Kucinich says he is "protecting" John Kerry from Ralph Nader

[JI7]

<As he continues his quixotic campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is positioning himself as the man who can protect Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) left flank from Ralph Nader.

Kucinich added, “Isn’t it much better to have expressed through the person of another Democrat than to have it expressed through the person of a third-party candidate? I mean, this is where it makes a difference, and this is where it could make all the difference in the general election."

Informed that Kucinich sees himself as keeping Nader from drawing votes from Kerry, Nader said, “I don’t know what he means by that because he’s told people that he’s happy I’m going to go right through” to election day.

Although Kucinich appeared with Nader as recently as last October at a rally hosted by Democracy Rising, an organization founded by Nader, Doug Gordon, Kucinich’s press secretary, ruled out the possibility that Kucinich will support anybody but the presumptive nominee, Kerry.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), perhaps Nader’s most vocal critic during the 2000 election, praised Kucinich for staying “within the Democratic Party.” He cited Kucinich’s presence in the primary debates, stating that, “Nader could have done all that. … He should have followed Dennis’s example.”>

http://www.thehill.com/news/060904/kucinich.aspx

[2Design]

1. Glad Kucinich continues....he has good messages....

[Mike L]

32. Nader info

http://www.thenaderfactor.com/

http://www.notnader.com/index.shtml

[jpgray]

2. He's right--I for one loved that I had a chance to vote for Dennis

Having the opportunity to vote both for my head and my heart goes a long way toward making me feel better about voting for a candidate I disagree with on many issues.

[Eric J in MN]

11. me too (nt)

nt

[Hippo_Tron]

3. And he's doing just that...

Damn good thing that we have DK.

[goodhue]

4. indeed

http://www.kucinich.us/faq.php

With the nominee pretty much a done deal, why is Kucinich still in the race?

Dennis Kucinich is aware that John Kerry has the 2,161 delegates needed for the Democratic nomination. “While the question of who is going to be the nominee may be a foregone conclusion,” Kucinich says, “what we stand for as a party is yet to be determined.” It's no longer a question of who is going to run against George Bush, the question is what do we stand for as a party? The Democratic Party needs to create a platform that is consistent with the broad-based aspirations of millions of Americans—a platform based on principles of peace and universal health care, a platform that eliminates unfair trade policies that are costing us millions of jobs while diminishing workers rights and environmental protections everywhere, and a platform that puts an end to the PATRIOT Act and provides for the protection of civil liberties. The Democratic Party has to be able to reach people who may otherwise be disaffected, and the Kucinich campaign reaches out to the broadest group of people and says, 'Look, stay inside the Democratic Party and direct it toward change.”

http://www.kucinich.us/faq.php

[DrFunkenstein]

5. I Hope Dennis Came Out In The Black

I sincerely hope he got a nice nest egg for his next two or three Congressional runs.



Doesn't he look like he should be frontman for a new wave band?

[goodhue]

6. It would be nice.

But there is not likely much of a nest egg. If DK had hit 20% threshold in a primary state, then things would be different.

According to opensecrets.org in the black but no nest egg.
Total Receipts: $10,911,683
Total Spent: $10,870,325
Cash on Hand: $31,361
Debts: $0
Date of last report: April 30, 2004
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00003572

[Kanary]

9. How many campaigns can live up to that record??

Not spending more than they are bringing in....... imagine a country run that way.

sigh.......

coulda been.......

Kanary

[Zinfandel]

7. Kucinich is correct...However, Nader will barely get 1.5% of the national

vote this time around, and that's with lots of republican diverted money filtering into Nader's campaign...

Shit, Nader will keep most of it and get even richer than he did in the 2000 election.

[w4rma]

8. When liberals are working for Kucinich they aren't working for Nader. (nt)

[realcountrymusic]

10. They also aren't working for Kerry, and neither is Kucinich

Can some people not get it straight that this is a life or death election for the soul of our republic and the safety of the entire world? Kucinich should be on the stump for Kerry convincing his tiny base of urban elite progressives not to touch Nader with a ten foot pole, except to whack Ralphie upside his ignorant, stupid head.

Kucinich is a narcisssist posing as an altruist, just like Nader. We have got to get serious about this damn election -- ALL of us anywhere to the left of Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Dick Cheney, and the Puppet in Chief. Kucinich would piss me off almost as much as Nader if he didn't seem so pathetically irrelevant.

End of rant.

RealCountryMusic

[Eric J in MN]

12. Kucinich running lets liberals express their

Kucinich running lets liberals express their liberal positions by voting for him in the primary, and then vote for Kerry in the general.

[realcountrymusic]

21. Liberals?

What liberals? (grin) If all of DK's primary voters swung to Bush it wouldn't affect the election. Kerry's supposed to feel indebted to them? Idealistic progressives would do better to get behind Kerry now. As it is, they're earning more enmity than respect from the majority of democratic voters. At least that's my impression. We need to learn party discipline from the rethugs. That's how you win a national election. They ought to know, and we ought to pay attention.

I have nothing against Kucinich. But his moment in the spotlight is over. Dean handled it with class, as did Edwards and Clark and -- for Chrissake -- Al Sharpton. DK is pulling a Nader, and it's starting to look petulant.

Idealism is often inimical to good politics -- and good government.

RCM

[no name no slogan]

13. "Alarmism" helps nobody-- but does by into Shrub's gameplan.

Can some people not get it straight that this is a life or death election for the soul of our republic and the safety of the entire world?

They said the same thing about 1980, too. And 1964 (remember the atom bomb ads?). Oh, and I almost forgot about 1932, as well. Hell, we were in the middle of a freaking CIVIL WAR in 1864, and we STILL had an election.

Buying into right wing fear machine does us, as Democrats, no good-- as that's exactly the same type of fear that ShrubCo is counting on to get re-elected this year.

And maybe you haven't paid attention lately, but Kucinich HAS been encouraging progressives to support the Democrats this year-- he does NOT attack Kerry on the stump, because he knows that Kerry will be the eventual nominee.

Kucinich should be on the stump for Kerry convincing his tiny base of urban elite progressives not to touch Nader with a ten foot pole, except to whack Ralphie upside his ignorant, stupid head.

Hmmm.... I never knew those fine folk in Maine, Alaska and very rural northern Minnesota were "urban elite progressives". If that's the case, why the hell is it STILL impossible to get a decent cappucino in Bemidji, MN?

;)

[realcountrymusic]

22. au contraire

>Buying into right wing fear machine does us, as Democrats, no good-- as that's exactly the same type of fear that ShrubCo is counting on to get re-elected this year.

Disagree strongly. The right would like you to fear democracy. I would like you fear them. It's very different. And frankly, I wasn't around in 1932 or 64, and too young to vote in 80. So for me, this is the first emergency election of my life. I'm sure there have been others. Anyone who is not afraid of what could happen, in my opinion, has not been paying attention or is an incredible optimist.

>And maybe you haven't paid attention lately, but Kucinich HAS been encouraging progressives to support the Democrats this year-- he does NOT attack Kerry on the stump, because he knows that Kerry will be the eventual nominee.

I admire DK for this stance, and acknowledge it. My view is that he's functionally irrelevant, as I said. He doesn't really bother me. I just wish everyone would pull together at this point. But if it makes some people happy, DK isn't doing much harm. Maybe he'll motivate a few apathetic types, the way Dean seems to have done.


>Hmmm.... I never knew those fine folk in Maine, Alaska and very rural northern Minnesota were "urban elite progressives". If that's the case, why the hell is it STILL impossible to get a decent cappucino in Bemidji, MN?

I don't believe DK won any kind of plurality in any of those places, and I suspect most of his few delegates reflect the votes of upper middle class people, regardless of where they live. There are cities in Maine and Alaska, and even Minnesota, but cities or not, plenty of elites live in those places, drive SUVs, and eat organic food. All fine with me, don't get me wrong. I would just bet, however, that the "rednecks for Kucinich" movement is not a very active one.

And you might try the Northwest. You can get excellent espresso in every hick town in the North Cascades. Been that way for more than a decade. And damn good cherry pie to boot.

Respectfully

RCM

[eridani]

14. Urban elite progressives?

You haven't looked at where his delegates are from, have you?

Colorado leads the pack with 14.
He has half of Alaska's delegates--not many latte sippers there, last I heard.
He has more delegates from North Carolina than from New York. (He beat Edwards in NC in those counties where he personally campaigned.)
Only two of his 7 WA delegates are from King County (Seattle).

Think you might like to try coming down to earth and getting acquainted with the realities of this planet?

[ulysses]

15. "his tiny base of urban elite progressives"

I really do love how my own party has so completely bought into the whole right-wing "country=true American, urban=unAmerican elitist" dichotomy. I really do. Al From is truly proud, I'm sure.

[realcountrymusic]

17. Not what I meant

No offense intended with what was a fairly thoughtless phrase.

I'm not knocking progressives or anyone else because they are urban. Hell, I'm as urban as they get (born in South Boston, live in Harlem). My point has to do with election strategy and national demographics, and it's not the urban/rural split that concerns me. "Rural" voters (truly rural) don't decide elections in this country (and I personally doubt that Kucinich has as much support as people on this discussion are saying he does among rural voters; just because he has support in Alaska or Minnesota doesn't mean he'd *ever* carry rural areas of those states). It's *suburban* voters and *peri-urban* voters who need to be convinced, and like it or not the right has played a very smart divide and conquer game with this distinction over the last three decades. Actually, I shouldn't really call the thin layer of Nader//Kucinich progressive support urban at all. It's also a suburban vote, and a college town vote, and it includes a lot of my friends and political soul mates. But we all know the demography of a national election.

My point is and is always that this election is an emergency (and with apologies to an earlier poster, this IS a real emergency for our democracy and I would disagree strenuously with anyone who thinks that is an alarmist position intended to defang the progressive wing of the democratic party). We've been in deep trouble before, but this is an exceptionally bad moment. We're talking about a completely immoral government willing to practice torture and suspension of civil rights on its own citizens (shades of the civil rights movement era, I agree, and the red scare, of course) and willing to upend and ignore and manipulate the machinery of our democracy to stay in power. But the international dimension of this crisis is uniquely terrifying to me.

I realize there can be principled disagreement about this, but I belong to the camp that says it's time for all people of good will and common sense in this country to suck in their differences, put on their helmets, and win this one for our children's sake. After Kerry is president. I will join all my Kucinich and Nader-loving friends and hold Kerry's feet to the fire about delivering smart progressive initiatives that don't undermine his ability to win a second term. I'd be thrilled to see DK (though not Nader) in the administration. I just think it's time to put the primaries aside and get to work electing Kerry.

RCM

[ulysses]

16. so what, exactly, is an "urban elite progressive"?

Or is there no more substantive thought behind the title than that it's a great rhetorical bomb?

[realcountrymusic]

18. Clarification -- "Urban" is not an insult

No offense intended with what was a fairly thoughtless phrase.

I'm not knocking progressives or anyone else because they are urban. Hell, I'm as urban as they get (born in South Boston, live in Harlem). My point has to do with election strategy and national demographics, and it's not the urban/rural split that concerns me. "Rural" voters (truly rural) don't decide elections in this country (and I personally doubt that Kucinich has as much support as people on this discussion are saying he does among rural voters; just because he has support in Alaska or Minnesota doesn't mean he'd *ever* carry rural areas of those states). It's *suburban* voters and *peri-urban* voters who need to be convinced, and like it or not the right has played a very smart divide and conquer game with this distinction over the last three decades. Actually, I shouldn't really call the thin layer of Nader//Kucinich progressive support urban at all. It's also a suburban vote, and a college town vote, and it includes a lot of my friends and political soul mates. But we all know the demography of a national election.

My point is and is always that this election is an emergency (and with apologies to an earlier poster, this IS a real emergency for our democracy and I would disagree strenuously with anyone who thinks that is an alarmist position intended to defang the progressive wing of the democratic party). We've been in deep trouble before, but this is an exceptionally bad moment. We're talking about a completely immoral government willing to practice torture and suspension of civil rights on its own citizens (shades of the civil rights movement era, I agree, and the red scare, of course) and willing to upend and ignore and manipulate the machinery of our democracy to stay in power. But the international dimension of this crisis is uniquely terrifying to me.

I realize there can be principled disagreement about this, but I belong to the camp that says it's time for all people of good will and common sense in this country to suck in their differences, put on their helmets, and win this one for our children's sake. After Kerry is president. I will join all my Kucinich and Nader-loving friends and hold Kerry's feet to the fire about delivering smart progressive initiatives that don't undermine his ability to win a second term. I'd be thrilled to see DK (though not Nader) in the administration. I just think it's time to put the primaries aside and get to work electing Kerry.

RCM

[eridani]

19. Neither is it where the Kucinich national delegates come from n/t

[realcountrymusic]

20. LOL -- so where do they come from?

All freaking 70 of them (to Kerry's roughly 1800), huh? You can't tell from the state breakdown where the votes were, but I'm willing to bet that most of his voters are either in college towns, relatively wealthy suburbs, or are members of the homesteading "alternative lifestyle" class that has moved into many rural areas. If you've spent much time in most of rural America, you surely know that DK has about as much chance of earning a plurality of votes as Vladimir Putin. And there ARE cities in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota. And quite a few college towns in a 60s time warp as well. Use the bumper sticker method: I've seen DK stickers in places like Amherst, MA, but not in nearby Drury. I've seen them in Woodstock and Ithaca, but not in poorer parts of upstate NY. My guess -- where you find a co-op grocery selling organic tofu, which of course you can find in Colorado Springs, Ithaca, Eugene, etc., you'll find DK and RN voters. Where you find a Winn-Dixie selling processed American cheese food product, most people will never have heard of DK, and if they did know his positions wouldn't be very interested. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just a reality of the current electoral demography of this country. It's gonna be Kerry or Bush*****. Allah help us if it ain't Kerry.

If you really think DK is tapping a groundswell of heartland rural support, I'd love to know the raw numbers behind that impression. I'd be amazed. But the bottom line is there is no groundswell ANYWHERE. He has a ridiculously small number of delegates and supporters.

RCM

Here's the state by state breakdown.


Alaska
   
7 delegates

American Samoa
   
1 delegate

Colorado
   
14 delegates

Hawaii
   
8 delegates

Maine
   
6 delegates

Minnesota
   
9 delegates

North Carolina
   
4 delegates

Ohio
   
4 delegates

Oregon
   
8 delegates

Washington
   
7 delegates

Superdelegates
   
2 delegates

TOTAL
   
70 DELEGATES

[eridani]

25. Only 2 of 7 of WA delegates are from Seattle

The others are from Olympia, Bellingham, Tacoma and Spokane

The 4 North Carolina delegates are from rural areas.

[realcountrymusic]

46. That's 4 cities

Quoth eridani:
"The others are from Olympia, Bellingham, Tacoma and Spokane"

I rest my case, at least vis a vis Washington State, where I lived for four years. While Bellingham and Oly aren't the big cities Spokane and Tacoma are, they are mighty urbane places full of the kind of voters I've met who support DK.

Do you know where the NC delegates are actually from? I'm amazed DK has no delegates from Raleigh-Durham. We get into some interesting demographic specifics here, with "rural" and "urban" not necessarily descrbing the complexity of the picture.

RCM

[LWolf]

23. What an interesting

"conversation" you've got going here.

One thing just jumps right out. You don't know much about Dennis Kucinich, obviously. Or his supporters, or their reasons for sticking with him until the convention. Or you don't care.

Which is fine. You've already said you don't need us to win. So why care what we do?

Is it just an exercise in ego inflation? Or is there a purpose? Jumping in with an aggressive agenda to ridicule and/or alienate voters is not exactly "stumping" for Kerry. Dennis will be voting for Kerry. Probably campaigning for him, too. He did for Gore. So will many of his supporters, unless their reluctance is enhanced by the kind of display you're gifting us with here.

If one of the measures of a candidate is the tone and conduct of his/her supporters, and for me it is, here's a clue:

This sort of display is a big turnoff. To conversation about issues of merit, and to the candidate promoted in this way.

[realcountrymusic]

24. Right back

atcha, pal. One thing that jumps out at me is just how seeeeensitive Kucinich voters are about any implication that their candidate might not have broad national appeal.

The thread was not *about* the substance of his or other's politics. It was (is) about whether or not his continued campaign is helping or hurting the larger cause, to which he himself is pledged, of electing Kerry, or anybody but Bush*. I neither claimed to know (or care) much about DK's positions (though I know enough, I think, to like them a lot) nor did any of the other posts to which I was responding present any such substantive arguments. The argument concerned the base of support for his candidacy and its singificance in the broader electoral picture. I maintain that his voters are few enough in number and marginal enough in core ideology (and I would include myself in that marginal group, btw, though since I am a registered independent I neither voted for or against DK) not to amount to a hill of beans in the broader contest.

The one thing I said which was slightly mean in tone -- referring to DK's supporters as "urban elites" -- I corrected and clarified and apologized for. So yes, if one can tell something aboiut a candidate by his supporters, the hypersensitivity of DK"s supporters on this board explains a lot about why he has 70 whole delegates.

Sheesh. Guess I'll take my jacks and go home since I'm not as smart as you DK voters. I'm just a dumb sheep in the Kerry camp.

RCM

[goodhue]

26. perhaps any perceived hypersensitivity

relates to the fact the DK and his supporters have been habitually belittled, put-down and made fun of by some on DU for at least a year now. And many such attacks appear to have been based on ignorance, fear, and misunderstanding. Some Kucinich supporters who have stuck around tend to rightly call folks out on perceived unfair attacks.

As an aside, Kucinich did very well in the rural area of northern Minnesota known as the Iron Range. After achieving over 15% of the vote in the Minnesota's 8th Congressional District, Kucinich has national delegates from the 8th. Nothing elite or urban about it.

[LWolf]

34. Hey, I have an idea.

Instead of a flame war between people who should be partners at this point, why don't we find some common ground here, realcountrymusic? (You could start by telling me what you think qualifies as realcountrymusic; I'm intrigued.)

Instead of worrying about my sensitivity, which is obviously not the point here (and here I am, still engaged), why not just have a conversation without the grandstanding? I'm not at all offended at the idea that DK does not have "broad national appeal." I think you are referring to your "tiny base" remark. I don't think it's as tiny as you do, but I certainly know it isn't "broad." At this point in time. We can still talk.

If your point is that you think his candidacy is hurting Kerry, we can agree to disagree. That would be a better compromise than trying to chase us out of the dem camp come November. I interpreted your remark in a different post to mean that you don't really think our presence is necessary:

What liberals? (grin) If all of DK's primary voters swung to Bush it wouldn't affect the election. Kerry's supposed to feel indebted to them?

None of us are swinging to Bush, obviously. Some may vote 3rd party; those that were 3rd party to begin with, who came on board to give the dems another chance. Many of those will still vote for Kerry. And I, as I've stated numerous times here at DU, will be voting for Kerry. That doesn't mean I don't work for the issues, or the people supporting the issues, that are important to me.

When Kerry is officially nominated, I will be switching that work. I'll support DK in his reelection bid; his presence in the house is of great value to the nation as a whole. In my opinion. I'll support Kerry's campaign to the best of my ability.

I don't see a conflict here. I just see, and feel, a huge wave of aggression. Again, just my opinion, I feel the aggression is misdirected. You don't need to take anything and go home. I'd sure like it if you'd turn off the aggression pointed at fellow dems and progressives, which DK supporters certainly are. It doesn't matter how "smart" your perspective is, if you throw it at people like a weapon, it's going to be rejected. So I'll say again.

Why fight? Why not just talk? Start with me. I'm not in full battle dress. It's Friday night, I worked 13 hours, I'm tired, and I'm sitting in front of my computer with a beer. I'm just sitting here listening. Treat me, a confirmed Kucitizen, like a human being that might be as intelligent as you are, and as committed to ousting bush. Then we can talk about our ideas about doing so.

[realcountrymusic]

35. Never wanted to fight

Thanks for the overture. I didn't intend to start a flame war. All this Reagan crap has me tense about getting the discussion (not here, nationally) back to what a lousy,criminal gang is in power.

>Instead of a flame war between people who should be partners at this point, why don't we find some common ground here, realcountrymusic? (You could start by telling me what you think qualifies as realcountrymusic; I'm intrigued.)

Reply:

Actually, the subject of another thread on LBN this week. Talk about potentialfor flame wars. Yes, I'm a liberal country musician.

>all offended at the idea that DK does not have "broad national appeal." I think you are referring to your "tiny base" remark. I don't think it's as tiny as you do, but I certainly know it isn't "broad." At this point in time. We can still talk.

Sure. And I stress that I *like* DK's politics, except for a slightly quixotic stance on the war. I think we can't just pull out the day Bush leaves office, but that's also a topic for another thread. We broke it, and we did buy it. I'm just fixated on unity and winning the election.


>If your point is that you think his candidacy is hurting Kerry, we can agree to disagree. That would be a better compromise than trying to chase us out of the dem camp come November. I interpreted your remark in a different post to mean that you don't really think our presence is necessary:

Really not. And I only *suspect* his candidacy is hurting, or at least not helping, Kerry. But as I said, if that's so, the effect is much more marginal than Nader, the true villain of the piece for me.


>None of us are swinging to Bush, obviously. Some may vote 3rd party; those that were 3rd party to begin with, who came on board to give the dems another chance. Many of those will still vote for Kerry. And I, as I've stated numerous times here at DU, will be voting for Kerry. That doesn't mean I don't work for the issues, or the people supporting the issues, that are important to me.

Eminently principled positions, all.


>I don't see a conflict here. I just see, and feel, a huge wave of aggression. Again, just my opinion, I feel the aggression is misdirected.

You know, you're right. I was feeling angry at DK and RN supporters bashing Kerry -- not necessarily on this thread, or even only on DU. And it was amplified by the Reagasm, and I took it out a bit on you and others in this thread. I apologize.

Enjoy that beer. I gotta take my kid to the playground.

RCM

[LWolf]

36. Apology accepted.

I sure understand the tension. I dealt with the Reagan overload by turning it off. It helped.

Enjoy the time with your kid.

:hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Your response is to attack the poster? Instead of what he said?

One thing just jumps right out. You don't know much about Dennis Kucinich, obviously.


One thing jumps out right out. You didn't bother to address the points raised by the poster, descending instead to an off-topic ad hominem attack.

[realcountrymusic]

30. Thanks for the cover

Much appreciated. I did sound a slightly insulting -- but unintentionally so -- note with my reference to "urban elites," but I clarified, retracted, and apologized to no avail. Sigh.

Maybe the DK supporters are defensive after being attacked a lot, but it hasn't been by me, and I didn't attack anyone. I responded to the theme of the thread by opining that I thought DK's continued campaign was not helpful. Feel free to disagree if you like. Just my opinion.

RCM

[LWolf]

33. Not at all.

A simple observation based on this:

Can some people not get it straight that this is a life or death election for the soul of our republic and the safety of the entire world? Kucinich should be on the stump for Kerry convincing his tiny base of urban elite progressives not to touch Nader with a ten foot pole, except to whack Ralphie upside his ignorant, stupid head.

I believe that's what he is doing, albeit in a more civilized fashion than presented here. Based on the local Kucinich campaign organization I've worked with, and the national campaign we've been in contact with. I don't think anyone who is not aware of this knows much about the candidate or the campaign. I don't see any attack in that observation. I don't see an ad hominem appeal to emotion or attack on character in an observation that the poster's information is incomplete.

Kucinich is a narcisssist posing as an altruist, just like Nader. We have got to get serious about this damn election -- ALL of us anywhere to the left of Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Dick Cheney, and the Puppet in Chief. Kucinich would piss me off almost as much as Nader if he didn't seem so pathetically irrelevant.

In this case, the information presented is clearly wrong, as Kucinich is not "just like Nader." To suggest that anyone supporting Kucinich's work for universal health care, for example, is not serious about the election, may be an off-topic ad hominem attack. The "pathetically irrelevant" remark is just an opinion, of course, and therefore not really an attack. Although I would consider language like "pathetically irrelevant" to be more of an attack than "you don't know much about Dennis Kucinich...."

[goodhue]

27. this debate about "urban elite progressives" got me thinking about

piece that John Nichols wrote last August contrasting supporters in Wisconsin . . .

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0828-05.htm

Published on Thursday, August 28, 2003 by the Madison Capital Times
Dean, Kerry, Kucinich and Wisconsin
by John Nichols

* * * *

Most of the people in the crowd at the carefully staged Dean event were white, generally trending upscale and suburban. The cars in the parking areas tended to be new, pricey and, frequently, foreign made. Pickup trucks were in very short supply, as were union jackets and feed-mill caps.

* * * *

While Dean looks to be the Wisconsin front-runner at this point, Kucinich has gained traction in the western Wisconsin farm counties that will play a significant role in deciding next February's primary contest. And Kucinich is scoring by talking tough on agriculture issues. The Ohio congressman's farm plan proposes ending corporate-sponsored trade agreements that have undermined prices for farmers in the United States, using antitrust laws to break up agribusiness monopolies, expanding country-of-origin labeling, providing low-cost health insurance to farm families, and investing in programs to revitalize rural America.

Kucinich's farm plan has made a big impression on farm activists.

On the same night that Dean visited Milwaukee, Kucinich was in Dubuque, Iowa, just across the Mississippi River from southwest Wisconsin. At his side was country singer Willie Nelson, a regular on the FarmAid concert circuit. "Finally, we have a guy who's standing up for the small family farmer," Nelson said of Kucinich.

Kucinich's campaign is organizing concerts featuring Nelson in Iowa and Wisconsin. Wanna bet that there will be a few more pickup trucks in the parking lots at those events?

--------------------------------------------------------------

(of course "those events" never actually happened but that's another story that has not been written; Nichols' point was right on)

[realcountrymusic]

31. Interesting

I can accept and understand that DK has done a good job winning support from farm activists and thereby has won some rural support. But an appeal to farm activists is not the same thing as being electable in rural America. Still, I appreciate that someone is talking about issues that matter to a largely ignored and forgotten constituency. Used to be you needed to invoke the family farm to win. Now there are so few family farmers left that you can safely ignore them. That's sad.

Most rural Americans, however, vote Republican. If we elected presidents by inverse population density, Bush would win in a landslide. (Think "red states").

Seriously, I'm not insulting DK or his supporters. I just think his campaign is -- at this point - quixotic, and that this is not a year to divide the moderate from the progressive vote even if it ends at the convention.

RCM

[WitchWay]

29. Is the WAR pathetically Irrelevant?

Funny, so is OPPOSITION to the war now "pathetically IRRELEVANT"? Because the two candidates that you belittle are the two candidates opposing this war.

Or, is being anti-war being narcissitically posing as an altruist?

I guess that we should all just whack anti-war folks upside their stupid, ignorant heads, huh?

I'm just trying to get this straight. Is the thing that now we are all just supposed put on rose colored glasses, cover our eyes ears and mouths and try to ignore or forget the fact that Kerry doesn't really oppose this egregious war based in lies and deception?

Kerry knew darn well what he voted for in IWR -- and if he didn't, he damn well SHOULD have. Why won't Kerry oppose this war with a strong EXIT STRATEGY and get those greedy multinational corporate hands out of IRAQ? Wow, the commercial that I saw Kerry put out didn't talk about how terrible the war is, it talked about the STRONG MILITARY Kerry wants. He's posing like a hawk. It's a bad sign, and it gives Bush credibility. What military actions has Kerry in mind that he needs this "Strong Military" for?

How convenient to the business interests and military contractors to have both Kerry and Bush to AGREE to "stay the course" in Iraq. IT stinks like nothing else. It must be asked - who is Kerry allied with concerning this unjust, terrible war in Iraq?

[no name no slogan]

37. I don't fault RCM-- I think that's a common misperception of DK's position

As was said in the debates, none of the candidates (including DK) are in favor of a "cut and run" approach to Iraq.

The difference between Dennis and Kerry right now is more a matter of the scope of US involvement in Iraq. Dennis favors continued financial aid, but is not in favor of perpetual US control of Iraq's economy, politics, or social structure. He favors giving Iraqis control over these, without undue US influence. Let the IRAQIS rebuild Iraq as THEY see fit-- don't give the job to Haliburton or KBR, unless the Iraqis want to hire them.

Dennis also favors taking our forces out of their "occupational" status in Iraq, and replacing command a true international structure, and replacing combat troops with peacekeepers who are trained for the job of peacekeeping (security, stabilization, etc.). This would reduce the perception that our forces are an army of occupation-- which is IMHO the main reason for the continuing insurgency.

Many polls from Iraq show that most of them want us to get out of their country sooner rather than later, and DK's position reflects that. The Iraqis have been through hell over the last 30 years, and probably know what is best for themselves and don't need another totalitarian government/occupying force telling them what to do. If we truly want peace in the region, we need to honor the people's wishes, and let them do whatever they feel is best for themselves.

Democracy imposed from without NEVER lasts long. Support needs to come from WITHIN for it to have any staying power. The Iraqis are not children. They can deal with their own affairs well enough. All we need to do is give them the chance to do so.

[liberalron]

38. liberalron

I would like to point out that this is not the General Election. This is not Bush, Clinton, Pero; or Bush, Gore, Nader. Kucinich is running against Bush.
And, he does bring some vital issues to the table for discussion, which might not be the case otherwise. He is helpful to our cause, the removal of Bush AND the rest Republican Leadership, on national, state and local levels.
Due to his funding, I would think that he has been, is and will be, campaigning in a smaller, but also more intimate, manner. This gives him the opportunity to acutally have a conversation, so to speak, with the citizenry/voters. This is how "hearts and minds" are really won. I don't mean just their vote for just this one elect ion; but really win them over.
He should probably continue to do this for the "We the People", the Democratic Party and Joh Kerry after the Primary, through to the Election.

[WitchWay]

39. Tired of people not being informed about this war...

I was being sarcastic to RCM, which I don't know if you understood. I am vehemently anti-war...but unlike you I do fault anyone who isn't aware of the war issue and all of the candidates' positions on this matter. This is a very serious, urgent matter and demands responsibility from all of us to be informed citizens. There's no room for levity on this issue, especially with the potential reinstatement of the draft. People who are not aware about the issues concerning this war are being irresponsible. That has to end, and everyone needs to get really serious about this issue.

I am entirely anti-war and I think that Kerry is wrong his support of this war, his military posing, his IWR vote, his "stay the course" attitude and his opinion that there was a "right" way to do this war. Corporate imperialistic wars and occupation just cannot be done in a "good" way. Period. I don't buy Kerry's pragmatically "pragmatic" rationale that now since it is too late and Bush Started this war (helped along with Kerry's IWR vote, of course) that we have to "stay the course" in Iraq. I'm no fool and I know it's all about money and business.

In all honesty, Kucinich's attitude towards this is truly disheartening and very dissapointing. I don't think Kucinich ought to be protecting Kerry from anyone. Kerry ought to be debated, questioned and grilled for his continued support of Bush's illegal war in Iraq and for his support of American Imperialism abroad. I really lose respect for Kucinich when he's using party loyalism to herd people off towards Kerry. I just think that's wrong. I hope that Dennis might do something amazing at the convention to change things, then I might feel more positive about him.

Nader calls for dual military and corporate exit strategy from Iraq. I think that Nader's exit strategy is the best one. I'm supporting Nader. Kerry seems more interested in courting McCain supporters and having a "strong military" than being opposed to this war, making room for issues such as Kucinich raises, or speaking against this egregious war that he voted to help get started.

[no name no slogan]

41. I dunno if DK is "protecting" Kerry in that respect

I think DK is trying to keep a remnant of the strident anti-war vote in the Democratic party this year.

Nader's and Kuch's positions on the war are nearly identical, IMHO. Kucinich also wants to cut military and corporate ties to Iraq, and let them be self-determining. However, he's in a tight position right now. He has always said he's a Democrat, and will support the nominee, which is essentially what he's doing. However, he also has people working on Kerry from WITHIN the party to draw Kerry closer to his position on the war and occupation.

Nader has the luxury of being outside the party, so he can directly criticize Kerry on the issues without fear of repercussion. Kucinich, OTOH, is a loyal Democrat who would be scapegoated in a SECOND if his actions were perceived to be the cause of Kerry's defeat in November.

[WitchWay]

43. I'm finished with the Democratic Party for Good...

Kerry isn't going to come closer to Kucinich's position on the war and occupation. The way I see it, Kucinich is effectively keeping people in the party who should probably be working on a Nader campaign and anti-war movement. I guess that I've completely had it with the two-party system and believe that change will never happen from within the entrenched power of the Democratic Party.

I guess I think Kucinich should do nothing for Kerry, and not make Nader seem like the "enemy". I think Kucinich is effectively keeping supporters away from Nader and herding them to Kerry, and I just think that's wrong. I'm not keen on party loyalty...it's alot like "my country right or wrong" and has a cultish aspect I find disturbing.

I am sorry, but I am SOOO angry right now at the democratic party and Nader attacks. I am perceiving a fascist strain in the democratic party that I find to be even more disturbing than George W. Bush himself! So, I'm just at my wit's end and pretty fed up with the whole notion of "working from within".

I think the best thing to do is to jump ship and start anew...let the democratic party die off and start something that is not entrenched in aristocratic and corporate power structures. Bush isn't really that scary, not compared to the fact that the two-party system perpetuates a corporate fascism either/or choice that really has little to do with people, and more to do with power/greed. I find Kerry every bit as scary as Bush, and I find him to be a deceptive politicians who talks in legalisms and says what is most politically expedient. I'm convinced he's not any better than bush in ACTUALITY.

Nader is completely right in his analysis of what is going on in Washington and both the major parties. I'd urge everyone to wake up and listen to him, instead of perceiving him as an enemy.

[no name no slogan]

44. That's understandable-- I've left before

I quit the party in 1992 after Clinton got the nod, and for many of the same reasons you cite. The DLC has done more damage to the party than any "way out" liberals did in the 1970s and 80s.

However, I'm still in the party, for one very important reason: it is easier to affect the opinion of a few million Democrats than it is the 200+ million population of this country.

We have a two-party system in this country, and that is (unfortunately) how it is. However, our two parties are actually more like the coalitions of parliamentary democracies, made up of several smaller "interests". These "interests" are the equivalent of the parties in a European-style parliamentary democracy.

The Democrats are a coalition of racial/ethnic minorities, progressives, New Deal liberals, civil libertarians, organized labor, etc. The Republicans have the rich white guys, the Christian religious fundamentalists, corporate kings, and other people who don't like taxes and love having money.

The progressives, as a coalition of the Democratic Party, have a much easier time of trying to convince the other blocs of our solutions than we will of trying to convince the entire electorate as a whole to support us-- which is the path of most third parties today.

Don't ge me wrong, I'm not against third parties at all (I voted Green in 1996, 1998 and 2000 in both national and local elections), but I've come to realize that it's actually easier to affect the Democratic party from within, than it is from without.

My $.02 is all.

[kodi]

40. i'd rather have kerry protecting the nominee kucinich from the right

kucinich should be the nominee from my perspective. he is the only one talking seriously about issues i consider the most important ones for america and the world.

[TexasSissy]

42. With a friend like that, who needs enemies?

[dolstein]

45. So when is Kucinich going to campaign for Kerry?

It seems to me that Kucinich is offering Nader supporters a lot of reasons why they should vote for Kucinich, but if he REALLY wants to protect Kerry, he should be telling these people why they should vote for Kerry.

[Forkboy]

47. Where's Joementum when we need it?

[dolstein]

48. So you agree that Dennis is being disingenuous

Thanks for chiming in!

[Forkboy]

49. Nope

I dont think I've ever agreed with you about anything :shrug:

You're welcome!

[no name no slogan]

50. DK will campaign for Kerry after he's the OFFICIAL nominee

Besides, Kucinich is NOT attacking Kerry on the campaign trail-- he spends his time attacking Bush, and talking about issues that Kerry has effectively taken off the table: getting rid of NAFTA, getting our troops out of Iraq ASAP, single-payer national healthcare, stricter regulation of corporations, an end to the corporate media oligopoly, holding the Pentagon accountable for its missing $1 trillion, etc.

These are issues that resonate with large segments of the population (voters and non-voters alike), yet Kerry is afraid to address them for fear of alienating that fickle 10% of the electorate known as "swing voters".

If you want to deflate Nader, listen to Kucinich. He's the only one who can swing that 3-5% of the electorate to Kerry. If it's close again this year (like 2000), that might just be enough to put Kerry over the top.