As a profile in courage, Kucinich wins hands down. And if there were no paid TV political ads in the US, he would be a far more viable candidate. Given the US electoral system's current severe limitations, however, Edwards stands out as the most representative of what the large majority of Americans want & need, and who stands a good chance of winning the nomination and going on to run circles around any GOP candidate.

Posted by sloper at 11/8/2007

Bill Richardson, hands down. He has the right views on foreign policy, but he also has the right experience to handle what will be a very difficult job: cleaning up the mess left by George W. Bush. Richardson has the diplomatic skills to rebuild our standing in the world. He has the domestic experience--as the Governor of his state--to realize that No Child Left Behind needs to be scrapped. And he has sound judgment--something that Senator Clinton, as evidenced by her vote for the Iran resolution and her Iraq War fence-sitting, may lack.

We saw what inexperience brought us with George W. Bush: disaster after unmitigated disaster. Senator Edwards served 6 years in the Senate. Senator Obama is starting his third year in the Senate. And Senator Clinton is in her 7th year in public office (you could argue that being first lady was a public office too, I suppose, but it's different when it's your name--and not your husband's--on the line). Why should we pick inexperience? The answer is that we shouldn't. And that means we should pick the best person for the job. That person is Bill Richardson. He should be the 44th President of the United States...

Posted by michaeldguss at 11/8/2007

Bill Richardson's background stands for itself...Congress, Governor, UN ambasador, Energy Secretary. He is the most well-equipped candidate to deal with the issues we are currently facing. Add to that the fact that he is down-to-earth and more in touch with the rest of us and we have THE man!

Posted by jkw at 11/8/2007

Posted by rich1763 at 11/8/2007

Joe Biden without hesitation. His foreign policy experience and expertise are critical in this fragile period of unrest in the Middle East and Pakistan. He's the go-to guy in Washington (Musharraf phoned HIM) and has established relationships with the global leaders. He's passionate about caring for our troops - both while engaged and upon their return home, and is committed to human rights (Darfur, Burma). I could go on. And on. But suffice it to say if Joe Biden were president, I'd sleep much better at night.

Posted by gateley at 11/8/2007

SLOPER, MICHAELDGUSS, JKW,

No question about it. Bill Richardson IS THE MOST QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL TO BECOME PRESDIENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I have a real toss up between Bill Richardson and Ralph Nader. I am leaning towards Ralph Nader at the moment, whether he runs or not, (I would write his name in) but that could change, of course. Bill Richardson's resume is so impressive it defies description. The rest of the trash coming out of the Democratic Party is totally out of their league compared to Richardson and Nader.............

Posted by POSEIDON at 11/8/2007

GATELEY, SLOPER, MICHAELDGUSS, JKW,

I think Bill Richardson built the resume for the presidency without actually even thinking about it.............

Posted by POSEIDON at 11/8/2007

I think that Bill Richardson is decidedly the most qualified candidate running this election - the most governing experience and the most level head. I don't hear much about him in the media that I read and listen to but then I don't hear much about any other Democrat except the three constantly talked about - Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

Posted by jfitz88 at 11/8/2007

why is 'none of the above' not an option

all the candidates with any remote chance of winning are largely bad choices, with the badness exactly in proportion to the likelihood of winning

Posted by Zero at 11/8/2007

also duly noted that hillary is running a raging 4% in this admittedly on-line, non-scientific poll. it would appear that the nation's online readership would rather vote for Ghenghis Khan than hillary

Posted by Zero at 11/8/2007

Joe Biden lost me FOREVER when he voted for the 'credit card companies' sponsored Bankruptcy bill. Biden (D-DE), Yea; Clinton (D-NY), Nay; Dodd (D-CT), Nay; Obama (D-IL), Nay. When it counts, Biden will not be on our side.

Posted by D1od1o at 11/8/2007

Joe Biden is so much more qualified than anyone else listed above that it shouldn't even be a contest! Unfortunately the media chooses our president anymore. If all of the candidates were given equal time, no one could touch Joe.

Posted by Tinker at 11/8/2007

Barack Obama, hands down. Unlike most the candidates up there, he's honest, and he has a sense of humor.

Posted by KeenanSheep at 11/8/2007

Let's look at Bill Richardson's experience. Clinton put him at the UN where he was a complete failure so they moved him to energy where he was an embarrassment. Then they moved him to security where we had more security leaks during his term then any other time in history. So the morons in New Mexico elect him Governor where he has been an absentee governor since he was elected. The most experienced my ass! He has the most experience at total incompetence.

Biden's a very capable guy. But he has the same problem Dukakis had. He loves to hear himself talk. You can't shut him up. It isn't that he doesn't make his point, he just keeps making it over and over and over again.

Kucinich is a joke. Obama is supposed to be this matinee idol type but as far as I am concerned he's the silliest looking candidate of all. His ears stick out, his hair looks like it is painted on and it's the stupidest smile I've ever seen.

Hillary is smart and will probably get the nomination. And if she does, she will probably be president. That's because women want her husband back in the White House. He reminds them all of the naughty bad boy they all craved in high school but never could land and would never admit it. Maybe suffrage was a mistake. But if she does win the presidency, the media will tear her to shreds. It will be a feeding frenzy.

Edwards has a shot but a lot of women think he should be home taking care of his sick wife and not out campaigning now. I don't agree with that. But I also think he has a tendency to shoot himself in the foot every now and then and his wife is kind of like Terry Kerry and tends to get him in trouble with her mouth.

They all have their baggage and their advantages but I still think Hillary, Obama or Edwards would beat any Republican who is running now.

Posted by bean22 at 11/8/2007

When it comes to the qualities that matter most, Joe Biden stands out above all the others. His depth of knowledge is without equal in American politics. This is a man whose experience allows him to outline detailed solutions to problems, while the others propose nothing more than sketchy approaches. This is the difference between political rhetoric and real substance.

Our next president must be someone who will run the White House as a bastion of true democracy instead of a sand-bagged bunker.

Make no mistake about it, the Republicans are in deficit situation now but they will find votes and make this a hotly contested election in the end. Candidates perceived as too liberal by the religious-right will have a real battle on their hands. And even if Hillary or Obama, Edwards or Richardson manages to eke out a win next November, whichever one of them might be elected will not have enough general support to get anything done.

This country does not need another embattled presidency. Biden draws support from both parties and can win the general election in 30 or 35 states.

Posted by SteveCamp at 11/8/2007

DENNIS'S MOVE THIS WEEK TO IMPEACH CHENEY...

Got him MY vote, both in this poll and in my state's Democratic primary. (I had been flip-flopping between Edwards and Kucinich.) Frankly, I think everyone may be in for a bit of a surprise. Hillary may, after all, not run as well (I mean in the primaries) as everyone expects. She's certainly not doing great in any Internet polls I've seen....

Posted by w_m_bear at 11/8/2007

Senator Obama is very intelligent and just inexperienced enough for many Americans to like. We are, it seems, still (unbelievably) under the impression that "outsiders" are the best candidates, as if geopolitics (which affect everything these days...everything) is a Hollywood film and smart-guy-Dave (or nice guy Mr. Smith, or whatever) from down the road is going to ride into the White House and "save us," whatever that means. We ought to grow up as a nation and see reality, which is that those with gravitas and experience are the only ones capable of bringing about necessary change in short periods of time that move this country forward in pragmatic, proactive manners--and this includes both the domestic and foreign fronts. Senator Obama will be a great candidate for president in 2016, as will Senator Clinton (who may also be a good candidate in 2012 if the Democrats lose this time). Right now, Governor Richardson and Senators Biden and Dodd are far and away the most qualified, experienced, and, from the standpoint of nuanced policy and an understanding of this increasingly international world, best overall candidates for the Democratic nomination. (This is perhaps why they are running at fourth, fifth, and sixth places respectively in national polls of Democrats--we don't like to deal with executive and legislative complexities, but instead we like to vote based on general "feelings" and commercial impact, which is rather juvenile, if you ask me.) My vote was cast for Governor Richardson, with Senators Biden and Dodd closely behind him; the rest, including Senator Clinton, aren't yet where a presidential candidate needs to be (from a number of perspectives), but one day down the road a few of them will be.

Posted by Chris Hassel at 11/8/2007

The interesting thing to me about this election process is the perception of "experience". George Bush was considered to have "experience" because he served as a State Governor and Dick Cheney was considered to have "experience" because he was the Secretary of Defense and other high-ranking offices. What does experience have to do with anything? It's the capability of making judgement, being able to surround yourself with the Right People; having the willingness to have the best interest of ALL People; and being able to work with people across every aisle. Hillary Clinton will become a Target for Republicans just as her Huband did; and it's ashame. But we can not afford 4 or 8 years of Congressional Hearings, revisiting land deals in Arkanyoutellmewhereitis, and S&L Scandals. WORK has to be done. Our reputation, international relations, and both domestic & foreign policies need to repair after 8 years of the Terror of Bush. BARACK OBAMA is a man who I believe can accomplish all those things because his heart is in the right place. He isnt taking "PAC" money and isnt owning no favors. He truly is an honest, decent man who has the people of Illinois' best interest at heart for many years in the low-income areas of Chicago through being a community activist, state legistature and U.S. Senator. BARACK was a Civil Rights Lawyer as well as Professor of Constitutional Law... so, unlike this current President, BARACK understands the Constitution of the United States of America and will be less-likely to continue the gross abuses of the Office of the President like George W. Bush.

I Support Barack Obama because he is a uniting force who can truly bring about the change that is so desperately needed in America. GOD BLESS OUR GREAT COUNTRY!

Posted by IllinoisVet at 11/9/2007

Did it disturb anyone else how little of these quasi endorsements actually mention policy? Or who funds the candidates? Instead we hear about how Clinton is 'warm', Richardson 'likable' and how Biden is good at one-liners. This is pathetic. The quality of the Nation's coverage of politics has gone way down since the '06 elections. We don't hear anything about Hilary being heavily supported by the health care industry, or Biden being in the pocket of the large credit card companies and banks (plus he supports breaking up Iraq, which is quite possibly the only idea more stupid then the one's coming out of the White House and Pentagon). We don't hear how Richardson supports a balanced budget amendment (support of which is the surest sign that a candidate doesn't know anything about economics) or about Dodd's terrible record of oversight of the financial services industry. The next time the Nation critisizes the mainstream media for how it covers elections it should turn its critical eye inward.

Posted by dentedpat at 11/9/2007

This is amazing to me how Real people are taking this poll and Barack has 49% to Hillary's 3%. Why doesnt this reflect the major national polls which shows Hillary ahead by 20 points? I have been a registered Democrat since I was 18 (I am now 40 but dont tell anyone). I have voted in every primary and election. I have never once been asked to take part in a Poll... or even "Exit" poll. Who are they polling? It seems to me to select the people in order to create a story or hype. There is no influence here... just AMERICANS voiceing the opinions and hearts. Obviously, BARACK has the attention of many.

Posted by IllinoisVet at 11/9/2007

This is amazing to me how Real people are taking this poll and Barack has 49% to Hillary's 3%. Why doesnt this reflect the major national polls which shows Hillary ahead by 20 points?

Posted by ILLINOISVET 11/09/2007 @ 01:46am

Try reading the small print: "Not statistically valid."

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/9/2007

By the way, it looks the situation is about to get real interesting:

A market without parachutes [counterpunch.org]

Dollar's fall collapses American empire [counterpunch.org]

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/9/2007

Any one of the Dems could 'lick' any one of the republicons. But the only Democratic candidate who speaks truth to power has been Dennis Kucinich. He has the intelligence, the integrity, the vision and the heart to have our country reflect the principles written into the constitution. How about voting with your hearts and voting for the best instead of forever making compromises and hoping for the best.

Posted by Dale-Z at 11/9/2007

Barack Obama is a Corporate Owned/Council on Foreign Relations membered candidate. Barack Obama said in a Foreign policy speech AND at the AFL-CIO debate that he wants to invade Pakistan -- Pre-emptively and unilateraly if need be. Barack Obama, because of his Corporate Owned status would never be able to represent We the People and OUR best interests. This fact is reflected in a variety of ways: First, Mr. Obama does not support a NOT for Profit Heatlthcare System for this country. Meanwhile our FOR PROFIT system is in a shambles with 47 Million Americans with no healthcare. Because our FOR PROFIT system has ever spiraling upwards costs many companies are cutting back on insurance plans - and some have discontinued providing healthcare cover altogether. Many families find themselves eyeball deep in unpaid medical bills, forcing many to file for bankruptcy. The quality of care under our FOR Profit systen is corrupt. The HMO's are making choices in favor of the bottom line, and NOT in what is in the best interest of the patient. A NOT for Profit Universal Single Payer Healthcare System would guarentee health coverage to ALL Americans and it is free. Secondly, Mr. Obama will not withdraw from NAFTA/WTO to renegotiate trade agreements to include worker's rights, environmental protections, and stave off the flow of jobs being outsourced to other countries.

Mr. Obama loves to pass himself off as a anti-war candidate by reminding everyone at every possible convenience that he was against the war from the beginning. What he always fails to mention is that right after he became Senator he proceeded to consistently vote IN FAVOR of fuding the Iraq War. NOW, he has told us he thinks it would be a good idea to invade Pakistan! THAT IS THE LAST THING THIS COUNTRY AND THIS EARTH NEEDS! While the mainstream Media may be doing a great job of painting a pretty picture of Mr. Obama, the fact is, if you do the research, you discover he is not much different that George Bush. One more point... Mr. Obama refuses to support candidate Kucinich's efforts to impeach Dick Cheney, fellow Council on Foreign Relations member.

I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich in the upcoming elections. I will NOT, I repeat WILL NOT, vote for anyone else for President!

Strenth Throught Peace PeaceNOW! Impeach CHENEY! http://www.dennis4president.com/home

Posted by VoteKucinich at 11/9/2007

Kucinich is the only consistent advocate for peace. Gravel supported the Vietnam war for 6 years. He redbaited Senator Earnest Gruening, a real war opponent. Richardson supported the bombing of Serbia's infrastructure. Biden, Hillary, Edwards and Dodd voted for the war when their opposition would have counted for something. Why is Dennis treated like a joke? He supports an even handed policy in Palestine; and there are many still out there who will hold his Slavic name against him.

Posted by lnh at 11/9/2007

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that is straight up FOR PEACE.

We need to heal our wounds, not make more.

Just vote for Dennis.

Posted by theplunkett at 11/9/2007

Al Gore gets my vote.

Vision, leadership, unmatchable experience and stature to put our country on the path to progress.

And, Al Gore is the one candidate who is for the people and can still win the General election.

Time for a COOL change, Gore 2008

Posted by LDP at 11/9/2007

Al Gore gets my vote.

Time for a COOL change, Gore 2008

Dude, I hate to burst your bubble but Al ain't gonna run.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 11/9/2007

Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who is proposing single payer, universal health care, the ONLY candidate who voted AGAINST the USA PATRIOT Act, the ONLY candidate who voted against going to war in Iraq and the ONLY candidate not in the back pockets of the corporations. He speaks truth to power and has always taken brave stands on controversial issues and has been right each and every single time on them.

Face it, Dems, the ONLY real TRUE Progressive is Dennis. Don't fall for the Hillary or Obama hype. The media knows who it wants to win but you have to THINK INDEPENDENTLY and don't be swayed by the Main Stream Media. Don't settle for half measures on ANYTHING. Let's elect a TRUE Progressive who will restore our lost luster to the world and who will truly lead our country in a new direction that will make a better America and a better world for all of us.

Posted by SallyUUKent at 11/9/2007

Voted for Dennis here because my real favorite isn't listed. I'm like many others holding out for AL GORE!!! When he announces, it will change everything on both sides! The Repugs will then have to find someone game for loosing to Gore, instead of who can win against Hillary! Hillary is never going to cut it - I still can't find anyone who supports her. Don't know who deemed her the frontrunner, MSM I'm sure - what a joke that is! The Repugs would love to have Hillary, but they're terrified of Gore!! It's Gore and no one else for me!

Posted by NCAllison at 11/9/2007

The fact that Senator Obama--who I generally like and think will one day make a solid Democratic presidential nominee, probably sometime around 2016--misunderstands the dire and tricky situation in Pakistan, and tries to compensate for it with gung-ho sloganeering (I can imagine the brass band whipping up a "re-storming of Iwo Jima" theme in the background), is indicative of why he is not yet ready to be president. I'm sure, aside from everything else that has been said regarding our present administration's counter-productive policy towards that particular country, Senator Obama has not for one instant thought about another stark and true reality: due to historical facts, Pakistan has very close cultural ties with Great Britain, and it is a minority of British citizens of Pakistani descent that have caused the most internal strife (via terrorism, etc.) in recent years in England in particular, but also in Scotland, etc. (Again, I want to stress that it is a minority of Pakistani-Britons who are doing this, but there are about a million people of that cultural background in Britain.) To start sabre-rattling in such a simplistic manner towards Pakistan (in their own ways, both Senators Clinton and Obama have done this) would be to undermine our already strained relationship with the government of the one solitary country in this world who has unhappily but loyally stood side by side with us even though they hardly believe the ridiculous crap coming out of Washington, D.C., these days: Great Britain. If we go into Pakistan as Obama suggests, despite our intentions, it will create internal havoc in Britain, and tear the "Special Relationship" almost apart. I know--I lived and worked in Britain for years until moving back to the U.S. a few months ago. Right now, Senator Obama looks like a great candidate for the pie-in-the-sky, simple-thoughts dreamer crowd, to which it appears a lot of people subscribe. Call me a snob, but to folks who actually understand some of the complexities of the real world as it is today, the backgrounds of Governor Richardson and Senators Biden and Dodd mean that they are far more suited to the job of the presidency come January of 2009. (And, no, this is not because of the fact that Richardson has been a governor--it's because of his experience, and success, on the international stage, from a number of perspectives--or because Biden and Dodd have been senators--they, too, have had a lot of foreign policy experience and success--though such things do help. To compare them with George W. Bush's pre-presidential experiences as Governor of Texas is way, way off base.)

Posted by Chris Hassel at 11/9/2007

The only democrat I will vote for as of this moment is Barack Obama. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote Republican (i'm a member of the "anybody but Hillary group". Hopefully the tides turn in the Republicans, and Ron Paul wins the nomination. I like that guy.

Barack Obama vs. Ron Paul

That's how I'd like to see as the nominees... what a decision... the only 2 candidates that know anything about the Constitution.

Posted by jasend1 at 11/9/2007

Gentlepersons: Dennis Kucinich Is FOR You and FOR Me and FOR Your Family and FOR My Family and FOR Your Friends and FOR My Friends! Blessings, Robert F

Posted by Robert F at 11/9/2007

It's interesting to me that the two with the highest votes will almost certainly not be elected. Definately not Kucinich and almost certainly not Barack. I would vote for Kucinich...but surely that is a waste of a vote against Hillary, I will vote for Obama. It is sad there is a line drawn through the Dems. It is also sad that there's so much hatred for our first serious female candidate. Hopefully future Democratic candidates can learn in the future to not divide and gang up into the cliques the politics have become today.

Posted by steyert at 11/9/2007

This won't sound nice, but.... Hillary is a man, bill clinton = gay

Posted by emufarmer at 11/9/2007

Obama Warning:

I liked him too for quite a while, but the reality is that he isn't offering anything substantively different than Hillary.

Here's an interesting side of Obama most of us are verboten access to:

To a select crowd of Americans, Obama preaches against the handling of the Iraq war. To other more private groups, Obama advocates military strikes on new middle eastern countries. Obama has aligned himself with several lobbying firms and nongovernmental organizations who seek further US militarization of the world. In several speeches and essays, Obama makes his foreign policy goals clear - and he is not anti-war...

Iran has some of the most lucrative oilfields in the region, and provides energy to Asia and Europe. International economies would be disenfranchised with the US military disruption of its energy supplies. Meddling in other countries' foreign affairs has spurred backlash against the U.S. This phenomenon is referred to as "blowback", or, the consequences from provoking actions. Ignoring this cause and effect, Obama advocates troops in Iraq be redeployed to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight amorphous groups of "terrorists". ~www.thought-criminal.org -compliments of Chimichenga

Barring unforeseen circumstances --which the current economic and geopolitical climate is pregnant with-- we may not escape the currently "inevitable" machine candidates, but I retain the thread-slender hope of a resurgent Kucinich. In lieu of that, Edwards is the only option progressives should be contemplating.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/9/2007

If it were a choice between Obama and Hillary, I'd go with Obama. But give due credit to Kucinich, because he's the only REAL choice here. Gore - sure, in a New York minute, but he's not running, so....it's kind of a moot point. So your best alternative here is Kucinich.

I don't know why anyone would vote for anybody else, frankly. I know that many of you are voting on the basis of "electability" (read that, image), and if you're just voting on the basis of physical attractiveness, well, sure, Obama and Hillary are probably, in that respect "electable", but you have to vote for more than just who looks good on camera and who'd be a great pal to have a backyard barbecue and a beer with.

What is the message that we want to send the world? More of the same? More hawkishness? More war? More hatred? More of having the corporations running things instead of the people? More people dying for lack of access to proper health care? More schools crumbling because they don't have enough money? More roads and bridges disintigrating because we won't repair our own infrastructure? More environmental degradation, more free trade, more jobs going to China, India and Pakistan? More budget and trade deficits that will saddle generations to come with a crushing debt?

C'mon, folks, wake up. TRUE Progressives won't vote for anybody but Kucinich. Sure, he may not be the most handsome of men, he's not tall, but he stands tall as a true American, patriot and fighter for the average person. He can't be bought off by Big Money, Big Pharma, Big Health, Big Corporate, Big Oil or anybody else.

So get off your high horses and vote for Kucinich. All the rest are just "Republican Lite" speaking much the same messages as their opposition, leaving me to wonder if we still have a true two party system. Lately it sure hasn't seemed so.

Posted by SallyUUKent at 11/9/2007

If you wish the war in Iraq to have an end, and you want to prevent war with Iran there is a logical first step. Impeach Cheney, this is the most productive thing our congress could do right now. Call your representative, tell them you will never vote for anyone who doesn't do the just thing and vote to impeach Cheney.

Posted by anymountain at 11/9/2007

You Are All Fooling Yourselves!

The media, the Nation and its readers spend allot of time discussing electability as it refers to gender, personality, height, ear sizes, etc., but, you all are to chicken to discuss the most important electability question in this election, and that is RACE!

As a so called minority(defined by you white guys) I know for a fact that white america is not going to vote for Obama(the black guy). You can talk all of your phony progressive ideological crap about how far we have come, but, you obviously haven't been traveling as a black male because you would be in jail by now.

Studies have shown that when polled, people will SAY the will vote for a black person, but, when it comes down to actually pulling that lever, it almost always turns up white! Remember Harold Ford!

Posted by mauigino at 11/9/2007

I am out here in Iowa, have caught all of the stump speeches of the various candidates and looked very hard in preparation for the caucuses on January 3rd. This is the most important election of our lifetime folks. We all need to look hard at these candidates. I have an autistic son whose future I worry about. Naturally, Christopher Dodd caught my attention. I had heard him speak about the austism problem in our country several times before he announced that he was running for president. One in 150 children in this country suffer from autism. That's more than the height of the polio epidemic. Dodd cosponsored the "Combating Autism Act" with former Republican Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania. I took note when Dodd announced his candiacy for the White House. I really took note when my own father started to work on me. Dad and I have been to many caucuses together. We have agreed and disagreed on candidates. This year I really sensed urgency in my father. He is worried about the future of this country, he is worried about his 7 grandchildren, including my autistic son, Andrew, age 9. I have never seen my wise father so enthusiastic about a presidential candidate as he is for Chris Dodd. I got to meet the Senator, he definitely knew all about the autism epidemic. I was surprised at the lack of awareness about autism from the other candidates.

Dodd has been focusing on our nations young people for his entire Congressional career, (even before he had children of his own, now he has two daughters, ages 6 and 2). Senator Tom Harkin, form Iowa, has called Dodd "The Children's Senator".During the Clinton administration Dodd fought to get the Family and Medical Leave Act passed. Bill Clinton himself described the FMLA as one of the greates laws of our lifetime. Dodd started the Children's Caucus in Congress. He is a five term Senator who has accomplished alot in Washington with a record of working with both parties to find common ground to get things done, no gridlock! My Dad is a smart guy, very wise. He fought in Korea, practices law here in Council Bluffs, Iowa, and is worried about his kid's and grandkid's future. He and I agree that Chris Dodd is the answer.

We have alot of undecided folks here in Iowa, about 75% at this point. Past candidates in single digits in Iowa in December have come out on top in January. Just look at John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, for example. Iowa caucus goers don't simply look at who has the most cash raised or the most recognizable name. They are looking hard at this caucus, because it is very important. I would encourage everyone to take a good hard look at Chris Dodd. The more you look at Dodd, the more you'll be impressed and realize he is the one who is ready to lead.

Posted by McGinn at 11/9/2007

Hey, I'm casting my vote for Kucinich in the poll you have; because your web site for it isn't allowing me to vote. ljlyon@gmail.com Q: If the primary in my state was held today who would I vote for? A: Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Laurie Lyon at 11/9/2007

Kucinich is the only one with the right healthcare plan, the right attitude on the war from the beginning and the right exit strategy. He's the best canidate by a mile. I encourage everyone to consider him for president.

Posted by JimMac at 11/9/2007

Kucinich has the potential for greatness. His health care, foreign policy, and green works positions demonstrate his honest desire to do the right thing for people. Refusing corporate money demonstrates his integrity. His support is evident everywhere on the web. The media's campaign to marginalize him only demonstrates his electability.

Posted by iamnormal at 11/9/2007

This message from STEYERT represents the flawed thinking of all who base their voting in the primary on general election strategy:

"It's interesting to me that the two with the highest votes will almost certainly not be elected. Definately not Kucinich and almost certainly not Barack. I would vote for Kucinich...but surely that is a waste of a vote against Hillary, I will vote for Obama. It is sad there is a line drawn through the Dems. It is also sad that there's so much hatred for our first serious female candidate. Hopefully future Democratic candidates can learn in the future to not divide and gang up into the cliques the politics have become today. (Posted by STEYERT 11/09/2007 @ 12:04pm)"

The "People's Party" of the Dem. Party support Kucinich. The "Money Party" is trying to marginalize or eliminate him from the presidential race. A poll done recently by "American Research Group," a highly respected research group, showed that 54% of the general public and 74% of Democrats want to impeach Dick Cheney. The ONLY candidate with the courage and political will to lead on this issue is Rep. Dennis KUCINICH (www.kucinich.us). There isn't enough time or space to reveal all of the flawed thinking of the leading money raisers in the Democratic Party primary.

Instead of acting now based on "strategy," please vote on the candidate who is the best on the issues that you care about. Dennis Kucinich is running on three principal issues: Healthcare (single-payer, not-for-profit, universal healthcare coverage), Iraq-Iran War issues (Out of Iraq -- see his 12-step plan on his website and NO WAR with IRAN), and Trade issues (cancelling NAFTA, CAFTA, and our membership in the WTO. The passage of the Peru Free Trade Act might now include the cancellation of that, as well.)

We need a leader with the 40-years of public service (Cleveland City Council, Cleveland Mayor, Ohio Senate, and four terms as House of Representatives member).

Vote "KUCINICH for President 2008"!!!!!

Posted by Seattle2006 at 11/9/2007

I holeheartedly agree with SEATTLE2006. I've heard so many people say what STEYERT has said. I believe there is such a huge flaw in this argument, and will get us into trouble all over again. Haven't we learned our lesson yet? And if not, what does it really take for people to finally open up their eyes and see what they are allowing to happen over and over again? Whoever makes the argument that they will be backing the candidate that has a better chance of winning, instead of the candidate that they thing is actually best fit for the job is a coward, in my eyes. These are the people who are helping him not get the nomination in the end. Imagine how much support Kucinich would have if all of these people actually backed him.

I know what I believe in. I know who I think the best candidate is. I'm not a coward to give my vote to someone else because the media wants me to. I'm giving my vote to DENNIS KUCINICH.

Posted by anyas at 11/9/2007

Reading the comments, I see many Kucinich fans. I wonder how many of you have donated to his campaign.

In an atmosphere of political hunger and desperation, his issues are real, American and what we so desperately need!

He has the ability to win, but it's up to us to support the man who takes no special interest money, and survives on small private donations. Money is necessary to compete in this crazy race. I urge you to give, give and give a little more! It's one thing we can do, to see our hopes fulfilled.

DENNIS KUCINICH: The Man, The Plan, The Time!

Posted by days23000 at 11/9/2007

When he was mayor of Cleveland, Dennis Kucinich risked his entire political future to save the city's low-cost municipal electric system from an Enron-style takeover. He was forced out of politics for 15 years as a result. Once again, he is putting it all on the line with the Cheney impeachment(he will introduce Articles of Impeachment against Bush as well). 435 members of the House and he is the only one with the guts to do this against an Administration than deserves to be impeached more than any other. It is now time for those have been saying "I really like Dennis Kucinich BUT I don't think he's electable" to MAKE him electable by joining and supporting his campaign. Hopelessly brainwashed progressives are the biggest threat to his Presidential aspirations. Dennis is right on every issue and we must recognize him for what he is: A once-in-a-lifetime candidate.

Posted by gkaba at 11/9/2007

I'm not having any luck with links or italics so I'll just quote GKABA to whom I'm replying.

"When he was mayor of Cleveland, Dennis Kucinich risked his entire political future to save the city's low-cost municipal electric system from an Enron-style takeover. He was forced out of politics for 15 years as a result. Once again, he is putting it all on the line with the Cheney impeachment(he will introduce Articles of Impeachment against Bush as well). 435 members of the House and he is the only one with the guts to do this against an Administration than deserves to be impeached more than any other. It is now time for those have been saying "I really like Dennis Kucinich BUT I don't think he's electable" to MAKE him electable by joining and supporting his campaign. Hopelessly brainwashed progressives are the biggest threat to his Presidential aspirations. Dennis is right on every issue and we must recognize him for what he is: A once-in-a-lifetime candidate.

Posted by GKABA 11/09/2007 @ 7:05pm"

Believing the polls is another big mistake. A pollster called me and asked who I was planning to vote for but only listed the so called top tier candidates. Of course I said "none of the above. If Kucinich isn't nominated I'll write in his name". I will not give up my right to vote for the best candidate in the name of party loyalty, or the lesser evil or any such device the Party uses to force us into voting for the corporate darling.

Posted by iamnormal at 11/9/2007

Nancy Pelosi strikes another blow for rich republicans everywhere by making sure that the bill to expand Nafta passes. People may say one thing but you can ALWAYS judge them by what they do. Dems were elected to end the occupation of Irag and put an end to Free Tradeagreements, saving what is left of American jobs. What have they done led by Pelosi? They continue to give lip service to ending the war yet they let the escilation (surge) happen, they continue to fund the war, they pass more Free Trade legislation, and they confirm an Attorney General that won't hold the administration responsible for torture,domestic spying, etc. Pelosi is worth over $25 million dollars, do you really think she is on our side? Almost all of the Republicans and more Democrats than I would like to admit are working for the large corporations and NOT for you and me. We have to educate and paticipate in our government. It is time for a national strike!!!!! We need to unite as a people and demand the restoration of our constitution and assure that election reform and ethics laws are put in place so that the facist state that currently exists in our government can never be allowed to occur again. I would like to close with my four favorite quotes.

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin D. Roosevelt

The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government. Franklin D. Roosevelt

EDWARD DOWLING The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it. [1941]

EDWARD BURKE The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Posted by Dave Moore at 11/9/2007

I've done some lengthy interviews with Congressman Kucinich. He is more than a progressive poseur. He is the real thing. He knows, and he cares.

Posted by civiletti at 11/10/2007

Dennis Kucinich has more political balls than any other two Dems put together. The beauty of DK is that he's both morally right on every issue from Iraq to health care to corporations AND he's the sure-fire bet for winning against any republican. He's bulletproof. Wow, integrity *and* strategy? I'm in love.

Posted by Skippygrrl at 11/10/2007

The posts on this list, are irrelevant in one important respect, and that is, what if Hillary's the nominee of the dem party, and Giuliani is her opponent: what would you do. If you replied that you'd reluctantly vote for Hillary, I'd say you had done the best you could for your nation. But, if you replied in one of the following three ways: 1) that you'd stay home and wouldn't vote, 2) that you'd vote for a third party, or 3) that you'd vote republican, I'd say you were a dangerous imbecile. These three reactions are, one as bad as the other. The extent to which Hillary has been successfully demonized, villified and demeaned mostly by republicans, the viciously biased media they control, but also by the brainless, snobbish and selfish half of a Hillary hating Left, is a tragic sight to witness.

Posted by johncp at 11/10/2007

As liberals and thinking people, we know we are on the side of right. But that is clearly not enough. Kucinich is heroic on his stances, but is wholly unelectable. Mr. Obama is a very appealing candidate, but at times can develop that effete liberal stance of knowing better than the voters about things. What is more worrisome about Mr. Obama is that he has been on a honeymoon with the media and the Republicans have taken no real digs. But the have field-tested the Barack Hussein Osama...oops, Obama crap already and pretty much gotten away with it. That same tactic would be used effectively throughout the South in 2008 if he is the nominee. I live in the South and I deplore those sentiments, but I have watched the region go for the Republicans for most of my 40 years. And that kind of bigoted tactic is very effective here. If the U.S. were a different country right now, Mr. Obama might well be the choice. But having watched the 2000 campaigns and then the risible Swift Boat malarkey in 2004, it is clear to me that the Dems face a well-oiled and ruthless machine. Anything to win, no matter how low they must go. This won't magically change in 2008. It will be front and center. That leads me to believe there is only one candidate who is prepared to knock some right-wing heads together next fall.

That would be Hillary Clinton. She has a well-financed and well-oiled machine behind her. And she will answer attacks with speed and ferocity. I think Bill Clinton was trying to fire a warning shot this past week when warning about attempting to SwiftBoat Hillary. He was essentially saying that the gloves would come off and the SwiftBoaters would get their comeuppance. It would be nice if this weren't the political landscape, but it is reality. The Democrats need someone tough and ruthless and determined. Obama complains about Hillary being part of the system and therefore not the right candidate. That seems like poor reasoning to me. The system won't disappear in a puff of smoke no matter who is elected in November 2008. If a politician can't work with that system they will have no way of getting things done. The government needs a lot of reforms, but they won't be accomplished by hoping and praying and wishful thinking. Or by someone like Obama rushing in to tell them there is a new way or the highway. Reforms will take time and depend on a stable and responsible Democratic majority.

Many have made a lot over Senator Clinton's answer on immigration as a cause for alarm. She seemed to state pretty clearly that she understood why Governor Spitzer might want to undertake this initiative, but stopped short of endorsing it. What is wrong with that? That is a nuanced way of looking at the situation. And she made the salient point that had the Federal government passed comprehensive immigration reform, states wouldn't have to go it alone and make their own laws. It is also valuable to remember that Hillary Clinton sits in the U.S. Senate. She cannot influence in a material way the legislative and executive concerns of New York State. And what I found more interesting about the debate was that Obama and Edwards weren't barraged with same questions and with as much vigor. Mr. Obama is certainly to the left of Senator Clinton on most issues and I would love to see him have to fully explore that same question. Especially if it applied to Illinois. Just like his famously being against the Iraq war from the outset. He voted against it in a meaningless state resolution in Illinois. The problem with this is that he represented a friendly liberal constituency for whom that vote would have caused no alarm. Had Mr. Obama been a sitting United States Senator at the time he would have had to make a different calculation. Illinois skews Democratic in Presidential elections, but there a good many conservative voters in the more rural parts of the state. And Mr. Obama might have found it necessary to support Bush at that time in order to not alienate rural and suburban voters. It is easy to point the finger when you didn't have to make the hard decision. Had the Sears Tower been knocked down on 9/11 there would have been a different climate also. Hillary Clinton was a freshman Senator in New York. The state most affected by the attacks. Votes are not always based purely on ideology and what you might agree with emotionally. There are practical concerns and that is the way things have worked throughout the history of this country. This is not a monarchy. There are checks and balances and compromise and working together are important.

One more thing that troubles me is that Mr. Obama seems to have a funny way of not being around to cast a vote on cetain hot-button bills. Like the original SCHIP bill. Several others in the last few months. Some could be blamed on his campaigning out of the city, but Mrs. Clinton has missed very few votes on substantive legislation. I guess this is a way of innoculating oneself against the charge of flip-flop, but opens one up to a more potentially damaging charge. That of being too timid to vote on important matters out of fear of taking a position. You can't be right or wrong if you didn't bother to vote at all.

I witnessed the Harold Ford camapaign in 2006 and saw to what depths the right-wing would sink to win. And sure enough the race card was played by the bigots. That now infamous ad that played on stereotypical thinking about black men and white women. And according to exit polling from that race, over 20% of the voters said race was a deciding factor in how they cast their ballot. Harold Ford had everything going for him and this happened. And of course the Corker campaign disavowed the ads. But his party ran them. And that is how it will go. Surrogates will air this trash and give cover to the actual candidate. And now that the Supreme Court has struck down the ban on the rule about issue ads and advocacy ads after a certain date, we can expect to see the most vile of political ads right up until Election Day. Harold Ford didn't have an Islamic-sounding name and foreign birth and lineage to overcome, but still lost. If you look at state-by-state polls in the South of the Democratic primary voters, Obama is behind Hillary Clinton in most every state and is behind both Clinton and Edwards in some of them. Think about what that means. The far more conservative general election turnout in the South will support Obama even less than the liberal turnout for the primaries. Making inroads in the South and mountain West are essential for a Democratic nominee to win. Ceding the South outright is a bad idea. It gets the Dems right back to the run the table scenario that didn't work out in the last two elections.

People may dislike Hillary Clinton for whatever reason, but don't you think that should be immaterial. Who cares how much you want to have a beer or a cup of coffee with the President? I want someone smart and tough and competent and able to navigate the various corridors of power. Margaret Thatcher was never loved by most Brits, but there was a lot of respect and admiration for her toughness. I would never vote for someone with views like Mrs. Thatcher, but I like her model. And I think that is what America needs. Mr. Clinton was a great president but the personal stuff detracted from his legacy a bit. Mr. Bush was seen as a good ole boy and someone the average Joe would want to have a beer with. He might have been seen as likable to many, but look where paying attention to personality got the country. Since when does a society wish to be led by average person? Why would we have great institutes of higher learning, if not to train future leaders? It is time for an adult in the White House again. A practical and tough woman. Thatcher once said,"If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman." That is how I view Hillary Clinton. She is tough and disciplined and that is what it will take to turn things around.

Posted by bete-noire at 11/10/2007

To JOHNCP

If the race comes down to Clinton and Giuliani, the choice is war with Iran with tax increases, or war with Iran without them.

Given that in the event of a war with Iran, I will be forced by prior blood oath to take up arms against the government, I would rather pay less taxes in the intervening months.

It's not about hating Hillary. It's pragmatism.

Obama '08

Posted by beatpanda at 11/10/2007

The whole political system is rotten...to the core. If not Kucinich then it really doesn't matter; you can vote for Biden, Huckabee, Clinton or Romney and get the same result, minus the hot-button rhetoric which is the red meat Americans thrive on...

Posted by Cameiros at 11/10/2007

Bete noire........ DID you LOOK at the results of the poll above? Kucinich 29% the highest! Clinton 3% near the bottom! Our "revered" by many, Abe Lincoln: looked unelectable. Ugly as a mud hen! Depressive and depressing......By today's media force fed, superficial, physical appearance, botox & make-up standards; the man would have LOST in a landslide! Obama is a johnny come late,( save him for the future,) Kucinich has been preparing himself for the role of leader, for many years. How many of you would subject yourself to not one, but 2 presidential campaigns, in the face of ridicule and "unelectable" status,( NOT GORE you dreamers....) to have a chance to correct, historic wrongs of gigantic proportions? ( At this point there will be more personal headache than glory in the Presidential role.) No I can't contribute to his campaign.....part of the master plan at work here. Those of us who need him to turn things around the most are already flat on the floor from the Repug/neocon/complicit Dems,, depredations of the last 26 years................. I am carting 2 gal cans of diesel fuel .48c more at the pump than from the oil delivery man, and pouring it down into my heater's tank to keep warm, as LIHEAP funds are not available yet and my tank is very close to empty. I did buy the minimum 50 gal. in Sept. for $130. this month that amount has to go to the Bangor Enron to keep the lights on. Hard to remember that once I was a viable entrepreneur, selling my art services to the wealthy jetsetters. That I was FREE TO BE ME and spend my time perfecting my art, at the same time supporting myself. Now it's a little hard to paint with one finger in the hole in the dike to keep from being inundated. Yes poverty is a FULL TIME JOB FOLKS! Sad to remember the good I've spread in my life to others.........

Posted by r u cognizant at 11/10/2007

It is time to let go of the fairy tale that our government is anything but a business. The only reason I call it a business instead of a scam is that it has been in play for so long. The business/scam has taken the nation for over five trillion dollars. This has been going on for a long time. By the way, that's just the recorded moneys. In order for it to do business it has to keep people believing it's not a business. It has managed to sustain the illusion that left and right are different. It has divided you and thereby conquered you. People enjoy feeling superior and "right". They enjoy writing stuff that lets them feel smart. This blindness, this inability to let go of a feeling, enables the business to keep operating under the guise of government. The people of the U.S. are the raw material this business turns into profit. The only possible candidates for making a difference are Kucinich and Paul. If we keep our current tendencies of emotional romanticism in looking at the world, if we continue to view politics like teen age girls swooning over the latest fad, we will continue to get what we have got; a gargantuan fortress of bureaucratic greed and mediocrity that no amount of sanity or goodness can breach. Enjoy your little victories; they are the only solace for the sleeping mind.

Posted by dgswilson at 11/10/2007

hey JOHNCP, piss off. I'll vote for the candidate that I fel will turn this naiton around, and there isn't anyone who fits that ticket other than kucinich. If Kicinich gets 10% of the vote this round, and we get 4 years of giuliani as a result of my inability to vote for clinton, well then in 4 years the country will really be pissed off and kucinich will be emboldened by having made inroads...and the fight will be forwarded. If you don't think we can afford 4 years of giuliani, I say we can't afford 4 years of clinton eaither, cause there ain't that big of a difference my friend. yours, dangerous imbecile.

Posted by rzs_1 at 11/10/2007

It is funny that people see Hillary as not warm. I know people who have met her, including Republicans, and they all say one thing: she is great one-on-one. She is warm and engaging. SHE is the one you would want to have a drink with, if you are using this as a criteria.

Posted by zanychris at 11/10/2007

Even if I have to write him in, I will only vote for Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by agape at 11/10/2007

I personally like Kucinich on the issues, but Obama is the most Kucinich-like candidate that has a real chance of winning.

Obama's judgment on the important issues is much better than Hillary's so-called experience. Dick Cheney has tons of experience, but where has that gotten our country? Hillary's vote for war authorization in Iraq and recently in Iran shows poor judgment, and we can no longer afford poor judgment with our president.

Perhaps more importantly, we need to turn the page on the divisive politics of the past, and Obama has the best shot of uniting the country. With Hillary, we will get more of the same us vs. them bickering and gridlock in Washington based her view that a "right-wing conspiracy" is out to get her.

Obama, who is bi-racial, can unite both whites and blacks, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, as well as Republicans and Democrats.

Obmama also is the best electable candidate that is capable of bringing about "meaningful" campaign finance reform. He led this fight in Illinois, and was able to bring Democrats and Republicans together to support publicly funded elections there.

This is probably the biggest issue facing America because money has thoroughly corrupted the Democratic process. When you have 77% of Americans wanting us out of Iraq, and 94% not wanting us to get into Iran, but a Senate and Congress that keeps funding the Iraq war and voting for first steps to invade Iran, then there really is no democratic process in America where the will of the American people determines public policy.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2007

METTEYYA, if you like Dennis Kucinich on the issues, then why are you supporting Obama? I suspect that the only reason you think DK is not electable is that the mainstream media tells you he's not electable. My advise is to stop listening to the MSM.

Look, I like Obama, too. He's one of my Senators. But I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich in the primaries, because he represents my views. That's what the primaries are for! Vote for the candidate who you'd really like to win, in an ideal world.

Please, everybody, reject the MSM's definitions of ALL the candidates. Make up your own mind. And most of us who read The Nation will find that the courageous positions Dennis Kucinich has taken -- from Medicare for All to impeachement to getting out of Iraq -- actually represent our views better than any of the other triangulating business-as-usual candidates.

Vote for Kucinich. Tell your friends. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Don't be timid and afraid. Stand up for the one candidate who's willing to stand up for us.

-- ARG

Posted by ARG-Chicago at 11/10/2007

We are being 'conditioned' to believe Dennis K.: "can't win", is "unelectable", is a "fringe candidate", is "too short", is "too gnome-like"... You just bring up his name, and someone will repeat one of those mantras with such authority and certainty that it pays tribute to the media's ability to program/indoctrinate/brainwash their audience. Do a little 'word association' exercise...call up the names of candidates one at a time, and you'll find little variance in the responses, their 'same-ness' attesting to the power of the punditocracy to encapsulate each candidate's 'tag' in two, three or four words.

If, however, you ask people to respond to each candidate's platform, you find that, on every issue (save gay marriage), Dennis Kucinich's positions on the issues of the day are identical with those of a substantial majority of voters, save only those who are super-rich and/or terminally stupid.

I suggest that if he wins the nomination so that voters can focus on unfiltered explanations of his positions, he could easily beat whomever the Republicans nominate. When people are 'allowed' by the media to consider the ISSUES, rather than 'debate' Hillary's cleavage or Obama's middle name...or Romney's 'wholesome good looks' or Giuliani's 'drag queen' photos, Dennis will run away with the prize. A genuine progressive who has the full backing of the Democratic Party, first-hand experience with hard times and a determination to tell the Truth will attract serious attention from the 'average Joes' who haven't yet given up on politics.

Posted by Aybayb at 11/10/2007

One way the MSM presents Kucinich as "unelectable" is sort of indirect. Not only does it barely give him any coverage, but more subtly (and sadly), the MSM has shaped our perceptions of what kind of person is attractive, charasmatic, in possession of what Walter Benajmin called "aura." Sure, in a quick glance, Obama, Hillary, and Edwards have more "aura" than Kucinich. But that lasts about 2 minutes. As you watch Kucinich speak his mind, and he gradually becomes a very, very attractive man (his wife is no dummy). The notion of "character" and "intelligence" as making someone attractive is anathema to the MSM, because it is something that cannot be bought at a department store. The MSM has provided a sad, superficial visual filter that makes this man seem "unelectable." We have to break through the filter and see WITH OUR OWN EYES.

Posted by sadAmerican at 11/10/2007

Single payer universal health care and out of Iraq now. If a Democratic candidate does not stand for these two issues, that candidate will not get my vote.

Posted by Mark Roddy at 11/10/2007

>>> Joe Biden lost me FOREVER when he voted for the 'credit card companies' sponsored Bankruptcy bill. Biden (D-DE), Yea; Clinton (D-NY), Nay; Dodd (D-CT), Nay; Obama (D-IL), Nay. When it counts, Biden will not be on our side.

Posted by D1OD1O >>>>

Is that a typo next to Biden's name? Shouldn't it be "Biden (D-MBNA)"

Posted by Aybayb at 11/10/2007

If you think this poll is convincing, check the one at www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php Really revealing look at the issues as applies to each candidate.

Posted by days23000 at 11/10/2007

Dennis is the only candidate that is the right choice in my mind. It's funny how many americans are out of sync with reality. Because if more were, they would be voting for Kucinich.

Posted by Isaac707 at 11/10/2007

I personally like Kucinich on the issues, but Obama is the most Kucinich-like candidate that has a real chance of winning.

Like Kucinich, Obama represents a state that has suffered a massive loss of decent paying jobs due to FTAs, yet he has just announced that he will vote for the Peru FTA. In a state where 49% of children in public schools are classified as "poor" (Southern Education Foundation) and where tens of thousands showed up to apply for a few hundred jobs at Wal-Mart, you would think that Obama would be able to connect the dots and understand that the FTAs have been a destructive force on the economy of Illinois. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be wedded to a failed ideology and reality does not seem to be able to move him from his beliefs.

This is not a small issue. Aside from the economic devastation, FTAs have left the U.S. vulnerable because our manufacturing capacity has been severely eroded. While the most obvious implication of this erosion is the dependency upon other nations for manufactured goods, it also means that R&D will be moved (and in many cases, has already moved) to other countries, effectively resulting in a "brain drain" because the U.S. will not be able to provide experience for its engineers and scientists. This is an issue of national security.

Posted by Old Dem at 11/11/2007

On issues, I'm with Kucinich, like all of us, but once we play the game of "electability," once we admit the lessons we have learned from prior campaigns that indicate massive hypocrisy in the American voters, we need to think Edwards. He is principled, progressive, and media friendly. (Americans will tell pollsters that they'll vote for a Black or female candidate and then, when in the booth, have their native prejudice pull the lever.) It is dreadful to play this game, but such are the times and the place.

Posted by Geogre at 11/11/2007

"It is dreadful to play this game, but such are the times and the place."

This is the most dangerous thinking. In this instance -We- constitute the 'times' and the 'place'. In Nazi Germany, there was a distinct sense of the times and place, and that sense was managed quite masterfully by some very unsavory characters, while people let themselves be moved by fear to play a dreadful game. We must REFUSE to play dreadful games, they do not serve our interests as a free and open democratic society. We must march to a different beat or all is lost. We cannot let the manipulated sense of what is or is not possible dictate our actions! We as a people are in a powerful position of finally being able to rally behind a candidate who courageously stands for a clear break with the madness that has brought us to this precipice. If we do not cast our votes for Dennis John Kucinich in the Primaries we have only ourselves to blame, for lack of principles and the resolve to employ them when it matters most! We can recapture our fallen democracy and remake this country according to our best vision. We can lift up a people grown hopeless by a cynical exercise of power for the benefit of a few. This is our time to act! And so we must. No half measure will save us. Kucinich took as his message Fear "Ends, Hope Begins" in 2004, now we are on to Strength Through Peace. The brightness which such visionary forces as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. exemplified is with us now. Our Nation is sinking into a great darkness, it is time to light the lamp of liberty once and FOR ALL! Stand up America. Stand up now! Kucinich and beyond!

Posted by bezaleel at 11/11/2007

One thing to remember, Illinois is almost a sure thing to vote democratic, so don't expect to see Obama on a ticket, unless he's the main guy.

Candidates usually pick running mates based on winning particular states. Illinois is already blue, so where's the advantage to have him as a running mate?

To an earlier poster...re: Hillary...continue the war, plus tax increases, and Giuliani...continue the war, but no tax increases." Don't kid yourself....whoever the next president, they will be forced to raise taxes due to the fiscal irresponsibilty of the Bush administration.

Posted by Tree Fiddy at 11/11/2007

Posted by OLD DEM 11/11/2007 @ 02:43am

FTAs that focus on "fair trade" policies, which is what Obama supports, are good for the WORLD, and could be good for America if we make the right adjustments and "fund" them.

Let's face it, America cannot compete with 97 cents per hour wage rates in China, so companies are going to move there anyway. This is a "worldwide" phenomenon, as Europeans and others are all seeking the lowest cost strategy to produce their products.

So what do we do about it? Some say revoke all FTAs and protect American jobs. This is unrealistic. How do you stop a company from going offshore when they can simply turn in their American incorporation for an offshore one if you push them too hard? If you make it too unattractive for companies to remain here, they will leave.

The real solution is to fund re-training initiatives that better prepare the American worker to compete in the new global economy. In other words, the American worker needs to "upgrade" their skills or they will continue to lose their jobs, and America should pay for this with new training initiatives.

The new green economy, for example, which is in its infancy in America needs highly skilled workers in new solar companies, electric car companies, etc., let's get on with making this happen. You used to think that working at the meat plant was all the skills you needed, but now why not learn how to install solar panels and be part of the new economy?

A more highly skilled American workforce is actually an asset; so let's not go backwards and try to maintain a lower level of skills, let's move forward with the funding needed to train America so it can compete in the 21st century.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2007

METTEYYA, if you like Dennis Kucinich on the issues, then why are you supporting Obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc

Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2007

To METTAYYA:

And?... What about it?...

1. I've seen things in the sky a couple times that I wasn't able to identify as an airplane or anything else with which I am familiar. Hence, the technical term: UFO - Unidentified Flying Object.

2. There's nothing DISPROVING that these occurance are real. In fact, ancient cultures have left records of such occurances, and all of the descriptions of events are too similar to be a coincidence. Besides, most of the opposition comes from the government itself. Makes you wonder why...

3. 14% is just the percentage of people who have OPENLY claimed that they have seen UFOs and just happened to be asked to PARTICIPATE in that particular pole. It's kind of like depression or rape statistics: flawed - most people are too ashamed to come out and openly say they have experienced it for fear of not being believed and for fear of being looked down upon by others.

4. If anyone believes that Dennis is not normal because of this, I say one thing... take a look at yourself. Normal is a subjective and relative concept. At the end of the day, no one is normal.

5. I'd rather have a president who believes he's seen a UFO than a president who has sign off on more funding for Iraq, would move on to Iran, and would continue to shamelessly cater to the corporations.

Posted by anyas at 11/11/2007

I apologize - it's "METTEYYA" not "METTAYA". My bad.

Posted by anyas at 11/11/2007

Posted by ANYAS 11/11/2007 @ 1:26pm

I have even seen things in the sky that turned out later to be military aircraft doing maneuvers.

I think it is the fact that Kucinich doesn't try to investigate, and "assumes" what he sees is extraterrestrial and not of this world is what makes people think he is a little loony.

He actually said after the sighting that, "I found it (the UFO) to have connections to my heart and direction to my mind".

I'm sorry Anyas, but I can't vote for "anyone" as President of the United States, which is a serious position with serious consequences for the world if your judgment is flawed, that gets "heart connections" and "mental direction" from UFOs.

This reinforces the perception that Kucinich is a flake, who may be right on a lot of the issues, but can't be trusted with the seriousness in which the office of president must be taken.

Wouldn't you feel stupid if Kucinich suddenly launched an attack against another nation or refused to defend America against attack because he felt one of these "heart connections" or "mental direction" from a UFO?

The presidency is serious business and we can't afford to take a chance on someone who has continued to show a weirdness and a flaky side that would make him unfit to lead this country.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2007

METTEYYA, perhaps you missed the post where the commenter compared ufo's and angels, it went something like this:

If Kucinich had said the same thing but substituted angel for ufo, everyone would have said " what a fine man!"

Can you do better at proving angels than ufo's?

It's all a matter of perception. Having experienced a ufo would be far less likely to make a person make a wrong decision for the country, than someone saying they were directed by god, or someone bending to money.

The "evangelo-fascists" have used god to get us where we are now! (Don't get me started...)

Secondly, look at the possible choices, it's comparatively bleak. How can anyone know what forces will motivate Obama or Edwards, or any other candidate whom we truly know so little about.

The difference between campaign promises and Kucinich is that his is a lifelong campaign of unwavering ideals that are right and constitutional. If you could "lift the hood on a Kucinich", you'd find it to be genuine throughout. No junk in there anywhere!

KUCINICH: The Man, The Plan, The Time!

Posted by days23000 at 11/11/2007

I'm sorry Anyas, but I can't vote for "anyone" as President of the United States, which is a serious position with serious consequences for the world if your judgment is flawed, that gets "heart connections" and "mental direction" from UFOs.

METTEYYA 11/11/2007 @ 2:17pm

As an empiricist and strong enthusiast of the arguments of the late great Carl Sagan who so brilliantly advocated for the scientific mindset of wonder balanced with skepticism --I encourage readers to seek out Sagan's superb clarion-call book "The Demon Haunted World- Science as a Candle in the Dark", written shortly before his untimely death in late 1996-- I sympathize with your point, Mettayya.

But the argument against supporting a "loony Kucinich" can be equally applied to any "God" believer --especially those who make a noisy show of their faith ala King George or most Republicans. In Kucinich's case there has been no evidence of any lunacy in anything he's said or done that would suggest that he's "dangerous". On the contrary, his entire career trajectory has been that of a man who has consistently taken principled stands on the most controversial and critically important issues that face humanity.

How in the hell does he not comport beautifully with your Ghandi-like sensibilities, Mettayya?

And at least as baffling to me is your support of Barrack Obama in light of your decided distaste for the AIPAC gang.

To a select crowd of Americans, Obama preaches against the handling of the Iraq war. To other more private groups, Obama advocates military strikes on new middle eastern countries. Obama has aligned himself with several lobbying firms and nongovernmental organizations who seek further US militarization of the world. In several speeches and essays, Obama makes his foreign policy goals clear - and he is not anti-war. Is Obama intentionally sending a deceptive message to his constituency?

In a recent speech given to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, Obama outlines a plan for U.S. hegemony. He suggests polarizing political alignments that are already breeding anti-U.S. sentiment. Specifically, Obama pledges unfaltering military support to Israel. The U.S. has long supported Israel - this year they were given $30 billion for defense of the young state. To put this in perspective, less than $7 billion has been federally granted to rebuild homes destroyed after hurricane Katrina. Although the U.S. has always given billions in aid to Israel, his alliance backs preemptive strikes against countries deemed a threat. Israel is unpopular in the region, and is threatened by Iran's desire for modern nuclear energy in the future. Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Obama states "We should take no option, including military action, off the table".

Full entry here [thought-criminal.org]

Type "CFR, Obama" in the search box.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/11/2007

METTEYA: I guess we differ in our definitions of wierd and flaky, so I'm not going to argue for the sake of changing your mind. I'm also not trying to sway your vote - that is your decision to make. However, I'd like to note that I personally see nothing "weird" or "flaky" about Dennis - he is a genuine man, who presents himself as he is without shame and stands for everything this country is in dire need of. I would not be able to say the same thing about any of the top candidates.

Please read the comment below mine. We have no proof that "God" in the Judeo-Christian tradition exists, just as we have no proof that angels exist, either. It's all based on faith and personal experience. And yet, people will say that these entities exist without a doubt, and procede make their life decisions based on nothing more than this belief, this faith.

In fact, if Dennis's UFO experience is actually guiding him at the moment, more power to him. Apparently, it's making him a lot wiser and more genuine than the candidates who say they are being guided by Jesus. And who knows, maybe "God" actually watches over us from a spaceship. Far-fetched? If you think about it, so are many of the beliefs associated with the world's religions...

Posted by anyas at 11/11/2007

I am an Iowa voter, and I wholeheartedly supported Kucinich in our caucus four years ago. When folks mocked me and others for supporting him, I confidently said that Dennis would be coming back, that his support would build and build, the more people knew him.

I support him ever so much more now, if that's possible. He is unique among the candidates before us. While other Democrats were scrambling to pile onto the Iraq war wagon-- and now are doing a fast shuffle to try and wipe that out of folks' memories-- Dennis knew then what a whole lot more people know now: we were being fed a line of malarkey, if that's a strong enough word.

We have also been dragged into war debt unlike any the world has known... see www.antiwar.com/pena/?articleid=11702 Z

And what's the problem with that.. it's just good old American DEBT? It's our children who will suffer. It's money that could have paid for education and healthcare. Instead, we erode education in this country to the point that our kids are unable to think clearly or prioritize, unable to organize or articulate their thoughts... besides which, they believe, in slacker-think, that it's hopeless to look for or work for change.

Obama did get the slogan right: what people want is HOPE. But Kucinich is GENUINELY the guy with the hope, and a long history of steadfastness in the service of hope. Kucinich is the guy with the experience... and even the amazing events of his tenure as boy wonder mayor of Cleveland predicted his steadfastness. He fought big money and did great things for Cleveland in the long term. Dennis will never be bought, and he will never have to be reminded of his campaign promises. Yes, I believe that 100%.

There is neither blur nor equivocation in his not-for-profit universal healthcare proposal, long overdue in this benighted country.

While I hate to bring it up, all this yada yada about Dennis and UFO's seems both petty and ignorant. I saw and heard him when he said this, at least once.

What he SAID was that he saw something flying that was *unidentified,* not that it was extraterrestrial. Shirley MacLaine was the source of the rest of that alleged quotation, about hearts and messages. Even if she's Dennis's friend, he was brave enough to clarify that those were HER words, not his. (We probably all have some friends who are out on a limb, right? Uh-huh. Me too.)

I like SLOPER's referring to Kucinich as a "profile in courage." Dennis also strikes me as having more brains and heart than any one person is owed, and that would be a lovely change after Mr. "Make the Pie Higher" Bush, the ultimate sock puppet for the New World Order gang.

Finally, I'd like to see Elizabeth Kucinich as First Lady. She is no sidecar, but an independent thinker and a great heart. What a team.

Posted by amalie bear at 11/11/2007

Posted by ANYAS 11/11/2007 @ 4:44pm Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/11/2007 @ 4:35pm Posted by DAYS23000 11/11/2007 @ 3:35pm

You guys don't understand. I LOVE Kucinich on the issues and support EVERYTHING he is doing in Congress. The reality is that "Christian America" is not going to vote for a guy who gets "heart connections" and takes "mental direction" from UFOs!

I am not defending the Christians - I am actually Buddhist. I am simply explaining why Kucinich will never catch on with the American electorate. So if he is not going to catch on, which "electable" candidate is closest to Kucinich on the issues?

I have concluded that Obama is just as serious about the democratic process as Kucinich, and "restoring democracy" is the biggest issue for me personally (not AIPAC, although they are part of the gang of corrupt influences circumventing democracy). Obama is not taking money from lobbyists, and his entire grassroots campaign is about empowering ordinary Americans so that they are included in the decision making process in this country.

And on AIPAC, specifically, Obama supports the state of Israel, as do I, and he also is for getting real about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which means Israel will also have to sign this treaty eventually if they want end nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East. And, unlike Hillary, he did NOT vote for the Lieberman-AIPAC initiative on Iran, even though this was politically risky for him given AIPAC's influence over campaign fundraising for Democratic candidates and their influence over the mainstream press.

In short, I really don't think Obama is beholden to any group and really does believe in the democratic ideals of America. So even though he is not as aggressive along these lines as Kucinich, he wants to move the country in the same democratic direction and has the capacity to do so because he is not taking money from these corrupt lobbyist groups.

And finally, Obama really is a uniter, which is not something that comes to mind when you think of Kucinich. America has been bitterly divided during the Clinton/Bush era, and now it is time for a new era in politics where people of good will from all political stripes come together for the benefit of the country.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2007

At risk of repeating myself: Kucinich has taken pains to make it clear that that business about *picking up UFO messages in his heart* were words imputed to him by others. Look at the man's actions. Dennis is no space cadet. He is a genuine mensch.

Obama's people are just getting fizzies in the gizzard about him these days, and with good reason. The dark horse is a vertically challenged white guy this time, and he's coming up fast from behind (sound of speeding hoofbeats).

Beyond that, I think the issue of "religion" on the national political scene has been turned around blindfolded (as in a game of Blind Man's Bluff) so many times that nobody much knows which end is up. Evangelical Christians have been rocked by their having been taken for a ride by Bush, who is no Christian (here one rolls one's eyes: which Iraqi child would Jesus kill?) as well as by scandal after scandal within evangelical Christianity, involving prominent preachers, and demolishing any belief that one can trust a "leader" just because he says he's a Christian. Jerry Falwell has left the planet. Pat Robertson (pass me my fan and my smelling salts, y'all) has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. The Catholic Church is in shambles from the clerical child abuse scandals and lawsuits.

I frankly think "church folk" are in a place where they'll have no option but to begin thinking for themselves... which they should have been doing all along.

When they do, I believe they will find that the values of honesty, transparency, trust, community, the proper place of commerce in human life, nonviolence-- all New Testament values-- will be found in Dennis Kucinich.

The so-called "Beatitudes" (in Matthew chapter 5) exalt all the social justice virtues Dennis espouses: humility, hunger and thirst for righteousness, mercy toward others, purity of heart, nonviolent resolution of conflicts. They also point out that people who believe in them will be mocked and persecuted, as Dennis has been. Now, however, I believe Dennis's day has come.

Some in the media (certainly those in Obama's camp, thinking that lefty votes that are going to Dennis *should* have gone to Obama) are trying to marginalize Kucinich as New Age. That's the media for you: reductivist lunacy. We know who owns THEM.

I still believe in miracles: maybe Christian voters will begin to think for themselves as Jesus taught that they should. That can only help Kucinich-- and the American democratic process in general.

Posted by amalie bear at 11/11/2007

Fair enough, Metteyya.

As someone who has watched Obama fairly closely since the brilliant convention speech that launched his fame, I am not impressed with his posturing of late to the extent that I now question his sincerity. How can he honestly justify skipping out on the Mukasey vote for example? That was a slam-dunk opportunity to demonstrate his dedication to our constitutional government. Furthermore, I believe that that poor judgment stands a very good chance of costing him dearly when the Iowa caucus is up. I believe the voters in Iowa will remember that failure.

What Americans are sick of is political calculation, especially on such fundamentally important issues. Obama has blown key opportunities previously --e.g. the morally bankrupt bankruptcy bill that he supported-- and he continues to blow opportunities to speak forcefully at a time when our Republic is at possibly its greatest peril.

If I am forced to vote for a machine candidate, John Edwards has shown far more chutzpah than Obama. But for the moment I still hold out the shoestring hope of a Kucinich candidacy --stranger things have happened historically and the situation right now is precarious. This poll appears to be that signaling that similar sentiments are popular.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/11/2007

Correction:

I did a quick check on Obama's vote on the Bankruptcy Bill and he apparently did not support it.

But my opinion that Obama is being far too lukewarm on key issues stands. He's looking, and behaving, too much like a corporate shill for my comfort. If we want that we can just join Hillary's pied piper march into the sea.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/11/2007

From David Sirota's blog:

October 24, 2007 11:13 AM

So sure, while Meyerson got the details wrong, the spirit of what he wrote is, in fact, right. Obama sided with the credit card industry on the core issue of whether it should be allowed to loan shark and charge customers more than an astounding 30 percent interest rate. You may also recall that 18 U.S. Senators changed their votes on that issue from a few years before that vote - and in the interim received a huge amount of credit card industry campaign contributions.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/11/2007

But my opinion that Obama is being far too lukewarm on key issues stands. He's looking, and behaving, too much like a corporate shill for my comfort.

B_Kool,

Corporate shill? Lukewarm? How is Obama being a corporate shill and what issues is he lukewarm on that you think he should be red hot?

He quit a Wall Street job after college to do community organizing in Chicago - not exactly the corporate shill thing to do. And after law school, Harvard Law School, he doesn't do the large corporate law thing that most of class did, and becomes a civil rights lawyer. Where's the corporate shill in that?

And on the important issues of the day - Iraq, Iran, Money in Politics - he has been the defining candidate, speaking out everyday on these issues and voting consistently along those lines. What else do you want him to do?

Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2007

Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/11/2007 @ 8:59pm

B_Kool,

You are now sounding like the Mainstream press that you claim you despise.

Obama OPPOSED the bankruptcy bill on principle because it made it more difficult for the poor or those who fell on hard times to get a fresh start. He also OPPOSED all amendments to try to make it more palatable because they didn't address the core issue of making it more difficult for those who are victims of financial misfortune.

Capping interest at 30% doesn't help you if you had a medical crises that led to your needing to declare bankruptcy, so this amendment was not responsive to the core issue of the bankruptcy bill which made it more difficult for debtors to get back on their feet.

Taking amendments out of context is a tactic of the slight-at-hand, and I really expected more from you, B_Kool.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2007

This discussion is starting to lose sight of the forest for the trees. The nitty gritty is this.

First of all, Kucinich, who stands a 33% as I write this. He was right back in Cleveland when he just said no to the banks who demanded that he hand over the people-owned electric power utility to the banks. For which the banks then persecuted him and ran him out of office. Many years later, the Cleveland people figured out the real score and thanked him for what he had done. In the US Congress, he voted against the enabling act and the authorization for Cheney to preemptively invade a sovereign non-threat country and has voted against EVERY funding bill since. He has been right all along.

Obama talks peace from one side of his mouth, and spews vile warmongering rhetoric from the other. Case in point, his April 23, 2007 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga - "No president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary -- to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened." (Clearly signifying his intention to disregard international laws and conventions when they are not in 'American interests'.") - "I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines." (Clearly signifying his intent to further inflate the Pentagon and its insatiable appetite for money and blood rather than downsizing it.) - "A 21st century military to stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar." (a "peace" candidate advocates staying on the offense? Duh?)

Mike Gravel, although highly ignored by the media, even including the National, has pledged to begin pulling US troops out of the middle east as soon as he takes office. And for those of you who are old enough to remember, there used to be a conscription system in the US where young men were required to serve in the army. Who made it go away? Mike Gravel. A literal one-man show, he is THE man who forced the deletion of that unjust system. Not an insignificant feat. Don't believe his words, believe his past performance.

And finally, the only other double-digit candidate (at the time of this writing), John Edwards. He certainly does seem sincere when he explains apologetically that his vote to authorize an illegal invasion was a mistake. He probably is sincere when he says he now wants peace, and to rectify the wrongs that have been done. Well, if the kinfolk of the one million dead Iraqis and 3800 dead US soldiers, and the untold countless wounded Iraqis and Americans forgive him for that mistake, maybe he does deserve another chance.

Posted by Peacemonger at 11/11/2007

Posted by PEACEMONGER 11/11/2007 @ 10:09pm

Peacemonger,

You neglect to mention that it was Obama, not Edwards, that OPPOSED the Iraq war, so there would be no need for the families of the dead Iraqis to forgive Obama for Edward's mistake. And if Obama were the war-monger you suggest, then he would have joined Hillary in voting for the recent Kyl-Lieberman initiative that starts us down the path toward war with Iran.

Obama is not a pacifist, but he does believe in "leading with diplomacy" before rattling the saber. Hillary and Edwards have bought into Bush/Cheney's "lead by rattling the saber and you won't need much diplomacy" school of thought based on their votes in the Senate.

I don't think you have to be a pacifist to be an enlightened president. You just need to show good judgment, and reserve military options as truly last resorts to protect America and its interests abroad. I don't think these interests include oil or the desire of defense contractors to make more money, and I don't believe Obama thinks oil located in a sovereign country should belong to America, or that corporate profits are legitimate reasons to initiate war.

But sure, if some madman attacked America, Europe, Israel, or other countries that we depend on and have good relations with, then military options must be pursued if this is the only way to deal with the perpetrator of the attacks.

I personally would like to see an international force takeover much of the global policing that America finds itself embroiled in. I think international stability is a international issue, so why not have a truly international force that can deter these kinds of offensive acts by rogue leaders and rapidly respond with this force if deterrence fails? International legitimacy is important in dealing with international threats, and you never want to be in a position where military action is questioned because it did not have the consensus of the vast majority of the world.

Obama has the right kind of international mindset and training (he was an International Relations major at Columbia) to see the wisdom in this, and it may well be the case that, with Obama, America never would have to go it alone again or concoct some phony "coalition of the willing" to deal with genuine threats to international peace and security.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2007

hee hee!

a foreigner just cast an illegal ballot.

where's beto gonzales when you need him?

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2007

Dennis Kucinich is my choice for several reasons. (a) He is the ONLY presidential candidate who has PROVEN, consistently, his opposition to the Iraq invasion, and who has had an Iraq exit strategy since 2003. (b) He is the ONLY candidate who voted against the Patriot Act, and would repeal it as president. (c) He is the ONLY candidate who would cancel NAFTA and pull the U.S. out of the WTO. (d) He is the ONLY candidate whose plan for universal health care would remove the big insurance companies from the decision making process that should belong solely to doctors and their patients. (e) He is the ONLY candidate whose energy plan consists EXCLUSIVELY of SUSTAINABLE energy - no 'clean' coal or nuclear, which are in no way sustainable. (f) He is the ONLY candidate who appreciates the critical need to get war criminals out of the White House and the ONLY one with the courage to move for impeachment. (g) He is the ONLY candidate with a plan for free public education from pre-K through college. If people can overlook these major differences between Kucinich and all the other presidential candidates (with the possible exception of Mike Gravel) because they like the words another candidate says in a speech or writes in a book, they think he/she looks more 'presidential', or they think they'd rather have a beer with some other candidate, I say THE ISSUES MATTER -- A LOT. And what a candidate has DONE and proposes to do in his/her issues statements is infinitely more important than some nice-sounding empty words.

Posted by sabreu at 11/12/2007

My wife and I agree with Sabreu.

Posted by aimhigh at 11/12/2007

Boy! selling Obama here is tough work!!

KUCINICH: The Man, The Plan, The Time.

Posted by days23000 at 11/12/2007

Corporate shill? Lukewarm? How is Obama being a corporate shill and what issues is he lukewarm on that you think he should be red hot?

METTEYYA 11/11/2007 @ 9:06pm

If I was coaching a sports team with Obama as my star player I'd have a clear message for him.

PICK UP YOUR GAME OR PUT YOUR @$$ ON THE PINE!

Come on Metteyya, wake up and smell the fascism. Yeah, you heard me, fascism!

As billowing smoke rises from the remains of our once glorious Republic, and the Constitution is nothing but a charred cinder in an ashcan, our "mainstream" candidates continue to play patty cake.

Witness the recent Democratic "debate" where the word was out that Obama is gonna take it to her highness. What does he do? He pulls a John Kerry and pretends to throw a punch, pulls it back and basically says lamely, "Next time you better watch out!".

I mean Jezuz! That's the kind of garbage that I really can't stomach.

Where is the freakin' fire?!

These are not ordinary times anymore, and this is not the time for another ordinary, lame candidate. If Obama wants my vote he better start throwing combinations and landing some roundhouse kicks dammit!

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/12/2007

If Obama wants my vote he better start throwing combinations and landing some roundhouse kicks dammit!

Until that happens, Barrack the blue chipper will sit on my bench and I'll keep the candidate with the cojones, Dennis Kucinich, out on the floor playin' gutsy ball.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/12/2007

A final point:

"What makes the Democrats’ Mukasey cave-in so depressing is that it shows how far even exemplary sticklers for the law like Senators Feinstein and Schumer have lowered democracy’s bar. When they argued that Mr. Mukasey should be confirmed because he’s not as horrifying as Mr. Gonzales or as the acting attorney general who might get the job otherwise, they sounded whipped. After all these years of Bush-Cheney torture, they’ll say things they know are false just to move on.

Frank Rich, NY Times

The stakes are high and key players are wilting at the most critical moment.

Who's got game?

Kucinich.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/12/2007

Posted by SABREU 11/12/2007 @ 12:02am

Your being very misleading with your support of Kucinich. Although Obama is not "perfect" on the issues, he is the closest of any electable candidate. Compare for yourselves:

(a) Obama opposed the Iraq war "prior to" the invasion as is clear from his now famous 2002 speech when he was still a Senator from Illinois. Obama also did NOT vote for the Kyl-Lieberman initiative that seeks to make it easier for the president to invade Iran;

(b) Obama was not in the Senate when the Patriot Act passed but has been leading the bi-partisan push to curb most of the abuses of the Act that result in invasion of privacy and over-reaching by law enforcement. Here he is in his own words regarding the re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

"If somebody wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through library books they've read , phone calls they've made, e-mails that they've sent - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. And that's - that's just plain wrong.

(c) Obama has a strong pro-labor voting record. Obama voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement and has said that NAFTA should be renegotiated. Obama has cosponsored many important bills to help workers, including: an increase in the minimum wage, and the Employee Free Choice Act. He also championed efforts in the Senate to help air traffic controllers engaged in a labor dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration

(d) Obama on healthcare: "I...believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can't take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right...We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates. It's time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair."

(e) Obama has been a leader in the Senate in pushing for a comprehensive national energy policy and has introduced a number of bills to get us closer to the goal of energy independence. By putting aside partisan battles, he has found common ground on CAFE, renewable fuels, and clean coal.

(f) Obama on impeachment: "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

(g) Obama believes that we must equip poor and struggling districts, both rural and urban, with the support and resources they need to provide disadvantaged students with an opportunity to reach their full potential. Too often, our leaders present this issue as an either - or debate, divided between giving our schools more funding, or demanding more accountability. Obama believes that we have to do both, and has offered innovative ideas to break through the political stalemate in Washington.

So there you have it. He is 80% of Kucinich on the issues.

I personally believe he could be stronger on renewable energy and not favor the "dirty" industries of the past or drive up food costs with biofuels. The technology is there to build "nice looking" fully electric plug-in vehicles that can be recharged in 10 minutes and go 350 miles on a single charge (e.g, Tesla and Zap-X). Solar is also much more attractive than biofuels or clean coal for powering power plants.

I think the window has now passed for impeachment, but back in the Spring it could have been done and would have been useful in getting at the facts of Cheney's deception irrespective of whether a conviction would have resulted.

I think single-payer is the way to go with healthcare as HMOs do not add sufficient value to get "any" seat at the table.

And education should be free all the way through college like it is in Sweden, and the student loan industry has become a racket that drives up tuition costs.

But despite these imperfections, Obama still wants to govern from the bottom up and is right on all of the other issues. This makes him the preferred "electable" candidate, as Kucinich will not be taken seriously by the American voter because he is perceived as too weird and flaky, not because he is short and relatively unhandsome.

Why should voters care if Kucinich is weird? I guess this is the same as asking why you would care if someone you are considering hiring for a sensitive job is weird? Why do you care, and why would you hire the person that makes you feel more comfortable rather than the weird one?

Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2007

Responding to B_Kool_66's comment:

"If Obama wants my vote he better start throwing combinations and landing some roundhouse kicks dammit! Until that happens, Barrack the blue chipper will sit on my bench and I'll keep the candidate with the cojones, Dennis Kucinich, out on the floor playin' gutsy ball."

Seems to me *cojones* is the key issue here. Kucinich has cojones like nobody's business. He has principles, period. By comparison, Obama is a gentleman farmer standing to lick his finger and test the direction of the wind as his driver tends the reins.

When people start talking about "electability," meaning, "Get real, Kucinich can't win," I think of Muggsy Bogues, 5'3," kicking serious a*s on the basketball court. We don't need a giant, we need a giant killer. David going out after Goliath-- and that's a dang good story even if we learned it as kids-- needed only cojones. The stones for his slingshot were almost irrelevant.

Dennis is surreally on-target. We can use some of that. I agree: Kucinich/cojones in 2008.

Posted by amalie bear at 11/12/2007

Obama is a gentleman farmer standing to lick his finger and test the direction of the wind as his driver tends the reins.

Amalie Bear,

You know this is not an accurate statement. Obama recently made clear that he was not equivocating on driver's licenses for illegals, even though other candidates are either equivacating or simply following the polls. 68% of DEMOCRATS oppose licenses for illegals, so he clearly is showing that he is not about poll positions, but about principles.

I don't see any of my fellow citizens lining up to bend over all day picking strawberries, so the least we can do is give these decent human beings who contribute greatly to our economy the ability to get to work in a car without fear of being incarcerated.

And how can we say we are serious about the security of this nation when we don't even know how many illegals are here, who they are, and where they live?

Watch this video [youtube.com] which shows why Obama has principles.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2007

Dennis Kucinich IS ELECTIBLE! He is one of several people running for president. Lets look at a couple of things.... Corporate controlled media ... anticipating AD Money from Corporate sponsored candidates ... who has the most money? well - ok - Hilary - whose campaign mgr is also the head of PR firm who puts out "nice talk" for Blackwater, and other nefarious clients ... ok - anyway - the Corp media WANTS that pile of money Hilary has - they call it a war chest .. she'll spend it on advertising on THEIR ABC/NBC/CBS / etc etc .. so .... these Corporate owned media networks. keep chanting "front runners are X Y Z " and so on ... and some of the public, believe them - and then even begin to believe they are actually making up their own minds when they repeat what they have been repeatedly told.

Dennis Kucinich has won the DFA poll - he swept 41 of 50 states -- he has come out #1 on post debate polls on NBC, MSNBC and so on... these results were immediately pulled from the site (see paragraph above re corporate owned / controlled media)

Kucinich was right on Iraq - he is right on NOT FOR PROFIT healthcare - he is the only candidate with the courage to stand for his convictions, and the only candidate with a record (that goes back 30+ years)of standing for his convictions and keeping his promises to voters ...

Think for yourself. Please don't mouth the chants of corporate owned media and call that thinking. Look at the issues - what represents YOU? If you don't have the courage to carry forth the banner of your own convictions... well, I pity you.

For more info, see http:///www.presidentkucinich.com

Posted by AnaBlic at 11/12/2007

Kucinich is the only candidate with strong character and moral clarity. He is the only candidate that I am confident will unequivocally do the right thing for the people. As the mayor of Cleveland, he proved that he can't be bought. THAT is what this country needs. I'm voting for who I think is the best, not the best looking. Besides, Regan and Carter claimed to have seen UFO's as well.

Posted by dalikar985 at 11/12/2007

Oops!!!

I gave the wrong URL in my last post to the Obama video that shows he doesn't listen to polls but has principles.

Here is the correct video [youtube.com]!

Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2007

Oops, again! Not able to preview on this page like the other Nation's pages.

Here is the correct video [youtube.com]

Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2007

To Metteyya:

You wrote, quoting my statement that: [by comparison with the gutsiness of Dennis Kucinich]

Amalie Bear,

You know this is not an accurate statement. Obama recently made clear that he was not equivocating on driver's licenses for illegals, even though other candidates are either equivacating or simply following the polls. 68% of DEMOCRATS oppose licenses for illegals, so he clearly is showing that he is not about poll positions, but about principles.

*** Hmm. Maybe we have a grammatical problem here. That is, deciding what would be the antecedent of the pronoun "this" in your first sentence. You seem to be referring to my "gentleman farmer" analogy.

But then maybe we have a bigger problem than grammar, which would be the touching of a sensitive nerve in you. You wrench the argument into the end zone of a hockey rink two counties over by initiating a discussion on... ta-dah!! driver's licenses for illegals.

Hello? My statement was general, about Obama's principles. I stand by it.

I was not so much indicting Obama as I was praising Kucinich. I stand by that too.

Posted by amalie bear at 11/12/2007

Somehow the internal quotation to which I referred, Metteyya's quoting my earlier post, was deleted in transit. So I will repeat it:

Obama is a gentleman farmer standing to lick his finger and test the direction of the wind as his driver tends the reins.

This is only to clarify the fact that THAT was the this to which Metteya was objecting.

(Imagine a cross-eyed, tongue-dangling emoticon here.)

I stand by my statement. Voters who are accustomed to believing slick illusory ads for overpriced gizmos (or candidates) they don't need and can't return for a refund but which they can buy on credit will have to re-orient themselves quickly and install instant crap detectors if they want to have a clean, genuine election this time around.

Posted by amalie bear at 11/12/2007

Did you SEE the video in my last post, Amalie Bear?

I don't know how ANYBODY can watch that video and conclude Obama is not a man of principle!

Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2007

I'm a Democrat and I'm voting for RON PAUL! He is the only one that will bring home the military.

Posted by MikeThinks at 11/12/2007

Representative Government is broken, Mike Gravel is the only candidate running this election for President that realises this. In our government exists warcrimminals, misuse of power, violations of the consitution, the only way to address this issue is to dilute the power of the government and provide the people with power, the power to make laws on a national level. Never fear empowering yourself as lawmakers, be afraid when 1/4 of your population is imprisioned. Vote for both Mike Gravel and the NI4D this primary election!

Posted by kyeot at 11/12/2007

Did you SEE the video in my last post, Amalie Bear?

~METTEYYA 11/12/2007 @ 2:13pm

I watched the video, Metteyya. Where's the beef?

The most daring statement he makes is that he's going to challenge the lobbyists in Washington. Who, besides her highness, doubts for a millisecond that the K street locust infestation --well over 30,000 of the corporate robo-clones at last count-- is a major symptom of the terminal disease that afflicts the nation?

Furthermore, his climactic applause line --at minute 19.5 of ~21 total-- that, "...and because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up, then a few thousand stood up, and then a few million stood up. And standing up with courage and clear purpose they somehow managed to change the world!", is an outstanding description of exactly what Kucinich is doing now, and has continuously done throughout his entire 30 year political career.

The fact of the matter is that the country has managed --at least since the Reagan revolution-- to drift into a convalescent bliss under the free market fundamentalist mantra that, "Government is bad; the corporate world is good". Repeat that over and over for a couple of decades and POOF, you get George W Cheney.

How do we turn the ship around? There is no easy answer, especially when the so-called opposition party is bought off by the same out-of-control forces. It may take a revolution.

In the meantime, if enough people pull their heads out pretty soon thousands will pull their heads out, and then millions will pull their heads out. And with courage and clear purpose they might manage to change the world.