Kucinich will pitch 250 innings

[eridani]

http://www.nypress.com/17/8/news&columns/cage.cfm

I never reached Sharpton, but at the Kucinich offices, I was greeted with a surprise. The candidate was not dead at all. He was living and breathing and, apparently, still eating organically grown produce.

"He’s absolutely fine," said Jon Schwartz, Kucinich’s media radio consultant in Washington. "He’s fit as a horse. We’re expecting him to throw 250 innings this year. He’s wearing out our catchers in Winter Haven right now, as we speak."

Actually Kucinich was campaigning somewhere in Minnesota, which like New York has a primary coming up on Super Tuesday, March 2. To prove that reports of his candidate’s death were greatly exaggerated, Schwartz ended up putting Kucinich on the phone. On Saturday, I spoke to Dennis for about a half-hour as he drove through greater Minneapolis.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

1. Good read! Thanks for the post

There are some great statements in that article.

"I am a Dennis Kucinich supporter because I believe America’s greatest problem is its incivility, its intolerance to new ideas, its remorseless hatred of weakness and failure, the willingness of its individual citizens to submerge their individual cowardice within the vicious commerce-driven standards of our national self-image. George Bush is a terrible president, but he is merely a by-product of these wider national tendencies, which exist outside of him and independently of him. And these tendencies are symbolized exactly in the laughter directed at Dennis Kucinich. To vote for Dennis Kucinich, I believe, is to vote for man’s right to publicly be who he is and not be ridiculed for it. If we are peaceful people, it is a vote for our right to merely be who we are."

....

"A: (returning, thoughtfully) I mean, perhaps it is a qualification for the presidency, and what does that say? I was never subject to the rarefied atmosphere of the Senate, but as the ranking Democrat on a congressional subcommittee devoted to national security, I never saw any proof that there were weapons of mass destruction."

snip>>>

Definitely worth a read..!

TWL

[redqueen]

2. He is so tremendous.

Thanks for posting this!

My favorite part:

(snip)

Q: Leaving Al Sharpton aside for a moment, in what way can you say that you present a real alternative to George Bush in a way that John Kerry or John Edwards does not?

A: On the war. You know, both of them have the unfortunate occasion of having parroted the president’s position on weapons of mass destruction. And not only parroted it, but in the case of Sen. Kerry, greatly embroidered and embellished it. Just look at his speech, I think it was October 9, 2002–he goes into tremendous detail about the weapons of mass destruction, he is tremendously detailed about the threat. And then for it to have turned out… What a great concession, to admit to having been fooled by George Bush, and then calling this a qualification for the presidency…

(snip)

Q: But a lot of us who were on the outside, who didn’t even have the privilege of being in Congress, we supposed automatically that this whole weapons of mass destruction business was a pretext for an invasion that was planned all along for other reasons. Is that correct? Is the idea that they were fooled a little strange to begin with?

A: Of course it is. And of course that’s what was going on. But there were a number of things that went into this, that played a part. One of those things was the whole dramaturgy of the constant threat, the lions and tigers and bears, oh my, and that was played up. And then there was the realpolitik search for hegemony in the region. And on top of that there was the posturing of various political leaders who were engaged in this ridiculous struggle to look tough. So this raises the question of what category of person you want your president to be in. That’s not to say that the others aren’t fine people in their own right. But it does say that when we entered a war that was totally unnecessary, that…I challenged the White House, I challenged the members of my own party, I challenged the media. And they did not and so having given in to the administration on the war, it made it impossible for the party to challenge the White House on economic issues.

(snip)

Q: Because when the newspapers today talk about the vote that the two senators made, they generally discuss it only in the context of their having believed there were weapons of mass destruction. But wasn’t there a larger issue, which involved lessening the standards for going to war?

A: Yes–but again, what are the implications of their having believed there were weapons of mass destruction? It’s not just about a vote, the vote was what it was, but what information did they have? It just raises the question–what were they thinking? I mean, if they were fooled by George Bush–who else would they be fooled by?

:think:

[revcarol]

3. Kerry 'fell for' LIONS, AND TIGERS, AND BEARS, OH MY!!

Tell 'em, Dennis.:bounce: