The only thing in Kucinich’s favor right now is Gravel’s candidacy. I like Gravel, but his abrasive, take-no-prisoners style and justifiable fury at the mendacity of the major candidates has the press pretty much writing him off as the “crazy uncle” candidate. This means the press has someone more fun to pick on than Kucinich, but since the press has decided there are only four (or perhaps three) real candidates it seems unlikely the public is just going to go out and decide for itself.
Which means I’m going to have to vote for one of the other guys. Right now I’m leaning towards Obama if Kucinich and Gravel have dropped out by the time of the New York Democratic primary, but the election is long way off and the other candidates can still persuade me that they are the best choice. All they have to do is give a really thoughtful, well-reasoned answer to my question:
Are you a liar or are you an idiot?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
You seem to be overlooking the obvious but unstated answer to you question - that the various candidates WERE smart, and that like many others they knew the WMD issue was just window dressing to cover much more real, much more serious, reasons for going into Iraq which could not be publicly discussed but certainly must have come up in meetings of the Intelligence Committee. And it was on those issues of US strategic national interest that they actually voted.
Though I'll give you credit for pointing out that a lot of them seem to be all for war so long as it's going well, and then against it the moment it turns bad. Fickle is certainly a good word to describe most of them, and it will be our fault if we elect them and then see the same failing in other areas.
Dave
2 - Charles Herold
Fascinating. After Dick Durbin comes out and says he was in those Intelligence Committee meetings and that the evidence was less persuasive than the bull that was being fed to the public, Dave actually suggests that those voting for the war did so because of the info in those meetings. Well, don't let evidence change your mind, by any means.
3 - Ruth
Edwards co-authored the war resolution and then when around the country selling the war. This was all after he had been present at Senate Intelligence Committee hearings where he learned that Bush had lied about WMDs. Not only was he silent about the truth, he told the same kinds of lies Bush was telling.
Obama has voted 22 times to keep the war going. He thinks that the voters are stupid enough not to look at his voting record.
There is no difference between most of the candidates and Bush. They are two sides of the same crime.
If anyone says he/she is backing Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden or Richardson, then realize that that person is pro-war. Otherwise he/she wouldn't back a pro-war candidate.
It's time we stopped donating to organizations, like DFA, that are promoting pro-war candidates.
Kucinich has been telling us the truth from the start. He is the one true leader of the opposition to war. I'm voting for Kucinich. He's the best on all issues and I can't go against my conscience.
4 - Dave Nalle
Ruth, maybe you and Charles need to discuss those intel committee meetings. It sounds like Edwards and Durbin had rather different experiences in them.
As for Kucinich, the problem is that there's more than one truth. If you're fine with the irrational war is baaaaad for sheep and other happy critters approach, then by all means go with Kucinich. It's easier than making hard choices.
Dave
5 - Christy
Kucinich doesn't say no more war, period. He says America has the right to defend itself, but not the right to launch acts of aggression on other countries. That's "irrational"? That's in the UN Charter - Kucinich didn't make that up.
I'm tired of people only talking partial truths about Kucinich and repeating the same tired lines about his candidacy. Listen to what he's saying - the man is the most honest, intelligent candidate running, and the only one whose actions live up to his claim that he really cares about the American people. He's got my vote.
6 - IrregardlessNH
The political pundits and mainstream media have no clue as to where the election stands at this moment in NH especially and elsewhere in general. Since they have no information, mostly because they're too lazy to really do their jobs, they fabricate criteria such fundraising and artificially annoint "frontrunners". Of course, "media buzz" is helpful in generating public interest and perceived viability, but it's not related to what's happening on the ground. The truth is that no candidate is actually ahead of the others at this point in NH. But one thing is true, and all the candidates acknowledge it: NH is ground zero for this election. I'm one of the players on the ground here. To paraphrase, here's the real truth: If you support Kucinich, he will win. Watch & learn, grasshopper.
7 - handyguy
The problem with the left half of Democratic voters is that they have difficulty seeing beyond their own noses. If Dennis Kucinich were the Dem candidate and ran against Giuliani, McCain, or Romney, it would be a landslide disaster of McGovern or Mondale proportions.
Call me cynical, but I would prefer to win elections. I don't expect any politician to be unblemished by compromise and hypocrisy - even those like Obama or McCain who project an image of straight talk and rising above petty partisanship.
I'm an Edwards supporter currently, and I think he, Obama or Clinton could well run a very competitive race against any current Republican candidate. But if you look forward to four or eight more years of frustration and disgust under another Republican administration, by all means vote for Kucinich in the primaries and Nader in the fall. Yikes.
8 - Charles Herold
In the last presidential election everyone supported Kerry not because anyone particularly liked him but because there was the general idea that he could win. He didn't win, so making the seemingly safe choice does not guarantee success.
And really, the Republican candidates are so worthless Republicans will stay home in droves. I think the Dems could run a trained chimp and win.
9 - handyguy
Kerry did indeed turn out to be a crummy, ineffective candidate, worse than anyone seemed to believe he would be during primary season. (Michael Dukakis similarly did well in the primaries and ran a pitifully poor fall campaign. Al Gore followed a similar pattern but nonetheless almost won, or did win, depending on how you look at it.) But if Howard Dean had been the nominee, the Republican Lies & Fog Machine would have no doubt made the loss much more lopsided.
I wish I shared your overconfidence. I think the election will be quite close, and it's certainly possible that unspoken sexism and racism will help give the win to the GOP in the case of an Obama or Clinton candidacy. It would only take a few points in a few states.
Presidential races are nearly always won at the center and lost at the fringes. Leftists often forget about this, are blind to it or just ignore it.
I'm certainly not putting down Kucinich or Dean or other antiwar candidates who capture the fervor of the left. They're good people. But candidates like those will probably never win a national election, so they can only bring us heartbreak.
10 - Arch Conservative
They probably believed more than they should have of Bush’s lies.
"You of course have proof that the current administration lied Charles?"
"And really, the Republican candidates are so worthless Republicans will stay home in droves. I think the Dems could run a trained chimp and win."
That's nothing but leftist wishful thinking. The prospect of Hillary in the White House is going to be more than enough motivation for the GOP base to turn out in record numbers and vote for the GOP candidate regardless of who it is.
"If Dennis Kucinich were the Dem candidate and ran against Giuliani, McCain, or Romney, it would be a landslide disaster of McGovern or Mondale proportions."
And you think that by nominating Hillary this will somehow be different? If it's either Romney or Guliani for the GOP and Hillary for the Dems it will be Reagan Mondale all over again handyguy.
It appears that the Democrats are fully commttied to slicing slicing their own throats come the 2008election by nominating her. This is probably the only thing that the heathen left int his country will ever do that will actually put a smile on my face.
"I think the election will be quite close, and it's certainly possible that unspoken sexism and racism will help give the win to the GOP in the case of an Obama or Clinton candidacy."
Yeah because any debate on the actual politics or views of a woman or minority who happens to be a liberal Democrat can only mean that those raising the questions are rabid racists right Handyguy? IF the shoe were on the other foot and a black republican woman was running I'm sure race or sex wouldn't even be mentioned by the left as they critisized the candidate mercilessly.
Racial demagoguing Hypocrites!
11 - handyguy
Thank you, Arch, for injecting your usual delicate phrasing, careful spelling, innovative punctuation, and impeccable logic into what had been a more or less civilized discussion.
Look, it's 18 months until the election, and at least 9 months before nominees are chosen. A lot can happen to change the field before then. I'm not willing to make such specific predictions as you so far in advance, and you may eventually regret having made them.
But because no black or woman candidate has ever before been so likely a front runner for a presidential nomination, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if for some members of the electorate, race and gender will be enough to make up their minds.
If the results are a landslide, it's unlikely that race or gender would have been the main issues. But if the race is close, and particularly if the Dems are slightly ahead the week before the election and go on to lose, it would be reasonable to believe that some small number of voters switched for reasons they might not admit to a pollster, such as not being able to pull a lever for a woman president or a black president. It's certainly happened in non-presidential elections.
As for racial demagoguery, let me offer just a two word rebuttal: Rudy Giuliani. [Many New Yorkers learned to loathe him during the 7 years and 8 months before he was deified following 9/11.]
And as for hypocrisy, another two words: Mitt Romney. You may be right that he could go from single-digits in current Republican polls to being a winner - but could that possibly be because he's a slick, pretty-boy, empty, coldly calculating, position-changing politician, rather than because he deserves to win? He knew better than to run for reelection as governor of Massachusetts.
12 - Joseph Hill
The problem with the left half of Democratic voters is that they have difficulty seeing beyond their own noses. If Dennis Kucinich were the Dem candidate and ran against Giuliani, McCain, or Romney, it would be a landslide disaster of McGovern or Mondale proportions.
...and you know Kucinich "can't win" exactly how? Is it because you saw it on TV, heard it on the radio, read it in the newspaper...?
Kucinich's program is the most in line with what voters say they want--single-payer healthcare, a timely end to this Iraq fiasco, repeal of WTO 'free trade' agreements...etc.
Of course, thanks to the prevailing political "realities" (as defined by our mainstream media), we are kept in the dark as to the programs Kucinich (and other 3rd-tier candidates) has espoused to meet current and future challenges. The Democratic Party movers and shakers are on the verge of nominating another bland Republican-Lite candidate who will be content to "color within the lines" drawn by the Republicans.
I suggest that, on a level playing field, a candidate like Dennis Kucinich could beat anybody the Republicans might put out there...just on the basis of the Issues. In order for that to happen, we need to do all we can to level the playing field. We need to hound the mainstream media about giving Kucinich fair coverage, and trust the public to vote for the candidate who comes closest to representing our interests, instead of meekly following the script that the msm have plotted for us.
We need to demand that the media cover the issues, rather than trivia like $400 haircuts, or who could become the first woman or the first African-American to be President, or who is leading in fund-raising, or whose voice is too shrill, or who looks most like a 'pixie'. As Kucinich has pointed out (during one of the rare opportunities when he has had a chance to inform the voters of his candidacy): "We're not voting for American Idol". We're voting for someone who will be inheriting the biggest mess this country has ever seen.
13 - Charles Herold
Arch, the people who would ask if there is any proof that Bush lied are the sort of people who are still demanding satisfactory proof that cigarettes cause cancer. Bush loyalists reject all proof. People who are defending the Bush administration nowadays are so out of touch with reality that there is very simply no proof they would accept, so it's not worth even trying. If you want proof, read newspapers.
It is laughable to suggest Republicans will come out in record numbers. The war and dozens of Republican scandals over the last few years have demoralized and at times disgusted Republicans. And who's going to inspire them? A guy whose Mormon faith is going to make Fundamentalists uneasy and whose flip flopping on the issues is absolutely stunning? A thrice-married New Yorker with a messy personal life? A candidate who has tied himself completely to an incredibly unpopular war? The Republicans have nothing right now. Perhaps none of these three will be the candidate, in which case who knows, but if it's one of those three then forget about it.
I suppose it's worth considering whether right wing hatred of Clinton could energize the base. Conservatives have always had a rather bizarre hatred of the Clintons; it's weird, because Bill was such a disappointment to progressives yet the right wing acts as though he was Josef Stalin. But Hillary, while rather unlikeable and decidedly two-faced, is a smart cookie who is working hard to play to Middle America, and while I hate her for that pandering it could very well work. As GW Bush proved, Americans are easily fooled. (And some people, like my mom, just worship Hillary.)
In a close race yes, race and gender could have an effect. But since the Justice Department machine built to keep the Republicans in power has been exposed I think Republican cheating will be less effective this time, and unless we win the war in Iraq before the next election (anyone want to take bets on that?) there is just not going to be that much enthusiasm from the right nor much support from the middle.
And yes, I understand the fear of Kucinich, because we've never had a real progressive in office. But I think at the least progressives should give Kucinich a measure of support that will make politicians mindful of our needs. When Kucinich has almost no support it tells Clinton and Edwards that progressives can be safely ignored or fooled into believing these mainstream politicians are more to the left than they are.
14 - Arch Conservative
"I'm not willing to make such specific predictions as you so far in advance, and you may eventually regret having made them."
I will make the prediction that Hillary will never be president every day from now until the election and I will be proven right and throw it in everyone's face who said I was foolish for making that prediction.
"But because no black or woman candidate has ever before been so likely a front runner for a presidential nomination, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if for some members of the electorate, race and gender will be enough to make up their minds."
You didn't wonder if some members of the electorate would make up their mind based on race in your previous post. You implied that any opposition from Republicans toward the two Dem frontrunners would be solely based on race and/or sex.
But I guess you only "wonder if some members of the electorate would make up their mind based on race," when it affects a liberal democrat and not a republican huh Handyguy. I bet you didn't spend too much time pondering the motives of the electorate when Leuitenant Givernor of Maryland Michael Steele, A black republican, was being called names like little black sambo and oreo cookie by prominent left wing blogs. And I'm sure you've never heard a single liberal refer to Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice as a "house nigger," and it never gave you pause to think.
"As for racial demagoguery, let me offer just a two word rebuttal: Rudy Giuliani. [Many New Yorkers learned to loathe him during the 7 years and 8 months before he was deified following 9/11.]"
I have no idea the point you're trying to make there but I do know that not a single GOP candidate has behaved the way Hillary has in addressing the black electorate as she makes campaign appearances speaking in an fake, forced, ignorant idea of what she thinks black southerners sound like. She might as well call her campiagn the Amos and Andy show. But she gets a pass because she's a liberal Democrat so she's allowed to behave in such a racist condescending way while no GOP candidates would ever do so but yet still get called racists by leftist moonbats.
As for your assessment of Mitt Romney as a candidate....All I have to say is that there is no one more coldy calculating, position changing and contrived running right now than Hillary. For anyone whose party is touting her to bash the character of Romney is just plain laughable.
15 - Charles Herold
Seriously Arch, what is this hatred right wingers have of the Clintons? I mean, what did they really do? They tried to get universal health care but they failed so you can't hold that against them. They built up a surplus so Bush could have some spending money (which he spent many times over). The did Welfare reform that was as bad as what a conservative would have done. I just don't understand how someone who disappointed me so much is hated so much by people on the other side.
I'm not going to claim Hillary is less calculating and contrived than Mitt, but I don't see how anyone can claim she's worse than he is. It's fascinating how the same people who jumped on Kerry for "flip flopping" will excuse far more egregious examples from one of their own.
16 - The Haze
Arch - It seems that the only way to prove your point about liberals to liberals is for them to win control of this country and then tell everyone "see I told you so!" screw that! they never will get it and I for one am tired of trying to explain it to them.BTW - Kucinich......now that's funny!!!! Hillary is the most eviliest women in America. She is so much more dangerous for this country than her idiot husband was.How any American can be proud of his terms in office is beyond me.Mr. Herold,I ask you the same question:WHAT DID THEY DO??? I believe the answer would be......NOTHING! and please don't tell me how good the economy was when he was in office because he rode the wave of Reagan Prosperity.ask any economist how that works.unfortunately the American people seem to be ignorant of that.
17 - Charles Herold
Arch, if Clinton did nothing, then why do you hate him? I hate Bush because he is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, because he ignored warnings about Bin Laden before 9/11, because he turned the Justice Department into a tool of the Republican party, because he used false intelligence to get us into war, and all sorts of other things. If he had done nothing, I wouldn't hate him, I would just consider him useless. You don't hate people for doing nothing. Or are you really saying that you do hate Clinton simply because he didn't do anything. Because it seems to me that as a conservative a no-nothing Democrat would be what you would want most if you had to have a Democrat. You really hate Clinton BECAUSE he didn't push forward a progressive agenda, because that's just what I don't like about him, and it seems odd that we would both dislike him for the same reason.
The phrase "ask any economist" is just plain dumb; you can find economists on both sides of any debate.
But I don't have any interest in trying to persuade you of anything, because you obviously have a mind encased in steel. I'm just trying to get an understanding regarding this weird Republican hatred of a do-nothing, middle-of the road president. Do you actually have an answer to this question or not?
18 - handyguy
Hillary is the most eviliest women in America.
And on the evidence of this, you are the most eloquentest proponent of the right since Arch's last post. Pray tell, keep this coming. Enlighten us further.
I defy anyone to read that sentence aloud without laughing.
19 - Arch Conservative
Arch, if Clinton did nothing, then why do you hate him?
First of all Charles I didn't say Clinton did nothing, Haze did. Pay attention to the author of each comment before responding.
But since you asked I'll tell you why I hate the Clintons.
-He drastically downsized the military and our intelligence capabilities and yes he was, no matter what you moonbats claim, partially responsible for 911.
-He used the military to lob a couple of missiles into Iraq just so he could draw attention away from the Monica Lewisnky scandal.
-He has sexually harassed and possible raped countless women but yet is stilled idolized by militant, leftist feminazi groups like NOW.
-He appointed Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a communist, to the Supreme Court.
-He let Bin Laden go free when he was offered up by the Sudanese government.
-His national security advisor, Sandy Berger stole classified top secret national security documents and was never brought to justice.
-He pardoned hundreds of criminals including members of the terrorist group FALN and Marc Rich, the biggest tax evader in US history, as repayment for political favors his last weeks in office.
-He cared much more about his personal legacy than he did the good of the nation.
-Involved in crooked Whitewater real estate dealings.
-Magically disappearing and reappearing Rose Law Firm records.
-Both have committed campaign finance fraud countless times and gotten away with it.
-Took credit for welfare reform when it was the Republican congress that forced his hand to sign off on it.
-Countless mysterious and sudden deaths of people involved with the Clintons including Vince Foster, Ron Brown, James Mcdougal, etc...
-Travelgate
-Cattlegate
Basically both Bill and Hillary are nothing but self serving shells of human beings who do not do anything unless it is in their own best interest and neither one of them has an honest or sincere bone in their body.
I take consolation in the fact that after Hillary loses in 2008 the Clinton influence in this nation will be severely diminished if not completely eradicated.
After that if fate would but only deliver a fatal heart attack or stroke upon George Soros this nation would really be free to move in the right direction.
Oh and handyguy... I think that line by the haze was meant as a joke. If all you have to offer is criticism of the grammar and typing skills of those you disagree with would you please kindly shut the fuck up?
20 - stephen
Dennis Kucinich - not only smart, but diligent and graced with foresight and a work ethic. Of course, these things work against you in America.
But I still hope he wins. Then America AND the international community win, too.
21 - Arch Conservative
"Dennis Kucinich - not only smart, but diligent and graced with foresight and a work ethic."
Foresight of what? The return of the mothership?
22 - Dave Nalle
Plus Kucinich is King of the Pixies and can make crowds miraculously disappear with just a single magic word from his raspy throat.
Dave
23 - The Haze
Thanks Arch...couldn't have said it better. Take that!! Kucinich......HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!Christ! Oh yeah...handyguy - your stupider than Hillary! How's that? HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!(you know,some people have no sense of humor) Kick ass Arch!!
24 - bliffle
Good article, Charles.
25 - Arch Conservative
Maybe Kucinich will do better in the 2nd debate if he wears his tinfoil hat.