich stressing that we need to view the world and geopolitics in an utterly different way -- a different worldview, not spiritualism, is IMO at the core of that quote. Frankly, everything he says there is true IMO regardless, though he maybe used language that makes it easier to write off as new age crap.

        •  You should actually read the bill (0+ / 0-)

          there is nothing in it that breaches the separation of church and state.

          Link to it here:
          http://www.dailykos.com/...

      •  Sadly (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, mcfly, evilpenguin, jessical

        Unless we decide, as a species, not just a nation, to base our government on principles of compassion and, yes, love.

        This is a long, long, long way off, if it's ever possible. I try to be optimistic about the development of human society -- we've made a lot of strides in a few thousand years -- but that would, Kucinich is absolutely right, take an utter paradigm shift, something beyond just a change in government. Ultimately, though I think most of this post is crap, kos is right that peace from a governmental standpoint is really the job of the State dept, even though our current folks there have done a piss poor job of promoting peace.

        And yeah, I wish our country weren't so damned superficial -- though I still wouldn't vote for Kucinich, mostly because I don't trust him to do the pragmatic work necessary to build real change. But that's not a reason to mock him, IMO. America doesn't want to elect dorks, though, even if they're terrific. We value our coolness, apparently, above much else.