Kucinich supporters: Want to Win? Go with Edwards.

[Armstead]

(Putting on my asbestos suit....)

I'm proud to call myself a Kucinich Democrat. No one admires Kucinich more than I do. And no one agrees with almost every one of his positions more. Every "political compass" test I've taken lines me up with Kucinich as the candidate who best reflects my positions. I also admire his personal integrity, in terms of sticking to his beliefs no matter what.

In my opinion, Kucinich's basic message and positions are also exactly what the Democratic Party needs to return to, for electoral and political success too. Below his New Age rhetoric is a traditional liberal Democratic populist in the mold that improved the country and made the party successful for so long.

Even better, he also got it right in terms of seeing the folly of a totally foolish militaristic foray into a foreign nation for no good reason. On the Iraq War, most of the country today is where Kucinich was five years ago.

However, while Kucinich is right up there in my own list of Heroes, what is really important are the very same beliefs and policies and values he represents. Those are what is really at stake in this election.

And, alas, Kucinich is not the guy who is going to give those values and that message the mainstream credibility and clout to actually make a difference.

We need to send a messaage and move the Democratic Party back towards the True Center, and diminsh the grip of the so-called "centrists" of Elite Corporate Conservatism who have taken the Democratic Party way too far to the right. This primary is a chance to do that.

And the best way to send a message is to gather enough votes for a candidate who represents that message to either be a strong contender or -- even better -- might actually WIN.

Kucinich is not the best candidate or messenger to do that. Some of the reasons are beyond his control. A narrow-minded media. The grip of Corporate Democrats who marginalize anything to the left of Hillary Clinton as "too far left." Etc.

But some of it is his own personality and characteristics. Frankly, he doesn't have that mysterious "aura" that is required of successful presidential candidates. He doesn;t have the basic organizing sense to have established an official presence in a state like Iowa. His total unfiltered honesty can be a libility, when he thinks out loud about maybe allying with Ron Paul.

Thus, in terms of the presidential race, he is doomed to be considered a marginal candidate. A symbol, but an ineffective candidate.

It's time to give him the applause he's due, but move on in terms of trying to have an impact in the real Democratic primary process.

The goal at this point is to make it absolutely clear, that the liberal/progressive/populist instinct is not merely a fringe group, but actually is a a major mainstream force in Democratic Politics, and in the country.

IMO, we have a chance to do that with a "top tier" candidate -- John Edwards.

While he is not perfect, Edwards has the message closest to Kucinich among the candidates who actually have a chance to either win or come in a strong second or third.

Since the early primaries seem so close at the moment, if Edwards could garner the votes of Kucinich supporters, it COULD actually give Edwards the margin to win. That 5 or 10 percent could push Edwards over the top.

And, even if Edwards isn't the ultimate nominee, a string second or third finish in the primaries would still be sending a very strong message, and would force the ultimate nominee and the Democratic leadership to take that more seriously.

[MuseRider]

1. Alas

no thanks.

[cali]

2. Kucinich's supporters are such a small number that

it really wouldn't make any difference.

[Fovea]

10. Particularly in light of the tidal wave victories

the repuglicans scored in 2000 and 2004.

Had Gore thrown a bone to the greens in 2000, an irony in itself, he would have been beyond stealing.

Of course these are primaries, and essentially meaningless to corporate based governance.

:irony:

[cali]

14. this is a message board. the OP reaches, at best,

a thousand people. Kucinich's support is somewhere between 1 and 2% nationally. We do not know how many Kucinich voters voted for Nader. We aren't, as you noted, discussing the general election. I could go on, but let me stipulate that logic is fundamental to analyzing these issues. You didn't use it.

[Snotcicles]

84. I live in Michigan I'm an Edwards supporter voting for Kucinich

Because Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel are the only choices on the ballot.
I am hoping when it comes time to count delegates Kucinich asks his to move to Edwards.

[liberalnurse]

13. No surprise there as most here may recall

during the 04 Iowa Caucus that Kucinich ordered his supporters to move into Edwards Caucus group to give Edwards 2nd Place. He will do it again.

[Armstead]

15. I wish he would

In addition to increasing my admiration of Kucinich's committment and integrity, it could give Edwards more credibility among DK supporters.

[MuseRider]

18. Edwards has to earn that credibility.

Passing off to Edwards last time may have changed some minds then but it did not change that many. Edwards is a whole different ball of wax this time and although I like him I will not vote for him. His policies and his stances seem a little empty at this time to me and less peaceful and not what I want to have as my President.

You do what you have to do, we all will, that is what it is all about and why I am so astounded at the people who bash away like they have the right to make you do it their way with all kinds of rationalization, anger and nastiness. **Not you, you were asking and stating your reasons and they are great, for you.** It was all ABB now it seems it is all about stopping Hillary. I don't buy it this time and am embarrassed I did before.

If I had not voted for so many years and won once in a while and been so totally disappointed with that win I might be convinced. For now I vote my conscience. DK might disappoint as President, in fact I am certain he would in some areas, but he will not disappoint me like the others have.

[Armstead]

20. I went through that same process a few weeks ago -- Edwards earned it for me

I've had my share of doubts about his sincerity in light of his inconsistencies.

But after thinking about it, and seeing Edwards in longer interviews,I've come to the conclusion that he means what he says.....And if there is a little opportunism in there, that's fine by me. At least it's opportunism in the direction I favor.

[MuseRider]

21. Go for it then

and good luck to you. :hi:

[Adelante]

26. I don't know why anybody thinks Dennis will even do it this time, MR

They weren't competing for a voting base last time. Edwards was trying for Gephardt supporters and Dennis was trying for Dean supporters. This time they are in competition for the same caucus goers and I can't believe Dennis is happy that many of his supporters have gone for Edwards this time around. In addition, he is clearly pissed off at Edwards personally, from all he has been saying. I think last time he saw Edwards as sincere if too conservative for him, but at least sincere. He just doesn't believe him anymore.

[MuseRider]

34. LOL true.

I could not imagine Dean and Kucinich getting any of the same voters. They were worlds apart on their sincerity and their policies. Edwards and Gephardt the same. I guess when voters start with the "win at all costs", part of those costs are their own standards. Now I am not speaking to the OP, I have seen him transfer his support and believe he is sincere as are most here that I have seen. How anyone can think they are the same is beyond me but I do keep seeing it. Oh well, for some maybe they are and for them I am happy but for me, I am sticking with Dennis Kucinich. Win or lose he is my ideal candidate and I can't for the life of me see anything remotely appealing in the totality of the others.

[Adelante]

37. It was the war

Dennis might have drawn off some of Dean's anti-war voters, if Dean didn't reach 15% in a precinct, which Edwards could never have gotten in his 2004 incarnation. So it made some pragmatic sense for DK to do the deal. From what I've read from a couple of DUers, though, there were precincts where Edwards had the necessary 15% and more, so could have spared a few to bring DK up, but it didn't happen. I wouldn't blame Dennis if he's pissed off about that, too.

[MuseRider]

39. That really blew my mind

when Edwards did that. Still, I don't see any comparison of Dean/Kucinich even when discussing the war. When we had our primary we got DK through the first caucus IN KANSAS. Dean people fled to Kerry when he did not make it, Edwards people fled to Kerry when he did not make it (he had only one person) but the Clark people came right over to us. There were not many because he had already dropped out I think but they were there standing for him. I was surprised they came to us because we did not need the numbers and Clark may have already started working with Kerry. My mind is fogged over from that very unpleasant primary caucus. I have to say that the DLC here is very strong and very unpleasant, not that I think they are very pleasant anywhere, but they were very nasty about anyone else but Kerry. It was difficult to stand with the rhetoric that was going around but we did and were dismissed without a vote from the second round and laughed at when we complained about not even getting to participate. We got booted. That is how that works here. My disgust with the party really started there. Now I know and now I am not a Democrat so I have no clue how it will go this year. Oops, sorry I got off topic.

[Zorra]

98. I think Edwards is proabably the 2nd choice for the majority of Kucinich

supporters.

JE is definitely my 2nd choice.

[riqster]

100. I'm a Kooch backer, and Biden's my second choice. nt

[Inspired]

23. Only if he wasn't viable. Jeez, in my precinct there were 2.

That propelled Edwards into 2nd place. :sarcasm:

[maxanne]

71. not a chance

Not this time. He won't ask his supporters to endorse a pro-war candidate.

[Kucinich4America]

38. Whatever

Who the fuck made you the authority on everything anyway.....

All the DLC candidates who already border on NEO FASCIST as it is need to run further to the right.


No true Democrat has a chance, right?

If that's what you believe, what are you doing on a DEMOCRATIC website?

[Truth2Tell]

66. She's just trying to be provocative

It's best to not feed them, but sometimes it's hard. I understand.

[surfermaw]

51. I appreciate every DENNIS vote, heck I like Dennis ,BUT

I don't feel that he can win, corporate America would hack him more than they would JRE... we must vote for the man we feel can win not only in Iowa but in the General Election, now i know some have been worried about how much maney Edwards has, but according to his words, if he wins Iowa or whomever wins IOwa, the money will fly in and a Iowa win will influence the other primary voters...

[BigBearJohn]

68. Wow. You never miss a chance to slam Kucinich supporters.

[Cronus Protagonist]

99. I love it when people get pissed off by "ignored"

It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling :P

[Fovea]

3. Single Payer Universal healthcare

That is what I am holding out for, and if the candidate can't promise that, then I can't vote for them.

I suspect I will get flamed for that statement, but for me it is literally a matter of life and death.

[Armstead]

8. I agree with you but 5 percent of the vote won;t accomplish that

I wish to hell Edwards (and the rest of them) would rally behind a simpler and more effective way to deliver universal care, like Kucinich.

But that's a larger political question, and that will be lost in a 5 percent total for Kucinich.

[Fovea]

12. If the manifest evil of for profit medicince is not apperent

to the candidate, then for me, there is no other point.
I am too sick to do otherwise.

I would even vote for HillCo if that was her platform. I am voting for my life.

[Yuugal]

69. You do what you gotta do.

The thing that keeps me up at night is college for my kids.

"I would even vote for HillCo if that was her platform. I am voting for my life."

I feel like I am voting for my kid's lives and I agree with you. If Shillary came out tomorrow with her "Public Education Through 4 yrs of College Act of 2009" I would switch camps. I just didn't suffer and scrape by their whole lives to watch them trapped in a life at Burger World.

[sellitman]

4. I'm on the same page.

Made the flip a month ago.

Voted #1

[flvegan]

5. Still going to vote for Kucinich, sorry.

This isn't a football game and "wanting to win" but much more than that. Unfortunately, I think a lot of folks make their political choices based on just that...being on the winning team.

[NorthCarolina]

29. Still voting Kucinich here also

and I totally agree with your analogy...this isn't a football game that we're betting on.

[Armstead]

45. I want "our team" to be the winning team

When I say that, I'm not talking about any specific candidate.

I mean "our team" as everyone who believes it's important for the Democratic Party to get off the dime and stand up for the middle class and the disadvantaged and liberal/progressive values, rather than continuing to be dominated by Elite Corporate Conservatives.

Symbolic opposition has its place, but it is much preferable to actually push forward an agenda and set of values by either winning or having a strong showing. Adding to the single-digit figure of Kucinich at this juncture is throwing away even the symbolic aspect it.

To use a football analogy, when the receiver has tripped -- as Kucinich has -- a Hail Mary pass to him is not useful or smart.

[superkia]

52. Exactly the problem, choose your candidate on the issues...

and let the cards fall where they may. I am sick of all of the "but we need to give in and lower our standards for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES" , if the system is crooked like it has already shown itself to be, our votes don't really matter right? Vote for who you want, not who they want. If Americans weren't so brainwashed, they would see that it would be a little more difficult to steal the election if we chose the candidate that is speaking out for us. If Americans are wanting change, see a candidate that falls inline with their view on the issues, vote for them, once its down to the general, the media has to cover the peoples choice and the word will then go national and even more people would be out to vote. Instead we give in and give them a candidate that could win but the margin is so close that they are able to either win or steal it from us again.

I think that Dennis Kucinich with national television coverage would be a force to be reckoned. Everyone likes repeating the same talking points that the Media throws out about him but forget to realize that this guy has had next to no coverage and why? There is a reason the media doesn't want his voice heard and that alone should wake up enough of the brainwashed people to realize that they are being duped and spreading the propaganda the media feeds them.

Right now, I would vote for all of our candidates but one and I hope that their supporters wake up to that persons true agenda and realize that the media doesn't only cover the good ones, they cover the ones that help them with their agenda. I hope Americans can look at the shape of the country and finally vote for the best person, not the name they always hear on their worshiped television.

[Armstead]

64. I;ve chosen a candidate on the issues who I believe can advance our issues

"I am sick of all of the "but we need to give in and lower our standards for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES"

My feeling is that you are lowering your standards if you are a progressive who wants to spend your vote on a candidate who is not going to make any kind of showing. The media is not going to give Kucinich the type of exposure he needs. And Kucinich has not shown great aptitude to organize a strong campaign.

My suggestion is that we support the candidate in the so-called "top tier" who is much closer to the values of Kucinich than the others.

[maxanne]

72. and my feeling is

Edwards is a glib, facile candidate who has changed his mind about every vote he made in the Senate.

Dennis Kucinich voted against the war, against the Patriot Act, and supports marriage equality. You are suggesting I ignore all that, and vote for a gu who voted FOR the war (but now he's sorry), voted FOR the Patriot Act (but now he's sorry) and is against marriage equality - a man who said, "those people make me uncomfortable" - but now he's sorry. You want me to stop supporting a no-nukes candidate in favor of supporting a candidate who voted FOR the Yucca Mountain nukewaste dump - but now he's sorry. How dare you suggest that Edwards and Kucinich share the same values?
Edwards is may have fooled you with his recreated persona - but as the old saying goes.....fool me once, shame on me...

You want me to stop supporting a candidate who wants a single payer non profit health care system, and jump to a candidate who wants to create a system where we are mandated to buy privatized health insurance. Those who can't afford it would be subsidized by the taxpayers. Yepper, I'd be subsidizing the private insurance companies with my tax dollars. I think the CEO of Cigna is getting a big enough bonus without my help.

I deserve a president who gets it right the first time.

To vote for anyone other than Dennis Kucinich is lowering my standards - and sending the message that I'll settle for less in the name of "pragmatism." That guarantees a continuation of the abominable candidates being presented to us via the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

No thanks.

[Armstead]

76. I'd rather see us move in the right direction

Kucinich's positions to me are the destination.

Taking out the personal factor of candidates, my concern is that we move in that direction. I see Edwards as the main other candidate who can move us in that direction.

IMO if we get Hillary (and maybe Obama) we are moving backwards in the wrong direction.

Hard as it is to admit, Kucinich has proven that he is not capable of running a successful national campaign for the presidency. If he were, he would have done much better in attracting a larger number of disaffected progressives in 04 and so far this year.

[maxanne]

78. I don't understand

how choosing a candidate whose positions change with the wind is moving us in the right direction.

I don't buy the apologies - and I refuse to settle for less. Clearly you can. I hope it works for you.

[superkia]

80. The media plays the biggest influence on our presidents and...

they don't like people who represent the people and not the corporations. After you have followed politics awhile, you will pick up on it, its pretty obvious.

[bean fidhleir]

94. You laid it out very well. Edwards is an opportunistic faux populist

As was said about Arlen Spector years ago: "he stands for getting elected".

[superkia]

79. In the top tier, Which candidate would be closest to Kucinich ?

I like Edwards and Obama both but for different reasons and have not made my final decision, I support Kucinich but am not sure what I am doing this time around. If we have the opportunity to have elections again 4 years later, we the people, should start now putting out the message of the candidates that speak for us. We know now and we knew 4 years ago that the media wont give the same coverage so should we start spreading the word ourselves or give up and go for what they give us then too? When is it too late to spread a message because I haven't heard too many comments about ignoring the media and spreading the words ourselves. Most I have heard all year long is the give in plan, nothing about trying to beat the corrupt system, except from the Ron Paul republicans that are sick of how their party has handled things, we need to figure out a way to get the sheeple that are democrats to start looking at the elections in a different light the way the Paul supporters have. I guess, if we get Clinton this time, she should be able to show the sheeple from our party to see that they are all on the same team against us and we need to vote in a different way if we expect to get a different result.

If we continue to follow the medias way of voting, we will always get the same result.We need to stop all of the crying that goes on if this is the way we want to continue doing things, why would things change if we the people refuse to change.

The problem with your way of voting is , most Americans are going to vote for the name the media shoves on them the most, not by actually taking time and educating themselves on who is closest to what they believe. So in other words, we are throwing away the vote for who we believe is right, just to see the medias candidate chosen and we never even make a statement by showing support to the candidate that is the most against the corruption and bullshit. No voice, no message, no statement and we get no change. Our country is in a bad bad spot right now in history and giving in now is just dangerous.

Even if we lose to the medias candidate, our voices need to be heard and soon or we wont have the right to voice our opinions.

[LWolf]

6. No. I win when I vote for the best candidate.

Talk to me about voting for Edwards if he is the nominee in the general election.

For the primary, Dennis Kucinich has EARNED my support.

If we can't cast a vote for the Democrat who has worked the hardest to represent us in the primary, when can we?

[Armstead]

9. That is how Hillary can win

Since the early primaries are so close, if the "un-Hillary votes are diluted, then you going to be stuck with her as your nominee.

[LWolf]

24. She won't be my nominee.

I've stated, quite clearly since before a single candidate announced a run for the nomination, that she would not be getting my vote. If Democrats choose to nominate her, then they've chosen to lose my vote, and the result is at their door.

[bluedog]

30. so in the General.you will not be voting Democrat?n/t

[LWolf]

36. It depends.

It depends, first of all, on who the nominee is. There is no golden wand that has pronounced Clinton the nominee at this point in time. I will decide whether or not I vote for the Democrat who got nominated after the convention.

If I don't vote for the nominee, I'll probably write in a better Democrat, which means I'm still "voting Democrat," as you so expressed so fluently.

I could, of course, decide to vote 3rd party or sit out the election, but I don't plan to consider those options until after the convention.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Next to Kucinich

Hillary = Edwards = Obama on the issues of health care, gay marriage, the war on drugs, the war on terror...

[NorthCarolina]

28. I Agree, I'm for Dennis in the Primaries

He's more than earned my support. I also think there is far more support out there for Kucinich than anyone realizes as there are many many on-line polls that show me Kucinich has more of a shot than folks give him credit for. We are coming into the primaries NOT the general election, so why in the world would I throw my primary vote to any candidate other than the one that best represents my values? Makes no sense and is completely contrary to everything I have ever learned about voting. In the upcoming primaries I am voting MY values, and so I am voting for Kucinich...period.

[iamjoy]

7. To Quote Kenny Rogers...

You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when youre sittin at the table.
Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done.

Now evry gambler knows that the secret to survivin
Is knowin what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
cause evry hands a winner and evry hands a loser...

"The Gambler" lyrics apply to Kucinich - he wants to play every hand. Edwards is far more skillful. And Edwards has enough money to stay at the table.

[ericgtr]

11. I don't buy this a vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary

For Clinton Campaign, Different Strategies at Play

<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/us/politics/21web-healy.html?8dpc

And, perhaps most difficult of all, does she decide to take third place in the Iowa caucuses in order to help John Edwards win (and thereby deny Mr. Obama a potentially king-making victory in the first-in-the-nation vote here on January 3)?

This last question, according to several Democratic strategists not affiliated with the Clinton campaign, is one that the Clinton campaign is likely to ask itself and answer sometime in the next two weeks. As much as Mrs. Clinton’s top priority is winning Iowa, her goal of preventing an Obama victory here is almost equally important. The last thing she wants is to move on to New Hampshire and its January 8 primary with Mr. Obama riding a headwind of political momentum.

Taking third place to help Mr. Edwards would be difficult to “operationalize,” in the words of one Clinton adviser. It would have to involve steering Clinton voters into Mr. Edwards’ camp. Because so many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters in Iowa are first-time caucus-goers, the basic mechanics of caucus night are confusing enough; instructing these Iowans on gaming the system help Mr. Edwards would be downright perplexing.
</snip>

[Nite Owl]

16. Every little online quiz puts

Kucinich first for me but I don't think he has a chance of picking up even one state. I feel that John has the fire in his belly to win and to make a real difference and maybe the changes he will make will stop the minimalizing of people like Dennis. He gives me some hope that the future can be better.

[MuseRider]

22. I hope this reply does not dupe

but it just started snowing and my connection is in and out so if it does sorry :shrug:.

"I feel that John has the fire in his belly to win and to make a real difference and maybe the changes he will make will stop the minimalizing of people like Dennis."

If that holds true I would be eternally thankful. I don't see it but I will gladly eat my words if that happens.

[alteredstate]

17. I'm a Kucinich Democrat who's voting for Obama

Edwards is my second choice.

[maxanne]

73. you aren't

a Kucinich Democrat, in other words.

[bean fidhleir]

95. isn't even CLOSE to a Kucinich Democrat.

How anyone but a GOPer can vote for Obama after his '04 sellout speech at the Dem Convention....

"Buy me, wealthy people! I'm for sale!"

[InvisibleTouch]

19. A vote for Kucinich sends an important message.

While I appreciate your point, I also think it's important in the primaries that we vote for our top choice. Even if he "can't win," according to conventional wisdom, it sends a message that his policies and positions will need to be taken into account by the eventual winner. Edwards is my second choice, btw, so I'm not at all hostile to your message - just still planning to vote for DK. Admittedly I have some luxury in the matter, since the winner may already be decided by the time the Ohio primaries roll around.

[Union Thug]

25. Kucinich remains my first choice, and I will vote for him in the pri...

Edwards is a distant second.

[bluedog]

27. whats Kooch polling 2-3 %?,error of margin?

his support is so low that hes hardly mentioned in the polls.......its up to you all...want to win the WH back? then support the viable candiate...........

[MuseRider]

35. LOL

so cute. :hi:

[mirrera]

31. I am with you!

I agree totally. Kucinich says it all, but the only administration that would give Kucinich a real voice is an Edwards administration. As another poster put it: He is phony like Gore is a liar.

[Gregorian]

32. Thanks. I keep going back and forth between idealism and pragmatism.

I guess the best way to change the direction of the country is from within. Short of a revolution, that is. And we're way too comfortable for that. And like Will Pitt says, we need a majority in Congress to go along with a Dem president.

Damnit. I want a country that's mature enough to see what is best for them. I guess that isn't going to happen. Edwards is probably our best bet at getting the biggest majority.

[elizm]

40. Sure, it could help him win Iowa...but then what???

He isn't even competitive in NH and SC(His birth state, btw). The best it would do is help insure a nomination for Hillary. If you're good with that...then go for it.

[Armstead]

41. He would be more competative in other states if he pulls it off in Iowa

Don't forget Kerry.

And, as i noted in the OP, the larger the aggrate vote for a candidate who has a similar message as Kucinich (no not exactly the same but closer that the otehrs) the more credibility it has in the future.

[elizm]

50. Sure it would make him more competitive...

But I still don't believe enough to beat Hillary. Why go with the long shot? Obama is already comptetive with Hillary in the early primary states...Unless again, you are ok with a Hillary nomination. In that case, by all means roll the dice.

[goodgd_yall]

42. I love Kucinich

But I'm voting Edwards as well. He's the only one with a shot at the nomination who is even close to Kucinich.

[backscatter712]

43. Nice thing about living in a caucus state.

I can initially cast my vote for Dennis Kucinich, but when/if he gets eliminated for not having 15% of the vote, then I'm still free to caucus with Edwards.

[annie1]

44. get your friends to caucus with edwards too. : ).

[Sherman A1]

46. Thanks!

For the suggestion.... I will vote for DK in the primary and let the chips fall where they may. That is the beauty of having a large field of candidates, we get to make choices.

[Desertrose]

47. I'm still voting for Kucinich come primary time.

As for the General election...will deal with that when the time comes. It will totally depend on who the nominee is.


There is always third party and/or write in.

I am so beyond voting for the"lesser of two evils".

[Armstead]

48. I see it as....

the lesser of two goods.

Sure Edwards is not as clear or consistent as Kucinich.

But in the current field, I see him as the next best -- and the next best who can actually make a difference in advancing a liberal/progressive agenda in real terms.

[David Zephyr]

49. I certainly like the message John Edwards is giving lately. Even Nader does.

Your pragmatic choice is a rational one, Armstead. I am leaning toward Biden still, but many of my friends here in California have chosen Edwards in the last weeks, too.

I really like the message John Edwards is presenting today. He's openly talking about class and corporate greed and power and taking them on. I haven't heard that from a viable presidential candidate in a long, long time.

I could be persuaded to vote for Edwards.

[Armstead]

61. Do you accept bribes?

(Just kidding. I'm too broke to bribe.)

[eridani]

53. That depends on whether or not there is clear winner after February

If there isn't, then Edwards could use the support to possibly put him over the top. If there is and it isn't Edwards, then supporting him is pointless. You might as well protest the money-driven coronation by supporting Kucinich, who will be in it to the end as he was in 2004.

[polichick]

54. I'd like to think there would be a place for Dennis...

...in an Edwards administration.

[ulysses]

55. yeah.

I can't bring myself to argue the point with Kucinich supporters, because they're correct on any number of points. Still, Edwards is the best chance we have to actually make any kind of real improvement through the ballot box.

That said, we have a long haul ahead of us no matter who wins.

[maxanne]

74. you want marriage equality

yet you're supporting a candidate who is against it?

[ulysses]

85. no presidential candidate will give us marriage equality.

Certainly not in 2008, anyway. And at any rate, don't mistake my support for Edwards for being overjoyed with all his positions.

[maxanne]

89. you do know

that Dennis Kucinich supports marriage equality?

[ulysses]

90. I do - it's one of the reasons he's my natural candidate.

I'm in the same boat as Armstead, in that I am a huge DK fan. The problem is that, even if he were doing better in other states, I'm in Georgia, and Dennis isn't going to win here. My overall goal is to work to take back the party from our conservative bretheren, and I don't see voting for Dennis in the primary and then winding up with Clinton in the general as the best way to do that.

Voting for Edwards is problematic, sure, but there will be problems no matter what I do this time around.

[GreenArrow]

56. NO thanks.

Edwards is a flim-flam man, and I don't think he'd be any better than a President H. Clinton, or Obama. In fact, Edwards is at the bottom of my list, alternating with Joe Biden.

Kucinich, for all his warts, has been reliable all along, he's been there all along, fighting the good fight. He's been right about nearly every important issue of the day. He's paid his dues, many times over. Edwards simply hasn't. His talk now is the cheapest sort of opportunism and self promotion, and I won't support it.

[FreeState]

57. I refuse to vote for any candidate that is not 100% pro equality in the primary

sorry Mr Edwards - I really like you but you are not 100% for marriage equality in America and I can't vote for that.

[polichick]

58. As I understand it, he's for 100% of the rights...

...but uses the term "civil union" ~ someone asked him about that on msnbc this week or last. I don't really get the hang-up about calling it "marriage" but he'll probably come around.

[Armstead]

62. Then I guess you're not voting in the general election

Only Kucinich supports complete marriage equality.

But he is also going to get single-digits or maybe in the low teens if he's lucky.

(For what it's worth, I completely agree that it's idiotic for candidates not to just support same-sex marriage as a matter of basic civil rights.)

[FreeState]

92. I said in the primaries - in the general I will vote for any dem n/t

[burrowowl]

59. Vote for Dennis

in the caucuses, DK can always tell his delegates to give their vote to Edwards at the Convention. As he did in 2004.
DK getting as many votes as possible can influence many planks of the plaform.

[Armstead]

63. What planks did he influence?

As I recall, all he got was a speech at the convention.

Kerry ran on an abominable platform. I'm not sure he even paid lip service to the Kucinich constituency.

[OneBlueSky]

60. sad, but true . . . my heart is with Dennis, but Edwards is getting my vote . . . n/t

.

[Skittles]

65. no can do

against my moral standards to vote for someone who supported IWR

[Truth2Tell]

67. I don't caucus til Feb. 9,

So I won't be considering any switch at this time. I'd like to see how things play out.

I respect your decision and I'm keeping an open mind about Edwards - skeptical but open.

[joeybee12]

70. To DK supporters, I say vote for DK...

...go with who you believe is the best. That's the only reason you vote.

[MuseRider]

75. Hey Joeybee!

I have not run into you for a while so I thought I would just take this opportunity to say :hi:!

Hope things are well with you and thanks, what you said here in a very few words is exactly what this country and its elections are supposed to be about. :hug:

[joeybee12]

93. Hey back at you!

You're welcome...enjoy the holidays! :hi:

[Snotcicles]

81. Kind of Naderesk isn't it all? nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

77. Unsurpisingly, perhaps, given his DNA, Peter Hitchens is a nut-job on

some issues, but, on the other hand, he is perceptive and informative on others. Read this article on his blogsite, entitled How to Read an Opinion Poll:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

[caseycoon]

82. A vote for Edwards is nothing like a vote for DK

Apples & Oranges.
GO DK!!!

[JeffR]

83. DK gets my primary vote.

If I then end up having to vote Edwards in the GE, that's fine too.

[Armstead]

86. You'll most likely have to end up voting for Hoillary in the General

[Paulie]

87. No, some of us want to vote for Dennis

and not against anyone else. It's an odd concept I know. :) :) :)

And if more people voted their conscience instead of worrying about the general, then we'd be voting for Dennis in both the primary AND the general.

[JeffR]

88. If I have to, I will

Though with little enthusiasm in that case.

[penguin7]

91. Voting for Edwards sends a piss poor mesage

Edwards wanted decisive action against Iraq.

And Edwards is perturbing the health care debate with the stinking crap claim that his plan may lead to single payer.

I am really starting to lose interest in this primary because of all the deluded ones going for Edwards because he is supposedly the most viable progressive candidate, blah, blah, blah. The only thing that interests me about Edwards is the developing National Enquirer scandal. Even if Edwards is not the father there looks to be some dirt there on his campaign.

Edwards is not viable, and a vote for him is no message at all.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. If they were interested in winning they would probably not be supporting Kucinich in the first place

[rjones2818]

97. Why in the world would I vote for.

at best, third of fourth best when I can vote for Dennis?