Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The more I look at Hillary & Obama, the more I appreciate Kucinich.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
calmblueocean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:05 AM
Original message
The more I look at Hillary & Obama, the more I appreciate Kucinich.
While Hillary and Obama go back and forth about whether Obama's past votes match up with his anti-war rhetoric today, there's one candidate whose anti-war credentials are indisputable... and it ain't Hillary.

While Obama and Hillary go back and forth about whose private-health-insurance plan really "covers all", there's one candidate who rejects the whole for profit HMO-monstrosity... and NBC is going to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to keep his voice from being heard.

While Hillary and Obama bicker about Dr. Martin Luther King, there's one candidate in this race who embodies the peaceful, nonviolent struggle for social justice that Dr. King stood for...

While Obama and Hillary make speeches about American jobs, there's only one candidate willing to cancel NAFTA and reject the WTO.


The more I compare, the more I see that there ain't no comparison. The media may be shutting him out, the Democratic party may be infiltrated by corporate interests that choke off meaningful change, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend I don't see it. I don't have to pretend that there are only two candidates running.

Kucinich is what the Democratic party is supposed to be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tennessee Gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. There aren't only two candidates running.
Kucinich, as much as I like him on some issues, does not have a chance.

Edwards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vanje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. Edwards
Edwards is an actual viable alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I want to trust Edwards...but it is very hard for me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yet you trust Kucinich's election eve conversion from his long-held anti-choice position? We need to
have enough faith in our candidates to allow them to evolve or else we get a succession of Bushbots who cannot change their position even when the surrounding facts change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Kucinich's Change on Such a Personal and Emotional Issue
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 11:30 AM by mrone2
is quite different from Edwards apparent change from previously supporting the neo-conservative agenda that brought us the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, etc. I can appreciate Dennis struggle on a very personal issue such as abortion, and I applaud him for coming out on the right side of that issue in the end in spite of his personal beliefs. If that's all you have to throw at Kucinich when attempting to place Edwards above him in election eve conversions then you really are putting yourself out on a thin limb. Virtually EVERYTHING about Edwards current campaign is an "election eve conversion" so who the heck are you kidding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
74. NAFTA was in 1993 when Edwards was a lawyer. The Patriot Act passed 98-0
Kucinich has changed positions on several other issues too, mostly right before running for president. You can't say Kucinich is sincere and Edwards isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. Al Gore voted "pro-life" until 1988
right before he ran for the presidential nomination.


Your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #25
55. My point is that Gore, Edwards, Kucinich, and other have evolved beyond past votes. We should allow
that kind of growth without being cynical about out candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
57. I know what you mean...
it boils down to which one we feel we can trust.

Good luck picking a candidate... if you do. If not, I hope you will vote for whichever one gets the nod.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Thanks, queenie!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. But is He a Believable Alternative?
I can't honestly look at his voting record and say he's a populist even though he's running as one now. Couldn't Edwards just be pretending for the sake of campaign purposes after which he will immediately revert to his traditional roots as a pro-elitist? As a traditional Democrat I want nothing more than to wrest control of my party from the conservative DLC once and for all, and return it to being an advocate for the people where it belongs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Links, please. Support your contention that he's pro-elitist.
He's been fighting corporations for years - directly, one-on-one. He's always fought of behalf of the injured, never on the behalf of those causing harm. He rejected the DLC years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
32. Take a look at his Senate Voting Record
Authorization for Military Action Against Iraq Vote: YES http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3201&can_id=21107
Military Force Authorization Vote: YES http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3067&can_id=21107
No Child Left Behind Vote: YES http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3149&can_id=21107
Increase Minimum Wage Vote: NO http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2643&can_id=21107
The Patriot Act Vote: YES http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3110&can_id=21107
FCC Media Ownership Bill Vote: Didn't Bother to Vote http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3313&can_id=21107
Patient Lawsuit Amendment Vote: NO http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2373&can_id=21107

Does that scream out "populist" to you? Doesn't to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. Thanks for responding. Just saying 'elitist' is name calling, but providing facts
is discussion.

About that discussion:
The first two are military/security votes - nothing to do with 'elitism'. He was wrong on those votes, and has since very publicly repudiated them.

NCLB: Bad vote - which 91 other senators voted for, as well. Though some few people recognized its problems, even its doubters saw it would be as much a disaster as it is - it passed 92-8.

Min. Wage vote: He voted NO - correctly. The vote was to TABLE the bill, and he voted to keep it alive.

Patriot Act: Bad vote, but again a military/security vote which he believes should be revisited. Don't know that he's actually repudiated it. Again, no 'elitism' involved.

Patient rights vote: Voted NO - correctly. "Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language from the bill validating a patient's right to sue their insurer in state courts if damages resulted from a denial of medical care from the bill." He did not want to remove the protections.

You might want to review your talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #32
73. Coming around to your way of thinking. After watching this debate plus
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 12:59 AM by ooglymoogly
the fact that people say whatever they need to get elected yet have a totally different voting record, plus the exclusion of Kucinich, am going back to my original plan of voting for Kucinich in the primary no matter what. He has had it right from the beginning and voted his beliefs. I know I can trust him. After that I will be a good soldier and sadly vote whoever the corporate media has pushed down our throats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. Kucinich has changed his views on many things, including abortion
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 01:05 AM by jackson_dem
Spare us the Kucinichite BS about St. Dennis. He changes his views as often as anyone else, including big bad Edwards. Do you really think he was always for gay marriage, for example? He was mayor of Cleveland in the 1970's. Do you think he was for reparations then? From what I understand he was hardly mr. liberal on issues of race at a time when there were a lot of tensions between blacks and white ethnics (like Kucinich) in big northern cities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #73
85. After a reality check from Jackson_dem and viva_la_revolution I am back on the wagon
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 02:23 PM by ooglymoogly
After reading his whole record and particularly the sunset clause in Patriot I am back on board...I love Dennis but I just don't see that happening realistically and since Edwards does I will vote for him in the primary and convince all my friends to do the same since they, sometimes foolishly, place a lot of stock in my opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
76. Ok. Here it is
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 01:11 AM by jackson_dem
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

Edwards's Record as A Freshman Senator
Lawmaker Labored on Issues Such as Health Care, Intelligence and Trade

-snip-

Edwards has little in the way of concrete legislative achievements, but he gained attention on issues ranging from health care to intelligence to environmental protection.

While aspiring to build a national profile, Edwards also labored on issues important to his home state, such as proposing amendments to help textile workers who were losing their jobs to lower-wage workers in other nations. In recent weeks, he increasingly has raised trade issues in trying to differentiate himself from Kerry.

-snip-

He voted to support abortion rights, authorize the war in Iraq, require criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, block the confirmation of some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, and prohibit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-snip-

But it was the patients' bill of rights, which Edwards had championed in his 1998 Senate campaign, that proved to be his biggest accomplishment -- and disappointment.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators. "I think it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have very different records on trade," Edwards recently told reporters. On the same day, Kerry declared: "We have the same policy on trade -- exactly the same policy."

In discussing trade, Edwards focuses on the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted with Kerry's support five years before Edwards entered the Senate. While his campaign statements assert that "Edwards has consistently opposed NAFTA," the North Carolina senator recently told New York Times editors that NAFTA "is an important part of our global economy," although he wants tougher protections for the environment and worker conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-2004Feb28_2.html

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial

Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights

Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws

Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway

Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway

Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"

Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada

Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination

Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act

Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.

Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 05:26 AM
Response to Reply #32
82. And here's more of his Senate record...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4082013
just a snip of PurityOfEssence's awesome post..


So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd ... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
34. oh please. he may be sincere but it's only been 2 years and
2 months since he repudiated the war and apologized for his vote. And yeah, he fought on behalf of the injured but he got a big payday for it too. And it the Senate he damn well was often on the side of those doing wrong- bankruptcy and Yucca Mt, China trade. That's not even getting into working for one of the most elitest company's you can imagine- Fortress Investments.

I'd like to believe too. I have a hard time doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
43. Not for me, he argued very persuasively for the Iraq invasion
knowing that an intelligence report on Iraq's WMDS's was not up to date. Other senators on the Intelligence Committee sought new intelligence, instead one week later he gave a speech on the senate floor and then 2 weeks later he wrote the op-ed piece in the Washington Post urging quick action on the vote for Iraq.

Then his talk in January 2007 in regards to Iran...where's the evidence?

"...At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world..."

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223


This is the 9/12/02 speech, at the 9/5/2002 Intelligence meeting with Tenet they learned there was no updated intelligence.

He may have apologized for his actual vote, but what he did leading up to the vote shows poor judgment on the most serious issue of sending American soldiers into war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY6BZgkI0kI


Edwards from the 10/07/02 speech to CSIS, even though a hastily produced NIE had been prepared he did not read it before giving this speech.

"This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw100702sp.html


At the same time Kucinich was saying there is no evidence of an imminent threat to the US from Iraq.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #43
78. Obama and Hillary say the same thing about Iran. Maybe they listen to what Iran's leadership says
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 01:08 AM by jackson_dem
Kucinich can play for the cameras all he wants because he doesn't have to worry about ever making the hard choices in the Oval Office on things like Iran or after a terrorist attack (Kucinich was one of 6 who voted against a bill that passed 404-6 to study radicalization and terrorism).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #78
86. Not much difference between the three on Iran.Or maybe they are
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 04:42 PM by slipslidingaway
listening to the Bush/Cheney crowd too much...two of them were already fooled and did not bother to read the classified intelligence.

Here is why Kucinich opposed the bill...why do you think he should have voted for it?

Why even bring this new topic up, Kucinich is looking three steps ahead on many pieces of legislation instead of just voting to go along as many do.


Infomation from this link
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/695672.aspx

"...“If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Kucinich said. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.”

Kucinich referred to the bill as the “thought crime bill,” when he explained in a joking fashion that, “We have freedom of speech. Thoughts, sometimes, proceed speech. There is usually a unity in thought, word and deed.”

The bill would create a National Commission, who would be charged with the task (of) making legislative recommendations on how to prevent, disrupt and mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Many activists, scholars and civil liberties experts are worried that in order to prevent an act of “homegrown terrorism,” people who have radical or “extreme belief systems” would have to be monitored before a criminal act might occur. This, they surmise, would amount to unlawful surveillance of individuals who are critical to the Bush administration and those who hold power in the current economic and political system..."

Also opposing the bill...

Kamau Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that the bill "concentrates on the internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming across into the United States and to American citizens.” <30>

LewRockwell.com columnist Jeff Knaebel criticizes it as an Orwellian thought crime bill specifically targeting the civilian population in the USA and defines "Violent Radicalization" as promoting any belief system which the government deems to be "extremist." <31>

Institutional reaction

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement saying:, "Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme."<33>

The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers issued a joint statement opposing the Bill: "The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly urge the Senate to refuse to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." Details about their objections can be read here.

The Center for Constitutional Rights opposes the bill and issued this Fact Sheet.

The John Birch Society wrote in an Action Alert: "I haven't found anyone who supports this bill and contests these very negative interpretations. If there isn't anyone who can explain why it does not have these negative consequences, than your objective template is unwarranted and should be removed."<34>


The Center for Constitutional Rights opposes the bill and issued this Fact Sheet.

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act-2007

"...However the greater fear should be the possible future outcomes of any report, which will focus in on passing additional federal criminal penalties that are sweeping and inclusive in criminalizing dissent and protest work more surveillance on thought rather than on actions. Further this bi-partisan attempt can set the ground for an even more acquiescent Congress to Presidential power, never wanting to look weak on terrorism...

...The focus on the internet is crucial, it can set up far more intrusive surveillance techniques, without warrants, and the potential to criminalize ideas and not actions can mean penalties for your stance rather than any criminal act..."











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. Hear! Hear! Kucinich! Kucinich all the way!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
5. If the MSM has its way
we'll only have a choice that is no choice. Vote Kucinich!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jojo54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. While I agree with you, K is done, he's cooked.
The media saw to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. What's done and cooked is our hopes and dreams. If we don't believe they are viable then of
they aren't.

The media didn't see to anything. People themselves are perfectly willing participants in the shrinking of their own possibilities.

I'm voting my hopes and dreams this election. I'm not voting NBC's hopes and dreams.

Whose hopes and dreams are you voting for?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jojo54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Who the hell said anything about not voting my hopes & dreams?
I'm just stating fact about the media and how they can mislead everyone - stop trying to read something else into my statement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
9. I see it as the loss of the American dream. People no longer vote their hopes and dreams,
instead they vote for who NBC tells them is viable.

Peace in Iraq? Sure NBC is all for it, except is just isn't viable.

Non-profit health insurance for all? It sounds good, but it just isn't viable.

Reverse the anti-labor anti-human rights anti-environment NAFTA? Sorry, that isn't viable.

Impeach criminals? Not viable.

I'm saddened most by my fellow Democrats who are willing to have what is possibilities defined for them by coroporate America. They are willing participants in shrinking their own viability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. You put it well
Everyone is being told what they need and want is "not viable." And people are believing that.

Wake up everyone! The only reason we can't have it is because vested interests don't want us to!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calmblueocean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. You hit the nail on the head.
It's an old story, but it's never been more obvious or more poignant than today. The media define an acceptable range of candidates, and then give them free airtime by focusing only on those candidates, increasing their visibility, and making anyone else "non-viable".

Kucinich's candidacy this year has really made me think about how to change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
29. Oh hell yes!
This is my number one problem with the "conventional wisdom" democrats. (some of whom I have argued bitterly with on this very board) They really don't end up standing for anything specifically different than nor do they embrace the causes of their democratic constituents, nor any populist causes at all.

It is infernally frustrating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
14. Dreams are nice ...
Reality is better.

Perhaps a UFO will save his campaign.

I think that Dennis is simply too liberal to lead this country. If our party were represented by his ideals, we would hold a small minority in Congress and our Presidential hopes would have to wait for another decade or two -- or three.

Simply put -- this country is not revolutionary, it is progressive.
We do things in progressive steps.

It's time to stop with the all-or-nothing philosophy that has left libs standing on the side-lines for so long. We need to inject some realism into our discussions and progress forward in a calculated, planned way -- taking critical steps in the direction of liberalizing our domestic and foreign policies.

We are asking someone to represent all of America -- not just a few cities.
Dennis represents a small district -- and this country does not reflect that constituency.

Get over it.

W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calmblueocean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. With the great results your approach has gotten us so far, who can argue with it?
I know I'm sure proud of the Democratic party these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. I am ... :)
Indeed, I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. If you want to vote against your dreams go right ahead. I'm voting my dreams.
In both the primary and the general.

I can't vote for war. I can't vote for heath insurance corporations. If that's what you want to vote for go for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. Nobody holds a monopoly on dreams ...
Please don't define my dreams for me.

I was brought up by women -- and as a gay man, I have always been protected by women. My mother was a single mother, raising two kids -- and my sister being 10 years older than me acted as a second mother in the household.

My mom is the strongest lady I know and I respect her more than I can express here in this post. She is hard working, dedicated, and though she is in pain from not having health care for so long, she carries on with the hope that one day Hillary will bring her the care she needs. Every time she sees Hillary speak she tears up.

And although you'd think those tears were a sign of weakness based on recent MSM and punditry coverage, it's a sign of hope for me.

My heart lies with the working mother. It brings tears to my eyes.

This country -- this world has abused women and has suppressed women forever.

In this world exists sex slaves, exists battered wives, exists raped girls -- and in this world, thankfully, exists a woman who has the first real chance of leading the world's most powerful country.

I'm proud of her -- and I will vote my dreams and my logic this year.
Finally -- those two can come together in one candidate.

Thanks!
W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
46. "I am over the liberal all-or-nothing quagmire."
At least you're honest enough to admit that Hillary is not a liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Right ...
I don't even agree with Hillary on all issues.
That's not the point.

Thanks for noticing that.

W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
63. Vote for "seperate but equal" if you choose. I choose full rights for all. I too
was raised by a single working mom.

She thought "seperate but equal" was equivalent to second class citizenship, and so do I.

But we all have to make our own choices.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #63
70. Sorry?
Separate but equal?

First -- I don't know what you're talking about.

Second -- Equality is not the goal here. Fairness is the goal. Equality is simply impossible. No 1 person is equal to any other person. It's impossible.

Who is for separation here?

I think some libs on this board have taken the anti-Hillary thing to a whole new level. I know that it's easy to point to someone and blame them for all the world's problems. But it's absurd to point to anyone of these candidates and expect they can provide the solutions to all the world's problems.

W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #70
83. Some "libs"?
That's a Yahoo Repuke slur, ICYDK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #70
84. You know, seperate but equal as in seperate facilities for those people some would prefer
weren't amonsts us. Like they did in the South to non whites.

When earth mother Hillary declared that her children who are gay don't deserve to get married like the rest of the hetro sexual population, I'm sure she did it because "mom" always loved her straight children best, nothing more than that.

Equal protection under the law isn't impossible. in fact Hillary has long advocated that for women - unless they are gay. In that case, seperate but equal is her postition.

I'm voting for Kucinich in both the primary and the general, and one of my many reasons for this is that he advocates equal rights under the law for all - period.

I think Hill needs to be accountable for her views, for her platform. I love Hillary as a person. She's smart, charming, and funny.

I can't and won't vote for her. I won't vote for seperate but equal.

But you can if you want to. If that's your dream, to elect someone who is perfectly willing to consign you to second class citizenship, well I say go for it! And good luck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. The DLC will set you free? (you can use that if you want for a bumper sticker)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
51. no, no, thats:
Arbeit Macht Frei.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. You could not be more wrong.
You could try to be, but you would not succeed. You are mistaking the corporate mandates with the people's will. You are mistaking the paid for politicians with ones who really care for the country. You are mistaking "progressive" with "corporate-acceptable". Sorry, but the other Democratic candidates this season are just same old, same old...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. Your last name isn't Marshall, is it?
Even if it's not, you'll have to excuse me if I'm not a little bit offended when someone who signs his name as "W" tells me to "get over it".

I won't get over what the Bush-Clinton dynasty has done to this country for a long long time. And I won't tolerate anymore of their shit either. It's time to restore America. It's time to elect a REAL Democrat again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. :-)
Cute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. Spoken like a true Nixonian Republican
Except Nixon was a lot more liberal than what passes for Democratic front runners these days.

NIXON NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. another Hillbot to put on ignore
Wow...funny how I never see so many shills until there is a primary

And if you want to know why are being ignored...it's your UFO statement. You have nothing to contribute but insults.

Have fun further splitting the party with your insults and sneers. By the time you and the rest of the Hillbots are done, you will be left holding the bible for the next puke President wondering why the "liberals" you constantly insult and denigrate didn't help you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. The UFO Statement is legitimate. :-)
I'm sorry -- the guy saw a UFO.
Even if he did -- let's not bring that up in a debate.

Are you kidding me?

We give DK a pass on UFO sightings? Why?

W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calmblueocean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. Kucinich saw a UFO, Hillary saw WMD. Which was worse?
I think there's an interesting moral to be drawn from the whole UFO vs. WMD parallel.

Kucinich knew that acknowledging he saw something he couldn't identify in the sky would be spun in all sorts of negative ways, but it was the truth, so he stood his ground with integrity. The same way he has on Iraq.

Hillary has never been able to reconcile her Iraq war vote, on the other hand. She voted out of political expediency and everyone -- EVERYONE -- knows it. She saw WMD that weren't there, and thousands upon thousands have died for it.

Laugh it off if you want, but integrity matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I agree with you ...
The little guy was at least honest about the UFO sighting.

And perhaps I am a brat for bringing it up.
It was a distraction from my point.

Hillary's vote for war must be put into context. This is a lady who was Senator of New York, a state devastated by the events of 9/11 during a time when this entire country supported and trusted the President of the United States of America.

This country was for the war. This country will vote in 2008.

W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #50
61. Man! You tie 9/11 to Iraq WMD in the tried and true Bushian fashion,
and then refer to Kucinich as the "little guy"? You must be an Obama plant, because you are not doing Clinton(Bush) any favors...oh, and ignore...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. 9/11 and Iraq were tied ...
In the justification for Iraq.

9/11 happened.
George Bush was trusted with everything by the American people.
He used that trust to justify Iraq.

I'm not saying there is an actual link.
I'm saying the justification is linked.

Ignore me. He is a little guy. :-)

W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
33. Actually if it wasn't for "revolutionaries" we'd be bitching about the Queen now.
Reality? Sure. Reality is that if we do things in progressive steps, it is because someone has had the courage to take the BIG steps and the rest just follow.


I think maybe you need to open you mind and dig a bit deeper into what the Dem party used to be before the shift away from people centered politics towards the almighty corporation. Sounds like you are simply repeating what you've been told. Thats really too baaa baaa baaaad.


Kucinich should be allowed to get eh same exposure as the other candidates- let the people decide, not the corporate media or Dem party tell us who we want .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. The people have decided ...
Kucinich isn't a realistic candidate.

W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #38
49. I would say that if he had gotten the same media exposure as the
others, but I know that he hasn't.

I know how we in Minnesota had to BEG the local media to cover his visits, and how some of the TV stations, even though they sent camera crews, did not show him speaking in front of eager crowds but instead ran a story about a rural sheriff who'd had an adulterous affair.

I know how the New York Times ran everyone's campaign schedule, including Sharpton's, on a daily basis, but not Kucinich's.

I know how the New York Times ran articles on candidates' positions on various issues, such as defense and health care. Lieberamn, Gephardt, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Graham each got a full paragraph. Dennis got a one-sentence summary.

You cannot say that DK had the same media exposure as the others, because he simply did not--and that disrespect began before a single vote had been cast anywhere, including Iowa.

Working on that campaign made me a total cynic about the election process in this country. I now see it for the rigged scam that it is.

No, I'm not a sore loser. If DK had gotten the same media exposure as Lieberman and Gephardt and had lost, I could have lived with that.

But 2004 made me realize that the corporate media choose our candidates for us. They don't care who wins or loses, as long as the candidate is properly respectful to the corporate establishment. Right now, they don't care whether HRC or Obama wins, because neither one will rock the boat, and both will content themselves with placing little band-aids on the giant, festering wounds that this country has suffered. Since either one is fine with them, they're trying to foment squabbles over trivia that will get people riled up and improve their (the media's) ratings.

I think the Edwards supporters are beginning to understand how DK supporters felt in 2004.

Oh, and WilltheGoober, it's great that you had all those strong women in your life, but this particular woman candidate is not what we need right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. umm ...
There's a reason he hasn't gotten much exposure.

Why do we always blame the media?
Which comes first -- media or people's interest?

The media is a business responding to customers.
The customers don't like DK. His views are too outrageous for America right now.

I disagree with you on Hillary. It's that simple.

Good luck.

W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. The Media's best interest comes first.
Always. Its always about the bottom line which is the almighty dollar.

You have a candidate that might make it a little tougher for them to get & keep those dollars and he **happens** to be marginalized. How hard is it to figure out that there is a connection here?



The media is not *responding * to its customers. The media creates and controls those customers.It is sad that so many are unable to grasp that we are the ones being controlled, not the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #53
62. I remember being that naive, too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #53
71. media does Not 'respond to customers'
so much as they respond to the needs of the owner mega corps and their shareholders who have their fingers in nice little profitable wars. what a sweet set-up.

Need wars for that most lucrative business on earth - war toys? - false advertising it on the mass media does the trick.

THAT is why Kucinich is not allowed to fairly share the microphone in these primaries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. One definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over
and expecting a different result.

And that is exactly what you are advocating. The Joe Lieberman centrist appeasing conservative philosophy has never done anything good for our democracy.

Maintaining the status quo simply does not work; this country is being destroyed, and the approach to governing that you perceive as reality is exactly the thing that is destroying it.

That's reality. The evidence is all around you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillTheGoober Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. We can argue all day ...
But the fact remains that DK isn't doing well.

Let's blame MSM -- let's blame everybody but ourselves.

He is a weak candidate. I agree with a lot of what he says. In fact, I probably agree more with DK than Hillary. But this country is not ready.

We can force things down America's throat all we want -- but it's just going to get spit back up.

I didn't mean to make this a hate-on-Kucinich post.
But I'm a little tired of his insanity.

Realism is important.
If he's in this to inject new ideas and new topics -- if he's in this to hold Obama and Clinton accountable -- Great. But to continue this pretend campaign is absurd and an insult to liberals everywhere.

Are we so delusional and so caught up in this absurd revolutionary crap that we cannot see that DK is not realistically going to win anything?

A couple years ago this country fully supported George W. Bush. We're going to go from that to DK?

W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
65. "Fully supported George Bush"?
There's strong evidence that he had to cheat his way into office both times, and after 9/11, the average American would have supported Porky Pig in the White House, they were such reflexive scaredy cats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #40
66. Fully supported George Bush?? What a crock of shit.
First, half the people in this country never voted at all. (a sad byproduct of the so-called Democrats running to the right)

More than half of those who did vote, voted for Gore in 2000, and - regardless of what DIEBOLD machines said - Chimpy lost support in every single subsect of the Republican party before the 2004 election, so he had to have had LESS votes against Kerry than he did against Gore, though the theft was so widespread that we'll probably never know the real numbers.

Realistically though, it's safe to say that Chimpy never got more than 24% of the eligible voting population.

Dennis Kucinich could have the votes of that 50% who won't vote for a DLC corporatist at all. It would be a landslide, and it would be the end of the DLC.

And that's why you guys are so fucking desperate to kick him out of the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
72. DK is doing very well, but so is the status quo.
I know which side I'm on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
56. And yet, you would have all Dems vote for Billswife?
Please.

LOVED this part of your post, however:

"Simply put -- this country is not revolutionary, it is progressive.
We do things in progressive steps."


:rofl:


"Don't know much about history." ---Sam Cooke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
24. Boy, ain't that the truth!

DK has the most insightful message and plan, that's for sure.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
27. Thank you, Dennis voted for many issues that supported the
people. His judgment and courage to stand up to the administration's rush to war in Iraq and now Iran gets my support.

It's called courage, he speaks out and fights when events are happening even though it may not be in his best political interests.

He challenges the corporations NOW, not some promise in the future.

The only candidate to raise the issue of the draft Iraq Oil Law which will help foreign companies control Iraq's resources in the future.

Union leaders being kidnapped and killed for the right to be heard :( he met with some leaders in Washington when they came to ask for help from the people.

The top three candidates have said nothing on Iraq Oil Law issue.

:( :(













Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winston61 Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
30. Kucinich is the man,
When is America going to wake the fuck up? Hillary is just Cheney in a pant suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
31. The more I look at any of them, the more I appreciate Al Gore.
Ah well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calmblueocean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. I'd appreciate Al Gore even more if he were actually running.
There's something so bitterly ironic about the fact that Kucinich has run in spite of the fact that all odds are against him, and Gore has refused to run even though all the odds are in his favor. The fact that he won't step up to the plate when he has every advantage and is so needed is maddening and frustrating.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. The man has a right to live his life.
I'm disappointed that he didn't run, but you can't blame him for choosing to pursue what he wants to pursue. It may also be that he looked closely at the current field and decided that the nomination was by no means in the bag; it would be humiliating for a man of Gore's stature to run and lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calmblueocean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Don't disagree with you there
Gore's suffered enough for one man. It's a testament to his character that he's been able to outlast all the slurs and smears and redefine himself in spite of them. And given his great new life, I'm sure I wouldn't want to give that up, either. But like your original post points out, there's no one in the race with the assets Gore has. I think a Gore-Obama ticket would've been a walk, and set us up for 16 years of good democratic governance, maybe enough time to fix a quarter of what the Bush admin has screwed up. I and a lot of other people hungered for a chance to set a few things right and get Gore back in the White House again. I count the fact that he didn't run as a major loss for this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
52. Agreed.
My sentiments pretty much exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. I can respect his not wanting to run,
but I wish he was stumping for Dennis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
58. *sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Girlieman Donating Member (399 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
59. In total agreement
Edwards would be my second choice. A far second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
67. "Kucinich is what the Democratic party is supposed to be"
Yup. I've said that same exact thing time and time again.

Dennis Kucinich represents what our Party is supposed to stand for better than anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. That's true, and it leads me to this question:
Why do all the partisan Democrats; the yellow dogs who put party before all, not support the candidate who best represents what that party is supposed to be?

There is a disconnect here that I cannot get past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
68. Correct on all counts. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud2BAmurkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
75. Look at McCain then nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Congress Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
79. I'm with ya!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
80. Kucinich is about the democracy that the word
"Democratic" should be referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
81. Well, support him then
Even if the corpos dictate our candidate choices, we can at least register a protest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC