Based on performance, is Dennis Kucinich qualified to be President?

[SaveElmer]

It is a given that the vast majority of DU'ers love his position on the issues...but it takes more than a laundry list of issue positions...one must look at the performance of the person in office.

Evaluating Kucinich as a Congressman is clearly incomplete. He has never known a Democratic majority, and with the clamp Republicans have had on the minority any evaluation of Kucinich's true effectiveness in Congress will have to wait...

His other major position was as Mayor of Cleveland...and here his performance seems less than stellar...

Some of his appointments proved bizarre...a 24 year old with 8 months experience as a stock broker was appointed finance director, and a 19 year old woman appointed as a service director..

He also appeared to have a very difficult time getting along with just about anyone else in positions of power within the city...including a memorable war with the Chief of Police and the city council...

He did prevent the privitization of CEI, which has proven to be the correct position, but it was done with such turmoil that he was nearly recalled (by 300 votes), and was defeated in the next election...

Professor Melvin G. Holli of the University of Illinois published a book in 1999, following the tradition of Arthur Schlesinger and his rankings of U.S. Presidents, polling historians, authors, sociologists, commuinity leaders, and urbanologists and ranked all big city American mayors from 1820 forward...

Dennis Kucinich was ranked as one of the 10 worst mayors in American history on that list alongside such luminaries as Frank Rizzo, Jane Byrne, and Sam Yorty...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4DC103AF931A35756C0A96F958260

Should his record as mayor be a factor in deciding how one should evaluate him for the Presidency?

[peacebird]

1. after dubya, it appears anyone would be "qualified"

:eyes:

I like Kucinich running, if only because he will keep Iraq in the forefront. I have heard him speak and been impressed by him.
That said - it is early, and I will be watching all of our primary candidates with great interest.

[dpbrown]

70. Bush failed at everything he did before becoming President, then failed at that...

Dennis would have to have some pretty spectacular blow-ups to get below that.

He saved public power as Mayor. That's what he ran on and that's what he did. He was the youngest Mayor of any major city. I expect him to make some mistakes.

[rpannier]

2. In politics everything is fair game

But most people grow and learn from their mistakes.
It's where the wisdom factor kicks in -- it's why so many societies revere the advise of older people over younger people.
I'm not a Kucinich supporter. I don't plan on voting for him in the primaries. But until I know who will be running, I won't know who I'll vote for. As far as declared candidates go, I don't plan on voting for any of them in the primaries.

[blm]

3. Kucinich was a great mayor being attacked by big business and the media 24/7

Very similar to what has been done to most anti-corruption lawmakers. Kucinich was attacked for PREVENTING an Enron style takeover of Cleveland's energy facilities.

Swiftboating as a political technique didn't start in 2004.

And, as way of accomplishments, can you list those of the OTHER candidates we believe will be running?

[SaveElmer]

4. Yeah I noted the CEI stuff in my post...

Certainly the correct decision in hindsight but didn't appear to be accomplished in the most effective manner possible, and destroyed any effectiveness he might have had after that

[blm]

29. The point was that ANY anti-corruption lawmaker will be targeted. The answer is NOT

to feel safer with a lawmaker from the coverup wing of the Democratic party.

[SaveElmer]

38. There have been reform mayors...

That have not nearly been recalled and then booted out of office...

[druidity33]

51. ever considered...

that he was so far ahead of his time with the Energy companies situation that the public and press just had no idea how important the issue would be? That sometimes when you are looking so far ahead (that's foresight, not hindsight), you are bound to butt heads with people who don't trust that you can predict how things will go? He knew Privitization would suck the city dry, and i suspect (though cannot prove) that the people he railed against were the corporate loving establishment folk who don't put first in their minds the protection and service to the people. They of course realized it a few years later. Then guess what? they ELECTED Dennis again... which means to me he didn't "destroy any effectiveness he might have had".

Personally, i think he's my favorite of the pack, but agree that he won't get the nod. I'd gladly vote for Gore+someone else... but honestly, i'd take nearly any Dem, even Hil (though it'd leave an awful bad taste in my mouth).

[ThomCat]

26. He was a damned HERO for what he did with

Cleveland's Energy facilities! The idea of him with real authority would make a lot of corporate officers soil themselves. Billions would go to PR firms to ramp up the smear campaigns.

I think that this, in itself, is an endorsement for Kucinich for President!

[Ninja Jordan]

5. 'Kucinich' and "president' do not belong in the same sentence.

I think LaRouche performed better in some primaries.

[ThomCat]

27. Um, do you have any comments on his actual policy positions

or do you let the corporate media make all your decisions for you?

If a grass roots movement formed behind Kucinich he'd have a good shot.

[Phredicles]

6. Is H. Clinton's record that much better?

One elected office won against very weak candidates, a health care reform proposal overly deferential to big business whose resulting convoluted nature made it an easy target, and a voting record that makes her look like, as a fellow DUer noted, Lieberman in drag.

Sure, Kucinich's administrative style warrants a look, but I also agree that we should expect a capacity to learn from experience.

[SaveElmer]

7. And that is number 1...

I was wondering when the first Hillary post would occur...why don't you start a Hillary thread if you can't find another (i know they are scarce), and we can talk about her there...

I'm asking folks to give me Kucinich's qualifications

[Phredicles]

11. And I'm saying that if Clinton is qualified, so is Kucinich.

[SaveElmer]

13. So you are saying then...

That you believe Clinton IS qualified to be President...correct?

[Phredicles]

17. Compared to the current office-holder,

the dump I took this morning is qualified to be president.

I don't believe Clinton's qualifications are at issue, no. But I don't believe Kucinich's should be, either, all the more so as they measure up well enough against same.

[xultar]

8. Absolutely! Without a doubt.

[SaveElmer]

9. Can you elaborate?...nt

[xultar]

10. I love his stance on issues where working people are concerned.

His stance on the war is spot on. He speaks the truth and legislates with his heart and convictions.

Here is the wiki on him. Check him out you'll be impressed.

[SaveElmer]

12. Yeah I've read the Wiki...

But shouldn't his performance in office weigh into any evaluation? Anyone can recite a laundry list of issues...doesn't really tell you how that person would do once in office.

[xultar]

18. I can't keep a list of issues in my head to recite to everyone. I have a job

that requires travel, 4 chihuahuas and 2 cats, a crazy ass mom and dad, a crazy ass brother, and a household to run all on my own.

I like the guy. I think he is qualified. I think Obama is qualified, I think Hillary is qualified.

Kerry, Clark and Edwards are also qualified.

Richardson in AZ is also qualified.

You want me to list all of their stances on all the issues?

[SaveElmer]

20. No...my point is

That a person needs to be evaluated on more than just their position on the issues. Past performance ought to be weighed as well...particularly when it might give an indication of how that person deals with others.

[JetCityLiberal]

76. "You want me to list all of their stances on all the issues"

Yes I do. You post a lot on these forums. And now you are conveniently running out of time?

No...

A suggestion, read more and post less.

[goodhue]

14. you bet

Dennis is well ahead of the curve. For example, he is the only candidate with a well thought out opinion on water as a human right . . .

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/water.php

Ten Principles

All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain.
It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water to its peoples.
There shall be public ownership of drinking water systems, subject to municipal control.
Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival.
Water shall be protected from commoditization and exempted from all trade agreements.
Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal or loan forgiveness.
Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights.
Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets.
Water resources shall be protected from pollution.
Our children should be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life.

[SaveElmer]

15. That is a position...

What in his past performance would lead you to believe he could actually accomplish what he says he wants to do...

[goodhue]

22. Performance, huh?

Well, for one, I like how in Septermber of this year he introduced and sponsored HR 6200 to amend HAVA to require states to conduct presidential elections using paper ballots.

It was also pretty cool when he saved Muny Light.

[benddem]

16. Dennis kucinich

has powerful presence in person....and he has great ideas. Unfortunately he's short has a tinny voice and big ears. There are a huge number of people who vote based on appearance. I'm sure you've read the studies that find tall people get jobs, good looking people are believed etc. He'd take a beating on his record as mayor...no matter whose fault it was.

[Alexander]

19. Excellent points. It seems many DUers forget why Dennis lost re-election.

Yes, he was anti-big business and anti-corruption, however he was young, impatient, demanding, petulant, and by all accounts just not mature enough to handle the job. He started problems and fights with people in his own party so much (including some famed walk-outs) that it's no surprise he nearly got recalled.

Wellstone, by contrast, was always admired by people on both sides of the aisle. He had the ability to make an issue appeal to your political beliefs, no matter what they were, and wasn't nearly as big of a bomb-thrower as Kucinich.

[Bushknew]

21. Based on his judgement on the war alone, he is qualified to be President.

Six years, countless lives lost and billions of dollars later, those who supported
Bush in this war have proven to have poor judgement and vision for the country.

It’s an automatic disqualification. Kerry, Clinton, Clark ...

[Bushknew]

23. Going to war with Iraq will go down as one of the worst decisions ...

in American History, a decision many Democrats supported.

How is it possible to consider any of those Democrats for the Presidency?

[GreenArrow]

32. "how possible to consider those Democrats for the Presidency?"

Good question. One would think that a basic sense of honor or shame would preclude their running for higher office. Apparently not.

[NCarolinawoman]

46. Clark did not support going to war in Iraq.

Both Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy have cited Clark's testimony before Congress as convincing them to vote NO on the IWR.

I admire Dennis K. very much. As a matter of fact, his name often comes out on top when I take those little blind quizzes indicating which candidate I am most closely aligned with. As a Clark supporter, I hope you could give the General some of the same credit that I have always given Dennis in his stance against the war.

Many in the military were against the Iraq war because they have experienced the horrors of war first hand; and they also knew that Bush's reasoning for going into Iraq was absolutely flawed,

By the way, General Clark has stated that Congressman Kucinich's idea for a "Department of Peace" is an excellent idea.

[Bushknew]

48. I should clarify NCarolinawoman ...

Although General Clark was against the war in the beginning, I heard
Mr Clark a couple of months ago on the Ed Schultz Show.

Clark said we now have an obligation to the people of Iraq to stabilize their country.

Kerry, Clinton and Gore all believe the same thing.

I disagree with them all. We can not stabilize their country.

[LWolf]

24. Yes. n/t

[Infinite Hope]

25. Very interesting.

He doesn't have the greatest people skills as I've witnessed in person. But I do believe he'd be a good President. Not the best, but a good one.

[RadiDem]

28. IMHO YES!

[leftofthedial]

30. more than anyone else on earth

[JeffR]

31. Nah. Remember what a mess he made of the healthcare thing in the '90s

Oh, wait a minute. Never mind.

[Clarkie1]

33. Yes. He is over 35 and has been a U.S. citizen for more than 14 years.

He is absolutely qualified.

Edit: oh, and he was born in the U.S.A!

[SaveElmer]

34. Based on performance, is Dennis Kucinich qualified to be President?

Your answer would apply to Dick Cheney...do you believe he is qualified "based on performance" ?

[Clarkie1]

35. The constitution requires 3 things to qualifiy for President.

1. Born in the U.S.A.

2. At least 35 years of age

3. Resident of U.S.A. for 14 years

So, both Kucinich and Cheney are qualified to be President. Whether I would vote for either is another matter entirely.

[Bjorn Against]

36. If he was as terrible of a mayor as you say he was...

Then why does he get re-elected to Congress by such large margins every two years in a district located in the city that he was supposedly such a terrible mayor of?

The citizens of Cleveland have shown that they love Kucinich, but apparently that single historian you cite is a much better authority than all the voters combined, right?

[SaveElmer]

37. Three things...

One I did not say he was a horrible Mayor...I am simply recounting what is public record about his time in office.

Two, the book in question polled several hundred historians, urbanologists, sociologists etc...so it was more than one historian...

Three, the fact he is reelected doesn't really say much... I mean Tom Delay kept getting reelected, and if he hadn't been indited and resigned this year he probably would have gotten reelected again...

Marion Barry here in DC is another example.

[Bjorn Against]

63. Three things...

No you did not use the words "horrible mayor", but citing a guy who believes he was one of the ten worst of all time certainly suggests you think that way.

Second, what evidence were these historians, urbanologists and sociologists going off of? Was it his refusal to privatize the utilities, which he was vindicated on years later?

Third, please do not compare Kucinich to Tom DeLay.

On edit: In addition I would like you to explain if you have any solid evidence that those appointments you mention were bad appointments, or if you are just assuming they were bad appointments because of the people's young age. There are a lot of bright young people, as well as many stupid old people so I don't think you can judge on age alone.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. I disqualify him based on the fact that he won't run for Senate or Governor first

He knows as well as anyone does that nobody looks at a congressman like him and thinks that person could be on a national ticket. But if he were Governor or Senator from the biggest battle ground state in the country that would be a different story. This leads me to believe one of two things.

1) He knows he can't get elected in Ohio and thus I don't see how he could possibly be elected President

2) He's too lazy to take the steps required to become a serious candidate

The only real shot a Congressman has of garnering enough support and media attention is if they have served in the leadership. Rank and file congressman have constituencies are too small for a solid base of support and the media pays far more attention to Senators.

I think Giuliani is a joke for the same reason. He's had two opportunities to run against Senator Clinton, one to run against Senator Schummer, and one to run for Governor of New York. He's taken none of them. What is the appeal of a guy who will be shunned by the religious wrong and has proven that he doesn't think he can flip his home state?

[fujiyama]

40. Qualified?

Sure. He's able to run as set forth by those qualifications in the Constitution.

A good candidate? That's more debatable.

He's a good congressman though and his sense of judgment has been proven absolutely correct on Iraq, among other things.

[SaveElmer]

41. Two things...

I clearly used the qualifier "Based on Performance" so my word choice was correct...

Not sure if there is enough information to make your final judgement...what has he actually been able to accomplish in Congress...nothing...like most Democrats. Now that we are in the majority it will be interesting to see what impact he has

[fujiyama]

42. Going through the entire post

I was about to edit it, but since you replied before, I'll reply to this instead:

Yes, some of Kucinich's appointments were odd and those appointments certainly didn't seem to be qualified. His inability to get along with others, shows he may not have great "traditional" political skills of schmoozing, ass kissing, and deal making. In some ways, this would be problematic as it would lead to little of his ummm...let me say idealistic agenda getting implemented. He doesn't seem to be one to compromise all too often.

But at the same time, looking at the rankings of the author of that book, I can't say I trust the guy and question the legitimacy of it. He had Richard Daley as among his best for one thing.

As for my comment on judgment, I should say he has better foresight than the front runner candidate. He had the good sense to call Iraq for the disaster it would be, rather than support the effort when it seemed to be going smoother. His moral convictions are sound (aside from his change on abortion) on issues of war and peace.

Would I vote for him in the primaries? I know he hasn't a chance in hell to get elected nationwide. Hell, he didn't even receive a third of the vote in his state when he ran for president (and that's among Democrats). He has never attempted to run statewide, and that gives me the impression he's in doubt of his own ability to win a statewide race. The last House Rep. elected to president was Lincoln? Yeah, I'd say he's a good congressman but would be a long shot candidate for US president.

[SaveElmer]

44. Good post...

You are really the first one to take it seriously...

Your comment on Richard Daley is spot on. In fact looking through the reviews of the book in the Journal of American History and other scholarly journals, that selection pops out for many of the reviewers. SO while most praise the book, they note that choice calls the validity of the ranking into some question. Though the rest of the top 10 seems sound...

One review made a very interesting observation that ..."In the years since WWII, every mayor ranked among the best from Tom Bradley to Andrew Young, organized a growth coalition, that changed the face of the city's downtown."

For me, it seems Kucinich's first instinct was to try the opposite first, confrontation seemed to me his modus operandi.

I will politely disagree some on your comment about the frontrunner...enough threads on that topic...

And I would agree with you on your last point. Seems Kucinich would be better testing his message in his own state first before trying a national campaign...if his goal is indeed to win!

[Montauk6]

43. Bottom Line (from Article II, Section 1, US Constitution)

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

And I do have confidence that his Cabinet picks would rise above the level of the self-serving syndicate we've got in there now.

[SaveElmer]

45. Brother...

The qualifier "Based on Performance," in the english language, qualifies the meaning of the second phrase...

My usage was correct. This seems to be a way some have devised to avoid the question.

[Montauk6]

47. Based on performance? Hmmm... OK, the answer is no, absolutely not,.

Now, that would also eliminate everyone in the current pool.

Only people with hands-on experience with the job should hold the job. Of course, Clinton's already done his two terms, so that would leave Ford, Carter and Bush, Sr.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. At least he is not a War Party Corporate Greed Head

Triangulating Windsock.

That would be a yes.

He is however not good looking enough for tv consumption by idiot americans.

[porkrind]

50. So you're saying he didn't get along with the establishment very well

that's a plus to me. I want someone who doesn't want to "play ball" with the establishment players.

[info being]

52. If he gets our votes in the Primaries, he's qualified.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

53. It's your avatar

that makes your inquiry suspect.

Unless you're using Hillary as your avatar as sarcasm, or that's not really an avatar of Hillary, then you support a (potential) pro-war candidate, i.e. the antithesis of Dennis J. Kucinich.

That may be where the objections to your premises originate. People may distrust your motive in starting this thread.

http://www.headonradionetwork.com

[SaveElmer]

55. Hillary Clinton...

Is not a pro-war candidate

[GrpCaptMandrake]

56. I stand corrected

Obviously, I missed her "No" vote on the Iraq War Resolution and her call for the immediate end of the war and the return of the troops and the defunding of the war.

My bad.

Wait a minute . . .

Maybe I misinterpreted you. Maybe you mean she's not a candidate.

[SaveElmer]

58. Maybe...

You ought to take a look at her actual position on the issue...then come back...

But as usual... and like our friends on the far right...anyone deviating from left-wing dogma is considered an enemy

[GrpCaptMandrake]

59. Why don't you tell me

your view of her position, please? I say that sincerely. The last position I heard of Hillary taking a public against against was violent video games.

My job is following news and politics. For the life of me, I can't recall Hillary showing up at an anti-war rally, or demanding an immediate end to the war or opposing its continued funding. I could swear she voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, but it's possible I've got my wires crossed on that one.

I, for one, would like to see Hillary replace Herb Kohl on the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would be nice to see her working alongside Leahy and Feingold. The possiblity of seeing her get a chance to rat-slap Sam Brownback is something I'd pay to see.

Where does she stand on the $160 extra billion Bush wants to continue the war through the end of his presidency?

It never ceases to amaze me that being openly, unabashedly, unequivocally opposed to this miserable war is somehow "left-wing dogma." Is it dogmatic to want to stop making a mistake once the mistake is realized?

How do you define "left-wing dogma?"

http://www.headonradionetwork.com

[SaveElmer]

60. Left Wing Dogma...

Is a characteristic displayed by which any deviation from the stated position is considered de-facto invalid...as your post demonstrates....

However, this thread was not meant to be a Hillary thread, and I would like not t o turn it into one...ther are plenty of Hillary threads to continue this line of discussion on...


How about instead commenting on the particulars of Dennis Kucinich's qualifications...particularly his tenure as Mayor of Cleveland

[GrpCaptMandrake]

62. Congressman Kucinich's tenure as Mayor of Cleveland

is a classic piece of right-wing dogma, in which his term in office was the direct and proximate cause of all that city's woes, including, but not limited to the bankruptcy and possibly even the burning of the Cuyahoga River.

That fact is proven largely by its presence as a first-mention for anyone to his right, as opposed to mentioning the fact that he was right about the war when he built a coalition to vote against it in the House, he's been right about it during its prosecution, and he remains right about it now that the majority of Americans have come around to where Dennis has been all along. Very few members of Congress, either in the House or the Senate, can lay claim to having been utterly correct about the war all along: neither the "I voted for the war, but didn't mean, y'know, like WAR" people, nor the "I was fooled by Bush into voting for it" crowd.

As Dennis noted in my conversation with him last night on "Head-On With Bob Kincaid," (archive here: www.whiterosesociety.org/Kincaid.html) the choices we have made in funding this disaster have represented a conscious choice to let the rest of America's needs go begging. The money this disaster has cost us would've paid for universal healthcare, or universal daycare for working parents. It would've paid for four years of college for every American who wants to go. It might even have paid for all those things.

Frankly, any discussion of Congressman Kucinich's tenure as Mayor of Cleveland should be measured against similar accomplishments of other candidates at the same or similar age. By that standard, it becomes even more clear that Dennis Kucinich is uniquely qualified to lead this nation out of the Republican wasteland. He simply has more governmental experience in toto than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican.


http://www.headonradionetwork.com


Edited for 5pElLin, and I still may've missed some

[Bjorn Against]

64. She voted for the war, and has not come out strongly against it yet

That is a pro-war candidate as far as I am concerned. When you are sporting that Hillary avatar you are promoting her in this thread. Therefore you can not merely dismiss calls asking for you to defend Hillary's qualifications, while you feel free to insist we go on the defensive against our candidate.

I believe Dennis Kucinich was right on the war from the beginning and Hillary was wrong from the beginning, that makes Kucinich more qualified on that issue.

[SaveElmer]

69. Uh...

Perhaps you could search the 10,000 other Hillary threads on here to see my response to criticism on her record...this is a Dennis Kucinich thread...if you don't feel as though you can defend his record that is fine...on the face of it his record as Mayor of Cleveland is pretty hard to defend.

[Bjorn Against]

71. I can defend his record, he saved the city hundreds of millions....

You even admitted the choice he made to stop the privatization of the utilities was a move that proved to be the right position in hindsight. Yet that move is what made him very unpopular for many years, now however people realize he was right and that is why he is once again very popular in his district.

I defended Kucinich in other posts on this thread, but I also feel you have an obligation to defend your candidate. I find it really annoying when people start threads attacking other candidates, and then insist that their candidate can not be questioned in it. If you want us to go on the defensive then you better be prepared to go on the defensive as well because whether you like it or not when you criticize our candidate then your candidate is also fair game. This is a democratic forum, and there is no rule that any particular thread is limited to discussion about only one candidate.

[SaveElmer]

77. First of all...

I wasn't attacking him. I was asking for his qualifications. I noted the correct decision he made on CEI, and the fact that he hasn't had much of a chance to do much in COngress given Republican majorities...I have also made clear I have a positive view of him and that I would vote for him..


There are hundreds of Hillary threads where I have posted on her record...we can talk about it there...this was not meant to be a Hillary thread...

A discussion of his record is not an attack

[Strawman]

54. A fair point to raise, but...

it is also unfair to judge a reformer like Dennis by his ability to be a typical administrative executive who runs things smoothly. To use a wrestling analogy, since Dennis was a wrestler himself, he went to the mat against privatization and got taken down by some powerful monied interests. I think history has vindicated his decision not to privatize that utility. Would he have been a better executive, in your estimation, if he had merely submitted to the rich and powerful? Will America be better if inertia on key issues continues or do we need a reformer in the Oval Office like Dennis?

To be honest, I do not expect Dennis to win the primary, but I think progressive unity behind Dennis is a good idea because may put him in a position to win concessions for us. I like that he will go to the mat against the Rubin crowd and that these party elites might be forced to deal with him.

[eridani]

66. Bingo!

"progressive unity behind Dennis" yes! This is less about him but about where we want the party to be going. He's willing to be out there bearing the standard--how can we not follow and support?

[Strawman]

67. It's funny

On the one hand we hear how Dennis can't win and then on the other hand what a terrible executive he would make. Out of one side of their mouths our support is entirely ineffectual and pointless. Out of the other side, it's destructive and dangerous. It can't be both. If he can't possibly win, he can't possibly be a bad executive. Dennis haters need to pick a consistent set of arguments for us to debate.

[Morgana LaFey]

57. I wouldn't hold his mayoral experience against him, but the problem

I do see is that I don't think he's much of a manager or executive. While that was fairly evident early on in his experience as mayor, I don't think the situation has improved. Having great positions on the issues is one thing but being able to get them done is another. Has he had any leadership positions at all in the House? Has he gotten any legislation of note passed? Is there ANY reason to think he could be an efeective executive of ANYthing? We don't even know whether or not he runs an effective legislative office. (His campaign wasn't much to speak of.)

Further, he continues to allow people to walk all over him in interviews, based on what I saw the other night on one of the shows I watched that had him on (Hardball ??)

Quite simply, I think he'd get eaten alive in this political climate. Maybe he could've been effective if elected pre-Jimmy Carter, but not nowadays, NOT unless there's this leadership talent and executive talent I haven't seen any evidence of.

:shrug:

[Zorra]

61. Absolutely qualified to be President. n/t

[truedelphi]

65. Didn't Kucinich draft legislation to keep the USA warheads,

HAARP and other weapons of mass destruction out of the skies? (including the stratosphere and beyond.)

He was very pro-Downey street memo investigation, Bush, Cheney impeachment

Definitely he has an organization problem. Needs someone to have him understand
that if you DO run for President, you can't keep your contacts in one shoe box held on to by a couple of college sophomores who may or may not have full time energy to run things for you.

[paulk]

68. clearly Kucinich has shown a lack of executive skill

not just when he served as mayor, but in his last campaign run - which shows to me that he didn't learn much about being in charge during the interim. By any measure, DK's campaign was a disaster - and, yes, the success or failure of a campaign is a legitimate measure of a candidates managerial ability.

Kucinich also didn't show much capability as a leader - since, even though he had promised that his delegates would vote for the eventual Democratic nominee, he was unable to prevent some of them (CO delegation) from defying him.

[k_jerome]

72. no. nt.

[skipos]

73. I don't think he actually wants to be President. nt

[Imagevision]

74. Kucinich can go easily toe-to-toe with Barack & Edwards

All three of these guyz would be strong on the same side...

[Fire Walk With Me]

75. I seem to remember his writing something really well-said regarding the Iraq invasion

early on in the deal, it impressed me. I think it was him. The only other politician to impress me in the last few years has been the Honorable Conyers.

[ProudDad]

78. Consider the source

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4DC103AF931A35756C0A96F958260

"There are some things to quibble with here. Holli occasionally lurches into social science lingo, and one wishes that he had devoted more pages to his 10 worst list: train wrecks are always instructive. Like most of his correspondents, Holli tends to favor old-style, pragmatically liberal or progressive mayors. He likes tangible, brick-and-mortar accomplishments. In an age of empty political symbolism this is largely refreshing, though critics of the top 10 are too often dismissed with simplistic epithets. For example, Angelenos opposed to offshore oil drilling and runaway development are merely snobs from the ''fashionable west side.''

I would also question the inclusion of Richard J. Daley on any list of the nation's 10 best mayors. Daley's segregationist, exclusionary politics helped to polarize Chicago for decades, and his reckless, grotesque behavior during the 1968 Democratic National Convention is a permanent stain on American democracy. It is not erased by the fact that he made the buses run on time."

[ProudDad]

79. Flame Bait