"You don't bring 'Kumbaya' to a gunfight"

[AmBlue]

(Great diary from over at dkos. All emphasis is in the original.)

You don't bring "Kumbaya" to a gunfight
by occams hatchet
Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:26:13 PM PST
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/6/185639/3627/371/431848

Look, I'm not going to write a "candidate diary." I never read those, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to read them, either.

But BenGoshi's diary today got me. I hear what he's saying.

occams hatchet's diary :: ::

Forgive me, but none of these really address my issue with Obama, to wit: Happy Talk, Hope, and Fairy Dust will run into a BUZZSAW of GOP/Neo Robber Baron opposition that will CRUSH all those pretty notions of "change" . . .

I got very turned off, not at "hope" (hell, I hope, too!) but at what I consider to be a milquetoasty naivety that hope alone, that a willingness to be conciliatory, that wishful thinking and a willingness to compromise -- before even beginning to join the fight -- will do anything but (again) leave a large swath of the American citizenry under the heel of the most powerful corporations in the world, and a hellofalot of stunned Obama supporters wondering if anyone got the number of the truck that ran 'em all down in the weeks and months following Inauguration Day 2009.

Amen to that. And I'm not just speaking about Obama - I'm talking about every Democrat, including those in Congress.

Listen, I was as gung-ho as anybody about the Democratic takeover of Congress way back in November of 2006 (remember that?). Yeah, I gave Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the benefit of the doubt, even after Pelosi had taken impeachment off the table. Long after.

The reason I did so was that I held on to the belief - based on no evidence - that the Democrats were pursuing some clever, brilliant political strategy that involved somehow concealing their true intentions. You know - saying one thing and doing another, right?

But unfortunately for we who worked so hard to get them elected (and unfortunately for the rest of the country as well), the Democrats under Pelosi and Reid's leadership did what they said they would do - and nothing more. During their campaigns, they made it a point to assure everyone that it wasn't their intention to be confrontational, that they just wanted to "work with" their "colleagues" across the aisles, that "bipartisanship" would be the order of the day, that impeachment was "off the table."

We all know where that has gotten us.

I for one have grown weary of Democrats who tremble in fear at the thought of confrontation over fundamental issues. I am mystified by milquetoast Democratic proclamations of comity and cooperation with Republics who have repeatedly and without apology blocked, trampled upon and derided efforts by Democrats to pass legislation that would benefit the vast majority of Americans, or that would ensure protection of the civil liberties of Americans.

What I really don't understand is why it is that Democrats who are so damn concerned about getting elected don't seem to understand that making a principled stand for protection of the individual also happens to be, at this moment in American history, a very politically savvy thing to do?

So - why won't so many of them make that stand?

I'll let you, dear reader, come to your own conclusions as to the answer to that question.


Democrats must be unapologetic and, indeed, fiercely combative in their pursuit of what is right for the American people. Anything less, particularly in light of the undeniable history of scorn demonstrated by Republic officeholders toward the interests of individual Americans over the past seven years, is pathetic and inexcusable.

Anyone who is actually serious about advancing a "Democratic agenda" - as opposed to just pandering, saying what he or she thinks voters want to hear - surely knows that Republic opposition to any single iota of that agenda will brook no half measures. There is no "making peace" with Republics in office. The last twelve months of ostensible Democratic control of Congress should be enough to remove any doubt on that score. If anyone needs further proof of the necessity for uncompromising pursuit of Democratic policies, I do not know what to say to them.

The reason that there is no making peace is that Republics are simply doing the bidding of their corporate masters. And what BenGoshi said in his diary is absolutely correct: unless they are backed into a corner and forced to do so, in 99,999 cases out of 100,000, corporations will only do whatever in their opinion will most greatly enhance their profitability in the near term. Period. That is what they do.

I work in corporate business. I speak from personal experience, as do BenGoshi and John Edwards: In dealing with corporations, when push comes to shove, good intentions get you nowhere. (Although certain corporate executives - particularly those in the health insurance field - might find those intentions useful for paving the thoroughfare to their eternal homes.) Corporations act out of a profit motive, pure and simple. In the vast majority of cases, regardless of what their TV ads or their annual reports might say, there are no "values" that guide those corporations beyond the "value" of increasing the value of their shares - indeed, it can very truthfully be said that the directors and officers of those corporations would be in violation of their legal obligations, their fiduciary responsibilities, if they were to act any differently.

So - corporations look out for their own interests. That is what they do. There is no sense arguing about that; it is a fact. Once you accept that fact, you realize that in order to best serve the interests of the human beings of this country (as opposed to the corporate beings), we must, when necessary, fight the corporations not only in the courts but in the other two branches of government as well. Because of their financial resources, corporations - which have no vote - have plenty of "friends" who work hard to influence government to act in the corporations' interests. Voters have only themselves, acting at the ballot box. The question facing American voters - not just in this election, but in every election - is, How much of the government that is supposed to be representing ME do I want to hand to the corporations?

Is there anyone among the readers of this blog who believes that the Republics and their corporate cronies (and, for that matter, the representatives of corporate interests among Democrats) will not fight tooth and nail, using every tool at their disposal, to take care of their interests during the next administration? By that same token, it is only right that those who are fighting for the people's interests should do the same - and should strongly and unashamedly say, during their campaigns for office, that they intend to do so. Otherwise - particularly given the Democrats' recent history of playing nice - just like they said they would when they were running for election before November 2006 - it is only logical to assume that any Democratic candidate will approach citizen advocacy exactly as they say they will during their campaign. And if their support for citizen advocacy is tepid during their campaigns, it makes sense to assume it will be no more enthusiastic once they have taken office. And if insipid, mealy-mouthed, tepid-at-best citizen advocacy is what is promised during the campaign, you can rest assured that after the oath of office has been taken, the relentless, merciless corporations will have their way.

Until any Democrat comes out and - in so many words - says that he or she will fight corporate interests wherever and whenever they conflict with human interests, I will not believe that they intend to do so. And even if they do proclaim such a position, I reserve my right to be skeptical. But at the very least - again, based on bitter experience after the November 2006 election - I will believe that no candidates' actions once elected will be more forceful than their words on the campaign trail.

The great news is that it's not too late for all of the Democratic candidates to come out and - in so many words, not cloaked in some ambiguous platitudes, but expressed forcefully and pointedly - state exactly where they stand when it comes to Humans vs. Corporations.

And, in case anyone is thinking that this diary is a "hit piece" - I've got no dog in this fight; I was a Dodd supporter. Ever since I went to his breakout session at the YearlyKos convention, I have appreciated his outspokenness on issues of Constitutional importance. To me, there was nothing more pressing facing this country than the defense of our founding document. But I also realize this: The threat that Republics in general and this administration in particular represent to the Constitution - that is, to the individual liberties guaranteed by that document to all Americans - flows naturally and unavoidably from their single-minded pursuit of corporate profits, to the exclusion of any other regard.

It therefore naturally follows that any Democrat who makes it his or her stated purpose to take a stand for the interests of individual American citizens when they are in opposition to those of corporations is standing for the protection of the Constitution - because the Constitution was never intended as an instrument designed to protect corporations.

Those who support defense of the Constitution will support Democrats who hew to that principle. And - it is to be hoped - those Democratic candidates who hew to that principle will say so, loudly, repeatedly and without apology.

[havocmom]

1. .

[AmBlue]

2. The comments that follow

...this diary over at dkos are, many of them, just about as good as the diary so you might want to go check them out. Thanks for keeping this kicked. Hats off to occams hatchet.

[Dhalgren]

3. Reckick! Great rant and absolutely true!

:thumbsup:

[DaLittle Kitty]

59. K&R! Right On... This is the concept everyone must embrace!

:think:

[ewagner]

4. This is also my issue

with Obama....

Look...I've been in politics for a lot of years...and it gets ugly sometimes, and the bad news is that Rove is a disciple of Lee Atwater and the founders of the dirty tricks and "kick 'em in the balls" politicking that we THOUGHT we stomped out in the Nixon era. We also know that the goals of the current republican party isn't simply victory in November of 2008 but the total annihilation of the Democratic party...Rove, and Grover Norquist want a "permanent Republican Majority" and remember, it was Norquist who called bipartisanship "date rape".

I see the current political situation as being akin to an "arms race". Once one side escalates the other side must either leap-frog the opponent or capitulate.

Remember this truism about political advertising and it will tell you almost all you need to know....
Americans say they hate negative political advertising, but they tailor their vote in direct response to negative ads. In other words, negative ads work...the other side knows this and they will not hesitate to use those ads...ever...

Obama is about ready to walk into a buzzsaw...(maybe Hillary will use it on him in New Hampshire before the Repubs can use it?)....and he unarmed...he's unprepared.

I've suggested before and will do so again that we need some real street fighters to win the elections but they must be willing to relinquish their power and authority once elected in order to put strong laws and policies into place that will either ban forever or punish the gut-cutters. Sort of like a hired gun that will retire to the wilderness at the end of the battle....

too idealistic, huh?

[AmBlue]

5. "Humans vs. Corporations" ----->>BRILLIANT!!!

Now, THIS is the way to frame the debate. Humans don't have sufficient voice in our government and it's time we make sure of it by electing a President who will fight for HUMANS over CORPORATIONS.

The Humans simply MUST win this one. My kids are depending on us.

[americanstranger]

6. Conciliation = Surrender.

You'd think that after seeing the Republican brand of 'reaching across the aisle,' that Democrats would wise up. The only result I've seen in the past 8 years is Repubs reaching across the aisle to take Dems' lunch money, over and over again.

It's part of the reason I'm kind of discouraged at this point. Even with a field of exemplary candidates, I still have this rising dread that whoever gets nominated is going to be savaged, slandered and destroyed, and another dangerous, imbecilic Republican will take Bush's seat in the White House.

- as

[Breeze54]

7. K&R'd!! - I love the name too -- 'occams hatchet' - lmao!!

:rofl:

Absofuckinglutely! Don't bring a fucking feather to a gun fight!! :grr:

:kick:

[AmBlue]

9. yessirree.... The whole thing is dead on.

I love that name, too!

[Breeze54]

13. The GOP Oppositional Research Group has already been hard at work!

The shit is definately on it's way! In fact, it's already started.

And besides HRC obvious attacks and slights, they already went after Obama, Kucinich and Edwards.

[AmBlue]

15. It's already started with the big CON...

CON = Corporate Owned News

The Big CON plays kingmaker while the uninformed electorate take the CON-bait. Meanwhile the full force of the predator lays in wait, sharpening the knives. Watching, waiting to see how well CON does its job. It's so painfully obvious who they want on the other side and who they don't, isn't it? The one they DON'T want is the one that's taking a stand for The People and it's no coincidence. If his message breaks out, they are in trouble, so the paint him as the "angry guy." How they must love the idea of yet another "Kumbayah" candidate to run against.

I have no doubt it's just like Edwards says. They'll run a freight train straight through him.

[snagglepuss]

70. CON !!!! Way better acronym than MSM. Great posts k & R

:kick:

[Triana]

8. Damn Right - see my sigline. Edwards gets it...(n/t)

[Catchawave]

32. Love it !

JE has been in the trenches with corporations for over 20 years, he knows them, better yet, he's not afraid of them :hi:

[Donnachaidh]

10. we don't need a change candidate with a pocketfull of Corporate IOU's

Anyone who REALLY thinks a candidate that is being financed by big corporations is going to do a damn thing for the little guy is just plain DELUSIONAL.

We need a FIGHTER -- not an American Idol wannabee.

[Kansas Wyatt]

31. That Corrects The Republican Shoves To The Right

We need a candidate that will SHOVE the country back toward the left.

[PATRICK]

11. Obama can win big

and the Dem cause still fall short. I would have preferred to believe he was just a tad cynical about the general philosophy and that it was the big sell to the biggest numbers. Unfortunately from many of his life comments and matching campaigns comments which have no special bearing other than gratuitous sincerity he really believes the weak crap and not as convincing on the strong stuff. It is just the reverse, I think, with Edwards. He gives every sign, maybe with some cynical politicking for reality's sake, of shoving aside the weak crap, despite a personality that can be very accommodating and eager to please, and diving headfirst into the strong stuff for OUR sake, for everyone's. The balance of real belief, campaign sell and political acumen for me is better with edwards.

However, Obama indeed may have the floating right theme stuff that the media itself will be mesmerized by. definitely in this system gone awry Edwards is not being rewarded for going head on toward a crisis the entire MSM is in essence incapable of giving voice to except the stock market falling once in a while. that is putting in mildly.

In this secretive, information deprived occupation by fraud, the amazing thing is that there have been NO secret plans. A measure of consistency, incompetent guilt and incompetent innocence makes it all unbelievably transparent even as the news refuses to see or let be seen. Because the Dems have completely transparent, consistent and cautious plans, the relatively predictable crooks on the other side can play them every time. Cripes, they probably have been boring to death the people bugging them for years. Bush would go nuts trying to ferret out their "secret" plan which would have been the best secret plan of all had they sort of played that paranoia.

Corporate power corrupts corporately sometimes in exact correlation to amounts exchanged and interests shared. That Dems have played into the media game to the point of accepting the poisoned spin in material ways makes them more reprehensible to the most deranged citizen getting all wisdom form the tube. Media power corrupts the medulla absolutely. When I look back on our supposed cynical talented pols of the past I see the ones exalted beyond the earth and common sense who were not that clever behind the scenes really. Like HHH. And people thought he had sold out to the back room machinations, etc. Which he had in a sense but only pro forma. He got murdered by any pol with a will. The current generation we know is much worse.

Too rich and unrepresentative. To un-streetwise. Too arrogant in the stratosphere. Too compromised by corporate incompatibility with their people service. Too gulled by the "center-right" movement and decades of being defrauded without knowing or if knowing acknowledging even to themselves that the votes were stolen in a thousand ways. Too gulled by the bought fourth estate because they were in the same corporate boat, by golly. Too trapped by compromise to hold a line anywhere at all except Mr. McCawber's firm conviction that something would turn up. Too good to see how bad things really are and especially too good to be aware how responsible they are for a lot of it. A sudden childlike belief in the myth unmatched by any will or means to protect the reality with real action. A morphing into the early stages of GOP corruption which that esteemed party left long ago for the orgies of Nero's sycophants, nuts, stooges and thugs.

If one were to describe the body politic as a whole, with its drowsy head muddled by dreams and nagging disturbances, it is grumpily stirring in its sleep for all that has happened and all the fervor many have shone. Not even close to waking up to a screwed reality and the head is the part most entranced yet the most deluded that it is awake.

[JNelson6563]

34. I wish I could nomminate a reply

Excellent post Patrick. Excellent.

Julie

[PATRICK]

63. I wish could correct the grammar

I was physically really asleep complaining about people politically sleepwalking. Odd..

[The River]

61. Wow

just wow.
Please post this as it's own thread.

[femrap]

12. K and R

Corporations working with government is fascism....and it's wrapped in the flag and carrying a Bible. (As Sinclair said).

[Tyler Durden]

14. Just ONCE I want a cadidate who will say "GO FUCK YOURSELF"...

RIGHT OUT LOUD when warranted. Please note that I SPECIFICALLY do not include that Neocon Coward Cheney in that category.

I want someone who, when it is suggested to them that the PROFIT made by "Health Insurance Providers" is more important than the health of the average citizen will reply (and rightly so, AND VERY LOUDLY):

"ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND????"

Wouldn't that be REFRESHING??

[AmBlue]

17. And there's plenty of ways to say that....

A John Edwards will slice their livers out with a smile.

[Mutineer]

16. And you think HRC can win in a "gunfight"?

Please, she's too busy kissing Republican ass and making deals on the side with billionaire-owned corporations, hell, even Rupert Murdoch to truly fight for us. Give me Edwards and/or Obama any day. At least they get it.

[AmBlue]

18. Where did anyone say anything about HRC??

You can't fight this fight when you're awash in money from the corporatocracy.

There's only one candidate in this race who's not.

[dave123williams]

19. Ghandi did; guess what - he won.

[AmBlue]

20. You've got a point there.... EXCEPT

I don't see Obama in his Armani suits and on the cover of Esquire magazine being quite the Ghandi type.

And let me get this clear: Are you saying you want to sign this nation up for 20, 30, 40 years of abject poverty, peaceful non-violent protests and massacre of thousands at the hands of a militant government? I don't think we're too far from that if we stay on this path. And who knows if it would be peaceful and non-violent? Whatever it was it wasn't all "kumbayah." Is this what we want for our children? Or for our nation?

When we have someone like John Edwards leading the way right now, someone who will be smart, savvy and compassionate, be a true advocate and fight for the rights of The People and against corporate greed-- just like FDR did after our nation's economy collapsed in the '20's-- How can you see this as a choice? Do we really need to sacrifice more lives and see our nation fall into extreme poverty under the iron fist of a fascist government when there's an alternative? You need to think about what it is you're wishing for.

[AmBlue]

24. Furthermore...

Ghandi didn't propose "kumbayah"-- as in let's all get along and play nice. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't either. Far from it. And really, how far do you think that would have gotten them, if he and tens of thousands of Indians communicated nicely to the British government that they wanted their independence and they wanted the Brits to just hand it over to them. Really? This is perfectly illustrative because it's naive-- even silly-- to think that that would have accomplished anything! What Ghandi did was to practice resistance of tyranny through non-violence, truth, and non-cooperation.

Let's be very clear: No one here is advocating violence. We are advocating resistance of corporate power and active advocacy for The People of this nation by electing a President who will take a leading role in doing so.

[dave123williams]

54. Looks to me like Ron Paul's people are already practicing mob violence.

[FrenchieCat]

30. But Edwards, Mr. Iraq War Co-Sponsor is now quite the Ghandi Type?

[balantz]

33. Who besides you made that comparisson?

[FrenchieCat]

35. This post....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2618199&mesg_id=2619007

[balantz]

36. Keep fishing for your little nuggets, I'm sure you'll come up with something

as you always do. I see nothing in that post that compares Edwards to Ghandi.

[AmBlue]

39. I never said Edwards is a Ghandi type.

I said he's smart, savvy and compassionate, and would be a true advocate that would fight for the rights of The People and against corporate greed.

[dave123williams]

53. I was just making a point; you should realize that Mr. Ghandi wore nice suits once, too.

A barrister, and all that.

No, I don't think India's path is ours, but clearly it's worked for us before. Just ask anybody who grew up in the Jim Crow south.

[AmBlue]

58. It certainly hasn't worked well for us...

...because we still fight racism and prejudice everywhere, everyday in this country. And now we're seeing police tasering people at will when they don't like their questions at political functions or when they don't whip out drivers licenses fast enough after getting a speeding ticket. What are we suppose to do about predatory lenders and gas prices through the roof? What about people losing everything because of catastrophic illness or because they simply can't afford the ever-increasing cost of property taxes and home owners insurance? The big corporate interests are doing very well. It's The People everywhere that are struggling. Where does it stop? How do we stop all this and put it right again? As Naomi Wolf says, if we don't take a stand at some point democracy can no longer heal democracy.

We have to (preferably) remove those that have taken us here and install new leaders that will take a principled stand-- or in the case of an impending election with the potential of installing meaningful leadership-- we must scrutinize them all like our very lives depend on it. Because they just might.

It is troubling to me that Obama takes large sums of money from the health industry and I don't know how you take that payola and simultaneously fight for The People. He's no doubt going to have debts to pay for the more than $2MM he has taken. It also troubles me that the Corporate Owned Media (CON) won't let the people hear the message of the one candidate that is driving the debate and speaking up for The People and against powerful corporate interests. We need to wake up and realize there really is a battle to be waged. I think we need a warrior, because it's not getting fixed any other way.

[dave123williams]

72. If those are your standards, I'd say vote Edwards.

He doesn't take PAC or lobbyist contributions, he's a legal brawler, and is definitely talking the talk.

I'm inclined to agree with you that we're facing some serious shit coming up here, and now is not the time for Pollyanna-ish optimism, rather sober realism.

[balantz]

29. All I can say is there is hardly a comparrison between Ghandi and Obama.

There may be similarities in the fights faced by us now, and the people of India at that time, both being fights against domination of elitist control, but beyond that I can't find anything that would show Ghandi and Obama to be the same.

[dave123williams]

55. Uh, he's likely as not to be martyred?

I think they have that in common.

[mnhtnbb]

46. Uh, hello. Remember, Gandhi was assassinated.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/gandhi.htm

[AmBlue]

48. That, too. Thanks. n/t

[bvar22]

60. Ghandi did NOT win by "reaching across the aisle"!!!

Ghandi WON by absolutely REFUSING to work WITH his oppressors.

[Mr_Monday]

62. It wasn't a democratic system

so there really wasn't any way for him to do so.

[JDPriestly]

74. You make an excellent point.

Ghandi went on strike. He fasted. The people went on strike and fasted with him. That was leadership. Ghandi combined leadership with nonviolent protest. He fought but nonviolently. Has Obama really ever fought for anything? I think he has always compromised everything. Edwards on the other hand has fought in courtrooms over and over. Edwards has what we need at this time. He is a successful nonviolent fighter and leader. And people love him.

Edwards is probably the candidate most like John Kennedy that we have had since JFK.

[balantz]

21. This is the vital issue.

Not race, not gender, not charisma, none of these will save us from further domination by the powerful machine of the elite few.

[tom_paine]

22. Damned straight.

[bbgrunt]

23. kick for sanity

[Joe Fields]

25. I wholeheartedly rec this thread!

All Americans, (and this includes many democrats who seem to have been taken in by charismatics) must wake up to the fact that there can be no compromise with the opposition party. We are going to have to grab the republican leadership by the scruff of the neck, and drag them, kicking and screaming every inch of the way back to a saner world. I sincerely hope that our leaders will, come next January, have the testicular fortitude to do just that. They have yet to show it, and I do have my doubts.

[balantz]

26. At this point it has become a fight with the corporations

that have entrenched themselves in both parties.

[Joe Fields]

28. That is exactly why I have my doubts.

It has become apparrent for some time now, that the reason the Bush administration still gets it's way is because many democrats serve the same masters as the repubs. (and I'm certainly not talking about us voters.)

[crazylikafox]

27. Yup. This is why I support John Edwards

I especially like:

"In dealing with corporations, when push comes to shove, good intentions get you nowhere. (Although certain corporate executives - particularly those in the health insurance field - might find those intentions useful for paving the thoroughfare to their eternal homes.)"

[riqster]

37. Kucinich has not been playing nice

...if you want a man who brings a bazooka to a gunfight, Kooch is yer guy.

[AmBlue]

38. But he can't win.

He doesn't have the charisma that the American public demand of a candidate and, besides, he's not even trying to compete everywhere.

I personally wish the charisma thing was not an issue at all, but it's just the way it is in America.

[riqster]

40. As long as we let that be the case, it will be the case

Quixotic as it may seem, I am pushing for substance. To Hades with media-generated self-fulfilling prophecies.

Plus, a vote for Kooch puts the rest of the field on notice that they had better toughen up. A win-win.

[AmBlue]

42. Sorry, but we have to win it this time.

If we're thinking strategically-- and we best be-- Edwards is the only one that BEATS all the Republicans.

Dennis didn't even campaign in Iowa and gave first no reason and then a completely lame reason for sending his supporters to BO when even Ralph Nader says Edwards is the most progressive of the top three. wtf was that? Dennis lost my respect with that one, and I saw a lot of others felt the same. He can't win. End of story.

[Breeze54]

44. The Iowa Daily Register shut him out of that debate & caucus!

And he didn't send all his supporters over to Obama. He meant ONLY IN IOWA!!

[AmBlue]

47. I thought Dennis should have been in that Iowa debate

and was pissed for him then just like I'm pissed for Edwards now that the media won't cover them. If you're a candidate, you should get equal time.

But what Dennis *meant* and what voters hear are two different things. It was incomprehensible at best and his strongest supporters have expressed confusion and disgust with him. I was very disappointed in Dennis for doing that. It seemed quite beneath him, but I guess not.

[Breeze54]

50. THE AP spun that story!! This is exactly what your OP is all about!

I posted the story in a reply below.

That AP sandbagged him! :grr:

---

Kucinich Asks Iowa Supporters to Back Obama As Their Second Choice

http://transadvocate.com/autumnsandeen/archives/1324

January 1st, 2008 by Autumn Sandeen

Interestingly, the Associated Press is reporting that Kucinich Asks Supporters to Back Obama.

Rep. Kucinich stated on Tuesday that if he doesn’t reach the 15% viability point required at the
1,781 individual precincts, he’d like the Iowa Caucus goers to make Sen. Obama their second choice.

more...

[flyarm]

69. somehow i don't think they got the memo!! eom

[riqster]

67. You're swallowing the spin whole

...back up a minute, and think about how primaries work.

You do NOT elect candidates in primaries or caucuses. You elect DELEGATES. They then go to the convention and vote as the rules require/allow them to.

Delegates for Rightish Dems like Hillary or Obama will vote more Right on platform matters. A Centrist delegate (like Edwards) will vote more Centrist. A Progressive delegate will vote... you get the idea.

Does Kooch have a chance of winning the nomination? Sadly, no. He isn't going to knock Hillary or Obama out. Nor Edwards. But there is a problem with the three front-runners: they are too prone to compromise, too willing to cave, not willing to bring a cluster bomb to a knife fight. THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO SEND DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION THAT ARE GOING TO PREACH A TOUGHER STAND.

If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got. Every single frontrunner, Edwards included, is a tactical compromiser by nature and not a true strategist. They take the short-term path of least resistance and dig themselves into holes, leaving the opposition on the high ground when the important battles are fought. Kucinich sees this and that is why he is dead-on target from a strategic standpoint (impeachment, single-payer, etc.). However, he makes tactical blunders because he is not focused on that level. That is why supporting Kooch is a no-brainer for any progressive who wants a less wishy-washy approach. His tactical blunders remove him from contention, but his delegates will push the platform away from the namby-pamby all-talk-no-action approach that we see today and force the party to think longer-term.

As a side note, the mechanics of the Iowa Caucuses meant that Kucinich was going to have no chance at all. So he sent in a minimal operation. Given the populist nature of his campaign, he has very limited resources and so has to choose his battles.

[Breeze54]

43. Yes he is competeing! The fucking ABC/Walt Disney shut him out!

Kucinich is booked for talking engagements right up until January 29th and there are more to come!

He just left NH after a long two weeks and now he's on his way to Texas and then to Michigan!

[AmBlue]

45. Why was he not in Iowa? n/t

[Breeze54]

49. McCain, Rudy and Kucinich Spend Iowa Caucus In New Hampshire

McCain, Rudy and Kucinich Spend Iowa Caucus In New Hampshire

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/03/mccain-rudy-and-kucinich_n_79502.html

January 3, 2008

Who's here: Rudolph W. Giuliani visits the Bedford, N.H. headquarters of Segway Inc., maker of
the eponymous scooters. (Will the former New York mayor take one for a spin? We sure hope so.)

After jetting back from a quick pre-Caucus visit to Iowa, John McCain holds a town hall meeting
at the Adams Memorial Opera House in Derry.

Dennis Kucinich will appear at the "Every Child Matters Presidential Forum" at the University
of New Hampshire in Durham and attends a campaign rally in Keene.

----------------

Kucinich Asks Iowa Supporters to Back Obama As Their Second Choice

http://transadvocate.com/autumnsandeen/archives/1324

January 1st, 2008 by Autumn Sandeen

Interestingly, the Associated Press is reporting that Kucinich Asks Supporters to Back Obama.

Rep. Kucinich stated on Tuesday that if he doesn’t reach the 15% viability point required at the
1,781 individual precincts, he’d like the Iowa Caucus goers to make Sen. Obama their second choice.

more...

------------------------

Kucinich booted from Iowa debate

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/kucinich-booted-from-iowa-debate-2007-12-12.html

By Klaus Marre | Posted 12/12/07 9:15 AM

December 12, 2007

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) is being excluded from this week’s Iowa presidential debate
because he has not rented office space in the Hawkeye State, his campaign said Wednesday.

The Des Moines Register informed the campaign that Kucinich is not invited because the newspaper determined
“that a person working out of his home did not meet our criteria for a campaign office and full-time paid
staff in Iowa,” the campaign said.

Kucinich, who is running his second consecutive presidential campaign but is doing poorly in
national polls, has received strong support in online surveys from liberal groups such as
Democracy for America. The Ohio lawmaker’s anti-war campaign resonates with parts of t
Democratic base even though that support has not boosted Kucinich from the lower tier of candidates.

The campaign blasted the decision to exclude the lawmaker from the debate.

“The Iowa caucuses have been portrayed as having national implications, and if the Register has
decided to use hair-splitting technicalities to exclude the leading voice of the Democratic wing of
the Democratic Party, then the entire process is suspect,” the campaign said in a statement about the
“arbitrary and unreasonable exclusion.”

The campaign claims that Kucinich has also been barred from public appearances by
“the Iowa Democratic Party, Iowa Public Television, and well-funded political interests…”

With nearly twenty candidates running for the nominations of the two major parties, the format
of the debates have been an issue all year long.

Some of the lower-tier candidates have repeatedly complained that they are not being asked as many
questions as the frontrunners. Meantime, some of the White House hopefuls have sought to limit the
crowd. In July, former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) was overheard discussing the issue with Democratic
frontrunner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

---------------------------------

Why should he go and spend the money? He knew ahead of time in December and he was in NH instead!

[tgnyc]

41. HERE, fucking, HERE!

[SlowDownFast]

51. Fuck Kumbaya.

I want to kick repiglickin ass!

Go Edwards!!!

[Elspeth]

52. You know, I always hated that song

Not terribly fond of the philosophy at the current time either

[AmBlue]

56. ROFL!!

You know, come to think of it, I never liked it much either. Brings back horrid memories of hypocritical little brats in Sunday School.

[Elspeth]

57. Brings me memories of the 70s in general

That's enough to take the song out to the river and drown it.

[liberalla]

64. This is one prime grade A kick ass thread!

I don't know why more people don't see the problem. It's key to all that's going on right now, and to digging our way out of this predicament.

Dear Democratic candidates: where do you stand on Humans vs. Corporations?

[lildreamer316]

65. ..and you don't bring a gunfight to a peace gathering.

good rant, just tired of guns and war.

[Dammit Ann]

66. Hell yes.

K&R.

[depakid]

68. K & R for the reality check

It's probably wishful thinking, but it sure would be nice for a change if people looked at the situation rationally, rather than being led like lambs to a slaughter by those who preach concilliation, and "unity."

That's not change- it's more of the same.

[snagglepuss]

71. HEAR. HEAR. Excellent post.

:kick:

[Political Heretic]

73. This is exactly my concern. Which is why I support edwards.