Y'know, Kucinich is kind of naieve...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Department of Irony.
__________


...Kucinich played a pivotal role in advancing Obama's candidacy for the presidency. On the day of the 2008 Democratic caucuses in Iowa, Kucinich told his supporters that if they did not have a critical mass of backers at individual caucuses, they should throw in with Obama as the most viable progressive. That was a critical decision, since Obama only narrowly beat former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who was making a big play for liberal backing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129125087


__________

The preceding is not a poke at Kucinich. It's a jest along the lines of imagining someone in the WH saying, "These people are obviously too naive to be taken seriously... I mean, c'mon. They thought we were progressives."

[phleshdef]

1. Well he DID say he was willing to put Ron Paul one missed heartbeat away from the Presidency.

[Aramchek]

2. awwww, did you hear he is calling for Party unity now, as well?

I guess he wasn't the "Progressive" you expected him to be.

[LWolf]

3. I think DK understood Edwards, despite the better platform he espoused.

While my next choice would have been Edwards, because at least he was making poverty a key issue, in hindsight DK obviously had better judgment than to endorse support of Edwards.

Who, then, was left? Nobody, pun intended. Of the other two, Obama seemed better than HRC; he didn't have the DLC connection. And that's why so many here at DU supported him when the choices were down to 2; he "wasn't DLC."

It was clear, to me anyway, that his policies were even MORE center-right/"new" dem/dlc-like than HRC, but if you have to make a choice, who do you go for? The dlc choice, or the choice that declined a dlc connection (until after the election)?