The Media & Kucinich: Deception by Omission

[Karmadillo]

http://www.oasistv.com/news/11-21-03-story-2.asp

BOULDER, Colorado--November 21, 2003--I am amazed and frightened to have discovered only recently how successfully and subtly my perceptions and my sense of personal power are manipulated by our media. Until then, I considered myself well aware of the media's motives and methods and therefore immune to their manipulation. However I have been more profoundly deceived and disempowered than I had thought possible. My deception runs deep; the consequences enormous.

I have come to recognize my deeper, more dangerous level of deception through a process of inquiring into why so many of my friends think Dennis Kucinich is not electable. Among my friends, most say "Yes, nobody better represents me than Dennis Kucinich. But I don't think he's electable." I kept asking my friends, "Why? Please explain to me why you think that." I have not heard a single answer that is even slightly satisfying, even from my more intelligent and politically informed friends.

<edit>

Dennis Kucinich is the leading political spokesperson for the movements for global peace, environmental protection, economic justice, social justice, living wages, universal health care and education. Any other democratic candidate would be more acceptable to corporate America than Dennis Kucinich. In comparison to Dennis, all the other "electable" candidates pale in the scope of reform they offer. The business of global war, environmental destruction and economic terrorism will carry on undisturbed under their presidencies.

His exclusion from coverage by major media is precisely because he is supremely electable. Dennis Kucinich is the single greatest threat to George Bush. He is the one candidate who -- when he is heard -- appeals to the intelligence, compassion and goodness of America. There is no one else even in his league. Listen to him and judge for yourself. You cannot understand who this man is through the media. Get a video and watch him. He will stir your heart to believe again in the possibility that our nation can change -- profoundly. You will feel the opportunity to make a difference in our government that had previously seemed impossible to you. You will want to get involved, and you would, except for one thing: you know he's "not electable."

end...

[goodhue]

1. thanks for posting this

The middle of the piece also has some great 'graphs . . .

http://www.oasistv.com/news/11-21-03-story-2.asp

I love those moments when I recognize that something doesn't make sense to me. When I see clearly that I simply do not understand something and I need to investigate it more thoroughly. I reached that place with regard to Dennis being "not electable." I realized that I did not understand what the term "not electable" actually means. "Why?" I asked myself. "Why is he 'not electable?' What specifically makes him not electable?"

Only months ago I had never heard of Dennis Kucinich. Lila Sophia Tresemer was the first person that spoke to me of how genuinely moved she was by him. Although I highly respect Lila, I thought to myself that somewhere, somehow this man must be another New Age candidate without a chance. It was precisely because I'd never heard of him that caused me to assume he must lack something. I wasn't sure what it was, but there must be some reason that I'd not even heard of him. It was hard for me to imagine that someone whose name I'd never heard could be a serious candidate for president.

So I began to educate myself about Dennis' life and political history. What I learned about this man appeared to be anything other than "not electable." In fact, he seemed almost heroic, possessing seemingly unimpeachable integrity. I felt gratitude and a rekindling of hope that somehow such a candidate actually existed within our political system; that there actually was an electable candidate who represented my longings as accurately as Dennis Kucinich. I became satisfied that the label "not electable" does not match Dennis Kucinich nor anything he has ever said or done. It is inaccurate. It is a lie.

Why had I never heard of a politician who has spent his entire political career since age 19 courageously fighting for my ideals? I shifted the focus of my inquiry from Dennis Kucinich to finding the source of these false beliefs. I personally have never actually heard or read the words "not electable" in the media. The only people I've ever heard speak them are my friends. And when I have asked my intelligent, committed, good friends why they say this nobody has yet come forth with an intelligent explanation. For vague reasons we cannot articulate it just "feels" that way. We believe something and don't know why. Interesting. Something strange is going on.

[mmm]

2. For the first time I am going to work as a campaign volunteer

Kucinich is absolutely worth it

[stopthegop]

3. serious question...

why can't he break out of low single digits in the polls...and saying it's because the media won't talk about him is a dodge...he's been in the debates...people have a chance to see him

[Hep]

4. Right

Dean started out no better than Kucinich, and now he's among the front runners. Why? Because he inspired people to go out and work. Why has this not worked with Kucinich?

All in all, though, that was a cute piece of advocacy for him. Too bad it's from some hippie station!

[Zomby Woof]

7. what the hell is a "hippie station"?

Sounds like a slam to me. I thought Dean was supposed to bring us all together, and unite us! After he is done walking on water, that is.

[Hep]

12. Allow me to elaborate

Oasis TV is an integrated media content provider of natural lifestyle programming, alternative news, cutting edge information and thought-provoking editorials. Its mission is to help create a more healthful, loving and peaceful world by providing global markets with media-based resources for personal and planetary transformation.

http://oasistv.com/about/index.html

Hippie station!

But don't get me wrong. I like hippies. I appreciate the existence of this kind of station. I just think it is indicative of the kind of support that Kucinich gets. Very liberal. Not bashing or gushing, just noticing.

[redqueen]

44. Sorry, but calling them a 'hippie station'

is indeed bashing.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but do they use the term "hippie" to describe themselves? If so, then it would be accurate.

If not, then the way you're using it, IMO, is the same way the right uses terms like this.

Tsk tsk tsk.

[Hep]

48. Go buy a sense of humor for chrissakes

You're taking this way too seriously.

[redqueen]

49. So you were joking, then?

When you dismissed them as just a 'hippie station', so obviously their favorable coverage of Kucinich doesn't matter... that's a 'joke'?

I'm surprised someone can take politics so lightly, considering what's being done to our treasury.

It's not us they're raping.

It's our kids & grandkids.

[Hep]

54. Hello lost cause

I'm so sorry you've lost all semblance of a sense of humor. Glad I'm not you.

I was being light hearted when I called it a hippie station, but it is straight out of Stewart Saves His Family. And I further explained the comment later. You must have skimmed over that part. Maybe the part of the brain that functions as the sense of humor is closely related to the part of the brain that control attention span.

[redqueen]

60. You're not making sense.

You seem to want to avoid the fact that using comments disparaging to the left in general, like "hippie", to be dismissive of or to marginalize ideas or candidates, are a tactic the right uses.

Did anyone else find this 'joke' amusing?

Anyone?

[MuseRider]

65. Nope, not funny

I do not know how old Hep is but I do know that my kids have friends who refer to people as being "hippies" if they want to marginalize them. Not saying that is what Hep meant but I have fought this battle at home. I am a proud old hippie. I, like you, find this far too serious a subject to joke about. The way this thread started to go made me feel less amused by the minute.

[Hep]

72. Oh Gawd

Well I guess we should all subscribe to your experience, because that's all that matters.

I had no idea that the Kucinich campaign was the MOST humorless campaign. Incredible.

[MuseRider]

80. I was NOT responding to you

here, I was actually telling RQ that I was not amused and my experience is MY experience. I stated that I did not know how you meant that. Sorry I do no longer think that marginalizing the issues or the candidates, ANY of them, is funny. It has become old and tiresome. Just because we were not amused by your comment, especially after some of the nasty comments we have seen before does not mean the campaign is humorless. This is ridiculous. I have seen you be fair and I have often felt you were not but I have by no means judged you here, I simply did not like or feel amused by the comment you made. No more responses from me, this is really stupid.

[Hep]

83. So many things wrong with that it's hard to begin

1. You called me out by name, so don't act like you weren't responding to me.

2. I didn't marginalize an issue or a candidate. I poked fun at a TV station for it's obviously "touchy feely" description of itself.

3. I clarified what I said to point out that I like Kucinich AND Hippies. I even like vegans. Oh no, did I offend you with my use of the word "even"?

4. I AM really fair. And I like DK, and I have my reasons for not supporting him. But DK fans need to stop blaiming everyone for DK not being higher in the polls.

[redqueen]

88. Somebody stop me!

I can't resist!

1. She was only referring to you... sorry.

2. You were marginalizing their support for Kucinich, thereby marginalizing Kucinich's support, thereby marginalizing Kucinich.

3. haha

4. We're not 'blaming'. We're observing. :)

[Hep]

94. Well, nyah!

Poop on you!

Or something.

We spent too much time on this.

[MuseRider]

89. OK, look

I guess I have to respond here.

1. I mentioned your name because the subject was about your post. I also stated I did not know what you meant.

2. You have marginalized and if the damed intenet connection I have would allow me to spend less than 20 minutes to load a thread today I would leave this page and go get them. On second thought, no I would not, I am not interested in pursuing this.

3. You do not offend me with your opinions, only when you do not state them as opinions and use them as facts to marginalize someone else.

4. I HAVE seen you be fair, I am not trying to call you out and perhaps this conversation would be better held in another way than on the board where it is often difficult to "hear" what someone really means. I think that is often the reason for misunderstandings. As far as the polls go, I have not mentioned them (I do not think I have, again I am unable to check) and I find them of no real interest. Personally, I think that everyone running for this office deserves as much press as possible to get their platforms out, after all, this is pretty important don't you think? For the media to decide who is the most important and who should be heard is pretty sad and dangerous IMO.

[Hep]

95. Please read this

I want to point out that whenever there has been a thread about how candidates ashould start dropping out, I ALWAYS Defend Kucinich. I think that despite the odds being against him to win the nom, his is among the most important voices in the field. He should be a contributing part of this primary until he decides he's done all he can do. If that's tomorrow, I'll be sad. If he runs as a green, I'll be angry (I don't even entertain the idea that he might). If he stays in until the convention, GREAT!

But I wouldn't be honest if I didn't say that I think his candidacy is important for other reasons than the presidency.

[MuseRider]

104. As I said

I have seen you be fair. I appreciate that you defend him sometimes and perhaps I should stop the knee jerk anger that comes out. I reserve the right to nail away when I think you or anyone else is being unfair but remember, I do think you have often been fair. I am far to much the peacemaker (most of the time) to be good on this board but fairness is always important, one reason I would NEVER be good at politics. Peace, thanks. Go DK and for you... Go Dean. I am certain we will do this again however. Life and politics.

[Hep]

71. Read my post again

with a bit less of the reactionism.

[Egnever]

156. I did!

Not only did I think it was funny I think it was an apt description.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

35. Glad you brought this up...

Dean and Kucinich were polling within a few points of each other previous to the IWR.

Thats when the Dean media blowout started and Dean jumped to the top of the polls.

Someone posted some figures from a study of coverage following the original polls. Lemme see if I can find it, cannot right now. Basically Dean received roughly 10 times the media coverage

If someone can find this before me please post it.

TWL

[Hep]

41. The IWR vote?

I think your timeline is way off. The IWR vote was in October 2002. I hadn't heard of Dean until December or January, and it wasn't because of the media. In fact, I was a new Dean recruit when I saw KUCINICH talk about his campaign on CROSSFIRE in February. Kucinich started out with media attention. How did he lose it?

[redqueen]

46. He didn't lose it.

He has always appeared on these shows.

What you're missing is the significance of the media the mainstream picks up on... not the political talk shows.

Articles in newspapers mentioned Dean and frontrunners, nightly newscasts do the same... Kucinich is hardly ever mentioned here.

Most Americans don't waste sunday watching Meet the Press or their afternoons / evenings watching shoutfests like Crossfire. The most that many Americans do is read the papers and watch TV news.

[Hep]

47. So on the one hand

he doesn't get any media attention, and on the other hand he's always appearing on shows like Crossfire. Uh, OK!

[redqueen]

50. You seem to

want to label all media as equal. Why?

Is it because you do not realize there are differences? You do realize that what reaches some 'specialty' (i.e. in this case, political) shows doesn't reach the same vast audience that 'mainstream' news does, don't you?

[Hep]

57. Media is media

I'm not the one who put the most general possible terms in this.

If you want specifics, stop blaming this "media" umbrella. Be Specific!

[redqueen]

61. I just did. n/t

[Hep]

73. Yeah NOW you did

after blaming me for being too general. You need to get over yourself.

[redqueen]

90. Yes, now I did.

I'm not 'blaming' you for being too general. :eyes:

I explained the difference in post #46, which you seemed to forget as you were writing post #47.

:shrug:

[Hep]

96. Yeah, well

You should have thought about your post #32 before you posted 46. Or something.

[redqueen]

105. Oh come now, Hep...

Don't just get silly... address the issue.

While there has been coverage of Kucinich on some political talk shows, the mainstream media has focused only on the frontrunners on and Dean.

And meetup numbers aside, when Kucinch and Dean were within the margin of error, journalists went FULL force in pushing Dean. His coverage skyrocketed, with his support trailing it.

A case can be made that the media even helped to characterize him as the 'progressive, anti-war, liberal' candidate, despite the fact that he's not. This has led to people being badly misled and I for one don't think it's by accident, just as I think the media's widespread support of Bush's rush to war was an accident.

[Hep]

107. You might be right

but I refuse to believe that the people are just mindless dupes going by what the media tells them. I mean, you're obviously not, and I know I'm not. But have people learned nothing since 2000 about media manipulation? I guess theres a good chance that the answer is no.

[sangh0]

58. You missed Hep's point

Hep didn't hear of Dean until December, so of course, the IWR vote was unimportant.

[redqueen]

45. Here it is:

http://www.politicsus.com/presidential%20press%20releases/Kucinich/102903.htm

(snip)
But if Kucinich supporters were hoping for serious coverage, they were in for a serious disappointment. Too many campaign reporters decided that their job was to act as gatekeeper of the "top tier" instead of informing their readers about the field. Just two weeks after Kucinich threw his hat into the ring, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney was already explaining why the Ohio Democrat didn't deserve as much attention as others. Warning of the "potential for complication" in having too many candidates running, Nagourney wrote: "Ideally, a sponsor interested in organizing a meaningful debate would like to limit it to, say, the six top-tier candidates. But who decides what top tier means?" To answer his own question, he supplied a soundbite from an academic pundit: "With all due respect, Kucinich and Moseley Braun have no chance of getting the nomination."2

Over the next three months (March-May), Nagourney's stories mentioned Kucinich only 13 times. Howard Dean was mentioned 111 times. Yet during those months, polls of registered Democrats showed the two candidates running so close that their levels of support were within the margin of error.3

As the chart above shows, network TV news coverage was no better or fairer. Soon after Bush declared "major combat" over in Iraq, Dean saw a surge in TV coverage, with 30 mentions on the three major nightly newscasts in May alone. Kucinich wasn't mentioned at all that month. Yet the April 23 Gallup poll had Dean at 5% and Kucinich at 3%. From then on, the coverage only got more unbalanced.

Riding a wave of heavy summer media coverage, Dean grew in the polls, while the Kucinich campaign scrambled to make the Washington press corps take notice. From June to August, Dean garnered 90 mentions on the evening news, while Kucinich received a total of 2. By the summer's end, Time magazine had discovered "The Dean Factor"—while Joe Klein, its political columnist, labeled Kucinich a "vanity" candidate. (To be distinguished, Klein claimed, from "serious candidates who have yet to catch fire," like Lieberman and Edwards.)

(continued...)

Click the link to see the graph... too big!

[Hep]

52. Boy they really make a point

to provide all the pertinant context in that article, right?

In late August, Dean appeared in 9 different cities across the country in 4 days and raised more money in a week than Kucinich could raise in a quarter. But I guess that's not newsworthy.

Your article doesn't point out what the candidates were UP TO during those months. It never seems to look into possible reasons why some candidates were getting more coverage. it never occurs to people that maybe Dean was reaching more people and accpmplishing more.

Nah, when things don't go right for a candidate, far be it from supporters to blame anyone other than EVERYONE ELSE.

This is a speculative issue. You have a right to your theory and I have a right to mine, and neither of us can prove we're right. But this is chicken before the egg. I was into Dean since long before he had a media presence. I've watched it grow from one meetup that covered Raleigh, Durham, AND CHapel HIll to over 10 meetups in the area. And it's not because of the media. Not in Edwardsland. It was because of ME, and my friends and fellow supporters.

I'm sure you don't think that you're being insulting, but it's pretty screwed up to constantly claim that it's something other than MY hard work that has led to Dean being so popular. In order to make that argument, you have to believe that grassroots support doesn't work.

[redqueen]

64. This is really getting pathetic.

Notice the graph.

The media starts pumping Dean up in MAY.

Kind of explains those meetups.

:eyes:

[Hep]

75. Hardly

I got involved in January at hte latest. And it had nothing to do with the media. In february, there were 11 dean meetups in 13 cities. In March, some 4200 people at 79 meetupsin 14 cities. April, 152 meetups on 48 cities.

AND THEN the media kicks in AS YOU SAY.

Talk about pathetic. In three months, Dean's meetupo numbers grow exponentially, THEN the media kicks in, THEN it grows more. And you think this is unfair.

BTW, the earliest meetup stat I can find for Kucinich is July. 17 meetups. And I don't see any evidence that he was ever second to Dean. So help me out, oh brilliant one.

[redqueen]

91. I have no idea. I don't base perceptions on meetup.com

I was actually a member of Dean's meetup group at that time.

That was before the MoveOn primary in June, when I learned that Dean wanted to keep the padded Pentagon budget as-is.

That was the first time I'd heard of Kucinich, and I've never looked back.

And please don't forget that Dean started campaigning a over a year before that, with seed money from top executives from an energy company.

[Hep]

98. You don't base perceptions on meetup.com

but you appear to have based your argument on it.

"Kind of explains those meetups". Well, no, it doesn't.

Look, all I'm asking is that people recognize that the nature of Dean's campaign is responsible for at least SOME of his rise to front runner. Whether the chicken came before the egg, I don't know.


Actually, technically, the egg came first, but that's another thread.

[redqueen]

109. You're right

That comment was facetious, actually...

I recognize that he worked hard throughout 2002 to build that early support. But it has skyrocketed since May / June when the media started giving him what I consider to be uncalled for support.

He had been campaigning for over a year, yet was neck and neck with Kucinich, who had been campaigning for only 3 months! Why the appreciation for a 'meteoric rise' by Dean, when it was KUCINICH who was really the story? !

It's just silly, really. The media has no business telling us who is a valid candidate and who is not. The people should decide that.

The media has a vested interest in keeping certain things the way they are. In light of that fact, they have a conflict of interest with respect to presenting the candidates accurately and fairly.

[redqueen]

128. Pointing this out for emphasis...

I really would like your feedback on this, as well as the feedback of anyone else who thinks that the mainstream media doesn't treat Kucinich differently.

Dean had been campaigning for over a year by May 2003, yet at this point he was STILL only neck and neck with Kucinich, who had been campaigning for only 3 months!

Why was the media so gratuitous in its appreciation for Dean's
'astonishing success' when he was neck & neck with a candidate who had only been in the race for a fraction of the time as Dean? ! !

[redqueen]

137. Is this really not startling to anyone else?

I'm about ready to start a new thread on this, just to make sure people aren't entirely missing it.

[Hep]

138. Sorry, I didn't know

this was still active!

I really don't know about the media treating Kucinich differently. Can you name some newsworthy things that he has done that would garner recognition? I assume he's been traveling around a lot giving speeches, but do many other candidates get a lot of press for that? I can tell you that Dean supporters as well as the campaign issue press releases almost on a daily basis. Does kucinich do that? Dean's been getting a ton of endorsements lately, and that's nesworthy.


I really don't know. You could easily be right. I'm just not all up in Kucinich's campaign like I am Dean's.

[hippywife]

146. How about the fact that

while the other members of Congress who are campaigning for President are missing votes out on the trail, Kucinich just missed his first vote in 4 terms in Congress because DeLay refused to reschedule a vote that was taking place during a previously scheduled forum.

How about the fact that he has been calling out against the administration's war drums beating for Iraq since February 2002? Or that he voted against the Patriot Act? Or that as a union member he has marched with protesters at WTO rallies and walked the picket line with the grocery workers on strike in CA.

Quite frankly, with all that he accomplishes while still doing the job he was elected to do, I don't know when he finds time to sleep.

[Hep]

147. Yeah?

while the other members of Congress who are campaigning for President are missing votes out on the trail, Kucinich just missed his first vote in 4 terms in Congress because DeLay refused to reschedule a vote that was taking place during a previously scheduled forum.

That's a great piece of information. Was there a press release?

How about the fact that he has been calling out against the administration's war drums beating for Iraq since February 2002? Or that he voted against the Patriot Act? Or that as a union member he has marched with protesters at WTO rallies and walked the picket line with the grocery workers on strike in CA.

Also great information. But none of that is new. If you expect the press to report the same thing over and over, you'll be disappointed.

Quite frankly, with all that he accomplishes while still doing the job he was elected to do, I don't know when he finds time to sleep.

And I don't know why other congressmen don't follow suit. Kucinich is the only one doing the right thing.

[hippywife]

149. He's consistent

and has a work ethic like few others in Congress. His voting record is 99% and that is verifiable.

He is constantly flying back and forth from campaign events to be in D.C. to do his job.

[hippywife]

151. He is also

laying the groundwork in Congress to accomplish what he stands for in his platform.

[diamondsoul]

168. HELL yes there was a press release!

Damn, Hep, no offense but we can send out press releases all day and night but it doesn't matter if the public never sees them!

I can tell you from the inside that's exactly what happens. We ship out press releases all over the place and the press stifle them. People only EVER see news on Dennis if they watch C-span, listen to NPR (and even that's biased against him these days), and pay attention to politically based media. MOST of the country doesn't do those things, that's the plain truth of it.

[redqueen]

154. I just pointed out

how in May, three months after Kucinich entered the race, and fifteen months after Dean was in the race, they were neck and neck in CNN, USA Today and Gallop polls.

Despite this, during this time, Dean's coverage grew immensely on broadcasts such as NBC Nightly News, ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, etc. "Mainstream" news which reaches a wide audience, not to mention print news!

Additionally, Kucinich came in 2nd in the MoveOn primary after only four months in the race, to Dean's first place showing after sixteen months of campaigning.

I can't comprehend how this difference in treatment can be anything other than stunning to anyone.

[hippywife]

155. I do agree that it is stunning

and I do believe it does have to do with the fact that corporations and corporate driven media are all too happy to marginalize him as are the centrist Dem leadership. They don't want to go back to the day when the party fought for civil rights...there ain't no money in it.

[redqueen]

160. Well thanks!

Honestly... I get the feeling people really are avoiding commenting on this.

[Tinoire]

93. That's a bit of a smug attitude

It was because of ME, and my friends and fellow supporters.

I'm sure you don't think that you're being insulting, but it's pretty screwed up to constantly claim that it's something other than MY hard work that has led to Dean being so popular. In order to make that argument, you have to believe that grassroots support doesn't work.

I really hate to break this to you but while your hard work was certainly important, the main thing it accomplished was to make the DLC & DNC stop dismissing Dean.

Dean created an illusion of being everything for everyone (which is really beginning to trip him up), got a bunch of sincere people like you on board to make the DLC/DNC pay serious attention to him, and the corporate powers, who full well know his corporate-friendly record in Vermont, are doing the rest because they find him palatable.

That's my personal take on this and is in no way meant as a slam of you or all your efforts.

[Hep]

101. Ummmmm

The DLC and the DNC are STILL dismissing Dean. One of the biggest ongoing fears in my camp is that the DNC and DLC will abandon Dean if he wins the nomination. We're working hard to make them irrelevant.

Dean isn't everything to everyone. He makes a point to get that word out and we make a point to spread it. But yeah, there is that perception about him. It's just weird how some people claim one thing and others claim the opposite. His record in Vermont is one of reason. I know the tendency to hate everything corporate. But I find that to be an overly confrontational approach.

We have to make industry work in this country. Work for everyone. I'm pro business. I go to businesses all the time and spend my money.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. But he is otherwise ignored

Countless times I have seen articles discussing the Democratic candidates' views on the war in Iraq, health care, and other issues that Dennis is strong on, and they quote only the candidates who already have name recognition: Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Dean, and Clark.

It's as if the media have anointed these five the "acceptable" candidates (since they realize that Dean is actually a centrist), and they hope that the others will just go away.

[Hep]

26. I think it's more like

the coverage is proportional to the level of support and funding a candidate has. Dean got big in November 2002-May 2003 by word of mouth. He was out of nowhere, had low numbers, no money, etc. But as his support grew, his face time increased.

[MuseRider]

5. Thanks for posting this.

This is wonderfully thought out and put down on paper. My thoughts and feelings exactly.

[onebigbadwulf]

8. Because on a superficial level

Kucinich is like a gnome who throws temper tantrums.

[redqueen]

10. Key word: 'superficial'.

Problem is, and the powers that be know this: Kucinich does not connect with voters because of his looks or his charisma.

Makes him harder to fight, actually. You are forced to battle ideas.

[redqueen]

9. Thanks for sharing this.

People want to deny that Dean's rise in the polls was at least partially helped by the media's attention. He and Kucinich were within the margin of error of each other when the media decided Dean was worthy of coverage, but Kucinich was not. This does not make any sense at all.

I'm glad to see others are realizing the 'unelectable' myth is just a self-fulfilling prediction.

[drfemoe]

31. another whine

another reason .. So I suppose if the all-mighty "media" had selected DK to boost, and he were at Dean's level now, it would all be due to DK's worthiness? You're saying it wasn't the meet-up numbers, the fundraising, the endorsements, the presentations of Dean that the media paid attention to.. it was a conspiracy to shut out DK. How whiny. The media bashes Dean more than any other candidates.

But if it makes you feel better to blame *the media*, no one's gonna stop you.

[redqueen]

37. This is silly.

I'm not going to argue hypothetical reality with you.

You can refuse to address reality all you want, but I doubt you'll find many to debate alternate versions of it.

[info being]

11. He's too evolved for the American population

and their media. A Kucinich Presidency = a whole new era.

[MuseRider]

13. And who can deny

that we need that?

[Hep]

16. What an opportunity

for you to explain just how Kucinich will usher in this new era. Will he dissolve congress?

[MuseRider]

20. My guess is

that ushering in a new era takes a bit of time so my answer to this is slowly. It would be a beginning at least. If not recieved well then we are not ready but I would like to see it have a chance.

[Hep]

27. I understand, I really do

And I think you're right. I also agree with another poster that the average US citizen isn't ready for what Kucinich is selling.

[MuseRider]

33. Thanks

To me his whole political platform is about humanity and sustainability. Good for all of us but best for the average Joe/Jane. It is hard for me to see him as a big lefty, to me is more the humanitarian. I find it difficult to believe that this message is not appreciated by more. The idealist, I suppose, but it works for me.

[redqueen]

21. Look into what happened when FDR ran.

Inspiring the base leads to loooooong coattails. :)

[Hep]

28. When FDR ran which time?

And can you honestly say tht Kucinich has inspired the base?

[Hep]

15. Yeah, everyone who doesn't support Kucinich

is a knuckledragger.

[MuseRider]

18. Not fair, Hep

that is not what the poster said. I do not support Dean but you will never find me on all of his threads pointing out what I think his faults are. You are welcome to be a part, of course, but please be fair.

[Hep]

29. What?

THe poster said, "Too evolved". What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[no name no slogan]

36. Speak for yourself

Your continuous slandering of DK and his supporters is not only old, it's paleolithic. If you truly don't support his platform, say so and why. If you feel that he is somehow not equipped to handle the toughest job in the country, say so, and site sources.

You know as well as anyone else knows that Dean was helped IMMENSELY by his cover shots on Time and Newsweek and by the fact that the media has decided that he's the "liberal" in the race and that anybody slightly to the left of his triangulated centrism is somehow "out of the mainstream".

The media, as always, has narrowed the scope of acceptable debate by defining the bounds of what is "acceptable" to the American public. Now, any position somewhat to the left of Dean's is somehow "out there" or "too liberal" for the public to accept.

However, if you look at how the public feels on a variety of issues (health care, trade, corporate control of our lives, etc.) you'd find that DK's positions are much more in line with the positions pedalled by most of the other candidates in this race.

Since you obviously cannot debate DK's platform on its merits, you feel the need to personally attack him and his supporters, just like most playground bullies do, when confronted with overwhelming evidence of their indefensible positions and lack of a case.

Go ahead, slander away, call us names, whatever. Blather, rinse, repeat. If you seriously think that will change anybody's mind, go for it.

[Hep]

42. Get a hold of yourself *tosses water in face*

I'm only going to address your first sentence because it renders the rest of your silly post moot:

Your continuous slandering of DK and his supporters is not only old, it's paleolithic. If you truly don't support his platform, say so and why. If you feel that he is somehow not equipped to handle the toughest job in the country, say so, and site sources.

Show me where I slandered DK or anyone who supports him. Show me links or quotes.

You need to chill. You don't even know who you're lashing out at.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. He is not electable because he is too liberal

The American electorate is pretty middle of the road. Not as conservative as Bush, but not as liberal as Al Gore (one of the reasons why the 2000 election was so close).

[stopthegop]

17. very true...

country is pretty evenly divided politically right now.

[redqueen]

23. Untrue.

Many thought Al Gore should have been more liberal. Many went to the Green party. Many more just sat at home, convinced it wouldn't matter, because a vote for Gore was too centrist, and a vote for Nader was wasted.

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. But if Gore had been too liberal, some of the centrists who voted for him

would have voted for Gore.

[no name no slogan]

97. But

for every centrist Gore would have lost, isn't it possible that another leftish-liberal person would have either 1) NOT voted for Nader and voted for Gore, or 2) voted for Gore instead of not voting at all?

The "moderate center" is possibly the most fickly group of voters in the country. Most of them do not make up their minds on what candidate to support until days before the election, and they very rarely vote a straight party ticket in an election.

Yet, somehow, this party thinks it needs to "convince" them that they're better off voting for a Democrat, while at the same time neglecting a fairly decent-sized mass of disaffected voters on its left who would GLADLY vote for a Democrat if s/he stood up for REAL liberal values and didn't try to "appease" some group of right/conservatives who have not done anything to help us out in the past.

The Republican party re-invented itself in the 1980s by swinging far to the right, appealing to culturally conservative "religious right" voters who soon became their most active constituency. They've almost attained majority party status in this country with their efforts, but they can't go much further than they already have without alienating large parts of the middle.

The Democrats could do the same thing, too. Instead of tossing the same tired pitch every four years to an ever less loyal and shrinking group of "moderates", they could instead energize voters and activists on their left and not only draw in as many GUARANTEED voters as they'd get from the middle, but hardcore ACTIVISTS as well.

I hate to say it, but this is a lesson from the Repubs we can't afford to ignore, especially this year. People are fed up with the direction this country is going in. They thirst for REAL change. We can give it to them, and swell our party's ranks with their support.

Or we can continue down the same muddled path to irrelevancy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

126. There are a lot more moderates that could voter for a Dem or a GOP

then there are liberals that would vote for a Democrat or a Green.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

167. Except that Al Gore isn't even liberal

and during the election, he kept saying "me too" to Bush's positions on several issues.

[sangh0]

19. My critique

is that it is simplistic to think that "electability" is as simple as being "leading political spokesperson for the movements for global peace, environmental protection, economic justice, social justice, living wages, universal health care and education" or "Since I like him, he must be electable"

For one thing, as much as I like DK, he is NOT the "leading political spokesperson" for all of those movements. Not even for just one of those movements. Far from it.

For another, most people don't share DK's opinions. Most voters are either conservative or moderate, and DK's positions, while having the potential to attract some portion of the moderates, are not that appealing to most moderates.

[Papa]

22. I'll tell you why he is 'unelectable'

It's his looks. I think he reminds people subconsiously about the 'geek' in highschool, the one that everyone picked on. How can someone like that be a leader, he has to be more of a follower.

I think that's why people think he's unelectable, it's just they don't want to appear so shallow as to actually admit that's the reason.

I think Dennis Kucinich would make a great president, maybe the best we ever had. The corporate media would certainly be afraid of Kucinich because his ideas and policies are the right ones for Americans and for the world.

[drfemoe]

24. Unelectable

I predict we will never have a president who lived in a car.

He also lacks sufficient communication skills. (..not that that seems to be a prerequisite to presidency.)
He needs to preach and whine much less.
And shampoo his hair for cripe's sake!

I like some of his "message", but "he" isn't a very good messenger, imo.

http://www.websoapbox.com/media/jjdinner-kucinich.ram

[no name no slogan]

40. Have you actually seen him outside the four minutes he gets

on the so-called "debates"? Seriously, have you?

I highly doubt you'd be saying that he lacks "communication skills". I seriously encourage you to watch one of the videos you can get from his campaign, or watch one online at his campaign website. There's a very good reason why he doesn't need to hire speechwriters. He's one of the few people who can articulate his vision and make lofty ideals make perfect sense to the man/woman on the street.

I would hardly call his looks "geeky". He looks like most of America. Do we really want somebody who looks like a TV spokesmodel for president? Remember the last time we did that? We got Ronald Reagan for pete's sake! And, as somebody who HAS had to live in a car in my lifetime, I would GLADLY welcome a president who's had to live a hard life, as opposed to one who lived in Hamptons or on Park Avenue during his formative years.

Would Americans rather vote for a president who's been tested and beaten adversity, or yet another one who's live the "hard life" as the son of a millionaire? What kind of change DO we want?

[redqueen]

51. I'm surprised you bothered to respond to that!

Seeing criticisms about his hair really amuse me.

Molly Ivins calls our Republican Governor Perry "Governor Goodhair" because he has such nice politician hair. :)

Hey, everyone has priorities!

[drfemoe]

56. The thread

asks why he isn't electable. Don't get mad at us for telling you WHY.

But since it seems like you all have it figured out * the MEDIA * did it .. why ask us?

fwiw I seldom watch tv (major media)
.. I get my information mostly from the internet and when I reach conclusions about a subject, it is because I have investigated every available angle.

I provided a 10 minute video clip of DK's sermon at the JJ Dinner. Did you watch it?

I've noticed at least two debates where DK is so brilliant, he spends his alloted time questioning Dean .. real communication pro.

I'm leaving this conversation (it should be in P/C to start with) .. and you guys are not looking for answers. .just pity for the pity candidate.

And I still say America will never elect a president who lived in a car . period .

[redqueen]

63. And where exactly does it ask this?

The author of the article states that he's had these pointless arguments with friends, and has realized, as have most on this thread, that's it's an empty argument.

A meaningless, self-fulfilling prophecy.

You provided a clip of DK"s speech to the JJ dinner? Does it include a standing ovation?

I read / heard that he was the ONLY speaker to recieve one... been trying to confirm that.

[drfemoe]

77. Excuse me for thinking

there was a question. I now see it was an invitation to a whine fest.

Do you have link for DK's Blog from April (before the press started neglecting him)?

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/2003_04.html
April 30, 2003 - MWO WEIGHS IN
April 30, 2003 - BACK TO THE NOTE
April 30, 2003 - SALON: BUSH ECONOMY DOESN'T PLAY WELL IN PEORIA
April 30, 2003 - UPDATE ON COVERAGE
April 30, 2003 - TURN ON THE TV-- LIVE CNN COVERAGE POSSIBLE 3 PM EDT
April 30, 2003 - KNOW YOUR HISTORY
April 30, 2003 - FROM THE ROAD: SAN FRANCISCO
April 29, 2003 - DEAN TO PREVIEW HEALTH CARE PLAN
April 29, 2003 - BACKFIRING ON AIR
April 29, 2003 - BACKFIRING IN PRINT
April 29, 2003 - THE NEW WURLITZER
April 29, 2003 - NOTEPAD OUT NOW
April 29, 2003 - NEWS FROM SOCAL
April 29, 2003 - FROM THE ROAD: LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
April 28, 2003 - TRIPPI RESPONDS TO LEHANE
April 28, 2003 - CHILL, CHRIS LEHANE, CHILL
April 28, 2003 - THE NOTEPAD IS READY
April 27, 2003 - FROM THE ROAD: ST. PAUL
April 27, 2003 - FROM THE ROAD
April 27, 2003 - DEAN GOES TECHNO
April 27, 2003 - MOLLY IVINS: BUSH TRIES TO GUT LABOR STANDARDS
April 26, 2003 - DEAN BLASTS BUSH FOR BETRAYING IDEAL OF EQUAL RIGHTS
April 26, 2003 - HOUSE PARTY THANK YOU
April 26, 2003 - DEAN CAMPAIGN CELEBRATES "STAND UP" EVENTS
April 26, 2003 - RICK KLAU IN THE NEWS
April 25, 2003 - MARTY JEZER: ON HOWARD DEAN
April 25, 2003 - STUDENTS FOR DEAN
April 25, 2003 - BUSH BREAKS SILENCE
April 25, 2003 - CATCHING A FLIGHT
April 25, 2003 - FROM THE ROAD: KATE O'CONNOR
April 24, 2003 - POLITICAL SITE OF THE DAY
April 24, 2003 - JFK LIBRARY TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE
April 24, 2003 - BLOG ENDORSEMENT: PLANNING A SKY
April 24, 2003 - WASHINGTON POST: THE LEGAL CONTEXT MATTERS
April 24, 2003 - SULLIVAN ON SANTORUM
April 23, 2003 - A NEW GENERATION AT WORK
April 23, 2003 - GUEST WRITER: LEFT LEANER ON SANTORUM
April 23, 2003 - DEAN ON WOLF BLITZER THIS AFTERNOON
April 23, 2003 - DEAN CALLS FOR SANTORUM TO STEP DOWN
April 22, 2003 - DEAN'S STATEMENT ON SEN. SANTORUM'S OFFENSIVE REMARKS
April 21, 2003 - DEAN WIRELESS-- THE WAY TO STAY IN TOUCH
April 21, 2003 - DEAN IN HOUSTON ON THURSDAY
April 19, 2003 - ROBUST TURNOUT FOR DEAN IN NH
April 17, 2003 - BUSH: IT'S NOT JUST HIS DOCTRINE THAT'S WRONG
April 17, 2003 - ABC NEWS ON MEET UP
April 16, 2003 - IF IT'S WEDNESDAY, THIS MUST BE KOS
April 16, 2003 - BLOGGING DEAN
April 15, 2003 - MEET DEAN FRIDAY MORNING IN PORTSMOUTH, NH
April 15, 2003 - DEAN CALL TO ACTION BLOG ONE MONTH OLD TODAY
April 14, 2003 - RSS/XML FEED NOW AVAILABLE
April 14, 2003 - THE REAL DEAL, THE INDIE ROCKER
April 13, 2003 - GETTING A CLUE
April 13, 2003 - TAKING BACK OUR COUNTRY-- PLANTING THE SEED OF CHANGE-- GROWING TO VICTORY
April 12, 2003 - DEAN WIRELESS NETWORK GROWING
April 11, 2003 - CALL FOR ART
April 11, 2003 - KOS ON BUSH
April 10, 2003 - SECOND MEMBER OF HOUSE ENDORSES DEAN
April 10, 2003 - DEAN FOR AMERICA'S STUDENT PAGE
April 10, 2003 - AROUND THE BLOGS
April 10, 2003 - DEAN PRESENTS SEVEN POINT PLAN FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
April 09, 2003 - CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND FORUM IS LIVE ON C-SPAN 2
April 09, 2003 - DEAN ON CNBC TONIGHT
April 09, 2003 - CONGRESSWOMAN LOFGREN ENDORSES DEAN
April 09, 2003 - DEAN TODAY AND TOMORROW
April 08, 2003 - THE SECOND BUSH RECESSION
April 07, 2003 - DEAN FOR AMERICA ANNOUNCES STAFF CHANGES
April 06, 2003 - JOIN THE DEAN PHONENET-- RECEIVE TEXT AND VOICE MESSAGES FROM THE CAMPAIGN TO YOUR CELL
April 06, 2003 - DEAN CALLS BUSH TO TASK
April 06, 2003 - THANK YOU FROM HOWARD DEAN
April 06, 2003 - INSIDE THE CAMPAIGN If you've
April 05, 2003 - HOWARD DEAN ON THE INTERNET
April 04, 2003 - DEEP POCKETS VS. GRASSROOTS Writing
April 04, 2003 - MORE THAN 300 ENDORSEMENTS IN
April 04, 2003 - DEAN ANNOUNCES OREGON TEAM Governor
April 03, 2003 - DEAN TIES FOR FIRST IN
April 03, 2003 - MEETUP MET UP Last night,
April 02, 2003 - FROM HOWARD DEAN For all
April 02, 2003 - DEAN TOPS $2.6 MILLION FOR
April 02, 2003 - MEETUP CHALLENGE REPORT Netroot activists
April 01, 2003 - HOPE FOR DEAN Howard Dean
April 01, 2003 - THANK YOU FROM HOWARD This

[blindpig]

115. who lived in a car

what elitist crap! but the slavers probably used the log cabin against Lincoln.

[directinfection]

130. abe lincoln!

And I still say America will never elect a president who lived in a logcabin. period

bring on the aristocrats! they know what life is really like.
their sincerity when talking about the plight of the poor and working class is endearing!

[diamondsoul]

169. Yeah the whole 30 seconds they give him-

before moving on as qucikly as possible! Please! If you want to fall for that stunt, more power to you, But I've watched those debates with a critical eye on ALL the candidates. The evidence is in my posts about all of them.

I'm continually praising other candidates performances, however I'm not so stupid as to think Kucinich has ever gotten a fair amount of time to speak. (the RTV and the Women's Issues forum were the closest events to fair on his part and he rocked them both, imo.)

Never elect a President who lived in a car- WTF does that have to do with ANYTHING?! I take that back, it has everything to do with his knowledge of what we less than wealthy people are concerned with. There are more of us than you think, and we're ready willing and able to blow your BS out of the water.

[blm]

25. GREAT article. Kucinich would be in the top tier if we had an honest media

.

[Hep]

30. BWAHAHAHAHA!

You criticising the media for not being honest? That's a good one! If Kucinich were in the top tier, you'd be railing against him.

[redqueen]

32. So, I take it you think the media really is fair and honest? n/t

[Hep]

34. Of course not

I just think it's ironic that someone who posts every critical media account she can find about dean, whether it is George Will or David Horowitz, actually publicly criticizes how the media treats ANYONE!

HIGH-Larious.

[blm]

78. And I never posted a George Will or Horowitz article.

So please don't spread more untruths about me.

[Hep]

84. Give it up

You post every negative article about Dean that you can find. You are utterly RELENTLESS in your mean spirited attacks on him. So give it up. You think too highly of yourself.

[blm]

87. You're not being honest and distort my posts to make a point.

The articles I post all note Dean's centrism and Libertarian leanings. They are negative to liberals but appealing to centrists and more conservative Democrats.

The articles I have posted are political and about POLICIES and whether or not he has been consistent in those positions. I have never posted one article that was negative against Dean personally or his family, and never posted a smear job.

[Hep]

102. Did I suddenly think you'd stop

being delusional about your attitude toward Dean? You're a candidate basher. That's it. You won't stop. That's fine. But stop acting like you're on some crusade to expose these great truths about dean to the ignorant masses.

[blm]

117. Funny, it's only when Dean is not being straight that brings it out.

I respect the candidacies of the others who are running on their actiual records and not tailoring their campaigns to mimic the anger of internet message boards.

[Hep]

119. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

It's no secret that the only object of your mindless vitriol is Dean. Thanks for stating the obvious.

[Tinoire]

135. Some of us- who are here to learn & discuss, appreciate BLM's posts

because we can't rely on most Dean supporters to push the love aside for a few minutes and to be objective enough to admit that their new hero just may have feet of clay.

Why is everything less than glowing about Dean considered a smear job?

I'm afraid the delusion is not on BLM's part. It's on the part of the people who cry and stomp their feet everytime someone makes a less than flattering comment about Dean or Clark or Lieberman (though they've metamorphosed now).

If the candidates can't take it, they need to get out of the race but so far, all of them seem to be taking it just fine.

You're looking the worse for attack on BLM and it only reinforces the perception that too many Dean supporters are unwilling to confront reality and address candidate issues intelligently. Is that what you really want? I think you're better than that based on some other posts you've made.

[Hep]

139. Learn and discuss?

Sorry, when posting about Dean, I discuss and ask for more information, and I never get it. Maybe your experience is different since you agree.

Sure I (we) can take it, but why should we have to? This isn't practice for the general. That's a load of crap. There's really no justification for harping on a person with the same (lack of) arguments DAY after DAY after DAY. I mean, if you think that's fine, then cool, we'll just have to differ.

[Tinoire]

163. One day then Hep we should consider a special thread

One where you can go head to head with just other person and have that discussion. I've seen a lot of cut and pastes, I've seen a lot of angry denials but, and this may simply be due to the overwhelming number of threads at DU (though I do read most of them or at least had until I made a conscious decision last week to stop spending so much time on DU), I've honestly rarely seen a good repudiation of any of BLM's points- some of which are my own.

I've seen a lot of praise for Dean (and this is great) but usually when someone says anything less than glowing about him the common reaction is one of angry accusations and head-burying. We're all emotionally invested in this election but being so emotionally invested in a candidate that it comes off as overly defensive and is detrimental to a good discussion.

I'll give you a case in point. When Dean first came on board, his supporters cried and yelled and bullied that he was THE ANTIWAR candidate, the great progressive and all sorts of nonesense that his since been de-bunked. As more information came out about his war stance, that soon shifted and he became the anti-Iraq-war candidate. Only now are people beginning to admit that he wasn't really against the war, was ok with the US going in unilaterally and was mostly against the fact that Bush didn't wait 60 days. And during these discoveries, some old Dean supporters are feeling "had" and are transferring to the Kucinich camp where they would have been all along had certain positions not been mis-represented by Dean supporters and by the Dean campaign.

Everything BLM has ever said about Dean was borne out by fact. If it came up DAY after DAY after DAY, that's simply because DAY after DAY after DAY, people plugged up their ears and shouted the messenger down because they didn't like the message. That was most unfair but it served a purpose... it allowed a bunch of misrepresentrations to gain ground as sincere people, eager to line up behind the best candidate, projected their own desires on Dean to fill in the gaps, and signed on.

The sincerity of the Dean supporters makes me want to weep because they're sincere and they're determined to win but I think there a too many things being over-looked in the rush to get Bush out.

This is our chance to make a change but partisan politics are shouting down the very people, like BLM, who worked the hardest for that change these last 3 years. That is not right! Of course people repeat themselves... If you believed something was untrue, would you not re-state that however many times it took until the message sunk in? Or would you allow what you could document as mis-representations to stand as if they were truth? It may be tiresome but that's the nature of the game.

The Left has been wallopped too many times for rolling over and playing nice. This is just another instance of that and some of us are simply not going to take this lying down anymore. Not now. Not at the most critical juncture of modern history. Not with so much at stake.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for a Dean supporter and a knowledgable Dean critic (like BLM) to go head to head in an organized thread where no one else came in. What do you think? It could even be used as a reference thread later on for people to learn but it would have to be civil with no juvenile retorts and foot-stomping if people want it to be taken seriously.

I don't think Dean is a bad man nor do I think he would be a horrible President but I strongly believe Kucinich is a better choice and that between some misrepresentations about Dean to make him look more Porgressive than he is and the deliberate marginalization of Kucinich to make him unelectable, the American voter will once again be short-changed.

My goal and that of people like BLM is to ensure the voters, and especially DUers, aren't short-changed and know what they're buying. You can not expect supporters of other candidates to sit back quietly as Dean himself says things that are questionnable and slings mud at the other candidates.

I would LOVE to see a real, good, DU debate re Dean but to this day I don't feel there's really been one. We may simply all be incapable of that because we're all convinced we're right. No wonder politics and religion are not discussed in polite circles- there's definitely wisdom in that old advice!

Once again... my 2 cents. Not worth more than anyone else's opinion and not mean to offend.

[Hep]

173. Wrong

NOTHING states by BLM about dean is borne from fact. That's why she never posts more detailed arguments than "CFR" or "Cuba". And that's why she never responds to posts like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=753339&mesg_id=754019&page=

So you don't think there's been good debate. I wonder if that's because NO ONE who routinely criticizes Dean here responded to that post.

[Tinoire]

177. Nope sorry. Not wrong.

BLM has been here for years documenting what she says. If you would care to go browse in Campaign and Politics you will find all the links you're looking for. If you ask BLM for them, you will get them. It's been documented over and over again.

You recently joined DU- I doubt you have much of an idea what was said and discussed before you decided to join in. Instead of attacking BLM, you should simply ask for the sources. They're all there... We've been watching this stuff from ever since there was even talk of war. We've been watching state elections.

I skimmed that thread "Dean should be ready to be assaulted in Monday's debate...." , that's not a debate on Dean's positions- that is one well written post by a Dean supporter explaining why he/she is comfortable with Dean as a number 1 choice.

That was one well-written post. Not even the entire thread was a debate on Dean's positions. We will probably never have one and that's too bad because it would be to Dean's advantage if it were led by someone knowldedgable and intellectually honest enough to admit to his inconsistencies and address them in a meaningful manner / or to explain them. Surely though, you don't expect BLM or any other poster to respond to all the posts you think were masterpieces do you? There's not enough time in the day for that! If you have a specific question, ask it yourself. Discuss it yourself and I guarantee you'll get a lot further. This isn't a cut'n'paste foot-ball game.

It doesn't matter to me because it's Dean's loss and that is a good thing for the more progressive candidates whom I believe have more substance in their platform.

Good luck with Dean. I'm happy for you that you're satsified with your choice but attacking BLM for pointing out when things don't add up doesn't benefit Dean or his supporters. I think it has the opposite effect and makes people recoil because it reinforces the perception, no matter how mistaken, that Dean is leading a cult. Hopefully that perception will change because I know many Dean supporters and they're not cultists. It's unfortunate that the cultists though are making so much noise.

[Tinoire]

136. Some of us- who are here to learn & discuss, appreciate BLM's posts

because we can't rely on most Dean supporters to push the love aside for even a few minutes to be objective enough to admit that their new hero just could have feet of clay.

Why is everything less than glowing about Dean considered "bashing"?

I'm afraid the delusion is not on BLM's part. It's on the part of the people who cry and stomp their feet everytime someone makes a less than flattering comment about Dean or Clark or Lieberman (though they've metamorphosed now).

If the candidates can't take it, they need to get out of the race but so far, all of them seem to be taking it just fine.

You're looking the worse for attack on BLM and it only reinforces the perception that too many Dean supporters are unwilling to confront reality and address candidate issues intelligently. Is that what you really want? I think you're better than that based on some other posts you've made.

[blm]

74. No, I wouldn't. You don't know me.

I'm the one who first noted that Dean was getting the press attention that KUCINICH should have been getting for his REAL stand against the Iraq war and NOT Dean whose position on the war was more flexible.

I also was a Kucinich supporter since 1972 when I worked on his campaign as a schoolgirl. My aunt cared for him when he stayed at the orphanage she helped run.

Please don't tell ME what I would say about Kucinich. You'd be as wrong as ever.

[Hep]

76. Yeah yeah

Whatever you say! You're awesome! Good for a laugh every single day.

[blm]

82. I think a few Kucinich supporters can set you straight.

I've been calling Kucinich and Kerry my Special Ks for many months.

Why do you insist on telling a different story?

[Hep]

85. Whatev!

It's not like you've earned yourself a whole hell of a lot of credibility.

[blm]

86. Only Deanies who can't face the truth and distort who I am

because they can't respond with facts to dipute my base point about Dean - He is running as a neo-populist when his record proves he governed differently as a compromising centrist.

[Hep]

103. No need to distort

You make a point of showing your true colors every day. My sig applies to you.

[maha]

106. What's wrong with being a centrist?

Most people are centrists.

[Hep]

108. Yeah, but

most centrists don't shoot kittens for fun like Dean does.

[blm]

I don't think anything is wrong with BEING a centrist...

my beef is that he ran on scorning compromise when Democrats in Congress did the same thing he did as governor. That was disingenuous of him to do so.

He's also running as a populist when he governed differently, a centrist who often compromised with the Republicans and aligned with them AGAINST the progressive Democrats. He's switched some of his longtime positions to do so, and I don't trust that lack of principle.

[redqueen]

114. Exactly

If you're a centrist fine, but don't act like anything else.

Has the mainstream media called him on his record being different than his policy stands now?

I know they've attacked him for silly waffling ... but what about the substantial stuff?

[Hep]

120. Help again, please

You're a kucinich supporter and you're asking this? I mean, the answer is yes. There is a Kerry or Clark supporter who just about every day points out an article that criticizes Dean. Like yesterday for instance. Check the thread about Dean's American Indian Policy not sitting well at home.

But you of all people (as a Kucinich supporter) should feel as strongly as I do that what's important is the platform. I don't begrudge Kucinich his reproductive rights record assuming his platform is strong.

ASnd the waffling claims are silly, as there is only one issue about which he changed his stance- matching funds.

[redqueen]

127. That was from the burlington paper.

Not exactly 'mainstream' is it?

Was it carried by national outlets? Any of them?

How many of the stories based on these substantial issue positions are carried by national, mainstream media? I'm really curious about this.

And on the waffling... he's changed his stance on more than just the public funding issue.

[Hep]

140. well

that's a good point. It isn't mainstream.

On waffling, no, Dean changed his stance on matching funds. That's it. His platform may differ from his record in Vermont. But that's not waffling. Waffling to me is when you change your stance while you're running. You know this has been discussed as naseum. I'm brainwashed and you're a liar. Or I'm a liar and you're brainwashed. Or both. We just don't see eye to eye on it.

[blm]

129. He switched on AWB, free trade, Yucca Mt., and deregulation.

All bedrock issues for Democrats.

He also governed as a compromising centrist himself and now complains when Democrats in Congress have compromised in efforts to get better bills. Completely disingenuous and intended to feed off of people's anger and distrust.

[Hep]

141. Don't even bother.

You never expand on those claims. And they've been addressed. And we see it differently. Nothing is going to change your mind. Fine. But we're not going into that AGAIN.

[blm]

161. The proof is in his record.

Not in his rhetoric.

[Hep]

174. Bullshit

You would have to be pro-life to think that, considering your love and respect for a man whose record consists of fighting to end reproductive rights. You're all over the place. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Respond to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=753339&mesg_id=754019&page=

and I'll have more respect for you. Uh, SOME respect for you.

[blm]

179. Your respect is not worth having. Your posts are loathsome

towards some very good and sincere people.

Your need to mock those expressing their feelings about an incredibly decent human being like Dennis Kucinich is particularly loathsome.

[hippywife]

123. Nothing...

except in my experience centrists tend to be sitting in the same spot the repubs were before the rabid religeous right started driving their agenda thru the republican party.

Centrists are the worst kind of hypocrits because at the same time they decry the gap between themselves and the wealthy, they desire to be the wealthy, and don't give a shit for the gap between themselves and the disadvantaged living in poverty.

Centrist means "as long as I've got mine, don't bother me about folks who have nothing."

Centrists are what have been the downfall of the Democratic party.

[Hep]

142. That's pretty harsh

I consider myself a centrist in a lot of ways. I had no idea you had me pegged. Thanks for the eye opener. I'm going to go slit my wrists now.

[blm]

171. Dem centrists pulled the party to the right the last 10 years.

And how some of you can say with a straight face that Dean is pulling the party BACK from that is astounding to me, since he was one of the furthest right of all the Dems throughout his time as a DLC governor and pulling SO hard that the CATO Institute gave him highest ratings for Democrats, even higher than many Republicans.

Thankfully, lefties like Kennedy, Wellstone, Harkin and Kerry helped pull against the right throughout that same time period. Imagine if they let the rightards have their way.

[Hep]

175. Who said he's pulling the party in ANY direction?

Ceratainly not me. I love how since you can't debate any arguments I do make, you have to invent arguments to refute.

And no one pulled this party to the center. This party reflects the people who exist in it. Your party isn't as liberal as you are. Big shame. You're either going to have to learn about pragmatism or you're going to have to find a new party.

Liberal stronghold, elected every time he ran. What an evil, closet libertarian. I gues all those vermonters who kept reelecting him are polain morans just like me. And I suppose you're our bearer of truth, trying to save us from ourselves. All hail.

[Tinoire]

131. Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head

There are two types of Dean supporters

1. the type with their eyes open like our friend IG who knew from the get-go that he wasn't anti-war and wasn't liberal but had other valid, respectable reasons for supporting him.

2. the juvenile cheerleaders who resort to personal attacks and distortions because the facts are too difficult to deal with. I think a lot of them must be very young and while I don't begrudge the youth, what I do begrudge is the sometimes immature attitude and lack of intellectual honesty that pops up.


Your posts have always been insightful and I thank you for them. I am disgusted that your integrity was attacked. You've been posting here for years and those of us who have followed your posts and been in the trenches with you before the hoopla of these primaries know exactly who we're dealing with. You owned up to your candidate's faults a long time ago and I've never seen you get defensive or mis-represent his or any other candidate's position.

Keep it up! I've learned a lot from your posts. Most of us are here to learn and discuss, the day we want rah-rah cheerleading, we'll go to the candidate blogs & forums.

The attacks on you speak for themselves and only make your attacker look weak, bereft of real argument which is kind of sad because I'm sure that wasn't the intent. Thanks for your years worth of activism and terrific posts!

[Hep]

143. You know

I'll debate any point. Just make one. I'm as open minded as anyone else.

[Tinoire]

38. Kucinich has been deliberately marginalized & "dismissed"

from the beginning because he is the establishment's biggest nightmare. From the very beginning, his campaign noted problems with the media which was pointedly refusing to even talk with them.

It's a damn crying shame and one important reason why I will not vote for an establishment-blessed candidate which are the only ones the media is willing to market.

Dennis is fighting the very people who have consolidated the media so obscenely and they have no interest in doing anything but sabotaging him.

When Kucinich and Dean were running neck to neck early on and Kucinich had the second largest number of meet-ups, the media deliberately focused on Dean and began hyping him up as "the anti-war candidate" and all sorts of other lies to make him palatable to the growing and angry Leftist movement. Polls, such as the Newsmax one where Dennis comes up number one were yanked and re-done 3 times until they finally pulled the entire thing because the results belied the media lie that Kucinich was unelectable and a fringe candidate. Select Smart did the same thing... They had promised to give premium advertisement real estate to the Dem candidate who matched up with the most people. When it turned out that that candidate was Kucinich, they did an about-face and switched to "generating the most interest" and gave the space to Dean. There were howls of protest which are still readable in their forum and they eventually did away with the whole thing.

I went to Select Smart's website a few moments ago and lo and behold, the Presidential Preference questionnaire has been re-done.

My positions have not budged ONE IOTA but I note with great interest that I rated 76% Kucinich (as opposed to 90 some percent before) with Dean, whose positions are nothing like Kucinich's, at 73% and surprise, surprise Clark at 70%.


Nowhere on their page is any evidence of Kucinich coming in number 1.
At the results page they have done away with the the response pattern for all ages, all areas, all genders that clearly shows Kucinich as number one http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/how.php?restrict=y though a patient person can just comb through state by state and see Kucinich as the number 1 match-up. Impartial observers of media manipulation should also note that albeit Kucinich is the number one match-up, the web-site


http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?f=16&i=13200&t=12433

http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?f=16&i=15736&t=15730

http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?f=16&i=15722&t=15722

http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?f=16&i=15511&t=14769

Plenty more but those are the first ones I found… I’m too disgusted to comb through more right now.

On another select smart page, the only two being given floor space were Dean and Clark as if none of the other candidates existed. Talk about a hi-jacked Primary!

This is how Corporate America wins everytime.

Congratulations to all those buying the spin. :( I am beyond disgusted at how easily WE are allowing them to get away with this.


Thanks for that interesting article. May the only true real grass-roots movement carry the day.


On edit: Talking about media manipulation but the establishment... if you can, please see the film "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". You won't regret it.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

39. thank you

I wish I had the search skills that you have :).

I defer all my postings to Tinoire! :P

Tinoire always says what I am trying to say in a much more detailed and researched way.

Thanks,

TWL

[Hep]

43. Please leave out important details

When Kucinich had the second most meetup numbers, it was like 13,000 - 512. Yeah, Dean was blowing the doors off everyone in meetupland. DESTROYING THEM. Like I said, media covereage seems to be proportional to status in the race. Mayube you think the guy with the lowest numbers is entitled to the most press, but I don't see how it should work that way.

[redqueen]

53. Those were accurate numbers when? n/t

[Hep]

68. Help me out

In what month was the first Kucinich meetup?

I can honestly tell you that there has not been a time when Kucinich even contended with Dean in meetups. Go look at the stats on the site.

[redqueen]

92. I haven't bothered with meetup since I joined with Kucinich.

I looked but can't find the stats area...

Plus I"m really not at all interested in using Meetup.com as a barometer of anything.

[Hep]

69. We had 14000

people in June at over 240 meetups when Kucinich had roughly 17 meetups.

[Tinoire]

67. There's something a little rummy about your posts in this thread

Whence the rumness and why?

[Hep]

70. Rumness?

Hey, I just asked a sincere question and all of you vitriol peddlers are jumping down my throat.

[Tinoire]

111. Aw C'Mon Hep!

These are direct

All in all, though, that was a cute piece of advocacy for him. Too bad it's from some hippie station! …… But don't get me wrong. I like hippies.

Go buy a sense of humor for chrissakes. You're taking this way too seriously.

Hello lost cause….. Maybe the part of the brain that functions as the sense of humor is closely related to the part of the brain that control attention span.


Oh Gawd Well I guess we should all subscribe to your experience, because that's all that matters.

I had no idea that the Kucinich campaign was the MOST humorless campaign. Incredible.

he doesn't get any media attention, and on the other hand he's always appearing on shows like Crossfire. Uh, OK! (You do realize how mature that “Uk, ok!” sounds don’t you? It’s a snooty little expression with an immature tone and unfortunately not conducive to a civil discussion.)

You need to get over yourself.

So help me out, oh brilliant one.

Yeah, everyone who doesn't support Kucinich is a knuckledragger.

You think too highly of yourself.

Yeah, yeah Whatever you say! You're awesome! Good for a laugh every single day.

Whatever, It's not like you've earned yourself a whole hell of a lot of credibility.
----

Somehow I just don't think those comments make the Top Ten of "How To Win Friends and Influence Enemies" ;)

[Hep]

113. Thanks!

I love it! Whatever you do, don't add any context or include what I was responding to! These are perfect as they are. Evidence that one can enter a discussion board and characterize anyone however they want if they're selective enough.

[redqueen]

55. Bless you Tinoire

For your over-and-above efforts, every time.

I'll have to check with the memoryhole and see if they currently have any info on all the yanked Kucinich polls. If not perhaps they'd like to start one. :)

[Zhade]

62. Tinoire, you rock!

Dead-on, my friend. You nailed it.

I wonder if there are any in-depth studies of the Acceptable Candidate Media Matrix online. I'm thinking along the lines of what Franken did regarding the Gore/Bush coverage in 2000.

Also, to add to your recommendation, everyone should check out Into The Buzzsaw. And Googling "Project Mockingbird" would be a good idea, too.

[diamondsoul]

170. Thank you Tin! I've been pointing this out

for weeks with nary a response! The Selectsmart staff are clearly Dean proponents these days, and it's utterly disgusting. I took the test back in March, and came back 100% Kucinich match. I took it again about 6 weeks ago and came back with 98% Dean, and Kucinich ranked beneath effin' BUSH for Gawd's sake!

You should have seen my reaction to that bit of garbage! I was livid and let them know it.

[Tinoire]

176. Good for you! I let them have a piece of my mind too

an oh what a piece! Their entire manipulation has been documented in their forum thanks to extremely angry Kucinich supporters, impartial voters and a few fair-minded supporters of other candidates.

You know what the deal is? We Lefties think we're soooo smart with our forums, discussion boards and grass-roots activism but the thing is those in power are not stupid. They can spot a trend when they see it and they have highly paid specialists whose job it is to best exploit the new trends. Political marketers and analysts.

Back in 1996 the Army (which was only following a trend from above and were a little late in the game) had ALREADY created a job specialty to track BBVs and gather information from them. That was the Army! I'd have a hard time believing that the government, the corporations and the political parties hadn't already established their own operations.

These guys are outmanouvering us and unfortunately most of us aren't paying enough attention, due to busy lives, to realize it and fight them back. When a few of us start noticing and grumbling, they flood the net with their own people to list points 1-10 from some PowerPoint Presentation they were handed.

I am totally heart-broken at how they are manipulating yet another election. I thought with sadness last night that, the way we're going, even if we do get Bush out of us, it will only be the changing of the guard when what we think we're getting is a full regime change. There won't be a regime change until people stop saying that the only candidates standing up for that are "unelectable". Them just convincing us that our real choices are "unelectable" means they have won. Again.

=============



Selling Kucinich short - should the media elect our president, or should we?

By Adam Penn
Wednesday, October 1, 2003

Is it just me, or is something very curious going on in the race to choose a Democratic nominee for President? First Howard Dean, and now Wesley Clark have charged to the lead, and yet almost every Dean or Clark supporter I speak with says that he or she actually agrees more with the policies of Dennis Kucinich. Many of the articles I read in support of Dean or Clark state the same thing, that Kucinich is actually more in tune with the author's way of thinking, but that the author will support Dean or Clark anyway. The reasoning behind this is usually that the number one priority is to get Bush out of the White House, and that Kucinich is not electable.

I can't help but think that we've got a real-life case of the Emperor's New Clothes going on. Everyone says Kucinich is not electable, it seems, because that is what the media tells them. I'm the little child who has to ask the question - "but if so many Dean and Clark supporters actually prefer Kucinich, and if these two candidates can beat Bush, then wouldn't Kucinich be able to beat Bush if all those Dean and Clark supporters simply voted for Kucinich instead?"

<snip>

Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, who is a more progressive choice than Dean, has received very little recognition in the media. Why? It knows he's running. It should tell us who he is and what he stands for, and let us decide if we want to support him or not. It should tell us that Kucinich has been even more unwavering in his opposition to the Iraq war than has Dean, the supposed "anti-war" candidate. It should tell us that Kucinich proposes a plan for universal health care that would cover everyone, while Dean proposes a piecemeal plan that would still leave many Americans uninsured. It should tell us that Kucinich supports the environmental Kyoto treaty, while Dean opposes the treaty subject to stronger calls for emission reductions by developing nations (this even though the U.S. is by far the greatest contributor to, and developing nations largely victims of, such emissions). Instead, all we're really told about Kucinich is that he can't win. Some democracy we're in when the media decides for us who can or can't become our President!

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I'm buying a car, I want to buy the best car, not a lesser car from the best salesman. We need to move past the campaign rhetoric and not be swayed by levels of media recognition. We need to find out what our real choices are so that we can elect the person who best represents us and what we believe. For me, that person is Dennis Kucinich. For my fellow Cantabrigians, it may be someone else. We all agree that the number-one priority is to get Bush out, and in the general election we can all unite to support whichever candidate is opposing him. But for now, let us, not our media, decide who is or isn't electable; that's the least that we owe ourselves and our democracy.

http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/news/opinion/cam_colccpennms10012003.htm

==============

Dennis Kucinich Wins October POTUSpoll

<snip>

Instant Runoff Voting assures a majority winner in a multi-candidate race with one-vote, one-ballot, but there was no need for a runoff tabulation in October. Rep. Dennis Kucinich won the October POTUSpoll in the first round with 53%. There was no runoff calculation as Rep. Kucinich won a majority outright. In second place with 31% was Gov. Howard Dean, who had previously won majorities in the August and September POTUSpolls, both in instant runoffs. In third place was Gen. Wesley Clark with 6.0%.

http://www.potuspoll.com/1103pr.htm

Kucinich Wins October with First Round Majority
http://www.demochoice.org/dcresults.php?poll=0310#Round1">(first round October instant runoff results)

Dean Wins September Instant Runoff
http://www.demochoice.org/dcresults.php?poll=0903#Round1">(round-by-round September instant runoff results)

Dean Wins August Instant Runoff
(round-by-round August instant runoff results)
===========

Results for November are on par with October

Dennis Kucinich 3,762 (50.2%)

Howard Dean 2,317 (30.9%)

Wesley Clark 531 (7.1%)

Al Gore 237 (3.2%)

George W. Bush 202 (2.7%)

http://www.potuspoll.com/email-thanks.htm
===============

Amount of EQUAL Talk Time
During the CNN Debate

Howard Dean - 14 min 07 seconds
John Kerry - 12 min 31 seconds
Wesley Clark - 10 min 36 seconds
Richard Gephardt - 10 min 02 seconds
Joe Lieberman - 9 min 26 seconds
Carol Mosely Braun - 8 min 39 seconds
Al Sharpton - 8 min 28 seconds
John Edwards - 8 min 00 seconds
Dennis Kucinich - 5 min 09 seconds

================================

Winners of the Presidential Selector Race
(120,218 Responses to date)
43% Congressman Dennis Kucinich, OH - Democrat
14% Bush, George W. - US President
11% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
8% Green Party Candidate
6% Libertarian Candidate
6% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
3% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat
2% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
2% Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat
2% Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat
1% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat

---- And now with the revised questions:

TWO new categories of candidates are now garnering a large percentage of the votes in the Selector Survey. ( 6% Your ideal theoretical candidate.) & ( 4% Your ideal theoretical candidate. ). These categories were not included in previous Selector Totals. Oddly enough Dennis Kucinich's percentage has only gone down 5%. 50% of those whose vote now goes to "Your ideal theoretical candidate" use to go to Dennis Kucinich. ... The other vote "losers" from adding these 2 categories? Dean? Kerry? Clark? (he get's a big fat 0%) No, they're no one's "Your ideal theoretical candidate" . The other vote losers were Sharpton, Green, Libertarian and Bush.


Winners of the Presidential Selector Race
(147,789 Responses to date)

38% Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat
13% Bush, George W. - US President
11% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
6% Green Party Candidate
6% Your ideal theoretical candidate.
6% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
5% Libertarian Candidate
4% Your ideal theoretical candidate.
3% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat
2% Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat
2% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
2% Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat
0% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat



====

UniVision's post New Mexico Debate Poll Results show that Electable Dennis Kucinich is the clear favorite among Democratic Hispanic voters.

Resultados
Tu candidato demócrata preferido
Al Sharpton 1%
Bob Graham 0%
Carol Moseley 1%
Dennis Kucinich 73%
Howard Dean 3%
Jhon Edwards 1%
Jhon Kerry 1%
Joseph Lieberman 1%
Riechard Gephardt 18%

http://kucinichwatch.com/electable-candidates.htm

==============================================


THIS IS WHY THE CORPORATE MEDIA IS DELIBERATELY SABOTAGING HIM- KUCINICH IS THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE AND THE PEOPLE WANT CHANGE!

Let me know if we're ever going to get together over a bottle of red and cry our eyes out for all that is meant to be but might not! ;)

Peace

[ThirdWheelLegend]

180. excellent post

as usual.

That is wild how they added "Theoretical candidate" choices to draw from Kucinich matches. Yet he still leads easily :).


Oh and a nice kick to this thread. !


TWL

[Zhade]

59. IMHO, "not electable" is a flawed argument.

How else did he get to be a Congressman? Did he win that seat in a lottery? No, he was elected.

Therefore, to make a blanket statement that he is not electable is clearly false. He has been elected. Several times.

Just pointing out the logical inconsistency with the argument.

[Tinoire]

79. That's such an important point! Is Kucinich Electable? Can He Beat Bush

that people conveniently tend to forget or are unaware of (why again is that? ;))

My vote and my money are on Kucinich.

Peace
------------------------

Is Kucinich Electable? Can He Beat Bush?


If any Democrat has a history of attracting swing voters and "Reagan Democrats" in winning elections against better-funded Republican opponents, it is Dennis Kucinich. He has repeatedly defeated entrenched incumbents. He beat a Republican incumbent for mayor in 1977, for state senator in 1994 (overcoming the national right-wing tide) and for Congress in 1996.

His Congressional district includes the suburb of Parma, Ohio, described as "one of the original homes of the Reagan Democrats." An Ohio daily calls it a "conservative Democratic district," which he carried by 74% in 2002. Being a success there may be a better predictor of national success than holding statewide office in a liberal stronghold like Vermont or Massachusetts.

Kucinich is a winner because he builds Wellstone-like grassroots campaigns against bigger-spending opponents. He is a winner because of his blue collar roots and populism, reflected in his battles for heartland voters against unfair, corporate-friendly trade deals.

He is an unabashed progressive who wins because swing voters who don't agree with him on every issue still see him as a fighter for their interests, as someone who will put the interests of workers and middle-class consumers ahead of big-money interests. No Democrat is better positioned in 2004 to attract 'Reagan Democrats' and swing voters with a frontal attack on how Bush policies hurt them and favor the rich.

Republicans use "wedge" issues to pry away traditionally-Democratic white working class voters -- a tactic that has not succeeded against Kucinich. In '96, for example, Republicans used his support of gay rights as a wedge, and he stood firm and triumphed.

On the other side of the spectrum, no other candidate can attract disaffected voters, 3rd party voters and Ralph Nader supporters to the Democratic column like Kucinich. Across the country, Nader 2000 voters and Green Party sympathizers are joining his campaign, as are other 3rd party supporters.

It's been a long while since progressives and the Democratic base have been so motivated, and so angry -- over manipulation and deceit that began in the 2000 election and continued through the Iraq war (now finally catching up with the Bush team). No candidate can better tap into and mobilize the anger of the Democratic base than Kucinich, who has never wavered in his opposition, who has courageously led the way in exposing war manipulation, and who speaks with passion to the big issues that animate Democratic and progressive activists.

Kucinich has been a winner in a swing district in the swing state of Ohio. And Ohio has 20 electoral votes. It is the state that is key to national victory; only two candidates in the 20th century won the presidency without carrying Ohio.

Al Gore lost Ohio in 2000 despite the Herculean efforts of Kucinich, as vividly described by journalist James Ridgeway in an article written days before the election: "Kucinich is a shoo-in, but hauling Gore along will be a daunting task. Shuttling back and forth from Washington, Kucinich has put together an old-fashioned canvassing operation throughout Cleveland and its suburbs that is one of the largest such efforts in the nation. By election day, 400 to 500 people will be on the streets...

"Day after day, members of the laborers, electricians, plumbers, and steelworkers unions crowd into Kucinich's tiny office on Lorain Avenue, piling signs into the backs of cars and pickups before hitting the neighborhoods. The general approach is for volunteers to use Kucinich's name to get a foot in the door, then ask for support for a Democratic judge before uttering the vice president's name."

Kucinich's best efforts couldn't win Ohio for Gore in 2000, but Kucinich can win Ohio himself if he is the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate. And in presidential politics, as Bush-strategist Karl Rove knows well: As Ohio goes, so goes the nation.


http://www.kucinich.us/electable.htm

[Hep]

81. fair enough

How else did he get to be a Congressman? Did he win that seat in a lottery? No, he was elected.

Yeah, how many people voted for him? Would that number be enough to get him elected president, assuming that 100% of the people who voted for him before would do it again.

There's no logical inconsistency to calling him unelectable. Because we know that we're talking about electability as a presidential candidate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's never been elected president has he?

[sangh0]

99. What about Dean??

Dean doesn't come out so good if you apply those same questions to his candidacy

Yeah, how many people voted for Dean? Would that number be enough to get Dean elected president, assuming that 100% of the people who voted for him before would do it again.

There's no logical inconsistency to calling Dean unelectable. Because we know that we're talking about electability as a presidential candidate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dean has never been elected president has he?

[DemBones DemBones]

164. Interesting how your post was ignored. . . Dean has indeed not

been elected president before so there is no proof that he can be elected president.

Why does this Dean supporter, Hep, apply the "not been elected nationally" standard to Kucinich but not to Dean?

[hippywife]

116. Kucinich can beat Bush

because while he ran an unapologetically liberal platform in his district, which the republican incumbent tried to use against him, he was elected with around 56% of the vote. This percentage has increased with every term (he is on his 4th in the U.S. House) until his last re-election when he garnered 74% of the vote.

[Hep]

121. his district?

How representative of the country is his district? And we're always electing democrats to the house and senate on all levels in NC, but we haven't gone D in the presidential race since 1976. Your logic is just not good enough to convince me.

[hippywife]

124. Predominantly

blue collar, church-going, Reagan Dems and Republicans.

[Hep]

144. Do you see what you are doing?

Forgive me, but DAMN! You're claiming that Kucinich's distrtict is a microcosm of the US. Sorry, that's a leap I'm not willing to take.

[hippywife]

148. I guess having

lived in the state for 38 of my 45 years I wouldn't know what the make up of it is. :shrug:

[goodhue]

125. as ohio goes . . .

http://www.kucinich.us/electable.htm

His Congressional district includes the suburb of Parma, Ohio, described as "one of the original homes of the Reagan Democrats." An Ohio daily calls it a "conservative Democratic district," which he carried by 74% in 2002. Being a success there may be a better predictor of national success than holding statewide office in a liberal stronghold like Vermont or Massachusetts.

[maha]

100. Yeah, and I'm the Pope

"Among my friends, most say "Yes, nobody better represents me than Dennis Kucinich. But I don't think he's electable." "

You appear to assume that your friends are a representative sample of the electorate. They are not. Kucinich does not represent even mainstream Democratic Party opinion, much less the population in general.

Get a clue: AT MOST in the polls he bumps along at 2 or 3 percent of likely DEMOCRATIC voters. This is not because the people polled don't know who he is. It is because he's not that impressive.

"His exclusion from coverage by major media is precisely because he is supremely electable."

I am possibly the Virgin Mary, also.

[goodhue]

110. "you"

I gather you are referring to the author of the editorial who is not as far as I know a contributor to this thread. So I'm a little confused about your attack: "You appear to assume that your friends are a representative sample of the electorate. They are not."

If you actually follow the link to the article:
http://www.oasistv.com/news/11-21-03-story-2.asp

It reveals that the author is:
Dr. Charley Cropley is a naturopathic physician, teacher, author and peace activist based in Boulder, Colorado. In practice for over 20 years, he has trained hundreds of doctors in nutrition and has been a frequent speaker on the lecture circuit. Dr. Cropley is widely regarded as one of today's leading thinkers and teachers in nutrition and natural healing. You can contact Charley Cropley via Email or by telephone: [phone].

I missed the author's assumption that he & his friends were representative of the electorate, but if you have an issue with his editorial your attack would be better lodged with him rather than against the poster here. Cheers.

[maha]

112. Stop gathering.

"I gather you are referring to the author of the editorial who is not as far as I know a contributor to this thread."

I was responding to whatever was in the first message on this thread, which I can't see now that I'm in this window.

"I missed the author's assumption that he & his friends were representative of the electorate,"

Then read the first message again.

[goodhue]

118. the point

is that you attack some unspeficied "you" as if the author of the editorial piece was a participant of this thread. The first message of the thread excerpts an editorial. So when you tell the author to get a clue, your message is not getting through as the author is not a participant here. Sorry for the gathering but I was confused as to who the heck you were addressing your attack towards. Cheers.

[sangh0]

122. Ma?

Is it really you? :-)

[directinfection]

132. then...

what is mainstream Democratic Party opinion?

[BlackFrancis]

133. dennis introduced legislation about chemtrails and HAARP

I know conspiracy fans love him for that stuff but even assuming HAARP and chemtrails are real don't you think the media would have a 24/7 laughfest at him if he actually won the primary?

[hippywife]

134. They've laughed before

and then they praised his far-reaching vision. He was right about Muny Light, he was right about IWR, he was right about the Patriot Act. I trust his vision.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

145. the media are going to laugh at any Democrat

unless they act like Republicans, in which case they will hail them as heros and bipartisan. We know how it works. Kucinich knows it too.

[BlackFrancis]

150. seriously..

You think the American people aren't going to be wierded out by someone who tried to get legislation banning chemtrails and mind control devices banned?

Think about the mind control device thing, if they had that sucker the Iraqi's really would be throwing flowers :shrug:

[hippywife]

153. It was only

a small part of an overall bill to try to prevent space based weapons. It was a preventative not an indication that it already exists. We engage in psyops all the time as a normal part of warfare.

Do you know how the Pentagon has spent the $1.2 trillion they can't account for?? I sure don't.

[BlackFrancis]

159. I don't..

and to be honest, I wouldn't in the least bit be suprised that we have some nefarious stuff going on. Maybe he was right about everything, I'm just saying they are going to turn him into a parody of a paranoid freak and it will work.

[Tinoire]

152. No harder than they'll laugh over Clark's belief in Time Travel

Though I totally fail to see your point especially since Dennis did not introduce legislation about chemtrails and HAARP; he introducted legislation to Ban the Weaponization of Space. Chemtrails and HAARP rated a sliver of a mention in a preventive bill where you usually try to foresee what will be on the horizon.

No one at the Pentagon is laughing at Kucinich- why would you assume the media would? Not even the media is that stupid. Besides, are you for letting the media choose the candidates?


=============
US presidential challenger Clark optimistic on time travel: report

October 5, 2003
Offbeat-AFP
Yahoo! News

Story location: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031006/od_afp/us_politics_clark_031006005603


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The former supreme commander of the NATO alliance and Democratic challenger for the White House, US general Wesley Clark, has voiced optimism humans will benefit from time travel, according to a news report.

The online edition of technology journal wired.com has reported Clark's celestial assessment that humans, one day, might be able step backwards or forward in time.

"I still believe in E-equals-mc-squared, but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go," Clark reportedly told a gathering of New Hampshire citizens while on a recent campaign stop.

"I happen to believe that mankind can do it. It's my only faith-based initiative," the general quipped at the end of a question he had addressed on the United States space program.

<<Excerpt>>

http://www.women4clark.com/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=395

======

"We need a vision of how we're going to move humanity ahead, and then we need to harness science to do it," Clark told a group of about 50 people in New Castle attending a house party -- a tradition in New Hampshire presidential politics that enables well-connected voters to get an up-close look at candidates.

<quote in preceeding story snipped>

"I've argued with physicists about it, I've argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It's my only faith-based initiative." Clark's comment prompted laughter and applause from the gathering.

Gary Melnick, a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said Clark's faith in the possibility of faster-than-light, or FTL, travel was "probably based more on his imagination than on physics."

While Clark's belief may stem from his knowledge of sophisticated military projects, there's no evidence to suggest that humans can exceed the speed of light, said Melnick. In fact, considerable evidence posits that FTL travel is impossible, he said.

"Even if Clark becomes president, I doubt it would be within his powers to repeal the powers of physics," said Melnick, whose research has focused on interstellar clouds and the formation of stars and planets.

<snip>

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60629,00.html

[BlackFrancis]

162. Clark would be right about that..

I don't like Clark, I don't particularly like any of them to be completely honest. However, time travel is theoretically possible. Believing that the government is poisoning Americans (though they have in the past) for whatever reason I don't think is going to play well.


It's not just the media, it's my own little focus group of people I talk to that care enough about anything to vote. They watch TV and know things are screwed up and want something different even if they aren't sure what exactly.

Dennis is viewed negatively for some reason by these people, and it's not because he is too left as the DLC true believers would have you believer. These aren't people who know enough about politics to even know what he believes and doesn't believe. "Creepy" is a word I've heard a couple times and if I had to make a guess it would be that it's based on his appearance and I know the Iraq war pissed everyone off but he was coming off too shrill for American tastes I think.

[Tinoire]

165. I hear you

Personally I think there's a lot more current, accepted, science between Kucinich's inclusions in that Bill than there is behind Time Travel. I say this as someone who does believe that Time Travel will be possible one day.

Creepy and weird? I wish I had the time but I am heading home now...
Some people are never going to like X candidate for whatever reason.

They say Dean is too angry, too prone to empty one-liners, has a weak chin and is like a cult leader.
They say Wesley Clark is creepy because he never blinks and his eyes seem inhuman.
They say Sharpton is a fat,loud-mouthed, anti-Semitic bufoon.
They say Kucinich is creepy and shrill.

Yeah, I hear you... but can we really care? I'm totally flabbergasted that people will always find something to criticize about the appearance of those they don't like- just human nature though...

Peace

[Ksec]

157. I totally agree

Shows the power of media and why we need to regulate that power. Kucinich is a great man and they have totally trashed him.

Makes you feel like screaming at strangers.

[Zorra]

158. "Dennis Kucinich is the leading political

spokesperson for the movements for global peace, environmental protection, economic justice, social justice, living wages, universal health care and education. Any other democratic candidate would be more acceptable to corporate America than Dennis Kucinich."

And now he is the main spokesperson for our voting rights also.

:dem:KUCINICH:dem:

[LWolf]

166. Wow.

I got this tonight and appreciated it so much that I popped over to DU to see if it had been posted yet. Lo and behold, it had, and the thread had already gathered a huge number of posts in one day while I was at work. Unfortunately, most of the posts seemed, inconceivably, to be about Dean. Which is a little confusing, since the post and the article are about Dennis Kucinich. Neither mention Howard Dean.

So, if I understand the point here, it is not about Howard Dean's campaign, or about his relationship with the media. It's about Dennis. And the points are:

1. The corporate media scripts and edits what the public sees and hears every single day.

2. Our society's educated, articulate, dedicated leaders and spokespersons for peace, social and economic justice and environmental protection are refused the type of coverage that would make their teachings understandable and compelling, ie: electable.

3. In comparison to Dennis, all the other "electable" candidates pale in the scope of reform they offer. The business of global war, environmental destruction and economic terrorism will carry on undisturbed under their presidencies.

4. His exclusion from coverage by major media is precisely because he is supremely electable. Dennis Kucinich is the single greatest threat to George Bush. He is the one candidate who -- when he is heard -- appeals to the intelligence, compassion and goodness of America. There is no one else even in his league.

I happen to agree with the points made in this editorial.

I would like to see Dennis get fair treatment from the mainstream, ie corporate, media. I don't expect to see it happen.

I do believe that Dennis' supporters are on the front line in a battle for the heart and soul of our nation. And I'm one of them.

[diamondsoul]

172. You GO, Girl! I'm right there with you!

I got good news yesterday, too for my local efforts! I was really worried about the Southern sections of the State getting signatures for the ballot petition-

Turns out we have volunteers from another State crossing the State lines to help gather the signatures we need! YEEHAH, I LOVE Kucinich volunteers! We are motivated, sincere, honest and just plain GOOD people.

[LWolf]

178. Hey, partner!

:hi:

Isn't that part of what Dennis is all about? Partnership, teamwork, to accomplish the goal?