I know Kucinich supporters don't like Hillary Clinton. When I write about her, they respond, again and again. "She's a bought and paid corporatist." "She backed the Iraq war from the beginning." "She supported the regressive bankruptcy bill." In fact, many say, "If she's nominated I'm staying home." Or. "If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll change my registration to Independent and vote third party."
So think about how you'd feel if the headlines after the early caucuses and primaries read "Hillary places third," and you were part of that process. Imagine if those losses helped stop her nomination, the party ended up with either Barack Obama or John Edwards as the nominee, and one of the two became America's president. I suspect you'd feel a whole lot better than having Hillary as president. And way better than our enacting Bush revisited through her losing to Guiliani, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, or even the reborn John McCain, who's not only promoted the Iraq war since before it happened, but got caught on video singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" to the words of the classic Beach Boys song, as if war with Iran were some kind of joke. I'm sure you'd rather see Edwards or Obama than any of these.
But of course you'd rather have Kucinich. He's the most progressive, you say, and that's true. He opposed the war from the beginning and even organized Congress against it. He's got a great platform, and is strong on every issue, the antithesis of a corporate tool.
But he's also not going to be the nominee. No one has come from polling one or two percent at this late date to capture the presidency. No Congressman has won since James Garfield. There are just too many other candidates at this point with too much support, momentum, and money. If Kucinich hasn't captured America's imagination enough so far, there's just not time for this to happen fast enough to win. I also think his message plays better with already committed progressive audiences than with those less political, one reason it hasn't resonated more in the polls. And my guess is that America's just not ready for a vegan, which while it should make no difference, offers prime fodder for the Carl Rove types about how he's so out of the mainstream he's going to try to take away people's macaroni and cheese.
So if Kucinich can't win, supporting him in the key early races means valuing a more symbolic educational campaign over one that has the capacity to actually affect who is nominated. I think Kucinich people could make a difference in the process, and that the tradeoffs are worth it to support Edwards or Obama.
Right now Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all running virtually neck-and-neck in the Iowa polls. Any of them could win. Any could come in third. In the latest averages, they're within five percentage points of each other, between 25% & 30%. Whatever the outcome, it's going to set the tone for subsequent momentum, media coverage, money, and everything else that makes such a critical difference in who wins. Because the primary and caucus schedule is so compressed, and quite possibly over by mid-February, whoever emerges from those first few primaries with major momentum will likely be the nominee.
So how could Kucinich supporters, polling at 1%-2%, even make a difference? First, because it's a caucus system, this favors groups that are organized and enthusiastic. Only 125,000 people attended Iowa's Democratic caucuses last round, but they sank Howard Dean's candidacy when he was the clear favorite going in. If Kucinich supporters could get out 12,500 people that's 10% of the vote, if 6250, 5%. Neither would be enough to qualify under the 15% threshold for representation, but if they could account for even just a few points difference in how the delegates are allocated, that might shift who comes first among the three leading Democrats. It might make the difference between Hillary being the nominee and Edwards or Obama.
A bit more on Hillary's dangers: I've written about her potential to shatter the Democratic coalition and bring about a Republican resurgence even if she gets in. Recent polls actually show her losing or in a dead heat with McCain, Giuliani, and in some polls, Romney and Huckabee, Even if she does get in, progressives are likely to be fighting her on half the initiatives she proposes. She also spent more money in 2006 than in all but one Senate campaign in America's history""to win a race she could have won in her pajamas, and at a time when shifting dollars to other Democratic campaigns would likely have gained a few more seats.
So are Edwards or Obama any better? I'd say Edwards is a whole lot more progressive now than in 2004""sometimes major life crises will do that to you. But even back then, he was progressive enough that the Kucinich campaign instructed its supporters to team up with those of Edwards and tip each other over the Iowa vote thresholds wherever possible.
Edwards isn't perfect, but I've seen him go into a room of trade union activists and lead not just with economic justice issues where he knows he's going to get a strong reception, but with the Iraq war and global warming""the opposite of pandering to his audience. I've also seen him use scarce campaign money to run ads asking Congress to stand up to Bush on the war. And he was the first of the three major candidates to have a strong and comprehensive global warming plan, and the first to have some comprehensive universal health care plan. He's spent a lot of time addressing issues like poverty that are hardly political winners. And yes, he's a bit wealthy for my tastes, but at least he made his money fighting major corporations. He's speaking out enough about their power on the campaign trail, that this makes him my first choice, though Obama also has a lot that's attractive. In contrast with Hillary, neither of them are taking money from corporate lobbyists, and neither voted for the awful Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran.
Obama's also got some pretty progressive history. He spoke out against the war before it started, and has continued to do so, even I would have liked his voice a little louder. Both he and Edwards are clear that it is unacceptable to keep American bases in Iraq, while Hillary Clinton has equivocated. Equally important, Obama began as a community organizer, working in low-income communities, then returned to represent social justice advocates after his graduation from Harvard Law School, foregoing far more lucrative opportunities. Obama's also watched his mother spend her last months while dying of cancer having to read through the fine print on the forms of an insurance company that was trying to drop her coverage. That's an experience that could resonate with America. Finally both Obama and Edwards talk explicitly about the links between past movements for justice, and the need to build their successors in the present""while Clinton, I believe, sees current activists mostly as a troublesome threat. To me those are significant differences.
It also matters that both Edwards and Obama also beat the Republican candidates in most major polls. That's important if for no other reason than because one more Supreme Court Justice like Alito or Roberts, and we'll spend the next thirty years with courts that would have make Mussolini proud. And because the Republicans will do little or nothing on the most critical threat of global warming (even John McCain recently absented himself when his vote could have broken the Republican filibuster on the most progressive energy bill in 30 years). And because pallid the Democrats can be, and they can be pallid, they won't appoint people like the National Labor Relations Board officials who have been busily reclassifying nurses as supervisors so they can't join a union, and prohibiting the use of workplace emails for union-related concerns. So winnability matters as well.
Over the next six weeks you're going to have a choice. You can vote for Kucinich in your primaries and caucuses, make a symbolic point, and maybe give him a shade more clout to stay in the race. But whether he gets 1% or 5%, his presence when they're done is going to be minimal, and his coverage negligible as well. Your other choice is to do what you can to try to make Edwards or Obama the nominee, and potentially help tip the balance in who ends up president. To me, that's the greater political impact
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, winner of the 2005 Nautilus Award for the best book on social change, and Soul of a Citizen See www.paulloeb.org. See www.paulloeb.org.
I have to reprimand you for one thing, even while your presentation is excellent. And in so doing, trust me I reprimand not only you, but the AMerican people.
When we talk about progressive values, it's very good to talk about the war and global warming (I couldn't agree more about both causes, by the way: Don't get me wrong). It's also good to talk about healthcare.
But without free speech, of course we won't even be talking about any of the above.
I say this because Kucinich has warned people on the campaign trail that due process of law for Americans is at stake, under this Administration. He gives a damn, at risk to himself: That's a lot more "ethics" than some moral purist who has no backbone to tell us the truth and look out for us all.
Kucinich is one of the few in Congress who had the backbone to "Just say No" to the Patriot Act. It uses a loose definition of "terrorism" to sweep up activists, religious and peace groups. It gives the FBI the power to arrest us at their individual whims without warrant, probable cause or connection to terrorist activity. It imposes gag orders with 5-year jail sentences to anyone who squeals being served with an FBI subpoena for YOUR private records.
The 328-page bill was pushed on Congress in a 48-hour period at just the moment anthrax was attacking Democrats in office. Bush threatened to dub anybody "soft on terror" who did not vote for it, blind.
Yet Kucinich took the time to read the thing and voted no. At risk to anthrax attack, at risk to his career, at risk to all. If only just to do the right thing.
Kucinich is the one who has introduced impeachment (and then his brother dropped dead: Coincidence? Very likely could be. Just as likely could not be). He is the only one to have done that so far.
Kucinich got the war veterans help when Congress was neglecting them.
OBama, Hillary and Edwards ALL voted for the Patriot Act not once, but twice. Unforgiveable. We can't have people like that in office.
As for the polls, Paul I regret to say that you are wrong that Kucinich ranks as low as you say. He has won the top vote of all Democratic polls so far. How could he possibly be so low as in the 2 percentile? This sounds fishy to me.
Polls can be rigged and certainly can be biased. Which polls are you quoting? Zogby is known for being one of the most accurate polling companies: It would be interesting to see what they say about Kucinich's ratings.
Anybody who bemoans the fate of America had better look in the mirror if they vote for more fascists in office. No matter what good some fascists may do, and I don't want to take away from that, they also are fascists. My nephew said it very well: Assholes get away with being assholes for the long-term because they are very practiced at being assholes. Think about it Paul.
If AMerica votes for another freedom-oppressing President, I will be so mad....time for us to read up on the facts and not only cater to the info spoonfed into our mouths! Yes, even by the Progressive media, even by the Progressive blogs. Spoonfed. That's the word. How about REAL news for once, like. ...what laws have been passed, what do they contain, what' s coming up for legislation, and who has a record of voting for what? THAT is what our criterion for voting should be based on, and nothing else.
by
Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments)
on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 1:21:49 AM
If you think we're sliding toward fascism, then you want to pick the one among the possible nominees who's going to arrest it. Kucinich is at 1-2% in all the polls including all the Zogby polls. go to Real Clear Politics which lists them and you can see.
I admire Dennis and his stands. But at this point he's not going to be the nominee, so you want to have an impact on the ones who will
by
Paul Rogat Loeb (53 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 5 comments)
on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 2:00:23 PM
Look at all you stupid people who voted for John Kerry to get Bush defeated. John Kerry let Bush steal the election. Once again you want us to waste our vote just so a Republican won't get elected. Its time for people to stop playing partisan politics. John Edwards and Barack Obama are no better than Hillary Clinton. The three stooges all support more war and imperialism, continued destruction of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, free trade agreements and globalization and destruction of the economy. I'd vote for that bastard Ron Paul before I'd vote for Edwards and Obama. There's only 1 candidate defending the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights and his name is Dennis Kucinich. If you vote for anyone else you're committing treason by voting for someone who doesn't support upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
It always amazes me that people write these kinds of articles. Sure, why not vote-again-for the lesser of two evils. Let's just ignore the canidate that actually has a record of defending the constitution and sticking up for the American people. After all the MSM say he can't win (and are doing their best to make sure he doesn't). So let's all vote for the canidate that will shaft us the least, right?
It's as if your telling us that the USA doesn't deserve to have the best canidate be president.
It's also amazing to me that people will actually follow your advice.
As if they're voting on the king and queen of the high school prom and they're afraid of being unpopular.
What happens when people follow your advice is that we will end up helping to shaft ourselves. Are we to just roll over and take it because the MSM is telling us who can win and who can't?
Even if you believe this claptrap you still need to vote your conscious. What kind of message does it send to congress / white house if citizens aren't willing to vote for the best canidate no matter who it is?
It tells them to please shaft us some more because were to weak willed / minded to even try to do something about it.
by
RLAnchors (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments)
on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 2:35:56 PM
The more I think about it, the more I think the polls are just one more way to divert votes. And look at how we're all talking here: "So-and-so is at the top and so-and-so is at the bottom. So we might as well vote for the one at the top". See what I mean? It's a game played by the media.
I think by now we all know that the media is not on our side.
I can also tell you for sure that the media plays election theft games. Victoria Collier has a really good article about this on Truthout titled "A Brief History of Election Fraud in America". Basically the media collaborated in a sustained lie to undo the unwanted Candidates, all annoucing falsified figures alongside each other. This was verified by the two men who were running for public office and were duped, who literally wrestled on the floor with the computer programmer for the print-outs and got them, thereby verifying that the media had, in fact, used the same exact numerical figures for eight years. Likely statistic, huh?
Similarly, I suspect the media uses the polls to tweak voting patterns. It's just like announcing who is winning while some states are still voting: "Oh, go home and give up now. So and so won". It ought to be illegal.
ANd it ought to be illegal to disclose who is winning, losing, has the certain vote percentages, etc.
Let's work to get a law passed to that effect!
THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS: NEVER LISTEN TO THE POLLS WHERE ELECTIONS AND CANDIDACY ARE CONCERNED. THEY EXIST FOR A PURPOSE, AND THAT PURPOSE IS BEING WITNESSED RIGHT HERE IN THIS CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING WITH THE AUTHOR ABOVE. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE AND LIVE THE SOLUTIONS! PAUL, WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?
by
Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments)
on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 5:09:20 PM
I have been listening to the poll argument all my life. As a teenager I recall debates and outrage over posting winners before the final results were in. It skewed the democratic process and so does relying on polls.
We are being told to throw our vote to a party not an individual and in this democracy we still vote for individuals.
Dennis Kucinich who just one the Virginia Democratic straw poll, and many, many other progressive polls is the progressive candidate.
Vote for who you think everyone else is going to vote for? That sounds like teenage thinking if you ask me.
Be an adult, think for yourself and vote your conscience.
by
Anna Ragland (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 7:05:13 PM
Clinton is the worst choice among the Democrats. I would consider her on par with the Republicans, a support of corporate greed and a war monger. I will vote for the only progressive running, Kucinich. For the sake of the thousands of G.I.'s who will die if Clinton gets elected, I will make sure my hands are clean of the blood. Clinton believes the children of working class are just canon foder, you don't see her encouraging her daughter to enlist to fight this war against terror because in her as most elitists, the fighting is for the poor and working class to do, while the elitist make money off their investments in the military industrial complex.
VOTE YOU BELIEFS or you are contributing to corporate control and endless war.
by
Dave Peter (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments)
on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 8:56:04 PM
So you're buying into the political pundits view of the world and our choices? Well, I'm not buying it. You're right, Dennis can't win if we don't vote for him. And I still believe...I believe that Americans can rise up and take back their country, if they only will.
by
Judy Ramsey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 8:01:41 AM
8 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
