At present, Kucinich is the ONLY Democratic presidential candidate who is explicitly opposed to the continued U.S. war on Iraq.

(edited to clarify the fact that Kucinich is running for the presidency)

[ 13 December 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

The establishment of the Democratic party will likely favour candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I will be interesting to see how Dennis Kuccinich fares among rank and file Democrats in the 2008 primaries, compareed to his performance in 2004.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Yes of course. But Bernie isn't running for President.

---

Here's a recent interview from Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! featuring Kucinich, George McGovern and a kook from the American Enterprise Institute (David Frum's think tank).

Looking at his website again, for example, I noticed his speech from last September on a motion "Condemning the Repression of the Iranian Baha’i Community and Calling for the Emancipation of Iranian Baha’is".

It would have been so easy to take the same knee-jerk position as the rest of the Republicrats and condemn Iran for what is undoubtedly a violation of the rights of the Bahai minority, all the while trotting out the usual rhetorical jib-jab about nuclear weapons, holocaust denial, wiping Israel off the map, etc.

Instead, while Kucinich recognized the plight of the Baha'is, he pointed out that the motion came within the context of a growing and well-orchestrated campaign of hostility against Iran, designed to justify eventual war with that country. Given that context, he refused to support the motion, and was the only Democrat to vote against it.

quote:

---

But I think it is also important to relate to Members of Congress the context in which this resolution is occurring and to look back over the last four years at a similar context.

The Baha'is in Iran certainly deserve to have a full according of their rights. As a matter of fact, this House has passed eight resolutions that condemn Iran for persecuting the Baha'i faith. At the same time, the House has not passed any resolutions condemning any other Nation for the persecution of the Baha'is.

The 2006 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has identified three nations that persecute the Baha'i faith: Iran, Iraq, and Egypt. I have quotes here that I would like to submit for the Record that establish in each case, of Iran, Egypt, and Iraq, the objections out of the 2006 annual report. This 2006 annual report also highlights concerns with the treatment of the Baha'i faith in China, Eritrea, Laos, and Belarus.

I think it is important to note that the Baha'i faith is one which celebrates peace and human unity. That is why it is significant for us to always defend any religion which is trying to work for peace.

It is, therefore, paradoxical that this resolution is being offered at a time when some in the Administration are on a path towards war against Iran.
....

Why am I submitting all this in the context of a resolution that has to do with standing up for the rights of the Baha'i to practice their faith? Because, once again, the Baha'i would not want this resolution to be used as part of a series of steps to encourage an attack on Iran. I can state that with certainty, knowing the Baha'i religion as I do, and yet we are seeing a series of steps, covert operations affecting Iran, preparation of bombing targets having already occurred, preparations for a naval blockade. I mean, this all points to the United States moving in a direction of attacking Iran. That is antithetical to the spirit of the Baha'i faith, which we are here today to stand up for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I like what I read about Kucinich. But, realistically, does he have a chance? Would a win by him be a repeat of 1972? I think America, and the Democratic party, might be ready for a black president or a woman before Kucinich.

---

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

This time around Kucinich may be the only clear peace candidate. The other Democrats tend to criticize the war, say change is needed and call for the beginning of a troop reduction but none call for a complete withdrawal in the foreseeable future. So, Kucinich has a clearer message at a time when anti-war sentiment in public opinion is rising steadily.

However, even with this I've already heard from 2004 Kucinich supporters who are not as excited this time. Why? Some Kucitizens see his involvement inside the Democratic Party as problematic because they have learned that neither of the wealthy, special interest funded parties can really stand for the people. They worry, as one 2004 Kucinich supporter told me, he serves as a "gatekeeper to keep folks from leaving the party." As another supporter said on a Kucinich discussion list:

"I must admit to being still struck by Dennis' eloquence when he is permitted his moments on television, and I too gave an incredible amount of time and energy last time around. But I know many of us are convinced there is no room for progressive thought inside the Democratic Party. The 'relief valve' Tony speaks of, sometimes called the 'border collie' role by others, is dead on. I respect Dennis and don't regret one moment or dollar I spent. But I think it may be a waste of time for him to run again as a Democrat. The left will back him less than last time, given four more years of proof that Democrats don't share any of our priorities; the 'realists' and electability freaks are emboldened by the midterm results, and I expect even more bullying this time around."

Some are particularly upset about his endorsement of John Kerry ­despite views that are very different from Kucinich's on key issues like the war, Patriot Act and corporate globalization. Many past supporters are uncomfortable giving a megaphone to someone who, if he is unsuccessful, will cheer on candidates like Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama who are not even advocating a complete withdrawal from Iraq and remain quietly supportive of military action against Iran.

---

quote:

---

I suspect that Kucinich will significantly improve his performance and will, by so doing, force other Democrats to move away from their pathetic and now-pointless obsession with "the center".

---

Most of the anti war Democrats (most Democrats are 'anti war' but I'm referring to Democrats who would vote based on that issue) were looking to U.S Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to be their standard bearer. He decided not to run.

My guess is is that most of these voters will look towards who he endorses as the candidate to vote for. If Kucinich gets that endorsement, he could be a fairly strong voter getter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
Wiki has an interesting piece on Kucinich regarding his tenure as mayor (just google Kucinich and wiki.

He was quite commendable on the refusal to sell the public power, but other than that was basically the standard rigid left winger who opposed all development and lost jobs for the people of Cleveland, (and, it seems earned the emnity of several union leaders, if not union members, because of it).

---

with all due respects to you I lived in Cleveland during Kucinich's mayoralty and people there now firmly believe he was in the right. At the time, many of us didn't see it. Kucinich did his best to save jobs and schools in Cleveland but was up against some very powerful special interests as you may have read and Cleveland was (and still is) a declining rust belt city where Mayors, however inclined, can only do so much. The banks and the major corporate types in Cleveland had their long knives out for him from day one.

A measure of how well though of he is now is that he gets re-elected by wide margins for his Congressional seat. Its his for life barring anything strange.

As for people who recite the mantra "Kucinich can't win" I always ask back WHY?

The reasons I get spell the death knell for progressivism in America and for the nation itself. So I composed the following Top 10 List:

quote:

---

Top Ten Reasons Dennis Kucinich has no chance of becoming President of the United States:

10. Because Americans really don’t mind having the sons and daughters of the working class die in Iraq for oil profits.

9. Because we’d really rather vote for candidates that look good on television.

8. Because Cleveland is so déclassé compared to Chappaqua or Kennybunkport.

7. We feel more comfortable voting for candidates who are tied to large corporate donors.

6. We don’t trust intelligent people, they make us uncomfortable.

5. We don’t like supporting candidates whose last names are difficult to spell.

4. We like war. We just do.

3. We vote for the people Matt and Katie talk to.

2. Because we really don’t care about working class people despite what Lou Dobbs says.

1. While we always say America wants peace in the world, American politicians who talk seriously about peace make us feel queasy and weak.

---

As for Clevelanders when generation after generation makes a good living at Chevrolet or the steel mills or whatever, its hard to readjust to the 'New World Economy.' And let's not let the school bureaucracy off the hook either. But the mail problem with Cleveland has always been a great separation between the elites and the ordinary folks. The elites really never cared for the city itself - just what they could loot from it. The real shame is that Cleveland used to have such a strong civic virtue - thanks to former mayors like Tom Johnson - that is lost now.

quote:

---

Given the conservative-nationalistic populist refoundation of the Democratic Party, most likely Kucinich will stand out as the only even slightly anti-militarist and anti-imperialist Democratic candidate. Short of a run by Nader, Bill Moyers, or someone like that, he'll probably also be the only worthy candidate with any public recognition.

Still, despite numerous fatuous proclamations of his, there's absolutely no way he will win or even make a respectable showing, and so one must consider what is to be gained from supporting him.

Last time, his campaign spent $11 million -- $11 million of activist money poured down a rat-hole, in my opinion, along with a great deal of time, effort, and enthusiasm.

His campaign was intellectually deficient on foreign policy, a crippling fault. His talks were long on platitudes about peace, but short on the specifics about real issues that might have spread the left message beyond the choir. So ignorant was he regarding the U.S.-backed coup against Aristide that, in a televised debate, he said what the U.S. was doing was good, but it needed to do more ­ it was left to John Kerry, oddly, to expose the extent of the Bush administration's animus toward Aristide.

Although Kucinich's "position" on Iraq was fine, he had very little to say about it and avoided the issue in favor of expansive visions on social programs that couldn't possibly make any difference in a political campaign defined by Iraq.

What really stood out, though, was his behavior at the Democratic Convention. Although he had maintained his candidacy in order to hang onto his delegates, loyalty to the Party trumped the antiwar cause and he capitulated to the militarism of the Democratic leadership, instructing his delegates to back down on the question of an antiwar plank in the Democratic platform -- even though an estimated 95% of all delegates to the convention were antiwar.

Even though he did speak there, he went with the flow and talked about Kerry the great war hero. Not a mention of the still-fresh Abu Ghraib/torture scandal, alluded to only by Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson

Last but hardly least, he did nothing to help build self-sustaining left organizations that could continue to exert influence after the campaign was over.

---

Maybe Sweden or the Netherlands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
Kucinich is one of the good guys. I too hope he can put some pressure on the other Democrats in the field to take a stronger stand against Bush's Iraq policies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
Okay, but as a result of Kucinich's stance he lost his bid for re-election, and the guy who came after him, surprise-surprise sold Muny light (after an attempt to restructure it).

There is no point in principled policies if they are not going to be made permanent.

---

So principles are unimportant? Should he have caved on MUNY? Do you think the monied Clevelanders who funded his opponent would have changed their minds about him if he sold out? Not likely. MUNY just would have become private a couple of years earlier, and Kucinich would have lost the Mayorship, anyway.