For the sake of clarity re: my relationship with Kucinich, Kerry

[WilliamPitt]

I am an employee of Dennis Kucinich. I support his candidacy 100%. When March 2nd comes and the primaries are held in Massachusetts, he has my vote. No question.

Some have asked why I have been defending Kerry against these crap Drudge stories in the last day or so. Am I a secret Kerry supporter? Do I have divided loyalties?

No. Anyone with a memory will know I supported Kerry on these forums for months. Anyone with a memory will also recall that I had nothing but praise for Dennis Kucinich. When the opportunity to serve a campaign came, it was the Kucinich campaign, and I gladly accepted the challenge and the charge.

That having been said, I do not feel that I am "serving two masters" by trying to slap down this crap Kerry story here. In fact, all of you should be doing everything in your power to do the same thing. Dennis Kucinich wants to have a campaign based on issues, not gossip and innuendo. You all should want the same thing, because the issues are on our side across the board.

Dennis Kucinich said as much when asked today in California about this story. He refused comment, said nothing so useless even entered his mind, and went on to run down the issues of trade, health care, the environment, etc. In short, Dennis Kucinich slapped this crap Kerry story down in California in exactly the fashion I have done here.

His exact words: (disdainfully) "I'm not going comment on that. Listen, I don't spend a single moment thinking about those things, or talking about them, even in casual conversation."

One can be an advocate for a candidate and still be honorable. One can stand for one candidate and respect another. One can fight for the nomination and still bear the standards of the Democratic party. One does not have to fall for every slimy bear-trap crap story the GOP throws into the mix.

Dennis Kucinich for President.

Oh, and just to refresh some memories:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122403A.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

http://truthout.org/docs_04/012604A.shtml

[curse10]

1. Thanks Will

I feel the same way. :-)

[NashVegas]

2. The Words I Most Recall

"I am a whore for the Democratic Party."

;)

[WilliamPitt]

3. Yup

ABB is my creed, Dennis Kucinich is my candidate. My candidate, who has said clearly he will support the eventual nominee.

[Exgeneral]

76. Thus far , that is the statement of ALL the candidates

its just some of their supporters who are resistant.Me for one.

[bearfartinthewoods]

78. i'm not slapping anything up or down

i will never whore for another candidate again. after clinton, i'm all whored out. i'm not spreading it but i'm not saying it's not true at this point either because i don't know if it's true or not.

[papau]

4. Amen (hope that doesn't offend anyone!)

Well said Will

Say, when does Boston DU get together again?

[incapsulated]

5. Yeah, whatever

What about Kucinich, the intern, the oatmeal and hemp ropes, Pitt? Got an answer for that?

Didn't think so!

[WilliamPitt]

6. I can't believe the hemp rope/oatmeal thing got out

I thought I killed that guy.

I mean...

Never mind.

:)

[incapsulated]

9. We're looking for the body...

And it'll break on CNN when we find it! :)

[WilliamPitt]

14. You'll never find it

We disguised it as vegan tofu and fed it to a mob of supporters in Seattle. Mwwaaahh hah hah hah!!!

[incapsulated]

27. Damn

You're good, I'll give you that.

The truth is out there, though. We will find it even if it takes a stomach pump!

[NV1962]

61. Incapsulated is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

LMAO

"Permission to come aboard, Sir: the Army's here!"

Yo Will - I agree, that's the right way.

[eridani]

81. You mean the catered reception at Town Hall?

That's odd. Tasted like chicken to me.

[Fovea]

47. Important wisdom from a friend --

First, duct tape the body into a knee/torso position --
less area to dig, and fits into a tree planting nicely.
And it is a bitch when the DNA evidence declares them
to be a 28 year old Silver Maple.

It goes - lime, body, dirt, lime, broken glass, gravel.

Add a layer of ground coffee near the surface
to fool the dogs.

[IrateCitizen]

7. LMAO!

That's a good one, incapsulated! :D

[Goldmund]

8. Out of curiosity Will

I wonder what made you change your primary "allegiance" from Kerry to Kucinich. I've tried searching the forums for a post you may have made about that, but haven't found anything.

For the record, Kucinich is my favorite candidate, and I hope that Kerry will transform America into a country where somebody like Kucinich will actually have a chance in the GE.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Well, if you read the third link I provided above

it was always a horse race between the two. The decision and opportunity to serve Dennis directly pretty much sealed the deal.

[GumboYaYa]

19. No one in their right mind could blame you for jumping at the

chance to be Press Secretary in a national presidential campaign. The experience is invaluable. There is no way working for Kucinich can ever been seen as sacrificing your principles IMO.

[Goldmund]

42. Excellent article, thanks

[indigo32]

10. There are things I've disagreed with you on in the past

but man I'm with you on this one. The story about Kerry is crap and you don't have to be a "Kerry Supporter", or whatever the right word is, to try and snuff it.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Well said, Will.

One need not tear down others personally in order to build one's self up. Honor is not a sometimes thing.

At least that's the way things would work in an ideal world. And in an ideal world, Dennis Kucinich would be running away with the Presidency right now.

[phillybri]

13. Dennis is the soul of our party....

Kudos to you for fighting the good fight for ALL our candidates...

A lot of people at DU should take a page out of your playbook!

:yourock:

[duhneece]

69. Thank you phillybri and thank you William Pitt

nt

[VelmaD]

15. It is a damn shame

that you have to explain this to people...AGAIN.

Frankly I'm starting to think it isn't that some people don't get it...it's that they'd rather try to tear you down than do something useful with their time. I have a horrible sinking feeling that they're going to invade this thread too and give you yet another ration of crap that you don't deserve. :eyes:

Keep fighting the good fight honey. :hug:

[Options Remain]

16. its strange

to quote a drunk irishman in the bar below kerry's campaign HQ.

"I like him, I will vote for him in novemeber, but not in the primary."

for some reason people don't get it that we have several good canidates and any of them would make a good president.

I too will be voting for Kucinich in the primary. We are not picking a candidate we are picking the direction we push the party.

TearForger

[Bombtrack]

17. Why are pretending like you KNOW it's a "crap-story"

You don't know. So far, it isn't looking like it's completely made up or made up at all.

There is not always fire when there's smoke, but I'm tired of Kerry supporters saying that there never is because of who broke the story.

It is NEVER prudent to ignore something that could bring down an as-yet unnominated candidate when there is still time for someone else

[WilliamPitt]

18. It's a crap story

because it deflects us all from nailing Bush on jobs, economic issues, environmental issues, health care issues, all of the stuff people need to hear about, all the stuff that is on our side. It's a crap story because it's their game, not ours.

[Bombtrack]

28. we're in the final stages of nominating a candidate who is going to sell

the democratic party platform on those issues and it will not be easy to do so successfully if we do not have a candidate that enough of the electorate trusts.

Kerry didn't deny the allegations, period. Daily Kos has backed up the claim that Clark did in fact say what Drudge said he said to the reporters. The women in question does have a name and is an AP reporter and as far as I know has left the country.

Kerry already has plenty of ingredients about him that the GOP will readily stir up if he is the nominee which will work on plenty of swing voters and even some democrats. But this might be bigger than them all.

It's not a "non-story". I'm sorry. It's relevant

[IrateCitizen]

37. Playing their game, by their rules

OK, how do you think that Kerry should deal with this? If he makes a public statement on this issue, then it will be spun that he's in "damage control". If he doesn't say anything about it, then you say that it's becoming an issue.

News flash: This is the way the Republican smear machine operates. They do ANYTHING they can to get the debate away from issues. And don't you think that there's a coincidence that this came out, right after Bush started getting hit repeatedly about his "service" in the Guard?

Kerry shouldn't even acknowledge this, IMHO. If asked about it, he should just reply that he doesn't want to waste people's time discussing unsubstantiated rumors and personal smears -- and instead wants to talk about the issues that affect Americans. Meanwhile, the DNC can keep hurling the AWOL charge at Dubya.

IOW, respond to it much in the same way that DK did when asked. IMHO, that's the way ALL the Democratic candidates should respond to it.

If you allow them to set the rules of the game, you lose. In order to win, you don't allow them to set the rules.

[Bombtrack]

43. You don't even know that republicans are behind the story!

There is plenty of evidence that Chris Lehane is heavily involved, not a republican!

This isn't a game, all you basically posted was semantics and no real defense. Kerry wasn't the strongest candidate before, and if this turns out to have more weight than it does now, which is plenty possible, then he'll be as unelectable as Dean

[WilliamPitt]

49. Did Occam's Razor suddenly become null and void?

[diamondsoul]

72. "It's relevant"

To what? His marriage? That's not the problem of the American public, is it?

John Kerry's body is his, and he is entitled to decide whom he wishes to share it with whether anyone else agrees or not. Whether he had an affair or not has exactly ZERO to do with me, you or any other voter on the planet. It's no more relevant than Clinton's cigar/BJ.

None of us should give a flying monkey's tail about this drivel in the face of the total annihilation of our country from it's own FECKING CAPITAL! BAH!

Thanks for reminding me why I love my candidate and will support him until I drop dead.

[salinen]

23. I have so much respect for Dennis

that if he endorses Kerry, I become a Kerry supporter. Once in a while I use someone Else's brain, in this case Dennis's, because I know he would never steer us the wrong way.

[polmaven]

20. Absolutely..Thank-you!

There is no requirement to tear down all other candidates in order to support one.

As a matter of fact, if one is not able to support his/her own candidate without constantly "dissing" another to do it, should probably take a good look at why he/she supports the candidate in the first place.

Every candidate who has been in this race has added to the dialog. The Democratic Party is better for the contribution of each of them. The country will benefit from the betterment of the party.

I have been proud to support Senator Kerry, and would HAPPILY support any candidate against Bush.

[corporatewhore]

21. 1 1/2 days worth of SEX SEX SEX this is stupid and kinda low

I really think only Teresa should care this much about what kerry is doing and can we please get back to criticizing him on ISSUES not rumors

[genius]

22. Thank you Will. I think you spoke for a lot of Kucinich supporters.

I am also clear that Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that I will vote for in the primaries. However, it seems as if there are non-stop attacks on Kerry in this forum and I too have found myself defending Kerry. While I'm backing Kuninich and am hopeful he will wind up the nominee, I want to see other candidates, such as Kerry and Edwards, treated with civility. Regardless of who we support, Kerry may very well be our nominee. The last thing we need to do is to help the Republican Party.

[corporatewhore]

24. hell if he wins i gonna vote green but these attacks are kinda low

1 it his own personal life only teresa should be attacking him
2why not discuss issues like NAFTA or IWR something real

[HFishbine]

25. Dear Will

Hopefully you know from numerous previous posts that I have great respect for you. I have to ask though, how do you reconcile today's post with previous sentiments such as these?

I reserve the right to attack Howard Dean from every available angle from now until the moment he secures the nomination. I reserve the right to believe he is not the best candidate for the 2004 election. I reserve the right to spurn blandishments for party unity that are thinly disguised Support-Dean-Or-Else warnings for the campaign ploy they are. I reserve the right to believe that if Dean cannot overcome what is happening now, he does not deserve the nomination, and will furthermore be slaughtered in the general election if what he faces now is too much.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=926448#928438

How a person supporting the clear and runaway frontrunner can be made to feel like a "second-class member" is something of a mystery to me. In the same vein, supporters of the frontrunner who seem shocked that they are under assault from the other candidates during primary season is likewise mysterious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=920736#920859

I'm sorry for engaging in so many candidate brawls lately. Specifically, I apologize to the Dean people, because their candidate has received about 99.3% of my fire in the last few days.

I'm not going to stop, of course. This is primary season, and if the candidates and their supporters do not fight like valkyries for the chance to win that nomination, they do all of American democracy a disservice. Consider the alternative: Passive, quiet, mealy-mouthed campaigns in which, due to the lack of aggressive tussling, there is no effective way to suss out positions and ideologies. That would be a disaster, so I am not going to stop.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=911224

[genius]

32. Will always stuck to the issues. The current attacks do not.

Kucinich is the best on all issues. Dean is the worst. That's not slam. It's a statement about his record in Vermont. Personally, I don't know who Howard Dean is. His Vermont record indicates he is a right-wing conservative. However, he occasionally talks as if he is not - depending on the crowd. My personal concern is that Howard Dean is the flavor of the day and the Howard Dean who would take office might be the one who opposes the Bill of Rights.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. all I can say is

one day my eyes are going to roll all the way back in my head and I am going to spend the rest of my life looking at my frontal lobes.

[JasonBerry]

26. Why not be honest?

You support Kucinich, but you're not stupid, you know he won't be the nominee! Do you think he will be the nominee of our party? Knowing that he won't be the nominee and wanting to rid this nation of Bush, you are ready to stand up for Kerry when you think he is being unfairly attacked. Nothing wrong with being candid - it's not like it's a secret that DK is a blip (if that) on the radar screen and will be a mere footnote to the 2004 campaign.

[IrateCitizen]

29. What balderdash!

Nothing wrong with being candid - it's not like it's a secret that DK is a blip (if that) on the radar screen and will be a mere footnote to the 2004 campaign.

If Dennis Kucinich's campaign turns out to be a mere "blip", then the party is doomed. His forcing other candidates to talk frankly about NAFTA/WTO, war and peace, etc. has done more for the intraparty debate than anyone else out there.

"Footnote", my ass. :grr:

[JasonBerry]

33. Remember Fred Harris?

In 1976 Senator Fred Harris ran a populist campaign for president. He was easily the most progressive Democrat to ever seek the presidency. His followers were just as devoted as Kucinich people today. A helluva guy - but he is a mere footnote of the 1976 campaign.

Nothing "balderdash" about being a realist.

[IrateCitizen]

39. Remember Fighting Bob LaFolliette?

He was a progressive Republican who ran for the 1924 Presidency as a Progressive. He lost, but he helped lay the foundation for FDR's eventual win in 1932 and the reforms of the New Deal.

http://www.fightingbob.com/aboutbob.cfm.

Realism without idealism is the stuff of stagnation and slow death.

[JasonBerry]

48. Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich is no Bob LaFollette. LaFollette would also be a footnote had it not been for his third party general election bid - and admirable it was. But Kucinich is no LaFolette. A better comparison is Fred Harris in '76. He was a United States Senator, former chairman of the DNC, a major figure in the party. He was (and is) an avowed radical on the left. Harris is a good man - but again, his candidacy for president, as gallant as it was (I volunteered in that campaign), he is alas, a footnote.

[goodhue]

59. Fighting Bob and DK - two peas in a pod.

I tend to think DK is in the spirit of LaFollette. And so do many Wisconsin progressives who honor Fighting Bob with the annual Fighting Bob festival in Baraboo, WI. DK has been present at both Fighting Bob fests. Fighting Bob champion Ed Garvey for one has endorsed DK and will be spending the weekend with DK in Green Bay, Stevens Point, Milwaukee, Madision, LaCrosse among other places.

Please remember that LaFollette was anti-war and steadfastly so and also anti-corporate power. LaFollette led a progressive movement that ultimately blossomed into the New Deal. That is expressly what DK is trying to do now.

[Old and In the Way]

54. I liked Fred!

Didn't he run in '72, though? The reason I say that is because I remember him coming to our college and he brought a keg of beer...we spent a few hours talking about the issues. He was saying then that energy policy was something that would become a huge issue us, he was tuned into the coming oil scarcity...

[JasonBerry]

64. He ran in '72 AND '76! He was a firebrand

Remember the '76 slogan? "Take The Rich Off Welfare!" His '72 race wasn't nearly as well-remembered as 1976. It was cut short before the primaries. '76 was better for Harris. A great populist campaign. He was a nice guy too.

[Snivi Yllom]

62. that blip you have noticed forcing candidates to talk

has been Dean....

[diamondsoul]

79. Wow! Great way to

win friends and influence people....to adamantly oppose your candidate.:eyes:

[Rainbowreflect]

30. Thank you Mr. Pitt.

Dennis is IMHO the best we could hope for. That said I would/will happily vote for Kerry in November.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Options Remain]

34. Yay Grovelbot!!!

you tell em!

TearForger

[VelmaD]

35. See, even Grovelbot is ABB

:-)

[edzontar]

36. Since I contributed to bringing this up--some questions:

What are your views on the Iraq war?

Whose vote on that do think was more "correct":

Kerry FOR the war, or Kucinich AGAINST it?

Does this issue have any real substantial, moral impact on who you would choose to vote and/or work for?

If so, how can you support canddiates who took opposite and contradictory positions on the leading moral and political question of our day?

(Which by the way, is how DENNIS talks about it?)

If not--what issues take precedence for you ober IWR, NCLB, Patriot, NAFTA, and all the rest?

Finally, how does the DK campaign rationalize the delegate arrangement made with another pro-war candidate, Edwards?

The whole matter is inherently confusing and smacks, at the very least, of hypocrisy....can you understand why i just don't get it?

[WilliamPitt]

40. Answers

What are your views on the Iraq war?

You know the answer to that.

Whose vote on that do think was more "correct":

Kerry FOR the war, or Kucinich AGAINST it?

Kucinich against.

Does this issue have any real substantial, moral impact on who you would choose to vote and/or work for?

Who do I work for? Question answered. Who did I say I would vote for above? Question answered. Both answers: Kucinich.

If so, how can you support canddiates who took opposite and contradictory positions on the leading moral and political question of our day?

Because removing Bush and his minions from office in the general election is the paramount issue. If Dennis Kucinich is not the nominee, then the nominee will get my vote. I'll bet you a dollar that nominee will get Dennis' vote, too.

If not--what issues take precedence for you ober IWR, NCLB, Patriot, NAFTA, and all the rest?

The war is one issue. Jobs are another, the environment is another, health care is another. Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate on all these issues.

Finally, how does the DK campaign rationalize the delegate arrangement made with another pro-war candidate, Edwards?

Easy. Dennis and John Edwards are friends. Dennis does not see John Edwards as some vessel of evil the way he is portrayed by some here. The arrangement was made based on straight strategy. Every candidate had a similar strategy that best served their hopes. To suggest that Kucinich must play by different rules is rank hypocrisy.

[edzontar]

44. Thank you for the clarification.

I'm still confused about Dennis' present strategy in the race, and will watch the debate with interest and care.

Ed

[goodhue]

38. Right On!

The Kerry filth has got to stop. And I never have supported Kerry.

[stickdog]

41. One question, Will.

Isn't Kucinich ostensibly running against Kerry and Edwards?

Because I'm wondering if you can show me the last time Kucinich criticized either of these candidates specifically on anything. Specifically, as in, naming names.

[WilliamPitt]

45. Specifically

On the front page of the Kucinich website a few days ago was this pop quiz:

---

“In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community.”

a) Vice President Dick Cheney
b) Rush Limbaugh
c) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
d) Senator John Kerry
e) British Prime Minister Tony Blair

----

The quiz ran for a day before the answer was displayed on the website:

Answer: Senator John Kerry said this on October 9, 2002, during his remarks on the Senate floor before his vote to approve George W. Bush’s Iraq War Resolution.

And then there is the major White Paper we delivered on the missing WMD and intelligence questions in Iraq. Behold:

---

The facts are clear. This administration arrived in Washington determined to invade Iraq by any means. They set out, before and after September 11, to build a case to support a decision for invasion that had already been made – That Iraq should be invaded. Even the tragedy of September 11 was not so grave a matter that it could not be manipulated towards the administration’s goal of attacking Iraq. It was never about weapons of mass destruction, or even about Saddam Hussein. It was about regional control of petroleum in the Middle East. It was about wholesale regime change in the Middle East. It was about the rise of American unilateralism across the globe.

It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for George W. Bush and his administration gave the American people false information about Iraq. The information was used to create a war. Because it was picked up, uncritically disseminated and even embellished by members of Congress, some of whom went on to become Presidential candidates.

Their own statements tell the story:

John Kerry: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. . .Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents…The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. It has been with us for the last four years… It is clear that in the four years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction." - October 9, 2002

Howard Dean: "(I and others) have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction." - March 17, 2003

From the CBS News program Face The Nation, September 29 2002:

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the
president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

John Edwards: "We know that he has chemical and biological weapons... We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -October 10, 2002

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction." Questioner: "And you could say that categorically?" Clark: "Absolutely . . . I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." - January 18, 2003

"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." (George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair) "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." – April 10, 2003

Joe Lieberman: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States…I think it ought to happen before this session of Congress recesses, ought to be a congressional debate on whether or not to authorize the president as commander in chief to take military action to remove Saddam Hussein. I will support that resolution. I will do anything I can to convince my colleagues to adopt it, because I feel it is so critical to our security. " - August 4, 2002

Links: http://slate.msn.com/id/2092376/

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/mondo2.php

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html

http://www.senate.gov/%7Eedwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html

On this all-important matter, Dennis Kucinich stands alone. He is the only Democratic candidate who voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He is the only Democratic candidate whose public statements on the issue have remained consistent and unambiguous since the idea of invasion was first introduced by the Bush administration. He is the only Democratic candidate who consistently rejected the rhetoric and fear used by the administration to manufacture a cause for war. He is the only Democratic candidate who will ensure that American soldiers are brought home within 90 days of U.N approval of his exit strategy.

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

As Dennis Kucinich said on June 7, 2003, now is the time for truth telling. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no justification for this war. It was wrong to go in. It is wrong to stay in.

Dennis Kucinich was right in September of 2002, and he is right today.

http://kucinich.us/DennisKucinichWasRight.pdf

---

Asked and answered.

[stickdog]

58. All right! Way to go, Will & Dennis!

Actually, I agree with DK 95% on most of this, and I wish that Dean was closer to DK on these issues.

But may I now ask, why am I seeing this stuff here for the first time today?

Doesn't each one of these deserve it's own DU thread?

[WilliamPitt]

60. The WMD report had about nine threads when it came out

As for the thing on the website, I was on the road when it went up and didn't have time to post it.

[stickdog]

63. Then please accept my apology. And thanks for all the good links.

My cynicism needle has been redlining lately, but I can still recognize truth when I see it.

[WilliamPitt]

65. Accepted with thanks.

[goodhue]

46. 2/10 AP: Kucinich Says Kerry, Bush Alike on Iraq

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/complete/la-na-kucinich10feb10,1,45038.story?coll=la-elect2004-complete

THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Kucinich Says Kerry, Bush Alike on Iraq

From Associated Press

NEW YORK — Presidential hopeful Dennis J. Kucinich on Monday criticized Democratic front-runner John F. Kerry as being too similar to President Bush on Iraq.

* * *

Speaking at a forum of the National Assn. of Hispanic Journalists, Kucinich criticized Kerry, a Massachusetts senator who voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the war.

"Sen. Kerry voted for the war. Sen. Kerry supports the occupation. Sen. Kerry supports sending another 40,000 troops to Iraq," Kucinich said. "I'm wondering if the people of this country are ready to trade a Republican war for a Democratic war, because that's exactly where we're headed right now."

[King of New Orleans]

66. At the risk of bringing a real issue

into any discussion. I thought Kerry has talked about adding 40,000 soldiers because of the strain troop rotations are putting on the volunteer army (numerous soldiers are being required to stay in the force after their scheduled exit date because they just don't have enough soldiers given the current recruitment ceiling). The concern aside from many soldiers no longer being voluntary is that it will lead to burnout and higher attrition rates.

I could be wrong but I don't think Kerry has plans to add 40,000 soldiers to Iraq.

Of course, the biggest hope is that the nominee has a feasible way of reducing our force from Iraq in a coherent manner, without letting Iraq collapse into chaos.

[JasonBerry]

50. Will - please?

Do you believe Dennis Kucinich will be the Democratic nominee for president? Yes or no.

[WilliamPitt]

51. Of course

He is the best candidate on all the issues. He has the least baggage, real or imagined.

If you were expecting a different answer, you asked the wrong guy.

[JasonBerry]

52. ohhhhh - kay! Thanks...N/T

[Mairead]

56. I'm going to rudely shoulder Will aside for a moment and answer for him

Yes.

I can say that because the future is undefined, as far as we know. There are probabilities, but not certainties, so there is no reason to be anything but fully optimistic.

You sneer at Will's affirmation. When you get certified by competent testing as being able to predict the future, then we'll all listen to your predictions with the respect your ability will call for. Til then, though...

[Old and In the Way]

55. I'm just glad you're on our side, Pitt.... nt

[Cheswick2.0]

57. I thought this was what the Primaries are for?

You have said so yourself so many times, as Hfishbine has so aptly proven above. Why the change in philosophy?
Can't Kerry take it? If he can't then surely he shouldn't be the democratic nominee. Don't you agree?

Hmmm let me see... yelled too loud at a pep rally....screwed around on his wife with a girl young enough to be his grandaughter...<scratches head in wonder>

[polmaven]

67. Please see my earlier post

The purpose of the primaries is to give the voters the information they need about each candidate to make an informed decision about which one they want to see as their party's representative in the General Election.

If you are not able to do that by presenting positive reasons why that should be your candidate, rather than negatives about why it should NOT be the other candidates, maybe you need to take another look at your choice.

[JasonBerry]

68. Puhlease

Kucinich is no angel. Ask the people in his congressional district about DK campaigns past and not so past. He would be just like the others if he thought he had a chance. It's easy to be the messenger of virtue (and issues) when you're pulling 1-5%. Don't kid yourself.

[polmaven]

73. I didn't say he was an angel

I am NOT a Kucinich supporter. I am backing Senator Kerry.

The point of the original post, however, is still the premise that supporters do not have to HATE the other candidates to support their own candidate. Particularly to the extent that some here at DU will not even vote if their own candidate is not the nominee.

I doubt I have ever voted for a candidate with whom I agreed 100% of the time. There are variances and compromises and man things to consider in choosing the POTUS. If you are completely inflexible, you ARE going to break.

[Zomby Woof]

74. got links?

Otherwise, your assertions lack credibility completely because you are asking us to just take your word for it that people don't like the way DK campaigned in his district. Most likely anyone who opposed his election are Republicans, and we know they're going to be biased. How about some proof?

No one said DK was an angel. No one is. But he is the best Democrat in the race on all the issues, and that is more than good enough.

[jpgpenn]

70. Have you ever disclosed here that you were " an employee" of Kuch...

before posting your positive threads on him? I am curious about this.

[diamondsoul]

77. Your answer is right here-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=213087

[jpgpenn]

80. Thanks!

[Zomby Woof]

71. kickitylickitykick

[Exgeneral]

75. OMG!

you had a relationship with Kerry AND Kucinich?

While you have questionable taste, is the press intentionally not covering this?

Did they both take advantage of your childlike innocence and trust?

what are you wearing? :evilgrin:

Oh. Just actually READ your post.
Nevermind.