Obama has passed more progressive legislation into law than Kucinich.

[Radical Activist]

I can't believe people are still arguing that Obama isn't liberal. I made this comment in another thread but I think its worth emphasizing for the crowd who will never believe Obama is liberal enough. Let's face facts. Obama passed more progressive legislation as a state Senator, and during his four years in the US Senate, than Kucinich has during his entire career.

Are you more impressed by someone who can scream about how liberal they are and create purity tests, or are you more impressed by someone who gets results on progressive issues? Kucinich talks about nuclear proliferation. Obama got a bill passed to reduce it. Kucinich talks about the death penalty and Obama got major death penalty reform passed into law in Illinois. Dennis talks about campaign finance reform but Obama get reforms passed in Illinois and at the federal level. I love Dennis but I can see who gets results.

I don't write this to bash Dennis. The primary is over. I'm using Kucinich as a point of comparison because he represents the all-or-nothing approach that some liberals apparently want.

Obama has a record of getting Republicans to go along with progressive bills he passed. Is talking about bringing people together such a bad thing when it results in things we want? That's worth thinking about as he brings people with differing viewpoints into his cabinet. Do you want theatrical purity tests for cabinet appointments or do you want results? A lot of people apparently want Obama to act more like Kucinich. I think I know which approach serves progressive causes better. I think Obama is including moderates in his cabinet with good reason and that those appointments will help get results for issues progressives care about far more than ideological exclusion ever could.

I don't think some of my fellow liberals are thinking very strategically about this. Obama is.

[PeaceNikki]

1. I agree. K&R

[Radical Activist]

10. Thanks

And a pre-preemptive thanks to anyone else who recommends.

[gristy]

2. Ya gotta credible link for this claim?

"Obama has passed more progressive legislation into law than Kucinich."

[Radical Activist]

7. You can google any of the bills I mentioned.

Or google Obama's legislative record generally. I love where Dennis is on the issues, but he has passed very few meaningful bills during his time in Congress. Being an outside advocate is an important role and I appreciate the role Dennis plays, but that's not the type of approach that is usually very good at getting things passed into law.

Here's one link:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/16/81043/5816

[gristy]

14. Neither your reply nor the link supports your assertion that

"Obama has passed more progressive legislation into law than Kucinich."

Need a list and weighted ranking of all legislation passed by each, and then add up the weighted rankings for each. Or, if you like, determine for each bill that each has voted for if it is "progressive" or "not progressive". Total up all the progressive bills for each.

Whoever gets the bigger number "has passed more progressive legislation than the other."

[Radical Activist]

The list of bills passed into law by Kucinich is very short.

This isn't about voting records. Dennis has a great one. This is about effectiveness at getting things passed into law.

Dennis Kucinich has sponsored 91 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 87 haven't made it out of committee and 3 were successfully enacted.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400227

Obama passed more than three in much less time. Even the ones Dennis did pass were largely insignificant. Yes, Dennis is great on the issues but we should be honest with ourselves about his effectiveness in Congress.

[gristy]

34. Your OP talked about passing progressive legislation,

and now you're talking about sponsoring legislation. You further say "this isn't about voting records".

I'm getting pretty confused.

[Radical Activist]

38. Passing legislation.

I referenced bills Obama was responsible for writing and building enough support to get it passed into law. That's hard work. Any bump on a log member of Congress can vote on bills. That's very different than building support for your own ideas to get them made into law.

[Zhade]

118. That's not DK's fault, so much as the fault of the conservatives both in and outside of the Dems.

NT!

[Cleita]

3. I'm not criticizing Obama about this, but it seems that

triangulating is how he gets things done. I don't think Dennis's personality and principles allow him to go there. I never really thought of Dennis as a great politician, just a great guy. Even if he can't get policy made, he is a gadfly there reminding everyone else of what they should be doing ethically.

[Radical Activist]

9. I think there's a big difference between

Clintonian triangulation where you compromise your basic values, versus describing progressive values in a way that gets moderates to go along. I hope that will be the difference between Obama and Bill Clinton.

[Cleita]

11. Me too. n/t

[TheDoorbellRang]

49. I very much agree

I think Obama tends to describe his legislation not as "liberal" or "progressive" but more as common sense solutions to problems. That way there aren't conservative knee jerk reactions against his proposals.

I'm looking forward to watching his political chess games these next few years.

[knixphan]

88. seconded-

[CreekDog]

87. Lincoln was a great guy who only freed slaves in confederate states

or that Rosa Parks for example, was an orchestrated attempt to make a public case against segregation. it wasn't a whim and the original person they'd picked to perform the civil disobedience was not chosen because she was a pregnant teenager.

people sometimes fail to appreciate that politics is how a lot of steps forward were actually taken.

you don't want to know the compromises and kissing of ass Lyndon Johnson had to do to bigoted segregationist Senators in trying to pass Civil Rights legislation but he did just that and became arguably the best President for Civil Rights.

[atimetocome]

91. Triangulation is a good thing and Obama does it well.

[JVS]

4. K&R

[BlooInBloo]

5. But Moonbeam McCrazypants can talk to aliens! So NYAH!!!

:rofl:

[Hun Joro]

42. You know, I don't think I've seen a post by you that wasn't

rude, childish and/or insulting in some way. :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

53. (shrug) That's more a statement about what you've seen than anything else.

[Danger Mouse]

69. When the alien overlords attack, he will be our savior.

Will you still be laughing then?

[BlooInBloo]

70. Pfft. Like they can take our new black overlords...

:rofl:

[Breeze54]

6. Uh... Obama is a Senator... Kucinich is a Congressman

and why are you comparing two Democrats anyway? :shrug:

Do you have links to the comparison of what legislation both
have managed to get passed that fits the 'progressive' criteria?

Why are you protesting that some want progressive's in the cabinet too?

What's wrong with that? :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

8. Wanting progressives in the cabinet is fine

but you know the appointments are being used to argue that Obama is a corporate centrist who won't do anything positive and that he's moving to the right. I don't find those negative predictions credible.

I named several specific examples and I put a link in another reply. You're welcome to do a simple google search if you doubt my examples.

I explained the reason for comparing two Democrats in my OP. Did you read it?

[Breeze54]

12. I read your OP but I don't see the correlation there and as far

as the links are concerned. You posted the OP and the claim,

so you should back it up with examples.

Obama IS staying in the center and leaning right, by these appointments.

We want a progressive or two at the table.

[Radical Activist]

19. Yawn.

I already gave one link in another comment. Feel free to click on it. If you still don't believe me then don't be too lazy to do a simple google search. I already did back it up with several specific examples that should be well known after the general election. Do you really know so little about Obama's record or is this just a tactic to avoid conceding the point?

"Obama IS staying in the center and leaning right, by these appointments."

But there's no evidence that he's moving right in his policies. He's still moving ahead aggressively with his energy plan, and a new deal style jobs program. His only hint of changing from the campaign is possibly delaying tax increases for the wealthy, which will happen in two years either way. That's a change in timeline but not a major shift in policy.

[Breeze54]

29. *yawn* There is no link in your OP....

Yawn all you want. You posted the OP, so you should provide evidence.

I'm not lazy at all but I do keep getting disconnected from the internet.

I suspect you don't have any evidence.

[Radical Activist]

31. Ok, here's the link from my other comment.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/16/81043/5816

It includes the examples I mentioned and more.

Here's the link showing that DK has only passed three bills he introduced during his time in Congress.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400227

[Breeze54]

40. You mean while the Congress was controlled by Rethugs?

:rofl:

-----------

Statistics: Dennis Kucinich has sponsored 91 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 87 haven't made it out of committee and 3 were successfully enacted. Kucinich has co-sponsored 2689 bills during the same time period. (Starting Sept 17, 2008, these numbers do not include resolutions. In addition, the count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Kucinich and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

Some of Kucinich's most recently sponsored bills include...

H.R. 7040: Protecting Voters in Foreclosure Act of 2008
H.R. 6875: Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2008
H.R. 7260: Transparency in the Creation of Wealth Act of 2008
H.R. 3875: To permit the Secretary of Labor to make an administrative determination of the amount of unpaid wages owed for certain violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the New Orleans region after Hurricane Katrina.
H.Res. 799: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

---------

Bills in 2007-2008 (the 110th Congress) sponsored by Kucinich:

Status Bill
Enacted
Aug 12, 2008
H.R. 6150: To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14500 Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio, as the "John P. Gallagher Post Office Building".
Passed House
Jul 30, 2007 4:08 PM
H.R. 2707: To reauthorize the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program.
Introduced
Oct 3, 2008
H.R. 7260: Transparency in the Creation of Wealth Act of 2008
Introduced
Sep 24, 2008
H.R. 7040: Protecting Voters in Foreclosure Act of 2008
Introduced
Sep 11, 2008
H.R. 6875: Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2008
Introduced
Aug 1, 2008
H.R. 6814: To affirm that exports and diversions of water from the Great Lakes may only be approved if such exports and diversions are in the public interest, to provide for enforcement, and for other purposes.
Introduced
Aug 1, 2008
H.R. 6800: Medicare Drugs for Seniors (MEDS) Act of 2008
Introduced
Jul 31, 2008
H.R. 6710: Oil for Iraq Liberation Act of 2008
Introduced
Jul 31, 2008
H.R. 6706: Administrative Law Judges Retirement Act of 2008
Introduced
Jul 29, 2008
H.R. 6637: Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act
Introduced
Jul 29, 2008
H.R. 6636: Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act
Introduced
Jul 29, 2008
H.R. 6635: Genetically Engineered Safety Act
Introduced
May 8, 2008
H.R. 6000: Gas Price Spike Act of 2008
Introduced
Nov 1, 2007
H.R. 4060: Universal Prekindergarten Act
Introduced
Oct 17, 2007
H.R. 3875: To permit the Secretary of Labor to make an administrative determination of the amount of unpaid wages owed for certain violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the New Orleans region after Hurricane Katrina.
Introduced
Aug 3, 2007
H.R. 3400: Rebuilding America's Infrastructure
Introduced
Jul 25, 2007
H.R. 3183: For the relief of Theresa and Stefan Sajac.
Introduced
Feb 28, 2007
H.R. 1234: To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately.
Introduced
Feb 5, 2007
H.R. 808: Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act
Introduced
Jan 10, 2007
H.Con.Res. 23: Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not order an escalation in the total number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq.
Introduced
Mar 5, 2007
H.J.Res. 39: Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.
Introduced
Jul 15, 2008
H.Res. 1345: Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Introduced
Jun 10, 2008
H.Res. 1258: Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Introduced
Nov 6, 2007
H.Res. 799: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Introduced
Apr 24, 2007
H.Res. 333: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

----------

Bills kucinich has sponsored or co-sponsored in Congress

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

Items 1 through 100 of 647....

[Radical Activist]

43. Nice list of co-sponsored bills. "3 were successfully enacted."

Obama and Kucinich were serving in the same Congress for the last four years. Actually, Kucinich should have the advantage since Democrats had a bigger majority in the House than the Senate. Logically, Kucinich should have passed far more bills than Obama in the last four years. Why isn't that the case? Why couldn't he build any support for his impeachment hearings?

I like Dennis too but we have to be honest with ourselves about his limitations.

[Breeze54]

46. The rethugs have had control of the house until 2006.

Should've, would've, could've.

Why are you dissing a fellow Democrat rep in Congress? :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

48. Why are people dissing a fellow Dem

in the White House?

Why has Obama been able to pass so many more laws since 2006 than Kucinich? No matter how you spin it, Obama gets a lot more done.

[Breeze54]

56. Obama has barely passed anything and all 3 he co-sponsoed

As a new US Senator...


When Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he said he wished to get things done rather than grab headlines.

He teamed with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to study the dangers of nuclear proliferation and pass legislation meant to keep nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Obama also joined with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., after Hurricane Katrina to improve oversight of federal spending.

And he shared billing with a Republican presidential hopeful when he joined Arizona Sen. John McCain in sponsoring legislation that called for sharp, mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

[mvd]

64. Remember Obama was only in for one term, though

He's done fine.

So has Dennis IMO. Search for him here, and I get 647 items sponsored/co-sponsored:

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html

[Breeze54]

67. I posted that below and I agree with you.

and the 647 is only in the last 2 years!

:hi:

[undeterred]

59. Why are you pissing on a fellow Dem in Congress?

[Radical Activist]

61. Read the post.

I explain why the comparison is important. And the point is not to piss on Kucinich, unless you're overly defensive about it.

[undeterred]

62. Well, I don't see anyone dissing Obama

unless you're overly defensive about it.

[treestar]

93. Not his limitations so much as the voters'

I think he has some great ideas this country is just not ready for. It's not liberal enough yet. But it's getting there, so I agree with the OP, Obama has talent for getting things moving.

[stevenleser]

117. There is no use in talking to people who engage in this silliness...

people who are attacking Obama for his cabinet picks have disqualified themselves from serious discussions imho.

[BlooInBloo]

72. Yah - like Moonbeam McCrazypants supporters NEVER compare Democrats...

:rofl:

[undeterred]

Kucinich displays more political and moral courage than Obama.

He doesn't weigh everything he says according to where its going to move his career. He speaks the truth and often he is the only one.

Both have their place in Democratic politics, but forgive me if I still find Kucinich a lot more inspirational than Obama.

[PeaceNikki]

16. DK restriced women's rights until he became a presidential candidate.

As a Democratic Presidential candidate he had to woo the pro-choice groups, he attempted a quick switch.

So there was that.

[Danger Mouse]

74. What'd he do?

[PeaceNikki]

78. He quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions.

* He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad.
* He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion.
* He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus.
* He voted against funding research on RU-486.
* He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception.
* He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered).
* Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up.
* He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research.
* He voted specifically against allowing Washington, DC, to fund abortions for poor women with nonfederal dollars and against permitting female soldiers and military dependents to have an abortion in overseas military facilities even if they paid for it themselves.
* Similarly, although Kucinich told me he was not in favor of "criminalizing" abortion, he voted for a partial-birth-abortion ban that included fines and up to two years in jail for doctors who performed them, except to save the woman's life. What's that, if not criminalization?

His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020527/pollitt

Now, he's changed his tune since and rates well with NARAL so kudos to him for that... but he didn't change his votes until he wanted to run on the Democratic ticket. That voting record would have never flown.

[Danger Mouse]

79. HA! So the great liberal hero ain't so great when women are involved.

Typical.

[Radical Activist]

83. To be fair

his record on other womens rights issues other than abortion was always very good. I've spoken with him about it and its something he struggled with for a long time given his strong spiritual beliefs about the value of all life. That's one of the reasons he's a vegan. I'm not making excuses for his old voting record but I don't think it was such a cynical change on his part that he finally had to reconcile his personal beliefs about abortion and his beliefs about a personal rights.

Then again, he represents a heavily Catholic district in Congress so I guess there's no way to know how much of it was political at any point in time.

[cali]

17. he doesn't have to. and it's a ridiculous overstatement to say

that Dennis is often the only one. he's rarely the only one. Give me Bernie anyday over Sanders. And sorry, I don't find Dennis remotely inspirational. Good guy, but inspirational? Hardly.

[PeaceNikki]

20. Yeah, I don't find myself inspired by him in any way.

Now Obama... he can move me to tears in like NO time.

[undeterred]

24. All of the members of Congress who did absolutely nothing to hold Bush & Cheney accountable

for showing a complete disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law (including outing a CIA agent and initiating an illegal war which has killed thousands of innocent civilians) for the past 8 years move me to tears.

[Radical Activist]

28. There are a lot of great things to say about Dennis.

And I appreciate his role as an inspiring prophet of the left. But, I think he would get much less done for progressives than Obama if he were ever elected President.

[mvd]

57. I can't agree with you on the second point

If Kucinich is elected President, that would mean the country has REALLY turned a corner. Passing progressive items would be easy.

I'm very happy about Obama's victory, but still have to be shown if he really is a liberal. He seemed to be about "moderation" and bi-partisanship. Even that will be a world of difference from Bush, though.

[Radical Activist]

60. In theory

Kucinich with overwhelming public support could get things done. But Dennis as President right now in the real political climate...I doubt it.

[mvd]

65. It remains to be seen, I guess

I voted for him in the primaries because I wanted to see him get a chance at least. With the media the way they are, they remain a big obstacle.

[LWolf]

98. I do, too. nt

[anigbrowl]

127. Talk is cheap

I've said this before, but DK can promise the moon because he knows he'll never actually have to deliver it. It gets him enough national contributions to outspend his primary and congressional opponents in Ohio. It's easy for him to be super-idealistic when there is absolutely zero chance he'll have to turn such talk into results at the national level.

[elocs]

13. Careful, careful, you are criticizing one of the gods here. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

71. One of the DU Sacred Cows Who Can Do No Wrong.

[elocs]

92. How true. He really is above criticism here, that is if he has ever done anything wrong. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

101. Look at his record for women's rights before he decided he wanted to be president.

I'd say that's pretty open for criticism.

[ClarkUSA]

15. Thanks for a refreshingly excellent OP. Bookmarked.

:thumbsup:

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. I understand the point you tried to make, though comparing a Congressman

with a Senator seems irrational. Personally, I too see wisdom in a subtle approach, until Obama's Administration has consolidated its status. Then I would imagine he will be glad to use the nous and courage of Kucinich.

[Ian David]

21. But Kucinich has a hotter wife. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

23. Hotter than MICHELLE!??! No way, dude.

[Ian David]

36. Michelle doesn't have a tongue piercing. n/t

[Radical Activist]

39. Damn

Score one for Elizabeth.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Elizabeth doesn't have two children.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

as they are very different women.....just like their husbands.

I just know that Kucinich endorsed Obama, and he knows better than most
that Obama is progressive enough.

[Radical Activist]

30. Debatable

But probably so, imo. They're two lucky guys. They both have very tall wives. :)

[AZ Criminal JD]

22. What legislation are you talking about?

He had no role in the Illinois Senate. Legislation there was totally controlled by Emil Jones.

[Radical Activist]

41. Jones did block anything he didn't like.

But it wasn't a one man show. The fact that Obama was able to get Jones' support and pass bills, often with support from Republicans, in a Senate where many others weren't able to get anything done at all speaks to Obama's abilities as a legislator.

Here's the first good link I found doing a google search.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php

[Starry Messenger]

25. A fine post, thank you.

I hope everyone sees some of the changes they want in the coming years. I think it is going to be a very practical administration with a lot of hard work done. I'm sure everyone who feels passionate about it one way or another just wants the best for this country. I would like to see a more liberal government as well, but for right now we just need to stop the bleeding.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. My vote is and was for getting something done

And this man will get things done. And I'm glad he seems not to be too worried about whining in the meantime!

[Thrill]

32. Looking at Obama's record in IL and the US Senate. There is nothing there to show he isn't Liberal

[Radical Activist]

35. That's why I supported him as the progressive choice in the '04 Senate Primary

and again for President.

[S_E_Fudd]

33. Kind of a low bar there...

What has Kucinich ever passed?

[Radical Activist]

44. Not much.

But that's kind of the point.

[elifino]

37. Links to Obama and Kuncinich votes FYI

Obama http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

Kuncinich http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000336/

[Captain Hilts]

45. His voting record is nearly identical to Clinton's. He's a middle of the roader. nt

[Radical Activist]

50. For the two years that Clinton moved left in advance of the primary

that's true. When viewing their careers and life as a whole, I have to disagree with you.

[Breeze54]

58. HRC moved "left"?! -- wtf?

:P

[camera obscura]

47. Kucinich isn't a great example as the guy's more talk than action. Compare him to Feingold maybe?

[Radical Activist]

51. You mean Feingold who voted for some of Bush's most conservative appointments?

Most of the very few bad votes Feingold took were for Bush appointees. Judging by that I don't think Feingold would put up ideological purity tests for cabinet appointments either. He would probably be doing the same thing Obama is doing now. So, that's a good comparison.

[undeterred]

55. Thats a distortion.

Its Feingold's legal philosophy that the president has the right to make the appointments he is allowed to by the Constitution. Feingold is a Harvard schooled lawyer. That's not a "bad" vote. He voted for conservative appointees (who were qualified) not because he agreed with Bush and would have chosen them himself, but because they were going to pass anyway and if rejected Bush could easily pick someone worse than Justice Roberts. He would not vote for an unqualified conservative.

Feingold is one of few Democrats who is consistently progressive and is likely to pull Obama to the left. I don't think he would be making the same choices as Obama. He didn't capitulate on FISA.

[Radical Activist]

63. Its an example

of Feingold not forcing people to pass ideological purity tests. But you're right that we can only speculate about what kind of cabinet he would pick. I just searched for his comments and found this quote that sounds pretty supportive of Obama's approach:

Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold said Wednesday that Reid was right to describe Obama's mandate as having less to do with ideology than a bipartisan approach to governing.

"I've seen Democrats have control of everything. I have seen Republicans have control of everything, and both times it went haywire because of partisanship," said Feingold, who said his party could pursue an ambitious agenda while still reaching out to the other side.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/president/33950939.html

[undeterred]

66. Feingold is disarmingly bipartisan

considering how progressive he is. People in Wisconsin got upset that he didn't call out his friend John McCain for some of the lousy stuff he did during the campaign. That says a lot about Feingold on a certain level- he is very gracious to other people and works well with the opposition. He's not judgmental, and he values tha ability to work with others very highly.

But he's got a spine of steel. And for all the times DU has gone crazy about the wimpiness of Democrats in Congress- Feingold is never in that group. Neither is Kucinich. Being bipartisan doesn't mean you VOTE with the other side, like Obama and many other Democrats did on FISA. It means you WORK with and listen to the other side.

[Vattel]

76. The president doesn't have a right to appoint anyone

without the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate has the right to tell the president to fuck himself and his nominees. And Feingold voted for Mukasey who was not qualified.

[undeterred]

90. "The Senate has the right to tell the president to fuck himself and his nominees."

Your "judicial philosophy" and Senator Feingold's are different.

[bridgit]

54. Well, Obama didn't 'get a bill to reduce it (proliferation)' he co-opted

the Nunn-Lugar bill after Nunn moved on. And Sam Nunn is no peacenik http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6386369 The bill is referred to as Lugar-Obama, and it's not possible to disagree with nuclear non proliferation. It was a naturally smart move on both their parts operating on the same committee: Lugar, reaching out/Obama reaching in. And that can be the way things get done too.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/NunnLugarFunding

http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=278019

I'm surprised you didn't mention Kucinich' Dept of Peace http://www.thepeacealliance.org an idea no one seems to be reaching into or out of while the headlines of the world seek to confound it's promise every day as an open call for a cake & tea social at the cabinet level. This world is a rock hard place. I want Obama to be himself.

[bvar22]

68. OTOH:

Obama has helped keep the troops in Iraq by voting for funding.

Obama helped give immunity to the Telecoms for spying on Americans

Obama helped give $800Billion dollars of our children's money to Wall St CEOs with no strings attached.

Dennis didn't.

[Danger Mouse]

73. Heh. Kucinich is a hero to the left. Why? What real risk has he taken?

[Radical Activist]

82. I give Dennis a lot of credit

for being an early and very vocal voice against the war. He was also useful in the '04 primary for moving the debate left and raising issues that the press and other candidates largely ignored. Its good to have people like Dennis around, but based on how he ran his '04 campaign I became convinced he would run the country into the ground if he ever became President.

[Danger Mouse]

84. He's a lousy politician who has good views.

[Fireweed247]

95. Kucinich has been fighting Bushco since the beginning

He led the effort in the House of Representatives against the war in Iraq.

He is the only Rep that read the 'Patriot' Act and led the effort against it.

He has been fighting for WE the People for much longer than Obama and because of it Kerry would barely let him speak at the 2004 convention, only 5 minutes of non prime time. Obama however had the major speech at the convention and was give a million dollar party to introduce him (by whom I wonder?)

Obama clearly has some important(rich) people behind him, no one makes it as far as him without selling out in some way.

Kucinich's legislation is supported my the majority of the people, universal health care, windfall oil tax, bringing the troops home four years ago, impeaching Bush and Cheney for illegal wiretapping...it is not his fault that the majority of our Congress is corrupt.

Obama has enabled Bushco just as much as the rest, it is a fact people, and he will need to be pushed to do the right thing. How can anyone possibly vote for retroactive immunity on illegal wiretapping(which goes directly against are Constitution so the legislation isn't even legal) He has already said something about Pakistan, now with the India bombing, blaming Pakistan...they are setting up a way for Obama to continue the war on terror. If he doesn't do it, Biden will. (Kennedy-Johnson)

[Danger Mouse]

100. How's his record on women's rights?

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

120. You could always read his words, though I know that would require thought on your part.

Which principles do you support regarding abortion:
* Abortions should always be legal.
* Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
* Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.

Source: Vote-Smart Presidential National Political Awareness Test Jan 8, 2004

Q: You started pro-life. Can you elaborate on what that was that made you change your mind?

A: I've always worked to make abortions less necessary, through sex education and birth control. But the direction that Congress has taken, increasingly, is to make it impossible for women to be able to have an abortion if they need to protect their health. So when I saw the direction taken, it finally came to the point where I understood that women will not be truly free unless they have the right to choose
Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Presidential Debate in Durham NH Dec 9, 2003

All men & women have right to make difficult moral decisions
In our society, all women and all men have a right to make difficult moral decisions and make personal choices. I want to work to make sure that, when life is brought forward, we have prenatal care and postnatal care and childcare and universal health care and a living wage.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.us, "On The Issues" Aug 1, 2003

Supreme Court nominees must agree to uphold Roe v. Wade
I support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose, and will select Supreme Court justices who affirm this Constitutional right. Because I know that the right to choose is under attack -- as President, I will only support someone for the Supreme Court if he or she agrees to uphold Roe v. Wade.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

Journey in 2002 from pro-life to pro-choice
I've had a journey on the issue . A year ago, before I became a candidate for President, I broke from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

Women can't be free unless they have the right to choose
I have come to believe that it's not simply about the right to choose, but about a woman's role in society as being free and having agency and having the ability to make her own decisions. That a woman can't be free unless she has this right.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

Prevention, education, & health care, to minimize abortions
I want to work to make abortions less necessary, which means sex education and birth control. I want to work to make sure that, when life is brought forward, we have prenatal care and postnatal care and childcare and universal health care and a living wage.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

Life begins at conception
I believe life begins at conception and that our priority should be to make abortions obsolete, by preventing unwanted pregnancy, promoting abstinence, and promote life affirming programs after birth
Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1996

Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.
Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them.
Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003

Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research.
Vote to prohibit human cloning for either medical research or reproductive purposes. The bill would make it illegal to perform, attempt or participate in human cloning. It also would ban shipping or importing cloned embryos or products made from them.
Bill HR 2505 ; vote number 2001-304 on Jul 31, 2001

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001

Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.
Vote to pass a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing any of 68 federal offenses or a crime under military law. Abortion doctors and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses would be exempt.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.
HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" . The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000

Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
Kucinich scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003



Boy, those views sure are a laugh riot. Perhaps you can tell us which ones you disagree with? I eagerly await that answer, if you have the guts.

[Danger Mouse]

122. Haha, yeah, he began a 'journey'...that's pure political bullshit.

[Forkboy]

123. I didn't think you'd have the guts to tell me which of DK's positions you disagree with.

You've illustrated many times that you're not the most intellectually honest person on DU.

So, I ask again, which part of his current 100% NARAL rating do you disagree with?

[Danger Mouse]

124. I was pointing out that in the past he's had a terrible record on women's rights...

which only changed when he wanted to be president.
Which shows that is just another politician at the end of the day.

[Forkboy]

125. And now he has a perfect record on them.

While I understand your cynicism in this regard, cynicism is not proof. DK's stance bothered me a lot until I spoke to a few very strong women in my life. They felt he was sincere in it, and that was good enough for me.

Harping on him for being wrong before would be ok if he still held those views. But does it really even matter why he changed if it's to do the right thing, as he clearly has? Is that really the type of thing that deserves ridicule?

[Danger Mouse]

126. To be honest...

I don't think anybody should be held in too high a regard. It's not healthy. I get kind of tired of how certain people can do no wrong in the eyes of most DUer's, and that makes me somewhat more judgmental of the person's actions than I would be normally. That's probably why I made a bigger deal out of this than I probably needed to, it was something to point to for those that seem to think he's perfect.

[Forkboy]

128. I understand, and agree with not holding these people in too high a regard.

But we see that from supporters of every Dem at one point or another. Every single candidate has had their own cult of personality going, and that will never change.

Personally, while I truly like some politicians, I make sure I don't get caught up in their personalities. It's all about the issues, and I do feel DK is right on many, many more of them than a lot of other Dems.

My biggest beef with DK is that for all his being right on so many issues he lacks the ability to transfer that to real action too often, partly due to those who simply don't take him seriously, but also due to his own lack of organizational skills.

Sorry to be such a hard ass to you before. I just think it's easy to mock someone like DK without really knowing where he actually stands on those issues. Still, my apologies.

[Danger Mouse]

130. No, I understood why you said what you did.

And I agree that his biggest problem is he's not as good at actually getting things done.

[Truth2Tell]

75. This post is flame bait. I'm glad

most of the progressives on this board are smart enough not to bite.

[Radical Activist]

80. Nah.

I can understand that some people will have a knee jerk reaction anytime someone says anything less that glowing about Kucinich. But the post is meant to get people thinking about how the left can be effective and what we should fairly expect from a progressive President who wants to govern effectively.

[Truth2Tell]

85. OK, if you say so.

However, your suggestion that Kucinich is "ineffective" is an old meme that no longer flies. I'll accept your explanation of your intent.

But for the record, Dennis has a record of sponsoring and passing bills that is about average for a member of the House. Slightly better than Pelosi before she became speaker.

But then that's just one narrow measure of effectiveness. The Legislature and the Presidency are some of the grandest soap-boxes on the planet. Kucinich uses his position to express the point of view of millions of Americans who would otherwise not be heard in our democracy. And he helps educate many voters and many fellow members about issues that would be otherwise overlooked. I'd say that role is beyond effective, it's essential.

We have yet to see what Obama will do with his.

[Dawgs]

89. "We have yet to see what Obama will do with his."

Isn't that part of the OP's original point?

It seems that many on this board(and elsewhere) are ready to declare Obama a centrist without realizing that he had been quite liberal throughout his career.

[mkultra]

77. and Hillary has passed more than BOTH of them combined

check your facts before your spout off.

[Radical Activist]

81. What does that have to do

with the point I'm making? This post isn't about rehashing the primary. Did you read it?

[karynnj]

111. Give me a list of liberal things where HRC was the sponsor

(not just one of many co-sponsors)

[Two Americas]

86. give the "purity" thing a rest

It is suppressive as Hell.

[Radical Activist]

96. Telling me not to counter arguments is

suppressive. I'll stop the "purity" test thing when people stop the "Obama must be a corporate conservative who will do nothing good for progressives because of a few appointments" thing. Everyone is free to argue their side.

In '04 Kucinich ran as the "only candidate who opposed the Iraq War from the start." He deserves credit for that. In '08 he changed his line. He became the only candidate who voted against "funding" the war from the start. He had to change his line because Obama also opposed the war from the start. He had to create a new hoop that Obama couldn't jump through. But Kucinch had not previously put so much emphasis on votes for funding the war. I think people should recognize that for the campaign gimmick that it was. Kucinich moved the goal posts so he could keep playing his "more liberal than thou" game that was the entire basis for his campaign. So talking about purity tests is a legitimate discussion that shouldn't be suppressed.

[Two Americas]

102. no it isn't

Can you not see the difference?

Saying that "Obama is moving to the right" is one thing.

Saying that "those claiming Obama is moving to the right ARE (insert insult or derogatory term)" is attacking the messengers rather than the message.

Asking people to not do that - because attacking the messenger rather than the message has a negative effect on freedom of speech - is not suppressive.

[Radical Activist]

107. I find it odd that you're telling me I can't use a certain argument

and that's your idea of freedom of speech. Let me know when someone is silenced at DU because of something I write.

I think people are unfairly claiming that Obama is moving to the right without sufficient evidence. I will argue against that all I want and I would appreciate you not insulting me personally by claiming I'm suppressing anyone. If people think I'm wrong they're more than free to counter-argue.

[Two Americas]

114. I am not

Use what ever argument you like. Don't attack the other members, attack their arguments. You can't see the difference between those two, apparently, since you continue to argue about it.

[mtnsnake]

94. If Obama can inject Kucinich's ideology & passion into his 2 terms the world will be a better place

IMO, Dennis Kucinich represents what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for better than any other Democrat in the business.

BTW, he doesn't just represent liberals like you, me, or any other faction of the Party. He represents whatever good ideals our Party still has to offer, period, like preaching diplomacy instead of war and protecting our environment from rapists like Bush. If only all our Democrats had Dennis's ideals and the guts to act on them.

[Radical Activist]

97. Dennis stands for great things.

But just believing in something isn't enough to make change.

[Two Americas]

103. sure it is

Slavery ended once enough people believed that it should, and more importantly once enough people started advocating for what was morally right rather than what was clever or practical.

[Radical Activist]

104. umm...

People like Elijah Lovejoy and Lincoln did a hell of a lot more than just believe or speak out against slavery. And there was hardly a more pragmatic politician than Lincoln. The fact that Lincoln was never a radical abolitionist is what allowed him to become President and end slavery. Lincoln was never liberal enough for the abolitionists of his time, but everyone played their role.

[Two Americas]

105. not according to Lincoln

Lincoln saw moving public opinion - and he believed that could be done by speaking - was the most important job. These artificial dichotomies - purism versus pragmatism and speaking versus doing - as though they were mutually exclusive, is always the argument of those arguing against principles. No one ever says "stop being pragmatic" or "stop doing things." It is used against those speaking out for principles and ideals. They are dismissed with the false charges that they must be "just talking and not doing anything" or that they are "not realistic."

What a person supposedly "is" does not tell us much. This is a very modern idea, that we judge others by what they are rather than by what they say and do. In Lincoln's time he was not criticized for not :being" an Abolitionist, he was criticized for not moving to emancipate the slaves. Lincoln believed he had no legal authority to decree that, and set about trying to influence public opinion. He was involved in politics for that purpose, he was not merely taking positions for the sake of "winning." There was little hope of him winning, in his view. He spoke out. He spoke out to influence public opinion. He said that with public opinion anything is possible, without it nothing is.

I am glad that you cited Lincoln as an example, because it is such an illustrative and educational one on this very subject. Just because Lincoln needed to be pragmatic - as a politician and and a public official - that would not have been a justification for the Abolitionists to cease strongly advocating for abolition, would it have? Of course not.

Horace Greeley wrote and editorial questioning what the Lincoln administration's policy was, and complaining about the lack of progress on emancipation. Lincoln's response illustrates the difference between what is appropriate in a public role as contrasted to a private one.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

This letter is often cited as "proof" that Lincoln was not in fact opposed to slavery. But my point is that the advocacy by Abolitionists had nothing to do with what Lincoln "was" or was not. There were those at the time who said "Lincoln is being pragmatic so stop advocating for the end of slavery" and there were also those who said "see, Lincoln is not opposed to slavery."

Here is an excerpt from another letter -

I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling... I did understand however that my oath to preserve the Constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government "that nation" of which that Constitution was the organic law...

- Abraham Lincoln to Albert G. Hodges, April 4, 1864.

Here is Lincoln on the "purism" issue -

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends -- those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work -- who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now? --now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail -- if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.

from the "House Divided" speech
Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm

[Radical Activist]

106. Let's make some things clear.

I didn't argue against speaking out. I argued that it takes more than just believing something to be effective at making change. So most of what you wrote is not in response to any claim I made.

No, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He never described himself that way and neither did anyone else. Abolitionists called for the immediate end of slavery, which Lincoln did not. So when people "criticized Lincoln not moving to emancipate the slaves" they were in fact criticizing him for not being an abolitionist. Someone who wanted to end slavery RIGHT NOW was an abolitionist as opposed to someone like Lincoln who wanted to do it gradually. People like Elijah Lovejoy and Horace Greeley were abolitionists. Lincoln was not. And yes, they did criticize him for that, as evidenced in the letter you quoted.

There were more liberal, more ardent anti-slavery choices for the Republican nomination in 1860, like William Seward. Seward was seen as too divisive because of his controversial statements about slavery. Lincoln was seen as the safer, more moderate choice, and his attempt to govern as a uniting pragmatist, much as Obama says he's attempting, is what allowed him to be successful as President.

You wrote: "These artificial dichotomies - purism versus pragmatism and speaking versus doing - as though they were mutually exclusive, is always the argument of those arguing against principles."

Again, I never argued that they were mutually exclusive. Right now, the people arguing that pragmatism and liberalism are mutually exclusive are those saying Obama must be moving right because of his cabinet picks. Obama is both speaking out and doing. Kucinich is good at speaking out but not very good at getting things done.
Your sentence above is why you misinterpret and/or distort everything I write. You keep placing my comments into this box of suppressing dissent and you want to respond with canned arguments against that. But time after time you do nothing but set up straw-man arguments that have nothing to do with what I actually write. You need to evaluate what I write on its own instead of cramming it into a "us v. them" dichotomy you read about somewhere.

The people who criticize Obama for not being liberal today are no different than those abolitionists like Greeley who criticized Lincoln for not moving fast enough. But not being an abolitionist is what allowed Lincoln to become President and do what he did. The abolitionists like Lovejoy and Greeley were needed then just as the more moderate anti-slavery voices like Lincoln were needed. Both have their role. Both have their usefulness.

What I see on DU is a lot of people expecting Obama to play the role of Greeley when Obama wants to play the role of Lincoln. I don't have a problem with Obama playing the Lincoln role instead of the Greeley role. Greeley never became President and got things done the way Lincoln did. Its completely unfair for you to accuse me of suppressing dissent for arguing that.

You know what Greeley didn't do? He didn't accuse Lincoln of being pro-confederacy just because Lincoln didn't want to end slavery as quickly as Greeley did. That's what I'm seeing at DU. Do you see the difference?

Since you don't seem to get this point I'll put it in caps. ARGUING AGAINST IDIOTIC DISSENT DOES NOT SUPPRESS DISSENT.

[Two Americas]

108. who is saying any of that?

No one is asking Obama to play the role of Greeley. I am not.

No one is calling Obama the equivalent of pro-Confederacy.

No one is saying that disagreeing with a critic is suppressing dissent. I am not saying that.

You say: "The people who criticize Obama for not being liberal today are no different than those abolitionists like Greeley who criticized Lincoln for not moving fast enough."

I agree. No one is saying otherwise. I proudly stand with the Abolitionists of that era and take your remark here as a compliment.

I am glad to hear you say that pragmatism and idealism are not mutually exclusive. I thought that, and the taking versus doing idea, was the basis for your comparison between Kucinich and Obama.

By the way, there is merit to your main point. That point could be effectively made, I think, if it were not embedded in a blanket derogatory attack on others. I would probably be agreeing with you then. But as it is, there is no way to tell what your main point is - the need for politicians to be pragmatic, or deriding the leftists here.

[Radical Activist]

109. DU is full of posts

Saying Obama isn't liberal enough, that he's not liberal at all, that he's moving right because of a few appointments, that he won't do anything progressive, that he's embracing neo-con corporate conservatism. To claim no one is arguing those things requires ignoring at least 1/3 of the threads on DU right now. Yes, people are arguing those things.

[Two Americas]

110. well sure

No argument. You are characterizing those arguments in a somewhat prejudicial way, but there are people criticizing the appointments. Yes.

What is wrong with people arguing against the appointments?

[Radical Activist]

112. Now you're making circular arguments.

See our previous discussions.

[Two Americas]

113. how so?

You complained about people criticizing (or disagreeing with) Obama. I never argued that people were not criticizing Obama. I said so what, why do you have such a problem with that?

[Radical Activist]

115. Oh. You're just fucking with me.

I don't have a problem with people criticizing Obama. You know that isn't the issue. See previous posts.

[Two Americas]

116. no I am not

As I said, your main point is good - that a balance between pragmatism and idealism is needed by elected officials, and that sometimes the politician who seems less liberal gets more accomplished that is liberal.

I don't understand why you need to lace your posts with derogatory and inflammatory statements about others here. That suggests that the pragmatism by elected officials argument is not your main argument, but is an excuse to bash a certain group of people.

I stand by my point, that while elected politicians need to advocate moderation and operate pragmatically, that does not apply to us.

[LWolf]

99. You said it, and I concur. nt

[cooolandrew]

119. Great post. K&R

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. Absolutely Correct. Obama Gets Things Done. Kucinich Panders.

Kucinich is one of the most ineffective members of congress, but he says the nice pretty things that many zealots want to hear. Course, he gets next to nothing done. Obama on the other hand, knows how to get things done. Gotta love him!

[anigbrowl]

129. I agree 100%

Having volunteered on his 2004 campaign and met him a couple of times, I'm of the opinion that he has no interest whatsoever in the job. He weirds out people even in San Francisco when he gets up to speak....BUT he gives great TV etc. As a result, he gets enough money from sincere but not very practical liberals across the US to easily finance his congressional campaigns. I guess it suits the party OK because he keeps some voters from drifting off to the greens or whoever. But to my mind it's just permanent electioneering.

I don't dislike the guy, it's good that he's articulating liberal positions on many issues, but I'd be a lot more impressed if he could bring about legislative progress on even one or two of them.