The Democratic Party and most of its members like to claim that this is the party of the people. If so, why is Wall Street's favorite - Hillary Clinton - in the lead in presidential polls and Dennis Kucinich is constantly down in single digits? Democrats like to make the claim that they are patriotic Americans, but they have Hillary in the lead in the polls even though she showed her oath to defend the Constitution meant nothing to her when she signed Bush's blank check for the war on Iraq and voted for the original Patriot Act without reading it. Russ Feingold was the only senator and Dennis Kucinich was one of very few representatives with the intelligence and integrity to refuse to sign this dastardly act.

As for Edwards, I believe he is basically a very good person, but he proved he was no match for the DLC when Bob Shrum talked him into voting to authorize war on Iraq against his better judgment and his wife's sound advice to vote against it. In the unlikely event he were to be elected president, he would fare worse than Jimmy Carter with the party oligarchs undermining him from November 9th, 2008 on.

Representative Dennis Kucinich is a true Democrat!

It worries me that I believe Dennis is the only candidate with the guts and foresight to really try to get us out of this mess and he's so called "unelectable".

Hillary is leading in the polls. I don't get it. If you like the occupation of Iraq, if you like sending our jobs over seas, if you like subsidising big health insurance companys and other corporations, then you should like Hillary. FOX news magnate Rupert Murdoch does. He's one of her biggest backers.

...then you should like Hillary. FOX news magnate Rupert Murdoch does. He's one of her biggest backers.

If she is elected president, this combination of Hillary and Rupert Murdoch may prove to be the greatest threat to what is left of our democracy. There will be greater concentration of what is an already concentrated control of the mainstream media that began under Bill and Hillary's appointee to chair the FCC, Michael Powell, son of the man who clinched the deal for Bush to go to war on Iraq, Colin Powell. If Michael Copps is kicked off the FCC by Hillary, then you know Murdoch will have taken over as Orwell's Minister of Truth and we are in real trouble. Then it will be up to the netroots to keep freedom of the "press" alive.

Kucinich is laughed at by TV pundits because, well, because THEY don't take him seriously. Voters with a casual interest in politics pick up such attitudes. They know very little of Kucinich's positions and accomplishments. Kucinich [and Gravel] get less than half the time given to Clinton and Obama during televised debates. Little media attention and little support from well-healed interests translates into low poll numbers. It's part of the decadence of US politics. We have corporate controlled news media and money-driven campaigns. Where progressive voters pay attention, Kucinich is seen quite favorably.

the people did not grasp Kucinich then, and they aren't now. you don't get it? it's the choice Democrats are making. many like Hillary (and not just because they are told to; that's the most rank & condescending arrogance, to assert that her support is that stupid), many like Obama (again, without media support), and others like Edwards. why is Kucinich still at the rear?

That's the big question. Why is Kucinich still at the rear? He voted against the war. He was one of very few in the house to vote against the Patriot Act. He was one of very few to refuse to endorse the Likud/Kadima war crimes in Southern Lebanon. He supports impeachment. He is pushing to get the troops out of Iraq. He believes we should have a system that provides health care for all. So, why is Kucinich still at the rear?

Is the answer that it is because Democrats are almost as much pro-war as the Republicans? Or that they are willing to trade liberty for the illusion of security? Is it because, unlike the Ukrainians who took to the streets to save their democracy from a dictatorship or the Burmese who risked their lives trying to restore their democracy, Democrats decided that aligning with the party oligarchs would be more prudent?

many like Hillary

Why? She was co-president when the White House maintained sanctions in Iraq after they were no longer justified and after half a million Iraqi children died because of those sanctions which encouraged people throughout the Muslim/Arab world to hate America. She failed to live up to her oath to the Constitution and added her name to the blank check for Bush's war on Iraq that has evolved into a crime against humanity. She voted for the Patriot Act without reading it. She is willing to go to war on Iran. So, why do so many people like Hillary?

So, Democrats, what are the answers? Enquiring minds would like to know.

t.a....

Kucinich supporters are desperate folks! If someone- like Dean- comes close and the media starts calling him electable, support will seem to shift.

This thread really reinforces the view that the Democratic party has divided into rationalists and affiliationists.

The statement that Hillary is better than the best Republican caputures it. The posters have been asking purely behavioral questions. That's the topic. How has she been different? Your response is that she is different. I think that's just naive primate, troupe orientated thinking.

When they all blur, I say, compare the spouses. In this case it's pretty stark. Bill Clinton, Madame Edwards we've heard plenty about, and a real Essex girl. Not a woman that happens to be from Essex, but an "Essex girl". East Angliaphiles will understand the jargon, but, MFG, the mind boggles at the possiblilities with her as First Lady. Look what Lady Bird did. If you have any doubts about supporting Kucinich, look into this! In our political wasteland, having this choice is too good to be true.

That's the bottom line, t.a. These posters are disenfranchised. If the Dems want to be competitive, you can't be holding the folks in this thread so far to the fringes and leverage the left's natural IQ advantage.

I suggest that folks who see that Dennis Kucinich is the real progressive Democratic candidate go to his new Oregon website and get involved in the Kucinich campaign. I'll be in Seaside next week handing out Kucinich literature at the AFL-CIO convention. Anyone want to join me? If you're stuck in Portland, you can attend Dennis' $300 a pop birthday party. RSVP by calling (503) 477-7031 or by emailing [email protected]

why is Kucinich still at the rear?

I'm guessing money... that said, and i understand the need for the big ticket, small venue $300 events, but an hour at an open event would also be time well spent.

This thread really reinforces the view that the Democratic party has divided into rationalists and affiliationists.

Right on, zarathustra, except in my case I'm a NAV. The support Hillary is getting from almost half of the people in polls suggests to me some form of tribal loyalty and/or a pathetic desire to be associated with the powerful and likely winner regardless of moral bankruptcy - just like Bush's remaining supporters. There are occasions when tribal loyalty can be a good thing, but when we consider events in the recent histories of Northern Ireland, the Balkans, and now Afghanistan and Iraq, it should be patently obvious that when tribal loyalty trumps principle the consequences are almost assured to be disastrous.

My mother had intense loyalty to her children. When I was a child I returned from school one day and told my mother I had been punished. She didn't charge up to the school to beat up on the teacher for applying corporal punishment to her little Billy. She asked me what happened, and in all innocence I told her. Then she chewed me out for misbehaving and told me I deserved the punishment I received. That's real loyalty. She taught me the difference between right and wrong.

It has been said with considerable justification that the past is prologue to the future. Consider the pasts of Hillary Clinton and Rupert Murdoch. Both have proved themselves to be intensely ambitious for their own advancement and prepared to be as ruthless as necessary to achieve their respective goals. Now they are united. Murdoch clearly wants to be the juggernaut in the media world, and if she is elected president Hillary will help him all she can to pay him off for his help and make him an Orwellian Minister of Truth if that is what he wants. How about 20 or more channels built on the Fox Nausea model and the NY Times, WaPo and others under Murdoch's control? Then what happens to what is left of our democracy? The Internet may keep it on life support for a while, but if recent examples of American (including Democrat) devotion to the republic - letting the Republicans steal the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections with little more than a squeak - are any example then there is little cause for hope in the long term. Ready for a war with Iran? Hillary might just oblige proponents of this madness if she feels it would be in her interest.

Hillary, is very exciting.

You're right, t.a.. She scares the hell out of me. What is it that you find exciting about her? That she supported the war on Iraq and the genocidal sanctions before that and now that we are getting bored with that war she'll come up with a new one in Iran? That she voted for the Patriot Act without reading it? Maybe you like the idea of her taking over and building on Bush's imperial presidency and proving she can do a better job outdoing Margaret Thatcher, Reagan's English friend, or even Russia's Catherine the Great.

It boggles the mind that some otherwise intelligent people commenting on Blue Oregon threads can suffer so much from selective amnesia.

While I am not a Democrat, I have supported Kucinich because I agree with him on most issues, especially since he changed his position on impeachment.

However, the reason I don't whole-heartedly endorse his campaign is because in the past he has placed party loyalty above the morality of peace with justice that he claims to champion. (I remember Gore and Kerry as they were, and not as they are worshiped.)

If Dennis were to state that he will refuse to throw his support to any of the three "top-tier" candidates unless they change their positions on the occupation of Iraq to agree with his own morally commendable position, I would work for him with enthusiasm. By refusing to state this, Dennis lends credence to the contention of many of my compatriots that he stands merely for the maintenance of a left wing of the single corporatist/imperialist party.

Harry: I essentially agree with your points. At least Kucinich does get across an anti-war message while the top tier candidates have let it be known that for them war is an acceptable solution to a perceived, but not necessarily real, problem.

I'm coming to believe that the only real hope for anti-war/progressive/universal health care Dems is to hang together and vote for Kucinich in the primaries, even is he is not seen as electable by many factions. At least, if enough votes were garnered, the nominee, whoever he/she may eventually be, would only be able to ignore this large block of voters at his/her peril. After all, we--the progressives--if we don't like the "hold your nose" option, could either go with a 3rd party candidate or just undervote the presidential race.

What do we have to lose? If we cannot get a nominee in 2008 that is going to stop the Iraq occupation, stop the Iran saber-rattling, promote universal single-payer health care coverage, protect consumers and the environment, etc., then we are never going to get to our goals short of creating a viable 3rd party (which is a long-term battle).

After all, we--the progressives--if we don't like the "hold your nose" option, could either go with a 3rd party candidate or just undervote the presidential race.

The other option for people like Steve S is to vote for representatives and senators that might represent the people instead of being agents for the party leaders. That is, of course, if they can find any. Steve Novick looks to me like one who qualifies and explains why I support him for senator.

jeez, Bill, not only do you know i'm not a Hillary supporter -- that i'm a loud & proud Obama supporter -- you undermine every word you say implying that i think she's exciting. i was talking about those who support her --

In that case, t.a. you need to be more careful about how your write. You wrote, "and d) the idea of a woman president, even Hillary, is very exciting. god knows if she wins the nomination, i'll have a lot easier time swallowing my disappointment than i did in 2004 when Kerry won." This strikes me as an indication that you have no problem with Hillary being president if your first choice, Obama, doesn't make it.

Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich received an enthusiastic response from delegates to the Oregon AFL-CIO convention in Seaside last evening. There were several standing ovations, two of the strongest in response to Congressman Kucinich's vow to withdraw the US from the WTO and NAFTA immediately, and his promise to hold Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others to legal account for deceptions leading to the invasion of Iraq.

On health care, Kucinich, responding to recent comments by other candidates, said that anyone not willing to stand up to the insurance industry on universal health care was unlikely to accept the many difficult challenges that a president would face.

For fans of the infotainment approach to politics: Elizabeth Kucinich is as good looking in person as she is in photos and video. She is also brainy, articulate, and poised. She wears flats while campaigning his Dennis.

Coverage by The Oregonian

That's "while campaigning with Dennis."