What's the Washington State Kucinich/Edwards Deal?

[absyntheNsugar]

I saw a post that talked about this - what is it?

[lastknowngood]

1. same as Iowa against Dean they must destroy Dean

so the corporate interest can prevail

[StopTheMorans]

30. Kucinich and corporate interests?

i think that's a stretch :eyes:

[diamondsoul]

2. If there is another deal,

I haven't heard anything about it, and given what happened in Iowa, I'm sure he'll announce it beforehand IF it exists.

[janx]

9. DS, I've always admired your posts though we have not always agreed.

(Most of the time we have agreed.)

You can't condone this, can you? Edwards voted for the IWR!

How can Kucinich voters be told to vote for someone who is diametrically opposed to what appears to be his strongest view?

Edit: From what I can tell so far, this is pure speculation. I don't want to ask you questions based on gossip.

[AP]

10. It shows you that Kucinich has the right priorities:

it's most important to focus on which direction power is flowing.

[diamondsoul]

12. I should be among the first to hear if it happens.

I don't believe there is any deal, for one major reason- Dennis himself said it was a ONE TIME ONLY thing.

I was literally ecstatic about it in Iowa when I heard the facts. Here's why, I understood it wasn't about policy or position papers. It was PURE strategy for one contest in hopes it would give us a little forward momentum to start with.

It was a risk, and it didn't pay off as well as I'd have liked. That's all I see in it. It's not an endorsement, and I'm convinced should something force Kucinich out there won't BE an endorsement until the nominee is chosen. He doesn't agree with any of them on everything, and that's what it would take in this election.(note the last statement is my own opinion based on what I know of Dennis, not anything official.)

[janx]

27. Thanks for your take on it. I appreciate the explanation. n/t

[stickdog]

35. Dennis didn't get a single delegate out of his deal with Edwards.

All his candidacy and Sharpton's have done is help derail Dean's slightly.

Kerry and Edwards will reward Kucinich with a speech at the convention (which I'm sure I'll like) while they freeze out Dean and his million strong army of small donors.

[Tinoire]

13. Because the war isn't everything especially with so much lip-service

going on and statements from the past contradicting some of the 20/20 hind-sight campaign rhetoric. Kucinich is the only acceptable anti-Iraq-war candidate for my conscience but Democratic voters seem to have decided he's unelectable, so what are people like me, insistent on voting their conscience, to do? I'm trying to look at the whole & And when I do that, I like what I see in Edwards for the moment.

So looking at the whole...

There is also compassion for the average American and a proven anti-NAFTA stance with Edwards that is very attractive. His positions on foreign trade resonate.

Looking at the whole here...

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Free_Trade.htm

As one friend put it: Edwards ran on an anti-Nafta platform in '98. He votes to protect NC jobs and against globalism as a Senator.

Last summer AFTER the DLC bitched about Dean, they had a conference. Clark, Dean, Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman all participated in the conference and gave speeches. It wasn't publicized at all.

Edwards was not invited. All the rest (except Kucinich, Sharpton & Braun of course) were there. Check it out:

http://www.newdem.org/annualmeeting/

Don't misunderstand me. I am not on the Edwards band-wagon but there are so few I can jump on and I am still trying hard to find him palatable. There's lots of bad there too but NAFTA, Corporate globalization are also a form of war and Edwards is against those.

Here however is one area where he loses big points with me. I look forward to having a discussion with people like AP about these things.

• Voted for war in Iraq but against $87B-and it's consistent. hmmm
  
• Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002) (Jan 22) not pleased with this one at all
  
• Saddam's trial will reveal atrocities, but won't end terror. (Jan 4) not rocket science
  
• Don't negotiate with Arafat, but build trust with envoy. (Jan 4) totally disagree
  
• Leadership means standing up for what you believe in. (Oct 2003)a platitude
  
• Negotiating with North Korea would make world safer. (Oct 2003) another platitude
  
• Partial yes on $87B-irresponsible to not support troops. (Sep 2003) need him to get to the occupation here!
  
• Allies in Iraq would reduce burden on troops & taxpayers. (Sep 2003) NO
  
• Irresponsible to not fund troops; also to fund Halliburton. (Sep 2003) Bring them home!
  
• Problems in Iraq are because Bush has not led.Going to need a little more than that! (Sep 2003)
  
• Work with other nations in war on terror. (Jul 2003) John, Why do they hate us?
  
• Supported Iraq invasion because of WMD threat. (Jul 2003)Everybody's excuse
  
• Bush's preemption doctrine is unnecessary and unwise. (Jun 2003) Damn straight!
  
• Voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May 1999) F for failing grade
  
• Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999) F for failing grade
  
• Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001) Good

Yes, I know... I'm hard but damn, if I don't have the courage to follow my conscience on just voting for a candidate, how can I expect them to follow their's for the next few years?

http://www.issues2000.org/John_Edwards.htm

[mmonk]

28. what about

genocide against Muslims? It didn't bother you?

[StopTheMorans]

31. great post!

and essentially why I now support Edwards (I gave up on Dean in November when I decided he wasn't the candidate I thought he was)

[youngred]

3. I'm doubting it exists

Washington doesn't have a caucus does it?

Iowa was a one time thing

[SharonAnn]

5. I believe Washington does have caucus system. At least this

year. I might've been a budget thing where they cut the budget and so no money for primaries.

That almost happened in Tennessee this year.

[woofless]

19. Yes, We caucus Sat. Morning

and yes we have no primary this election cycle, and yes it was cancelled due to budget constraints.

[KnucklesBuchanan]

36. For the record, re: Washington Caucuses

Our primary never meant a damn thing when it came to allocation of delegates. The Democratic party, being opposed to the open primary that exists in state law, has always allocated their delegates via the caucus system. The Republicans, in an attempt to appear a bit more populist than they truly are (for the most part the state Repubs are dominated by the Christian right), have allocated something like 15% of the overall delegates via the primary.

In short, the primary was a meaningless, and expensive exercise.

[GreenArrow]

4. if this is true

Dennis is testing my patience by playing footsie with that skim milk phoney. I'll vote for DK, gladly, but the more I see Edwards, the more inclined I am to vote third party or abstain should he be nominated.

Honestly, between the four "leaders", corporatists all, Edwards is the most unbearable, and he strikes me as the most right leaning.

I hope this rumour is unfounded.

[ShaneGR]

6. Yeah, never mind....

The fact that Edwards spent his entire career raking corporations over the coals, getting millions of dollars for the families of people who had been maimed, killed, and otherwise totally screwed over by the system.

Did I mention that those families were facing large teams of CORPORATE lawyers.

ANd oh yeah, his voting record is the most liberal on economic issues of any of the Democrats.


Yet, somehow he is pro-corporate? Have you ever read one of his speeches? WHY DO YOU THINK DENNIS LIKES HIM?

I've had enough of this board, it serves no purpose other than to destroy good Democrats.

[GreenArrow]

14. yeah... I've read some of his speeches

and his slick rhetoric doesn't ring true to me. Having worked with street people and alchohol and drug addicts, I am somewhat attuned to when someone is blowing smoke up my ass. I will give him credit for at least employing the rhetoric.

His vote for and continued defense of IWR is a good argument for his corporatism; this "war" and the so-called war on terror (which even Dennis, to his detriment voted for) is nothing but a corporate adventure for gold and power.

I don't like the guy. It's visceral. I think he's a rank opportunist and is driven more by personal ambition than altruism. I don't think he has the vision or depth to lead this country. If time goes by, and if I've misjudged him, I'll be the first one on here to say I was wrong. At this point, I'm sticking with my instinct.

[Tinoire]

15. I have no instinct towards him at all which kind of worries me

but I admit that I haven't paid as much attention to him as I should have because I thought he was DOA.

I don't think he has the vision or depth to lead this country either but I am judging him against Kucinich who seems to have too much vision and depth for the craven, self-justifying, selfish society we've become.

But let me ask you honestly, who was the last President who had the vision and depth to lead our country in the right direction?


This is making me uncomfortable- I am defending Edwards and that is not my intent. I am not on board enough with him to do so.

[GreenArrow]

20. last president?

In my lifetime (since 1964) I'm not sure that there has been any president with depth and vison to lead our country in the right direction. Certainly not Nixon. Ford was a stop-gap. Carter was more tempered than most, and I think he actually takes his Christian values more seriously than others who simply give them lip service. Reagan...well, you could say he had a vison, but you could also say he was in the dark, and no one ever accused the man of having any depth. Daddy Bush always struck me as worse than Reagan. Clinton, while in some respects, a welcome antidote to the Reagan/Bush years, was fundamentally unprincipled and untrustworthy. Bush Jr. is the absolute nadir. I'm not sure we've ever had the type of president that you posit. Most have taken small steps of progressivism, usually when expedient, but all have acted in accordance with the principles of a sort of globalized manifest destiny.

The candidates who actually offer up real depth and vision, who offer a change of perspective, and a re-evaluation of goals (and though I don't agree with some of his positions, I would count Dennis as one of them) are simply not electable; their defeat and/or marginalization is built into the system, and/or they are ahead of their time. The unfortunate conclusion I come to is that at this point in time, America may only be ready for and amenable to corporate miitarism. Whether this will be more or less overt under the current and a second Bush regime, or more moderated and subtle under the leadership of one of the systemically permitted Dems remains to be seen. Either way, the system is terminally sick, and I'm not real hopefull one way or the other.

[Tinoire]

25. Those are basically my same thoughts. Thanks n/t

[ShaneGR]

17. Hmmmmmm....

So basically because you spend a lot of time with crackheads and junkies you can somehow tell anything about John Edwards?

That makes no sense.

[GreenArrow]

18. what it means

is that I know when someone is full of shit.

Personally, I'd rather spend time with "crackheads" and "junkies" than someone like John Edwards; they know things about life that he will never know.

[Eloriel]

22. It makes perfect sense

Addicts are adept at manipulation and practiced at lying.

Working with them (or living with them) certainly hones one's skill in detecting manipulation, insincerity, and flat out lies from others. Revs up the old BS detector.

[GreenArrow]

24. Thanks Eloriel

That was stated perfectly.

[juajen]

23. Hey, don't get mad

There are always naysayers. I really like your candidate and will gladly vote for him if he gets the nomination. I also will support him if Clark drops out.

[AP]

11. Yes. The rumor that Edwards is a corporatist is TOTALLY unfounded.

What in the world do you think it's founded upon.

[Mairead]

16. His agreement in Iowa to do that exchange wasn't ideological.

Had that been an endgame -- i.e., the nom at stake right there -- then you can bet your last nickel DK never would have done it. DK's whole motivation was to stay a competitor, not let a bandwagon start for some other candidate if he could avoid it.

I'm not sure why so many people don't seem to get that.

[no name no slogan]

21. It was not ideologically motivated

At the time the deal was first proposed, both men were at roughly 3-5% in the polls. In short, that meant that neither would realistically be able to get any delegates.

However, in the week or two between the proposal and the announcement, Edwards surged in the polls to approx. 10-13%, which meant he could very well be viable. Kucinich's numbers, OTOH, were around 7-10%, which was not enough to beat the 15% mark.

IMHO, Edwards' 2nd place IA finish was partially due to crossover DK caucus-goers, who may have given him as much as an extra 10% to his final tally.

Of course, keep in mind that a good portion of those Edwards delegates from the IA caucuses are actually DK's people. What does that mean? Well, after the first ballot at the next level (county), all bets are off. That means that, if one candidate does not get a majority, the delegates are free to vote for whomever they want on the next ballot. IOW, don't be suprised if DK's numbers go up in the 2nd round of balloting at a few of these county conventions.

[spooky3]

7. It would be nice to have a link to prevent people from speculating

and bashing.

[absyntheNsugar]

8. I would love a link too

Since I have no idea what this agreement is about - - and still dont!

[Mairead]

26. Which agreement is "this" agreement? There probably isn't one in Wash.

If you mean the one in Iowa, it was that supporters of both candidates would be asked to support the other if they were in the less-viable minority. I.e., if at some caucus DK had 9% while Edwards had 8%, then Edwards asked that his supporters support DK instead. And if it was DK that had the 8 and JE the 9, then DK requested that his supporters stand up for JE instead.

The idea was that they both seemed to be floating around down in the support gutter, so if they did the 'rugged individualist' bit they'd neither of them get anything, but if their supporters traded off then they'd both walk away with a small but useful and somewhat comparable number of delegates. But then unexpectedly Edwards surged so that the outcome of the trading strongly favored Edwards. It was a gamble that in the event paid off for Edwards better than for DK. Así es la vida.

[SeattleRob]

29. I hope not...

I had DK as my 2nd choice. If he has another one of those deals, I'll choose someone else.

[CWebster]

32. Really?

the noble and holy kucinich with his healing hands is pulling his smarmy lil' footsies act again? Ain't he the ideological purist. Really tinorie, i don't know how you can take it.

[mohc]

33. People seem to be missing the point of this strategy.

DK believes his best chance to win the nomination is to go into the convention where the first ballot does not decide the nominee and then the brokered convention would pick him. Long shot as that might seem, there is really only one way for that to work. If he can convince another candidate to do these deals in caucuses (or in the long run actually throw his support behind a candidate in a primary), the candidate, in this case Edwards, could select Kucinich supporters that would be pledged to Edwards to be sent to the convention. While they would have to vote for Edwards on the first ballot, they could vote for DK on any other ballot. If DK racked up enough superdelegates such that added to the pledged supporters of DK would make a majority, he could actually win the nomination. That being said, it does not look like DK plus JE would even break 15% in Washington, so its pointless. But I would not be surprised to see him throw his support behind Edwards if it looks like there is a chance that Kerry does not get his majority.

[genius]

34. Edwards is the closest to Dennis on NAFTA and the WTO

That's why Edwards is my second choice.