December 11, 2006

Dennis Kucinich!

He's running for President!

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

He left Cleveland in such a mess. Why does he think he can run the country?

michilines said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tim said...

Kucinich.

I suppose it was inevitable someone somewhere was going to think the tin-foil hat vote would be decisive in '08. That it was Kucinich is no surprise; that he's such an obvious loser only pushes the marginal tin-foil hat voters toward a more plausible candidate, marginalizing the Kucinich base and making life much easier for the Hillary! and Obama Hussein Barak's of the world...

michilines said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
michilines said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
michilines said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
michilines said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Theo Boehm said...

Oh dear.

michilines said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Troy said...

I thought quxxo was gone!

LoafingOaf said...

he's such an obvious loser

He enjoys having the national rags on the socialist left write about him, though, so it's worth it for him. Of course his constituents on the west side of Cleveland get neglected yet again. But, hey, they keep voting for him, so whatever.

LoafingOaf said...

A lot of people don't know that Dennis has engaged in racism in his political campaigns of the past.

Well, read about that and more in this article:
Hollow Man
Dennis Kucinich has spent his life fighting for the little guy -- and that little guy is Dennis.

Pogo said...

Apparently, Kucinich didn't read the tallies for his last endeavor.

He's the new century's Harold Stassen, the perennial presidential bridesmaid. He must like the attention, even though the dyeable shoes get tiresome.

Goesh said...

-he might stand a chance if he can convince us that he is the one that really invented the internet.

tjl said...

Please let it be so. This would be a bigger treat than a second John Kerry candidacy.

Bruce Hayden said...

It does have the advantage of livening up what may otherwise become a boring corronation of St. Hillary.

Simon said...

People should be a little kinder to Kucinich. As the story notes, he's one of the few Democrats who has the courage to say the obvious: that the Democrats have the power to end the war, and if they fail to use it, they forfeit the right to criticize the President for not doing so.

Anonymous said...

Kicking Dennis Kucinich around (even after he was right about the war)?

Jokes about inventing the internet?

What year is it?

AllenS said...

2006.

Pogo said...

Re: "even after he was right about the war"

"Right", only in meaning, "I want to lose. America must lose. Let's lose shall we? Here's how."
So, yeah, he was "right".

Oh, and don't worry about Imams on planes. Don't worry at all, 'cause Kucinich is all over this.

Captain Holly said...

People should be a little kinder to Kucinich. As the story notes, he's one of the few Democrats who has the courage to say the obvious: that the Democrats have the power to end the war, and if they fail to use it, they forfeit the right to criticize the President for not doing so.

Absolutely. The leadership of the Democrat party have been playing games with the Iraq war for the past three years. They criticize President Bush just enough to get their base fired up, but not enough to get them labeled as defeatists by the majority of Americans.

A Kucinich candidacy forces the other Democrats to actually take a position on Iraq, instead of constantly sniping at the administration.

reader_iam said...

I watched the Iowa Caucuses coverage on C-Span and local outlets here very closely the last time around. Remember, the caucuses not only result in "winners" and "losers" as the media likes to report, but they also determine the delegates to convention. The GOP uses a "winner-takes-all" approach. But the democrats use a rather complex, proportional method.

What this means is that after supporters of various candidates make their case, everyone separates into groups indicating their preference. If a candidates fails to capture a set percentage of the people present, then that group is disbanded and members have to go to other groups.

Here's how this relates to this post, and why watching the caucuses can be so entertaining.

As the groups form, you will see supporters in groups that don't have enough people to make the percentage cut entreating, hectoring and begging people in groups with numbers way in excess of the percentage to "lend" some people in earlier rounds to keep a candidate viable. This can get heated.

The Kucinich supporters, last time around, were notable in this regard.

As the rounds of groupings continue and some groups are disbanded, the remaining groups try to convince the now-orphan caucus participants to join them. This is where it gets really interesting, because which of the front-runner candidates can pick up the orphans can make a difference in the final ranking, and the final proportion of delegates. Some orphans can be exceptionally stubborn and even spiteful in the amount of begging they require. Their criticisms of the remaining viable candidates and their comments about "standing on Principle" can be quite bitter, but very entertaining.

The Kucinich supporters, last time around, were notable in this regard.

Here's the thing: Apart from the entertainment value, the process does result in actual discussion and debates over what sorts of stances and policies goals ought to be included, moving forward, as a condition of transferring support to one candidate or another.

It's a fascinating show in democracy at the grassroots level, and it's one of the way that a candidate like Kucinich--and his supporters--can have an effect beyond what you'd expect given his constituency and the size of his supporter base.

tjl said...

"a candidate like Kucinich--and his supporters--can have an effect beyond what you'd expect given his constituency and the size of his supporter base"

But doesn't this aggravate the problem both parties already face, in that extremely devoted supporters of extremist candidates have a disproportionate voice in choosing the nominee? Consider what happened to Joe Lieberman, for example.

reader_iam said...

Tjl: That's a long discussion. It could take up posts and posts!

But let me throw this out for consideration:

One factor in evaluating your question would be the degree to which one thinks that the election process is, or should be, focused just on coming up with specific candidates and eventually specific officeholders. This is in distinction to the notion that the process is fundamentally a conversation, a debate about what direction the country should head, and what ideas should be adopted, regardless of who nabs the brass ring.

I probably have not put that well, and certainly not pithily. But it's perhaps worth pondering.

Harry Eagar said...

What he really enjoys is hanging out on Maui. He's the only presidential candidate who's ever come here, and last time he was here three times.

His announcement has already made my annual Bottom Ten Maui Stories of 2006 list, along with this year's three shark attacks.