Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBarack Obama got a boost among progressive Democrats in Iowa today when Dennis Kucinich announced that he was asking his supporters to back Obama in the second round of voting at the caucus.
The arcane rules of the Iowa caucus require a candidate to receive 15 percent of the vote at a given caucus location in order to qualify for delegates. After the first round of voting, supporters of candidates who are not "viable" can choose their second, top tier choice. In '04 Kucinich urged his supporters, in a surprising move, to back John Edwards, helping to boost his margin in liberal areas. Edwards has moved to the left since then, yet this time Kucinich went with Obama. "Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change," Kucinich said in a press release today.
Kucinich hasn't campaigned much in Iowa this time around but he retains a loyal band of followers. In a tight race between Edwards and Obama among liberal Democrats here, Kucinich could give Obama an edge.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
B_KOOL....another "Pirates" quote...
"There'll be no living with him now!"
(ref: METTEYYA....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 4:17pm
"Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change," Kucinich said in a press release today.
Funny, I was singing Kucinich's praises in these threads throughout November --until it was obvious he was getting no traction whatsoever in the polls.
With this incredibly lame endorsement announcement he's just plummeted in the estimate of my eyes.
Let's see......who is it that is speaking clearly, and courageously for the economic populist platform?
Yeah, nice job Dennis ;-)
P.S. It'd be interesting to know the back story on this deal. I think I can hear the sounds of ruffled feathers from the Kucinich camp.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 4:17pm
"There'll be no living with him now!"
It's difficult to remember when it was.
Thanks, Maskot ;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 4:18pm
When it was that Metteyya was reasonably cool, that is.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 4:19pm
BERMAN: Kucinich hasn't campaigned much in Iowa this time around but he retains a loyal band of followers.
Just wonder if this "loyal band" is the size of....say, ZZ Top? or the size of an Electric Light Orchestra? or the size of the UofTexas Marching Band?
HAPPY 2008 to all Friends, Foes, and the Ignored (everywhere)!!
Posted by Happy at 01/01/2008 @ 4:22pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 4:19pm
He never has been to me. First time out of the box, he came off as a "Fruit of Islam" (or more like a "Nut of Islam")....blaming "the Jews that run the Media" for "firing Arsenio, one of America's greatest talents" for having Farrakhan on his show.
but interesting how this will play in Lefty Blog-land....After Dennis, Da Man was Edwards....now Gilligan has endorsed Obama!
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 4:23pm
BTW, B_KOOL....you could throw this back at him here?
By: David Paul Kuhn Dec 31, 2007 08:18 PM EST
MUSCATINE, Iowa -- Ralph Nader unleashed on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday -- criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business -- and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.
In an eleventh hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" the former North Carolina senator by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.
www.politico.com
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 4:36pm
There you have it: Obama is the only REAL progressive in the race and represents REAL change from Washington politics as usual.
And Dennis is no fool, BKOOL, so he can see through Edward's phony progressiveness, just like I can.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 4:41pm
Obama is the real fraud here, and Kucinich has proven he is a total fake as well. He never accomplished a thing in his political career except bankrupt Cleveland.
Edwards isn't a phony, by the way. Do you honestly think he is a Republican?
Posted by susannunes at 01/01/2008 @ 4:48pm
My belief is Kucinich, as fringe as he is, knows Obama is behind in Iowa and wants to level the playing field somewhat.
It has nothing to do with "change."
Posted by susannunes at 01/01/2008 @ 4:50pm
Posted by SUSANNUNES 01/01/2008 @ 4:48pm
Susan, just look at Edwards' voting record when he was in the Senate:
1. Trade with China (Bill Number: HR 4444)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
2. Travel Ban to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
3. Religious Symbols in Public Schools (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
4. Strengthen Penalties Against Juveniles (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
5. Closure of Unnecessary Military Bases (Bill Number: S 1059)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
6. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
7. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
8. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
9. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
See this also--> http://tinyurl.com/23emhw
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 4:52pm
Kucinich backs Obama ... the Q seems to have been, who will have the better chance of stopping Billary, with DK's albeit small margin of support. Obama or Edwards, this seems to have been Kucinich's ... To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.
Posted by sloper at 01/01/2008 @ 4:54pm
Prediction...
sometime (atleast by Midnight) on Thursday/Friday night/morning....this place is going to be hi-lariously funny!
HRC wins..."no biggie" from the BO/JE types.
JE wins..."Obama phoneyness seen through, real fighter will get the nom"
BO wins..."Edwards phoneyness seen through, real fighter will get the nom"
Kucinich wins..."What the heck? The whole dang lake of fire just froze over!?!?!---Posted by SATAN 01/04/2008 @ 1:24am
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 4:57pm
Posted by SLOPER 01/01/2008 @ 4:54pm
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 5:00pm
I am back from family type events and all set to re-enter the fray (except that I made a resolution not to waste time talking to sophist trolls, so I will have much less to say. I figure I only have to hold out until the middle of February, when the primaries will probably be locked up by somebody, and the trolls will go back home either to crow about their horse winning, or figuring out some way to rationalize the decision to cheerlead for someone who ended up losing), to say that I don't see why this matters much. Kucinich has loyal followers alright, but it is a small group even when he does campaign and I am guessing they are mostly in the cities. There the choice in the second round will come down to Obama and Clinton more often than not anyway (and it is clear who to pick between those two). Edwards's strategy is to take lots of rural caucuses, and Kucinich, as far as I can tell can neither help nor hurt him there.
As for B_Kool saying this speaks poorly of Kucinich, I have to disagree and say it should make one think a little better about Obama (time away from Mett's cheerleading has improved my opinion of Obama, as I predicted on another thread if I recall correctly). Kucinich is a terrible campaigner and spokesman, but there is no reason to think he is anything other than committed and serious about the issues (and he is right on most of the issues). That he doesn't see Obama as compromised by the sources of his campaign money does speak towards Obama not being a democrat in the Bill Clinton mold (talk a decent game, but all the while doing the bidding of big business). It doesn't change my mind, but it along with other endorsements from genuinely left wing democrats who are free from the taint of corruption could. (that combined with Edwards' slow move away from having poverty as a major campaign issue, which has been sad to see. I like the continued anti-corporate focus, but it needs to be combined with a focus on the effects of corporate power in government, i.e. the growth and worsening situation of the poor)
Posted by dentedpat at 01/01/2008 @ 5:13pm
As a Dean supporter in 2004, I recall being very disapointed that the self-styled populist, anti-war, anti-establishment firebrand Dennis Kucinich didn't release his caucusers to the only candidate who was right on the invasion all along, and who consistently and fearlessly spoke truth to power. And yes, Mett, let me save you the trouble of responding with your posts 9A, 17C and 200B(4). I mean Dean, not Edwards. Edwards was right about the economic issues, but only belatedly correct about the war, so I supported The Good Doctor instead.
At the time I remember dismissing Kucinich as being about as independent as that "maverick" John McCain, that is, not very. Having gotten that out of the way four years ago, I don't have to waste any energy doing it now. It saves me time that I can use cataloguing Mett's pre-fabbed responses.
Posted by haskells at 01/01/2008 @ 5:39pm
Good to see you're back, Dented Pat :-)
I have to take off here, shortly, but I disagree with your statement that Edwards has backed off of the anti-poverty message. I just saw him on CSPAN 1 on Sunday and it was still a centerpiece.
I agree that the Kucinich "endorsement" may not matter much --his followers can choose to give their support to whomever they wish in spite of what Dennis instructs or urges them to do.
Finally, here's one for Frosty Zoom's enjoyment:
Welcome to Third World USA
Intro:
The United Nations publishes a Human Development Index that ranks countries in terms of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living. The latest published data were based on 2005 statistics. The U.S., despite its vast wealth and power, placed only in the 12th position among industrial countries. The top four countries were Iceland, Norway, Australia and Canada.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 5:44pm
Posted by HASKELLS 01/01/2008 @ 5:39pm
I'm not sure I get your point, Haskells?
Are you saying that since you were angry that Dean didn't get Kucinich's endorsement in 2004, that you are now over it and accept his endorsement of Obama?
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 5:44pm
And there's my homie, Haskells too.
I was also a Dean supporter in '04 :-)
Ciao dudes, for the moment.
P.S. Keep up the periodic torching of Metteyya. I can't presently think of a more deserving Buddhist.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 5:47pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 5:44pm
BKOOL, I'm not trying to b funny, but are you high on crack? DENTEDPAT made it very clear that he thought the Kucinich endorsement was significant (see below) but you mischaracterized his response as: "I agree that the Kucinich "endorsement" may not matter much"
As for B_Kool saying this speaks poorly of Kucinich, I have to disagree and say it should make one think a little better about Obama (time away from Mett's cheerleading has improved my opinion of Obama, as I predicted on another thread if I recall correctly). Kucinich is a terrible campaigner and spokesman, but there is no reason to think he is anything other than committed and serious about the issues (and he is right on most of the issues). That he doesn't see Obama as compromised by the sources of his campaign money does speak towards Obama not being a democrat in the Bill Clinton mold (talk a decent game, but all the while doing the bidding of big business).
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 5:50pm
BKOOL, I'm not trying to b funny,
~Metteyya
Don't worry, you're not.
And I "heard" DP loud and clear:
I don't see why this matters much. Kucinich has loyal followers alright, but it is a small group even when he does campaign...
~DP
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 5:54pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 5:54pm
What you fail to realize BKOOL, is that there are a lot Kucinich supporters who are in the Edwards' camp because they thought Kucinich was unelectable. With Kucinich's endorsement of Obama, these voters will now have cause to take a closer look at Edwards' phony progressiveness and switch to a REAL progressive like Obama instead.
In other words, if Kucinich can figure out that Edwards is a phony progressive that really doesn't represent change, then I am sure that a lot of his supporters in the Edwards' camp will now figure this out as well.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 6:04pm
To clear up what I said. I think the endorsement is electorally insignificant, but that it does provide some small reason to think better of Obama, and that taken together with endorsements from other good democrats (Feingold, Waxman, etc.) could provide alot of reason to be comfortable with Obama. And why should people be so worked up about what I said?
'I'm kind of not a big deal. People don't know me. I'm not very important. I do not have many leather-bound books and my apartment does not smell of rich mahogany'
It occurs to me that it is really hard to fill in the 'etc.' in my little parenthetical addition.
And with that, goodnight all.
Posted by dentedpat at 01/01/2008 @ 6:05pm
A Simple Story (by John Hinderaker, today's Powerline Blog)
John Edwards is the dark horse in Iowa....In this morning's Washington Post, Chris Cillizza describes Edwards' final campaign push:
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards will close his Iowa campaign with an ad featuring an emotional appeal from an unemployed Maytag employee named Doug Bishop....Laid off in September 2004, Bishop and his family were invited to meet Edwards who at the time was the Democrats' vice presidential nominee......
The ad is simple and effective. As usual, though, if you dig a little farther, the story becomes more complicated, and more interesting.
To begin with, who is Doug Bishop? Cillizza describes him in contradictory fashion as an "unemployed Maytag employee." The Associated Press calls him a "working class father." Actually, Bishop is a long-time Democratic Party activist. He was an official with the United Auto Workers when he worked for Maytag, and he endorsed Dick Gephardt in 2004. While working for Maytag, Bishop served on the City Council of Baxter, Iowa, and was elected Mayor.
Currently, Bishop is the County Treasurer for Jasper County and is a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Iowa. So it is a bit misleading to describe him merely as an unemployed factory worker or a working class father.....
Edwards is hostile to free trade agreements like NAFTA. But when Bishop lost his job, it was NAFTA that paid for eight months of training, following which Bishop was appointed to a job in the County Treasurer's office and ultimately became County Treasurer.
As for Newton, it isn't doing so badly......
Posted by Happy at 01/01/2008 @ 6:11pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 5:50pm
OK, so let me understand this. When well-respected economist and stalwart progressive New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who, despite fevered attempts on the part of the Obamabots to prove otherwise, has no axe to grind, says that Obama's, um, not exactly advancing the progressive cause, and might possibly be a crypto-right wing hack, you go into Defcon Five. But when Dennis Kucinich, after having established a record (in 2004) of endorsing the third most progressive candidate in the race, gives the nod to Your Dear Leader (who by the way, needs a serious infusion of progressive cred, we are all to take heed, we are now to consider Him Trotsky?
Posted by haskells at 01/01/2008 @ 6:23pm
Posted by HASKELLS 01/01/2008 @ 6:23pm
Krugman does not understand the difference between trans-partisanship, which is what Obama is pursuing, and bi-partishanship, which is what Edwards and Hillary did when they voted with the DLC-Republican alliance in the Senate.
Trans-partisanship, is when you hold onto your progressive ideals and core values and recast them in terms that appeal to the opposition.
Bi-partisanship, is when you sacrifice progressive values for expediency or personal ambition.
That fact the Krugman conflates these two approaches does not mean he is a bad person or not a progressive, he just doesn't understand what is necessary to usher in a new progressive majority, whereas Obama does have a clear understanding of what is needed to make this happen.
Apparently, Dennis Kucinich listened to both Krugman and Obama, and sided with Obama.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 6:34pm
Meet the Mett(s), greet the Mett(s), come on out and meet the Mett(s)!
What great ripostings!
Cred...Pick me, pick thee!
Posted by lewwelge at 01/01/2008 @ 6:39pm
This is amusing. Nothing negative comes to mind in reference to Dennis Kucinich of late. It is only now that he endorses Obama that his "negatives," come to the fore. Last I remember Dennis simply wasn't, "elect-able," but in terms of message(s), single payer no profit incentive health care, impeaching Cheney, Iraq, Iran ... he was (and, still is) on point.
For the independents, who were, are, more likely as not going to go with Obama in any case, a Kucinich endorsement, with his anti war cred, will matter more some would wish.
Posted by V at 01/01/2008 @ 6:56pm
matter more -than- some would wish.
Posted by V at 01/01/2008 @ 6:58pm
Wishes matter more than some
Posted by lewwelge at 01/01/2008 @ 7:01pm
Seriously, though, Obama's being from Illinois really draws my fervor, being a Lincoln impersonator, as I am, whose father was born in Hillsboro and who grew up in Litchfield.
Incentives for signing up at: www.home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-megusto
Posted by lewwelge at 01/01/2008 @ 7:03pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 5:47pm
Hey there BK! Thanks for your kind words. I'm awfully fond of you too! Believe it or not, I honestly never intend to get into the back-and-forth with Mett, I just have a congenitally low tolerance for bullshit and feel compelled to point out abject falsehoods. Plus I resent the use of viral marketing techniques by my own party to influence public opinion and election outcomes. We're not just buying shoes here.
Posted by haskells at 01/01/2008 @ 7:09pm
"'As the proverb goes, no man knows so well where the shoe pinches as he who wears it." ' (D.H. Donald's "Lincoln," p. 507, 1995)
I don't know how this applies, but think it amusingly interrelated.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/01/2008 @ 7:23pm
Obama uses the word "change" but is another status quo candidate. there is no evidence here or anywhere that Obama is "progressive"
Posted by zeldon timc at 01/01/2008 @ 7:48pm
"Krugman does not understand the difference between trans-partisanship, which is what Obama is pursuing, and bi-partishanship" snip
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 6:34pm
Oh, so it's just that, unlike Kucinich, Krugman doesn't understand Dear Leader's philosophy. Years and years of keen political observation notwithstanding. I'm sure a couple of hits of acid would clear that right up. Washed down with koolaid, of course. It's still relatively early, yet you've already put my bullshit meter into the red zone.
Posted by haskells at 01/01/2008 @ 7:49pm
Good one Hask-Basket. Kucinich-Obama in Iowa! Dennis and Liz in New Hampshire!
Posted by lewwelge at 01/01/2008 @ 7:52pm
Posted by LEWWELGE 01/01/2008 @ 7:03pm
You're supporting Obama because he's from the Land of Lincoln? You're kidding, right? Didn't Denny Hastert come from Illinois? Henry Hyde? Rosty? How about Hillary? After all, she came from there first! WTF?
Posted by haskells at 01/01/2008 @ 7:56pm
Posted by HASKELLS 01/01/2008 @ 7:49pm
Haskells, if you read the Krugman's article, he didn't even acknowledge trans-partisanship as a possibility.
If he really is an astute observer of politics, he would know that Ronald Reagan used trans-partisanship to appeal to "Reagan Democrats" WITHOUT SACRIFICING HIS CORE CONSERVATIVE VALUES!
Like Reagan, Obama is appealing to "Obama Republicans" WITHOUT SACRIFICING HIS CORE PROGRESSIVE VALUES!
Face it, Haskells, Krugman got it wrong this time, and Kucinich got it right by endorsing Obama.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 8:05pm
BRING THEM HOME WITH RICHARDSON
I thought Kucinich was too good to be true. Richardson is the only true anti-war bring-them-home candidate.
Posted by outrider4 at 01/01/2008 @ 8:25pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 8:05pm
Seriously, Mett. Get some help [csj.org]. And take your little friend Lew, too.
Posted by haskells at 01/01/2008 @ 8:27pm
Posted by HASKELLS 01/01/2008 @ 8:27pm
So anyone who is concerned about the political fraud Edwards is perpetrating on the progressive voter is now a member of a cult?
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 8:36pm
"So anyone who is concerned about the political fraud Edwards is perpetrating on the progressive voter is now a member of a cult?"
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 8:36pm | ignore this person
No Mett. I'm not saying that anyone who is concerned about "the political fraud Edwards is perpetrating" is a member of a cult. But any progressive who believes that falsehood as a consequence of their unquestioning devotion to a charismatic figure ("a leader who has never led"), in spite of objective evidence to the contrary, and in defiance of the warnings of learned and trusted authorities with whom they previously, and for good reason agreed, probably is.
Posted by haskells at 01/01/2008 @ 8:56pm
Posted by HASKELLS 01/01/2008 @ 8:56pm
Edwards can't run from his DLC voting record in the Senate, and the only reason he has as much support as currently enjoys is because he has been able to HIDE this record from his progressive followers!
Most progressive voters are also not aware of Edwards investments in the very corporations that he rails against.
All we are saying, Haskells, is Edwards should be straight with the progressive voter and not PRETEND to be a progressive to get our vote and the nomination.
Nothing cultish about this, as I noticed Edwards' phoniness well before I became an Obama supporter. I guess it was all that hanging around courtrooms in my youth and listening to slick lawyers say ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to win that raised a red flag with Edwards.
The fact that you continue to support this phony after he has clearly been shown to NOT be a progressive, means you are quite comfortable with his centrism, and that's OK. But save us the "everyone is in a cult who doesn't agree with us" bullshit for the gullible types. I have been around the block several times, and I ain't buying what Edwards is trying to sell - personal ambition at the expense of core principles.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 9:09pm
I'm not saying that I've always agreed with every vote that Edwards has cast. I was very engaged in the 2004 election, did a lot of research then and have followed him closely ever since. I think I mentioned (upthread) that he was only my second choice in 2004.
What I did say is that in the four pivotal years since 2003, he has always been consistent, and by all appearances, sincere. Those years, in turn, are in keeping with his career as a fighter for the rights of the powerless against powerful wrongdoers.
I have applied similar scrutiny to Obama's past, and though he has a history of attracting ardent admirers, a close reading of his record and his resume paint a picture of a bright and charming person who is nevertheless so risk averse and posessed of such fluid principles as to leave hardly any footprint in the Illinois lege, and none at all in Washington. As a consequence, he's left behind many disappointed souls who started out as admirers. I would say that I am one of them, except he disappointed me so quickly and so thoroughly that I never got on the bandwagon in the first place.
Posted by haskells at 01/01/2008 @ 9:32pm
Nothing cultish about this,
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 9:09pm
are you sure?
from qwiki:
L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Dianetics and Scientology, suggested he was "Metteya" (Maitreya) in the 1955 poem Hymn of Asia. His editors indicated, in the book's preface, specific physical characteristics said to be outlined -- in unnamed Sanskrit sources -- as properties of the coming Maitreya; properties which Hubbard's appearance supposedly aligned with.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/01/2008 @ 9:35pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/01/2008 @ 9:35pm
LOL!!!
I guess L. Ron Hubbard wasn't aware that "Aria Metteyya" (which, incidentally, is not my name - my "first" name is Metteyya) is supposed to be some future Buddha, millions of years from today, and that "Metteyya", simply means "he whose name is kindness". It is derived from "metta" which is a "loving kindness" practice in Buddhism that projects, primarily through meditation, good thoughts toward all living beings.
And Buddhism, which is the fourth largest religion in the world, is hardly a cult.
I knew L. Ron Hubbard was considered a little wacko, but apparently he hadn't studied up much on the Aria Metteyya figure that he mistakenly believed he had become.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 9:49pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/01/2008 @ 9:35pm
Get out!
Posted by haskells at 01/01/2008 @ 9:51pm
Careful guys, you still have a dark horse in the race and I think he can run circles around the front runners without breaking a sweat. And I'm not a dem.
Posted by ACook at 01/01/2008 @ 10:07pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 9:49pm
just teasin'.
Posted by HASKELLS 01/01/2008 @ 9:51pm
of where?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/01/2008 @ 10:07pm
This move by Kucinich really surprises me. Of all the candidates, I thought if Dennis were to become President, he would be the one to hold the Bush administration responsible for the constitutional violations that have happened over the last few years. Other than Hillary, Obama would be the last person I would think would do anything of the sort. As the "uniter" I feel his first act would be to say "let bye-gones be bye-gones and let's move forward." Nevermind the trash-heap that remains of our Constitution.
This is very disappointing. This move appears to me to be a step backward for Kucinich.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/01/2008 @ 10:30pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/01/2008 @ 10:30pm
Maybe the UFOs told him to endorse Obama.
Posted by ACook at 01/01/2008 @ 10:34pm
a close reading of his record and his resume paint a picture of a bright and charming person who is nevertheless so risk averse and posessed of such fluid principles as to leave hardly any footprint in the Illinois lege, and none at all in Washington
I appreciate that Edwards was your "second choice" in 2004, but you should be aware that many of the DLC votes Edwards made were in 2003 and 2004. So any "real" consistency, if you want to call a non-voting citizen "consistent", was actually from 2005 when he was out of the Senate and could therefore "define" an issue platform that he would eventually run on today. So all we have is a DLC record in one hand, and an issue platform crafted by "strategists" in the other. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the "issue platform" defined by Edwards is probably not who he really is, but who he thinks he has to "become" to win the Democratic nomination.
He had not "voted" for these issues in his platform when he was in the Senate, so we simply have to take his word that he has all of a sudden relinquished a wide range of DLC views from war, crime, church and state, healthcare, etc., and is now a progressive.
Obama led the fight in Illinois for publicly funded elections to take money out of politics. He also led the fight for universal healthcare in the Illinois legislature. He introduced legislation to have criminal interrogations taped to prevent torture and abuse, and also created the first racial profiling law in the state. Another thing he passed there was child care subsidies and tax credits for the working poor.
So if "consistency" is the measuring stick, it is Obama that has been consistently progressive. Edwards was consistently a DLC centrist when he was in the Senate, and has "talked" consistent with his issue platform since leaving the senate.
Barack's consistent action is obviously more persuasive the Edwards recently consistent "words", so I think the choice is clear for the progressive voter - Barack Obama
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 10:36pm
No Mett. I'm not saying that anyone who is concerned about "the political fraud Edwards is perpetrating" is a member of a cult.
Posted by HASKELLS 01/01/2008 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person
Then you are either kidding, simply exasperated with Metteyya or an idiot.
Posted by V at 01/01/2008 @ 10:55pm
Kucinich is smart enough to see who the real progressive, and best choice for president is. He can see past Edwards and his convenient populist hype, which runs against both his past voting record and last election's campaign strategy. Frankly I am tired of people acting like Edwards is a goddamn progressive knight when it is obvious to anyone paying attention that it is campaign hype. If he would continue to fight against poverty if elected, that would be super, but the obvious reality is that in all likelihood this ploy wouldn't even last as far as the general elections if he were to get the nomination. It is political strategy and that is that. Look at his record, look at his past positions, look at the complete absence of Mr. Populist 4 years ago, and quit being naive. I'm not saying the guy wouldn't make a good president, and I definitely believe he is a hell of a lot better than Hillary, but cut the bullshit, really.
Posted by bridoc at 01/02/2008 @ 12:10am
I'm a cynic. I don't believe that Kucincih just gave his support to Obama without a perceived personal benefit
There have been rumors circulating that Kucinich harbors ill will towards Edwards over a perceived affront relating to Iowa in 2004. DK has a history of isolating his "enemies" which is apparently an easy category to fall into if you don't agree with him 100%. Just ask Cleveland residents who suffered through his reign as Mayor. It then comes as no surprise that DK didn't endorse Edwards.
I supported DK in 2004 because I support his platform, still do. But there are far worse problems to deal with this time and it's going to take someone who recognizes the threat to our Democracy--a bulldog who can build coalitions--to overcome the powerful corporate and monied interests that have corrupted our system of government.
I'm not in complete agreement with Edwards, but I like his style and on the big points we pretty much agree. I believe he's being true--after all one doesn't win elections in this country running on the left unless that's who you really are. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Besides that, progressives need to learn that we sometimes convince people that we're right on the issues and accept people when they join our cause, that's how you build a movement.
If Obama is a progressive then he's done a pretty good job of keeping it secret--I don't see it. As for DK, unfortunately, he would rather see Edwards lose then put his pride aside for the benefit of the progressive movement and the country.
Posted by snowbound at 01/02/2008 @ 01:13am
As far as integrity and progressive principles are concerned, there's apparently less [news.clevescene.com] to Kucinich than meets the eye. A lot less.
Posted by haskells at 01/02/2008 @ 01:32am
Posted by HASKELLS 01/02/2008 @ 01:32am
Haskells, you forgot the most important line in the Kucinich article:
He was quick to remind the audience that he voted against NAFTA, against the war, against the Patriot Act. And he blasted John Edwards for voting for opening trade with China.
"I didn't," Kucinich said. "That's why I'm the worker's president."
Looks like I was correct: Kucinich was able to discern that Edwards is a phony progressive!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/02/2008 @ 08:39am
Pathetic little party man whose main purpose is to keep a rein on that progressive Left flank and who can be counted on to faithfully capitulate on cue. Kucinich speaks of empty platitudes of change but he can barely contain the petty festering resent of Edwards poisoning his calculations. Can't say I am surprised; the Gary Bauer of New Age believers reveals himself as petty & vindicative, elevating his own drive for revenge over the interests of the country.
Posted by Lil at 01/02/2008 @ 09:02am
I see cults are a topic on this thread. Kucinich, has been working with the totalitarian political cult of Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman, via longtime operative Jim Mangia. The "newmanites" have veered between Larouchian "revolutionary socialism, " and Pat Buchananite populism (when they supported him in Perot's Reform Party) for yrs. See http://www.publiceye.org/newman/cloudsblur.html How Fred Newman & Lenora Fulani Use Totalitarian Deception to Manipulate Social and Political Activists
Posted by michael.098 at 01/02/2008 @ 09:30am
Posted by LIL 01/02/2008 @ 09:02am
Boy, if you ever need to know how far out on the Fringe LIL is....she thinks Dennis Kucinich is a shill!
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 09:40am
That was sarcasm, right Mask? He is a shill, no doubt about that-ultimately a party hack, seeking to settle scores at the expense of the issues. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans actually support progressives issues, you accept the well-funded, well-indoctrinated "fringe" characterization--and having fringe character--contrived or legitimate represent progressive issues does little to further their legitimacy. Kucinich is not only a joke, he has an immature adolescent sulleness that erodes his credibility.
Posted by Lil at 01/02/2008 @ 09:54am
Posted by MICHAEL.098 01/02/2008 @ 09:30am | ignore this person
No matter the subject at hand, you have to be capable of more than merely parroting others. Can you prove what you say by other than characterization? You've called someone with an unbroken record of efficient opposition to the fascist methods of Volpi di Misurata, Benito Mussolini, Hjalmar Schacht, and Schacht's protege, Adolf Hitler, a Facist. And I am not speaking in reference to Dr. Fulani, or of Fred Newman and his organization in which Dr. Fulani's political career was made. So, can you prove it?
Posted by V at 01/02/2008 @ 11:06am
Clinton is the only fake progressive in this race. She is purely a political animal; and this is known because... she forgave Bill. After years of cheating on her and chasing skirt she couldn't leave him because his charisma is her charisma and without it she's wholly unappealing. She wants to be president because she wants to be president. Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich want to be president so they can fix this country. the republicans want to be president because;
Huckleberry: So he can bring about the rapture Giuliani: Wants to ferry his whores around on Air Force 1. Romney: Because he hasn't acted as racist and bigoted as he feels he should, and a race for president would give him the chance. Thompson: He saw all the vacations that Bush takes and decided it was the job for him. McCain: The syphilis that Rove injected him with in 1999 is starting to affect his sanity.
Posted by progress08 at 01/02/2008 @ 1:53pm
DK's 1% in Iowa, small as it is, will help as polls show Obama's numbers are even with Edwards and/or where Clinton's numbers then become within the margin of error with Obama's. The 1-2 polls where Clinton is ahead way beyond the 3-5% margin of error, also appear to be way off when compared to all the 6-7 others that either have Obama ahead or within that margin.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/02/2008 @ 3:54pm
The term 'crap-shoot' comes to mind.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/02/2008 @ 3:56pm
Everybody is human, including Dennis Kucinich. He should have kept his mouth shut about second choices in Iowa.
I was disappointed when I read that he had suggested supporting Obama. It reads like an opportunistic, calculating ploy. Something you expect from most politicians, but not Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by heavyrunner at 01/02/2008 @ 8:57pm
I think anyone who changes their mind about voting for Kucinich over this is just using it for a cop-out. We ALL know Kucinich is THE BEST PROGRESSIVE. We also know that if we all don't hang in there and vote for him, we do not have a chance of getting anyone that is really different. That has been the problem all along, not enough Americans will hang in there and vote for the best person. They want to go with whoever the media says might win.
DO THE RIGHT THING THIS TIME AND CAST YOUR VOTE FOR KUCINICH. Otherwise, you are letting the media decide who you are going to vote for!
Posted by bj864 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:35pm