what is your theory on where DK=Unelectable began

[G_j]

Was it the press, other candidates?
the DLC?
Was it Reagan and the demonization of the "L-word"?
Was it us?

You know many said JFK could not win because he was Catholic. "Conventional wisdom" is not always wisdom, it's sometimes stupidity, sometimes common sense, sometimes calculated propaganda.
Since behavioral modification is a political science, do you feel manipulated or do you not feel manipulated by the unelectable tag? Is this the dark side of ABB? Self fullfilling prophecy? Or is it just true?

[Dookus]

1. I think it might be the lack of votes (n/t)

[Kanary]

14. You might want to check your calendar

I think it might be defective.

The "unelectable" chant started Waaaayyy before any voting.

Kanary

[Doomsayer13]

22. Poll numbers

consistently showing him at 1-2%

[no name no slogan]

39. Check your results

This past tuesday, DK's lowest showing was 7%. His highest was 30%.

The only poll that matters is the one on election day. The rest of them don't mean sh!t.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. When he said lives are more important than money

It's a miracle he wasn't detained immediately. That's terrorism.

[scarletwoman]

5. Oh my!

You never fail to crack me up, DF. :D

Anyway, if Dennis had a vote from everyone who's been saying for the last 6 months, "Kucinich is really the closest to my views, but he'll never win...", he'd be PLENTY "electable"!

sw

[DuctapeFatwa]

40. That is an interesting phenomenon. Because there is so little evidence

to support the theory of a causal relationship between which candidate receives the most votes and who takes office, if voting makes you feel good, voting your conscience will make you feel better.

[G_j]

6. LOL, should I laugh or cry? the other part

of the unelectable tag of course is that DK is too far left. But where does that come from? We have a far right "person"
in office. I think the RW has dictated how we frame our dialog. Why are we letting them them do that?

[eridani]

21. Wotthehell is 'too far left' anyway?

Cultural conservatives are 1000% behind the Kucinich stance on NAFTA/WTO.

http://sierratimes.com/03/12/29/ar_carlworden.htm

I am a Christian conservative who voted for Bush in 2000, and I write for a largely conservative and excellent Internet news and opinion publication called The Sierra Times. Remarkably, the positive responses I received from that article ran 8 to 2, 2 being those who said I was dead, absolutely DEAD wrong. The fact that largely conservative readers responded as positively as they did, means I am not wrong, and I am sticking to my prediction that Howard Dean will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.

The issue that I believe will put Dean right over the top will be his condemnation of NAFTA/GATT, free trade, and his pledge to end our participation in the World Trade Organization. If Dean wants to win by a comfortable margin, all he has to do is THAT. The massive number of red states that voted for Bush last election will turn to blue, and Dean will waltz into the White House like a halfback who strolls untouched into the end zone. End of game.

Of course, I have no idea what Dean’s position is on free trade, NAFTA/GATT or the WTO. As far as I know, he hasn’t said. Maybe he’s saving that for the finishing shot. I’m speculating of course, but Mr. Dean, if you are reading this, I just gave you the keys to the White House.

[MurikanDemocrat]

3. not much active campaigning or fundraising. not much voter support

[jazzsammich]

24. not much active campaigning???

i'm not sure which candidate YOU'RE talking about, but the DK that i know has been campaigning LIKE A FIEND.

--jim k.

[Nadienne]

111. Yup, here's more proof that media consolidation is bad.

Some people only believe what they see, and what they see is mostly courtesy of the corporate media.

Not much active campaigning or fundraising, my foot...

[Kanary]

4. It was the ears.

It was always the ears.

Lives worth more than profits? Harumph! Sacrilige....

Kanary

[wuushew]

7. In the unlikely event of a dual-Wellstonesque tradegy

the remaining candidate with the most delegates would become the nominee.

[ochazuke]

8. Bush v. Kucinich in debates

Kucinich makes a devastating critique of the bush administration.

Moderator: Your reply Mr. Bush?

Bush: "ahm tallur then him"

Bush WINS!

[bowens43]

27. Unfortunately, you've hit the nail on the head.

For a large percentage of the American electorate , substance is less important then appearance.

[scarletwoman]

9. Complacency, lack of courage, internalized oppression...

Fear of change, enthrallment to "conventional wisdom", unwillingness to push the envelope, fear, fear, fear...

Many reasons...

sw

[BayCityProgressive]

10. Kucinich's

personality/looks/presentation. I know this is superficial but it's true. His views are far left but if say Senator Wellstone were alive and running with the same similar views..he would probably have a great shot at beign the nominee. I am not sure that he could win the general election but he would probably get the nomination. Boxer, Feingold, Corzine, or Dayton could all perform better than Kucinich as well and they ar epretty far left. Then again Kerry has a 95% liberal record and he is leading in the election thus far and is attacked as a nazi here.

[ochazuke]

12. 95%=Nazi 99%=Acceptable

Unless there's someone with a 100% rating. Then, all imperfect liberals must be shot so our govnerment may be pure.

That was sarcasm, by the way.

[G_j]

11. sounds like a good description of the herd mentality

I'm following the tail in front of me, they must know where they're going.

[scarletwoman]

13. Reminds me of a saying up in Alaska...

Unless you're the lead dog, the scenery never changes... (*)

sw

[G_j]

15. I'll be sure to remember that

that's very funny, genuine conventional wisdom there..

edit: on second thought, "folk wisdom" is more like it. I'm not sure if "conventional" and "wisdom" belong together these days.

[Kanary]

16. ~~gigglesnort~~ *That's* graphic!

:) :) :)

No *wonder* I keep seeing the same fur over and over and over.... ^_^

Kanary

[cryofan]

17. Adam Nagourney of the NY Times

did the evil deed back last summer.

That said, DK is not qualified to be the leader of the Progressive movement. Find someone more attractive, a better speaker, more ingratiating, and a better campaigner.

I have no idea whether such a person exists. But I do definitely see a swing back towards populist values here among the little people. If this continues, we should have politicians with those values within a decade or so.

[eridani]

20. He's a fantastic speaker

He keeps getting standing ovations on the campaign trail. Check out the Prayer for America. (Link on website--CD and DVD also available.)

[G_j]

30. to me Kerry & Edwards sound like typical politicians

it's in the ears of the beholder.

some people would prefer a good snake oil salesman above a no BS sincere candidate.

[Nadienne]

114. That is an excellent way of putting it. (n/t)

[LSdemocrat]

18. Jan 2003 DNC Winter Meeting

I was there.

Before the meeting Kucinich and Dean were irrelevant asterisk candidates that almost no one had heard of.

Howard Dean was absolutely on fire, receiving an outstanding response from much of the crowd. This speech started his initial growth in positive press coverage and spurred growth in his grassroots support.

Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, fell flat and gave an amazingly uninspiring speech. Out of all the candidates there (only Kerry was absent, recovering from cancer surgery), only Lieberman gave a worse speech.

That I believe was the turning point.

[tinanator]

31. Is that the one I just heard about? The one where Dean bought all the tix?

Sounds like it. Where was it held?

[LSdemocrat]

56. No, this was for DNC members in Washington DC

There were no tickets for sale to the general public.

[slinkerwink]

19. the minute I saw DK ranting during a debate, I knew I couldn't

vote for him.

[cryofan]

23. yeah, he does tend to rant, and the word "strident" was meant for him

....which doesn't bother me, btw; I am an ISSUES person. But as a leader of the Progressive Movement, he is a bust, and he is a bust as a campaigner, and ESPECIALLY as a campaign strategist....

Now, as for your guy, Dean, I knew I could never vote for him the minute I read those 90s quotes from him about "the last gasp of the Left", and how the social safety net needed to be cut back, etc. He is just a Republican in Democratic clothing.

[CWebster]

26. How about a couple of Kucinich's choice quotes on Choice?

From the nineties?

[cryofan]

110. Oh, yeah, total flip flop

But then, abortion is not one of my "Issues".

[Kanary]

137. I talked with a committed Republican the other day

this issue of Dennis changing his mind from "pro-life" to "pro-choice" came up, I explained to her why he changed his mind, and that it was *before* he ever gave thought to running for President, and guess what....

She actually *HEARD* me, we talked about the issue itself, and the complexities, and she was quite considerate and never once accused anybody of anything. She knows people can change their minds, and why. That's life.

Yet I come here, supposedly among "friends" and compatriots inthe fight, and even though what actually transpired has been explained over and over and over again, it's still worded in the same negative way, but people who will say a few months from now, "We're friends, we're all in this together, let bygones be bygones and work for us!"

Can you understand just how hard you're making that by continuuing to be more obstinate than a Republican we converse with?

Maybe it's time to think through just what kind of relationship you actually want with other DEMS. If all you want is power, then..... maybe you need to consider how that is going to affect working relationships during the GE.

Food for thought.

Kanary

[cryofan]

140. sorry about that

I did not mean it in a confrontational way!

[bowens43]

25. I think it's true.

I don't think it has anything to do with the media, other candadates, the DLC or Liberalism. I think it has everything to do with the shallowness of the average American voter.

As much as I like Kucinich, I think that if you put him on a stage with the idiot, to most people, the idiot will look and sound presidential.

[diamondsoul]

166. Define the "look" and "sound"

of a President.

[caledesi]

28. Divorced twice. Single. Need I say more?

Sad. but true. He does not have a chance.

[eridani]

126. You haven't noticed what the media has done to Judy and Teresa?

Let alone Hillary Clinton? Maybe being without that baggage is a point in his favor.

[LWolf]

29. It's calculated propaganda.

When you can't win on the issues, you try to defeat the opposition with propaganda.

It's also the fear mentality of democrats, convinced that the american voting populace are drooling idiots incapable of independent thought about issues and values.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. He speaks the truth to power and power has fought back

Look at all the people on this thread who have probably never seen DK in person and who are repeating the old saws: He "rants" (this from a Howard Dean supporter), he's too "far left" (this from a self-proclaimed Democrat), he's "funny looking." Most of all, he "can't win." Earlier, we DK supporters even had other DUers telling us that he "has greasy hair." Then there are the DUers who somehow can't stay away from the DK threads and simply must throw in a nasty remark.

He says things that make the rich and powerful uneasy, and people who see him in person more often than not react with, "He's just said what I've been thinking for years!"

The sight of crowds cheering Dennis Kucinich scares the powers that be. He scares the voters who would rather stick with the status quo because it's what they know. The media think that if they ignore us we'll go away. It's a kinder, gentler form of assassination.

[G_j]

46. this is why

I hate the term "sheeple" Unless we admit
that almost every one of us in this culture has been deceived or co-opted into giving away their power to some degree, myself included.
To be able to even say DK has a wonderful
vision but he's unelectable, so I can't vote for him, shows how easy it is to give up our personal power. We are all sheeple by degrees.

IMO, that is also the dark side of ABB.

[Indiana Democrat]

33. It's Dennis.

No conspiracies here.

[redqueen]

34. The media, of course.

Was anyone termed 'unelectable' in a previous Democratic presidential primary? I'm curious now. I know it was used against a Republican contender who was fighting Bob Dole for the nomination. Republicans preferred Alan Keyes... I think that's who it was... but voted for Dole in the primaries because they were under the impression he was more 'electable'. Bet they kicked themselves for that one for a while.

I think we are being manipulated, and it saddens me to see people so enthusiastically propogating such a base mindset. IMO if you participate and validate something, you are part of it. If you want change in the world, be it. I am being it. I am choosing my candidate based on more important things than height and hairstyle.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. The media have a lot to answer for

If you talk to someone who has heard of Dennis but hasn't actually seen him in person or read his ideas, their immediate reaction to his name will be, "He can't win."

It's reminiscent of what happened after 9/11, when people were going around talking about how George W. Bush seemed "more presidential."

On this thread, I see habitual DK haters and disgruntled supporters of other candidates who have dropped out, but in the general public, I mostly see mindless repetition of media talking points.

[mopinko]

61. in any crowded field,

there are a few who are "obviously" unelectable from the start. pat shroeder comes to mind.

[redqueen]

66. I'm not asking for more 'conventional wisdom' from people here

I'm wondering who -- besides Keyes (and I'm not even sure if it was him, this was from a story I read recently) and Kucinich -- the yammering pundits declared 'unelectable'.

[mopinko]

36. why i am happy dk is running, but won't vote for him

my problem with dk is the same problem i had with ronald reagan- everything is black and white to him. but the world is a grey place. for ever serious problem there is an answer that is simple, clear cut and wrong. dk give the ones from the left, like rr gave the ones from the right. i am glad he is in the race to outline that pole. it is great that he is in congress to do the same. but that is not the kind of thinking that solves the real world, grey problems that a president has to deal with. the first time i heard him say "buy america or bye-bye america" i just shook my head. that slogan is at least 30 years old. we are still here.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Have you read his actual position papers?

He's a lot more subtle than the sound bites would suggest.

Besides, isn't it time we had a president who was as bold in advancing his views as the typical Republican is?

[redqueen]

38. That's funny - because that's what makes him the strongest candidate

People don't like lukewarm.

What happened under Reagan? Wouldn't you love for that to happen with Democrats sweeping the country, instead of Republicans?

We can have it if we have the courage of our convictions.

Do we?

I know I do.

[mopinko]

47. believe me,

i would love to live in a country where someone like dk had a snowball's chance of being elected. but i live in amerika. it would be worse than jimmy carter all over.

[redqueen]

54. That's your opinion, and one I don't share.

He would introduce a new Morning in America, only with the right values this time. :D

[Mairead]

50. "that slogan is at least 30 years old. we are still here."

Something for you to think about:

Let's say you're standing in 1 inch of water half an hour from shore. The water is going to double in depth every minute, and you can neither swim nor float. Which means, unless you are very tall indeed, that you are going to drown. Yet right up to the minute before you go under, you're going to have plenty of air and the water isn't going to be much higher than your waist, if that.

Step functions.

[mopinko]

57. i am still standing in 1" deep water

but many people in china have jobs. not to be flip about the serious problems contained in world trade, but it is not a simple issue. simple answers to complex problems = simple minded candidate to me and a lot of other voters who are not sheeple by any stretch of the term.
much as i want to see every person in this country have access to health care, i don't see any sign that dk understands the complexity of nationalizing a huge and profitable industry.
it's got nothing to do with his ears.

[redqueen]

59. "The complexity of nationalizing a huge and profitable industry"

You don't think that's maybe something to do with why his plan is phased in over 10 years, perhaps?

[mopinko]

62. he can phase it in over 100 years

it is still the nationalizing of private property. this is a big deal.

[redqueen]

69. Is it?

How big of a deal was it for the airline industry to go the other way 'round?

[mopinko]

73. selling off government assets

has happened a jillion times. it's called capitalism. no big deal. the other way around? ask the cuban guys in miami that are still fuming.
but my problem is this- what is the plan? enlighten me. what is going to happen to the shareholders and employees of travelers insurance? when they asked him this in a debate, he said, "well, we'll still need people to shuffle paper. iowa is a great place for that." simple.

[redqueen]

76. I don't think it's confusing.

They will be downsized, just like a lot of other Americans have been.

Life is hard that way sometimes. At least this time we'll know that the people being downsized are being downsized for the better health of the common man, not the better profits of the fatcats.

Plus they can still continue to provide salon style coverage for extra stuff.

[mopinko]

89. you could be educating here

i asked for the details instead of the soundbites.
are companies going to be bought out, or just undermined? what about providers? will it be a medicare model, or a canadian model? will they be compensated for the loss of their income potential? without the profit motive, how will the future supply of providers and innovations be guaranteed? will hospitals be bought up, or just contracted? will they be the next haliburtions?

[redqueen]

90. Medicare model

He's already proposed the bill. It's got co-sponsors (not sure how many) and is waiting to be brought to the floor (which it won't be, under repubs).

The private insurers are the only ones directly affected, and they will not need to be bought out nor undermined. They will lose profits, but again, many Americans have gone through this so my heart isn't exactly breaking for them.

No, they will NOT be compensated -- that's the whole point of the system, to save on skyrocketing healthcare costs. Profit for investors and stock options for executives are not going to be subsidized by taxpayers, no way no how!

Providers and innovators will not be forced to become non-profits. That's a major misconception about DK's plan. They stay the same, the only different is the for-profit insurers. (Btw, speaking of insurers, I learned today on this board that AIG is a major backer of Kerry's - ew.)

Hope that clears a few things up. Happy to provide more details if you like. :)

[mopinko]

92. once the gov is paying the bills

here in chicago, we have one of the finest children's hospitals in the world. it is being squeezed to within an inch of it's life. why? because most of it's patients are on medicaid. it loses money on most of it's patients. fortunately, it has a decent endowment, and dedicated volunteers. but last year it had to turn away 200 extremely sick kids, because it had no room. and this is not counting the number of sick kids who had to sit on a waiting list, while crossing their fingers that they didn't get "too sick". right now it is trying to find a way to grow, but it doesn't have the kind of money that a hospital with this much prestige ought to have. and it can't borrow it, either.
so, when you say only insurers are affected, that is naive. and who will spend the time and money that it takes to be a doctor, when they have the gov dictating how much they will make? we will very soon need to be picking up the cost of training docs. and who will invest billions in research only to have their one and only client say, "well, here's $.50 a pill, take it or leave it." we'll have to take that over, too. (canada gets a free ride here- they buy our meds at a bargain, because there is a free market for them at home)
like i said, i want to see everyone here with decent healthcare. too many people are stuck in too many ways by health insurance. it is distorting our society in untold ways. but naive plans are not gonna get us there.
there is no simple solution. to pretend there is one is what makes dk unelectable.

[Mairead]

95. You've been listening to the rightwingers too much, I think.

Himmelstein and Woolhandler in a now-quite-famous study found that 25-30 cents of EVERY healthcare dollar is now going for something other than healthcare (e.g., profit). And that percentage is rising. This compares very unfavorably with Medicare, where only 3 cents goes for non-care line items.

Currently, Medicare and Medicaid are in bad shape after 24 years of GOP/DLC stranglehold. Stop the strangulation--which is designed to kill those programs dead--and they'll revive and be what they originally were.

[redqueen]

96. The problem that no one seems to want to face is that

a lot of money being paid for healthcare is being funneled into profit. For investors and executives and perks and fancy junkets and whatever else... but the point is that in the system that Kucinich proposes, the money that pays for the services goes straight to the providers.

So although your point now about Medicaid being stingy is a good one, it doesn't reflect the reality that the plan will be funneling that money that WAS going towards paying for dividends and stock options will from that point forward go to providers and innovators.

[mopinko]

101. first of all, i believe in capitalism

not completely unfettered, where basic human needs are concerned. but i think we toy with the markets at our peril. and toying with them in this kind of a plan where the consequenses are not even being adequately considered is folly. your statements are on both sides of the fence here- money is going into profits, but dk will give money to providers. well, they are the ones making the profits. i am not just talking about docs. i'm talking aobut hospitals, labs, drug companies. the only way to get them to forgo their profits without destroying quality of care, is to buy them out or take them over.

[redqueen]

104. And nobody is saying that we should socialize medicine.

What is proposed is taking the 'for PROFIT middle man' out of the equation. Nothing else changes.

DK won't be give money to providers, consumers and employers will. It's the same thing we're doing now, only instead of handing over our money to insurers, so they can take a cut and decide whose care gets shorted so they can make a profit -- we will be handing it to the government so that they can handle the claims. No profit for the middle man. That's the only change.

You seem to want to keep viewing this as being part of the Medicare system as we've become accustomed to it, which as you know has been savaged by both parties for decades. Try to view the system as DK will have it -- the same funding as we're putting in NOW -- NOT funding that's been cut and cut and cut -- but going straight from our hands (OUT of the private insurers hands) and into healthcare.

That's a massive influx of capital. There is very little downside to this.

[mopinko]

106. i fail to see how this could be done without

price controls of some kind. who will decide what a blood test, or a night in the hospital, is worth?

[redqueen]

108. That will have to be worked out between the providers / govt,

and there will be fighting and arguing, but is it not worth it?

As for me, personally, I feel that price controls are a necessity for anything that is a human need rather than a want.

[mopinko]

109. fighting and arguing

see, this is the kind of well thought out position that has dk where he is in the race.

[scarletwoman]

115. It's called "negotiation", a time-honored mechanism of moving forward.

I have to wonder how much your OWN position is particularily "well thought out". It strikes me as rather an automatic defense of the status quo. My apologies if I'm misreading you.

I have to ask; Is being the only advanced democracy in the western world that does NOT provide some form of universal health care really all that great a position to maintain?

Is it not a worthy effort to propose looking for a better way?

sw

[mopinko]

117. well, i'm not running for president, but

i said more than once in this thread that i think universal health care is an important issue, for lots of reasons. but it is an extremely complicated issue. this country leads the world in medical innovation, and quality of care. without that engine, the entire world is so much worse off. without profit, there is no engine. even if you look at the old soviet healthcare system- would it have even been as good as it was (not very) without this country to compete with and steal from? i doubt it. would canadians have the quality of care they have without u.s. drugs? i doubt that, too.
if you had spent a decade, and thousands and thousands of dollars to become a doc, would you want the gov to come in and tell you, sorry you are going to be making $100k form now on? maybe you would take it, cuz you don't have a choice now, but would you encourage your kid to follow in your footsteps?
if you had a choice, would you go to the county hospital near you?
see, it is not as easy as saying "take the profits out."
and this thread started out by saying that dk is unelectable because he makes simple black/white statements about complicated issues. i hated it in st ronnie, i don't like it any better in a dem.

[scarletwoman]

119. Of course it's a complicated issue

What I'm trying to figure out is whether, since you throw up nothing but objections, you are doing so because you don't think the system CAN be changed. Or is it that you don't WANT it to be changed?

DK doesn't just make "black and white statements". He backs them up with detailed written proposals.

It's one thing to argue about the specific details of his plan, but to say that "dk is unelectable because he makes simple black/white statements about complicated issues." is dishonest.

So which is it? He doesn't have a plan, or you don't like the plan he has?

sw

[mopinko]

125. if there is more to the plan,

i would like to hear about it. i am sceptical that there can be a plan that solves the problem and maintains the kind of quality healthcare that we have. i am pretty sure that you cannot solve the problem without looking at the system as a whole.
i asked for more details, and got- it is going to be phased in over 10 years. well, i don't think that is an answer. and i made the statement about electability because that's what this thread is about. and i absolutely would like to see the system changed, for the third time in this thread alone. but not at the expense of a quality healthcare system.

[redqueen]

175. I fail to understand

why you think keeping for-profit middle men in the equation, siphoning off profits that go towards nothing but stock options and dividends, helps ensure a 'quality healthcare system'.

Care to share that? Because that's all that changes. Take the profit away from insurers. Reduce some of the funding. If you think this means that we'll be starving drug companies you're mistaken.

Drug companies spend bazillions of dollars on advertizing. I know it's a very commong right-wing talking point that they need all their indefensible profits to develop new medicines, but that's all it is -- a talking point. If they cared so damn much about developing new and effective medicines, would they spend so much of their revenues putting out ads about hard-on drugs?

[georgyvlad]

147. HMO's aren't complicated?

1. We don't lead in medical innovation because of HMO's and health insurers. We lead because the government spends money on research (e.g. National Institutes of Health) and very often the research is handed off to the private sector at the clinical trials stage. We also lead because private companies (not HMO's) invest in medical research, too.

2. Doctors' salaries are determined by HMO's at the moment. If health insurers can offer higher doctor salaries after the cut they take for profits, executive salaries, advertising... then let them offer the salaries. There is no reason why a Universal Government Healthcare for all can't co-exist with a Private Healthcare for select few.

3. Healthcare may be a complicate issue but private insurers certainly don't make it any less complex :-)

[redqueen]

176. Thanks for joining the conversation

Well said!

:hi:

[georgyvlad]

146. Who decides now?

Health insurers decide what prices they can afford after the executive salaries, the profits, the advertising... Why won't the government be able to pay the same price (since it receives the same fees)? But it will have money left over that can go for the 44 million uninsured Americans.

[Nederland]

187. Profit is not the Problem

Lack of competition is the problem.

The health care industry is such a completely warped market that competition does not really exist. If we had true competition, the excessive profits (and I do agree with you that the profits are obscene) we see would not exist. To think that the solution to the problem of lack of competition is to eliminate competition entirely is ludicrous.

[redqueen]

Profit for insurers, not providers

Insurers.

We don't need more competition for middle men to use sick Americans as a cash crop, we need to be rid of them as a necessity.

They can still provide salon services to those that choose them.

[Nederland]

192. Fundamental Disagreement

Its obvious that we have a fundamental disagreement on economic issues. I look at the American economy and I see that the vast majority of it works in a for profit system and it works perfectly well. The parts of our economy that do not work well are areas where corporate lobbyists have suceeded in convincing government officials to come in a "fix" a problem. All too often, the "fix" involves restricting competition and granting corporations defacto monopoly power that results in monopoly sized profits.

I challenge you to name a single industry that has both healthy competition and excessive profits.

[redqueen]

198. I see what you're saying

and it is indeed a fundamental disagreement.

You seem to want to avoid wholesale even discussion why private insurance taking a cut of the funds meant for healthcare is a bad thing.

I do not think that increasing competition between insurance salesmen is going to help much at all.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

193. We have competition in the health care market

on paper.

I've been trying to find affordable health insurance for a single self-employed person over 50. Between premiums, deductibles, and copays for my average annual medical expenses (in the companies that will even agree to write such a policy), there's a different of about $100 a year among them.

Whoopee.

[Nederland]

195. "On paper"

is exactly the problem.

The reality is that the vast majority of deals involving health insurance are cut behind closed doors by a small number of people in HR that were hired by a corporation to find the "best deal". We need to get rid of these back room deals and let the people negiotiate deals directly and for themselves.

Part of your difficulty lies in that fact that the market for a single self-employed person over 50 is very small. If we transformed the system so that every person in the country was looking for health insurance for themself (or their family) the market dynamics would change enormously. Suddenly, from the point of view of insurers, everyone would appear to be "self-employed", even if they weren't.

The other part of your difficulty is not actually a difficulty at all. You are disturbed by the costs of these plans because unlike most of the population, you are seeing what healthcare really costs. This is not a problem, it is actually healthy. The lack of transparency in the currenct system is the real problem. If people realized just how big a chunk of their total compensation package was going to healthcare they would be up in arms about it. By hiding the costs of healthcare from the the general population, insurers are virtually guaranteeing that nobody will do anything about it because they don't know about the problem.

The model we should be following is the food stamp model. In an effort to provide food for poorer people, the government didn't come in and take over the food production and distribution system--it simply leveraged the existing system and gave poor people the ability to go buy food for themselves using a government subsidy. Its a system that works incredibly well. You don't hear any complaints about how inefficient it is. You don't hear any complaints about how food stamps negatively impact other customers choices or wait periods. In fact, you hardly hear anything at all which means the system works.

Its a simple, efficient model that works and I'm befuddled as to why people think it can't be applied to healthcare.

[redqueen]

199. Dude!

Are you seriously under the impression that the government, under Kucinich's plan, is going to take over the production and distribution of healthcare?!

Why are you so insistent that insurers have a place in the equation? What is the need for it?

In fact, your suggestion of how well the food stamp system works implies that you should be onboard with DK's plan, since in effect, it will be like giving 'healthcare stamps' to citizens.

[scarletwoman]

206. My thoughts exactly!

"healthcare stamps"! What's wrong with the government being a non-profit insurer? Why should healthcare money go to insurance company PROFITS instead of actual healthcare?

sw

[eridani]

127. So does Taiwan

And they've had single payer since 1998, and are very happy. They think it means they have arrived as a real developed country. I'd really like to join that category myself.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

194. and Costa Rica

and to a lesser extent, Japan.

[georgyvlad]

144. Those Medicaid kids wouldn't have even that

You mention how Medicaid isn't funded enough to offer good fees to the hospital and the doctors. But withoud Medicaid those kids will join the other 9 million uninsured kids and the hospital won't get them as patients.

I like non-profit hospitals and medical foundations. I visit one in Palo Alto, CA and it is superb.

[Kanary]

136. Y'know, the question can be turned around, too....

Dean's health care proposal involves keeping the insurance companies as they are.

The high cost of health care in this country results from the insurance companies.

So, therefore, how was Dean proposing to actually provide health care for all people, and yet make it affordable for all of us AND our country, and still keep paying profits to the insurance companies?

It doesn't compute.....

Kanary

[Mairead]

93. Perhaps you should spend a little more time thinking about this?

'Nationalising of private property' is when the nation takes over steel mills, oil wells, railroads or something like that. Property.

Customers aren't property (yet!). We can be sure of this because if customers were property, then a company that lures customers away by providing better service or something could be charged with theft.

Since that's not the case, we can be sure that your claim that it would be 'nationalising' is incorrect.

[mopinko]

97. well, that's why i am here talkin' to y'all

i agree that it is a serious problem that needs a serious answer. so far, tho, i don't think that this plan is the serious answer.
customers aren't property, but when the government becomes the only customer for an entire industry, it ain't the free market, either. sorta nationalizing on the sly, or on the cheap. but the result will be the same. the gov will run the system. and they will screw the whole sector.

[redqueen]

102. Will they?

The Medicare claims are processed now by private insurers, as I understand it. I really fail to see how they can make it any worse, regardless.

[Mairead]

112. You clearly have opinions, and you 'support' them with declarations

You evidently feel you already know all you need to, so I'll stop here and go do something more rewarding. Have fun.

[georgyvlad]

149. Government will not be the ONLY customer/insurer

It will just probably be the biggest. Bill Gates can choose to pay Aetna for a room with golden curtains :-)

[rucky]

41. His name is hard to pronounce n/t

[AngryAmish]

42. He is kinda strange.

The vegan thing hurts his chances. He looks strange. His ideas are far from mainstream. I live in a town that is completely run by Democrats, and the rank and file have no time for his kind of ideas.

[G_j]

44. how very sad n/t

[Mairead]

52. Correction: you live in a town where Republicans wear donkey suits.

[w4rma]

171. That's a very exclusive (not inclusive) statement, Mairead. (n/t)

[no name no slogan]

53. What kind of "Democrats" are they?

His ideas are right out of the party platform: the same things we've been "supporting" for years: livable wages, fair trade, workers' rights, universal healthcare, limits on corporate power, etc.

I'd check the membership of your local leaders-- they sound a bit like Rockefeller Republicans (or is that DLC Democrats)?

[redqueen]

55. This is why the Green party will keep growing,

and the Democratic party go the way of the Whigs.

[Uzybone]

60. Funniest thing Ive read all day

thanks for that one.

[redqueen]

67. Surprised you found humor in it.

Knowing that under Dean's leadership, democratic votes for him dropped with each and every election -- and votes for the 'progressive' candidate grew the same way, most progressives might think this were a serious problem.

It's obvious the DLC has invested its time wisely. Whether they'll be around in another 12 years to keep screwing things up is far from certain, though.

[AngryAmish]

64. This strange town I live in is...

Chicago.

[redqueen]

70. Home of Daley?

Not surprising at all.

Isn't that where the riots occurred outside the Democratic convention?

[AngryAmish]

74. Yes.

Don't forget the Days of Rage, Haymarket Riots, Humboldt Park riots and Marquette Park riots. (And why do all the good riots take place in parks?)
Murder City USA. We like it violent.

[redqueen]

77. Something to ponder:

what necessitates the violence?

It certainly can't be the party machines uber-responsiveness to public sentiment.

[AngryAmish]

85. Well, this is totally unscientific

Chicago is a city of neighborhoods. Rich stay away from poor, blacks from whites, etc. They majority of the murders in Chicago are gang and drug related. I heard that only 6% of murder victims were white in 2003. When the top of the power structure is white, and it is only minorities who get killed, then the powers that be do not care. Also, the most put upon people in the City are blacks and Hispanics (Chicago is roughly 1/3 black, 1/3 Hispanic and 1/3 white - lots of other people too, but these are the big ones.) But blacks and Hispanics do not vote as often as white people - probably because they have been screwed so hard and so often they figure that there is no point in being politically active. If you do not effect the jobs of the leadership then you do not count. By not voting, their jobs are safe.

If the people being killed were white and wealthy you bet that the rate would go down. But, as it is, nobody cares.

[WI_DEM]

43. the media, of course

they have their favorites. They have wanted nothing more than a Kerry-Edwards contest and so they said Dean was unelectable and it was said so often that people began to believe it. In NH people agreed with Dean on the issues but hate Bush so much they voted for Kerry because the media said he was "electable".

Issues mean nothing to the media--all they care about is the horse race. It is a tough road for candidates who actually say something (like DK) because the media will dismiss them and not give them the time they deserve and the opportunity to gain supporters.

[revcarol]

45. Once he came out forcefully against media consolidation,

he received NO favorable press, and if they could help it, no press AT ALL. If they were FORCED to cover him because they were running a series, they concentrated on "Oh, lookie he's a vegan who is spiritual!!" and wouldn't mention ONE POLICY POSITION.

Then it became "fashionable" to denigrate Dennis for superficial things.

BTW, has ANYONE contacted those "news" outlets that didn't even mention DK came in 2nd in Hawai'i? TIME TO BLITZ THEM, METHINKS.

[Mairead]

48. My sense is that it began with Adam Nagourney of the NYT

about a week or so after Kucinich declared in mid-February. He dismissed DK as 'unelectable' and has done his level best since then to make sure DK gets no favorable coverage for anything.

Of course, I think most of us realise by now that the NYT is about as progressive as the WSJ, but it's still trading on its reputation from the '60s.

[Nederland]

49. When he spoke out against the Afghanistan war (nt)

[Imajika]

51. It began the minute Kucinich announced...

...and the reason is beyond simple. Dennis Kucinich is too far left to be elected President of the United States at this time.

It really isn't any more complicated than that.

If Barbara Lee announced she was running for President, I could tell you she would be unelectable immediately. Why? Because she is too far left to be elected President of the United States of America at this time.

If Jim McDermott announced he was running for President, I could tell you he would be unelectable immediately. Why? Because he is too far left to be elected President of the United States of America at this time.

If Bernie Sanders announced he was running for President, I could tell you he would be unelectable immediately. Why? Because he is too far left to be elected President of the United States of America at this time.

If....

The answer to this question is obvious. It is not some great conspiracy against Dennis Kucinich. Yeah, the DNC probably would rather he not run, but not because he frightens them. They would probably rather he not run because he is, indeed, an unelectable candidate who is cluttering up a field of mostly otherwise electable candidates.

If Kucinich really wants to be President one day, he will have to moderate his message (which ofcourse would probably alienate the very people whom are supporting him now) and do something to look more presidential. Sorry to say, we are mostly a shallow people (myself too often included) living in a shallow society. Kucinich looks more like Golem than he does a President of a country. He should work on the image thing a bit because under the national spotlight what he is doing now just won't ever cut it.

Imajika

[evil_orange_cat]

116. you are correct sir

DK was unelectable the second he announced his candidacy

[eridani]

129. Stupid fecking sloganeering

Just like the right-wingers. What policy is too far left? Universal health care? The Pew Foundation sez 86% of Dems and 51% of Repubs prefer it to the Bush tax cuts. Explain why half of Republicans are too far left.

[Uzybone]

58. His face

lets stop beating round the Bush. Kooch looks like an elf and he sounds shrill. Plus he has never been married (I think) and he is a middle aged man. This all means nothing to me, but if think the general population doesn't care about that stuff then y'all need to get out more.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. Wrong

He's been married twice and has a college-age daughter.

[Uzybone]

88. Thanks for the correction

almost as bad. Twice divorced and currently single.

[georgyvlad]

150. Most married people divorce

It is completely irrelevant to me whether he is married now. Id does matter more that he took the responsibility and the pain to raise a daughter.

I agree that Kucinich is not handsome and not a powerful public speaker. But you have to think - why does the media focus on the cover rather then delve into the substance! Why not talk day in and day out about the differences of the remaining four Democrats? Why focus on polls, money and pundits' evaluation of "electability"?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

182. He IS a powerful public speaker

but not in the types of venues that he's been put into on TV.

He takes a while to warm up, but once he gets going, wow!

If he could have a half hour of TV time answering unscripted questions from an audience, he'd blow everyone away.

[littlejoe]

63. Maybe it's the fact that he's not getting any votes!

[G_j]

87. timeline

1) DK labeled unelectable
2) primary voting

[littlejoe]

65. You and I both know that the only reason thathe came in second

in Hawaii is that no one else went there.

[georgyvlad]

151. Not completely true

Notice also that in the Gore/Bush elections the Green Party's Nader got 5.9% of the vote - those are people that go straight to Kucinich on the issues.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

183. Hawaii is a very liberal state

It has employer-mandated health care, nearly passed a law allowing gay marriage, and has active environmental and Native Hawaiian rights movements.

[Stuckinthebush]

68. When he got into the race

He was ridiculed for his looks, for his far left views, for his crazy sounding ideas.

He was never taken seriously.

It's a shame.

[kiahzero]

71. About the time he mentioned the Goddess of Peace in a speech

It sucks, but it's true. That comment alone would be enough to damn just about any politician to "unelectability"... it plays too well into the stereotypical "New Age hippie" caricature of leftists.

[JHBowden]

72. Kucinich needs to take some responsibility.

DK has always been one of my favorite reps, but nobody made him sing the national anthem like a freak, make shrill and angry attacks on other Democrats, clothe his policies in naive-sounding rhetoric, and so forth. Kucinich has had bad campaign mechanics, pure and simple. He has shown improvement -- Kucinich got a haircut, stopped pounding his fist all of the time, and is emphasizing jobs a lot more. If I were his campaign manager, I would "suburban him up" into some sort of family individual. But it is far too late to recover, in my opinion.

[nolabels]

75. Hem hawd and seemed noncommittal or uncommitted till late also

Them are the two reasons I jumped on the Howard bandwagon. He came out early and said this is what he wanted to do. Everybody knows Kucinich is committed to his causes clearly. This time he seemed to have missed the boat a little and the homework assignment, got to start early.

on edit:A little too blount, sorry, and I will freely admit this is very bad fault I have about being noncommittal, that's why I know it when I see it.

[redqueen]

78. What angry attack on other Democrats are you referring to?

[nolabels]

80. Do we really need to bring them up, that's why he is there

That is the exact reason he we like that guy so much. He puts it out like he sees it and has the intellect to know what he is looking at.

On edit: changed was to is, opps

[redqueen]

86. Yes, because if you're going to accuse someone of something

it's important to have the facts to back it up. Or at least circumstantial evidence.

Dennis is a Democrat's Democrat and he has never attacked another Democrat.

[nolabels]

94. I wish people like you were in Florida when the frauds stole it

Thank you, and the guy is better than 99.999%of them. I should of said he attacked the others narrow views, which most of the others did not till it was too late for them.

[redqueen]

100. Well actually I wasn't asking you for proof,

since you didn't make the assertion... or maybe you did as well and I missed it. But I was actually responding to the post above yours.

[kiahzero]

130. I know during the first or second debate Clark was in, Kucinich attacked

Said something about working on the policy the White House was using to go into Iraq, or something like that. Never produced any documentation I'm aware of.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. "shrill"?

You're about the third person on this thread to say "shrill."

We sure have absorbed our mass media talking points, haven't we?

Julia Child is "shrill." Dennis is not. Nasal, I will grant you. Shrill, no.

And what's this about needing to become more "suburban"? That's precisely what was wrong with Howard Dean. Too suburban.

[JHBowden]

99. Kucinich went off on Howard Dean several times during the debates.

Kucinich's tone of voice was very, very ugly. It wasn't a pretty moment for his campaign. Given Kucinich did this several times, he wasn't able to bring the antiwar voters to his camp who should be his natural constituency.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. Oh, he dared to criticize Dean! Now we're getting to the essence of it.

After Dean not only lied and said that, he was the only anti-war candidate and continued to distribute campaign materials that made that claim even after he'd been called on it.

I'd be testy, too.

[diamondsoul]

167. "sing the national anthem like a freak"

Funny, I happened to enjoy that bit. He's got the voice of an Irish Tenor. Maybe Americans need to stop being so Nationalistically arrogant and let a little culture into their minds.

"make shrill and angry attacks on other Democrats"

Must have missed that one. The only "attacks" I've seen him make were legitimate issues of integrity or matters of policy difference.

"clothe his policies in naive-sounding rhetoric"

Naive or hopeful? Guess it all depends on what you want to hear in the wake of Bushco.

Kucinich isn't a "family man" and he wouldn't allow himself to be painted as something he isn't just to make a nice television impression. That's the problem with this party, this system and this media. They LIE out their asses to us and we feckin' REWARD IT!

Well here's a shocker for you- I'm sick to death of it. As a lifelong Democrat I say right here and now Kucinich and Nader are the two best things going right now for this country, and if Kucinich isn't the nominee, this will be the FINAL vote I ever cast for a Democrat who doesn't pick up their cues.

[redqueen]

177. He also said "Hello" sarcastically

Oooh! How awful!

Much worse than freaking LYING like the rest of these vacillating obfuscating equivocating bush-backing bast... I mean candidates are.

:eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

184. And I understand perfectly!

Many times I have been tempted to say "hello?" sarcastically to people who mindlessly repeat media talking points about DK but have never seen him in person or read his position papers.

[diamondsoul]

185. HEE! I thought that was possibly

the funniest moment from any debate ever! Ok, so it was snarky...also very much out of character for Dennis and funny as hell for that very reason!:smoke:

GO DENNIS!

[redqueen]

190. Dean should be glad he didn't just say "DUH!"

I mean get real! The guy was bragging about balancing the budget in Vermont!

HALF of our discretionary budget is eaten up by the war budget!

I think by him just saying "HelloOO?!" he was actually showing restraint. :)

[revcarol]

203. I was in the Student Union with 1900 other Kucinich supporters

and that totally brought the house down!! Brought the actual debate crowd down too. (We could see and hear them on bigscreen TV.)

Everybody LOVED it.

[arwalden]

79. My Fault... I Think I Might Have Mentioned (IN PASSING) That I Thought

he was too short and that he had a goofy haircut. His teeth had been bleached too white so I mentioned that too... and then before I could stop myself, I said something about him not being married.

Before you know it... those press hounds are all OVER my innocent words like WHITE ON RICE and then it just snowballs out of control.

My fault. Sorry.

-- Allen

[revcarol]

83. LOL you did it all!! You evil pinko, you!!

The DLC added fuel to the non-fire.Rummy is DK's "twin??"

[nolabels]

84. At least he has HAIR

<insert picture of Secret Dick> (my bad)

[G_j]

91. Another Question

we all know politics is about compromise, it's a fact. But how come every time we compromise we land a little further to the right?

[tameszu]

98. Not totally true:

Medicare, abortion, gay rights, social security, AIDS funding have all been compromisees that have slowly edged left in the past 20 years.

Although if there's a countervailing structural force, I'd say it's that Dems are tightly packed in cities and therefore get a lot less bang for their voting buck, especially when it comes to the Senate and to the Presidency...

[redqueen]

105. I disagree that those areas have moved left.

How, in concrete terms, do you think this is so?

[tameszu]

138. Moves Left

First, remember, I am talking last 20 yrs.

Medicare: Bush pissed off fiscal conservatives by undertaking the most expensive expansion in history. OK, so a lot of that money went to pay off slimy pharma companies, but even after that a lot of money still went into the system. And that he's even trying some crap-ass prescription benefit is a big achievement. The bottom line is that even Repubs know that if they want to be reelected, they have to bolster this entitlement.

Abortion: Sandy Day O'Connor and Planned Parenthood v. Casey--effectively enshrines abortion without an 'undue burden' as a Constitutional right under privacy and stare decisis. 'Nuff said.

Gay rights: Ask one of your gay friends what it was like to be gay 20 yrs. ago. Now you can go to over a half-dozen states and civilly united, and many more give much more expansive rights to adoption, hospital visitation, etc. benefits.

Social security: If you even mention that it's in jeopardy, the public will kick your ass. Another entitlement that's pretty much locked in; privatization is a ghastly loser for the Repubs--bring it on.

AIDS funding: Repubs are now willing to do some of it, instead of just simply calling people who get it Evil. Bush even sorta kinda threw a few scraps to Africa. That's a slow upwards curve.

No, none of this is cause for complacency, but if you want to change the world in a good direction, it's important to know what we have to work with.

[redqueen]

178. But

The 1/2-a$$ed measures you say bush has done, IMO, are a testament to how miserable the democratic leadership have done their jobs. If clinton hadn't wussed out on the fairness doctrine (which he campaigned on putting into law) and if he hadn't signed the GD telecom act (republican bill - made clearchannel's consolidation possible), then maybe we could have given bush a fair fight in the public forum on the ideas. Instead we got railroaded and now bush's sucky bills are law.

Abortion was an advancement made in the courts, not by democratic leaders. Sure they talk a great game, but this battle is in the courts now and it's safe. Dems should stop trying to scare the beejeezus out of people about not being able to have abortions and get to work on actually improving things. I'm sick of being told we just have to be happy with treading water.

The others are, as you said, 'kinda sorta' good. I don't credit Dem leadership with the Social Security sanctity. That's solely due to American's overwhelming concern with ensuring their own needs are met. Add in Democrats talking about 'slowing the growth' (code for cutting benefits), and the picture becomes more clear.

I guess most Democrats are more than happy with 'kinda sorta' improvements.

[JasonBerry]

103. This one is E-A-S-Y

I don't agree - or disagree - with any of the below, but this is what close observers in Washington would say.

1. First of all, how many from the House of Representatives are electable? (Besides the leadership)

2. Kucinich, love him or not, is a back bencher who leads a marginalized far-left caucus in the House.

3. His term at Mayor is remembered - with disgust - by a majority of the people in Cleveland.

4. He is a "new age" type who raises eyebrows with his "different" kind of spirituality.

5. He has a decidedly socialist viewpoint that is not in the mainstream - even in his own party.

That's just for starters.

[scarletwoman]

118. Wrong on nearly all counts.

Your point #1. I don't have the statistics in front of me, do you? I do know that it is rare for a Senator to be elected president -- has happened 1-2 times is all -- so I'd be interested in finding out the statistics for Congresspersons.

#2. The Progressive Caucus is actually the largest caucus in the House. What makes them "marginalized? They are working for my interests, I am glad they are they are. They are not "marginal" to ME.

#3. The City of Cleveland presented an award to Dennis not too long ago in gratitude to his foresightedness in not selling Municipal Light and Power which has brought millions to the city budget. Where have you come by your knowledge of "disgusted" Clevelanders?

#4. He is a Catholic, not a "new-ager" -- you really go in for those fatuous conventional wisdom talking points, don't you? He doesn't raise MY eyebrows. Maybe it would be more honest for you to simply say that he raises YOURS, and leave the rest of us to our own conclusions. Belief in social justice and ecological stewardship is not "New Age" or "different". Plenty of mainstream Americans have the same values.

#5. Ooooooh, the dreaded "S" word! Socialist! He's a DEMOCRAT, not a "socialist", and there is nothing in his platform that isn't what the Democratic Party has always claimed it stood for! The "socialist" smear is a right wing tactic, and has NO place here among Democrats!

But, hey, thanks for playing...

sw

[JasonBerry]

121. Sorry....Wasn't my opinion

But, did you read my first sentence? I said I didn't necessarily agree, but that here's what many people would say. Didn't mean to offend in any way - sorry if I did.

[scarletwoman]

122. You're right, I forgot your first sentence...

My apologies to YOU. I must admit that I get rather frustrated with some of the nonsense that gets flung about regarding DK -- however, it was wrong of me to take it out on you.

Peace (I hope)
sw

[Vas Liz]

107. Rove's office nt

[lams712]

113. The Media and the DNC/DLC.....n/t

[snoochie]

120. The press, the DNC, the DLC...

it's also a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The more people you can convince through repetition that no matter how good a candidate is, you just can't have him, the more people you'll convice that they're better off voting for the tall one, or the cute one. Not good for the country, but it sure works well.

Someday humans will evolve out of their desire to be led around. I hope I'm alive to see it!

[Polemonium]

124. Fear, Four Years of Nader voter bashing

First, fear is the unfortunate fuel of America lately. Corporate America scares us into buying their products, fear of terrorism allows us to put on blinders to the destruction of our democracy, and unfortunately Democrats, and progressives have been running on fear as well. We are afraid of loosing more seats in both houses, and most of all we are afraid of another four years of bush*. Fear is an interesting irrational beast. Sometimes it keeps us from jumping off a cliff to our deaths and at other times it paralyzes us while we are climbing up the cliff to the degree that we fall off. Unfortunately, I feel fear has paralyzed most Democratic and progressive voters, to the point that we risk falling off the cliff into political obscurity. "Electability" as a prime concern in most folk's minds shows just how palpable that fear has become. The level of political dialogue in the USA is lower than in any other democracy I can think of.

Yes there is reason to be afraid. Most of us never dreamed shrub would take the White House and bashing Nader voters has been the most frequently cited reason for the suprise loss. Sure there are many other reasons, but none stated as often or with as much hate. As someone who voted for Nader in California I feel like I was paying close enough attention to know that my protest vote would have no effect on California's election outcome. However, it has made me reconsider where to throw my support.

I felt Dean was a step in the right direction, and as a moderate I thought he sould appleal to many voters. I thought also that Dean was a step in the right with an outspoken nature, an increasingly progressive platform, and with a campaign that was willing to step away somewhat from the corporate special interests. Then I became inspired by the group of fellow supporters I was meeting and working with. But in the end I think fear (electability) defeated him. Kucinich is very progressive, so it is fair to assume that the big money, big power brokers that run this country don't want to see him do well. Interestingly, with bush* in the white house I feel that if we shed our fear and climbed on with courage just about anyone could defeat shrub*. Unfortunately, most can't shed the fear, and I'm afraid not only will it hurt progressive candidates for the nomination, but it stands to defeat the eventual nominee as well.

Vote your hope - not your fear (at least for the nomination)

Then lead with your hope not your fear

[G_j]

133. thank you, I wish this would be repeated

to the point where people would take pause to really consider what you have said here.

>"with bush* in the white house I feel that if we shed our fear and climbed on with courage just about anyone could defeat shrub*. Unfortunately, most can't shed the fear, and I'm afraid not only will it hurt progressive candidates for the nomination, but it stands to defeat the eventual nominee as well."<


This is something I have thought about many times, I think it is absolutely correct. Who says the American people aren't ready for real progressive change after having been burned so very badly by Bush and the neo-cons? Anyone who has experienced a health crisis, job crisis, etc. and grown tired of the all the obvious deception, could very well be open to new ideas. Instead of operating from fear, we could consider that this could be an opening where people may actually embrace progressive alternatives.

[NashVegas]

128. My Own Good Common Sense

..

[loyalsister]

131. Listening to him

His idea to defund the Pentagon is one approached after taking the presidency. It seems extremely foolish to float this idea while people feel us being "at war." It's like proposing a budget to starve schools or something equally unpopular.
Someone that lacking in charisma, and putting together what moves the general public doesn't seem to be to be capable of running a winning campaign.

[eridani]

132. We aren't 'at war', any more than we were

after the Oklahoma City bombing. Someone has got to call out this fear-mongering crap for what it is, instead of kowtow to it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

134. His idea about defunding the Pentagon

is absolutely one of his best, and he deserves kudos for mentioning that sacred cow.

He's on the House Appropriations Committee, so he knows how much the Pentagon gets and what it spends. At his October appearance in the Twin Cities, he stated that the Pentagon has failed to account for about $1.3 TRILLION over the past 20 years.

$1.3 TRILLION that they either lost through mismanagement, funneled to their friends, or used on black ops. Probably all three.

That's just heartbreaking. Imagine what we could have done with that money. It would be enough to transform our society enough to make the Scandinavians feel impoverished.

We already have a larger military than the next ten countries combined, and it didn't stop either 9/11 or the anthrax attacks.

For the past forty years, the Pentagon has been stuffed full of money like a Strasbourg goose, and it needs to go on a diet of zero-based budgeting to meet the country's real defense needs, not continuous funding of programs for fighting hypothetical enemies.

[Cappadonna]

135. Good lord, are we all so blind that we can't see why DK is unelectable?!

Look, being an actual registered Green who has ran for office and lost, I have learned a few things about what makes people "electable". Locally, we won two races for city council 2 years ago, one in a quaint, quiet part of downtown close to university and overflowing with college profs, grad students, social workers, gay yuppies and artisans. Basically the people who would typically vote for a Green even if the candidate were sock.

We also won a extremely poor section of town which is predominantly black and latino, riddled with drugs and whose residents wouldn't know the Green Party 10 principles from the 10 crack commandments (for all the hip-hop fans, who wrote that song?)


But we won both, but with throughly different strategies. Campaign A in the ultra-liberal grad student ward didn't take too much work in terms of a stump speech or strategy-- most of the students were either renters or lived in university owned condos. The true ills of the city's school didn't affect the middle soccer mom painter who could afford to send her kid the boarding school up the street.

In other words, the "real world" of the failures of the local Dem machine fell on deaf ears-- so our typical stump speech worked. Who cares if this guy can't fix a street lamp? How does he stand against the attempted coup in Venzeula?

In campaign B, the 'ghetto' district, my friend did something radical for a Green --- she threw the damn 10 principles and hippy talk out the window. she focused on improving schools, getting more cops on the block and improving renters rights. Instead of spouting the fairy tale nonsense that Greens and Kuicinich types are famous for, my friend focused on what was before people's eyes.

Oh, and before you asked, how did I lose my election? Because I allowed the local greens to run my race like A instead of like race B. Basically, I sounded like a out-of-touch flower child in one of the scariest ghettoes in town. No a smart move. (That, and I worked on my friend's campaign as well, but that's another story.)

Why is Dennis Kuicinich unelectable? The same reason that Nader will never be more than egostical spoiler and the reason I lost my local election-- he's running his race as if he's in a college town when he's actually in the ghetto. On top of the fact that DK is only known to his constituents, political junkies and hollywood leftists he's really not running a campaign that has the rest of America in mind. Department of Peace? I actually support the idea but shook my head in disbelief. Kuicinich is a passionate man, but he's too unsavvy to get elected.


If Kuicinich ever hopes to be a contender for the prize fight, he's going to have stop talking like Nader (high-minded liberal BS that only flies at a Berkeley coffee shop) and start talking the Edwards (hits the right issues, but know how to present a good stump speech.)

[sandnsea]

142. A realist, not an idealist

Stark reality. That's how he should have ran his campaign. I agree with Candidate B.

[eridani]

145. Kucinich talk like Edwards????

Jeezus H Keeerrist on a raft!!! Edwards steals all his stuff from Kucinich. He didn't care jack about NAFTA until he noticed that Kucinich was getting so much applause from his stance.

Someone who lived in a car as a kid is not a goddam flower child. He has already saved a hospital and a steel mill in Cleveland.

Your 'knowledge' of him is just media garbage with no connection to reality.

[Cappadonna]

202. Actually, I am quite familiar with DK's history, that's not the point

The point is that Kucinich doesn't speak the masses very well, for all of his good intentions. Again, good ideas and intentions are not enough to woe people, you need certain level of je ne sais quoi. Again, Kucinich is a Candidate for the Converted. If you didn't already agree him when you meet him, he doesn't have the innate qualities to make sway you.

- Cappa

[eridani]

207. Flat out not true

He acquires supporters mainly from actually having them hear him.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

173. I would agree with your general notion

since I remember the time the Citizens' Party ran candidates for Minneapolis City Council on a platform of no nuclear weapons and no intervention in Central America--both worthy causes, but both irrelevant to what city councils really do.

However, Dennis has been a big-ciity mayor, a state senator, and a Congressman, as well as working in media and business. He's no hippie leftover.

Are you perhaps judging him by the sound bites he gets during the debates instead of by his personal appearances?

[mikehiggins]

139. Cleveland? Cincinnati? Whatever city he was mayor of eom

[genius]

141. Dean started it. I was working on Dean's campaign and I remember.

I thought it was atrocious and I kept telling them that if they continued to put down Dennis I'd switch.

[SerpentX]

143. I think it started with the "Art Bell" resolution ...

The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following: ... Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) ... through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations
-- HR 2977

I'm going to let most of the bold-faced terms speak for themselves, but I've got to say that the reference to "sonic" space weapons just takes the cake. If he'd bothered to run this legislation by a high school physics student, he'd have discovered that space doesn't have an atmosphere to transmit sound. A "sonic" space weapon would be about as useful as a fence in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean to prevent ships from sailing off the edge of the world. We ridicule lawmakers who try to introduce "creation science" legislation. This shouldn't get a pass either.

Then, of course, there was the Pollitt article, followed by the bizarre claims by many on the left that she should never have brought it up. Yeah, I know DK's flip-flopped ... whoops, I meant "had a change of heart" on the issue. I'll give him some slack, he probably has changed his mind on some aspects of the issue. That doesn't mean I'd feel comfortable giving him the keys to judiciary. Face it, he's no Wellstone and he's no Feingold and after backing Jackson, Brown, and Nader (twice), I'm picking my lost causes very carefully.

[charlie]

154. I think the high schooler would point out

that your zeal to ridicule outpaced your ability to read. A sonic weapon would be deployed from land or sea, as your snippet states.

[SerpentX]

156. Then I would remind the high schooler

that it's the Space Preservation Act. Read the summay:

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

We're either talking about attacking something on Earth from space, attacking something in space from space, OR attacking something in space from a weapons platform on Earth. Now, please explain how this land/sea "sonic" weapon would work against a target in space.

[charlie]

159. Of course it wouldn't

But if you want to hold fast to a strict definition of the bill's intent from the opening summary, it would exclude attacking something in space from a platform on Earth. After all, that's a not space-based weapon.

For whatever reason, he added the scenario of attacking persons or populations from sea or land to his listed definition of weapons. Call that sloppy bill-writing or including a codicil beyond its purview, but seriously -- do you really think he doesn't know that the roar of TIE fighters in Star Wars is a movie invention?

[SerpentX]

161. Jeez, I dunno

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that part was just sloppy bill writing, but taken as a whole with the rest of the text ... Chemtrails? Mind control?

Look, I'm not saying he's an idiot or a bad guy. If anything, his quirks make him kind of endearing. Hell, I don't even want him out of the race. He's doing a good job badgering Kerry and Edwards from the left. But are the conspiricy theories and persecution fantasies here really necessary?

[charlie]

162. Well, that's a whole 'nother thing

We all know that the military routinely funds research into all sorts of outlandish weaponry and population control methods, and I appreciate anyone's attempts to legislate limits before they even dream of applying some of that stuff... but it seems Dennis threw everything he could think of into that stew... and well, you can see the results. That bill is often trotted out as evidence of his flakiness, and more often than not I don't bother to defend it, some of it is indeed out there. But the notion that he thinks space is a noisy place is an unnecessary and certainly false charge.

[SerpentX]

163. "an unnecessary and certainly false charge"

Ah, but all the Skull & Bones conspiricy shit is ok?

[charlie]

165. Eh?

And that has what to do with what? You think I'm Control Master at DU? I have no say in what others post.

Pay admin 5 bucks or borrow a friend's account and run a search on my handle. You won't find a single reference to Skull and Bones from me. Nor will you find me inside threads about Skull and Bones. Good grief.

[SerpentX]

170. Uh, this was never about you personally

It was about the paranoid tone of this thread, the five-hundred other Kerry bashing threads just like it, and the ongoing campaign to canonize Dennis Kucinich. What did you think the conversation was about? That wacky weapons bill? It speaks for itself, why rub it in? It was a convenient tool to prove a point. Maybe I went a little over the top, but jeez, look around you.

[charlie]

172. You're not making a bit of sense

What did I think the conversation was about? Make a note to yourself: No one can hear the voices in your head but you. Unspoken meta-meanings can't be divined by anyone outside your skin. If you want to make a point, you have to use your keyboard.

[SerpentX]

180. Well it is 8:45 in the morning ...

I made a legitimate, albeit mean-spirited, criticism of Kucinich, in response to what I thought was clearly another conspiricy-oriented Kerry/Edwards bashing thread.

You said:

A sonic weapon would be deployed from land or sea, as your snippet states.

I pointed out that since this was a space bill, about space weapons, a "sonic" weapon would be absurd on its face.

You said:

But if you want to hold fast to a strict definition of the bill's intent from the opening summary, it would exclude attacking something in space from a platform on Earth. After all, that's a not space-based weapon.

As I said, I was including ALL space related weapons to give him the benefit of the doubt. You just reinforced my point. The bill's summary clearly stated "space-based" weapons, not about land or sea based weapons, so how did "sonic" weapons get into the bill? Frankly, I thought we'd wrapped up the conversation at that point and I tried to explain that I do actually like and respect Dennis and that I was just tired of the BS some of his supporters sling around here.

Then you came back with:

But the notion that he thinks space is a noisy place is an unnecessary and certainly false charge.

Well, no, it's not a false charge. It's an unproven charge and the text seems to support it. I stupidly took that a little more personally than you probably meant it and I unfairly lumped you in with the conspiricy-mongers. For that, I apologize.

Hope that clears things up a little.

[charlie]

186. so how did "sonic" weapons get into the bill?

So how did "land-based" and "sea-based" weaponry get into the bill, for that matter? Neither are space-based and extending him the "benefit of the doubt" isn't necessary to see the intent.

But again, do you think he doesn't know that sound won't travel in a vacuum? I would doubt that even a backwoods troglodyte like Tom Delay is unaware of that fact.

"...little more personally than you probably meant it..."

Oh, crap. I'm sorry, I hadn't meant that to be read as anything more than a dry statement, but it does look like a testy affront. Please accept my apologies.

"Well it is 8:45 in the morning ..."

I can relate. It's 2:16am here and my ass is dragging... :)

[SerpentX]

201. I have no idea.

To be fair, it can't possibly be the strangest piece of legislation ever introduced and I'm sure he had his reasons for submitting it. God knows what horrors the repukes have buried in the legislative record.

[diamondsoul]

169. And here we have the he/she/they did it first

defense, right on cue. Not to mention the BS of lumping all of a candidates supporters not only together as a single unit but tossing the candidate in for good measure!

WHEN has Kucinich EVER mentioned S&B? By the way you are aware it's physically impossible for a legislator to actually sit down for weeks and write the entire text of a bill, don't you? You also surely know that in drafting legislation you ask for every concievable item you may want to leave yourself in a good bargaining position.

One more thing, I ALWAYS decry the Skull & Bones conspiracy as a total waste of time and energy, to include on the Kucinich board. Frankly as much as I'm beginning to strongly dislike John Kerry, the S&B nonsense just serves to piss me off.

[SerpentX]

174. That's the point!

This whole thread has been one long extended cheap shot in a continuing series of cheap shots. Anyone not in the Kucinich camp is a sheep caught up in the Great Media Conspiricy. If it weren't for the media, we'd all see right through Kerry/Edwards and flock to Dennis. 'Cause there's no way anyone could ever really like and respect those evil bastards. Do you need me to go into detail?

WHEN has Kucinich EVER mentioned S&B

I never claimed DK said anything about S&B. I've never heard him take a cheap shot at another candidate. It'd be out of character.

You also surely know that in drafting legislation you ask for every concievable item you may want to leave yourself in a good bargaining position.

Mind control weapons? Look, the discussion was vaguely related to whether DK was electable or not. How do you think that would have played out through a GE campaign? As for the length of time it took to write the legislation, its doubly-damning because he clearly had time to consult with knowlegable people on the scientific merits of the bill.

I ALWAYS decry the Skull & Bones conspiracy as a total waste of time and energy

Then you have my sincere apology. It wasn't fair to make a point at your expense.

[diamondsoul]

188. I think you misread the point from the start.

The point is Kucinich has been declared "unelectable" from the outset. The question was who started the meme.

He came in a shocking second place in the Move-on Primary- totally ignored.

He has been taking strong and determined stances against George Bush to the point of suing him on two different occasions. Totally ignored.

He lead the opposition effort in the House of Representatives against the IWR. Totally ignored.

He posted Diebold memos on his House website and called for investigations into the company, thus forcing Diebold to put up or shut up. They shut up. Totally ignored.

WHEN will the people be informed of all the things this "unelectable" candidate has done in an effort to serve and protect them?

Sheep? No. Suckers? Maybe. You should also take into account this question is posed from the perspective of people who have repeatedly, to the point of wishing for a gun to blow our own brains out, "I like Dennis but he can't win." and knowing that if everyone who ever said that voted for him he'd win every effin' State.

On "mind-control"- define it. Personally I think the media propaganda we're fed on a daily basis by the mainstream media is "mind-control" or an attempt at it. To at least some degree it must be working else they'd have stopped by now. There is ample documentation that the US Government has funded and continues to pursue methods of controlling the human mind, thought process and human behavior, hence the inclusion of a preventive clause in the legislation. Me, I rather like that he thinks ahead to potential threats to me and mine.

Oh yeah...that makes me a "fringe leftist"...funny thing, I always thought people like me were welcomed and accepted at DU given that I'm also a lifelong Democrat displeased with the direction the Party has turned. My mistake.

[SerpentX]

197. "fringe leftists"

The question was who started the meme

He started the meme. His votes on abortion doomed him. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying that because that's what I really believe. As important as all the other issues are, that one is a make or break for a lot of people. Some of those people are pretty powerful and they may forgive but they don't forget.

He came in a shocking second place in the Move-on Primary- totally ignored.

Except that there's nothing really shocking about it. Move-On is an activist organization. Its like an election in your home state. The question is, why didn't he win? How did he get beat by a nobody like Dean?

He has been taking strong and determined stances against George Bush to the point of suing him on two different occasions.

He lead the opposition effort in the House of Representatives against the IWR.

And I admire him for that. But he should have stood up to Bush on the Global Gag Rule. That was a no-brainer. I view that vote the same way you view IWR. It wouldn't keep me from voting for him in the GE, but it put him out of the primary as far as I'm concerned.

Sheep? No. Suckers? Maybe

I disagree. Personally, if I've ever been politically suckered, it was my last vote for Nader. Four years of dumbellya have made me fairly cynical.

You should also take into account this question is posed from the perspective of people who have repeatedly, to the point of wishing for a gun to blow our own brains out, "I like Dennis but he can't win."

"I like Jesse, but he can't win"

"I like Jerry, but he can't win"

"I like Ralph, but he can't win"

Ok, I made the last one up, nobody actually *liked* Ralph. But I got an earful of the other two in '88 and '92. I will at least be honest enough to say "I like Dennis, but he can't win, but that's not why I'm not supporting him". As I said before, I'm not afraid of lost causes, but I'm getting pickier about them. If we were talking about Russ Feingold, I'd have a hard time deciding.

There is ample documentation that the US Government has funded and continues to pursue methods of controlling the human mind, thought process and human behavior

And there is no reproducible, scientific evidence that it has ever paid off. I expect a certain amount of foolishness from the military, having experienced it first-hand. Our representatives have to be held to a slightly higher standard.

Oh yeah...that makes me a "fringe leftist"...

If you say so. I'd suggest a "fringe Democrat", since I haven't heard you quote Trotsky yet.

I always thought people like me were welcomed and accepted at DU given that I'm also a lifelong Democrat displeased with the direction the Party has turned.

I guess having been outside the party for so long I just don't see the whole "wrong direction" thing. From Clinton to Gore to Kerry, I'd say that's a move in the right direction. Not a drastic move, but enough to bring me back for now.

My mistake

Read my last post. What part of "I apologize" was unclear? People should criticize the candidates here, including their own. I'm plenty PO'd about Kerry's dumb statement on the Massachusetts Amendment. I just think that criticism should should be fair and shouldn't sink to the level of paranoia.

[fujiyama]

148. Hmmm...

Well I actually remember the first time I heard of Kucinich. I think he was being interviewed on donahues now defunct show (or somewhere else) but he mentioned the Dept. of Peace. I thought to myself, that's nice, but I don't see that as being very realistic. I agreed with him on the Iraq war though. After reading a little more about him he sounded cool, but sorta "out there", atleast as far as the usual "presidential types" go.

Then I heard about record on abortion, which isn't a very important issue with me, but I thought it was strange nevertheless how he seemigly had flipped on that issue.

Anyways, I'd definetely say that Dean stole Dennis' thunder. Dean came out pretty early on, critical of the rush to war, but at the same time making it clear he wasn't a pacifict. Eventually Dean also began a great push for fundraising and he had an impressive (though somewhat centrist) record in Vermont, which actually even had some positive results. Kucinich on the other hand, unfairly or not, was seen as the "failed boy mayor" or Cleveland.

Kucinich has improved in recent weeks -- focusing more on his opposition to NAFTA and the WTO, similar to Edwards.

I also have to say, and this is somewhat unfortunate, but superficially, Kucinich just seemed, well, sorta goofy....But I've always liked him

[eridani]

153. Sorry, Edwards is similar to Kucinich

Never took it up as an issue until Kucinich raised it.

[fujiyama]

157. That's true. Thanks for correcting me on that.

Either way, I think there are some aspects of Kucinich's record that are actrually quite "electable", but there are some others that aren't.

[eridani]

158. Yes of course

That could be said of all the candidates, obviously.

[TheWebHead]

152. Probably the Gollum physical resemblance

Height and physical appearance weigh heavily in the electiblity quotient, as sad as that is. He may have faired better had LOTR trilogy never existed. Kerry has the height and his flaws in appearance are mitigated because Abe Lincoln, who he is gererally compared to, is so revered.

[Guava Jelly]

155. alot of it is looks

The presidency is kind of a popularity contest.
The good looking jock rich kids allways get a break while the paste eating nerds never win crap.
If dennis was better looking he may of had a better chance.It sounds superficial but after all they picked a cheerleader last time over a computer nerd.bush v gore

[TruthWins]

160. Perhaps His Left Left Left Agenda?

Do we elect presidents that far to the left? He's my congressman and I proudly vote for him, but I don't want his agenda as president.

[eridani]

204. What 'left'?

Is anyone here capable of discussing policy without using meaningless snarl words?

[mmonk]

164. It began in the beginning

but I sure wish he was electable at this time. America is just not sophisticated enough and too jingoistic in matters of foreign policy.

[G_j]

168. we should not be calling any of our candidates unelectable!

the term is an absolute. One may have greater challenges to convince voters, ideas that may seem ahead of their time, physical characteristics (including skin color) that are not conventionally accepted by everyone. They may be of a gender that has never held the office.

But we should never call our own candidates unelectable. Why such an absolute? Are we trying to kill someone's chances before they have the opportunity to convince people?

[redqueen]

179. The "we" doing this are just following the herd

Irritating, no? One gets the impression that the 'high school' mentality is not only recognized, but accepted and advocated by far too many people, still.


"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

[HuskerDem]

181. Space based mind control weapons

That's when.

[diamondsoul]

189. No it isn't. n/t

[Armand]

191. Well..for starters, most of the people in the country don't agree with him

he has a small number of people who'll back him until the end. Also, he only represents a small % of the Democratic party. In this election, we need someone like John Kerry or John Edwards who'll best represent all of the Democrats. Hell, we need to pander to the independents and the "liberal republicans" to ensure that Bush is voted out of office come November.

[Nadienne]

196. I'm an independent.

Pander to me!!!

[G_j]

200. Just because Bush needs a pink slip

and I will vote for the Dem nominee, doesn't mean I feel either Kerry or Edwards represents me. (Of course either would be better than *)

For instance here in NC, Edwards gave the peace movement the complete cold shoulder. It's bad enough to believe the war was justified, but to utterly ignore his constituants and not even respond to them or meet with them is terrible leadership.
I like what he is saying about trade issues and am very pleased with his desire to raise min. wage, but being deliberately ignored does not tend to make one feel represented.

Kerry has a decent enough environmental record, so at least in that sense he does represent me.

But my point is, please don't confuse having to vote for a candidate out of pure survival as a sign that the voter actually feels "represented"

[eridani]

205. How do you know that?

If no one knows what his policies are, how do you know if they will agree with them?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

208. I think it was Dennis himself.

Nobody made Dennis electable, other than Dennis himself. It's not that difficult to figure out.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

209. I am converted..

With the multitude of facts and evidence you have presented. I now agree with you 100%!

Thanks for the enlightenment!

TWL