Daily Kos

I'm trying not to like Dennis Kucinich - and failing!

by 1BQ

Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:59:49 PM PDT

I've been wondering about "electability" - what does it mean and why does it matter?

Yet, as I examine my own voting patterns, I can too easily recall instances when I've thought, "Well, this candidate represents my values and opinions most closely but is running far behind in the polls. I'll go with that candidate because s/he is the closest to my views of the candidates who stand a good chance of being elected."

Every time I've heard Dennis Kucinich speak, he's made me think, he's made me laugh, and he's made me want to stand up and cheer. I'm listening to him now on the Ed Schultz radio program. (Due to the suppression of progressive voices by Clear Channel and other mega-media outlets, I'm listening to a delayed broadcast, which prevents me from calling in a question of my own and thereby preventing me from participating in that most democratic of forums, talk radio. But that's a story for another day...) I'm trying hard to find one thing he's said that I disagree with, or even question, because I don't think he's got a chance in hell of winning the primaries, much less the general election. No such luck so far...

Which takes me back to this issue about electability. Who's to say who's electable? Aren't Clinton and Obama currently considered the Democratic frontrunners? If you subscribe to the "classic" theory of electability, that only white men can be President, how can Clinton or Obama be ahead of Edwards or any of the other "classically electable" candidates, including Kucinich? If, on the other hand, you subscribe to the "people want change" theory, why isn't Kucinich as viable a candidate as any of them? If you believe that being a woman or a member of a minority has no bearing on a candidate's ability to provide the leadership that this country so desperately needs, haven't you "moved the goalposts" of electability? Why, then, is so much attention given to the frontrunners? Aren't they ALL electable if enough people think they'd provide the best leadership?

Ah, leadership, that quality that can be slippery to define but that is undeniable when you see it. What attributes would make a good President? You have to be smart, both quick on the uptake and able to project the long-term consequences of events and decisions. You have to be capable of meticulous attention to detail but broad-minded enough to avoid getting bogged down in detail. You have to be a coalition-builder, persuasive enough to build consensus among your opponents as well as your supporters, which implies that you have to be eloquent, articulate, and concise. You have to be a good negotiator, making appropriate tradeoffs when necessary without alienating those who were harmed by, or failed to benefit from, the tradeoffs you made. And you have to make people believe that things are getting better, or will start to get better soon. Among the current pool of candidates, Dennis Kucinich would get my vote in a heartbeat - if only he were electable.

So I'm sitting here, wondering whether voting for Kucinich would be "throwing my vote away" and getting agitated over the question. If everyone supported the person who they most wanted to see become President, without regard to "electability," how different would those polls look? Could a previously "unelectable" candidate rise suddenly to frontrunner status?

Could we all please stop second-guessing who would win with centrists, or independents, or Republicans, or religious fundamentalists, or whomever, and just elect the BEST CANDIDATE according to each person's own definition of "best" and see who wins? We might be pleasantly surprised...

Tags: Dennis Kucinich, Electability, Election 2008, Primaries (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 51 comments

  •  FDR (8+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Rico, johnnygunn, zbctj52, Jimdotz, Rex Manning, davewill, LaFajita, Janet Wright

    Couldn't get elected today.

    It's sad...I love Kucinich too.

    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known---Carl Sagan

    by LibChicAZ on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:59:30 PM PDT

  •  Here think of it this way. (0+ / 1-)

    Hidden by:
    coigue

    Kucinich wants the government to run your life. First off that is very far away from being free. Second, once the government gets into the wrong hands, and it will again, you are screwed.

    by Ricky on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:02:16 PM PDT

  •  3 hours today on Ed Schultz show (13+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    OLinda, peace voter, johnnygunn, Jimdotz, Rex Manning, rainmanjr, carpunder, ImpeccableLiberalCredentials, davewill, rjones2818, poetas, LaFajita, Janet Wright

    just reconfirmed my view that Kucinich gets my time and money.

    He's smarter than the other candidates, more detailed and concise with his plans for America going foward, and is about the farthest thing for a DLC centrist stooge as we'll see in our lifetimes.

    That the my fellow Americans don't see that and what is truly in their best self interest and vote accordingly in the primaries is simply a reflection of how corrupted the system is and how powerless the masses feel to change it.  All it takes is votes in overwhelming numbers for someone willing to make the necessary changes.  Starting with an end to war as a legitimate moral extension of policy.  It isn't "pie-in-the-sky" rhetoric rather a return to sanity for the American way of life which has been hijacked.

    "An entire credulous nation believed in Santa Claus, but Santa Claus was really the gasman." Gunter Grass

    by rrheard on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:04:23 PM PDT

  •  we'll figure out who is "electable" (12+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Alma, peace voter, johnnygunn, Jimdotz, rainmanjr, carpunder, ImpeccableLiberalCredentials, MyBrainWorks, rjones2818, poetas, lettuce kucinich, LaFajita

    on election day. i'll vote for the candidate who best expresses policy that i believe in. in the primary, that will be kucinich.

    Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

    by rasbobbo on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:08:01 PM PDT

  •  Yes, Indeed - (7+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    OLinda, peace voter, Sagebrush Bob, Jimdotz, ImpeccableLiberalCredentials, rjones2818, LaFajita

    Only Kucinich speaks truth to power.

    by johnnygunn on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:09:27 PM PDT

  •  One thing I like more about Kucinich lately (8+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    peace voter, johnnygunn, greenskeeper, Sagebrush Bob, DemocraticLuntz, Jimdotz, rjones2818, LaFajita

    Kucinich used to have a very bad voting record on choice/reproductive rights issues.  Circa 2001-2, he was getting 0% from NARAL and 10% from Planned Parenthood.  Being rabidly anti-choice is a little awkward when you're running for the Democratic nomination as a liberal.  Since 2003 he's been voting pro-choice rather than anti-choice.  He got a 100% NARAL rating for 2006.  Good for him.  Let's hope he sticks with it once he's no longer a candidate for President.

    by ortcutt on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:13:18 PM PDT

    •  He's expressing the will of his nation. (0+ / 0-)

      His own personal beliefs, obviously, tend toward the right to life.  But, he doesn't put his beliefs ahead of the larger public.  If they want a pro-choice government then they've got it.  That's a good man.

      "I am here because of Ashley." - Unknown Obama supporter.

      by rainmanjr on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 05:09:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just listen to his shtick about a Department of (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    burrow owl

    Peace and you'll probably come back to Earth. For a man who has several great ideas, he seems to have filled his basket with some magical shrooms, as well.

    by steve davis on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:13:49 PM PDT

  •  He does have that effect, doesn't he. (0+ / 0-)

    However, I can't dismiss the "electability" factor. If I vote for Dennis, and, say Hillary, for example wins, I will wonder whether I could have helped Al Gore beat her if I'd only voted for him.

    I'm used to voting for the loser in the election (I'm a Democrat in a Republican county), but I have to have SOME feeling that my guy is, at least, a possible candidate (or that ALL the other choices are equally bad).

    In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
    American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

    by davewill on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:14:28 PM PDT

    •  Doesn't that irk you? (7+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rico, zbctj52, rainmanjr, davewill, poetas, lettuce kucinich, 1BQ

      That your vote, the one you want to cast, is altered by the opinions of others, or the appearance of electability?

      The idea of voting is to vote you think should be in office, not who you think will be in office.

      I do not care if I vote for the loser in an election.  I would care if a large number of people who would have voted for the candidate I believe most in had changed their vote because they felt that their candidate could not win.

      by nomadchad on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Only somewhat. (0+ / 0-)

        The obvious solution, and one that I've long thought was a good idea is instant runoff voting. Vote for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.  Keeping dropping the lowest vote getter, and reassign her votes to the highest choice left. Keep going until you have a winner.

        We can go ahead and vote for Dennis as first, but still make sure we help the front-runner we'd prefer. And who knows, if everyone freely chooses their first choice, maybe the "fringe" candidates won't remain so.

        In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
        American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

        by davewill on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 04:20:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd like to see None of the Above on every ballot (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          zbctj52

          If None of the Above gets more votes than anyone else, we'd throw out the whole lot of them and start over with all new candidates.  Seriously, if the leading vote-getter is None of the Above, none of the candidates on the ballot deserves the chance to run in that election again!

          Wonder what it's like to be a Republican these days...?

          McBush: two faces, one brain...

          by 1BQ on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 04:30:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Electibility is shorthand (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    davewill

    for "he's kinda crazy, and people will see that."

    by burrow owl on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:14:38 PM PDT

  •  Confessions of a Kucinichista Browncoat (7+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Alma, johnnygunn, Sagebrush Bob, Jimdotz, rainmanjr, ImpeccableLiberalCredentials, rjones2818
    I will support Dennis until I can't, for the reasons you describe.

    Don't get me wrong - I like John Edwards. I just like Dennis more. While other politicians count on their fingers, Dennis decides his position and stands four-square for it, and his postions are most unlikely to result in mass slaughter. To vote for Dennis is to vote for sanity. All this and great health care, too!

    by LaFajita on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:14:52 PM PDT

  •  The replay is streaming on wjno.com (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    peace voter, johnnygunn, LaFajita

    right now!  It's still in the first half hour.

    Go Dennis!
    Kucinich 2008!
    Choose Peace!

    Don't blame me, I support Dennis! http://kucinich.us

    by rjones2818 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:22:53 PM PDT

  •  Electability is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy nt (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    peace voter, johnnygunn, Jimdotz, rainmanjr, LaFajita

    by lettuce kucinich on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:33:13 PM PDT

  •  Kucinich: Strength Through Peace (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Alma, zbctj52, Jimdotz, MyBrainWorks, lettuce kucinich

    Here's the September 7th transcript:

    Bow Tie Boy:  Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has always done things differently.  Instead of making the rounds at the Labor Day barbecues in New Hampshire or Iowa, the Democratic presidential candidate spent the week in the Middle East where he met separately with the presidents of Syria and Lebanon.  Why did Kucinich opt for Damascus over Des Moines?  Here to tell us in his first interview since he returned last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.  Congressman, thanks for coming on.

    Dennis Kucinich:  Tucker, how are you?

    Bow Tie Boy:  I‘m great.  And one thing, I disapprove of many things you‘ve said but one thing I admire is your constant attempt to call attention to the fact there a lot of Christians living in Syria and Lebanon, a lot of Arab Christians and their plight is important and you have done a lot to call attention to that.  So thank you for doing that.  I‘m wondering if you brought that up during your conversations with the president of Syria, did you mention that the Syrian government treats Christians like second class citizens?

    DK:  I‘m having trouble hearing you on this.  But I think I know what you asked.  In my discussions with the president of Syria, we talked about everything.  And I think it‘s important to know that in my discussions with the president of Syria and with the president of Lebanon, there‘s a great deal of interest in peace and stability in the region.  And I think the United States must do more to show a new direction, and the direction I have been talking about, Tucker, which is strength through peace, direct engagement, open dialogue, diplomacy, adherence to international law.

    Leaders in the region I believe are ready for that approach, and we had some meaningful discussions as to the approach that might be taken towards peace in the region, which, frankly, is central to everything that the United States is involved in.

    Bow Tie Boy:  Congressman, from the transcript of remarks, I believe they are accurate, that you made in Syria.  You‘re quoted as attacking the United States over the Iraq War, which, of course, caused all these refugees to pour into Syria.  Were you uncomfortable attacking in the presence of one of its sworn enemies?

    DK:  Well, the fact of the matter is that Syria has taken in over 1.5 million Iraqi refugees.  And they did it without qualification.  They have been providing health services, feeding people, taking care of people who were literally fleeing for their lives.

    Now my wife and I actually went into the areas where great masses of refugees were living on the outskirts of Damascus.  I have never seen anything like it in my life.  This teeming mass of humanity.  People crying out for help, having only the clothes on their back.  And it was meaningful, I think, that the president of Syria was willing to provide that refuge for the people fleeing the war in Iraq.

    Bow Tie Boy:  But, I wonder, congressman, if you recognized your presence there would be used for propaganda purposes by the government of Syria.  The government of Syria is bad, can we agree on that?  It sponsors terror.  It sponsors the problems we have seen in Lebanon for the past 20 years.  It‘s a sworn enemy of Israel and the United States.  Syria is not a good government.  Can we agree on that?

    DK:  I don‘t embrace any nation‘s foreign policy wholesale.  But I do want to see for myself, I didn‘t—the president of Iraq did not ask me to go see the refugees.  I asked to see the refugees.  I asked about the refugee situation.  And I also, Tucker, if I may, I also asked the president of Iran about a wide range of issues that related to the Baker-Hamilton report, where Baker-Hamilton recommended that Syria and Iran be engaged as a means of resolving difficulties in the region.

    Bow Tie Boy:  That‘s great, congressman.  To have more credibility, it strikes me it‘s important for you to knowledge that Syria has been behind the destabilization of Lebanon, for instance, and that it has sponsored terror.  And you have not acknowledged that?  Will you?

    DK:  Listen, it‘s not a secret Syria has soldiers in Lebanon for a long, long time and Lebanon, in order to gain its own sense of independence from that control, finally, was able to get the Syrian army to leave Lebanon.  That was mandatory for the autonomy of Syria and for Syria‘s sovereignty.  At the same time the president of Syria recognizes that he‘s got to have stability in all of the nation‘s on his border and, as a matter of fact, the doctrine I‘m talking about, Tucker, strength through peace, is a means of stabilizing the Middle East and of addressing the issues relating to the Palestinians and the Israelis, Iraq, Iran.

    Bow Tie Boy:  Did you talk to Israelis, congressman?  I know you say the Syrians desperately want peace with Israel.  Have you talked to the Israelis about that?  Have you been to Israel to talk to them about that recently?

    DK:  Listen, the last trip I made, I went to Israel to talk exactly about that.  I hope to meet with the Israeli ambassador soon to talk about a follow-up visit to Israel.  I feel that America must take an even-handed approach in the region and the only way you do that, strength through peace, is direct involvement, is talking to people.  Is not drawing a caricature of other countries.  I mean, Israel suffered greatly.  There‘s an existential threat that‘s deeply perceived.  Israel wants peace.  The Palestinian‘s rights have to be regarded in order to achieve that.  Their economic social rights.  I have been to Palestine.  I have been to Israel.  I have been to Syria.  I have been to Lebanon.  I think anyone who wants to be president of the United States must be familiar with the region and must be ready to talk, how do you get to peace?

    And so strength through peace is the approach that I have been talking about and it really turns on its head, Tucker, that neoconservative doctrine that‘s led to a disaster.

    Bow Tie Boy:  Peace through strength?  You mean the idea that won the Cold War?  

    I think it‘s worked pretty well.

    DK:  That what?

    Bow Tie Boy:  Peace through strength, the idea that won the Cold War, I think worked pretty well.

    DK:  Actually, when you look at where we are today, first strike took us into Iraq.  And first strike has proven to be a major disaster.  You cannot—No nation can any longer act as though it‘s a nation above nations.  In order to achieve real security—and I would not hesitate to defend this country—but in order to achieve real security, we have to come together with people, some of whom we may not like, in order to find a common ground so that we can work towards peace.  That‘s why I went there.

    Bow Tie Boy:  All right, congressman, we are out of time.  But I appreciate you‘re coming on.  I do.  Thanks.

    DK:  Thank you very much, Tucker.




    `````
    peace

    U.S. Mayors to Congress: "Pass H.R. 676 NOW"

    by peace voter on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:34:22 PM PDT

  •  The litmus test: Is Kucinich Pro-choice? (0+ / 0-)

    Ah, no?

    Then he can lump it.

    by rerutled on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:48:27 PM PDT

  •  Dennis K: read the book; saw the movie; (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    poetas, LaFajita, Tropical Depression

    bought the t-shirt.[gave money too] He's the real deal and the USA would be in good hands with him as prez.[imo]

    by daliscar on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 04:02:15 PM PDT

  •  Dennis has the best platform...by far (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    LaFajita

    I'm c'mon look at those he's running against?

    Biden...tied to big money.

    Hillary...scandal.

    Obama...insider.

    Gravel...loose cannon.

    Richardson does have some good ideas on Iraq and scrapping the ridiculous NCLB.

    Dodd...why's he running?

    ...but Dennis can't win; JE can.

    Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

    by formernadervoter on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 04:03:44 PM PDT

  •  I've wrestled with this question, too, and... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    1BQ

    have decided to vote for him.  I'll tell you why.  The worst has already been done to our nation, politically, and socially we're so far behind I'm not sure it matters.  This country is just fucked up.
    But, Global Warming is not just about this country.  It's about our species (and many others).  DK (don't you just love those initials?) has the very best plan for combating G.Warming.  The fact that his social policies, and plan for Iraq, are very much in favor with my own are just gravy.
    This is a vote of pure conscious for me.  I feel the American public either gets it, by now, or we can't win and will continue to spiral downward.  DK is my conscious and will, therefore, get my vote.  I will not say to the next generation that I didn't care.  That I didn't try my hardest.  I attended rallies, I screamed from rooftops, I preached loudly in public places, I wrote letters, and I voted for the only guy who was willing to do something big even though he stood a very small chance of actually winning.
    That was all I could do.

    "I am here because of Ashley." - Unknown Obama supporter.

    by rainmanjr on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 04:37:39 PM PDT

  •  Re: Your title...Why are you trying? (0+ / 0-)

    Do you like disappointment that much?

    All behold the tamed Maverick, at his master's feet.

    by coigue on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 05:31:14 PM PDT

Permalink | 51 comments