After watching the debates, Kucinich has won me over.

Whichever candidates win the primaries will be viable candidates. This is guaranteed. The media will treat them like viable candidates. The corporate interests and major donors will give to their campaigns. There will be no question if Kucinich is electable if we only support him in the primary.

Nader will run. Stop wasting your vote on Democrats and the liberal phonies who support their candidates. Dennis is OK if he would get out of the Donkey party. They are hopeless- The new Whigs! HA!

Now I see hope in your post! Granted I get to where I just want to give up myself at times. But remember, we came out in good numbers when we needed change during the Bush Clinton Perot elections. I really find it hard to believe when someone claims no one has heard of Kucinich. Granted he isn't getting much time in the debates or on tv. But you really have to be living under a rock in the boonies not to have heard of him. But then neither did Perot. And he took in, what was it, 17% of the vote. People need to start waking up to the tactics of modern politics. Such as the stereo typing labeling of nut case both Perot and Kucinich have gotten. And I guess my hope is just that, they have. I have to wonder now, people knowing how Clinton basically sold out America, would like that vote back to go to Perot. Knowing he predicted to a large degree what we now deal with. Anyways, before I get into a lengthy out burst here. Thanks for the reply!

I haven't exactly given up, Kinky. I'll still vote for the man. I'll still tell every person I know why it's crucial that they vote for him and tell everyone they know to vote for him. I just don't know every one in the country, and neither do most of his supporters, in aggregate. No matter how much I might want this candidate or that one, still, some one is going to lose, and there will be a discernable reason why they did. That's adversarial politics for ya.

One major obstacle to Dennis' ascendency is that even though BushCo.'s supporters are only 30%, they all will march in lockstep behind the Republican nominee, and vote. Dennis' potential supporters are much more intellegent and think more critically and independently. The problem here is in bringing enough of them back into a system they want no part of, that they believe is fixed, that doesn't really represent their interests, and that they want no part of. Many of them have never heard of Dennis because they've opted out a long time ago, and now get their news in passing if at all. Much more than likely, they never have even heard of Mr. Kucinich at all, let alone anything he stands for or proposes to do.

Many of us think that because we're interested in researching all the candidates in order to find the best one that many others must be also. Judging by the numbers that's not the case. Even those relatively few people who watch the debates are bombarded with comments everywhere else reinforcing the believe that only a very few are "electable", and usually succumb to popular pressure. The truth is, we don't control the media, most people are not saavy enough or care to do any work at all, and there aren't enough of us who are. Furthermore, there isn't enough time to get the word out about Dennis simply by random word-of-mouth. I know of no electoral technology other than what I've offered that could accomplish what needs to be done.

If someone does know I implore you to contact Dennis' campaign staff immediately. We are sorely in need of your ideas. Failing that, will someone please give me a practical way of increasing even his name recognition sufficiently in the few months we have left? As much as I'd like to, I just don't see it coming. Still, I always have hope; I just doubt that help will be forthcoming from the politcal sphere. Paraphrasing Einstein: "One will never solve a problem using the mindset which created it".

Or in other words, change will not come until enough of us are willing and able to think outside the box (we've imprisoned ourselves in).

I think it's down to just the the two of us, Kinky. So I'll tell you that I appreciate your reply. And your willingness to admit to having made a mistake (about not supporting Perot). Happens. Hey, we're still human. I gave my Mom a refridgerator magnet with a quote from Tallulah Bankhead on it recently. It goes something like, "If I had my life to do over again, I would make the same mistakes, only sooner".

I actually did wind up voting for Perot, after agonizing until the night before the election. Clinton struck me as other than genuine. (His wife, by the way seems like Neocon-lite. So did Kerry, so does Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and everyone else, with the exception of Gravl- he just seems a bit clueless. To paraphrase Reagan, "I've known Dennis, and they're no Kucinich's".)

I supported Jerry Brown in the primaries in '92, just as I did as a fifteen year old when he first ran. In fact I saw him in person for the first time at the very same Kucinich fundraising luncheon where we presented Dennis with the idea for the Network Project. (He was mayor of Oakland then, and introduced Dennis.) By then he (Brown) looked tired, old, and bloated- the very caricature of a political boss- and spoke mostly in cliches.

Which brings up something I've been pondering a while: What makes someone who seems to really "get" it turn around and lose it completely? Not only Jerry Brown, but lots of other come to mind, such as Al Gore once he became Vice-President? Simply chaulking it up to greed, arrogance, and power doesn't quite answer it for me, although they're factors. What happens to a person's mind to make them lose it, to even drink the Kool-Aid knowing on some level it would eventually make them insane?

Now that I think about it, this sounds alot like Adam being tempted by the apple. Do you suppose we have temptation to earthly delights hard-wired into us, and only through lots of work in remaining conscious, and lots of slip-ups, do we finally remember that it's NOT about power, greed, material abundance, etc.? (Reminds me of the "Autobiography in Five Short Chapters". If you're not familiar I'll send you a copy.) If I'm right, what's being played out globally is just a HUGE version of the game we've been playing since we first became human. What's different is that the consequences have never been this great: if we lose this round we will have affected the sustainability of life on the planet.

Which means that we need to evolve immediately as a species. As they said about the Six Million Dollar Man, "We HAVE the technology. We CAN rebuild him- faster, stronger, better." We have the potential to do it, to start turning things around IN AN INSTANT. In EVERY instant. Only, (I believe) it's too late for us to concentrate solely on the political and neglect Spirit.

Thanks for listening (and in a way, inspiring) my musings.

Just curious about something, Kinky. What's your take on Nader? Do you believe he cost Gore the election?

Oh. About people living under rocks. A few weeks before the Iowa caucus, in 2003, I spent a few days calling a bunch of Iowa voters on behalf of Dennis' campaignin. From a list of registered Democratic voters who had voted in the previous presidential election. Coming from California, where we think everyone knows everything about everything, I was floored that virtually no one had heard of Dennis before, let alone what he stood for.

It doesn't seem so shocking to me now, though. He did appear in the debates, of course, but not that many people watched them. If a mention of him slipped out and appeared in the MSM it almost always included some version of either "is a far-left kook" or "has no chance of winning". Or both. He got no play in the years between then and now, and now that he's running they're doing it to him again. As I wrote in earlier posts, all but the most informed are ignorant of his existence. Most people just do what they're told and vote for who they're given. The less work involved, the better.

We are truly a nation of sheeple.

ricshev

What your saying then, to me anyways, is that we as a nation have no hope for a future of freedom. Because the way I see it now, is if it doesn't happen now, there's no turning back. If you actually worked with the man and see no hope in him. Then we are as good as done, dead, over. Other then Berney Sanders, I see no one who can tell the total truth and take the charge that this nation needs. I actually believe that we are at a point if it doesn't happen now, this country will become a lost cause as far as setting the tone for those who believe in freedom. With that said, you are the very defeatest you claim not to be. And the longer this goes on, the harder it will be to get out of. I see no reason for you to even post you opinions any longer. You've done given up.

Wow. Pathetic? Weenie? Since I have no psychological problems whatsoever, I take no offense. :) Hell, we're on the same side.

As for what can be done to get the man elected: have you read my first post from 11:48 pm last night?

Back in November when I learned that Dennis had declared his candidacy, the first call I made was to my friend who together with me created the Network Project. The second was to my very good friends Carlton and Deborah, who were the advertising and marketing directors of his last run in 2004. They are the two people among everyone I met who worked on his campaign then who most "get" it, and I wanted to know if they were considering jumping back in, figuring if they do then I'd have a sign that Dennis has changed, and I'd jump in too. (They know him very well.)

After alot of consideration, they decided not to do it again, because the staff he chose decided to campaign in the tried and true way. Which, because of the stranglehold the corporate media has, is entirely ineffective when it comes to getting Dennis elected.

To tell you the truth, Dover, as much as I pray he'll be elected, and would turn somersaults if he ever were, I don't believe he can be, given the situation (psychological and otherwise) as I believe it is. Too bad for us. But I just don't believe that lawn signs and house parties are the least bit effective, given all we're up against (including the likelihood that it'll be over- one way or another in just a few months.)

I hate to come off sounding defeatest, and I'm not. As you know I have my ideas as to why he probably won't win, yet my mind is always open to any idea which I feel might work. And I do believe in miracles. (If there ever was a time we needed a huge one......)

There are so many weak people here. Just wringing of the hands and asking so many questions. Never really coming up with answers on their own. So many want answers...and they want everybody else to take them by their little weak hand and show them how living is done.

"Classic Catch-22. How do you propose we get Kucinich into high office to have him do it?"

Stop being such a weenie, and provide the answer yourself. If Bush can get in office, I would imagine an ordinary zoo chimp could, too, with the right attitude.

"The answer to the corporate media monopoly is to bust it: Order the five or six conglomerates to divest themselves of ownership. We've done it before, and it needs to be done today. Only a Kucinich could help make something like that happen."

Classic Catch-22. How do you propose we get Kucinich into high office to have him do it?

I tend to look at the reasons why something that should be happenning isn't. To get to the "root" of the situation (makes me a radical in the strictest sense).

You thrived under people with wounded psychological profiles because you were aware of it and worked around them. I am able to thrive in these really strange times because I understand who I'm dealing with (including myself). If more people felt they are able to do so instead of cowing and whining and moaning, we would have thrown these bastards out so long ago (or never have allowed them to take power in the first place).

I have read Bush on the Couch, et al. I am quite aware of how fucked up "they" are. My reason for focusing on Dennis weaknesses is to maybe help make "us" aware so we can eliminate or compensate for those factors which really keep him from being electable. (As opposed to the reasons the MSM make up.)

Ultimately, the only ones we have any influence over are ourselves.

"I disagree that bringing up his psychology is unfair. Please know that it is not an uninformed position. I was pretty deeply involved in the 2004 campaign, and sat with Dennis several times then. I truly love the man. So did everyone I met who worked for him, including many people who know him far better than I do. The consensus was that, indeed, he does tend to micromanage, does have an inferiority complex, and does have some limiting fears.

OK. The MSM DOES HAVE a stranglehold. Dennis really IS human. Question: How we we creatively overcome them?"

I guess there is no way to say this politely: It's pathetic if these are the kinds of personal issues that you fret over. I've worked for micro-managers who had inferiority complexes, and I survived and prospered.

If you have ever read "Bush on the Couch", you have hundreds of reasons to be sweating bullets right this minute, with Bush in office. Yet you worry about micro-managing?

I don't get it.

The answer to the corporate media monopoly is to bust it: Order the five or six conglomerates to divest themselves of ownership. We've done it before, and it needs to be done today. Only a Kucinich could help make something like that happen.

anney August 16th, 2007 1:33 pm
How does the Bush administration think it can wage war against Iran now? What's Bush going to do? Declare victory and pull the troops out of Iraq to invade Iran?
--------

No, he's going to 'nuke 'em into oblivion'--and the middle east will be an inferno, europe will suffer the effects of being downwind of the nuclear explosion, and the entire world will retaliate against the U.S., probably through economic sanctions.

Yes, attacking Iran would be insane, militarily difficult given our already overstretched Army, and catastrophic. It would mean chaos in the oil markets of the world, and certainly a counterattack.

But let's not forget, President Bubble Boy is a religious fanatic who thinks that by starting a world war in the mideast he is doing God's work. And Vice President Halliburton and his friends make a bundle of boodle in picking up the pieces. They have no incentive whatsoever to avoid the chaos death and destruction that would result. With the domestic political benefits to be had- a counterattack on our soil, suspend the Constitution and the GOP won't have to worry about the '08 election-- it's a done deal. Don't expect Pelosi to do a damn thing to stop it.

Too many Americans don't want to know. Too many Americans are frightened by the truth. Too many Americans think that by perpetuating ignorance we can avoid the consequences of our own complicity in the destruction of our democracy. Too many Americans continue to invoke the tired and shopworn myth of American exceptionalism, rather than facing the truth about what we have become. But surely even our strenuous denials cannot disguise the truth that the "shining city on a hill," so often extolled in political rhetoric, has become tarnished and tawdry of late.

that's doughyden@hotmail.com

You have only yourselves to blame for the fact that Dennis Kucinich is not a "major" candidate. Why haven't donated to his campaign (he doesn't take corporate or PAC money)? Why haven't you hosted or attended fundraising house parties? Why don't you have a bumper sticker, a yard sign, or a t-shirt? Where are your letters to the editor? Why haven't you donated your time and talents to the campaign?

Why? I'll tell you why. Because we progressives are too damned lazy or cowed to do the work necessary to make Dennis a major candidate. You don't make someone a major candidate by assuming that the Powers That Be won't let him be a major candidate. You don't make someone a major candidate by listening to your betters and to the punditocracy (liberal as well as conservative). As the college kids who slogged through New Hampshire in the bitter cold knew; as the folks who turned George McGovern from "George Who?" to the Democratic nominee knew: you can only make an outsider a major candidate by rolling up your sleeves and getting to work, god-dammit!

We progressives, though, are afraid to soil ourselves with politics. Instead, we'd rather sit back and cry about the fact that our betters will not let Dennis be president. We'll never get anything if we are content to live with what they give us. If we want victory, by God, we've got to take it! I'm afraid we don't have what we used to call in West Texas the cojones.

But what do I know? Dennis can't be elected, anyway. Everybody says so.

_________________________________

I am a Tallahassee, FL banker. My heroes are William Lloyd Garrison and Chris Hedges. I can be oontacted at doug hyden@hotmail.com

Clinton will probably win. God help us.

Ok, so what we nee is a Sheep in Wolf's clothing.
We need someone like Dennis to express MSM/Corporate values, to be like Wal-Mart's wet dream. Of course this person would have to be a great actor and good looking. Then accept ALL campain contributions from any source. When they are elected, they can peel off the corporate disguise and say, "Hello, I'm DK!"

You're absolutely right about the influence of the corporate owned MSM on the election, Dover. That being a given obstacle, I'm asking what we can do to surmount it.

Along the same lines, the reason I bring up Dennis' psychology is to bring THAT into play too. He's got many, many great qualities, but some that need working on, too. (We might forget it sometimes, but he IS still human.) My hope is that once these are brought into the light, unembellished for all to see, we'll know exactly how we need to proceed.

I disagree that bringing up his psychology is unfair. Please know that it is not an uninformed position. I was pretty deeply involved in the 2004 campaign, and sat with Dennis several times then. I truly love the man. So did everyone I met who worked for him, including many people who know him far better than I do. The consensus was that, indeed, he does tend to micromanage, does have an inferiority complex, and does have some limiting fears.

OK. The MSM DOES HAVE a stranglehold. Dennis really IS human. Question: How we we creatively overcome them?

One possible answer: Read my comment from 11:48 pm yesterday.

Roy Eidelson

That's an excellent analysis, but I don't think it addresses the core problem. It isn't American citizens who need to be educated about the Bush administration's lying and fear-mongering or how to respond to it -- that seems to already be known by about 70% of Americans.

The problem isn't answered by showing people how to reasonably defuse the administration's propaganda.

The problem is how to stop Bush et. al. from acting on their actual agenda. We've seen time and time again that Bush et. al. don't give a hoot about American opinion. That isn't their concern.

Perhaps you should send your excellent analysis to every member of Congress. Maybe they'll use some of the suggestions you make, since Democrats and Republicans both seem to think Bush's message "works" to scare citizens into agreement with the war-mongering. They also seem to think they won't be re-elected if they don't cave in to the war-mongering agenda.

If the benefit to being a legislator were only American votes, our concerns would probably be addressed and we wouldn't be in this nighmare. But there is corporate money that almost every Congressperson wants desperately. The source of that money is NOT the American people, but corporations that benefit greatly from war. So most legislators listen to the corporations, not Americans. That is one reason why Dennis Kucinich seems to be such a principled individual. There are very few not tainted with concerns that have nothing to do with democratic governance and everything with being electable.

During my lifetime, the American people have fallen to the bottom of the heap when it comes to influence on Congress. Rationality and the "will of the people" don't seem to carry much weight anymore.

I think it takes a great deal of exploration of political power to find root causes of political problems, and there is always more than one cause.

Below is the writing of a Neo-Con henchman/philosopher (and I use this term VERY loosely). He wishes death upon all the 'enemies' of Western Civilization and believes that our nefarious leader Bush should be 'President for Life'. Well it's quite obvious these people are completely psychotic. How can you advocate the use of nuclear holocaust as a means to furthering civilization? It's suicide for all involved. But then again, maybe that is the goal.. kill the earth and all of its inhabitants. Then when the world is 'cleansed' again, maybe these Neo-Con cockroaches would be the only ones to survive the damage.. in fact they would probably thrive in a radiation soaked world and just grow even fatter, crazier, and be quite happy crawling all over each other with their multiple limbs.

Please flood this man's email box. He's giving BushCo. ideas...

*********************************************************
While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at: rpa@ourcivilisation.com.

"I think this praying for someone to show up and save us is part of the problem. As Americans we are taught from birth some hero will come and save the day just in time. Unfortunately, life just doesn't work that way, sometimes you have to save your damn self…"

Kristina40,

True...but saving your damn self is also an illusion. We need each other and we have to act as if we do. I get your point that there are no heroes. There are, however, knights in shining armor - but like all knights, they fight for the common good, for each other.

If Progressives are unable to throw the full weight of their support behind Dennis Kucinich, who has consistently and courageously stood up and voiced the progressive view of all the manipulation, mayhem and corruption of the last 5 years, then we will quite simply get precisely what we deserve: corporate owned and managed government. If we want leadership for, of and by the people, this is a clear opportunity to put our money where our complaining mouths are. MSM has done a very effective job of marginalizing Kucinich for precisely the reasons we should be standing behind him. Whose country is this? Whose world? Kucinich is unambiguous about that, and it's time for those who consider themselves progressive to be precisely that unambiguous. Enough of the cynicism and negativity about odds - thisd isn't a horse race, it's supposed to be a representative democracy. Shall we act like it??!!

I was a delegate for Kucinich in '04. I will be again.

America is the greatest threat to world peace because war is our business. The question is, do you want to change this?

Do you feel America is on the correct course? If not, THEN WE MUST CHANGE DIRECTION.

There is only one candidate promoting radical, wholesale change. Kucinich is that candidate. All you have to do is vote for him.

If the fact that someone may get assassinated stops you from voting for them then the "terrorists" have won because YOU ARE AFRAID.

Kucinich '08.

Peace to you and yours.

This string of comments is so uplifting - a big thank you to everyone who has contributed. As long as there's a core of folk like you in the USA - all is NOT lost.

Hey Nihilist. I've spent enough time around Dennis to know that he's not part of some think tank plot to obfuscate. He is truly his own man, and one of the most principled persons I've ever met. However, he does have some personal issues which keep him from getting himself out there to middle America the way HE needs to (as opposed to how media- and DLC- annointed front-runners do). Specifically, deep-seated fear (see my post from about 11:30 last night) and a tendency to micromanage. And probably, an inferiority complex.

Look. All of here know how special he is, and that he is head-and-shoulders (so to speak) above everyone else running. Yet almost nobody knows about him, even though this is his second time around. Ask yourselves why?

We can whine all we want about unfair media coverage, how fixed the system is for TRUE progressives and visionaries, etc., but that just makes us feel better when we lose. Truth will ALWAYS rise to the surface EVENTUALLY. These times especially demand courage and creativity (again, see my post) to help it go where it wants to anyway, sooner.

Since Bush thinks GOD told him to do all in his power to create the end of the world as we now know it, I see in the very near future Bush creating chaos at home and blaming it on Iran. Specificly the Guard. All his Presidential Directives, since he has been in office, have been leading down the path of self-destruction. He doesnt care about our troops, or he would be smart enough to rotate them with the Million other service personnel stationed world-wide. The nuking of America by Bush is at hand. Are murder and maiming the qualities of a self-rightous Christian President. TOTAL disregard for life--The chief terrorist is Bush.

This is America, if Kucinich looked like Mitt, he would be a shoe in.

Sorry, I just feel compelled to contribute to the Kucinich love fest. I searched him on You Tube and came up with:

1) An old TV news piece pertaining to when he was mayor of Cleveland (at the age of 30!) and refused to give into demands to sell the public power plant to private interests, which would have raised utility prices for the people. Someone hired the mob to assassinate him. He refused to sell and was not re-elected because the bank that supported the sale allowed city loans (that Kucinich had not taken out) to go into default, sending the city into ruin. This is a modern parable for our times.

2) An interview on David Letterman in which he described how poor he and his family were (7 siblings, moving from place to place, even in cars, his parents counting pennies to pay the bills), so poor that he wore the same pants everyday to his Catholic school. The other kids of course made fun of the "poor kid," and the nun who was his teacher noticed and made sure that everyone in his family got some clothes from charity. This, he said, is where he learned about service.

This man's values are rock solid. I have never felt so strongly about a politician in my lifetime (I am 40; a New Yorker who feels completely and utterly betrayed by Hillary, who ignored a million people in her freezing city streets in February 2003 protesting the war to vote to authorize force. She is as bad as Bush, who called us a "focus group": the New York Times relegated this massive protest to the "Metro" section...you know, where the "local" stuff gets covered. She will betray us again and again. She is the politician of "might," (the subjunctive tense) rather than actually acting (in the indicative tense), like Kucinich.

I plan to start my own personal Dennis campaign by knocking on the doors of every person in my building and handing out leaflets in the subway. I think NY might be able to push him through, who knows? A lot of us feel unbelievably betrayed by Hillary, whom we helped elect here twice. She did just use us, the carpetbagger!!!

I agree wholeheartedly with the above comment that reaching out personally to family and friends who are unwittingly caught in the "glare" of Hillary and Obama (my mother, a huge liberal, loves Hillary; she raised me watching Watergate on TV!! I am going to work on her first).

The attempt to demonize or potentially attack Iran is of course all about energy resources, and to a lesser degree the Israeli lobby factor. The Iranians have seen or heard it all before. I would like to mention that I visited Iran as a "tourist" in 1969 and was very impressed with their very ancient and gracious culture. I had a nice conversation with a fellow who way back then was quite aware of America subverting democratic government in Iran via Big Oil and the CIA. There was also a lot of controversy about mini-skirts from America !

Some things never change as the White House and the Pentagon have been lying the public for so long I do not think they are capable of telling the truth. How many remember LBJ escalating the Vietnam war crimes with lies and bombing the innocent ?

" Escalation of the Vietnam conflict also began with a presidential lie, became a devastating stalemate, was financed with debt, followed by inflation, and left the nation divided. But fortunes were made then as now by prolonging the carnage although leaked Pentagon papers revealed they knew it was a lost cause. When leaders betray our trust, the integrity of our nation and quality of life is changed forever."

quoted from:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/31/2886/

"....din of Democratic obfuscation that aids and abets this White House's worst instincts"

Ergo, "Dems = Bush enabler"

Just a minor human detail, from David Shasha, an Internet friend of mine:

Quote:
Friends,
 
    I would  like to make our readers aware of a brilliant Iranian film
called "Gilaneh"  which is currently being screened on the Sundance Channel.  I
have prepared  a review of the film which I will follow this short note.  
"Gilaneh" is an  awesome indictment of war and how violence affects human lives.  
 
    For more  information on the film and screening times, see the Sundance  
website:
 
_http://www.sundancechannel.com/films/500225111_
(http://www.sundancechannel.com/films/500225111)
 
 
 
 
David Shasha
 
 
   
Movie Review: "Gilaneh"  (Rakhshan Bani Etemad and Mohsen Abdolvahhab, 2005)
 
In his brilliant book The  Great War for Civilization, the intrepid
journalist Robert Fisk spends a  great deal of time recounting and trying to con
textualize the Iran-Iraq War  as a central factor when trying to understand the
current quagmire in  Iraq.  While many Americans routinely mouth the many
platitudes of the  current Bush administration about how Saddam Hussein was gassing his
own people  and committing all sorts of mayhem, the Iranians who suffered
during that  war remain incredulous.  Why is it that the Americans funded and
armed  Saddam during that war, while the very same political functionaries -
Cheney,  Rumsfeld and the rest - are pretending that they had no role in the  
carnage?
 
In their 2005 film "Gilaneh"  filmmakers Rakhshan Bani Etemad and Mohsen
Abdolvahhab return to 1988 and with  a canniness that is truly astonishing, bring
the story of the Iranian  trauma into the present tale of the 2003 American
invasion of Iraq.
 
"Gilaneh" is a film split into  two halves: the first part of the film tells
the story of Maygol, a young  resident of Tehran who has had to return to her
mother who in turn was forced to  settle, like many other Iranians, in the
countryside where they could escape the  relentless bombs of the Iraqis.  Maygol,
now pregnant, has left her  husband Rahman in Tehran and is now deeply
worried about his fate.   "Gilaneh" opens with troubling images of Maygol having
nightmares and screaming  for her husband.  She insists that she must go back to
the front-lines of  the war to find him and bring him back to the country
where he will be  safe.  This first part of the film follows Maygol and her mother
Gilaneh, a  woman who has lost her own husband and is now taking on the
responsibility of  providing for her family, as they inch their way to Tehran on
the back of a  truck, on foot and by bus.
 
The images of wounded  and half-crazed soldiers and frenzied and out-of-their
mind gentry take the  viewer into a world of quiet despair teetering on the
brink of  madness.  Maygol and Gilaneh are leaving the relative safety of the  
country and returning to where the violence is most pronounced.  It is not  
made clear why others are doing the same.  But on the bus there is a  young man
named Reza who is clearly hysterical and who screams and  cries out of the
depths of his soul.
 
And here "Gilaneh" serves to  humanize the effects of war in a way that is
rare in contemporary  cinema.
 
The classic Hollywood films of  the 1940s and 50s were similarly concerned
with showing how war affects the  ordinary person.  In his great masterpiece
"The Best Years of Our Lives"  the director William Wyler and the producer Samuel
Goldwyn achieved a  dramatic poetry that was perhaps the most successful
portrayal of the subtle and  often heart-breaking ways in which human beings
experienced war after the  war was over.  In "Gilaneh" we see the effect of war on
those who are  living in its margins and those who have left the eye of the
storm, only to  find themselves disfigured and maimed as they grapple with
returning  to "normal" life.
 
All over the Iranian countryside  we see families struggling to conduct their
lives with some dignity,  but often see their attempts undermined.  A wedding
celebration that has  been canceled, a family vainly looks for lodging after
having left Tehran,   a sick passenger on the bus desperately needs to go to
the bathroom; all these  vignettes are told in a very matter-of-fact style.  
 
The directors strive to  create haunting images that recall the films of the
Russian social-realist  tradition.  Faces become poetic markers of the despair
and desperation that  these people are living through.  Daytime scenes are
filmed in shimmering  golden wheatfields and lush greenery while the people
scramble and struggle  to get their daily bread and to make sense of what has
happened  to them, while night brings an ominous luminosity filled with thick fog
and  hallucinatory colors.  The film's palette of colors is frequently  
carnivalesque and belies the impoverishment and desperation of the characters'  
lives.
 
The journey of Maygol and  Gilaneh back to Tehran is both heroic and tragic
at the same  moment.
 
Gilaneh feels obliged to protect  her daughter at any cost - even as what
she's doing makes no logical  sense.  Her loyalty to her family is at times
overwhelming and  the march to the big city is filled with pathos and sorrow.  It
shows  the ways in which ordinary Iranians suffered through a brutal and cruel  
war.
 
Both parts of the film take  place on the eve of the Nowruz holiday, the
Persian New Year.   The tragedy of 1988 is marked by the discovery that Maygol's
husband Rahman has  been conscripted and is now a soldier who will in all
likelihood never be  seen alive again.  The breakdown of Maygol as she comes to
this realization  is marked by the frenzy and madness that has gripped those
trying to get out of  the way of Saddam's bombs and gas-filled weaponry.
 
The second portion of the film  brings the story into the present - the
American invasion of Iraq in 2003.   Gilaneh's son Ismael who we saw in the first
part as a popular, robust and  handsome young man who was about to be married,
has now become an invalid  who has lost control over many of his bodily
functions.  Like Maygol  at the beginning of the film, Ismael is haunted by the war
and by what he  has undergone as a soldier.  We are not shown any battle
scenes, but  are left to ponder the brutality and madness of war as we view the
degeneration  of human beings and how they now struggle to remain healthy and  
adjusted.  Often this will be an impossibility.  It is remarked  in the film how
those who have been killed are better off than those who  returned home
maimed.
 
The ironies of American  invasion of Iraq are thick: the Iranians welcome the
invasion as they finally  get a belated chance to wreak their vicarious
revenge on Saddam and what he did  to them.  But the Iranians know well that the
Americans are certainly not  doing this on their behalf and continue to worry
that after Iraq is done, the  Americans will cross the border to get them.
 
Gilaneh has, like the peasant  she now is, become a veritable "salt of the
earth" matriarch who  is taking care of her roadside stand as well as being
nurse and companion to  Ismael.  Gilaneh is a fascinating character whose faith
and mystic  assurance makes her that much more tragic and that much more
attractive to  the viewer.  Her superstitions and her guilelessness are signs of a
pure  spirit that refuses to be crushed.  Even as she sometimes breaks down and  
cries and shows the strains of the harsh life she has lived, she is  
indefatigable and hopelessly bright and cheery when it comes to Ismael and her  hopes
for the future.
 
In the second portion of the  movie Maygol has her children and has remarried
and seems to be  somewhat stable.  It is now Ismael who was once such a
life-force who  has been overtaken by the nightmares that once haunted Maygol.  
Through it  all, Gilaneh remains a constant force of nature; a superhuman dynamo
to whom  life's tragedies are those given to her by Allah, whose perfect love
of humanity  is never questioned.
 
The role of religion in the film  is straightforward and transparent:
religion is living in the world God has  created for us and where we are always
waiting for His blessing.  Whether  or not we are favored with happiness and
success, God is supreme and His will is  to be followed.  A quiet mysticism
permeates "Gilaneh"; a mysticism that  accepts what it means to be human whether or
not the blessing comes or whether  tragedy comes.  This sense of Religious
Humanism is not purely fatalistic  nor is it simply a naive optimism.  It is, as
Emmanuel Levinas has famously  said, a "difficult freedom" where human beings
are left to their own  devices to do the best that they can and where they must
never treat God as  if He were some slot machine.
 
Life in "Gilaneh" is hard and  tragic.  God is never seen as anything less
than perfect even as man  commits acts of unspeakable cruelty to his fellow man.
 All this is taken  in stride as humanity is secondary to the glory of God.  
The tragedies are  accepted with the harsh realization that pain is misery
even as we must  find ways to impossibly elevate ourselves from the wounds that
tear our  bodies and souls open.
 
The landscape is unsparing and  often unkind.  People try to find ways to
bond with one another and  provide acts of kindness and grace to each other in
times of sorrow.  The  doctor who treats Ismael has himself lost an arm as he
diligently and  with selfless devotion makes his rounds throughout a countryside
that has  been devastated by the after-effects of war; a war that seems to be
 perpetual.
 
In "Gilaneh" we are shown a  kaleidoscope of human suffering amid the rubble
of man's inhumanity to  man.  This suffering is filled with pain yet is
ennobling in some  sense.  The self-abnegation of a character like Gilaneh who does  
not question the ways of God is a profoundly moving case study of the ways in
 which human beings face their traumas.  As in "The Best Years of Our  
Lives," "Gilaneh" looks at the ways in which war devastates human beings and  marks
them for life.  There is no escaping the mad screams and the silent  suffering
that suffuses the lives of those who struggle to overcome their  nightmares,
but just as often are left bereft of all hope and joy.
 
The landscape of "Gilaneh"  is that of a Middle East that has seen too much
bloodshed and too much  hate.  In the quiet calm of hearth and home - again,
the parallel with "The  Best Years of Our Lives" comes to mind - there is a
simple dignity  that can be found, but it is a dignity that is fed by confusion
and  sadness.  "Gilaneh" is that rare film that sets out to teach us that  
suffering is part of what it means to be human and where we cannot change what  has
happened to us, only to act in ways that reflect the dignity of what it  
means to be a disciple of the one God.
 
Both parts of the film take  place during the Nowruz holiday as did that
other masterpiece of Iranian  cinema, Jafar Panahi's "The White Balloon."  While
"The White Balloon"  was the simple story of a young child who lost her  
family's Holiday money under a street grating, "Gilaneh" is an epic  study of human
tragedy in the face of war.  It makes the links between what  happened in the
1980s, while America armed and cheered on Saddam Hussein, and  the more recent
battle of Baghdad where America has been bloodied and  bruised.  The film
makes no political statements one way or another; it  just tracks the human
experiences of those ordinary people who are simply  looking to live their lives as
best as they can.
 
The Iranian cinema resembles in  this way the plaintive social realism of the
early Soviet cinema and  that of Italian Neo-Realism.  Its faith is pointedly
Muslim, but its  universalism is profoundly humanistic.  "Gilaneh" is a
brilliant  example of the ways that we experience life's complexities.  It is a  
stoic, humble and often quietly heroic film that does not traffic in the  hate
and vice of war and violence, but tenderly recounts the stories of  some
ordinary and simple human beings who are doing their best just trying  to survive.  
It is in the starkly reflective humanism of such a cinema  that can teach us
how to better live and how to better care for each other as  the traditions of
the Middle Eastern religions have so  eloquently preached.
 
 
 
 
David  Shasha    
Closequote.

To preface my comments about Nichols' article:

Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who wants a complete pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. The current administration's plan is to privatize the oil in Iraq. They've installed their puppets in Iraq's Ministry of Oil, as well as in other key positions in the Iraqi government to ensure the western world's largest oil companies get their mitts on it. In order to ensure a continued source of cheap oil, the U.S. needs to maintain a U.S. military presence in Iraq and the Middle East for "cover" (not peace, nor certainly "democracy"). Hillary, Obama, and John Edwards to some degree, support the idea of leaving American troops in the region "to maintain peace." Uh-huh, riiiight.

That said, this latest provocation against Iran is meant to justify military strikes on their nuclear sites, and therefore maintain U.S. military presence in the Middle East and Eurasia so it will be easier to get at the oil in Iraq. Although Bush/Cheney has asked Iran to help stabilize Iraq as well as to shut down their nuclear program, Bush/Cheney doesn't want to solve our differences through diplomatic channels. Meanwhile, declaring the Republican Guard a "specially designated global terrorist" will allow the Bush administration to "target the group's extensive business operations, including a crackdown on non-US companies doing business with the Guard's various financial enterprises." (Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8EE9700B-78CC-455F-A13D-B7D5865A63E5.htm)
By pressuring Bush and Congress for a military solution, Cheney and his neocon buddies have pissed off Russia who is now offering Iran support. Back in March of this year, democratic rep. Tom Lantos, chair of the Foreign Relations committee, introduced "H.R. 1400: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007" the summary of which can be read here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h110-1400
This must be what al-Jazeera is referring to when they write of the "congressional pressure" to stop Iran's nuclear development. The first line in the summary states, "that nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iran." Bush/Cheney has killed America's good will in this part of the world.

Kucinich is correct in labeling the Bush/Cheney administration as belligerent. They are the "international bullies" on the block, and frankly I am eff'n sick of them.

There won't be democracy anywhere without a level playing field.

Representative Kucinich is trying to remind everyone, who let this preexistent condition for representative government fall from their consciousness, that it is still true.

All for one and one for all.

Unfortunately, the unequal distribution and influence of wealth and the perversions of a biased system of justice produces the sorry state of affairs now prevalent in this nation, where little seems to be on the level, unless it's very low.

We have become, in the eyes of much of the world, that which our government says they will war against for all time. A preemptive, very self-destructive, terrifying rogue entity. We have fooled no one but ourselves and our 'friends.'

I fear for myself, my neighbors, and my town, the nation is in peril.

Can Kucinich win?

I got this off an earlier post in another thread on CommonDreams, and I think it needs to be spread far and wide:

"In the political equivalent of a "blind taste test" taken by more than 67,000 participants, an independent website surveying public attitudes on various issues is reporting that Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is the first choice of a phenomenal 53% of respondents.
No other candidate, Democrat or Republican, even reaches double digits."
More here: http://www2.kucinich.us/node/4871

No way will the warmongering Democrats or Republicans get my vote. They are the "right" (oxymoron) and the extreme right. Pelosi and Reid are useless. If Kucinich isn't the nominee, I'll write his name in. The rest of them represent the corporations, big oil, the weapons industry, and Israel -- and not me.

"When the leaders speak of peace, the common folk know that war is coming. When the leaders curse war, the mobilization order is already written out." - Bertolt Brecht

"How does the Bush administration think it can wage war against Iran now? What's Bush going to do? Declare victory and pull the troops out of Iraq to invade Iran? Iran's much larger and much more militarily organized than Iraq ever was."

It will be an air and naval war, Anney--with few if any U.S. ground troops involved. Israel may well participate in the bombings. The use of tactical nuclear weapons is a definite possibility.

"An attack on Iran would be a fool's move."

And... your point is?

Kucinich is a well planned joke conceived at some think tank no doubt.

The objective is simple. Keep the principled majority of voters in the democratic party in line so when the convention comes around and good ol' Denny supports Barrack o' clinton his disciples will follow suit.

If he were half as principled as the apologists say he is, he'd throw his hat in the ring as a third party candidate in the general election to give everyone who supports him, openly or secretly, an alternative to the corporate candidates. But just as he didn't do this in 04 he won't do it 08.

Lesser Evilism will prevail once more...who knows maybe they'll scapegoat Nader again if Clinton gets the nod and he follows through with his promise to run in such a event...

There's no secret what the objectives of the Cheney administration are. Their project is to turn the entire Middle East into an American protectorate. Then they will use their control over the region's oil to control China. They have stated this plainly in public documents going back to the late 90's "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" - AKA the PNAC document. The problem is that the Chinese have read the document and right about now they're wondering why they should keep financing the project by buying our debt.

"If Kucinich were somehow elected president, I fear he would be assassinated."

The truth is, if DENNIS were somehow elected, HE fears he would be assassinated.

True story: During his previous run, in 2003, a friend and I devised a novel and as yet untried method of marketing him, essentially using home CD burning coupled with a multi-level marketing schema. When we presented it to Dennis at a fund raiser during a public Q and A, he was at first puzzled, and it took about a minute and a half before a look of understanding came over his face. At that point, his boyish enthusiasm took over, and for the next five minutes he spontaneously extolled its virtues, even naming it (The Network Project). That very day he put us in touch with his campaign staff, and on Christmas eve 2003 his campaign manager (Dot Maver) informed us that our proposal was accepted as THE primary method by which he would be marketed, for the duration of the campaign.

For a full week my friend and I (and the small group who worked with us help us refine The Project) were in constant contact with virtually every person on his national staff, and I was making plans to relocate to Cleveland to act as coordinator. Then, suddenly, no one on his staff would respond to our calls. Despite repeated attempts to find out why, I was never given an answer by anyone connected to his campaign. It was at that point that I realized that we had been dealing with people who were more comfortable losing using the same tried and true methods than with saying "to hell with the status quo" and trying something more innovative.

I truly believed then, as I do now, that Dennis touches a place in each of our souls that is so deep and fundemental that all it would take for most people to realize this would be even the slightest exposure that is unembellished or mediated (unlike the debates). I also believe that it not possible given the parameters of the electoral system. Because of who he is and what he stands for, Dennis has a unique dilemma. As the saying goes, when hooked on the horns of a dilemma, the only way out is between them. So far, as shown by his unwillingness to leave the Democratic party and his embrace of the same-old same-old when it comes to campaigning, he shows no sighs of doing so. And thus, he remains hooked.

Ultimately I place the blame squarely on Dennis' shoulders, because it was he who chose such an ineffectual (though extremely kind) staff. When I mentioned all this to a very close friend, she offered the only plausable explination (to me, at least) as to why someone so visionary in his outlook would choose people who were not to run his campaign.

I should mention here that this friend has psychic gifts that surpass those of anyone I've ever known (and trust me, I've know quite a few). My experience with this person is that he has been spot on with virtually all of the time. His integrity and honestly is unparalled.

His assessment (or rather, those of his guides) was that Dennis comes from a strong Bodhisatvic lineage (for those who are familiar with Buddhism) and that eight times in previous lives he attempted to ascend the throne of power in order to do good, and every single time he was killed in the attempt. Knowing this, is there any wonder he subconsciously holds back from doing all he could to get himself elected president?

There are so many of us who are as passionate about changing the world for the betterment of all and who would join him on his quest, yet who hold back because we see (or rather sense) that Dennis is holding back too. These times demand charismatic leaders like Dennis who can hold the vision of how and in what ways we need to evolve. For such a person to effectively coalesse a movement, that person must be fearless and courageous, to show the rest of us that we have it in us to be so as well. Sadly, at least for now, Dennis is sorely lacking in this area.

The hour is getting late. (Literally as well as figuratively.) May he find his power soon. We desperitly need him to.

pdj, yep. Uncle Zoli and cousins Michael and Mark.

Vote Kucinich. Vote early, vote often. Assination is a real possibility and yes, conservatives are more likely to resort to murder than liberals. Look at the crime statistics on that one.
It may not make strategic military sense to invade Iran, but that is not the reason that they will do it. They will do it to distract the public from the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan and assure a successful Republican election. The neo-cons are quite clear that they believe the U.S. should be in a constant state of war, using its military to support American economic advantage and diplomatic pressure. This in turn reduces national security through increased foreign resentment and distraction of our troupes on foreign soil and justifies greater military expenditure which comes back to conservative politicians though kickbacks, ahem, I mean, campaign donations. You know people will say, "you can't switch riders mid-race." The one advantage on the Bush side of the argument will be that they already have troupes stationed in the region ready for deployment.

Kathyodat: I'm glad you found a good use for the quote I found.

Stinger: Shove it. You are so far out you don't even have a postal zone! You don't have a clue about Dennis Kucinich. Until you do, go get a life that includes a little reality.

For everyone else, it is wonderful that Nichols is finally recognizing Dennis. I was quite shocked that he didn't mention him in the program with Moyers. So, now I forgive him.

No matter what party you are in, vote for Dennis in the primaries. Go to his web site and see what you can do to support him. Who knows, if we all fight hard enough, he might even be nominated....well, that's probably not realistic, but at least we tried to do the right thing. It makes me feel good that I'm voting FOR someone I know and believe in. Beats the hell out of the "lessor of two or more evils". Given the Repug line-up, you might even be able to talk your conservative friends to get on the Kucinich bandwagon.

Thanks for all you do!

I would agree that Kucinich best represents my values and that we should be very suspicious over those that still consider war a viable option and make money on its perpetuation. Kucinich seems to understand that peace is a complex goal that requires a broad suite of solutions such as the DOP speaks to.

We need to teach the ways of peace. It is easier to be aggressive than it is to respond with thoughtful consideration with compassion but which produces desired results for the whole? We need to understand that we are each an integral piece of the peace puzzle and act on that understanding. Everything we do sends a ripple out. What are we doing?

The whole darn bunch in Washington needs to be exposed to a little bit of radiation poisoning, just a little bit to get a taste of just what they are considering doing to Iran. A little bit of poisoning, just enough to make them very ill, but not enough to kill them outright. Enough to give them the giant worry of just where the radiation residue will lodge and where the cancer will start. Even a refresher course in depleted uranium and its affects on the land, the air, the water and humans would be in order. How many of our troops will have their futures jepordized because of their exposure to DU. Doesn't anyone in Congress ever analyze the consequences of their decisions???

If the American people vote with their HEART for who they really want to see lead our country, we will have CHANGE.

If they vote for the corporate sponsored candidate, that the corporate media TELLS THEM they want — well they will deserve what they get. Sadly, the thinking people will go down with them on the same ship.

If American people are so stupid as to follow what they are told to believe, rather than thinking for themselves, all is lost.

Kucinich is the only candidate who packs so many correct statements, into his "allotted" time in debates. The rest skirt the question and dance around the issues...

If Kucinich is not the next president, I fear for the future of my grandchildren...

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble
for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned
and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country
will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until
all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed."

~ Abraham Lincoln 1865

Rebel Farmer sent me this. It was just 21 years later that the Supreme Court clerk rewrote headnotes granting "personhood" status to corporations in the Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad (following the death of the Chief Justice). In the opinion, addressing the issue of "personhood" had been specifically declined. We've been had. That clerk, by the way, was a former railroad employee.

I agree, Joecommon. These people will orchestrate another false flag attack to try and rally the people again. They will blame it on Iran. It worked so well when they pulled off 911. The question is how many attacks can these people pull off before the American people 'get it'? Or will it then be too late?

to label Iran's 125,000-strong Republican Guard as a "specially designated global terrorist" group

My prediction: Another false flag attack, such as blowing up a major bridge, will automatically be associated with the designated group.

-BeingSpied24/7

I think this piece saved my sanity today. I agree with so many of you. I was ready to give up on Americans completely this morning when a friend e-mailed me that Kucinich won't win and she now loves Hillary again (this is after we had a long talk where I pointed out all the votes Hillary had made and all her actions that supported bush and his gang -- which she had NO IDEA about, yet she was all gung-ho for Hillary!) But she decided Kucinich can't win so she decided to love Hillary again. These people deserve what they get --- BUT THE REST OF US DON'T!

Thanks, John Nichols, for not writing a piece like so many many others which falsely claim that none of the dem candidates were saying anything against this administration's policies. Thank you for pointing out that DENNIS KUCINICH IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN CONSISTENT IN HIS COMMENTS TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH BEHIND THE LIES OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.

The corporate media and the ignnoramuses in this country be damned, Dennis Kucinich WILL be known as the wise and brave man who tried to stop this horror....if only the sheeple listened.....

Dennis will get fewer and fewer mentions on the media because he does speak the truth so we will be back to Hillary who never commits, Barrack who wants to nuke Afghanistan(as if he know middle east politics any better than Bush), and Rommney who just may be able to buy his way to the Presidential seat. Bushies keep Americans on the edge constantly with rumors of yet another war so that our problems like the collapse of our infrastructure, loss of jobs, foreclosures, debt, and lack of social programs can go abegging.

RE: TAKE THE INVASION THREAT SERIOUSLY, BUT...

With this berserk, criminal administration and its right wing followers, nothing should be considered 'off the table.'

And, therefore, humans concerned with survival and not bequeathing a totally f'd up earth to those who follow should be very, very concerned - and as active as possible in saying 'no' to crazy America.

But...bottom line - I have the FEELING that - short of yet another, yet more destructive invasion - the purpose of the bellicose Iran talk is partly to keep the core CheneyBush shock troops fired up, partly to keep up the pretense to a greater electorate that some kind of middle east centered 'war on terror' is actually going on - and, finally, partly distractor from the Iraq invasion - a mega f'up on every level you could name, that we will be living with and paying for, for a long, long time...

Too bad my congressman, Maurice Hinchey isn't running. Like Kucinich, he opposed going into Iraq from day one. He also worked with Ron Paul on Medical Marijuana.

"The point is that your insider buddy, Kucinich , is well placed to stand up against the AIPAC girl Pelosi and demand an immediate impeachment of the two criminals right away and rught now. But he does'nt."

Kucinich has put forward a bill (HR333 I believe?) calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. What more do you expect him to do? Last I heard, only 10 or so members have signed on to that bill. A new party needs to be built from the grassroots that represents the interests of sane people and a sustainable future. That may take a decade or more just to get off the ground. In the mean time we are doomed to ride this shitwagon all the way down.

Kucinich is the obvious true progressive, unfortunatley, when I mention him to friends and family, I get blank stares. But I try to enlighten when I can. Seems too many have already annointed Hillary and/or Barack from the DEM side, c'mon Gore jump in with Dennis the K. The GOP candidates are just cuts from the same tired worn out 911 cloth. What's sad, is that GWB and the rest of "neo con men" are still beating that worn out war drum to attack Iran a large % of the population will not buy it anymore. Fool them once, twice, thrice, but finally, they caught on amd not buying that snake oil anymore. Too many false warnings of TERRORIST attacks looming, W cried wolf too many times, the well is dry and the US public won't let him fill it with more blood in yet a third ME country. What people are really afraid of...lost jobs, health insurance, never ending bloodletting in Middle East. We've had enough, but the masses are too guillable and will probably vote for a "name brand" already selected by the powers that be, aka large corporations. Don't give up, stickers for Kuchinich on my car and if DEM primaries pick another GOP in disquise, I'll re-register to IND/Green in time for Fall 08. DEMs will try yet again to screw it up and may lose bid for White House.

Wilhelm:

Thanks so much for the headsup and link to the Moyers interview. I sometimes skip watching his fine program because some nights I just can't take it. It's always so thought provoking and maddening and rage inducing.

Anyway, thanks again.

Hey, Ferency--any relation to Zolton and Mark? ELHS '69
_______

I'm through dithering about choosing between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards--come primary time, I'm votin' for Dennis! A big enough bloc of delegates at least gives us a plank in the platform...

What's the point or the objective of a US attack on Iran? There's no way their nuclear facilities can be destroyed, if US intelligence even knows where they are -- they're buried too deep for bunkerbusters or conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons can't be used against Iran because the fallout would cause millions of deaths in countries considered to be American allies.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

So what practical goal would be achieved by an attack on Iran?

RE: WHO TO VOTE FOR AFTER KUCINICH WITHDRAWS

I'll vote for Kucinich in the primaries.

But - as someone noted on another thread - short of the nomination, he will withdraw.

So who to vote for then? A Sheehan protest vote? Better to start working this out now than later - it would be a strong statement if progressives could get behind one alternative candidate, the way so many did in 2000.

Support the most honest progressive candidate --as kathyodat says -- and not who the corporate news media manipulatively pre-annoint as 'winners.' This goes w/o saying.

Even if Kucinich made a decent vote showing at the virtually-air-tight-rigged Demo convention, it could help create & focus a new progressive force within the otherwise useless Demo party.

Other than that, building a progressive 3rd party is the only remaining hope for the longer-term (if US Constitution survives for a longer-term...)

RE attack on Iran: If it happens, US neocons will surely use proxy Israeli force for the job; not a single US troop or aircraft will be involved -- so as to blunt political fallout against the US from its own citizens and from other nations. Israel's government/economy, being more-effectively insulated against protest from its own citizens and the world, has a military that was built to serve at the end of USA's leash in such matters.

Iran's potential to gain nuke weapons is what US/Israeli neocons want to eliminate from the equation now - something easily achievable via multiple-site strikes by Israel's air force (which now possesses US cruise missles, to boot.)

You'd think Europe/China would finally call down the unholy USA/Israel military arrangement in the wake of any such strike. But don't count on that happening in any meaningful way, either.

Just(ly) switch to Kucinich! And VOTE (when/wherever he's on the ballot).

"If GW Bush can avoid it, certainly Dennis Kucinich could, unless you're saying that progressives don't get fed up to the point of assassination but conservatives do".

I think the chances of a lone nut from either the right or the left assassinating the president is essentially nil. It would take a conspiracy and would be sanctioned by the financial-military-industrial elites. It will not happen in the case of George Bush because he is their handmaiden.

Kathy, you are so right. We are like rats in a wheel, running ourselves to death in the endless attempt to grap that ever elusive piece of cheese. My husband works two jobs, I work one and am currently hunting for another and we still struggle to make ends meet at the end of the month.
I get no paid vacation nor holidays and neither does he. Thankfully he's Union so he has health insurance and now that we are married I will be on his policy but with the Unions being so weak (especially here in Florida, a right to work state) there's of course no guarantee he won't get laid off. Somewhere along the line a good idea got lost in this Country. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned us all working like slaves to go deeper and deeper into debt to the corporate machine...

"If GW Bush can avoid it, certainly Dennis Kucinich could, unless you're saying that progressives don't get fed up to the point of assassination but conservatives do."

Uhm, yeah that could be it. I mean who are the ones with guns in every closet? I've already heard some of my customers (red state rednecks) salivating over Clinton or Obama getting in office so they'll be assassinated. This is the kind of mentality you are dealing with...

broken robot, I fear you are right. This country has a history of assassinating people who threaten corporate power.

kristina, I'm not sure who these people are who pop up with the idea of a Kucinich/Paul candidacy. Maybe they think Kucinich will get assassinated and leave Paul in charge. I can't see voting for some one who wants to dismantle our social programs, but the Paul supporters don't seem to have a problem with that. Must be a bunch of Libertarians lurking around here. My confusion about them is that Kucinich and Paul are on opposite sides of the social program spectrum, although on the same page regarding the occupation,NAFTA and corporate power. But that's all they have in common. Not enough.

We should be looking at what the European countries are doing. Long restful vacations, subsidized day care, free education through college, paid maternity leave. Our children deserve this. We're overworked, overstressed, we're killing ourselves and ruining our children's futures. Our country can do better than this and Dennis would lead the way. Ron Paul wouldn't. We aren't the richest country in the world, we just have some of the richest people in the world living in it.

"If Kucinich were somehow elected president, I fear he would be assassinated."

If GW Bush can avoid it, certainly Dennis Kucinich could, unless you're saying that progressives don't get fed up to the point of assassination but conservatives do.

yes broken robot, he's an unabashed capitalist and is all for big business which is why it baffles me so that so called progressives would vote for him

I don't understand why you're all so concerned about who to vote for in 08.
THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE ANY ELECTION IN 08!

I saw a Ron Paul speech on CSPAN last week. My impression was that he believes the over-arching problem with America today is that there is too much regulation on business. He clearly doesn't get it at all. I do applaud him for wanting to take a more non-interventionist foreign policy stance. My prediction is that he will end up running Libertarian or Independent and function as H Ross Perot did in '92, to assure a Democratic presidential victory. If Kucinich were somehow elected president, I fear he would be assassinated.

The reason why Kucinich wont win, is because people keep thinking he can't win. So they don't vote for him. If he cant get in this time he will have a much better chance next time, if millions of people actually show support instead of chalking it up as a wasted vote. He is the only person that could make the country the place it should be and never has been.

Any war with Iran will be an air and naval war. There will be no attempt to invade and occupy territory.

Maybe, just maybe, they'd put troops ashore to hold the Iranian side of the Strait of Hormuz... but it would be difficult to keep them there for very long.

In 1988, the U.S. sank half of the Iranian navy during the "Tanker War" at the end of the Iraq-Iran war. They've been working toward gaining nuclear weapons since that time. Nothing else will serve as a deterrent to our aircraft carriers.

So, the purpose of an attack on Iran will be to delay their nuclear program, and to destroy any other weapons and installations that can threaten oil tankers in the Gulf.

The NeoCons may still be deluding themselves that a "crisis" would lead to the popular overthrow of the Iranian regime, but the real benefit of starting a war with Iran is that it would make it extremely difficult for a Democratic President to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Permanent bases in Iraq (even a restless and divide Iraq) are the prize.

What is it with these Paul supporters? Do you not get he wants to dismantle the entire Federal Government and put all the power in the states hands? Do you have any idea what a disaster that would be? In other words, interracial relationships and homosexuality would be outlawed in the red states as well as abortion which he is vehemently AGAINST. He's also a racist prick, but that never seemed to bother Americans before, I don't know why I think it would matter now. Paul is a Libretarian in GOP garb, he also wants to do away with any and all social programs. Any progressive that would vote for this fool is well...a fool themselves.

Americans want to vote for other political parties for real change in their nation. Or so they say? How about this:

Kucinich/Paul '08 Whoever of these two men is President or Vice-President is irrelevent - they go well together and would do a great job I am sure. If Americans want change this would be THE ticket!

The USA should declare themselves neutral, like Switzerland and Sweden have. I believe Ron Paul has a somewhat modified view of this opinion and would complement Kucinich's opinion that if the USA is ever involved in foreign affairs this should be for humanitarian and not economic reasons. I believe that both stand for economic independence and stress diplomacy vis a vis war to settle disputes.

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul should run on an independent ticket!

Who are the Socialist candidates running for President of the United States in '08? Just curious...

they dont need troops. they will nuke iran. please, someone stop them. i'm for dennis. i was liking richardson, but, dennis has my vote in the last couple weeks, he's saying all the right things, and not because he wants the power - he's right!! go dennis.

As Randy Newman said:

"Short people got/ no reason/ to live."

As far as I can tell, Dennis Kucinich is presented ruthlessly as a marginal candidate despite the fact that his ideas align best with the progressive slant of the general public because:

1. He is short and reminds people of Dukakis.
2. The media and other candidates treat him as marginal, based on his fundraising, his brutal honesty, and the potential threat a la Howard Dean that he poses to large media and other big business interests.

But, you would think Democracts would have learned from the Howard Dean thing in 2004. In it, the media was allowed to alter perceptions of Dean, and the primary voters went for the stiff fish Kerry.

Here we go again, Democrats ignoring the only progressive candidate.

The bottom line here, folks, is that the Democratic Party is not for progressives. You have to go Green, or look elsewhere. The other option is to work to put Gravel's national initiative for democracy forward so we do not have to rely on Congress or the President to move the country in the right direction.

About time John Nichols started supporting Kucinich. Things must be really bad out there in Wonderland. Last election, he was dumping on Kucinich, saying we need to support a "winner".

Stop looking at "winners". They are losers. We need to support candidates who will do the right thing without thinking of themselves first. That's Dennis.

On the question of "how the hell does the Bush administration think it can wage a war in Iran?" All we need to do is look at how they waged war in Iraq. In "No End in Sight," the filmmaker makes clear the utter and total lack of preparation of the Bush admin for reorganizing Iraq after the invasion. I have come to a conclusion that this was not based on mere incompetence, but rather on their deliberate intention to sow disorder and chaos and cause a genocide of the Iraqi people (especially men between the ages of 20 and 40) so that Iraq will never, ever again be a functioning nation, but rather a big piece of oil-laden real estate open for the taking. Why else would they not allow Iraqis to participate in reconstruction? Why else would they have disbanded the Iraqi army that was initially ready to work with the Americans? So, along those lines, why the hell won't they try to do the same thing in Iran? It's easy to go to war when your intention is simply to destroy human life and social institutions without having to worry about rebuilding them afterwards. We know all the Bushies have ever wanted was a pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Iran and Iraq. It's the same old sad story: follow the oil, follow the money. Drop a few bombs, kill a few million inhabitants, and let the oil flow.

When did the MSM become liberal? I must have missed that day. Another one drinking the Faux news Koolaid

The liberal MSM doesn't like Kucinich because he's short and has an elfish look and is a real person. Romney will probably be the next prez cause he's got good hair and good looks. Doesn't matter that he won't be a good prez, he's got good hair.

I think this praying for someone to show up and save us is part of the problem. As Americans we are taught from birth some hero will come and save the day just in time. Unfortunately, life just doesn't work that way, sometimes you have to save your damn self...

Rather than throw my vote away, I will cast it for Kucinich. I hope others will do likewise. Consider it a tiny step in a better direction.

I say this with a weary resignation, because I feel that the vote at this point is a disconnected action. What we need to do, what we need to learn to do, is find a way to vote every day, by way of our purchases, our reading, our viewing, our thoughts and behavior and diet, and so on.

We have to imagine something better than this insane dream of fear and attack.

TGFK (Thank goodness for Kucinich) and thank goodness for John Nichols - I wish we had more of the same ilk. Even the best of the liberal journalists fail to give Dennis Kucinich due respect and support. Why?

There's time left for Dennis to surge ahead, there's time for Al Gore to jump in too. Either or both could be our saving grace.

Our only chance to get Dennis in the White House to stop the insanity is if Gore jumps in the race and wins, picks Dennis as his running mate, wins the election, and then Gore keels over from just one too many artery-clogging greasy hamburgers.

Hey, it could happen.

Just like the Iraq war, we can't believe they'd do it, until they do.

While here at home we won't be able to afford food, housing or insurance, they'll be waging another war which will drain our resources and leave us unable to stop them. Face it, we're the USSR, for those of you old enough to remember. Call us the USSA.

In Russia, I remember hearing how fat, rich men were feared and seen as evil, because they were fat. No one else was fat, and there wasn't any food. Everyone knew what they were eating, and it wasn't beef or pork, it was human flesh. That horrible tale is only one example of what we're to believe could NEVER happen. But it did happen, there, and if we're not careful, it could happen again. Here. If we go to war with Iran, I don't see how it won't be the end of the USA. Maybe we won't be eating each other, but chances are, we're going to go hungry. So they can have another war.

And when the rest of the world sees soft, fat America going hungry, do you really think they're going to feel sorry for us? Think anyone is going to feel badly for us when we lose our "freedoms" and find out we aren't as brave as we thought we were?

Seems to me the war on Iran would be just as much a war on the US. I don't see any way around it. We cannot afford another war, justified or not, ethical or not, win-able or not. We'll starve.

This time, Israel might lead the charge, but the US certainly will be complicit as a supporter. And don't expect the Democrats and Republicans to stop it. The 97-0 vote proves that fact.

Hey, you don't have to convince me. The Democrats will mouth some words and look the other way, greedily rubbing their hands together like flies on a rotting pig carcass dreaming about the 2008 elections. The Republicans think it'll make Jesus come. AIPAC bastards like Lieberman and the rest of the neocons think they're doing Israel a favor. The collaborative media suppresses facts exposing the relative importance of Saudi Arabia as the prime foreign instigator of Iraqi violence, and pumps the propaganda about elevating the Iranian military to terrorist status. To Bush the violence already wrought is but a comma in the book of history. As a fugitive, bin Laden is Bush's best friend. In other words, all systems are go.

The question is: what are we going to do about it? Vote Kucinich. Vote Sheehan. Recall Pelosi and Reid and any other Democrat who dares mouth the words "we need sixty-seven votes" again. It's time to drive these cowardly bastards into the sea of political death.

Will it happen? Sadly, I don't think so.

DRAFT THE RICH.

Go Dennis GO!

Pelosi should be impeached for not abiding by her oath of office to Uphold the Constitution!

To attack Iran, rest assurred that Cheney will use the air force and they will (try to) use nuclear weapons..for a ground force they will use mercenaries from the likes of Blackwater and CACI....
ya gotta wonder why we're not hearing more from Hiliary, Obama and Edwards, eh?

One reason why I read John Nichols first, everytime. Thanks for your work.

Word to the wise if you know that Kucinich is the one who is speaking for you, stop making references to those tools, i.e. negative use of polls and media to brainwash the public into voting against itself. Focus instead on the strength of the words of truth and resistance Kucinich is using to confront the bully to stop the right wing's negative, annilistic, and selfdefeating policies. Kucinich does not stand alone, to be sure; Join him in shifting focus to become a part of the winning antidote to what ails this nation.

If any of you believe the U. S. will not attack Iran, I suggest reading the following links:

Empire Burlesque:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/: Scroll down to "The Worsening Nightmare".

These two writers articulate very clearly what is likely to happen -- all fully supported with facts and details, in context of developments extending over a period of time, every one of which has been aided and abetted by the Democrats in Washington (Kucinich excepted).

Follow where links go. It is a lengthy read past the first posts. If you don't think they make strong cases, I want to know the reason why.