Okay, whaddaya think?

[serene]

Dean or Kucinich?

(My limited thinking so far: Both seem to have politics in my general vicinity, if not the same neighborhood. Dean seems to have the political and fundraising power to pull it off.)

I know not much about either of them, but I want to know more, and part of what I want to know is your take on them, and on anything else related to the dethroning election.

Comments

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

i like dean. rivka is better at talking about why than i am, though.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

Thanks. And yes, she's often so, um, *lucid* about things that I find confusing.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

What can I say? I've got a big mouth. *grin*

[artemii.livejournal.com]

i don't think kucinich has a chance of winning a single primary, let alone the nomination. based on what i've read/discussed, i think the ones who might get the nomination are dean, clark, kerry and gephardt.

if it's based primarily on fundraising skills, it seems to me that as it stands so far, dean is the only one who stands a chance against that guy who has money trees growing on his ranch dubya.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

Yes on the last part, and I'm a little afraid of how much I've liked the few things I've heard out of Clark. Oy. (I should say up front that I don't vote for the person I think can/will win; I vote for the person I think should win -- thing is, in this case, there might be more than one of those, and if so, I would vote for the more, um, expedient choice.)

[artemii.livejournal.com]

the thing i find saddest about clark is how quickly he spontaneously combusted. i've read stuff by people arguing his case for him, and their arguments are reasonable, and their highlights of his good qualities helpful to his cause. it seems that he just can't make the case himself.

and unfortunately when americans have the choice between someone they perceive as wishy-washy and someone they perceive as decisive, most seem to pick the decisive one, even if they don't agree with a lot of what the person does or don't particularly like the person. sigh.

[jenhowell.livejournal.com]

I think this perception that Kucinich can't win is primarily a media creation. I've actually read behind-the-scenes accounts of media refusing to interview Kucinich after the debates and not giving a reason.

In the general election, however, they'd have to cover Kucinich, and Kucinich's views are exactly the kind of positions that could win him the presidency and save this country.

Plus, he's got integrity like Abraham Lincoln. He even kinda LOOKS like Abraham Lincoln. He'd look great debating "the chimp".

[shaktiqueen.livejournal.com]

I like Dean...Kucinich doesn't seem to have the fire necessary to get people moving like Dean does. And that passion and fire are going to be vital to winning.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

You just knew I was going to weigh in on this, didn't you? ;-)

My personal political views, in terms of what I think would be best for the country, are probably closer to Kucinich's than to Dean's on a lot of the issues. But, as you know, I'm supporting Dean instead. Here's why I don't support Kucinich:

(1) I don't think Kucinich could be elected. He doesn't seem to be successful at building a campaign organization, attracting endorsements, raising money, attracting volunteers, or garnering press attention. You need to be able to do those things to win. In contrast, I think Dean's organization - especially his use of the grassroots - is outstanding, and he's been able to raise more money than any Democrat ever. I don't want to support someone who can't win, because I don't think anything is as important as beating Bush.

(2) Kucinich seems to me to be a man who's comfortable being in the minority. He has strong, almost revolutionary positions, and it doesn't seem to bother him that most Americans don't agree with him - he thinks they should agree, because his positions would be in their best interest, but he's too committed to his ideology to meet them halfway. Instead, he preaches to the choir. I don't ever see him appealing to a broad cross-section of American society. That's not necessarily bad in itself - I think we need people who are strongly visionary in our legislative body - but I don't think it works for a presidential candidate.

(3) Similarly to point #2, I don't think that Kucinich could implement his platform if he were somehow elected. It would never pass Congress. Dean is much more pragmatically focused on policies that will be acceptable and can be implemented quickly. I don't want to wait forever for a perfect, single-payer universal health care - I want people to have coverage NOW. I think Dean can deliver that.

(4) It bothers me that Kucinich was strongly pro-life right up until he decided to run for president, and then changed completely over to being strongly pro-choice. I don't trust him to be reliably pro-choice. (I realize that you're not going to feel the same way I do about that.)

I'm going to leave another comment explaining why I do support Dean.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

So, after the negative comment, the positive one:

(1) I love Dean's empowerment-focused campaign philosophy, and I think it bodes well for his ultimate style of governance. His campaign supporters have been given unprecedented levels of freedom from oversight, access, and exposure by the national campaign - no other modern candidate has ever let campaign events get that far out of the control of the "official" campaign staff. That matters to me not just because it makes my volunteer campaigning more fun, but because it demonstrates a philosophy of active citizen participation in the political process, and support for the free marketplace of ideas. His reliance on the grassroots also means that he doesn't have to rely on big donors or corporate interests - his average donation is somewhere under $100. So when he takes office, he won't be beholden to anyone but the American people.

(2) I like that Dean is direct and straightforward. I respect someone who says, "You may not always agree with me, but you'll always know where I stand," instead of trying to give me exactly what I want to hear.

(3) I appreciate that Dean opposed the war on Iraq from the start, but also that he's strong on legitimate national defense issues - for example, he's consistently challenged the Bush administration's complete lack of interest in non-sexy, non-defense-contractor-supporting security issues like adequate port inspections. I respect that he's willing to go to war if it's necessary for national security (I don't get that sense from Kucinich), but that he's not so paralyzed by needing to appear "strong on defense" that he's willing to sign on to a bad war (like, say, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards did).

(4) I think his national health care plan is very well thought out and is likely to be passed into law. I appreciate his policies on science issues. I love that he's got a well-articulated and very smart disability rights platform - which makes him stand alone among the candidates.

(5) I think he can win. I respect what you said about voting for the person you think would be best, and not the person you think is most likely to win, and I agree that we shouldn't think of casting our vote like placing a bet. But I do think that it doesn't matter how good a candidate is otherwise if he or she can't beat George Bush. In the primary, we're voting for the champion of our party, the person best able to take up (metaphorical) arms and fight for our rights. To me, that has to include consideration of who will be the strongest and most effective fighter - and not just who is purest of heart.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

There's absolutely no point in my elaborating on anything rivka has said. Except to add that I haven't been very public in my support of Dean because I have an irrational fear that my single wee endorsement will be the kiss of death for his campaign.

(No candidate I've supported in any federal primary - in 23 years of voting - has ever won. It's a record I'd be glad to break, though.)

[jenhowell.livejournal.com]

I can't count how many times I've read about Dean supporters who say they agree more with Kucinich, and every single time it breaks my heart. While I can understand where you're coming from, I think that the perception that Kucinich can't win is largely a creation, a hype, nothing based in reality.

Kucinich is a Congressperson in a district which swung Republican when he was elected. He's won against Republican incumbents and beat steep odds each time he's won, but he's won anyway.

And his views aren't so out of touch with the normal American's. Most Americans want comprehensive health care, they want their jobs to stop moving overseas, they want to see support for family farms over agricultural conglomerates, they want less money spent on defense and more on schools. The corporate media, however, does not have an interest in these things, which may be why Kucinich is being nearly black-balled (although Rolling Stone finally took note and gave the man a good interview, and I believe others are going to start following suit, because support for Kucinich is building despite the media practically crowning Dean the victor.)

What's more Kucinich's LIFE is more like an average American's. I'm tired of electing people to office who have never faced poverty or had to worry about where their own health care is coming from, where their own job has gone to. I think a lot of other people are tired of this too. Kucinich has been poor, and understands the issues facing normal Americans firsthand. If given a chance to run (by all the Democrats who "really like Kucinich, but...") this man could and would win. His integrity would shine through next to that lying asshole who most of the nation is currently disenchanted with.

His detailed plan to pull out of Iraq would offer a real, not vague, solution to the Iraq problem which would play very well with the average American who wants the madness (and the spending) to end.

As to the pro-life part, I buy that Kucinich legitimately changed his mind. This is not a man whose views are geared to get the most voters popular. He is outspoken on issues that all the other candidates won't touch, so I don't buy it that he'd change his mind on such a fundamental issue to be more political. I do, however, think he's a man who can listen to the views of others, and understand how women might need this right to be equal in this world. I've changed my mind on major issues, too, and I understand that it takes a lot of integrity, humility and the ability to really listen to others.

As to not being able to implement his platform - I think he absolutely could - but unlike GW, I think he'd be willing to compromise. GW ran on a moderate platform and then, without a mandate, without even a WIN steamrolled this country into buying into his far right-wing crap that no poll will tell you the majority of Americans believe in. If GW can get that through, Kucinich could get his stuff through.


I think most of the opinions (or non-opinions) about Kucinich are based on the media either ignoring him or dismissing him. He's performed excellently in all the debates, does have strong grass-roots support, has all his money coming from individuals in small amounts (individuals who may be poorer, but still can vote), and has the most coherent detailed platform of any of the candidates. But the media doesn't like him, won't take him seriously, and the media has cowed about half the Kucinich supporters (all those Dean fans I've talked to) into supporting someone else. If all those Dean people came back to Kucinich, we'd have a clear majority in the primaries, in the election. Remember, Gore won. And Gore plus Nader votes would have been a mandate. Despite being made to feel like the minority by the Republican sociopaths and the corporate media, we have the power. We are the majority. And we can win this thing with the candidate we agree with, not the one they've chosen.

Most likely unwelcome rant over.

- Jen

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Dean.

I see that Rivka is already acquainting you with the reasons.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Surely you don't mean to imply that all of our reasons are identical!

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Close enough that the differences aren't worth mentioning.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

I'm favoring Dean as well. I don't see it as a case of who's more electable so much as whether I think one or the other makes any sense. Kucinich has several planks on his platform that sound as if he doesn't understand how the federal government works. He wants a Ministry of Peace that would completely duplicate the State Department, for example. Dean has his own pies in the sky, but they're a little closer to sensible.

[porcinea.livejournal.com]

Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich. He's the only with a spine, the only one that I can respect. And I don't give a shit that he can't win. He's the only one currently in Congress who voted against the war. He's the only one who at one of the debates (sorry, I've forgotten which one) said he would vote NO! to the $87 billion additional funds for Iraq. I could go on...

Dean is a weasel. Here are two examples of his weaselliness: he pledged he wouldn't not accept matching funds, and said that any candidate who refused to observe spending limits was opposed to the spirit of campaign reform. Now that he's making a shitload of money in contributions, he's changed his position. For pragmatic reasons, fine, in order to compete better with someone who doesn't care about campaign finance reform --- but then he shouldn't have made that stupid pledge in the first place. Example two: Vt.'s supreme court said "give gays marriage or civil union rights". The legislature chickened out and voted for civil union rights. Dean signed the bill in a rush, in private, with no photographers. He talked about it at the time as something he was forced to do. Now he's bragging about his commitment to gay marriage. Spew.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Here are two examples of his weaselliness: he pledged he wouldn't not accept matching funds, and said that any candidate who refused to observe spending limits was opposed to the spirit of campaign reform. Now that he's making a shitload of money in contributions, he's changed his position. For pragmatic reasons, fine, in order to compete better with someone who doesn't care about campaign finance reform --- but then he shouldn't have made that stupid pledge in the first place.

At the point that he made the pledge, everything from the modern history of political campaigns indicated that candidates who rejected spending limits would have to get their money through large donations from rich people and corporate interests. The idea of collecting $100 million in $100 increments sounded absolutely impossible - even to Dean. Especially to Dean, probably. It just didn't look possible, at that point, to raise more than the spending limits without becoming beholden to wealthy interests. It had never been possible. I think that was the spirit behind his pledge to stay within limits. I don't blame him for not being able to anticipate his unprecedented ability to raise large sums of money in small quantities from ordinary people, and I agree with him that it changes the picture - if you raise lots and lots of small-money contributions, that's not the same thing as raising lots of big-money contributions.

It's actually okay with me in general when politicians change their minds, as long as they're open about the process and how their motivations have changed, and as long as I'm okay with the end result. So it doesn't bother me personally that he broke his pledge, because of the transparent way he went about doing it.

Example two: Vt.'s supreme court said "give gays marriage or civil union rights". The legislature chickened out and voted for civil union rights. Dean signed the bill in a rush, in private, with no photographers. He talked about it at the time as something he was forced to do. Now he's bragging about his commitment to gay marriage. Spew.

He doesn't actually brag about his "commitment to gay marriage" - he's said that he thinks that gays should have full civil rights, but that it's up to the states to decide whether they want to do that via civil unions or marriage or something else. And I think he's been pretty candid about the fact that this was not originally his issue, although he has since come around to believing that it's the right thing to do.

He could say that he didn't want to sign the civil unions bill, but was forced to by the courts. That would probably play a lot better in places like rural Iowa. He doesn't do that. And he never did it. The bill signing came shortly before he was going to have to run a tough re-election campaign, but he stood by civil unions on the campaign trail. He got enough death threats that he had to appear in public wearing a bullet-proof vest, but he still didn't try to make himself look like an innocent victim of an activist court. To me, that counts for a lot more than a big public bill-signing with photographers.

[jenhowell.livejournal.com]

I'm totally with you on the gay rights aspect. I read an article too, where he was disavowing that decision. I don't know if he so much is pushing his commmitment to gay rights, but the media and his people sure are. Which is lame as shit. And makes me pissed off that so many gay people support him for that reason.

And the campaign finance thing. So many people are like - Oh, Kucinich can't raise funds. Yeah, because the people who like him are all broke! (I'm a great example of this.)

Anyway, I think he can win. People just need to wake up and vote their conscience instead of their best guess. Since when did we not vote for the best candidate in the PRIMARIES?????!!!!!!!!

George Washington was right. Party politics are bullshit.

[bafleyanne.livejournal.com]

I can't improve on what rivka said, so just know that I support Dean, although I also like Kucinich *personally*, and for just about all the same reasons.

Sort'a depends on what your goal is

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

If it is to chop the shrub, then Dan is the best bet. I know several small business moderate to liberal Republican types that, at this time, would vote for Dean over Bush, but pick Bush over Kucinich. Likewise a number of moderate Democrats have expressed doubts on Kucinich and some of the other more liberal candidates. (I've not encountered any conservative Democrats in the area). I even have heard a couple of Libertarians say they might vote for Dean to get Bush out, although I think they will have a hard time picking the "lesser of two evils" when it comes time to fill in the mark.

Dean might make inroads against Bush in that he has said that he is anti-gun-control and somewhat a States Rights supporter - he feels that many things should be decided at the State level rather than at the Federal.

You could go take this somewhat lightweight test (http://www.selectsmart.com/president/), then follow the "click here for info" links, and follow the links to the candidates Web sites. You can even just submit the blank test to get to them.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine Kunicich being a good leader for some reason, working with the legislature, wrangling the government. I'll often give being a good leader a little more weight than absolutely believing what I do on various issues. I think Dean could work with the rest of the government a little more effectively. Having lots of great ideas doesn't mean as much if you can't get much done.

[jenhowell.livejournal.com]

This is a somewhat strange perception that many people have of Kucinich. Why strange? Because Kucinich is already working with others in government as a member of Congress. He's a leader in the Progressive Caucus, and already knows the players, whereas Dean is the governor of a small Eastern state.

Additionally, simply because someone has strong, detailed views on the issues, doesn't mean they can't work with Congress. It just means they're showing the people what they're gonna get, unlike pretty much all the other candidates, who are being mysterious so that we can all fill in the blanks with stuff we'd like to see there.

It's kind of like dating. Most of the Dems (Dean included) are being kind of coy, so that we won't get to know their flaws. Kucinich is letting it all hang out and so some people are turned off by that and say, hey, you might disagree with me about this and that.

But in the end, they're all going to have flaws, all going to have sticky points with Congress (even Clinton did and he was the ultimate team player).

Kucinich is at least being upfront about what he wants to do for us, so we can choose intelligently.

That said, Bush is not a team player. Bush took a non-mandate and hi-jacked the country. Yet he is regarded by many as a "good leader" for just that reason. Maybe it's time that we take our actual mandate and put a liberal in there who can turn back the clock to "normal" and maybe even get us moving in a positive direction again.

We can do it. But we have to take our power and believe in it. I think that's most of the problem with Democrats and Liberals these days. So many of us don't believe in our power and our ability to use it.

- Jen

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

This is a somewhat strange perception that many people have of Kucinich. Why strange? Because Kucinich is already working with others in government as a member of Congress. He's a leader in the Progressive Caucus, and already knows the players, whereas Dean is the governor of a small Eastern state.

Exactly!

Additionally, simply because someone has strong, detailed views on the issues, doesn't mean they can't work with Congress.

Yes. But I'd disagree with anyone who made this claim.

But in the end, they're all going to have flaws, all going to have sticky points with Congress (even Clinton did and he was the ultimate team player).

Yes.

[jenhowell.livejournal.com]

Did we already discuss Dean and Kucinich? Your username is familiar. I get way too talky about Kucinich sometimes...

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

I don't remember.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I can see why you'd want to support Kucinich, but I'm supporting Dean. I had already sent him money before even Rivka had heard of him. ;-)

My fear, though, is that he can't win. Oh, I think he has a good chance of winning the primary, I'm just afraid he can't win the election. I'm not sure whether any of them can, though, so don't take that as a reason not to support Dean. I thought for a while that Clark might be able to win, and who knows, he still might be able to recover. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Sorry to be a downer; I just don't have a whole lot of optimism on this topic.

-J

[jenhowell.livejournal.com]

I'm for Kucinich, the main reason being that I believe he is completely honest and not a political player, whereas Dean is. I'm tired of political players, I'm interested in electing a person. And Kucinich is a real person. His family lived in cars at times because they were so broke, he had enough integrity to stand up to private utilities as mayor of Cleveland even though it ruined (temporarily) his political career (later the city council of Cleveland thanked him for saving the city hundreds of millions of dollars), he's into New Age philosophy, and he's a vegan. He's almost painfully real.

Kucinich is by far the most liberal choice. He's the only person who's announced a detailed plan for ending our involvement in Iraq (which starts with putting the UN squarely in charge of everything), the only candidate who suggests cutting the Pentagon budget, the only candidate who has said marijuana should be legal. He gets some guff for formerly being pro-life, but did not change his viewpoint to be more popular (look at his other views, they're not designed for "popularity"). The very fact that he was able to listen to people and earnestly change his mind on such a major issue only makes me that much happier with him as a candidate. It means he's a listener, a thinker and not too set in his ways.

As to electability, I think (given a free and fair election - ha ha) Kucinich could do this. Every race he's won has been against a powerful Republican incumbent, against great odds. He's pulled it off. His fund-raising is so much lower mainly because the voters he appeals to are so much broker. I saw a spreadsheet of which candidates were getting the most money in which amounts. Kucinich's donations came primarily in increments under $200 and were 100% from individuals, not lobbying groups or corporations. He appeals to people and in the election his appeal to voters and the fact that he's not Bush are going to be the only two things that matter. I think having Kucinich the exemplar of integrity against Bush the big liar would be about the starkest contrast we could produce.

But, all that aside, I recommend going to http://www.selectsmart.com. They have a thing where you can type in what you feel about various issues and then it will tell you which candidate fits your views best. I highly recommend it. It picked Nader first for me and then Kucinich.

Anyhow, hope I didn't ramble too much. I guess you can tell by my little blurb that I'm pretty passionate about it all!

- Jen-

[esoterica81.livejournal.com]

I'm also for Dennis Kucinich. He was the only one who voted against the Iraq resolution and where the rubber hit the roads Dean, Clark, Braun and Sharpton can all say they "disagreed" with the resolution, however only Kucinich cast a dissenting vote.

The hallmark of Kucinich's campaing seems to be "get the UN in and the US out" and that's exactly what's happening now. Kucinich is the only chance we have of moderating peace between Israel and Palestine considering that Dean and the other congressmen have consistently acted pro-Israel (cough cough lieberman)and have not convinced me they would act differently inside the white house.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

I'm voting for Kucinich. Because I like him, I'm impressed by his integrity, and I agree with his platform. And I always vote my conscience in the primaries (because if I don't, who will?)

I've never liked Dean. He's a player. And apparently he's good at it -- the fundraising game, the media game. But that's not a reason to vote *for* a person. It's a reason to take pause, in my book. I've heard very little about Dean's candidacy that didn't boil down to, "we think he has the best shot at beating Bush." I'm tired of voting against the other candidate. I'm tired of that level of political calculation. I want to vote for someone I genuinely find admirable as a politican and a person.

Plus, Dean held his nose and signed the gay unions bill, and now he's not shy about taking credit for it (or at the very least his supporters are very vocal about *giving* him credit for it, at least in the communities I move in), and that pisses me off.