Election 2008

Dennis Kucinich, Gravitational Field

Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich at the Democratic debate. David Lienemann for NPR hide caption

itoggle caption David Lienemann for NPR

Interesting tidbit on darkhorse candidate Dennis Kucinich from Newsweek's Richard Wolffe, after NPR's Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday:

"Think what you like about Kucinich and UFOs, but this Democratic field has essentially moved to the Kucinich position on trade, on Iraq, on a whole range of things where people thought he was a real outlier. They're all pretty much in agreement now, when it comes to some of these big issues like trade, like diplomacy and war. And they are where Dennis Kucinich is."



Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

I will remember this NPR debate for a long time to come. It was really good to hear an honest politician up there looking out for more than just his/her own political future.

Sent by Sanjay Seth | 12:05 PM | 12-5-2007

Compare the ideas of Dennis Kicinich with those of George Bush. why is it that George Bush's ideas--proved so completely wrong now--were accepted and Dennis Kicinich ridiculed? marketing?

And Kucinich did not say he saw Martians--he reported honestly that he saw an unidentified flying object. How much honesty can one find in the remarks on Bill or Hillary Clinton? or Cheney or Bush? The only one as "honest" seems to be Helen Thomas.

Sent by Kathy Schwartz | 12:06 PM | 12-5-2007

Dennis Kucinich is a real leader. He doesn't have political integrity, he has actual integrity. He understands the issues and brings actual solutions, not rhetoric.

As a moderate liberal, I am tired of supporting 'electable' candidates that do nothing. I am convinced that the media as nominated Hillary, I have yet to meet one person that would vote for her.

Sent by John McBride | 12:08 PM | 12-5-2007

Finally! If he isn't going to be elected the next best thing is for the other candidates to keep moving in his direction. He is the only candidate that has a realistic plan to deal with our health insurance crisis, and the candidate whose positions actually reflect his committment to individuals as opposed to the profits of big business.

Sent by maggie | 12:12 PM | 12-5-2007

Kucinich's positions are by far the most sensible and Democratic in the field and the ones that most Americans would agree with if they understood both the issues and his views thereon. As more and more people recognize this, he should take a position at the front of the pack, which he deserves. The only thing that could stand in his way is fundraising, and supporters are working to remedy that with a massive one-day donation drive on December 15th, the day the Bill of Rights took effect in 1791. See http://december152007.com/

Sent by Brian Carver | 12:14 PM | 12-5-2007

For any person who is a member of the intellectual culture of the internet and keeps abreast of the election I think it's fair to say that we've been most impressed by Ron Paul and Kucinich. The reason being is that it's so grossly obvious that they are both men who aren't politicians in the typical sense and are truly authentic. I think Kucinich is an interesting case of how a true citizen of the 21st century thinks about the world. I don't know if he'll win, the world is still pretty much composed of people who think at a tribal/nation-centric level opposed to a world-centric level. And to people at that lower level of cultural development Kucinich's words just sound foreign and bizarre.

Sent by Paul B | 12:41 PM | 12-5-2007

I liked in Kucinich during his last bid, but as some have mentioned, did not think he was electable. The question is, who decides a candidate electable other than the electorate?

Sent by Tina | 1:09 PM | 12-5-2007

You know, it's actually rather annoying how the media seems to collaborate on sending the *real* alternatives into the fringe. People like Paul and Kucinich actually have ideas that are most acceptable to most Americans. The rest of the candidates in both fields (barring Gravel, of course, but he maintained from the outset that he was not in to win the race), are simply politicians who check which way the wind blows and go along with that. In the more "electable" cases like Clinton and Giulliani, one finds them beholden to big money lobbying interests.

It has been shown, time and time again, that generally big money lobbyists do not care about the same things that most Americans care about. So, why are we bothering with pushing candidates who don't put American people before big money lobbyist groups?

I'm glad that NPR finally gave Kucinich a chance to shine. If only the other news broadcasters would do the same, we might have a real race on our hands, instead of being destined for the same ol' same ol'.

Sent by Seemant Kulleen | 1:29 PM | 12-5-2007

I've taken quite a few of those political alignment quizzes on the internet, where you answer questions on issues and it aligns you with the candidate who most closely shares your views. Every time it comes up with Kucinich. But I can't get over the notion that I don't think he could win in the general election. Is this the problem that everyone has with him? And how does he overcome that notion?

Sent by Jason H | 1:47 PM | 12-5-2007

Like most MSM, even NPR has marginalized Kucinich in their attempt to find an "electable" candidate. I hate that phrase, because IMHO electability has nothing to do with their actual ability to repair America. Only Kucinich or Ron Paul is going to be able to do that. Gravel could too, if he hadn't have been shunted completely out of the race by the mainstream media.

Sent by Jay | 2:07 PM | 12-5-2007

If you want Dennis elected, or if you want his FANTASTIC ideas to get more press, then join us on the December 15th Donation rally! see http://December152007.com

Sent by Yaron | 2:18 PM | 12-5-2007

Dennis Kucinich used to be pro-life. Now, he opposes the right to life, while saying that he wants to develop a "culture of life." What huberis!

Had the issue of the sanctity of life only been part of the debate. Perhaps one of the other anti-lifers would have pulled a Bill Bradley and called him out on his flip-flop.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 2:29 PM | 12-5-2007

What I don't get is where this notion that he is unelectable came from.

The idea that he is unelectable is perpetuated, or not, by the very same people who have the power to vote for him.

If we vote, then we decide who is electable. If we want a candidate like him to win, then we can make it happen.

This is still America.

Sent by Ray G. | 2:39 PM | 12-5-2007

Kucinich will win. I have faith in the American public. When we say we think Kucinich is not electable we are saying the American voting public don't know what they want or would vote for what they don't want. Kucinich has his finger on the pulse of the American people because he has been listening his whole political career to his heart and the heart of America.

Sent by Anna Marchant | 2:53 PM | 12-5-2007

Each and every person that chooses to vote makes up the electorate. Only you decide who is ???electable??? by actually voting for that person. Do not let others dictate who you are choosing at the poles. Do not let a candidate that has won one state dictate which person you are going to vote for in your state. Do the research and vote your conscience! Each the vote counts equally! I really liked the NPR debate format and think it was the most informative debate of the year.

Sent by Nichole | 2:57 PM | 12-5-2007

I don't see Ron Paul as anywhere near Kucinich's league. Paul has not put forth a single strategy that reflects the intellect or understanding shown by Kucinich. Paul's philosophy is basically that government is no good and should do less. I don't want a President who thinks his job is to do less.
As for Kucinich's positions on life, if you don't understand the difference between being "Pro-Life" and pro a "culture of life", let me explain. "Pro-Life" is a label adopted by a group that opposes the practice of abortion. Period. It's a narrow position that doesn't take into account any other factors or issues that affect life, or the quality of life. It has one agenda, and it elevates that agenda above all others. A person who promotes a "culture of life" is someone who wants to promote changes in personal values and behaviors which will create changes in our culture and society, the effect of which would be to elevate awareness and concern about issues affecting life and the quality of life. This means they would like to see abortions reduced and maybe eliminated, but by reshaping our society, not by demonizing women and intruding into a citizen's private domain.

Sent by Dave W. | 3:12 PM | 12-5-2007

One would think that the electorate would make a candidate electable, but in reality it is the media who make him electable. Many people in America don't like to be losers so they vote for the candidate who they've been told is "electable" by the media. Thus Fox news, CNN and other media corporations come up with ridiculous debates that don't touch on any real issues. They simply want to push the agenda of those candidates that are pro mega corporations, all of this at the cost of real journalism. Thanks NPR for having a real debate!

I am going to vote for Kucinich because of his views on Iraq, health care, the economy and other real issues. He appears to be the only honest person in this race.

Sent by Carlos Hurtado | 3:56 PM | 12-5-2007

I wanted Mike Gravel.
Yes, I understand the many follies in that decision; however, people who are that outspoken generally do it for me.

Since no one, NPR included, found it relevant to address how candidates are removed from "debates" due to lack of fundinding (... due to lack of air time; due to back to lack of funds), then I guess Kucinich will have to be an acceptable alternative.

Paul certainly isn't... unless you happen to be an 18-35 year old male on the Internet.

An 18-35 year old male on the Internet with the inability to look up Paul's old Usenet posts (from 1990 - 1994) on race and money. Not that it's damning, but it's damning.

Sent by Zane Grey | 4:20 PM | 12-5-2007

The USA is becoming a police state, enabled by 9/11. But anyone who's done their research knows 9/11 was an inside job, and that Bush's family had connections with the German Nazis. What we have really seen since Bush took office after his brother rigged the 2000 election is a hijacking of American democracy by extremists who have an anti-American agenda.



Sent by Zack | 4:27 PM | 12-5-2007

I find, again and again, that people who listen to Dennis Kucinich and agree with what he stands for, still say they will probably not support him because they believe that he cannot win against the top three in the primaries, and they are afraid that if they vote for him, they may end up with their least favorite of the Clinton-Obama-Edwards choice. This kind of thinking, this allowing the media and corporate money to decide who we can or cannot vote for is as repulsive as it is heartbreaking. Kucinich is clearly the best candidate, so vote for him. And convince others to vote for him. If you believe in America, vote, but vote for who you really believe in, not who others tell you can win.

Sent by Jeff Mays | 4:51 PM | 12-5-2007

Dave W.,

You poor poor man. Pro-life is not a narrow issue focused only on abortion. Even if that were pro-life be, it is still not a narrow issue. We have 1.5 million abortions performed each year in this country. That makes it the most common medical procedure performed on women. It's performed by a for-profit White man-dominated industry which faces little regulation of its practices or procedures, and --not surprisingly-- little regulation. If you consider this to be a "narrow" issue, I hate to see your definition of "wide."

I also couldn't help but notice, my good man, that you didn't comment about his flip-flop on the issue of abortion. Apparently, if it's not an important, why would he change his position? Did the pre-born suddenly stop being human before he ran in 2004?

And the fact that you distinguish "pro-life" and "culture of life" shows that you, sadly, don't know anyone who's pro-life much less know someone who knows someone who pro-life --for the record, no, Dave, I don't count. If you did know someone who's pro-life or know someone who, etc., etc., you would know what we go through from your side. Your side routinely accuses us pro-lifers of all kinds of hypocrisy simply because, and I quote with parrotting self-righteous finger-waving, "If you're so pro-life, why aren't you pro-life on..." fill-in-the-blank other issue that may or may not have something to do with the right to life. Never mind that pro-choicers aren't pro-choice on other issues than abortion (school choice or motorcycle helmet laws come to mind). And never mind that most on your side don't do a thing for those women who choose not to murder their own babies and to mutilate their own bodies. If "pro-life" and "culture of life" had nothing with one other, we pro-lifers wouldn't have to stomach your side's hypocritical, self-righteous, finger-wagging.

Next time you talk of the "culture of life," here's a suggestion, chief. Try research. Lucky for you, "Evangelicum Vitae" has been translated into English, relieving you of the burden of those tricky conjugations. It covers abortion, of course, but also capital punishment, poverty, war. Also, Democrats for Life of America have a Web site, so you can read more on the culture of life there, specifically their 95/10 Initiative.

I look forward to your further parsings on the difference between "pro-life" and "culture of life." Regarding the snide comment you made on demonizing women? Just as the best abolitionists were former slaveowners, the best pro-lifers are the women who've suffered through abortions. Since your side so blithly dismiss these women's plight, I ask you, sir, who's demonizing whom? And finally, regarding the intrusion into citizen's "private domain," such was the same arguement used in the 19th century to justify slavery. One politician at that time responded to that arguement by stating, "No one has the right to choose to do wrong." That politician was Abraham Lincoln. That makes you, sir, Stephen Douglas. For that matter, so is Dennis Kucinich. All I can say is that must be nice to make apathy into a political virtue and defense of the vulnerable into a political vice.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 5:03 PM | 12-5-2007


Thank you for your post. Yes, yes, 9/11 is an inside job. mumble mumble Illuminati mumble mumble Vatican mumble mumble Masons mumble mumble CIA mumble mumble Jesuits mumble mumble General Motors mumble mumble Bill Gates mumble mumble Wal-Mart.

I think that covers it.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 5:36 PM | 12-5-2007

The 9/11 question and who was responsible really needs to be the front and center issue before we can more forward as a nation. The 9/11 Commission was partisan to say the least. An independent investigation needs to be forth-coming. It's amazing that this has been allowed not to happen for so long with so many investigations being undertaken over much less important issues. Americans need to check out as much info from both sides of the argument as possible and squash this notion that it is anti patriotic to question authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we didn't question authority we would still be ruled by the Brits.

Sent by Paul Battis | 6:02 PM | 12-5-2007

I supported Kucinich in 2004 as well, and there was a lot of "unelectable" talk. This time around I feel like he's getting a lot more attention, is in line with the beliefs of Americans, and the only things standing in his way are money and media coverage (shame on NPR for referring to him as a "dark horse" candidate, I would have hoped public radio would be objective if anyone). We need to stop going on about how he's not electable, he's made huge strides in the last 4 years and if most of the people who agree with him vote for him, he will have the majority. See the DFA poll, and I encourage you to at least donate and help him earn some recognition, december152007.com.

Sent by Ben | 6:45 PM | 12-5-2007

The best part of our democratic process is that in the primaries we get to vote for whoever we like, without the risk of losing to the other side. If you like Kucinich, vote for him! It's as simple as that.

Sent by Matthew Bates | 6:53 PM | 12-5-2007

Why does it have to be gravitational pull or drifting? How about HE IS JUST PLAIN RIGHT ABOUT THINGS. If the media (including NPR) would quit downplaying the chances of all but the "front-runners", more people would get to hear what Kucinich has to say, and then he would be front-runner.

Sent by Anna | 7:03 PM | 12-5-2007

Dennis is talking my language. Imagine if you will, a liberal trade policy, with a Communist Country, China. Who'da Thunk?

A Communist Country with a stronger Yuan than a Capitalist Country's Dollar. How did this happen?

And Dennis is right, we are financing the Iraq invasion, with Treasury Note Debt to them also. If the Dems are tax & spend, the Liberal Republicans are Debt & Spend.

Dennis stays focused, but barring a real swing in his direction it will have to be Hillary because she's a 2-4-1 deal.

Sent by Rich | 7:11 PM | 12-5-2007

I'm still not hearing a beep about Alan Keyes BPP . . . This is "Fair and Balanced" NPR, remember. If you are going to give voice to one "within-the-margin-of-error' last place-er on the blog, you have to give equal coverage to them all of them . . . right?

I mean think about it; Keyes and Kucinich are virtually in the same league . . . they both are (despite what some might say) on the respective fringes of their parties. They both are immensely annoying to listen to. And they both are either too lazy or too cheap to register new web domain names each time they decide (inexplicably) to run for president.

Almost like political twins. . . separated at birth.


Sent by Will G | 7:58 PM | 12-5-2007

Kucinich is our absolute best hope for America.
And why is NPR treating him as disrespectfully as the rest of the media? Laughing, grudging acknowledgement, NPR you have fallen off the pedestal that I had mistakenly placed you upon. If you tout yourself as public radio and accept pubic funds you owe the public fair and unbiased broadcasting.

Sent by Bonnie Myers | 9:42 PM | 12-5-2007

I want to hear Dennis Kucinich more. Let him speak. He speaks the truth and has always spoken the truth. The truth cannot be hidden for long despite the mainstream media's best efforts. Kucinich will win the presidency. (Why was Wolffe surprised, why did he "hate" to say it? Kucinich won!)

Sent by Eli | 10:20 PM | 12-5-2007

I am glad that the debates are becoming more grounded in the real isssues courtesy of Congressman Kucinich. He is consistant, direct, intelligent, and is leading this presidential debate to where it should rightly be. He is the only one who is already acting on his vision. I am tired of americans needing an electable "figure". It is bull! It was obvious that NPR was allowing more time to only a select few. Do they think we are stupid?

Kucinich is acting on his conviction for our rights as human beings here in America and in the world. Kucinich stands for a democracy that we work for together and not one that we take for granted. His vision is comprehensive. He is and has been taking action for all of us and he reengages us with our constitutional process that is being abused and taken for granted in our country. I think he has also inspired many to reinvest in our political process. He kicks ass and I am not afraid to support him.

Sent by Kristin Fortier | 10:23 PM | 12-5-2007

I agree with Dave W. Ron Paul is NO Dennis Kucinich! I hope Dennis does not join forces with Ron Paul, but if he does I will still vote for Dennis. I am feeling a renewed sense of hope as I read more and more comments from people who realize that the "unelectable" baloney is just part of the mainstream media manipulation.
This calling certain candidates the "front runners" is part of the mainstream media manipulation.
I will NOT vote for any of the other Corporate Owned/CFR Membered candidates. I will only for vote Dennis Kucinich is the upcoming elections.
Peace NOW!

Sent by SusanForKucinich | 10:32 PM | 12-5-2007

Dennis Kucinich is the real deal. He is a statesman. I'm glad that most Americans are beginning to recognize his perspectives, which are in line with them. If we all want a better future not just for America, but for the whole world, let's elect Dennis Kucinich in office. But for now, let's work on preventing fraud in the coming election, let's go back to a paper ballot system, which is fair than the electronic system. We have proof that our votes really count. :)

Sent by Jamie | 10:58 PM | 12-5-2007

I think that is pathetic that we, the citizens of this country, fall into the political trap that our Congressmen so often do, but considering the fact that the media has a huge role in HOW we think, I suppose it's not so surprising.

The idea of wasting a vote on someone is not actually possible. (with the electoral collage being the actual voting body). We, as mere reflections of "truth" in our nation, have the duty to vote for whom we believe is in line with American values, like freedom and continuance, etc. We must speak honestly from our hearts and cast our vote not to win the election, but to be heard and initiate further change and secure the prosperity of democracy. The political and moral majority will shift with time, as they always have in our history. Change is possible and inevitable. It can only take time, but it starts with our powerful voices.

Kucinich for 2008, or at least someone who isn't playing to a dead-end facade of ideals, or to someone playing on fear, religion, or paranoia!

Sent by Matthew | 11:16 PM | 12-5-2007

Of all candidates that I've heard respond to questions, Kucinich is the only one that seems to actually answer them instead of using circular logic or taking his answer in another direction. As far as politicians go, he's a real American. He has consistently made the right policy decisions and every television news station would rather file him away as outlandish or radical. Is it because he doesn't have "the look" or the star-power of an Obama or Clinton?

Wake up and smell the coffee America. If you want change, you want Kucinich!

Sent by Matt Locke | 11:32 PM | 12-5-2007

New Hampshire, not Iowa, must be viewed as the first test for Kucinich. He will survive our Jan. 3 caucuses only because he is not campaigning here. Many Iowans admire him, but we can't possibly achieve the 15-percent minimum needed for "viability" in our precincts; not without a campaign organization, and not without visits by the candidate. Don't judge Dennis by his Iowa results!

Sent by Daniel G. Clark | 12:28 AM | 12-6-2007

Personally, coming from a pro-life perspective, I really respect Dennis' thoughtful change in heart about this issue. This is not an instance of someone blindly flipflopping. This is an instance of someone, with a great deal of consideration, deciding that their previous position was too absolute and narrow minded.

'pro-life' & 'pro-choice'- these are amazingly divisive labels. In general, everyone wants control of their own body. And everyone is for life. As Kucinich himself has said "I don't think there's any woman out there who wakes up and says, "Gee, I think I'll have an abortion."

If you're concerned about his change in stance, you can read about why he moved from strictly 'pro-life' to mostly 'pro-choice' and see what his voting record is on this issue at:

Dennis Kucinich is a healer and a reconciler. I'm impressed with his ability to avoid a 'foolish consistency' which has been the hobgoblin of the Bush administration and many other politicians.

Sent by sahzah | 1:20 AM | 12-6-2007

The best Presidential Candidate representing the Democrat Party IS Congressman Dennis Kucinich. He can never be bought by for corporate favors that would not be for the good of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. He never have a STRING tied to him like many of our ELECTED PUPPET officials. AND He is clearly a threat to the ESTABLISHMENT that has been at war with the working class AMERICA. For that, the fight to get him to lead this nation WILL BE A challenge; UNLESS WE ALL join him in this CHALLENGE. It will be Hard WORK but the rewards (for a better AMERICA and a better WORLD) would be JUST as hard to defeat when WE GET HIM THERE.
Whether he WIN or LOSE; OUR conscience would be clear; for WE STOOD UP for what is RIGHT. WE STAND WITH THE BELIEFS OF OUR GREAT FOUNDING FATHER, and the GREAT AMERICANS that fought and stood up to defend OUR Constitution.

Congressman deserves OUR support and a big thanks. I know that I owe him alot of gratitude for stand up for us. He has inspired me to be proud to be ONE of his kind of people (HONEST PROUD AMERICAN). I am committed my vote for his bid to be the next President of the United States as long as he remains committed to his bid. He deserve this; just like I deserve a President like him; that represents my beliefs.

Sent by Jay M. | 2:46 AM | 12-6-2007

I believe Dennis' views are reflecting some of the beliefs which once made us a great nation of compassonate and honest people. Too many professional politicians are saying what the big businesses want then to say, reflecting their interests. Dennis is speaking once again for the beliefs of the common man and the true American dream!

Sent by James M. Sorter | 2:53 AM | 12-6-2007

Why are so many of the right-wing folk like poor ol' Matty Scallon so utterly incoherent and disjointed in their vitriolic diatribes?
It is quite a window on the caliber of the proponents of right-wing positions, that they seldom offer more than inarticulate, shrill and insulting bombast as their contribution to the most important debates of our day. In fact some of those debates are only debates because of the malevolent refusal of these people to accept the bleeding obvious because of their politics of particular superstitions. That applies all the way from Mr. Scallon here to those world wrecking Neo-con-artists in the White House.
From over the ocean, here in Australia, it is just glow-in-the-dark obvious that the candidate with the best chance of dragging the U.S. out of the moral hole it has descended into over the last eight years is this man, Kucinich.
We have just woken up after eleven years of moral bankruptcy and spectacularly ousted an administration that had done nothing but lie through its teeth from the moment they took the reigns.
You can do the same if you have the guts to make your own decisions about what your country needs, going forward, instead of deriving your opinions merely from exposure to the opinionated.

P.S. Mr. Scallon, Look up the meaning of 'narrow issue' before making a twit of yourself next time you feel the urge.

Sent by Paul o'Dowd | 5:25 AM | 12-6-2007

I notice that while the facts of this story are that the entire rest of candidate field has decided Kucinich's positions are the best (otherwise they wouldn't choose to be "where Dennis Kucinich is"), it's Richard Wolffe's single, personal opinion "a Kucinich administration makes no sense" that gets emphasized.

Even this short summary article, on an outlet as supposedly liberal as NPR, about an NPR Presidential debate, still manages to use all these phrases to describe Kucinich:

"fringe views"
"crazy notions"
"darkest of dark horses"
"a Kucinich administration makes no sense"
"Kucinich and UFOs"
"a real outlier"

And even though Kucinich's positions are supposedly compelling enough that everyone has adopted them, there's only *one sentence* from Kucinich himself detailing *what those positions actually are.* Far more time is spent characterizing his positions as "fringe" and "crazy," part of a candidacy that "makes no sense."

I don't know whether this kind of character assassination-as-reporting is intentional or unconscious. But that it's presented as responsible journalism is beyond unacceptable - it's reprehensible.

Perhaps it's the media and the candidates they support who are (and have always been) on the fringe - as far as the best interest of the American public is concerned.

"Newsweek Political Analyst Notices Public Supports Positions That Make No Sense To Him, Concludes Entire Public Now A Fringe Group With 'A New Vogue For Crazy'"

Sent by Bruce | 5:37 AM | 12-6-2007

It's so tiresome to hear people saying that Kucinich isn't 'electable.' *You* are the ones who can elect him, one vote at a time, that's how it always works. Why waste your vote on anyone else? It's all the same anyway - Democrats and Republicans like one big party. The only real reason I can see that Dennis Kucinich doesn't get elected is that enough people decide, all over the country, that other people won't vote for him. It seems to me to be very much like despair. Other than this, doesn't it seem as if he could be elected by a landslide? Use your vote! Use it here in this democratic republic! Otherwise all these streams of money and propaganda will have done their work - you will believe the possible is impossible, and settle for the continued erosion of what makes this nation great.

Sent by Barry Smith | 6:22 AM | 12-6-2007

Couldn't Kucinich pass for Hitler if he grew a short mustache? That is marketing.

Sent by Lamont E. | 7:58 AM | 12-6-2007

When people hear the truth they recognize it. Dennis' problem is not enough people are able to hear him. He is drowned out by shouting polls and corporate interests who do not want the truth to be heard.

Sent by Jackie Cleary | 8:41 AM | 12-6-2007

This election is about fear in the USA and cowardice over killing Iraqis to save them from...a USA created threat.
USA is a shameful war criminal...350 million people who are gullible and foolish, perfectly matched to the buffoon and moron from Texas, G W Bush.
God help the next president - the USA is the most despised nation of baby killers who keep killing every day.

Sent by Lamont E. | 8:52 AM | 12-6-2007

As far as Dennis being electable... Those of us who are in support of him will not be changing our minds if he doesn't win early primary states. By the time my primary comes along the pool will have dwindled as the less committed candidates drop out from lack of early success. Dennis is the one candidate that will never quit. Just like last time, he will ride it all the way to the convention. This election will be a battle of attrition. Dennis offers a real alternative to the trends that have been ruining our nation. I believe that more people are begining to see this, and as the field narrows it will become more and more obvious why Dennis is the candidate that most represents qualitative change in a more positive direction.

Sent by John | 9:02 AM | 12-6-2007

I agree that Kucinich is the only hope for this country. If we don't take a stand and stop repeating what the media says, we lose the one truly democratic attribute we have--thinking for ourselves. After listening to Kucinich speak and the way a crowd responds to him, it is difficult not to want to support someone who really understands what it means to be poor, sick and in need of help and to not be judged by the government when asking for that help. That is what a Kucinich presidency offers all of us.

Sent by Deborah Emin | 9:06 AM | 12-6-2007

"Dennis Kucinich used to be pro-life. Now, he opposes the right to life, while saying that he wants to develop a "culture of life." What huberis!

Had the issue of the sanctity of life only been part of the debate. Perhaps one of the other anti-lifers would have pulled a Bill Bradley and called him out on his flip-flop.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 2:29 PM ET | 12-05-2007"

Please, PLEASE, we would LOVE for the MSM to bring out this fact. Finally free press! But you know why they won't? Do you? Because they are scared s**tless that if the average American hears about his proposals for Single-payer health care for all (not INSURANCE), the immediate cancelling of NAFTA and the WTO, getting us out of Iraq immediately, job creation to rebuild the infrastructure of the US, all with existing money that is being misplaced and misused by a bloated military budget - that's right NO N EW TAXES!) that they would vote for him in a heartbeat. But the MSM does not want him to win, PERIOD!!! He would take back the government and this country out of the hands of the fascist corporate elite and back into the hands of the PEOPLE! plain and simple. And you know it, too, Matthew Scallon.

And as far as his position goes on the sanctity of life goes, he has always been opposed to abortion per-say, but understands the mitigating circumstances that create an environment for this - poverty, families requiring both parents to work and cannot afford time-off (and usually UNPAID) to have the baby let-alone raise it. If this were France, the mother would have 2 years PAID leave (guaranteed) to have and raise the baby. But not in the good old USA, where you must have the baby, but g*****n it if you're not back at your job a few weeks after giving birth than you can be fired. This my friend is why women and families have not other alternative than to have abortions. Why do you think abortion statistics have been higher during the Bush administration as opposed to the Clinton. It's called prosperity! And Dennis Kucinich will provide that with Free prenatal care, FREE post natal care, more workers rights to take PAID time off to take care of their families.

Kuicinich '08!

Sent by Al Hidalgo | 9:23 AM | 12-6-2007

Dennis probably will not win the election, but it's very important that his ideas are heard. They are the bedrock of the Democratic party & make a lot of sense to a lot of people. Hopefully, the leading canidates & their machines realize this & repeat them & actually ACT on a few of them.

Sent by paul | 9:48 AM | 12-6-2007

Thanks for the Hachet job NPR.

You can be sure of my dis-continued support for public radio when fund drive comes along.
Oh, except for KPFK...they are still free in their minds and their voice.

Dennis is the only candidate for a Democrat.

Electable? He has won at every level of government, local, state and federal and has served in all three branches as well.

THAT is what electable is all about!

Sent by Nathan Anderson | 10:10 AM | 12-6-2007

Forget Ron Paul, he voted against the horse slaughter prevention act.
I do not understand why any compassionate person would not want to vote for Dennis Kucinich. Any person whose heart breaks when they see the injustices being done in our society, whether it be against a human, an animal, or the Earth itself, owes it to themselves to research Dennis' platform.
We need a President that understands and wants to end suffering, as opposed to one that causes it and feels no remorse.

Sent by Elizabeth McAdoo | 10:11 AM | 12-6-2007

To Matthew Scallon 12-05-07. I think having a candidate open minded enough to see the other side of things is much better than a candidate who never changes his ideals, no matter the cost. You attack Kucinich on what might possibly be his only belief that wasn't right the first time (:P) even though he saw the light and waltz right over to womans rights. It's the close minded politically religious right that refuses to adapt to easing the opression on the people. Yet, if Bush today stepped out of his vacation house and decided to take a crack at being a president for the people and went with Congresses war funds attached with a withdrawal rate would you point the big finger at him tagging him a flip flopper?

Flip flopper is really only an issue if they flip flop during debates. If they say one thing at the beginning of a debate and say another thing maybe even next debate without first setting straight the detachment of ideals on the first debate then you have a wishy washy candidate. Or someone that even goes back and forth numerous times trying not to give a solid answer like most of the mainstream candidates.

Hell, if you think changing an idea years earlier matters, I was born and raised republican by the people for the military industrial complex of the people. I guess the coming of the age of reason has left me a flip flopper. =(

Sent by Shea Townsend | 10:19 AM | 12-6-2007

And Matthew Scallion, as far as your assertion that Dennis Kucinich is a "flip'flopper", one could also say the same of the Catholic Church (and I'm going to assume that you are Catholic as you have sited the "Evangelium (not Evangelicum) Vitae" in your post). If you recall the words of St. Augustine (and yes, he was canonized a SAINT despite his beliefs that "a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).") And the church went along with simnilar beliefs for centuries until the 17th century when it finally decreed that all abortion is murder. Hmmm...that sounds like a "flip-flop," doesn't it?

Sent by Al Hidalgo | 10:23 AM | 12-6-2007

I'll definitely vote Kucinich in the Democratic primary. After that, we'll see.

Sent by steve | 10:36 AM | 12-6-2007

I volunteered for Kucinich's presidential campaign in 2004 and will do so again this time around. It is always interesting to hear how many Democrats believe in what Kucinich has to say. But they tend to add to their praise the words, "He doesn't stand a chance."

Why is it that Americans are afraid to vote for what they want?

Sent by David Anderson | 10:39 AM | 12-6-2007

Bruce is right. The real story here is the fact that although all the main stream candidates are (supposedly) moving their platforms closer to Kucinich; NPR is still sounding the Fox News line that Kucinich is a crazy, unelectable, darkhorse fringe candidate that makes no sense and listens to UFO's. This is so absurd it is offensive.
It is also bothersome that they seem to recognize the value and popularity of Kucinich's ideas, but instead of citing Kucinich's foresight and courage, they try to insinuate that the other candidates now agree and hold the same views as Kucinich. "So it's okay Kucinich fans, vote for Hillary. She believes pretty much the same thing."
Except that as far as I've seen, none of the mainstream candidates are anywhere near Kucinich's stances on any of the issues.

Sent by Matt | 10:44 AM | 12-6-2007

As a random American on the Internet, who listened to the debate the other day, I will now support Kuicinich. Just listening to the rhetoric from the other candidates made my stomach turn. Have these people forgotten why this country is here, and all of American history? It is really sad that it is their job to know these things, and push our country to positive means. What I heard was babble and doublespeak. Dennis made a couple of comments that set him apart from these pandering people.

I can't wait to get all up in arms when I hear the Republican debate!

Sent by Drew from Zhrodague | 10:52 AM | 12-6-2007

What makes Dennis different from the other contenders is that he has the courage of his convictions and has a track record of standing up to corporate America and winning, that when he was mayor of Cleveland...and a solution oriented approach to what he speaks about.
On the issue of abortion, as a woman, I believe that no-one has a right to tell me what to do with my own body!
Dennis stands head and shoulders above all the other candidates- my guess it is his wisdom.

Sent by Robyn Wolf | 10:55 AM | 12-6-2007

Sent by Lamont E.: Couldn't Kucinich pass for Hitler if he grew a short mustache? That is marketing.

About the only comment in here that shows an inkling of understanding how the American political system works...in reality....not ideology.

The Kucinich and Ron Paul factor further fragments the Democratic Pary (Ron Paul being the candidate who will steal Democrat votes).

While Hillary and Obama continue their catfight, further framenting the vote.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney allays the fears of the conservative right that, yes, the Mormon Church is a five hundred pound gorilla.

So, if people like Kucinich and Paul are going to further shred the Democratic Party's power base like a twelve guage scatter shotgun, and if these guys are so appealing....why not have them start a third party?

Instead of shredding the Democratic party's power base, while the Republicans continue to unite?

Okay, since you don't know the answer, I'll tell you why guys like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich can't put together a third party.

It's an illusion that they are that popular across the board with the American electorate.

Political blogging is becoming the Blackwater of cyberspace when it comes to creating virtual reality mirages how the majority American public will vote in '08.

It'd be real nice to see the Democratic constituency come up with a real strategy instead of following Dorothy down the Yellow Brick Road.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 11:03 AM | 12-6-2007

Dennis Kucinich will win the election (and is electable) if you vote for him. It's that simple. He has won 10 elections already, he was the youngest mayor to be elected at the time he became mayor of Cleveland. He has shown courage and backbone to stand up to the Corporate Interests and the Bush Administration. The media would like to see him go away but he isn't going anywhere - not if we keep him in the forefront. His campaign is a grassroots campaign - that means no corporate or special interest money. So, if you want Kucinich for president, go to kucinich.us and find your state coordinator. Call them and ask how you can help.

His ideas and his stand on all the issues represent mainstream America, even if Americans are not aware of it yet;-)

Sent by Deb | 11:10 AM | 12-6-2007

Dear Paul O'Dowd,

Thank you so much for "nice" words, mate.

So, according to you, I'm a "neo-con" simply because I oppose the wholesale slaughter of innocent human life.


Well, guess what? I support, among other things:

-an end to the death penalty
-higher taxes on the wealthiest 1%
-affirmative action
-gun control
-the first Gulf war (that way, we wouldn't have had to deal with this mess in the first place)
-war in the Balkans (do you know we still have troops there? By "we," I mean the U.S.; I don't know if Australia has any troops there)
-stricter emissions standards
-investments in renewal energies
-an end to for-profit health care, which includes credit-union types of health care co-operatives
-civil unions for homosexuals (something more akin to a power-of-attorney than marriage, but a union nontheless)

Now, maybe the mates and shirlies in Canberra would consider such positions neo-con positions, but here we Yanks don't.

So, according to you, because I'm neo-con simply because I'm pro-life. I now know what your definition of a "narrow issue" is, but, since you requested, I will oblige. I quote from Marriam-Webster:

Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English narowe, from Old English nearu; akin to Old High German narwa scar
Date: before 12th century
1 a: of slender width b: of less than standard or usual width cof a textile : woven in widths usually less than 18 inches (46 centimeters)
2: limited in size or scope

3 a: illiberal in views or disposition : prejudiced bchiefly dialect : stingy, niggardly
4 a: barely sufficient : close b: barely successful

5: minutely precise : meticulous

6of an animal ration : relatively rich in protein as compared with carbohydrate and fat
7: tense 3

From dictionary.com (Unabridged):

is??sue /Pronunciation [ish-oo or, especially Brit., is-yoo] noun, verb, -sued, -su??ing.
???noun 1. the act of sending out or putting forth; promulgation; distribution: the issue of food and blankets to flood victims.
2. something that is printed or published and distributed, esp. a given number of a periodical: Have you seen the latest issue of the magazine?
3. something that is sent out or put forth in any form.
4. a quantity of something that is officially offered for sale or put into circulation at one time: a new issue of commemorative stamps; a new bond issue.
5. a point in question or a matter that is in dispute, as between contending parties in an action at law.
6. a point, matter, or dispute, the decision of which is of special or public importance: the political issues.
7. a point the decision of which determines a matter: The real issue in the strike was the right to bargain collectively.
8. a point at which a matter is ready for decision: to bring a case to an issue.
9. something proceeding from any source, as a product, effect, result, or consequence: His words were the issue of an intelligent man.
10. the ultimate result, event, or outcome of a proceeding, affair, etc.: the issue of a contest.
11. a distribution of food rations, clothing, equipment, or ammunition to a number of officers or enlisted soldiers, or to a military unit.
12. offspring; progeny: to die without issue.
13. a going, coming, passing, or flowing out: free issue and entry.
14. a place or means of egress; outlet or exit.
15. something that comes out, as an outflowing stream.
16. Pathology. a. a discharge of blood, pus, or the like.
b. an incision, ulcer, or the like, emitting such a discharge.

17. issues, English Law. the profits from land or other property.
18. the printing of copies of a work from the original setting of type with some slight changes: the third issue of the poem.
19. Obsolete. a proceeding or action.
???verb (used with object) 20. to put out; deliver for use, sale, etc.; put into circulation.
21. to mint, print, or publish for sale or distribution: to issue a new coin; to issue a new book.
22. to distribute (food, clothing, etc.) to one or more officers or enlisted soldiers or to a military unit.
23. to send out; discharge; emit.
???verb (used without object) 24. to go, pass, or flow out; come forth; emerge: to issue forth to battle.
25. to be sent, put forth, or distributed authoritatively or publicly, as a legal writ or money.
26. to be published, as a book.
27. to originate or proceed from any source.
28. to arise as a result or consequence; result: a reaction that issues from the stimulus.
29. Chiefly Law. to proceed as offspring, or be born or descended.
30. Chiefly Law. to come as a yield or profit, as from land.
31. Archaic. to have the specified outcome, result, etc. (often fol. by in).
32. Obsolete. to end; terminate.
???Idioms33. at issue, a. being disputed or under discussion.
b. being at opposite viewpoints; in disagreement: Medical experts are still at issue over the proper use of tranquilizers.

34. join issue, a. to enter into controversy or take exception to.
b. to submit an issue jointly for legal decision.

35. take issue, to disagree; dispute: He took issue with me on my proposal for a new advertising campaign.

[Origin: 1275???1325; (n.) ME < MF: place or passage out; OF (e)issue < VL *ex??ta, n. use of fem. of *ex??tus, L exitus exit; (v.) ME issuen, deriv. of the n., or < MF, OF (e)issu, ptp. of issir to go out (??? L ex??re); see exit]

So, dear Mr. O'Dowd, let me not be said that this "neo-con" didn't honor a request. BTW, as definitions go, I really like definition 3 for "narrow." I reminds of a certain Australian whose blog entry I just read.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 11:21 AM | 12-6-2007

Dave W:
your comment shows you how ill informed you are. There is 1 significant difference between Kucinich and Paul: Kucinich thinks the government can fix things, where Paul thinks the government should reduce its involvement in everything. It is a fundamental arguement about the constitution: can the government do anything the constitution says or only what it says. well under bush the constitution doesnt matter and that is a real problem. Paul's position is based on history, look at our current state, the government is corrupt through and through from invasions for profit to illeagal taxation of citizens to spying on citizens and suspending 800 yr old rights of habeaus corpus.
Could Kucinich run a corruption free government that is heavily involved in the regulation of many things the federal government was not originally designed to do? Maybe, I like Kucinich. He has great ideas, but more importantly an impecable record. I seem to side with Paul on this argument because I think the government is too involved in the lives of the citizens and if it did less, it would be able to focus more on its true responcibilities: maintain the armed forces(boost veterans healthcare), maintain the money of the nation(put the power to regulate US currency in the hands of the congress as article 1 sec 8 states and not in the hands of private bankers in the "federal" "reserve") and allow free markets to work(with congressional oversight).
However I do agree with his interpretation of the constitution about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in his effort for a not for profit healthcare system. Its the 21st century and we shouldnt have Americans dieing of food insecurity and basic health problems. Paul / Kucinich '08? unlikely but our nation would be better for it. They have much in common and the people would benefit under their administrations.

Sent by tom | 11:23 AM | 12-6-2007

Not voting for Dennis is tantamount to voting AGAINST your own personal and our national best interests. MSM and polls be damned, why on earth would anyone do that???

Sent by Ellen Brown | 11:31 AM | 12-6-2007

Kucinich is kind of a fluke. He's an honest candidate who actually supports what people in this country want. Based on issues, poll after poll show that he's more aligned with the majority of Americans on almost every issue for either party. Except for the polls that simply don't include him at all.

There are two reasons he won't win. First, the media doesn't pay attention to him, so the majority of Americans don't know who he is or what he stands for. If anything, maybe they hear about the UFO thing or the fact that he's not the prettiest candidate you'll see. If all you know about the guy is that he's "too far off the spectrum," no reasonable person would support that. But if you oppose the Iraq war and you look it up, you might see that he does too but that none of the big candidates do.

The other problem is that the people who do or who would support him aren't the same people who vote in the primaries. By next November, if we're down to a choice between Hillary and Guliani, it's not even really a choice. Who would you rather see on TV for four years?

Change isn't impossible, but these are the challenges we have to face if we're serious about it.

Sent by Kevin | 11:31 AM | 12-6-2007

Dear Matthew Scallon,

All that you say might be laudable... If you were a woman. Heck, I would even ponder what you have to offer but, you're not. So, frankly, all I hear is "blah blah .. blah blah blah blah .. blah blah." Or translated, "I'm a man and, besides the fact that my views are the only correct ones, I know what's right and good for women. Honey! get back in the kitchen and make me my food!" Puh-lease. You opinions, which may well be right for you (and that's fine), are just that - opinions. Fortunately for you, you never have to worry about being pregnant, or worse, being pregnant with no means to support yourself or your baby. You think you understand the issue but, you're only spouting what you were spoon fed by your evangelical parents. Get off your high horse.

Sent by Sarah Cordwood | 11:36 AM | 12-6-2007

Dear Al Hidalgo,

You can't read minds, so watch yourself when you make such arrogant statements as, "And you know it, too, Matthew Scallon."

So, because I happen to agree with most of the other issues which Dennis Kucinich espouses, I'm supposed to give him a pass on his murdering the pre-born. And Mussolini made the train run on-time.

Speaking of France, the French citizens, unlike here, got to vote on abortion. That's why their abortions are more restrictive than ours.

Obviously, you've never read anything from http://www.democratsforlife.org. If you did --and was paying attention-- you wouldn't be posing the position as either baby-killing is legal or we get paid leave. BTW, my employer gave me 6 weeks of paid leave for the birth of my son and could have had up to 13 weeks if I had enough sick leave, thanks for asking.

You know, I can't help but notice how truly mean of side of abortion debate is. I've been nothing but polite, yet I've had a wealth of invective thrown at me by people who don't even know me. It's as if you're treating us pro-lifers with the same level of hatred that you, apparently, already have toward the pre-born, who, by the way, is still the innocent one in all this. So, it's not for us pro-lifers to prove why we should protect the innocent from death, but rather for your side to prove why this innocent human beings should be murdered.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 11:36 AM | 12-6-2007


Heh. Hillary vs Guliani is a bad example - they are one and the same... ;-)


Sent by Carl P. Corliss | 11:38 AM | 12-6-2007

Kucinich's health care plan is not only the only one that helps me and the average American it will be the biggest boost to our economy I can imagine. Our manufacturers can actually compete in the world marker becasue they wont have to add the cost of health INSURANCE for the workers,businesses could raise their workers pay and still save without having to cover their INSURANCE costs.
Businesses could afford to hire more people, there will be fewer strikes as health INSURANCE benefits are the single most difficult issue in strikes. The other tweedledums running are all for paying health insurance companies, some with tax dollars!What a coincidence they all, except for Kucinich, get millions from the drug and insurance lobbyists.
This could be the most exciting election since Lincoln.
I have these questions for all the other candidates: How does health Insurance help us get health care? Doesn't it just add to the cost? Does anyone deny that taking health insurance costs off the table for business, unions and citizens will help the economy?

Sent by joe albiani | 12:02 PM | 12-6-2007

To Mathew Scallon, it is people like you, who think that voting on one issue, and one issue only, that scare me ****less. Our country is bigger than one issue, you need to look at the sum of all and choose the best.

To NPR: was the UFO comment really necessary? Why are you acting like the rest of the MSM and still trying to throw cold water on a canidate instead of doing your normal respectable job and reporting the news? To remind you and all the rest of the world here, Ronald Reagan claimed to have seen a UFO, and he called Jean Dixon before EVERY important decision he made. Yeah, astrology and being the POTUS really go well together don't you think?

Sent by Brian Emenaker | 12:07 PM | 12-6-2007

@ Fred Call-
It is not their lack of popularity that prevents said candidates from starting a 3rd party, but rather collaboration of the Democratic and Republican parties to exclude voices other than their own corporately owned ones. And your post seems to be more of the same. If Kucinich or Paul did start a 3rd party, your type would still denegrate their efforts as dividing the base just as they did with Nader. And Kucinich/Paul would face the same long odds: spending all their $$ and political energy fighting just to get on the ballots and in the debates.
Your hostility is misplaced. Instead of railing against the only candidates not bought out, and AGAINST your own interests, you should be raging against the mainstreamers who so readily compromise themselves with coroporate sponsorship.....unless of course you happen to be a captain of industry. In that case Clinton, or Obama, or Giuliani or any other corporate shill would suit your interests perfectly.

Sent by Matt | 12:11 PM | 12-6-2007

Well then, Matthew Scallion, you need to also watch wht YOU say when you state that Dennis Kucinich "opposes the right to life" (not true!) and that his comments show huberis (in other words, arrogance). Wow, that's not mean at all is it?

Now if I came across as mean to you, well then I apologize. But I can't help but defend my candidate of choice when someone is charaterizing him so falsely.

Sent by Al Hidalgo | 12:22 PM | 12-6-2007

Please ignore the media and vote for this guy in the primaries! PLEASE

Go DENNIS K (and Mike G too)

Sent by Tim | 12:35 PM | 12-6-2007

The Hillarys and Baraks are not coming to Kucinich's solutions. The Dems will pay only lip service to Dennis' issues. Except for Kucinich, NO ONE else is talking about single-payer universal health care, no one is talking about constitutionally-mandated impeachment and no one is talking about repealing NAFTA.

Please, let's not be fooled by Richard Wolf and the corporate Dems who want to rule us.

Sent by Dick K | 1:03 PM | 12-6-2007

I've been supporting "Dennis the Menace" from early on. My dad, basically a DLC Dem, still tells me that he's crazy. When I ask for elaboration, he just says that he "comes off looking bad. I don't know what that means.

I'm glad to see that all of his honesty, hard work, and refusal to back down is starting to pay off. Thanks to NPR for giving him a little bit of press. Could we get some more?

Sent by JT Draper | 1:16 PM | 12-6-2007

He is right on protecting our Constitution with impeachment! He was right about Iraq from the beginning! He is right about not-for-profit healthcare! He is right about trade! He is right on environmental issues! He is right about a Department of Peace! He is a Visionary and Mr. Right.

I am in complete love with Dennis Kucinich! If I was gay and he wasn't married to the hottest first lady ever, I would totally marry him.

Go Dennis!!! Save U.S.!!!!!!!

Sent by Abel Tomlinson | 1:16 PM | 12-6-2007

Dear Matt Scallon, I agree with your pro-life (or anti-abortion, if one prefers) position but cannot *stand* your tone of voice. Please realize that when you speak this way, you discredit the very position you set out to uphold. That makes me very angry, because it minimizes the chances to have our opinions *heard* in a fruitful discussion, not dismissed out of hand as so much heartless bombast. I don't think you've been intending to speak in such a defensive tone of voice, and it's true you haven't been treated with utmost respect (to say the least) by all the commenters here. That's no reason to sink to the same tactics.

Sarah, Brian and Al: please don't assume that because a person holds a traditionally "conservative" viewpoint on one issue, (1) that position is actually necessarily "conservative" in the sense of "aligned with Republican viewpoints" or (2) their viewpoints on everything else must be (a) conservative, (b) unconsidered, (c) uncaring, and/or (d) exclusive of any awareness or interest in any other issue. Again, that doesn't really contribute to fruitful discussion.

On topic, finally: why is it that people have been saying Kucinich and Paul aren't even in the same league together? Everything I've heard from Paul so far has seemed highly intelligent and considered to me. He doesn't seem to be saying "we *shouldn't* have the government do X or Y," so much as "we shouldn't have the *federal* government do X or Y, but whether X or Y is done should be a matter of state and local government." And as far as what I've read about the two candidates, the ends they have in view seem to be quite similar; they just have a major disagreement about the means. Since there are a lot of K. supporters here, I'm curious, what do you think makes his means better or more efficient?

Sent by Katya | 2:09 PM | 12-6-2007

Dear Sarah Cordwood,

Blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah-blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah, blah blah blah blah blah.

Let me translate for everyone else. "Thank you for showing to everyone else your own sexist attitudes by dismissing my opinions simply because of my gender. Since you don't respect men's opinion, you should logically also Roe v. Wade. After all, that was a decision rendered by 9 men.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 3:13 PM | 12-6-2007

Dear sahzah,

First of all, thank you for the link. Unlike those who accuse me of not doiing my research, I actually did my research, and thank you for it. There's no noticeable problem with the rhetoric Dennis Kucinich now portrays. If someone truly shifts side on the abortion debate, one would see a shifting in vocabulary over time. For example, in changing side from pro-choice to pro-life, Norva McCorvey, the former Jane Roe, continued to refer to her "position on choice," even after switching sides. Only years later did she write about her "position on life." Similarly, Mitt Romney went through the same transformation on rhetoric.

Contrast that with George H.W. Bush who, right before Reagan's Vice Presidential nominee, was giving the same pro-choice terminology we all know and, well, tolerate. The moment Bush became veep, suddenly, quite suddenly, he recognized that human life began at conception. One could be forgiven if his campaign conversion was not treated as sincere.

Sadly, likewise must be the case for Dennis Kucinich. Moments before my former mayor ran for president, he spoke and wrote about "life," "conception," and "baby." Now, it's "choice," "reproductive rights," and "woman." One does not change one's shibbeloth so quickly without being just a wee bit suspicious.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 3:35 PM | 12-6-2007

Strange as it may seem, in all of the online polls that I've taken that purport to help you find out which candidate's views match up most closely with your own, Dennis Kucinich always comes in on the top.

I just wish that I could help decide who actually runs for the presidency. With out entirely unfair and backward primary system, by the time that I get to have my say in Oregon, there's only one candidate left! Except on local issues, primary elections are a farce in Oregon.

Maybe Oregon should write it into our constitution that we're always first (like other not-to-be named states) maybe then we'll institute a stalemate and cause some kind of change to happen.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.

Sent by JimK | 3:42 PM | 12-6-2007

Dear Brian Emenaker,

Writing as an engineer, I fear for any bridge you might build. After all, you might say, getting the bridge to meet up in the middle is just a "single issue."

The right to life is not a single issue; it is the issue which underlies all other issues. You do not have a right to anything unless you first have a right to live. You don't have a right to a clean environment unless you have the right to live in a clean environment. You don't have a right to peace unless you have the right to live peacefully. You don't a right to affordable and complete health care unless you have a right to live healthily.

At the risk sounding like a "Lion King" lyric, the right to life encircle all other rights. If we don't have the right to life, we are left with no rights at all.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 3:54 PM | 12-6-2007

Dear Katya,

At the risk of seeming facitious, you can't know what my tone of voice is since you don't know what my voice sounds like. Please refrain from inferring that my tone of voice is anything other than passionate. When one sees our country merrily skipping along over the corpses of 1.5 million innocent babies each year, drawfing even those deaths in Iraq, passionate is a completely acceptable tone.

If you don't care for a passionate defense of the pre-born, what tone would you prefer? Timid?

Remember Frederick Douglass taught that you need to do three things in order to change the world for the better: agitate, agitate, agitate.

The only side of this debate that being fruitless is other side. They cannot defend abortion, because murdering the innocent is indefensible, so they resort to changing the subject. And, if that doesn't work, then call us names or just simply outlaw us entirely.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 4:05 PM | 12-6-2007

People shouldn't be fooled by the Kucinich campaign --it's a diversion.

Like a lot of the baby boomers, Dennis limits himself to a narcissistic world -view. Stating now that he'd take the far-right Ron Paul as his running mate is a clear example:

As if bridging something as silly as the "Generation Gap" between these two were somehow more important to the country --than standing seriously for the progressive reforms he, Dennis, claims to champion for us all.


Dennis is tolerated in the party because he stands for the things most thinking people stand for but --never poses any threat because he never steps out of the party to actually pose any threat to Republicrat domination.

By sucking cash and people's energy into his two failed "Presidential campaigns" --and failing to use any of that energy to lead us into a more broadbased movement, that is needed to challenge the entire Congress and conscience of this nation --by the sort of tactics outside of politics that Martin Luther King and Gandhi both used --Kucinich and his new partner Elizabeth prove themselves, as each day goes by, to be a gigantic waste of time.

But Democratic party leaders like John Dean will cravenly push Dennis forward any time they need to suck off progressive energy in the nation that might actually organize, and get behind leaders to seriously challenge them.

The only "substantive" pushes for the Kucinich campaign recently came from a John Dean DFA online diversion poll; and another supposed poll from "Progressive Democrats" --which is a very self limiting Kucinich front group.

People interested in real reformers need to look for, and support leaders out there --willing to build a broader coalition than just a single pair of media diversion, "do gooders" dependent on party hacks like John Dean has become --and hyped up on their own token presidential campaigns; and all the money and energy for websites, plane tours, television ads and "Kucinich for President" garbage they waste.

Nice faces like Elzabeth's and a bunch of easy lines for momentary diversions in the "media" make us feel "good" --but work will free us.

Until these two start doing work outside of failed Presidential campaigns --and start organizing like a King or a Gandhi, they are a gigantic waste of any real progressive's resources, energy, contributions --or time.

Sent by Dan Brown | 4:26 PM | 12-6-2007

Dear Al Hidalgo,

First off, I would not be correcting other people's spelling if I were you. Not only is that an Internet no-no, but you, in fact, misspelled my name. Twice. Now, I'm not complaining. I've had this name my entire life, so I'm used to it by now. Besides which, this is a thread about a guy named Dennis Kucinich. You think his name's been misspelled (and mispronounced) a few times?

Now to the crux of your complaint. I cited "Evangelicum Vitae" --properly spelled this time, thank you-- not because it's a Catholic Church source. Such would be a violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, something your side of the abortion debate is all too guilty of violating. Rather, I cited it because is the first widespread source of the term "culture of life." Since I was challenged by an earlier poster to "do my research," I retorted back that I have done my research on the term "culture of life," and, like any good scholar, I cited my source.

I did not cite "Evangelicum Vitae" because it was a Catholic source, only because it was the originating source. On the other hand, it would be bigotry for me to reject that source simply because it was a Catholic Church source. The Catholic Church also has encyclicals opposing slavery, for instance. Does that mean that you must support slavery because the Catholic Church has encyclicals opposing it? Shutter, I hope not.

Now, since you decided to cite the dear Saint of Africa (sadly, without including your source's citation, which is bad scholarship), here's a simple explanation of Catholic moral theology: nothing, including opinions of Church Fathers, constitutes infallible doctrine in and of itself. That may have been St. Augustine's opinion, based upon what scientists in his time thought were the beginnings of life, but nowhere did St. Augustine make the leap of heresy that abortion is anything but a sin. In fact, such a position would contradict the mountain of patristic writing opposing abortion, even if science had yet to determine the moment of conception. Rather than copying the entire text, I will simply cite http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp. You can do the research yourself to see that, no, the Catholic Church has not changed its position on abortion. Like BASF, they only made it stronger.

Now, I hate bringing up religion, because I'm not an evangelist, and I have no desire to convert pro-choicers to my religion (that's why the Goddess invented the Unitarian Church). My position would be the same if I were agnostic, but, since your side always changes the topic to religion, I couldn't let you such a typical tangent go unchallenged.

Now, to your other post. Criticizing Mr. Kucinich's change to opposing the right to life (and, yes, sir, that's exactly what he's done) while at the same time invoking the "culture of life" does not make me mean. I called that double-talk hubris. I didn't say he was hubristic (I cannot read minds, after all); I did say his position is hubris. If you want to split these kind of hairs, go right ahead. I will say again, only using different words: opposing the right to life, while, at the same time, claiming to support a "culture of life" is hubris.

As far as my opinion of Dennis Kucinich goes, I have nothing but love for the man. Do you still want to tell me I'm being mean to my dear former mayor?

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 4:55 PM | 12-6-2007

I wish that this country would wake up and realize that Kucinich is the one candidate with true integrity and morality. He is the democrat that could heal this nation after the hell its been through these last seven years. Unfortunately, Kucinich does not get the media time that he deserves (which, as a journalism student, boggles my mind). If people voted for candidates based on knowledge instead of on-screen time, Kucinich would be our next president.

Sent by Ashley | 5:00 PM | 12-6-2007

Dear Shea Townsend,

Please refer to my reply to sahzah regarding Dennis Kucinich's shift in rhetoric. As special as you are, I don't feel the need to repeat myself.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 5:04 PM | 12-6-2007

i am so impressed by the many people who have spoken up in favor of ron paul and kucinich...i too believe in the bareness of their honesty and sincerity...but in spite of our recognition of truthiness, we are still part of the problem and not the solution. i would venture to guess that we live our lives more like the popular good progressives than those who are truly willing to stand up and say what is not popular but more closely resembles actual solutions that will benefit actual living things...hey, is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to be stashing away more money for your greedy self!!!

Sent by jan | 5:12 PM | 12-6-2007

I'm also tired of just voting for the "electable" candidate. Maybe if everyone voted for the person they really believed in, that person would become electable. Or is that too crazy?

Sent by Art Belliveau | 5:20 PM | 12-6-2007

If people really and truly want to see Ron and Dennis nominated, we all need to work VERY hard to disengage ourselves and others from the MSM's drumbeating for their corporate candidates.

Trust me, these guys will NEVER be declared "electable" by the corporate-owned media!

Sent by Dawn | 6:34 PM | 12-6-2007

Sent by Matt: Your hostility is misplaced.

No, no, Matt. You mistook hostility for common sense statement of fact. Sorry to disappoint you that I'm not stalking with a baseball bat, ala Al Capone.

Then, again, it's gotten to the point that one can't make a plain statement of strategic fact without being accused of having taken issue to the right or the left.

First, Matt...and this is statement of fact, not emotional rhetoric: The Intellectual Left is Dead. Gone. A thing of the past.

There is no more Berkeley. There are no Che Gueveras or John Lennons or Gandhis in America. Norman Mailer and Kurt Vonnegut have gone to the big bookmobile in the sky (and probably in the nick of time, far as they are concerned). You have Bill Maher....and he is dating Ann Coulter.

The so-called Liberal left of today is actually a conservative who doesn't understand that the more they demand the Federal Government be held responsible, the more the Federal Government will be in their bedrooms telling them what to do.

It's a States Rights versus Federalism argument that the so-called today's Liberal really is a conservative demanding more Federal Government do this and that. Today's so-called brain dead Liberal Leftist quotes Thomas Jefferson without knowing what Thomas Jefferson was saying about the relationship of the thirteen colonies to the federal government. Because today's so-called Leftist Liberal is, well, brain dead and without a clue of what political strategy looks like.

And I refuse to call myself brain dead so that I can continue to call myself a Liberal, when there is no more Liberal cause left in America short of creating pithy slogans on the internet.

And if I can paraphrase Truman Capote: That's not protesting. That's typing.

And the more ironic part of the so-called brain dead left anti-war movement is that it's leadership is a bunch of Republican Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who saw a way to make a buck off the brain dead who are blindly angry at George Bush.

The first thing you do when you create a religion is create a Satan. The anti-war movement has been an illusion created by the Republican entrepreneurs to inflame the passions of the hawks by giving Rush Limbaugh's audience an enemy.

That is not hostility, Matt. That is a wily veteran who saw through the whole of the anti-war scam as created by the corporate entrepreneur virtual reality anti-war makers. And I simply refused to be a part of it of the virtual reality scam.

So, what did I do, Matt? I did what a true liberal does. I became self-reliant.

No brag. Just fact, Matt. And thanks for asking. And if you need more clarification, please feel free to ask.

One more point: Dennis Kucinich calling for George Bush's impeachement, in George Bush's last year of office, made not only a mockery of Dennis Kucinich, it made a mockery out of anyone who fell for Dennis Kucinich's last ditch effort to bring attention to himself.

It's not that the Republicans are so good, it's that the Democrats have become so bad.

And show me a third party that isn't brain dead and we'll talk about coalition.

As for Hillary and Barack's catfighting, that has completely destroyed the Democrat's credibility for '08. The election will be a landslide victory for the Republicans, and the smothering of the last vestiges of the anti-war movement (that the Republicans don't need anymore, and it was their invention to begin with because there aren't any Liberal Leaders intelligent enough to create it on their own).

So, what do the Democrats do now that Hillary and Barack have destroyed the Democrats' chances? Go for a clown like Kucinich? Again, Democrat voters playing pin-the-tail on the fool.

Again, unemtional statement of fact, Matt. Don't take it personal.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 6:45 PM | 12-6-2007

I wish news analysts like Richard Wolffe would stop interjecting so much of their own opinions into stories. Who cares if "the idea of a Kucinich administration makes no sense" to Wolffe? Pundits are experts on what went before, but never good at predicting what might be. Probably because they are too pompous to be open-minded.

Sent by Frank Smith | 7:12 PM | 12-6-2007

Richard Wolfe/Newsweek thinks "this Democratic field has essentially moved to the Kucinich position." But the truth is that the field did not move, and Kucinich didn't move either.

So what did move? The pundits and the media moved! In the early debates Kucinich got very little time to speak, which was a reflection of the moderator???s judgment and assumptions, not the 'Democratic field.' (Example: in the 11/15 debate, Kucinich was allowed the least time of any candidate ??? about one third as much as Clinton or Obama. See www.chrisdodd.com for the numbers.)

The media pundits are now beginning to understand what has been true all along, which is how well Kucinich speaks for our values and what we care about. Ok pundits, good for you for waking up. But don???t tell us that we have moved; it???s just your awareness that moved. Now please stay out of the way and don???t tell us who is ???electable.??? We know who stands for what we care about. It???s Dennis. That???s who???s electable.

Sent by Mike D | 7:15 PM | 12-6-2007

People keep asking the question, "How do you overcome the notion that Dennis Kucinich cannot win the Presidency?" The answer is easy...........you vote for him.

Sent by Gary Kent | 8:42 PM | 12-6-2007

I love this man! Dennis Kucinich is a highly intelligent man of courage and integrity, who speaks truth to power and who can't be bought. How rare is THAT in a politician? I used to think he was "weird." But then the more I listened to him and read his views on the issues, the more I realized that this is the candidate I've been waiting for my whole life. People used to laugh at Al Gore (remember when Bush #1 called him "Ozone Man"?). But no one's laughing now. It's the same with Dennis. He has been proven right about so many things. He's prescient. The other candidates are so full of it, it makes me want to puke. They say whatever they think they need to say to get elected, but their voting record (on the Iraq war, on funding the war, on Iran, on the Patriot Act, on the Bankruptcy "Reform" Act, on NAFTA, on Yucca Mountain) tells the real story - check it. So don't believe anything they say. They are all triangulators. If you vote for them, you have only yourselves to blame for the mess this country is in. I would love to see a woman president, or an African American president, or a Latino president. But the candidate I truly love happens to be a short white guy with a funny name. Oh well. Vote your conscience and don't buy into the "electability" garbage. If everyone voted their conscience instead of worrying about "electability," Dennis would place high enough in the primaries to have a real shot at the Democratic nomination. Don't let the MSM (and now even NPR - shame on you!) succeed in marginalizing him. He's too good for that! As for his change in position on abortion, I am a Democrat who has serious qualms about abortion. I agree that we need to provide women with the support and services they need to make it less likely that they'll end up in the position of having to get an abortion. I admire Dennis for having had the courage, as a Progressive Democrat, to vote his conscience and vote pro-life (not an easy thing to do as a Democrat). Because he is a man of his convictions, I do not believe that his change in position was out of political expedience. I believe it reflected a gradual change in his views on this issue for the reasons he has explained. I would rather vote for someone like Dennis who obviously has serious concerns about the high rate of abortion in this country, than to vote for the other candidates who don't seem to have any qualms at all about it. So I'm voting my conscience. What about you? www.december152007.com

Sent by Anne Faith | 10:14 PM | 12-6-2007

While I applaud the fact that NPR gave more time to candidates like Kucinich and allowed Gravel some minimal participation, I think it is quite unfair that all media continues to label Kucinich as a fringe candidate. Kucinich IS the only democrat that is still holding to true democratic positions. The rest of the candidates (other than Gravel) have moved so far to the right that it is hard to tell them apart from Republicans. It is a disservice to the public that funds NPR to not allow EQUAL time to candidates like Kucinich and Gravel. It has been shown time and time again that, when polled on the internet, Kucinich OFTEN is the leader. The mainstream media would like us to forget about Kucinich so that their media darlings - Obama, Clinton or Edwards - get the nomination. But their stance on the issues is not where a majority of democrats (or even Americans) see themselves. Please let the voices of Kucinich and Gravel be heard.

Sent by Debbie Shapiro | 10:30 PM | 12-6-2007

Dennis Kucinich is finally beginning to be heard by the American people despite the best efforts of mainstream media outlets, of which NPR is most certainly one. We should decide who gets elected, not the media, and we have seen in the past that running out an "electable" candidate who is afraid to take any real stands (see Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004) does not work. Kucinich is a real, honest person, he has integrity, he talks about what he believes is right, and he is the only candidate who is willing to address the roots of the issues. His honesty will appeal to anyone who hears it. The American people, both "liberal" and "conservative" have been divided between "two" parties that represent the same corporate interests. Kucinich offers a real alternative to this and if we vote for him he will win.

Sent by jeramy | 1:16 AM | 12-7-2007

You really should go to december152007.com if you support Kucinich. He is the ideal politician.

Sent by Aaron Wheeler | 1:22 AM | 12-7-2007

We shouldn't be "drifting" toward kucinich - we need to be running toward him.
A candidate not owned by business interests - not Clinton/Bush - who are tied together.
An opportunity for real change in our country.
Tell your friends and family - the primaries are coming - there is actually a candidate who can make a difference.

Sent by S Heflin | 8:50 AM | 12-7-2007

I'm voting for Kucinich in the primaries. I voted for Dean last time. I still want the Democratic wing of the Democratic party represented.

That being the case, I'm preparing for the bigger battle, Congress.

My goal is to help raise $200 million for 100 Democratic House challengers and 20 Democratic Senate challengers from 1 million small donors, $1 to each of the house campaigns and $5 to each of the Senate campaigns. $200 each.

Why? Because if Kucinich doesn't end up President, it would be nice to make him Speaker of the House and a lot more progressives in the House could make that happen!

Sent by Jeremy Barlow | 8:21 PM | 12-7-2007


Sent by PATRICK J. DORAN | 8:54 AM | 12-8-2007

I saw Dennis speak in '04. I had not expected what I heard. The first thing he said was about creating a Dept. of Peace. The light went off, bang. This was a couple of weeks after being herded into a corral during a Cheney visit, my free speech squashed.

As for UFO's, for a country that sends its young to be maimed, damaged and killed, a healthcare system that harasses the sick, a country where nothing tangible is manufactured, where we piss off the world and thumb our noses, how bizarre is that?

Sent by Richard Crimi | 7:05 PM | 12-9-2007

Great words of Sean Penn's in a recent endorsement of Kucinich: "What if we can???t elect a man simply on the basis of the best ideas, the most courage, the most selfless service?...I???ve been torn lately, I???ve been torn by the allure of electability...here???s how simple it is. If those of us who truly believe in the Constitution of the United States, all of us, vote for Dennis Kucinich, he???ll be elected. Could we call him electable then?" Hear hear! Just as Art Belliveau said above, I entirely agree. Consider supporting Kucinich on Dec.15th at December152007.com. Here's a great 15 min. or so piece from a community forum he participated in, to allow anyone interested to get an in-depth sense of him: http://www.movementvisionlab.org/blog/kucinich-a Compare him to the other candidates that participated too, particularly the top 3 (Clinton, Obama and Edwards)--Kucinich is simply more visionary than the others from all I have heard and read.

Sent by Brendan | 8:15 PM | 12-9-2007

I am voting for Dennis Kucinich regardless of the baloney we're fed by NPR and others who pander to the corporatocracy, and I would encourage others not to let the mainstream media colonize their mind. There is a reason Dennis really connects with crowds: people recognize that he is truly on our side, cannot be bought, has vision, principles, integrity, and courage. He is what America truly needs. More people need to know his message. I tell everyone I speak with to Support Dennis Kucinich. www.december152007.com

Sent by Eve | 8:39 PM | 12-9-2007

I go through all these comments and what I need to know from someone, anyone in here, is this: why do you think you need some man sitting in the White House to change your lives?

Why can't you change your own lives without relying on some mythical figure called the president.

Because that's all, whoever is sitting in the White House, is to you: a mythical figure.

You think the president, any president, is going to step down from the White House and touch you with a Midas finger?

So, if Dennis Kucinich seeing a UFO is what you call weird, then, how different is Dennic Kucinich, really? If reaching out to the metaphysical sounds weird to you, then what is your defintion of someone, or something different in the White House?

In the end anaylysis, you end looking up to the same old iconic, mythical figure in the White House that has absolutely no bearing on how your life changes, or doesn't change.

So, the message is out to Dennis Kucinich, or anyone else who dares to be different: Come to Roswell. Set up your campaign headquarters. Speak about your experience with the UFO at Shirley McClaine's House.

That, or be just another mythical figure currently running for the White House iconography.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:43 PM | 12-9-2007

Kucinich is the most qualified candidate, and the most provocatively anti-corporate he is truly a visionary and that the media can mock him effectively speaks volumes about the fear he inspires in them and the passivity and gullibility of the american public;people are waking up though, Dennis' message is delivered relentlessly and the truth will win out

Sent by rodolfo porro | 3:44 AM | 12-10-2007

The other candidates still have a LONG way to go before they have it as right as Kucinich does on every issue. He is light years ahead of them, and they can't hide from their voting records. It might help if they actually read what they voted for, like Kucinich does, which is what makes him so much smarter than the rest.

Sent by Pam Holt | 5:39 AM | 12-10-2007

Sent by rodolfo porro....Kucinich is the most qualified candidate, and the most provocatively anti-corporate...

Okay, anti-corporate? Just as an aside, the computer you wrote on was created by a corporation. The Windows software you sent the message on was created by a corporation. In fact, NPR is a corporation, a public broadcasting corporation. Just as is PBS, which brings you the Frontline Series on television.

With all that in mind, could you be just a little more specific as to what is anti-corporation?

A little more precise, if you please, what are you fighting as far as corporatization goes?

Surely you are not suggesting going back into the trees?

I really just don't get the message. Hospitals are corporations. National Defense against Russian and Chinese incursions are built on corporations. Your automobile is built by a corporation. If you don't have an automobile, your bicycle is built by a corporation.

According to Constitutional provisions, where do you draw the line between what corporations are to be eliminated, from what corporations are allowed to continue?

fred call

Sent by fred call | 9:45 AM | 12-10-2007

I see the media marginalizing Kucinich at every turn; witness the overreaction to the "UFO" comment (what kind of a question is that for a presidential debate, anyway?) and, if you look at NPR's "debate checking" page re: Iran, Kucinich is the only debater actually subjected to a "fact check" and they claim he got it wrong--but really they just didn't give his comment its full context. Geez, give the guy a break! I agree with the poster who said, "Who decides if a candidate is electable, but the electorate?" Don't let the media decide someone is or isn't electable!

Sent by Melissa Mueller | 7:54 PM | 12-10-2007

I'll be voting for him. Electable is as electable does, or something like that.

Sent by E. Prescott | 6:00 PM | 12-12-2007

The reality is that you can't be president unless you are part of the CFR.
Look at the way the press bestows its free news time on select candidates, not based on public popularity but on who THEY feel might win.

Pre-chosen candidates? Is this democracy? How about less punditry and more plain old news reporting without the opinionated commentary.

Sent by Rick Cain | 4:54 PM | 1-14-2008

It is not too late to support Kucinich...

Do it now if you support the idea of elections,

the idea of holding the war profiteering media (GE/NBC) to account for their role in rigging our elections,

the idea of good judgement PRIOR to invasion,

the idea of loving your neighbor,

the idea of holding Cheney to account for his terrorism of ALL of us,

the idea of not-for-profit health care,



otherwise you DESERVE the crap you get!

Sent by brianu | 7:24 PM | 1-18-2008

So why is Kucinich being blacked out in the news and in the debates? Could it be because his positions discomfort the media moguls, and the debates have been turned over to vested interests?

Like AARP: When a debate is sponsored by an insurance company masquerading as a representive of the interests of retired people, they of course have reason to exclude Kucinich. After all, the insurance industry profits hugely from taking 1/3 of all health care revenue in return for no discernible added value, and he would cut them out.

The Des Moines Register: Owned by one of the media giants engaged in ever increasing consolidation, they naturally want to suppress Dennis, who supports protecting free speech by opposing that consolidation and also by enforcing the fairness doctrine, which cuts broadcast ad revenue.

GE: Will this giant member of the militry-industrial complex, owner of NBC and MSNBC, go to court to prevent Dennis from presenting the case for major reduction of the military budget? Of course. They managed even to silence Keith Olberman on Kucinich's exclusion from the debate.

Sent by Tom Hagan | 5:08 AM | 1-20-2008

I feel guilty for not having volunteered my time and resources towards fighting the good fight with Congressman Kucinich while I still had the chance. I hope between he and John Edwards, there has been a "grounding" of the ideals for which Democrats are supposed to stand.

Sent by Shivangi | 5:04 PM | 2-7-2008