Great

Great article, and I don't believe the other candidates even come close to measuring up.

by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 9:59:01 AM
 

Amen

'Tis the usual sad state of affairs in a Presidential Primary: the only candidate (along with Mike Gravel) who says anything of substance is -- was, before he even announced his candidacy -- anointed as 'unelectable' by the MSM and therefore gets only 4 minutes to speak during a 90 minute debate.  Elections in this country are pathetic spectacles.

by Milton Takkei (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 10:01:24 AM
 

...And the show.

I too witnessed the high school lunchroom-style debate.  The candidates played the I'm more popular than you game for the majority of the show; while Kucinich patiently waited for his moment to speak.  When he was allotted those moments, he spoke clearly and concisely about what his plans were.  This was done with the skill of a man who understands relativity.  I heard more in his few minutes of advocating than I did for the rest of the episode.  Hopefully, we weren't the only ones.

by LaKevius (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 10:11:20 AM
 

The next election

there will be an 800 pound referendum in the living room:

Will the president be elected by the companies who make voting machines, the corporate mass media, the Supreme Court, or the US citizens?

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 10:21:02 AM
 

I have a dream ...

and that dream is that for VARIOUS reasons the new Tammany Hall-style vote deliverers and the crooked political fixers of the US empire, decide to allow Dennis to run. For their own reasons, of course - as that's the ONLY way Dennis' election is going to come about.

Assuming he could win, having been nominated due to this strange circumstance, I think people will be very surprised at how well "Dennis's team" of supporters are able to engineer a real social miracle in a very short time. Things are only getting worse right now and the social peace and justice agenda sliding ever out of view .. BUT the caliber of person attracted to Dennis is extremely HIGH and dedicated!! A real global sort of medicine has been packaged into producing an elf of a man as front's person.

He's earned my TRUST; not something easy to do. I can only pray that this new young nonaligned voter begins to see what Dennis has on offer and goes out and works hard for him. That's the KEY.  I think the powers that be vastly vastly underestimate Dennis . or do they keep him on this media leash because he is so scary to them ..?

by ladybroadoak (32 articles, 17 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 317 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 11:21:06 AM
 

Politics as Usual ...

As a Mexican citizen who worked for the federal government, I can tell you this country smells sooooo much like my mother land. Corrupt to the bone!

And yes the next president has already been determined by:

*The US "Supreme" Court

* The Main-Stream-Corporate-Media

* The MIC - Military Industrial Complex

Your vote, folks, don't kid yourselves.... just like in Mexico. Votes are but just a tease to the electorate. And just like Stalin said… “it’s not who votes that counts but who counts the votes that matter”.

Above all, in this capitalistic society, Money is King. Republicans or Democrats. They’re all a bunch o cheap sold out souls.

Kucinich or Green!

by Frank gr (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 45 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 11:32:50 AM
 

Sorry to pop the Kucinich fans' bubble -- but the real

reason why Kucinich is getting so popular lately on websites like OpEdNews is a very unhealthy one.

Basically, increasing numbers of former Democrats are seeing that American society is heading rapidly towards authoritarian rule & overt tyranny. This is rightly striking fear into the hearts of some of the former faithful. In their fear, these people look around, and see that only one "candidate" of the 2 big parties tells any substantial portion of the truth at all -- and that's Kucinich. (OK, maybe Gravel tells some of the truth as well. But clearly, the rest are all liars & phonies.)

So, these frightened people embrace Dennis, soothing their fears with thoughts of "Dennis for President!" But the real motivation here is NOT just that Dennis says many true & good things. Rather, it's that if one can get oneself to believe that "we" can work together to make Dennis president, then we can continue living WITHIN the established political framework. Nothing fundamental would have to be changed (so goes the argument) -- after all, Dennis is already a Democrat. So we could still have the 2-party system, and debates, conventions, candidates, & typical press coverage -- only this time, we supposedly will wind up with a "good progressive" president.

This is an example of refusing to face the real problem, simply because it's too terrifying. The truth is that there's not the slightest chance that Dennis can win the nomination, or even become a serious contender. The Democratic Party establishment & the media will see to that -- just as they saw to Howard Dean's demise in Iowa in 2004. (And Dean was far less threatening to the system than Kucinich.) To believe that Kucinich can win is simply to ignore how US politics really works. No one can even be considered a serious candidate unless they have the full backing of the corporate oligarchy. Dennis will probably do no better this time around than he did in 2004 (roughly 5% of Dem primary votes, on average).

I like Kucinich, in most ways. I worked very hard for him in 2004. My only objections to him are that he refuses to denounce & quit his party, & therefore is guilty of sustaining illusions in Democrats. Also, he betrayed his supporters in 2004 by abandoning his pledge to fight for an antiwar plank the week before the Convention. He also agreed to speak at the podium without even mentioning Iraq, Bush or the PATRIOT Act or any of the other hideous developments of the last few years. Based on that sellout, there is no doubt that when the Dem nominee (Hillary or Obama, prob. Hillary) is decided, that Dennis will once again play the party loyalist, & support the nominee -- no matter how much of a lying warmonger liar she is.

At its root, what this rising interest in Kucinich reflects, on sites like OpEdNews, is simply the recognition that if we can't believe in a quixotic pipedream like Kucinich, we'd have to confront the reality that the political system itself must be changed. And that prospect is just too scary for most people to face. Kucinich fans want an "easy" cure -- ie, a cure within the framework of what already exists -- D's and R's, primaries and conventions, & so forth. But there isn't going to be any easy cure, within that framework. That framework is carefully designed to allow only fully-vetted corporate candidates to be serious contenders. To believe otherwise is just to kid yourself.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 915 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 12:06:07 PM
 

No we're not so naive as you think

Your points, cynical and truthfull as they may be, are well taken.  Yes, the two party system is a failure, D's and R's are part of the "Washington Party" for the most part with distinctions that don't make a difference.  Unless we return to hand counted paper ballots, no election in the US will have any validity.  That we live under Fascism is a painful reality.  That said, I believe supporting a "lost" cause like Dennis Kucinich's candidacy for president is an aspirational act, and that lost causes are really the only ones worth supporting.

There is nothing wrong with aspiring to a vision of what could be rather than succumbing to the status quo.  Robert Kennedy said (forgive me for an inaccurate memory), "Some men see things as they are and say why.  I see things that never were and say why not?"  Couple that with the very real and tangible positions taken by Rep. Kucinich, aspirational goals that we are all made better by adopting for ourselves, and you have a vision for the future that can change the status quo to establish a better future and "a more perfect union."

Besides, miracles do happen . . . sometimes!

by Mike Shelby (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 12:35:50 PM
 

I personally am not a frightened person

Of anything.

Like everyone else who lives in the real world, the things that happen within the context of personal lives put into perspective what should generate fear and what in the abstract should merely causes concern.

So many of us who feel that Kucinich is a great candidate have also commented in agreement with articles and posts as well as writing diaries and articles that reference the conspiratorial "fix" that is our political system.

Simultaneously at least half believing that there exists a possibility for positive change doesn't have to represent fear, self delusion, or naiveté, but rather it's an expression of hope that individuals who unite around a common cause can at times effect change.

I've got a feeling that to many, even that concept is corny or not acerbic enough to count for anything.

This is a small thing but I think it may be telling.

I am interested in the televised political debates, I do follow how the candidates stand on the issues and after the democratic forum on Sunday morning I went to the ABC website to vote for the "Who Won" poll. I suppose because that's what hopeless saps do.

At the time I voted for Kucinich he was, I believe, in 5th or 6th place.
When I checked this morning he was winning by a couple thousand votes.

This candidate's base will have to rely on the Internet for organization, networking, and support, and I think there's a possibility that the support generated may surpass Dean's, who by the way contributed to his own demise, fair or not.

by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 1:52:25 PM
 

Nicely expressed, but unfortunately not true. Let's examine

your main thrust here: "...at least half believing that there exists a possibility for positive change doesn't have to represent fear, self delusion, or naiveté, but rather it's an expression of hope that individuals who unite around a common cause can at times effect change."

You're shying away from the main issue, which is whether or not change can take place within the prevailing political framework. "Hope" & "change" are all very nice in the abstract; but the question here is whether or not real change can take place inside of the mechanism of traditional US elections between Democrats & Republicans -- with the media, the influence of corporate money, & the low political consciousness of voters all being what they are.

I say it can't -- while you're half-hoping that it can, while half-trying to wiggle away from facing this central but discomfiting question. The system, such as it is, is completely impervious to change. It's been carefully designed to be that way -- for many decades. "Believing in" a figure like Kucinich is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. Both have the same chance of being nominated & elected.

If we're going to be realistic, we have to recognize that a Kucinich can simply not be nominated through the existing process. The only reason he's even allowed to compete in the prelims is because the Dem Party Establishment realizes he's useful in preventing antiwar types from bolting the party. That's why they allow him on stage -- it's part of their strategy. Unfortunately, that strategy doesn't call for letting him win -- or even getting anywhere near it. (In fact, if he started to come on strong in the polls, they'd find some "scandal" to destroy him with. And if by some miracle they couldn't do that, he'd probably have an "unfortunate accident.")

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 915 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 2:49:49 PM
 

I disagree would be more appropriate

You think what I think is not true but these are my true thoughts. You can think I’m completely wrong but you can’t think that I’m not truthful because you think differently, that’s your reality and your truth.

To put it any other way is too personal to my liking, but I obviously can’t stop others from being who they are and I don’t have to like it.

Although even as I think you’re wrong about some of the things you said like “believing in a figure like Kucinich is like believing in the tooth fairy”, a completely condescending remark, I also agree with some of the realistic things you said, like the system is impervious to change.

But not completely, there has been gradual change even though the deck remains stacked, MY true belief is that maybe not this cycle or even the next, with ample organization and support no doubt aided by what is a growing dissatisfaction for the status quo supported by both parties, in time “a Kucinich” can be nominated.

I’ll personally volunteer some free time to aid in that effort in whatever modest way I can.

I read something a few years ago that actually may not be the best thing to reference as it was relative to how to overcome the solid hold of the conservative majority and since Bush unfortunately was re-elected in 2004, these "steps" were ineffective, however, it stuck with me as a kind of guide, and I think it’s somewhat applicable.

It’s called “A 12-Step Program for Regime Change” and it includes the following, (listed out of order and abridged, but the link to the piece is below. Also, just ignore the Bush references )

   “Some of us have been discouraged by the increasingly conservative corporate media, which try to marginalize us. We become alarmed as our government ratchets up the fear quotient and we watch the irrational effect the scare tactics have. At these moments, we can forget to turn to each other for support.    

But we must claim our power and overcome our doubts and fears as well as our bad habits. We need to feel proud and joyful, not just angry and defensive. We must work together, as one huge family, knowing that if we don't, we cannot win.Some of us have been discouraged by the increasingly conservative corporate media, which try to marginalize us. We become alarmed as our government ratchets up the fear quotient and we watch the irrational effect the scare tactics have.

At these moments, we can forget to turn to each other for support.

Step 1.  Let's start with traditions that serve as our foundation. Social critic Colin Greer reminds us that Martin Luther King Jr.'s work evolved from his initial civil rights struggles into protecting poor people of all colors and then to insisting on peace in Vietnam. An overriding framework of concern linked all of these causes into one "Beloved Community." Greer notes how the values of progressive America inspire millions of people every day: health care advocates; members of environmental, civil rights and civil liberties groups; volunteers at food banks and women's shelters; people working for their children's education, and many more. As he says, "We have to communicate our history and our strength."

Step 2:    Progressives are potentially stronger now than at any time in the past 30 years. Breakthrough efforts like the fast-growing True Majority, and Move On, with its 1.3 million members, have significant capacity to reach and motivate new people. The MoveOn.org PAC can also raise large amounts of money. Millions of unaffiliated middle-class progressives are ripe for organizing.

The Win Without War coalition, made up of 40 national membership groups, has committed itself to regime change with a major investment in media. Many increasingly sophisticated national organizations are already gathering and dedicating themselves to the work ahead, focusing on voter registration and education and Get Out the Vote (GOTV) strategies in key states.    

In the battle ahead, we are unified. From progressive to moderate, virtually all of us agree that regime change is our common goal. Support for third party politics is invisible, even among those who voted for Nader in 2000.  

We also need to tap into our deepest, most magnanimous courage to help us give up old habits and narrow agendas, and sacrifice more for the whole. One woman with a lot of courage is Doris "Granny D" Haddock, who at age 95 is still raising hell; just a few years ago she walked across the country to promote campaign finance reform.

She recently reminded us of something profound. During the recent peace marches, despite the angry speeches and the losses to be suffered by so many, she said: "The people in the marches were joyful. Did you notice that? Did you feel it yourself? The best smiles I've seen in years."

Step #3: Communicate Our Vision    

To be successful in American politics, we need undecided voters to come over to our side. We must communicate a positive vision of the future. Most Americans like to be on the winning team, so we need winning ideas and stars who can carry the message forward. Going negative doesn't help. When we attack the conservative frame, we actually reinforce their messages. We need our message.    

A strong vision would draw on the deep history and powerful metaphor of people working together to make this country strong, to protect ourselves and one another, to care about the health and safety of all our people.

Step #4: Confront Our Weaknesses    

To be honest with ourselves, we have to confront our seeming compulsion to repeat the same strategies, no matter how many times they fail. We specialize in large single-issue membership organizations. We pride ourselves on our unswerving dedication to myriad idealistic issues. Our organizations at times become little more than self-perpetuating efforts to secure funding dollars.

Step #5: Practice Being Realistic    

A big behavioral change for many will be diving into electoral politics. Many of us have viewed elections as tainted, trivial or hopelessly uncool. We may have preferred the detachment of the cynical or the purity of issue advocacy. After decades of attacking the political system as hopelessly corrupted by campaign financing, we regard politics as dirty and impervious to change. But alas, despite its enormous flaws, it is the only system we've got.    

Author Jonathan Schell says, "Elections are a fabulous tool for bringing about change if you use them! You have to infuse them with your energy. There's something tautological about rejecting elections. It's like an admission of defeat. It's very bad to admit defeat when you're in a movement. It's a big mistake. You should try to win. You may fail; there's no victory guaranteed in this world, in life. But you should aim to win and really change things."    

When we opt out of campaigns, the political consultants and media buyers take over. These guys just add to the nasty image of politics, particularly with their multi-million dollar hit ads, often designed to turn people off voting altogether and leave them confused, discouraged and disgusted.

Step #6: Stop Squabbling and Make Amends    

You may have heard the joke: What's a progressive firing squad? Answer: A circle.     Enough! Or, as progressive leader and communications guy Dan Carol says: "Kumbaya dammit. There are ways to stand for principles without fighting over crumbs. Start with everyone sharing their vision of what they want and need ... and check your passive aggressiveness at the door. Let's not forget that the perfect is the enemy of the good."   

 It is time to declare an amnesty. If South Africa can have a reconciliation, why not progressives? Let us join our competitors and our former enemies in new collaborations toward victory.    

Step #7: Think Strategically    

If you have read this far, you are probably part of the core Democratic vote. Not enough of us have been active in Democratic Party politics or elections. Let's make that history.    

Make no mistake; we are not a majority. Clinton won the '92 presidential race with 43 percent of the vote (with Perot in the race against Bob Dole). We hover around 40 percent of the electorate. The conservatives and Republicans are also close to 40 percent. To become a majority, we need to reach swing voters.

Step #8: Deal With the Politics of Fear    

Fear is the subtext of American politics. The Republicans know that fearful people tend to vote conservative, so generating and exploiting fear will be high on their agenda. Expect every kind of Republican surprise: Code Reds, new acts of terrorism, invasions of other countries, the sudden capture of Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. There may be dirty tricks in this election.

Step #10: Create an Independent Power, Not Reliant on Parties or CandidatesIt would be a bold move to quickly organize and grow a large-scale independent campaign for regime change at home. Let's call it the "Independent Force."

It would counter the stereotypes that progressives can't work together and that partnerships don't travel well across race, class and issue lines. If key leadership groups bought in, such a formation could, by effectively using the Internet, number five million and be well funded with $10 million by next summer. No, that wouldn't be enough. Yet, big organizations and coalitions of insiders wielding large amounts of money may not be the best way to engage the rank and file.

Step #11: Use and Trust Independent Media    

The Republican-controlled FCC has decided to make media more conservative, more corporate and more concentrated. Given the media system we have already, that's hard to swallow. Now we'll have more nightmares like Clear Channel, which owns more than 1,200 stations and is infamous for dumbing down radio and organizing pro-war rallies.    

But even before this latest stage, the "Fox effect" pushed news coverage to the right. Rupert Murdoch's pending purchase of Direct TV exponentially increases the power of conservative TV. This is all wrong and unacceptable, but by everyone's estimation, changing the media system is a long-term struggle. The corporate media system is likely to get worse as far as the eye can see.    

 We don't have time to wait. Yes, we should work the contradictions in corporate media as best we can, since the media system needs a semblance of objectivity to be credible enough to make their profits. But also we need to use our own independent media system, which, with the help of the Internet, has grown tremendously, risen in quality and reaches many more people than ever before. AlterNet.org, where I work, Common Dreams, Tom Paine.com, the Nation, Salon, Pacific News Service and many more (including WireTapmag.org, the feisty youth site), are powerful daily information sources.

When added up, the independent media often do much more than the corporate media in presenting details and diversity of voices.    

It is important to have alternative perspectives and viable options in play. Michael Moore, progressive media's superstar, has shown that it's possible to reach millions with a very strong populist message. When Greg Palast was asked how his current "alternative ' book became a bestseller, he told the interviewer the alternative press needs to change its name: "It reaches more people than the mainstream."   

Step #12: Make a Commitment    

Activist Harriet Barlow has started talking to friends about the "5 percent" plan. If you are really serious about defeating Bush, she says, commit 5 percent of your income and 5 percent of your time to the cause; more if you can afford it. And start now. Many others are in tune with Barlow. If you can, why not vacation or even temporarily relocate to key swing states like Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Florida and Nevada, especially if you are from there or have family or friends there?

Dedicate a portion of your time to what will be the most important election of our lives. If idealistic young people can travel to Iraq and Palestine, why not to Kansas City, Cleveland, Pittsburg or Jacksonville?  

That’s it. I’m done, it’s the best I can do and I have to work until 11:00.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061603F.shtml

by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 4:21:20 PM
 

Sorry to pop

This comment sums up the Kucinich phenomenon in a nutshell.

Anyone with morals and conviction, like Kucinich, HAS to tell the entire truth about the current sorry state of affairs in order to shake the corrupt system to its core. It's a big, big gamble, but one that MUST be taken if this guy is to stand even a snowball's chance in hell.

by Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 222 comments) on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 1:52:11 PM
 

What next?

RichM, what is next?  I am in complete agreement with you, unfortunately you and I and perhaps a few dozen others see the bleak future ahead of us.  do we create the community we want to live in and ignore the govt as much as possible.  I am the one that must change.  to expect bush or hillary or obama to change is not realistic, they are part of the new world order.  What will it take for the child-like bewildered american voter to grow up and see the system for what it is?

by joed (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 4:14:06 PM
 

So You've Given Up?

Let's say everything you said is true, therefore the situation is HOPELESS. You made a very unpleasant discovery - Dennis is not perfect. I got news for you, NOBODY is perfect. He did some things that disappointed you and pissed you off --- his campaign is doing some things right now that are pissing me off!

So, what do you suggest? We should just throw in the towel; tell Dennis to pack his bags and go back to Cleveland, and then we just sit back and let the likes of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama move into the White House?

On balance, even with his flaws, Dennis is our only hope of stopping the Illuminati Fascist Elite from putting our Constitution into the shredder, eliminating the democratic process (what's left of it), and merging the United States, like Kinkos with Fed Ex, into a New World Order run by a small group of elite politicians and corporations.

You think I'm "living in a pipedream"?   I am very well aware of the depth and scope of corruption that we are dealing with here.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joseph Biden, Bill Richardson and Christoher Dodd are ALL MEMBERS of The Council on Foreign Relations. A few other notable members, among a substantive list is, Al Gore and DICK CHENEY. In case you are not familiar with the CFR or its core mission I've added a few quotes below:

"Bill Clinton's Georgetown mentor and fellow CFR member Carroll Quigley says: "The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ...and... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.". Book "Tragedy & Hope" 1966

Surprisingly, its own members admit its goal is to subvert the democratic process. Another CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy, Admiral Chester Ward, writes "The main purpose of the CFR is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into and all powerful, one world government".

When the candidates were asked in a recent debate: "By a show of hands, who would support the impeachment of Dick Cheney" Dennis was the only candidate on that stage who raised his hand. So I asked myself WHY? Why is it that only Dennis supports impeaching Cheney while the other candidates refuse to do so? Then it dawned on me --- they are all on the same page both politically and ideologically as Cheney. They don't oppose impeachment because there is not enough evidence against him or they're too busy. NOPE ------They are PROTECTING him.

Perhaps it comes down to this one question:

Did Dennis Kucinich insist on staying in the Democrtaic Party for sinister reasons, or for practical reasons? We need to look at whatever evidence and information we have available to decide what the answer is to that question.

Is Dennis a member of the CFR - NO

Is Dennis taking Corporate money - NO

Is Dennis speaking out about the lies that got us into the war in Iraq - YES

Did Dennis ever vote YES to fund the war - NO

Is Dennis speaking out demanding that Cheney be impeached - YES

Is Dennis speaking out for Not for Profit Healthcare - YES

Has Dennis been willing to speak out and take the (Democrat) controlled Congress to task for not getting us out of Iraq - YES

Is Dennis going to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act - YES

Are the other candidates speaking out and taking action the way Dennis is- NOPE.

In my view, unless something "perfect" comes down from the heavens above- Dennis is not only our best hope, he is our only hope.

http://www.dennis4president.com 

by Susan Rapp (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 4:16:27 PM
 

You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You're

acting as if I've criticized Dennis himself -- which is only very slightly the case. The only criticism I made of him is that he's encouraging illusions in the Democratic Party. He knows perfectly well that he can't & won't win; and that when Hillary is nominated, he will support her candidacy out of party loyalty -- regardless of the fact that she's a lying warmonger.

Aside from that, my critique has nothing to do with Dennis or his imperfections. Ninety-nine % of my point is that you are trying to play a game that simply can't be won, but you don't want to face that. It's too terrifying, so you've decided to just ignore it. But get this: there is NO SUCH THING as a "progressive" American president. There never has been, & there never will be, under the 2-party system. The system is designed to make sure that the structure & basic underpinnings of society never change, no matter which party wins elections. (If you've heard of Carroll Quigley, you should know that. He spoke of it often.)

When you say "Dennis is not only our best hope, he is our only hope", you are ignoring the entire avenue of struggling to build a real political resistance, a movement & a party outside of the conventional Dems & Repubs structure. What you really mean is not that Dennis is "our only hope," but that chasing a pipedream like this is the only hope you can envision within the existing 2-party system. That's because you imagine this will be easier than struggling to build a genuine opposition party outside the 2-party system.

However, as difficult as the latter avenue might be (and of course, it would be very difficult indeed), the former is 100% impossible. There will be a bona fide popular socialist government elected in America before a Dennis Kucinich gets anywhere near being a serious contender for the Dem Party nomination. (It wouldn't surprise me if Dennis himself would admit this, privately. He's no fool, & he reads serious books.)

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 915 comments) on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 8:19:02 PM
 

Yes, Rich, BUT further ...

Rich, yes, yup, I see you see what I see.

I don't see that you see what else I see. For examples, CD Rogers and Mike Shelby share some motivational core precepts for coalition buildiing. Exactly the sort of coalition building that you see, and that I see, must be slogged through to success, revalidating democracy -- and what enheartens that slog? Dreams, and the dreamers. Your 'tooth fairy' believers.

I can agree with your political analysis, as far as it goes. There is farther to go.

As much as you stand obstinate at your limit, (of total disdain and intolerance for existing Partisans, unreformable, irredeemable), and set it as an absolute -- the absolutely only, and absolutely predictable future possibility, there you start to make me think your effort is deliberate strategy to outflank Party renegades, who, by your prominence, see the option you insist as the only option, to be too radical and not a viable option, and as a result, wannabe renegades either sit tight hunkered down, voter registration intact -- stay Democrats; or, drop out altogether into isolation. I am sure that that is not your 'strategy.' Just saying, certainty can be sure to a fault.

Here's what can happen. Not that you should believe in or extend into these particular and exact situations, rather that you should believe in or extend into what these (above hypothetical) situations represent</