digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

NPR - Democrats Drift Toward Kucinich

npr.org — On issue after issue, says Richard Wolffe of Newsweek, Dennis Kucinich's views have gone from fringe to mainstream. Paul/Kucinich 2008.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Minarchian, on 12/06/2007, -19/+206Is the dream race of Kucinich vs Paul looming nearer?
    • thundershot69, on 12/06/2007, -47/+20no
      • UtubReptilian, on 12/06/2007, -10/+12You are right, they are willing to work together for peace at home and abroad. Peace begins with me.
        • KickinitLegit, on 12/06/2007, -5/+5We could only pray to be so lucky
        • WiseWeasel, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1You heard 'im guys, LET'S GET HIM!!!
        • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6As a conservative, I must agree. It would be wonderful to see a third party sweep for the first time in American history!
      • PURPLEDRINK, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1ITT: retards who think kucinich and paul going head on AS well as running together are more valid than reality.
    • Bing11, on 12/06/2007, -13/+38I've been struggling with that question. See, if Paul and Kucinich both win their primaries, then we're SURE to have a great next president. BUT if one of them loses thier primary (probably Kucinich, at this point), perhaps they could be on the SAME ticket. More of a risk (since the other ticket could be like Hillary/Anotherdumbass), but then you have the potential of having BOTH in office.

      Really, I don't know which I prefer.
      • zengonzo, on 12/06/2007, -2/+28I find it highly unlikely for them to be on the same ticket. But a race between the two of them would be extremely rewarding for this nation so desperately in need of change and passion.
        • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -12/+1Oh, absolutely, way too many lefties in office.
        • brad3378, on 12/06/2007, -2/+5Yeah - having two guys with integrity in Washington sounds unlikely.
      • Bing11, on 12/06/2007, -3/+4Hmm... neocons got to my post? They left no commentary though. After all, why support your views when you can just base them on a magic-8-ball?
      • notque, on 12/06/2007, -4/+14We are SURE of nothing.

        1. If Kucinich were to win, the onus on forcing his candidacy to me something would be on the people. Corporations would throw us under the bus to discourage us to ever try it again. Does the population have the resolve to fight them?
        2. If Paul were to win, he would not be allowed to do most of what he wants. Only his pro-business domestic policies would get through. A president doesn't act in a vacuum.
        • Bing11, on 12/06/2007, -3/+7I said we were "SURE to have a great next president" -- I did not say we'd have a great government. Getting someone competent in office is only the first step.
          • notque, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5A great next president would have to make things better. Pragmatism. What are the likely consequences?
          • Bing11, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5(To notque. It just wouldn't let me reply to his comment... silly Digg.)

            A great president has to TRY to make things better. As you said, "a president doesn't act [alone]", but that is true of any candidate. I'm speaking on the quality of the president as a representative.

            I understand what you're saying: that history will only look favorably upon a president who makes changes (which we're not technically sure anyone can do, since we cannot predict the support from congress), and while I agree, that was not the type of greatness I was referring to.
        • WiseWeasel, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2I cringe when I see you refer to Paul's "pro-business" domestic policy. You mustn't be referring to monetary policy, nor IRS, Social Security, limiting subsidies, or cutting military spending. I guess you must either be talking about environmental policy, where Paul wants to limit the role of the EPA, or possibly his stance on net neutrality. What you're not considering is the extremely poor performance of the EPA under the Bush administration, which raises a very serious question about the wisdom of centralizing its authority in a single place like this, instead of decentralizing their authority to state agencies, who will be able to withstand even the most corrupt federal administrations. Same with net neutrality; do you really want our congresscritters, in the pockets of large telecom, and completely clueless about technology, voting on internet regulation? At least if we give states a shot at the problem, one or two might even stumble upon a solution that actually works for our benefit. Minimizing federal power sometimes helps ensure that our domestic infrastructure won't be so vulnerable to a corrupt presidency or national congress. I've always voted for progressives in the past, but in this case, some libertarian redress at the federal level is just what our government needs.
        • afruff23, on 12/07/2007, -2/+1Look, Paul's policies may look pro-corporate on paper but believe me: no corporations would want Paul as president. His deregulation would spur competition, something companies hate. Subsidies would end and they'd have to *GASP* make actual profits. Why do you think all the big companies are backing democrats with their strict regulations? A kind heart?...
      • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -11/+2" . . . if Paul and Kucinich both win their primaries, then we're SURE to have a great next president."

        Absolutely! But who? Gingrich? Lieberman? These two won't get 20% of the votes in aggregate in a General election.
        • Bing11, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3They won't? Based on which polls? The ones where their names aren't listed? Sure. But if their names are listed on the biggest poll - the presidential ballot - they've got a better chance than anyone else. Check the poll results -- you'll see what I mean.
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/08/2007, -2/+2They have to get through the primaries. There is no way demented denny is going to break into double digits unless they add his Iowa & NH votes to the SC total, and even then the odds are slim. Ron Quixote may - just - hit 10% in NH. All you folks freaking out over his alleged appeal need to understand you are simply talking to each other. Enjoy it while it lasts, but reality is going hit you upside the head pretty soon.
      • Thedarklord187, on 12/07/2007, -4/+2go away ron paul cultist and have a nice day
    • PATSCRU, on 12/06/2007, -22/+104Paul and Kucinich couldn't be further apart from eachother idealogically. The only thing they have in common is their anti-war and civil liberties stance. They are polar opposites in every other respect. You can't just support two candidates on the same ticket because of how "fringe" they are. Research their policies for chrissake. Go kucinich.
      • thesmrt12004, on 12/06/2007, -7/+43i have said it before and i will say it again the best thing a president can do is surround them self with people who disagree with them so that ideas from both parties are considered and a happy medium is achieved
        • Ulisses, on 12/06/2007, -16/+11Should Obama include a KKK grandwizard in his cabinet then?
          Some people are more than ideologically apart; Ron Paul and his inane attempts at policy should never be allowed to leave the internet.

          Sanctity of life act my ass, *****.
        • notque, on 12/06/2007, -2/+5They are the same party. Your theory only works if you actually put different opinions in there. Like Free Labor from Lincoln days.
        • Flamancot, on 12/06/2007, -12/+7word. i love having libertarians around in principle: they offer fun banter, and always seem to have the craziest delusions... but yes, for everyone's sake, praytogod they stay out of government. dugg.
        • kelt65, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6I find the idea of a Paul/Kucinich ticket ridiculous, except that either of them ought to pick and even more fringe running mate to make assassination less likely.
      • obelisky, on 12/06/2007, -16/+8exactly. iyou can always spot the truly clueless people as the ppl who post paul/dk08 bs...
      • mnederlanden, on 12/06/2007, -2/+25I really like the old idea of the top candidate being the president and the second to top candidate being the VP. That way, when the country is divided both sides have a representative in the white house. Why did we stop doing this, again?
        • notque, on 12/06/2007, -9/+4They are the same party, so what would it even matter?

          All it would do is help the public see they are the same party. That doesn't serve their goals.

          It's much better they pretend to be at each other's throats so an illusion of difference occurs.
        • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7"Why did we stop doing this, again?" If you are actually an IT professional, you should be able to find this on the Internet and if you are not, they will cover it in your US history course when you get into HS. The simple answer (because it seems you like the idea of a kucinich / paul ticket and thus are incapable of going deeper) is that it simply did not work in practice (e.g., see the Jefferson - Adams feud).
        • mu0p, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2We stopped doing it because it made it hard for the executive branch to get anything done.
        • afruff23, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1@mu0p

          I thought the VP had no real power as far as laws go? Wouldn't there just be constant conflict in a Paul/Kucinich office?
      • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -0/+27Kucinich, asked about the issue you bring up, said that including Paul in his administration would unite two huge segments of the population that would otherwise be at each others throats (liberals and libertarians). I think it would be a good thing in principle because having to compromise would moderate both candidates' more extreme positions. (Kucinich is the man, but his gun control policy def. needs moderating)

        Thing is, the only way it would happen is as a third-party run. And third-party candidacies are screwed because the Dems and GOP would unite against them, with a mind-boggling advantage in campaign finance.
      • PresidentSoup, on 12/06/2007, -2/+33Kucinich's wife already said that Kucinich would definitely consider running with Paul.
        • WiseWeasel, on 12/06/2007, -3/+9Paul should run with Kucinich's wife...
          • edwartica, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Yeah, considering Kucinich's wife, Paul might not even need his viagra!
          • nullx42, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2Oh digg, I love how comments that look insightful skew off in to mad downward spiral of talking about ***** someones wife or smoking pot.
      • rainierbeer, on 12/06/2007, -6/+22couldn't be further apart? i think Bush is further from Kucinich than Ron Paul.
      • MindStalker, on 12/06/2007, -2/+37"Paul and Kucinich couldn't be further apart from eachother idealogically."
        Except they both live and breath the Constitution. Yes they have different interpretation of it, Kucinich believes the Federal government has the power to provide socialist policies while Paul doesn't. They both are vigilant fighters of corruption, they both take the time to actually read the bills they vote on. Different world views (free market versus socialism) same essential heart and honestly. And honestly either free market of socialism could potentially work in a corruption free society, (like thats gonna happen).
        • senatorpjt, on 12/06/2007, -9/+4Yeah. Kucinich is wrong, though. The Constitution isn't an allegory. If Kucinich would at least admit that some of his proposed reforms (universal healthcare, in particular) would require a Constitutional amendment, I'd be a lot more comfortable with him, and I would support both his candidacy and the amendment. If he intends to snake it through with the usual tortured interpretation, forget it. If he has in fact made a statement on this issue I'd be interested to know what he said.
          • MindStalker, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7From what I understand he fits in in the "Provide for the general welfare" of the preamble. I guess there is an argument that the health care can be seen as necessary as roads. Though I DON'T support forcing people to give money to the federal government to pay for it. Theoretically IF after we end the IRS and cut federal spending to the bone, I could support federal healthcare if it was taken care of by the money remaining. HAHA
          • mrgreen4242, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3I think health care should be socialized, but not federalized. Let the states do it, and let the fed support that by creating some base standards that all states can conform to, and then build (or not) from there, and also regulate/run the interstate insurance claims process/system. Just makes more sense that way.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1And that is why Paul is needed to limit such applications. It seems currently that the majority of the democrats want the federal government to take care of them and tell them it will be all better. A national healthcare system by the feds will increase taxes and I am not happy with that.

            A local state healthcare system with guidelines and regulations in place by the federal govt. to limit and establish base care has only the feds bothering the states, no the citizens, with healthcare costs. The states then find out how to support the healthcare from the citizens. Be it living tax, sales tax, or even an optional healthcare payment/tax.
        • afruff23, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1In any society with corruption, government can't work. That's why I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist: nobody gains enough power to be corrupt enough to affect you. Don't like your government? Get a new policy.
      • Minarchian, on 12/06/2007, -6/+0Hey PATSCRU... I said VERSUS. Not them on the same ticket.

        Try reading my comment again :)
      • SocialSound1982, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11Hell, why not let Paul run the foreign policy and let Kucinich run the domestic policy.
        • mu0p, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5That is something i can get with.
        • madwelshacre, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Because economic policies fall somewhere in between.
      • Lennalf, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Yes, Kucinich and Paul disagree on many things. However, what they have in common is that they have good intentions. They are interested in fixing America, not continuing to rape and exploit it. The fact that they disagree on how to get there simply means that they have twice as many options to consider!
      • insllvn, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4You forgot the reason that I would be happy with either of them, they are both honest. To me it counts for a lot more than their positions. I loved a lot of the things W said when he was running in 2000, such as low taxes, small government, and no nation building.
    • SiNN4R, on 12/06/2007, -5/+70If there is anyone I wouldn't mind Paul losing to its Kucinich.
    • cambob76, on 12/06/2007, -1/+38Choosing the greater of two goods instead of the lesser of two evils? In American politics? Come on now! Give your head a shake man.
      • Minarchian, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2"Choosing the greater of two goods instead of the lesser of two evils?"

        Great point!
    • thanakar, on 12/06/2007, -5/+1Only in your dreams
    • Arcesius, on 12/06/2007, -0/+11One other thing they have in common is they're both honest - as far as I can tell, anyway.
      • deadmann, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Anti-war
        • ThndrShk2k, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Anyone running on anti-war today has balls and is honest, because all the other candidates know if they ran with that, and then didn't go with what they promised, dissent will form nationally and a coup will begin. Even if they do change their mind during their campaign about the war, they will lose all credibility as a candidate, because they have lacked a serious background in that issue.
    • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -6/+1I sure hope you are correct. Then a third party candidacy (Gingrich comes to mind) would win in a walk-off.
      • mrgreen4242, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2How do you figure? If the majority of each party supports these particular candidates, there's obvious support for them, and these two, especially Paul, have a decent cross party pull. The race would be close and the old rules of who'd vote for who wouldn't apply, but a third party wouldn't have an easy time at victory.

        Plus, if that DID happen it would still be a win because 1) voters would have taken control of the two major parties, even if the candidates lost, and 2) third party campaigns would be legitimized.
    • caselogic, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4As much as they are both digg friendly. These two could not be more different. Paul is so Right Wing (not this neo-con *****, but actually for states rights...i don't have time to explain what actually being right means...look it up) and Kucinich is the most liberal. Its great that they are in the debate, and the chances of them actually making a showing in the election is very slim. Don't get me wrong I would love to see Kucinich in there but his role and Paul's role is to make sure they are talking about really things and not just the same political BS that would normally be there.
      • ThndrShk2k, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1I'd rather have valid discussion about issues over political BS anyday
    • babcat, on 12/06/2007, -10/+2Kucinich is a gun grabbing socialist who would never want to reduce the size of government. Ron Paul would NEVER run with him.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Agreed. Ron Paul has talked about being offered the vice-presidency. As far as running with other Republicans is concerned, he won't unless they somehow change their views. He basically says no way.

        Kucinich is very different then Paul on a lot of lesser issues, and Ron Paul might refuse to associate with him in the hypothetical situation of running together.

        I was thinking on my own earlier that Kucinich Vs. Paul for the presidency would be an awesome win/win situation. It's pretty cool that some many other people think the same.
    • Bodhinature, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Is everyone here stupid? Kucinich vs Paul doesn't mean they're running mates. It means they're running AGAINST each other. It would be a "dream ticket" because it would be a win for democracy. Those two stand for democracy. Kucinich stands little to the left, Paul stands a little to the right, but they are both Classical Liberals.
      • scm21st, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5I would love to see a Kucinich vs Paul debate in the general election. Holy crap that would be awesome.
      • MetalliTooL, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1A LITTLE to the left and to the right? There both pretty far away from the center. Kucinich is a socialist and Paul is a capitalist.
  • whataboutdave, on 12/06/2007, -43/+10Nothing more than wishful thinking from NPR.
    • notque, on 12/06/2007, -4/+12Which is why Kucinich was ignored on NPR in the radio debates, not reported on for the next several days, no audio clips from it played.

      Yeah. NPR is sure trying to get Kucinich to win this thing.
      • senatorpjt, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5Out of all the candidates, who do you think would give NPR the most funding?
        • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -2/+7NPR is publicly funded - thats why they call it "Public" Radio.
        • WiseWeasel, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3Interesting point. I'd guess Kucinich.
    • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1Actually from the pen of a newsWEAK dip quoted gleefully quoted by the retarded vermin of NPR.
  • macweirdo42, on 12/06/2007, -11/+81Well, if the Dems would grow a pair and quit letting the Republicans control all the talking points, maybe people would see that he's not so far out there in relation to what the American people actually want.
    • notque, on 12/06/2007, -2/+30I'll rewrite that for you.

      If the Democrats would stop following corporate order and start following public opinions polls that go against the corporate edicts, maybe people would see that it's actually what the people want.
      • macweirdo42, on 12/06/2007, -0/+10That works, too.
      • MindStalker, on 12/06/2007, -7/+1Umm you mean the public opinion polls that say Hillary should be the next President.
        No we have elected representative leaders for a reason, they are supposed to be knowledgeable about the law and form researched opinions. The masses do neither. Sadly the congress nowadays doesn't either. Here is hoping Paul's (or Kucinich's) Veto pen will change this.
        • notque, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6No. Not the public opinion polls about which candidate has more "likability", but the one about the issues. Those same issues that are avoided in debates, discussions, and in all meaningful ways that would help a citizen choose who best represent them.

          The majority of Bush voters thought he was for Kyoto because they were.

          You have way too little regard for the American People.
          • senatorpjt, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6Issues don't matter, though. If you're looking at "likability", I'd say that Obama and Huckabee probably come out on top for their respective parties. GWBush was the most likeable in 2000, BJClinton was the most likeable in 1992, GHWBush was the most likeable in 1988 (He's not even that likeable, but hell, he was running against Donald Rumsfeld and Pat Robertson), Reagan was the most likeable in 1980.
          • m1raj, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1The information shortcuts afforded by the internet - read youtube video evidence and a multitude of fact checkers with an ability to distribute said information quickly - are making valence characteristics less important for the average uninformed voter. Hopefully in the future it will make an end to the popularity contest that is our election.
      • Thedarklord187, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1I concur
  • rollem, on 12/06/2007, -6/+98When you take a minute to actually see where his positions are, they're not extreme, and I think a larger percentage of the american electorate agrees with him than most think. The problem is his label as a fringe candidate makes few people take him seriously. Meanwhile, centrist policies get labeled left-wing and the neocons laugh all the way to through the legislative process.
    • pintomp3, on 12/06/2007, -5/+21when people vote just on the issues that are important to them, overwhelming they find themselves in line with kucinich.
      http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php
    • Arcesius, on 12/06/2007, -4/+8The notion of Socialism still scares people, too, unfortunately. Evil remnant from the McCarthy days.
      • rollem, on 12/06/2007, -3/+9Socialism and socialsed medicine are, for some reason, especially key words that mobilize the talk radio crowd. The cold war's over, can't we move one and make our country better now?
        • Arcesius, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6It sucks that when anyone mentions socialism/communism, everyone automatically thinks of the USSR =/.
        • airburst, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2Or thinks of China, Cuba, Laos, Turkmenistan, North Korea.

          Gee. Why doesn't everyone want to jump on that train?
        • wiggles, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2@airburst:
          I don't think of authoritarian communist dictatorships, I think higher taxes funding inefficient government bureaucracy, which limits growth and encourages unemployment, like in Europe.
          • Ramble, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5Like in Euope, the worlds largest economy, which is raping America in both growth and employment.
          • afruff23, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1@Ramble

            What about Estonia, Chile, Hong Kong, and Singapore?
      • jgzman, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4Brace yourself, the red scare returns: The Terrorist Threat.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2The only thing is today, YOU are the terrorist threat.

          We at least had a govt. system to label in the cold war, but today ANYBODY could be the problem; me, you, cities, religions.
      • afruff23, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2Some people, like me, associate socialism with bad policy, not a country. Socialism is force. Charity is voluntary. Why don't you donate rather than steal from Peter to give to Paul?

        Socialism stifles innovation, masks the actual cost of things (market failure), encourages laziness, is a tool of the elite to stop revolt, and can cause long-term economic problems which are nearly impossible to solve once the people of the state are dependent.
        • SteveSgt, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Some people, like me, associate unrestrained capitalism with robber-baron like feudalism, and life in the dark ages. Why can't citizens agree, as a group, to take care of each other and therefore prevent socially destabilizing disparities in wealth?

          Capitalism creates a stratified society where a few accumulate a lot of power and resources, and the rest suffer at their hands. Once a powerful over-class is able to oppress an under-class, there's a good chance that society is headed towards a violent revolt. The revolutionaries slaughter the rich, put the most violent and ignorant of the poor in power, and the process repeats itself again a few generations later.

          I'm not naive enough to think that either pure capitalism or pure socialism are panaceas. Rather, a managed economy with good safety nets on both ends, preventing people from becoming desperately destitute, and preventing people from becoming disparately wealthy and powerful, is probably the best we can hope for.
    • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -7/+2More like centrist policies are labeled "Fascist" or "neo-con," but don't let that interrupt your routine with the Kool-Aid.

      His positions are not only extreme, they are demented.
    • stillasleep00, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4Don't forget: He's short, his wife's hot and he saw a UFO. No way I'd vote for him!

      /sarcasm
    • Richandler, on 12/07/2007, -3/+1Ironically, taking away guns, and government run health care are teh same stances, Hilter took..
      Granted Kucinich is a nice guy and he wouldn't screw thing up. It' the congress and the next president we would have to worry about.
  • InfamousAtheist, on 12/06/2007, -12/+41I would love to see Kucinich emerge victorious in the Democratic primary as Hillary and Obama pummel each other out of the race. Hillary's doing a great job of copying GOP campaign strategy from the last several elections - too bad the voters are sick and tired of their ***** and have become just angry enough to see it for what it is: 99.9% ***** and spin. Obama may fare better if he can avoid the negative side of campaigning, but I still think there are too many racist pricks in America to elect a black, non-christian president.
    • pintomp3, on 12/06/2007, -4/+27obama is christian.
      • HotBaconSauce, on 12/06/2007, -12/+5As soon as he ran for Senator here he became a Christian!
        • notque, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6They all do.
        • sekhui, on 12/06/2007, -1/+9because of xenophobic, intolerant voters perhaps?
        • notque, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6That's why the "war on Christianity" is so funny. If only they could reach the presidency. Or the Judicial branch. Or the Congress. Or the Senate. Or most local posts.
        • senatorpjt, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2I want to see someone ask a question in the debate about that. "If you believe in God, do you think he made a mistake when he created Marijuana?"
          • kelt65, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1silly! just like dinosaur bones, it was put here to test us!
      • RuffRidr, on 12/06/2007, -10/+3Practicing, or in name only?
        • notque, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10Who cares? All the front runners are lying to become president to follow different paths anyway. What's it matter if they are lying about the unimportant crap?
        • zengonzo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Most of the supreme moral stances of a politician are in name only. And that's because they are human. But you can't campaign as a human. You have to be spotless. Sacred.

          So they fake it, because that's what people apparently want. To eat *****.
        • RuffRidr, on 12/06/2007, -3/+4notque: I care. I can't stand candidates who pander for votes by pretending to be something they are not. If they lie about stuff like this, they probably don't have a problem lying about other stuff.
        • starkruzr, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Go to the library and read his book. He talks about the way he came to Christianity in it.
      • thesnarebear, on 12/06/2007, -0/+10He attends the Trinity United Church of Christ every week he's in town. I'd say that's practicing.
      • rainierbeer, on 12/06/2007, -1/+10i feel if he is christian or not is moot at this point. the smear campaign has done a great job convincing the religious right that he is not christian.
        • sekhui, on 12/06/2007, -0/+13the sad thing is it shouldn't matter.
        • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -7/+2Doesn't make much difference what religion b.hussein believes, if any, where he is so fundamentally wrong on everything else.
        • Btzarro, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4Iconoclast you inbred right-wing loon,***** off back to stormfront little extremist right-wing bastard.
    • snotrokit, on 12/06/2007, -2/+7I agree. Hillary is slipping fast as she is showing her true colors. She panders to her audience, says whatever they want to hear. She is quite possibly the most disingenuous person on the campaign trail. I hope that Obama can rise about the crap, but I am not sure if "America" is ready. Kucinich has, IMHO, the best strategy to get us back on track.
    • Balath, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Dugg down - know your facts.
  • ninjaface, on 12/06/2007, -3/+47Here's why: Straight talk. People are tired of being lied to. He also makes a lot of sense. We need honesty in our government. He seems to be the most honest candidate that I've seen.
    • notque, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6People didn't suddenly decide they were tired of being lied to. We are in the ebb and flow of normal political life in America.

      What they want us to do is rush towards Hillary who will continue similar policies to Bush. If we go against Hillary, other corporate candidates are lined up to take their place.

      As long as they can avoid a real candidate like Kucinich, they are safe.
  • gophernut, on 12/06/2007, -23/+4Kucinich just won't get enough support to pose any threat. It's not the candidate that has the best stance on the issues that gets the nomination, it's the candidate that is the most electable. Frankly, Kucinich comes off like the crazy guy in the corner that no one really listens too.
    • notque, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8No, That's Gravel. I've read the talking points. You're are either

      1. An idiot.
      2. Someone who hates Liberals and is attempting to divert them.
      • mushoo, on 12/06/2007, -5/+3You're both liberal hating idiots.

        Gravel and Kucinich are the ones who make more sense from this party.
        • notque, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6I think you misunderstood what I posted.
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2What did you expect? You leftards only have a single synapse firing . . . complex tasks such as reading comprehension tend to overwhelm that resource.
    • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -4/+3"Frankly, Kucinich comes off like the crazy guy in the corner that no one really listens too (sic)."

      Frankly, it is BECAUSE he IS the crazy guy in the corner.
  • mitchellk, on 12/06/2007, -26/+5Kucinich will be unemployed next year. The Democrats are lining up to oppose him in the primary for his congressional seat and, for the first time, a Republican office holder is filing for the race. He will lose this seat, either in the primary or general election ( the two name Democrats may cancel each other out, allowing Kucinich to squeak in with 40% of the vote) because he does not represent the people of his district.
    • zengonzo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4And what does my fortune say?!
    • ivandir, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4And my magic 8-ball says: Mitchellk is a dumb ass know it all troll.
  • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -6/+44Kucinich said it best, Left is the new Center. Too bad the DNC hasn't figured that out yet.
    • gak001, on 12/06/2007, -0/+17...and our left has been conservative in Europe for years.
      • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -9/+3Which goes a long way to explaining the low productivity and high taxes found in most of Europe, to say nothing of the muslim crazies running rampant in the UK, France and the Netherlands.
        • Btzarro, on 12/06/2007, -4/+3Stormfront. back.
          inbred right-wing loon
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Ah yes, bizzaro the orator has graced us with his immortal rhetoric. Of course, with your first hand experience, you and your sister Dolly would be experts on in-breeding.
        • Ramble, on 12/06/2007, -3/+7Odd, considering European economy is growing strongly, regardless of the tax level. I myself have yet to see any crazies over here, but if you want an explanation for 7/7 bombings then it's because we're allied with the US.
          The UK is no stranger to terrorism, most Americans seem to forget the past 30-40 years of Christian terrorism we've had.
    • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -7/+3Sorry, as screwed up as they are, even the dnc eschews regular dosages of hallucinogenic substances.
      • Btzarro, on 12/06/2007, -6/+1Your parents screwed up when they gave birth to such discusting subhuman filth.
        • DreadPirate, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Try looking in a mirror once a while - then you'll see what filth really is. You have yet to do anything but leave insults like the steaming pile of refuse that is all your mind seems to contain.
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2"You have yet to do anything but leave"

            INSERT: mis-spelled, inarticulate, irrational

            "insults like the steaming pile of refuse that is all your mind seems to contain." (Fixed it for you, amigo _ _ _ ;-) _ _ _ but I believe you are being overly kind)
  • ducinaltumus, on 12/06/2007, -4/+57Please God, let it be Kucinich for the left. Clarity over deception.
    • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -10/+4Oh, yes, please, Please, PLEASE let it be demented denny. The RNC will be able to put all the contributions into other races and start celebrating the victory as soon as the polls close in the Eastern time zone.
      • mrgreen4242, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3Put someone who isn't full of ***** on centerstage in front of voters and it'll be a hard win for anyone no matter what their opinions of issues are. People are tired of government that lies, conceals the truth, impedes open investigation. I could see people voting for a candidate who they don't agree with all the issues on, but who is an honest progressive person just to give the US government a shot at NOT imploding.

        The only wildcard in that scenario is the nutjob religious fundamentalists, who do whatever they are told by their priests/bishops/pastors/gods/whatever. I think they are a non-element as long as no candidate can combine them with other voting blocks like Bush managed to do.
        • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3The term "progressive" has been GROSSLY distorted over the last few years into a code term for "left-wing" (sounds so much more reasonable and fuzzy-warm), so I don't buy that part of your comment from the get-go. People vote for candidates with whom they disagree in some measure 90+% of the time. I've had only three such candidates for a major state or Federal office with whom I completely agreed survive past the primary system in my voting life time. I've voted for many winners in the primaries and general elections, but these were the only ones for whom I was enthusiastic. I do agree with you in some respects about the religious groups. I really wish we could divorce religion from the political process, but as long as governments seek to enforce some ethical matters within society (and they really do need to do this because what is law but codified ethics, however perverted in some instances?), there will be conflicts with some religious doctrines.
    • henman910, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1yes, the left is very vague.
  • DeadRooster, on 12/06/2007, -5/+4Richard Wolffe is well respected. This could be a great boost for Dennis.
    • PopePhred, on 12/30/2007, -0/+2This isn't a boost for Kucinich. All the article is saying is that Democrats are taking up his views. I really don't think that the front runners saying "me too!" really helps Kucinich's campaign at all.
  • JasonCox, on 12/06/2007, -16/+1I'm still praying for Edwards/Obama '08. Kucinich isn't that popular here in Ohio (the state he represents).
    • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -1/+14Edwards supported NAFTA and CAFTA, now that he's running for president he rails against them, which is the position Kucinich has always had. Its ironic that Edwards is basically running on a Kucinich platform, which he's flip-flopped on multiple times, and yet he's taken far more seriously than Kucinich who's actually been consistent.
    • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6BTW Edwards was the co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution.
    • colberrep, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1obama isn't going to take the vp position and edwards isn't going to come out on top.
  • manfromfuture, on 12/06/2007, -0/+42Kucinich and Paul differ on very few issues but the ones they differ on are big ones. Gun control, abortion, health care. I think what they have in common is that (unlike Clinton, Giuliani, Romney) they are not working in the interests of large corporations. The "main stream" candidates say what they think they need to in order to get elected and then do whatever they want. These two seem to have nothing to hide.
    • notque, on 12/06/2007, -8/+13Paul is working in the interests of corporations. If you logically determine what would happen under a Paul presidency, you can see that corporations would be thrilled.
      • pintomp3, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9not entirely. he wants to end corporate welfare and the military industrial complex. he would however remove what little barriers and protections are still left and let corporations run roughshod over the country.
        • notque, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6But, since only those goals would be let through what would happen?

          I mean honestly. Picture him being elected. He can't create laws, only veto and suggest them. The corporate media then frames the debate.

          So what would happen?
      • Richandler, on 12/07/2007, -3/+1He is also working in the interest of the people who, incase you didn't know, ultimately decided which corporation have the power.
    • thentro, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5They differ on most issues, esp domestic.
    • senatorpjt, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Gun control and abortion are wedge issues. They don't affect most people in their day-to-day lives (theoretical arguments about armed revolution aside). However, that doesn't mean they don't disagree on everything else, I'm just pointing that out.
      • mrgreen4242, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3Gun control effects everyone, whether they have a gun or not. It's a basic, fundamental Constitutional freedom and limiting it automatically opens the door to further trampling of your rights. Abortion, while I agree effects a very small number of people directly, is one of those issues that moronic religious sheeples vote on without any consideration to other issues or the consequences of their actions are. So, it ends up being an important policy point when, really, it should be a fairly trivial matter.
        • senatorpjt, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2That's basically what I said. It's important in theory, but it doesn't affect peoples' day-to-day lives like economic issues.
      • Richandler, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2I thought socialists cared about ALL people not just MOST people. Both gun control combined with drug control are what lead to extreme crime areas in urban cities.
  • misfit410, on 12/06/2007, -24/+5Kucinich VS Paul, not together please..
    Kucinich is a nutcase..and honest one yes, but a nut all the same.
    • notque, on 12/06/2007, -1/+17Calling someone a nutcase is not a substitute for an argument.
      • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1Suggesting denny is not a nutter is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of what? Idiocy? Insanity? Both? No need to argue it - all one need do is listen to the twerp blab. Oh, wait, having more than a single brain cell would be a threshold requirement, which would pretty much exclude his supporters, wouldn't it?
    • obelisky, on 12/06/2007, -3/+7and paul is completely sane? LOL.
  • LeadOffMan, on 12/06/2007, -15/+3yes...please...c'mon dumbocrats put this guy up as your man.
    It will be the biggest sweep since Mondale
    • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8We could run Porky Pig against any Republican and still get 52%,
      • sekhui, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2not if the politics of fear continue to baffle people with *****.
      • Fieri, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1Arrogance like that will get you President Thompson.

        Seriously. Americans are that stupid.
      • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Isn't Petunia leading the dimocrap field at the moment?
      • LeadOffMan, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2and you are running pigs
    • Iconoclast25, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2It would "dwarf" Reagan's victory over mondale.
  • underthewether, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2let's play good idea bad idea...
    • Takteek, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4Bad idea: Posting a vague comment that has no relation to the story.

      Your turn.
  • centerblack, on 12/06/2007, -4/+28I'd vote for him.
  • thentro, on 12/06/2007, -8/+15The only reason people want a Paul/Kucinich ticket is because they love the out-of-the-mainstream politicians and the thought of two on one ticket sounds great. But if you simply went to their web pages you would see that they have completely incomputable views of government.
    • gak001, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Uh... they're from opposing parties - they can't run on the same ticket.
      • thentro, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Another good reason. I am replying to the description that ends, "Paul/Kucinich 2008.
      • Pixelpaws, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Well, they could, but it's exceptionally unlikely. I rather like the old system (circa 1800), in which the #1 vote-getter became President and #2 was Vice President...
      • gak001, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Funny I should be getting dugg down for listing a fact. Unless people are confusing the terms "ticket" and "ballot," which, possess differing defintiions and etymologies, then I'd understand.
    • Pixelpaws, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1incomputable?
      • thentro, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4incomputable = incompatible. Sorry, weird typo.
    • duffahtolla, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1I've been to both websites and I still like the idea of a partisan ticket. I don't know about others, but I would like to see Ron Paul mollify some of Kucinichs views where they differ and vice versa. I like my guns and I think women should have the right to an abortion. We have tax paid police and fireman services, whats wrong with maybe a state level universal health care. Without federal taxes, the states could bump taxes up a bit to cover it. Don't like you states healthcare solution? Move or vote, your choice.

      But you are right that I just really love the idea of having to honest politicians running for office and I wish I could vote for both of them.
    • mrgreen4242, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3If they both failed to get their party nomination there's nothing stopping either of them from running together as either independent candidates or under another established third party (like Nader's Reform Party).

      Back to the main comment, I'd love to see two people who have very different views on many things, but similar views on other very important things (privacy, the war, etc) unite and tell Americans "Hey we don't agree with each other on everything, and we know you don't agree with us on everything, but we DO agree that it's time to restore people's right to privacy, end the war, bring accountability back to government, and make America respected in the international community again, and we think YOU feel that way, too."

      People might be able to unite and do something important that way, and people who would not support the candidates individually might set aside their concerns if there is an opposing, moderating force present.
    • thentro, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5They do have many of the same goals, but Ron Paul sees the way there is to strip down the power of the federal government dramatically so it has little input in any of the things you mentioned. Kucinich aligns with Paul when he wants to diminish the power of government in some places (Military, surveillance) but he wants to dramatically increase government involvement in others. Health care, poverty, education, and so on. He is for the creation of a Department of peace - a federal cabinet position that will actively engage the world for peaceful purposes. Ron Paul would explode.

      So, they are both nice guys sure. Honest too. But they are incompatible in government.
  • KatAttack, on 12/06/2007, -7/+0*****
  • KatAttack, on 12/06/2007, -4/+22http://december152007.com/
    • Arcesius, on 12/06/2007, -9/+2blind link = no-no
    • jon30041, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2I have to pay my car insurance that day. So, no, I can't contribute. I'll do it in January, after I get my tax return.
  • TemtNosce, on 12/06/2007, -8/+941) Kucinich never signed the Patriot Act. Reason: "Because I read it."
    2) He's the only politician voicing that an impeachment of Bush is necessary.
    3) He's the most honest, non flip-flopping candidate I've ever seen.

    He's got my vote.
    • chix0r, on 12/06/2007, -9/+44) He's vegan!!!!

      • shaggy25, on 12/06/2007, -8/+3Real men eat meat.
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1I didn't know that. I've never met a vegan I could stand to be around for more then an evening.
    • breckinshire, on 12/06/2007, -1/+115) Hottest First Lady ever!
    • Richandler, on 12/07/2007, -1/+21. Paul didn't sign the Patriot Act because it was unconstitutional.
      2. Paul believes limiting executive power is smarter than just removing 2 men who will be replace by 2 other clowns. Freedom Agend Act 2007
      3. He's hones, and is equally non-flip-flopping. Like wise on issues he believe states should decide on in a one size fits all rule of law.

      He's got my vote.
  • Curlz31, on 12/06/2007, -2/+19We all realize that Dennis and Ron have obvious ideological differences, however they are both genuine human beings who seek truth and justice. They just have different ideas about how to achieve it. They stand together on the most important issues and I think that is what matters. I really want Ron Paul to win the GOP nomination and Dennis to win the Democratic nomination and I do my best to help them get there but I really think that if things go bad, we need to show the establishment that the wedge-issue based, false left-right paradigm they have created is being destroyed. The most important thing at the moment is stopping current and future wars and restoring the constitution. Once that is done then we can get back arguing about socialism Vs libertarianism. Imagine bringing together these two armies (actually 3 if u add good old Mike Gravel, who is great too) against the GOP and Democrats to show them both that their ***** will no longer be tolerated. I have absolutely no doubt that Ron and Dennis could work something out if it's for the good of the US and the world.

    Paul/Kucinich 2008! (.....and Gravel = Secretary of State)
    • snotrokit, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3aul/Kucinich 2008! (.....and Gravel = Secretary of State)

      holy crap, whjat a perfect ticket!!!!! Unbelievable match up. I would give anything to see that
  • pantspatrol, on 12/06/2007, -2/+22Kucinich is the only sensible democratic candidate!
    • colberrep, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1only sensible candidate period. he would regulate and enforce necessary checks against corporate crime and overreach--something ron paul is vehemently opposed to (he would remove ALL regulation and assume the free market right all wrongs LOL)
  • exomni, on 12/06/2007, -4/+13Kucinich has my vote. I'd settle for vice-president, though.
  • jimsowden, on 12/06/2007, -3/+10I really respect Dennis Kucinich, he makes some solid points and doesn't take the watered down views that Hillary and Obama are taking to get a bigger vote share. That's important to me, and that's why I'll vote for him. As far as Ron Paul, I'm not exactly sure why people support him, I've seen his stances on issues and it's nothing really nobel or humanitarian (usual grounds for internet support), so I don't see why he has such a backing.
    • MikeFallopian, on 12/06/2007, -5/+4I think it's because people enjoy believing that the sky is falling, and their generation has it the worst off - look at all the talk of fascism and the "death of America" that is prevalent among RP supporters. That kind of attitude leads people to look for the most radically anti-government candidate out there. Personally I agree with the RP supporters on a lot of issues (waterboarding is bad, government spending is too high), but I think that an extremist such as RP in the white house would be a disaster.
      • jimsowden, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Yeah, if you agree with Ron Paul on those issues but don't want to disband basically the whole new deal, then Kucinich is your man.
    • Richandler, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2You don't believe that giving people the fruits of their labor is humanitarian? You don't think allowing a monetary policy that would allow alternative currency which don't suffer from inflation isn't humanitarian? You don't believe letting waiters have tax-free tips isn't humanitarian? You don't think pulling out of Iraq is humanitarian? You don't believe pulling our troops out of Germany, Japan, and South Korea isn't humanitarian and noble. You don't think creating an environment where people can have the option not to be dependent on the government isn't humanitarian? You think that giving tax credits to people who homeschool their children isn't humanitarian?

      I could go on. But obviously haven't put much thought into your statement.
      • SteveSgt, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Do you think that holding corporations to the same standard of criminal justice as individuals is humanitarian? I do. How about getting RP to make a statement on re-enacting full criminal penalties for corporate officers and chief executives? This is something they've been pretty much exempt from since the days of the railroad robber-barons.

        I certainly don't want to see a diminution of government power without an even greater diminution of corporate power.

        And giving people the fruits of THEIR labor is all well and good. When they start taking too many of the fruits of their employee's labor, that should definitely be a crime.
    • alvinrod, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2I think there's a lot of support for Ron Paul because there are a lot of Republicans who don't agree with the current administration and what they've done with Iraq. I'd consider myself very fiscally conservative in the sense that I believe in a small federal government (and state government) that does have universal healthcare programs, social security, and other such things. I, like many other Republicans, don't really care whether two men want to be married, raise children, or anything else at all. Not all of us have the same stance on abortion or other social issues either.

      We like Ron Paul because he's for a small federal government and has the voting record to back it up. He also follows the Constitution even when it clashes with his view point. He's personally against abortion but would allow the states to legalize it. The only reason he opposes Roe v. Wade is because he believes that it's unconstitutional. Many of us realize that even though he may have his own opinions on matters, he will follow the Constitution and play by the rules.

      I don't understand how you can't see why he has such a huge backing. Do you honestly think that everyone who is fiscally conservative is opposed to same sex marriages, abortion, and everything else that is generally associated as a "leftist" view? My father generally votes Democrat even though he's opposed to abortion. He does so because he believes the government should have programs such as social security, etc. in order to help people. Things aren't so cut and dry as everyone likes to make them out to be.

      I really don't agree with a lot of positions the Democrats take, but I do think that if you nominate anyone it should be Kucinich. He wasn't fooled by the Patriot Act and other legislation that has slipped through and has actually taken a stand against the corrupt adminstration that is currently in power. Even looking at some of the traditional issues for Democrats, he has said that he is pro choice, but would like to move towards a society that doesn't need abortions because people are well informed and have adequate methods available to prevent pregnancy. I'm against abortion myself, but I can appreciate his stance.

      If he won the Democratic nomination and Ron Paul doesn't receive the Republican nomination, I would likely vote for Kucinich.
  • biogears, on 12/06/2007, -8/+3NPR - fair and balanced :)
  • snotrokit, on 12/06/2007, -3/+11Go Kucinich!!!
  • h4mx0r, on 12/06/2007, -4/+21I'm 18 this year and I'd vote for him!
    • Pixelpaws, on 12/06/2007, -3/+13Then please convince your friends to do the same. The voter turnout for 18-year-olds is usually abysmal, giving the youth of our nation a much lesser say in the country than they should have.
    • thespiff, on 12/06/2007, -1/+9Why didn't you say "I'm 18 this year and I WILL vote for him!"
      Do it! I am going to.
      • Endeavorer, on 12/06/2007, -6/+2Or vote for Ron Paul cus he is way cooler the Dennis
        • sealhands, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1or vote for dennis because he rules and isnt republican
      • h4mx0r, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Scratch that then. I'm 18 this year and I WILL vote for him!
  • JMellissa, on 12/06/2007, -8/+8All I want for Christmas is a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket for which to vote.
  • babcat, on 12/06/2007, -13/+6Kucinich is a gun grabbing socialist. Ron Paul would NEVER run with him.
  • xperiment626, on 12/06/2007, -8/+6I wish Dennis would spend more time taking care of his suffering district.
  • shauncorleone, on 12/06/2007, -11/+4The description insinuates one of two things: 1.) Kucinich has changed most of his views to conform to the mainstream or 2.) The kook fringe libs' views are becoming mainstream. Either way, how does this make Kucinich a trustworthy candidate?
    • thespiff, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6First of all, #2 is the correct answer. Secondly, it doesn't make him more trustworthy. The kooky liberal views are going mainstream, so maybe they weren't so kooky after all? And Kucinich has been a proponent of these views throughout his political career.
      • shauncorleone, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2Trust me, having forced socialized healthcare that would result in a system as poor as the UK's, federally funded abortion clinics, a BIGGER federal education system, government bail-outs for variable-rate mortgage defaults, and significantly higher taxes to pay for all this madness can all be filed under "kooky". I continue to be amazed that the same people who complain about big government's ineptitude to run many of our important systems want to hand control of their health care to them?
        Healthcare, National Defense, Immigration and Social Security need to be the four most pressing issues drilled into debates, yet success in Iraq has forced the Democratic Party to avoid the second issue almost entirely to save face, while the Republican candidates are being grilled by declared Dem followers about whether or not to arrest women who have abortions in the hypothetical case the procedure was illegal (not going to happen)?
        The radical views are not becoming mainstream, despite what the nutjobs at MediaMatters and MoveOn would have you believe.
  • trollick, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6One may disagree with Mr. Kucinich (and I, for one, sure do on many subjects), but you have to admire the guy for always saying what he actually believes in. And doing so he does not have to flip-flop on anything. With most other candidates it is almost painful to watch at all this parsing that's going on in their head when they have to answer a simple question (I'm pointing at you Mr. Romney). Plus, his wife is hot.
  • z987k, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3I'd vote for him
  • dwrecktion, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3If only the average American's intelligence even approached the average intelligence of those responding on this thread, then I would think we may see a real change in the government. However, I still think there are too many ignorant people who will be voting for whoever's name is a nice complement of being easy to say and easy to remember.
    • PopePhred, on 12/30/2007, -0/+1Fortunately, we will all be sure to inform the idiot voters out there that Dennis is the best candidate. As we all know, informing people that they are ill-educated is a sound political strategy that has brought our best and brightest into public office.. (Sarcastometer Reading: 9.7)
  • wcmars, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Kucinich is a great guy, but lets not forget the trivial most American pick their candidates, vis a vis Bush's re-election. Your average Americans are never going to be to have a President Kucinich until all the cold war crew are dead, it's a petty shame. The same goes for Obama, it doesn't even matter that most people think he's to young and talks too well.
  • peaceofpie, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11I think Kucinich has some plans that could really help the majority of our population in many ways. Kucinich is the only candidate I will vote for because of his voting record and his position on the war and health care. His health care plan makes sense. I do not trust the other candidates because they did not vote right on the issues that are so important to the future of our country. I will not vote for any candidate that supported the Iraq war. I knew they were using false data and was sick when I heard the newspaper reporters calling Powell's UN speech a "slam dunk" for war against Iraq. It was so obvious and I still cannot understand why not one major network ran the many stories that came out from good honest reporting that would have helped save the thousands of lives lost in Iraq. I am sad for our soldiers who today are fighting a battle that cannot be won no matter how much they try. Kucinich is right that we must leave Iraq. I respect the way Kucinich spoke about the Middle East on the NPR debate. I like that he pointed out that Israel needs to understand that security for a Palestine will mean security for their own people. We need new ideas and people in our government. I don't like to speculate on why they lied and wanted this war. I just think the Bush family and the Cheney/Rumsf/Rove group have been running our country for too long. When has there ever been a leader like Kucinich in power? What might it mean for our country and our relationship with the world? I want to give a man of peace a chance to lead our country. I'm tired of fear and hate and war. Why not try a new way? Why are people afraid of peace?
  • rDigital, on 12/06/2007, -3/+4I would love to have him as president, but just having Kucinich present in the debates is enough. The effect he has on the other candidates is amazing. He exposes people for what they are really after and not what they want you to think.
  • jrtf83, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6I really like Kucinich's policies (except gun control, moron). Its just a shame he looks like an elf. What if we went back to the old days where the majority of American's didn't even know what the presidential candidates looked like? Wouldn't that be sweet, judging people by their words and actions instead of by their looks?
    • sealhands, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2its true the taller candidate historically has won. americans are idiots fooled by vanity.
    • brownrabbit, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Well, follow your values. Let us vote with our human and genuine values, not our corporately designed, consumerist-taught aesthetics of what is attractive, powerful, good, etc.
  • TehFuzz, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Out of Iraq. No more Patriot Act. Universal Healthcare. Gay marriage. No White House ***** slathered on every press conference. Transparency and honesty from the executive? *GASP* He's the only Dem worth voting for in my book. Too bad he won't get the Democratic nod, not in this lifetime. And! not only is his wife stunning, redheaded, pierced, and has an accent to die for - she's intellegent! And funny! Call him a fringe nut. Call him a conspiracy theorist. Whatever. The one thing you can't call him is a liar.
    • Richandler, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Out of Iraq and the rest of the world too. No Patriot Act, and no Military commissions act. No more HMO or government handouts to insurance companies, leave marriage out of state hands and give tax cuts so people can afford insurance. End the drug war. Manditory transparency of executive, and legislative. . .

      Ron Paul makes so much more sense.
  • Todamont, on 12/06/2007, -9/+3Paul and Kucinich are not even close to each other idealogically. Kucinich is a complete socialist and would try to take my guns away. He'll never be elected, and if he was, some gun rights activist would probably shoot him dead.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 12/06/2007, -2/+5You shouldn't have a gun, freak
    • sidheru, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I feel like you've just proved why his policy on gun control makes sense....
      Yes... throw a tantrum when your betters try to take your toys away... that'll make it all better...
    • sealhands, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2americans are so stupid. theres a ***** war going on, health care crisis etc and youre worried about your guns...whatever happens to americans in the next 10 years is surely going to be negative and will surely be their own fault.
      • milkmit, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2It's not just guns they're worried about, it's teh scary taxes!!!!1111

        Remember boys and girls: Democrats tax and spend. Republicans spend and spend. (or, even worse, borrow and spend)

        Conservative my ass.
  • Nezzadar, on 12/06/2007, -4/+0Can someone please explain to me why these two people are so popular. Until the YouTube debate was discussed on NPR I had no idea Ron Paul was even running, and Kucinich seems to be popular and then disappear for four years after every election. I'M NOT PASSING JUDGEMENT, I JUST WANT TO KNOW.
    • dfalken, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Because they are the only honest candidates running in this election. They speak what they believe and will truly stand behind what they believe, not like the rest of lying politicians that say whatever they think the majority of people want to hear. It is a novel idea but maybe America is getting ready for an honest President.
      • peaceofpie, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2In the Wednesday Wall Street Journal there is an article with the title, "Which Democrat's Health Plan Really, Truly Covers More People?" No where in the entire article do they mention Dennis Kucinich. It is actually amazing that they would not put Kucinich in the article when he is the only one with the plan that covers everyone. I guess it is just the way they left out all the facts about the build up to the war in Iraq. They told us the lies, but not the truths. If only the people of Iowa could have courage and vote for Dennis Kucinich
    • elvisB, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1For your information, Ron Paul is kicking ass!
  • factory81, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7Hands down BEST ***** DEBATE YET. Leave it to NPR for some real news....
  • TheZenCowSaysMu, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Three Words:

    Hot First Lady
    • PopePhred, on 12/30/2007, -0/+1Condensed to one word: FLILF.

      Thanks, Daily Show! Now get back to work!
  • dreamxtime, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7Democrats need to stop waxing pragmatic and look at the candidate they really want rather than who they think will win. I am so sick and tired of people saying "I'm going to be practical and vote for Obama even though I like Kucinich/Paul/Huckabee/Thompson/Biden/whoever better." Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate I will vote for. He has both his head and heart in the right place (Imagine that! A president who actually cares about the people!) and so does his wife. He doesn't have some rotten political agenda, he genuinely wants America to be better. I don't see anything wrong with a little more democracy in government ...

    I'm 17 and miss voting in the primaries by a few months. I am hoping and praying for Dennis Kucinich to win the primaries so I can have the honor of being able to vote for him.
    • brownrabbit, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Truth!
      &
      You may not be able to vote but you can be an educator and inspiration for other people's voting.
      Blessings.
    • Dundugg, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Absolutely clear thinking! What is a person who says that they "like" a candidate but will not vote for him/her, because that person may not 'be able to win' saying about himself? First,' I don't really value my own opinion'; and second, I'll let someone else tell me what to think'. What the hell is VOTING if it isn't to express our values and ideals? Voting is public conversation. It is a way we communicate with each other about what matters most. If many people put aside what matters most to them, in effect, giving up and voting for the 'least they can expect'.....what a disaster! Stick to your ideals, dreamxtime, and encourage all others to do the same. You are a credit to this country!
  • newfoundnoise82, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6I'm a green party member, Kucinich is the one Democrat I could support and not hate myself for doing so.
    • BabyWookie, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Gravel is good too. I voted for Nader the last two ellections.
  • alvarezg, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4If (when) he doesn't get the nomination I wish he would run as an independent.
  • Dibou, on 12/07/2007, -6/+1I hope Kucinich becomes the party pick. Even George W. Bush could beat him (if he was running again that is).
    • swazo, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4This post is why there should be a test before you're allowed to use the internet.
  • elvisB, on 12/07/2007, -3/+1Most Dems that I know have turned to Ron Paul, check him out people! It's not about parties, it's about the establishment versus the people and Paul is the best bet. I wouldn't mind seeing Kucinich as his running mate if Paul wins the primaries.
  • shrimp1970, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Skew this http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/2624
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.