Dennis Kucinich is dropping his longshot campaign for the presidency. He says he won’t endorse anyone. I guess he got the message when the Mayor of Cleveland endorsed one of his four primary opponents for his congressional seat. If Kucinich had taken the process seriously I would have been sad to see him go. As it stands, he’ll be lucky if he gets to run for re-election as a Democrat.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Well, looks like I’m down to two as I make my final decision for Super Duper OHMYGOLLYGEEWILLIKERS Tuesday.
Yeah. After today, though, I think I’m going to vote for Edwards. I had considered Obama with the rational being “anyone but Clinton”, but since he didn’t make a stand in support of the constitution, to hell with him. At least Edwards came right out and said that the constitution is not for sale.
hi K. Normally I would agree, but I’m having a hard time forgiving Edwards for all the votes he cast in the Senate. He is saying all the right things now, and gets many props from me for the minimum wage campaigns he did in the states the past few years, but I have issues with him. I have issues with all of them, which is why I haven’t been able to decide.
Ugh.
people change, manny. l think the 2004 race was an epiphany for him, it woke him up to his roots. look at what he’s done since. l personally find it outweighs what happened prior. this election is/should be about the future.
primary elections are the time to vote for who you think will be the best president.
my 2¢ ymmv.
lTMF’sA
Remember, he was a first-term senator in a very conservative state.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/edwards_clinton_and_questions.html
Edwards beat incumbent Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth in 1998, a bad year for Republicans nationally. He made Faircloth the issue and benefited from the contrast between the two candidates.
But had Edwards run for re-election in 2004, he might well have lost to then-Rep. Richard Burr (R). By that time, Edwards had established a relatively liberal record in the Senate, making him much less appealing to state voters.
Edwards, of course, couldn’t carry his own state during the 2004 presidential race, and the Democratic ticket didn’t carry a single Southern state (though it is certainly unfair to blame him entirely for the ticket’s lack of appeal in Dixie).
l’ve been committed to caucusing to edwards for some time, but was beginning to consider obama as a second choice, with some serious reservations. those reservations have today been reinforced to the point that if hillary or obama get the nomination, l’ll leave that box blank or do a write in.
when campaigning is more important than standing up for the constitution, and the oath of office, buh bye.
it won’t make a difference here, as neither one will win in colorado: ain’t gonna happen.
lTMF’sA
Come on – the measure was sunk without Obama or Clinton. Neither could afford to be off the trail unless their vote was going to be a tiebreaker.
If Edwards had been in the Senate, he’d have acted no differently.
Please vote on a smarter basis than that.
Are you kidding me? There is no better judge of a future President than what happened today. How naive, negative, and defeatist one has to be to write what you just wrote!
Your advice is exactly the poison pill that the Democrats have swallowed the last few years. They are so afraid of their own beliefs that they cower in fear from the Republican boogeyman.
And you are so wrong on what would have happened if Hillary and Obama really wanted a good bill passed. Like it or not they lead the Democratic party right now (not Kucinich–we know what he would have done).
Obama and Hillary could have made THE difference on this vote. Are you telling me that the two leading Democratic Presidential candidates, that are also Senators, could not have leaned on their Senate caucus and Senate leader to get a good bill passed? And that they couldn’t have put pressure on passing a good bill by devoting their time and energy to it? They didn’t give ONE speech on the subject.
Your advice is pathetic and will only encourage the Democratic party to go in the wrong direction.
I JUST posted this, I know.. but I think RH Lisa pretty much sums up my feeling as well. The tax cut package passed today was a travesty that could only have happened in a fairly conservative congress… and dems helped pass it.
Maybe Lisa is being defeatest.. and maybe she’s just being realistic.
Hey. Gravel is still in the race, as far as I can tell.
If only the process WAS serious..
For my homey:
Kucinich was the only Democratic candidate that had a liberal platform. I definitely appreciate someone trying to do that. He is one of only the few Democrats that are sticking their necks out to fight for liberal ideas. Right now, with an American public that is receptive of liberal ideas, we have only a handful of people making the case–Feingold, Dodd, Kucinich.
That is what I think of when I think of Dennis. I don’t think of how improbable his campaign was or how poorly run or about his religious beliefs.
You know. Liberals need all the help they can get right now and I see no need to beat up an easy target. Reminds me of how the press treated Gore. Let’s just recognize him for standing up for things we believe in.
you know what I appreciate less than not being represented? Being represented poorly.
You mean like the current leadership that might have a slick campaign but consistently abandons us on the issues?
You have to go to battle with the liberals you have. There aren’t many people standing besides me right now and Dennis is one of the few. I’m not going to undercut him to make myself look better.
And Dennis is effective. On the issues. He is articulate and is not afraid of his liberal beliefs. He’s consistent and an all around good debater. I would prefer him to make the liberal case (on the issues) over most Democrats. It’s that simple.
True–he’s not effective when we throw in the personal shots–like he’s goofy looking, he’s got pointy ears, he’s seen an UFO, he’s into touchy feely spiritualism, etc.
But what’s in it for you to undercut him on those grounds?
he didn’t run a real campaign. It was a fraud. It’s like paying for a lawyer that doesn’t show up in court.
I remember you saying that when he failed to get in the DSM Register debate.
But really, how less serious was he than the other second and third tier candidates? Don’t all the Richardsons, Bidens, etc. have the same lack of seriousness?
And I saw him out there forcefully and effectively getting his message heard. He wasn’t like Fred Thompson phoning it in. He debated and campaigned hard–from what I could see.
Do you simply mean you thought he never had a chance to win?
Dennis didn’t have the money. That’s why Edwards is about to be tossed to the curb, too (good riddance).
That is so sad . . . he didn’t have the money . . . Well, let’s put up Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg next time. They’ve got plenty of money.
Thanks for the qualification for prezdunt.
You have to go to battle with the liberals you have.
OK, while I generally agree with Boo’s sentiments here, this line almost made spray the screen. Good one. 🙂
[Now…ducking back out of your discussion, already in progress.]
I took that quiz and what I wanted matched Kucinich. I think he was serious. The problem is, he didn’t have money and the media will not take you seriously if they view you as a threat. They will mock you. The whole UFO thing was a perfect example. Do you believe in UFOs? What’s a UFO? Something in the sky that you can’t identify.
Anyway, I am grateful for his call for the recount in New Hampshire. They barely got through a county, the Secretary of State refused to left the counters compare between the number of votes and the rosters where voters signed in, refused to allow anyone to examine the unvoted ballots, and never revealed (if he even knew) the whereabouts of the memory cards which were never examined. But it even with the little count that they did there were clear, bizarre Diebold miscounts that seemed to favor Clinton.
I don’t think that Clinton fixed the election. But think if you were Rovian, and you wanted to run against the candidate with the most negatives (Clinton). You fix the election in her favor, then when the the conventions are over you get someone to finally do a full recount. Voila!
Anyway, I thank Kucinich for what he could do.
I expect Clinton to win the nomination and then the ugliest campaign ever will commence.
He was the only one I really took seriously, I suppose, because of his truly progressive platform.
Voting for anyone else is voting but a shadow of Kucinich.
And, he is planning to launch a new bid to impeach Bush today, not even mentioned in this diary.
I’m a little more concerned about the additional tax break Bush and the conservative congress gave the rich today
What were you expecting? There was never any possibility that the crunch would result in anything from the Shrubberies that would significantly help the bottom 99.75% of the population.
The top .25% is fine, and that’s the GOP’s base.