Has DK just flipflopped on Iraq, Gay rights, Impeachment, and Health Care?

[MethuenProgressive]

Has DK sold his soul to Obama in exchange for a spot on the stage in the next debate? Or for possible Cabinet consideration?
Kucinich backing Obama? That's like Nader backing Romney.

[sniffa]

1. no he didn't

he's just trying to protect us from Hillary, and i thank him for that. :patriot:

[patrice]

6. That's my take on it. nt

[bicentennial_baby]

7. i think he's blocking Edwards, as well....

Hmmm.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. Then why not back Edwards instead of just-like-Clinton-on-Iraq Obama?

Obama voted with Hillary on every single Iraq vote since he got into the Senate.
Has DK flipflopped on Iraq being the most important issue?
How cheaply has he sold his soul to Obama?

[patrice]

13. Because he wants his people to pressure Obama away from the DLC. nt

[MethuenProgressive]

19. Obama's DLC Triangulation ploy with Kucinich moves Obama 'away' from DLC?

Obama's the stealth DLC triangulator.

[patrice]

26. No, I was thinking Kucinich's folk corrupt Obama's DLC wannabees. nt

[itsrobert]

18. He's trying to take down Edwards

Edwards is Kucinich main competition for votes. In DK's mind he can best hurt Edwards by making a deal in Iowa with Obama. If Edwards finishes a distant 3rd or 4th in Iowa, his campaign is dead. DK thinks he will be able to pick up frustrated Edwards supporters in NH and beyond.

[Honeycombe8]

30. I don't think that's likely. DK knows he won't win the nomination. This is a move against Clinton.

is my guess. An attempt to prevent her automatically getting the nomination, which is likely to happen if she wins IA. Obama has a better chance than Edwards of winning IA, according to polls. Even if Edwards would win IA, he can't be counted on to knock out Clinton in any other state as much as Obama can. Or so say the polls.

That's my guess. It's a move against Clinton.

[JDPriestly]

52. So, although he cannot win regardless of what happens,

Kucinich is more interested in pumping up his vote total than in backing the candidate who more closely represents his viewpoints. That is egotistical. I expected more of Cinch.

It looks to me like Kucinich and Obama made a deal. Edwards stated that he made a similar deal about something with Kucinich in 2004 and that it did not pay.

I think Edwards is just trying to stick to his message. Either people believe in his message or they don't. If they don't back Edwards because they like him, trust him and believe in what he believes in and wants him to do what he promises to do, then I suspect Edwards really feels that they should not vote for him.

From watching and listening to Edwards quite a bit, I have the impression that his campaign is not about winning for the sake of winning or for the sake of himself. I think Edwards would be disappointed but OK with walking away without a victory rather than compromise his ideals. He is not making deals at this point. I respect that, although I realize that could change later on. Later, if he is in a more advantageous position in terms of being able to prevail on his most important points, he probably will make deals. That is a kind of normal negotiation tactic for trial lawyers. You try to deal from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness. And strength is defined as what is strong under the circumstances. In other words you don't negotiate until the right time.

In my experience, negotiating prematurely results in nothing. Until parties are really ready to make a deal, you can't get anywhere anyway. There will be deals made after Des Moines and possibly New Hampshire. Kucinich is basically throwing in the towel in this deal with Obama in exchange for the possibility of being allowed on the debate podium one more time. Kucinich has great ideas. I'm not putting him down. If Kucinich made a deal with Obama, then it is probably because the polls that Kucinich is looking at suggest that this is the point at which he is strongest. That is not good for him. It's kind of a shame. I wish Kucinich were doing better.

[Yael]

55. If thats his plan, he has lost his mind completely.

[Honeycombe8]

21. Obama is the main obstacle to a Hillary win, is why, I think. Even if Edwards were...

to win Iowa, then what? Where does he get another win, and another win? Where does he knock out Clinton? Obama has the best chance of knocking her off the platform, is my guess at why DK endorsed him. Obama is polling neck and neck with Clinton in NH, and is polling high in S.C., too. If Obama wins in IA, he has a good chance of following it with a win in N.H. and one in S.C.

[sniffa]

41. because, Obama is the best shot to stop Hillary

sorry he didn't back Richardson... your candidate. :crazy:

[sallyseven]

Why he knows Obama will not win

in the general election. Since when did anyone need protection from Hillary. He is off his rocker if he thinks that.

[sniffa]

44. because Hillary is a loss for everyone in more ways than one

[superkia]

60. WOW! Someone actually said something that made sense, thanks.

It gets crazy seeing all of the ignorant children posting about aliens and flying saucers like the media does and it is nice to see someone thinking before they post.

Good job by you!

[Drunken Irishman]

48. So you're saying Kucinich does not want the Dems to win in '08?

[Whisp]

24. that's how I see it as well

in this mirky game.
Kucinich has consistently been against the occupation of Iraq - how could he possibly endorse Edwards then?
Obama would be the only alternative. I'm not sure about Obama's intentions, I don't really know him that well, but I'm sure what Hillary's is and sure that Edwards made a huge ass mistake (?) that people are still dieing and suffering over.

[ihavenobias]

34. Yeah but Obama is starting to sound like Hillary to me

by trying TOO hard to be "centrist". Centrism is ok sometimes but not when this country has been pushed SO far to the right.

The current center is right of center, so we need someone to pull us LEFT (which just might bring us back to the *real* center). I want someone who'll kick some figurative ass...after all, the closest this dem controlled congress has come to that is *kissing* some figurative ass.

Anyway, back to my concern regarding Obama.

First there was this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Now (thanks to another DU poster) I see this:

"In a speech this afternoon in central Iowa, Barack Obama seems to have widened his criticism of the politics of the past to encompass not only Hillary Clinton but John Kerry and Nobel Laureate Al Gore.

Making an argument for his electability, Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000," according to a person at the event (rush transcript)..."
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/12/obama_gore_kerry_alienated_hal.html

[sniffa]

38. i have no love for Obama

but if i'm guessing DK sees him as the only one to stop her. as such, that's fine by me.

i'd prefer he throw his delegates to either Dodd or Edwards, but this seems that he calculated that Obama is the best bet to stop Clinton. again, i thank him for it.

[patrice]

49. Exactly right! The "Left" is WAY under-represented compared to the "Right", hence

the "Center" is skewed toward the Right. In a more chaotic system, with less bias skewing outcomes, the Left would be in balance with the Right and the Center would shift in the Left direction.

[IndianaJones]

2. doesn't he eventually do that on everything? he will be relegated to obscurity soon. nt.

[cali]

3. yes, of course. it's just like Nader endorsing Romney.

Why do posters on DU like to make such idiots of themselves? You're certainly doing a fine job of that.

[IndianaJones]

4. didn't Nader endorse Edwards? nt.

[babylonsister]

11. Yes, he did. nt

[Desertrose]

5. Didn't Nader also endorse Edwards?

[patrice]

9. ? also ? Nader didn't endorse Romney. nt

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Kucinich backing Obama would be like Nader backing Romney.

Equally bizzare.

[LordJFT]

your analogy is way off

[Desertrose]

14. OK...skip the "also"....oops.

[patrice]

20. You had me going there . . . thought I might have missed something . . .

Horrible!! :o

[Desertrose]

29. Pretty scary thought, huh?

[ChiciB1]

37. And Edwards Just Talked About It Earlier On CNN... And He Basically Dismissed

the endorsement. When asked if he was going to invite him to campaign with him, Edwards just said he was focused on getting his message out to the people. He also said he HAD NOT talked to Nader and that he still had some issues from 2000 concerning Nader.

He handled it very well without putting Nader down. He actually just acknowledged that it happened and that was that.

[davidinalameda]

36. rhetorical question?

:bounce:

[dsc]

10. this happened 4 years ago too

then it was Edwards who benefited. This was when Edwards still stood by his sponsership of the Iraq War resolution.

[whatdoyouthink]

15. What are DK Supporters to do now

Just wondering...was wondering when he was going to throw in the towel

[Desertrose]

25. No towel thrown in at all..continue to support him

if that is who you want to support.

This was an Iowa thing ONLY.

[patrice]

31. No towel. Talking about the second round at the caucuses here. nt

[Honeycombe8]

16. Who do you think should've been the 2nd choice that DK endorsed?

Is there any candidate, other than DK, who is for gay marriage, universal healthcare, and impeachment? I think Obama comes close. Edwards might be the closest, but Obama is the main obstacle to Clinton, who will certainly win the nomination if she's not stopped in Iowa and NH. Clinton is furthest from DK's positions. So maybe that's why he got behind Obama?

[Desertrose]

22. Edwards & Clinton tried to oust "lesser" candidates from the debates....

I wouldn't give either anything either.

This is simply a "strategy" for the Iowa caucus...doesn't mean anything more than that people.

[Honeycombe8]

43. Yes, I think it's just a strategic move against Clinton. I thought ALL the top tier

candidates agreed to oust the bottom candidates who didn't have a certain % of support, but maybe I'm misremembering. It wasn't to "oust" DK or anyone in particular.

In the general election there's a rule like that, that prevents other candidates from participating in debates unless they have a certain % of support from voters. That is so that voters can focus on the real contenders.

[MethuenProgressive]

28. Edwards, certainly. Obama shares Clinton's Iraq voting record.

Since he joined the Senate, on every Iraq vote he voted right along with Hillary. That's so opposite the Kucinich voting record in Congress it make the DK/BO partnership ludicrous.

[Honeycombe8]

39. No, he didn't. Are you just making this up as you go along?

I understand pointing out real differences, and they exist. But it is not true that Obama has taken the same positions on Iraq.

He did not vote for the Lieberman amendment re Iran. That is because a no vote was the same as a "no" vote, since only yes votes were taken to see if the amendment would pass.

He wasn't able to vote on the IW resolution, but he spoke publicly against it, unlike any of the other candidates, except DK. Well, there's something in common between the two. Obama spoke out publicly against it, even tho he wasn't able to vote on it. DK votes against the resolution. They are the only 2 who had the same position AT THE TIME.

So it's not correct to say he voted the same, since he was ineligible to vote on the most important thing of all: the resolution to go to war against Iraq.

[MethuenProgressive]

45. Iraq isn't Iran. And yes, Obama has voted with Hillary on every Senate Iraq vote.

Their voting records on Iraq are identical.

[zulchzulu]

17. Uh...yeah...if it makes you feel better

You aren't open to actual intelligent dialogue, so like whatever dude...

[no name no slogan]

23. CAPTAIN OBVIOUS SAYS: "Politicians make deals"

No, DK has not "sold his soul". He's a politician, and he's making a deal. He obviously sees some sort of long-term gain from advising his supporters to support Obama if his own caucus isn't viable.

Kucinich backing Obama like Nader backing Romney? Hardly.

[creeksneakers2]

54. He's at least changed his mind

In a debate Kucinich said he couldn't support any candidate in the general election that believed in war as an instrument of policy. This isn't even everything on the line yet and Kucinich is going back on his vow.

[Tejanocrat]

27. I defended Kucinich over Paul for VP, now he's lost me (even Hillary's more progressive than Obama):

Providing universal access to health care and protecting the middle class are the two reasons why I formerly supported Dennis Kucinich. By throwing his support to centrist Obama in Iowa, Dennis has caused me to sincerely regret that I gave him campaign contributions which I could scarcely afford.

On the two key issues of universal access to health care and protecting the middle class, Obama is far worse than Edwards and even worse than Hillary:

HEALTH CARE

Edwards offers a universal care plan which would create non-profit health care markets to set for-profit insurance companies in direct competition against a non-profit public health care option based on Medicare (which would evolve into public single payer universal care once the for-profits found they could not compete against the public non-profits).

Hillary offers universal coverage in a plan that doesn’t have non-profit health care markets to force for-profit insurance companies to compete against public health care but includes a public care option.

Obama's plan to leave 15 million uninsured is the worst plan of any major Democratic candidate.

MIDDLE CLASS ISSUES

Edwards has made protecting the embattled middle class a key focus of his campaign.

Hillary gets an "A" on the Drum Major Institute's score for protecting the middle class.

Obama gets a "C" on the Drum Major Institute's score for protecting the middle class.

Obama has moved well to the center since joining the Senate, and I’m disappointed in Kucinich’s lack of judgment in supporting a centrist who’s even less progressive than Hillary. Obama's open embrace of the homophobic bigot Donnie McClurkin should have disqualified Obama from Kucinich's consideration, and the fact that it didn't tells me that I have misjudged Dennis.

This is the last time I let Dennis disappoint me.

Count me as the newest member of the DU majority for Edwards.

[Desertrose]

32. Sorry to hear that, Tejancrat.....

Its really just a strategy for the Iowa caucusing. DK knows how to play the political games that unfortunately seem to be necessary.

My sense is he has some serious concerns with Edwards this time around.

Anyhow...ya gotta do what your heart tells you.

DK is still my choice...and will be as long as he's in the race...

Peace
DR

[stimbox]

61. Don't bother with Tejanocrit.

He's a Dennis hater. Just stirring shit against Dennis like he did during the Paul faux paux.

[ChiciB1]

33. Welcome, Welcome... I Really Am Beginning To Wonder About Obama &

IF DK is doing this because of Clinton, I don't see it as a plus! Personally it looks to me like DK is being a little mean-spirited and even though I agree with DK on most issues, this move has turned me off!

And that's NOT just because I support Edwards, it's mostly because of what I'm seeing from Obama! His statements about unions and the loss of last elections have given me a completely "different" feeling about him. He sounds too DLC to me, and I'm thinking this "kumbaya" thing will be helpful to the Repukes!

I just can't support that... give Repukes and inch and.... well we ALL should know about this!!!

[patrice]

46. If Obama isn't actually in bed with the DLC, his organization models itself

after the DLC.

Everything that is going on with America, the war in particular, is a result of the fact that We the People DO NOT get to pick our own candidates. They are picked for us by various factions of the powers-that-be, e.g. the DLC, and then shoved down our throats by means of polling and by their political machines creating circular, self-reinforcing processes.

And despite what Oprah says, the fact that Obama is Black is no excuse for continuing to make the machine the master.

[ChiciB1]

51. Well Said... I For One Can't Take ANOTHER Election That Screws Me

over! I've had enough of it, and I have said that this may be the LAST election that I will be an activist in. I don't see the America I grew up in and I'm tired of being "told" how things will be, when and where!

[patrice]

56. Imo: This is the essential issue; Are we going to continue to be told "You don't know enough to

pick your own candidates. Leave it up to us professionals (read that 'number crunchers'), because we can figure out who is 'electable' and we can run the machine that produces the votes. So you all just listen to us, show up when we say, and trust us to get someone in whom you will like."

This paternalistic machine ***infantalizes*** ALL of us (Republicans and Democrats alike) and ultimately puts us all in the position in which we find ourselves now. But then, what does anyone expect when people are paid to think what they think and paid to say what they say, it IS the root of all Evil.

[patrice]

35. Thanks for this Tejanocrat!!

:hug:

[aquart]

42. Welcome home.

[MethuenProgressive]

47. If anything, the 'second tier' candidates should be supporting *each other*

We should stick together, imo.

[Stop Cornyn]

57. I'm another ex-Kucinich supporter who wants my money back (so I can send it to Edwards)

[TeamJordan23]

40. Did DK flip-flop on the Iraq War when he endorsed Edwards in 2004?? nm

[BlueJac]

50. What a sad thing, a sell out candidate.....

He even considered running with Ron Paul. Shameful and sad!


But a second choice at best!

[ZombieHorde]

53. Nope. nt

[DemKR]

58. fuck kucinich nt

[superkia]

59. You would have to ask Kucinich, asking here only ends up...

looking like propaganda to make a candidate look bad because none of us can answer your question. Its like how the media kept putting out things about Iran and nuclear weapons, it was old outdated bullshit and they knew it. The media has an agenda though so I understand why they did it, they want Americans dumbed down as much as possible. What I don't get is why an American citizen would post up questions like this, what is the motivation? It would look better if you just gave your opinion instead posting a question so people read it and then start believing that it is truth. Its exactly the same thing the MSM does, I'm not sure what your agenda is though?

[maxanne]

62. jeezly crow

could you be any more dramatic??

It's the frickin' Iowa caucus - that's all.

[IndianaGreen]

63. The point is to block the neolib imperialist Clintons from winning Iowa!

This is a tactical decision, not unlike the one taken in 2004 to support Edwards if not viable.

Since Obama is slightly ahead of Hillary, he could use any help to remain on top. Had Edwards been in Obama's position in the polls, Dennis would have done the same for Edwards.

[MethuenProgressive]

64. By selling out and offering up his 0.25% of the caucus goers?

If that's 'tactical', that's a losing tactic.