Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEdwards/Kucinich 2008?
The Gold Standard For Progressive Candidates
Last week, CommonDreams published an article I wrote, which was in part about a speech made by John Edwards. In the speech in question, Edwards set forth the rule by which I think all candidates for the presidency should be judged: Are they anti-corporate power or are they corporate owned?
I titled my piece, " Edwards, Does He Mean It?," but CommonDreams gave it a new title, which better suited the full scope of my discussion. Without its original title, however, many readers interpreted my discussion to be an endorsement of John Edwards. In fact, it was meant as a challenge: "You have spoken bold words, Mr. Edwards; now, show us that you really mean them."
Thanks to reader participation in CommonDreams-type forums, we all learn a tremendous amount about the process of public discourse. One thing the response to my column clearly revealed to me is the frustration and resentment many people feel over the media's neglect of candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Ravel, and Ron Paul.
What I saw as an opportunity to challenge John Edwards to further commit himself to a truly progressive agenda, some supporters of Kucinich saw as yet another example of the media neglecting the candidate who truly possesses a solid record of progressive leadership.
Indeed, these readers have a point. When I exhorted Edwards to live up to his own gold standard, and when I urged the people to apply this standard to the candidates' policy positions and to the conduct and financing of their campaigns, I should have cited the fine example already set by Dennis Kucinich. Why should I perpetuate the neglect modeled by the mass media?
The Superior Record of Dennis Kucinich
I should have mentioned, for example, that Kucinich is the only candidate who has proposed a national, not-for-profit health care plan ( H.R. 676). I should have noted that of all the health care plans offered by any of the candidates, Kucinich's plan is the only one that removes for-profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies from controlling the system.
A plan to address the health care crisis by cutting out corporate profiteering and reaching out to our nation's 47 million uninsured people is definitely a plan that serves the interests of the people over the interests of corporate America. Kucinch's health care plan is anti-corporate power and therefore it meets Edwards' gold standard for evaluating presidential candidates. At least on the issue of health care, Kucinich stands out as superior to all the other candidates for president, regardless of any flaws his plan contains, simply because his plan cuts out Big Business.
I could also have mentioned that, unlike Edwards, Kucinich never had to apologize about voting for the unprovoked attack, invasion, and occupation of Iraq. Unlike Edwards, Kucinich was not misled into supporting the interests of Big Oil and the industrial-arms complex through devastating warfare. In the Iowa Democratic Debate, Kucinich went even further to attack the corporate agenda which keeps our troops entrenched in a country in which they were not wanted and did not belong.
"We cannot leave more troops there, we cannot privatize Iraq's oil, we cannot partition that country and expect there is going to be peace," Kucinich argued. "We need a president who understands that, one who has been right from the start, and one who has shown the judgment, the wisdom, and the maturity to take the right stand at the time when it counted most when the American people needed someone to stand up and I'm the one who did that."
On the issue of the war, Edward's "anti-corporate power" litmus test boils down to whether the candidates are willing to promise they will not allow the privatization of Iraqi oil. Any plan to privatize Iraqi oil is simply a way of allowing Big Oil's lawyers to craft sophisticated ways of stealing billions and billions of dollars of Iraqi wealth for the elite shareholders who will still set the price of gas as high as politically feasible.
By voting against the war, Kucinich stood up for the interests of the American people. By standing against privatization of Iraqi oil, Kucinich is taking a stand against corporate power. Therefore, Kucinich meets Edwards' gold standard for evaluating presidential candidates. Once again, he looks to be superior to all other presidential candidates.
A final example, I should have cited in discussing Edwards' gold standard is that Kucinich has stated that his first act as President of the United States will be to cancel NAFTA. NAFTA is a trade treaty that has allowed corporate America to reap billions of dollars of profits by shifting operations and jobs abroad where they can be performed by cheap labor and without the costs of socially responsible labor, health and safety and environmental regulations imposed through our democratic political process. In this policy position too, Kucinich passes the anti-corporate power test we ought to impose before giving any candidate our vote.
With all this said, I'd like to return to my point about Edwards' speech: Edwards defined the standard by which we, the people, ought to measure each candidate. Kucinich may meet that standard, but he is inadequately communicating the unifying theme of all his positions: they are all anti-corporate power.
Kucinich's campaign slogan is "Strength through Peace." Being pro-peace and anti-war is extremely important always, but especially in this moment in history. All the same, the war is not really the issue. An astute leader will distinguish that the source of the war is the real evil, not the war itself. The source of the war is the corporate power that profits from the war, the corporate power that placed Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in the Oval Office, the corporate power that profits from Cheney's secret energy task force, from Bush's prescription drug benefit, and from NAFTA.
Like Edwards, when Kucinich discusses these issues, he correctly notes that corporate-owned Democrats have played nearly as large a role in serving corporate power on these issues as have corporate owned Republicans. What Kucinich has not done, or perhaps not done well enough, is make his campaign an explicit challenge to the corporate powers that have destroyed our democracy and taken over our government. Edwards is now beginning to adopt this position. He may do so with a weaker record than Kucinich, but a more effectively communicated message.
Our Challenge to the Candidates
For you and me, the voters, our task is to challenge both Edwards and Kucinich to become better progressive candidates. Therefore, I challenge Edwards to prove the sincerity of his progressive posture by committing to a coherent progressive platform. I challenge Kucinich to make the primary focus of his campaign the need to overthrow the corporate power ruling our government. I challenge both Edwards and Kucinich to recognize that the single most important issue in a campaign dedicated to overthrowing corporate control of American government is the need to address the lack of integrity in our democratic political process.
On this issue, Kucinich, again, has been a leader, demanding careful recounts and denouncing the conduct of Ken Blackwell, Ohio's former Republican Secretary of State, who largely spearheaded the theft of the 2004 election. However, on this issue, Kucinich, again, has failed to properly frame the individual issue as another instance of a much larger problem: the control of our government by corporate power.
Building on Edwards' gold standard, I therefore repeat that any candidate for the presidency who wants the vote of progressive America should not only have to declare him or herself as anti-corporate power, but he or she should also have to make repairing our political process his or her number one priority. The plan a candidate offers for repairing our political process should be judged by its seriousness, its sophistication, and its potential effectiveness in protecting the interests of the American people against the anti-democratic agenda of corporate power.
Let me pose one final challenge to both Edwards and Kucinich: If you are both really anti-corporate power, anti-war, anti-NAFTA, pro-peace, pro-labor, pro-affordable health care for all, THEN TEAM UP! Put your individual campaigns to the side and focus on building strength, legitimacy, and media attention to your united vision. Praise each other, campaign together, build a movement by integrating your two communities both separately focused on the same values and intentions. There has been a lot of talk about a Clinton-Obama ticket. Maybe you both should start selling Edwards-Kucinich in 2008.
As strong as his message may be, Edwards has slim hopes right now of triangulating a nomination out of the struggle between Clinton and Obama. As legitimate as his progressive credentials are, Kucinich does not have the momentum to play coy to an Edwards overture. Election Day is a long way away, true. The two candidates don't have to declare themselves running-mates right now, but they both will need to do some innovative campaigning to stay in the race. A team-work approach could add a new dimension to the campaign season and both candidates have something valuable to offer the other's campaign.
In fact, the two candidates agreed in 2004 that if either failed to survive the first round of the Iowa Caucus that they would encourage their supporters to join the other's camp. Therefore, there already exists a foundation to build upon. Personally, the prospect of an Edwards/Kucinich campaign gets my attention. I say let's all think about it some more.
Hank Edson is an author, activist and attorney based in San Francisco. His blog, "MP3—My Politics and Progressive Perspective," may be found at: http://hankedson.squarespace.com .
74 Comments so far
Show Alla clear message from a Kucinich/Edwards team, to end corporate ownership of America, would be a huge step forward, but ascribing corporate behavior to corporate greed is dangerously naive: the corporations are making a desperate attempt to stave off the unraveling of their system. and only a program based on public ownership of the means of production makes any sense at this juncture in our history. the only alternative is corporate fascism.
berrypicker is exactly right. It shouldn't be Edwards/Kucinich. It should be Kucinich/Edwards. Or Kucinich/Somebody.
I don't particularly care for Edwards, but I'll vote for Dennis Kucinich no matter who he picks as his running mate!
DENNIS IN 2008!
I can scarcely believe it! A brilliant article and thesis, and people can't wait to nitpick and generally slag off the author.
I agree with you, Mainstay. But there is a problem with those 800 "super delegates". Where did they come from? Did the DLC create them out of the void?
Politics is the art of communication and compromise.
That said, The President needs to be greater than a good politician.
The President must have highly developed skills of discernment. They must have the concepts of "Liberty and Justice for all" as their bottom-line. They must be respectful of the laws of the land and of the People they lead. They must have the ability to assimilate and coalesce divergent individuals behind a common understanding. Corporate leadership has shown how powerful and effective a commonly-held belief can be. We need a President who can catalyze the American desire for Peace, Justice and Liberty for all, into the action required to renew and revitalize a return to civic responsibility and involvement.
Edwards has shown himself to be a committed compassionate person who seems to actually grow through the political process. While he has made errors - he has shown himself able to acknowledge and learn from his mistakes. He continues to evolve into one who speaks with power and compassion and does it with a positive rhetoric. He does not bash and slash at other candidates while differing with them, but prefers to build on his own strengths, awareness, and optimism. His demeaner cuts across dividing lines, embracing and energizing community.
Kucinich walks his talk, talk that is consistant and comprehensive. His, is a developed and deeply internalized vision for change. As Yet he seems to lack some element that would garner the regard/respect due his experience and ideology, and that is why I would place him in tandem with Edwards as second in command. He can be a more effective and powerful force of change in that position. The current administration demonstrates how a Vice President can be far more than a tie breaking vote! In that position a clear vision can move policy forward for the President to rally others around.
I could easily support an Edwards-Kucinich Administration - and whats more, I believe a majority of Americans; left & right, conservative & progressive, male, female & gay, black, red, yellow, & white, red & blue, Democrat & Republican, and North & South could- WOULD too.
The source of the war makes the war unwinable.
It is obvious who the Republicans want to win the Democratic nomination. Kucinich could not get a word in at the debates, Edwards is ridiculed, but they leave Clinton alone. Why? They know that she is the easiest candidate to beat. They only swiftboat the candidates they fear.
dougnwagner..."Going out and getting a trophy wife didn't help his cause with me either."
What a CHILDISH STATEMENT! Shouldn't you be posting on Sesame Street.com?!
The arguments of corporate thuggery vs political nest feathering are essentially the same. Election reform REQUIRES serious corporate wing clipping, in fact I'm all for ripping the wings off.
Next question - what's the ticket? After the degenerate display of Edwards and Clinton conspiring to exclude other Democrats from future debates - as well as confirming previous attempts to do so - do we see anything other than a slippery slope to manipulating elections themselves? Hope much space do you put between Edwards/Clinton vs Bush in what they are capable of doing to win an election? I'm squinting and I don't see any. Remember the Democratic party machines in Chicago and elsewhere? Think Bush invented this? Edwards is on my s***list. I'm done with him.
Now about those pesky corporations...
If a revolution was fought to overthrow King George and instill political democracy,
Isn't it about time we had another kind of revolution to bring about economic democracy?
Obama never said he was going to invade Pakistan or Iran. Why is credulous disingenuity the last bastion of Obama-haters? Read up on Pakistan, the Taliban, and the world instead of quoting Musharaff's (or some other military dictator's)'information minister' and 'truth dispenser'.
Yes, let's all vote for Obama, so we can have another war, this time in Pakistan!
The only intelligent thing I've -ever- heard Obama say is that he'll open up relations again with Cuba.
Democrats blow. Vote Socialist.
As long as we're fantasizing here, try these on for size:
Moyers/Kucinich
Kucinich/Moyers
Kucinich was also against Roe v. Wade for the majority of his career, and believes we should unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan. I consider myself a progressive, but I can't go along with these positions I overlooked in 2004 in supporting Kucinich. Going out and getting a trophy wife didn't help his cause with me either. I'll be voting Obama. No candidate is perfect, but can you relate to them? Obama is at least a human being, not a Political Calculation (Hillary), $400 Haircut Who Voted For the War (Edwards), or Mixed Bag of Reason and Unreasonableness (Kucinich). Obama is at least consistent with himself and at the forefront of the participatory democracy and ethics debates this country really needs to have to talk openly about the social inequality in this country. (Not to mention, the person who started this whole debate in America about our relation to democratically engaged political parties in Pakistan. A positive!)
Ron Paul is the favorite Internet candidate for president. Obviously, there is a great deal that the Internet bloggers don't know about him. They don't know that he is adamantly against Roe vs. Wade; he introduced a bill to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on issues of religion, privacy, and gay marriage; he is anti choice; he voted to allow the bigoted Alabama judge to post "Ten Commandments" on the courthouse lawn; he opposes hate crimes laws; and he voted for an amendment that attempted to block the DC Government from allowing same-sex partners to adopt. Ron Paul--the epitome of a right-wing conservative and a worthy successor to George Bush II.
Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, has an outstanding record as an ultra-conservative. For example, taken from his congressional website, he opposes federal funding for stem cell research; he is anti-UN taxation; he favors tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich; he is against corporate accountability; he glorifies Ronald Reagan; he attacks gun control in DC; and he is anti-union. He is the perfect candidate--for the 19th century.
Just because Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq does not mean he is an acceptable candidate for president. For example, comments such as these have been attributed to him, which appeared in his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report:
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,"
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Paul also claimed former President Bill Clinton not only fathered illegitimate children, but that he also used cocaine which "would explain certain mysteries" about the President's scratchy voice. "None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting," he said.
When challenged on those remarks he blamed them on an aide that supposedly wrote them for his newsletter over a period of years. Are we to assume that he hadn't read his own newsletter? His newsletter with his name on it?
It isn't just Blacks that Paul has a problem with; it's also Asians, homosexuals, Jews, women, fornication, gambling, and the stock market.
This is presidential material? No, thank you!
Illuminating threads.
Kucinich, or perhaps his staff, are not at this time prepared to cast off the putrid stench of that other corporate interest party.
When Kucinich publicly denounces the other corporate interest party for what it truly is while at the same time making it publicly plain that he is no longer a serving member of that entity, he will, for the first time, stand up and be counted as an "honest" contender for a position as the peoples own representative.
Until then, while I freely admit that his staff produces excellent copy, he himself remains.....a member of a corporate interest regime serving only the interests of it´s constituency, the worst criminals in American history.
In order to extend a small element of mercy in my indictment of someone I sometimes fear to be merely yet another corporate interest servant, I will readily admit that it is ... possible ... that Mr. Kucinich actually BELIEVES that there is such a thing as a "Democratic" Party extant in the USA.
In which case, sadly, his inability to ascertain the awful truths regarding the true state of our nation make it obvious that he is not yet ready to lead the coerced, indoctrinated, manipulated citizenry away from ... the eve of destruction.
Sorry, I left Abraham Lincoln out of the count. But that was a very long time ago. Anyone read "Team of Rivals"? Lincoln was truly brilliant, and I don't think there was or is a politician who could have pulled our country through what he did. As his assassination showed. After he died, the North kicked the bejeesus out of the South. And we never got over that. I believe he could have healed those wounds. He had the capacity to forgive his enemies.
I believe Kucinich can heal our wounds. He also has that capacity to forgive his enemies.
I agree with Kucinik's stand on most issues, most particularly Iraq and health care, but when it comes to NAFTA both he--and Hank Edson--are sadly off the mark. The signatories to NAFTA are the US, Canada and Mexico. All three entered into NAFTA for essentially self-interested reasons...to gain increased access to resources and markets and realize economic benefits that flow from increased trade. All three knew, and know, that free trade would increase competition and result in losers--as well as winners--in their own countries. Furthermore, the US and Canada, which entered into a trade agreement with each other first, knew that allowing Mexico to join the club would, temporarily at least, produce greater economic benefits for Mexico than for either of them...but concluded that the long term benefits of having a wealthier, more stable neighbour was worth a (slightly) lopsided agreement.
In fact, NAFTA has been an ecomomic success story for all three countries. One example: it has provided the US with cheap, guaranteed access to cheap and stable Canadian oil, gas and electricity...most of it produced in a more environmentally friendly manner than similar developments in the US. Let's not forget that Canada (and Mexico for that matter) is a signatory to the Kyoto accord on carbon emissions and is working actively and earnestly, if not entirely successfully, to meet its commitments under Kyoto. I wish we could say the same.
Edson's claim that NAFTA allows corporate America to reap profits while avoiding regulations "imposed through our democratic political process" and Kucinik's statement that he will "call the presidents of Canada and Mexico the day after he is elected" reveals an ignorance that is sadly stereotypical of the politicians of our country (both Canada and Mexico are long-standing democracies, and Canada has no president). The country whose extraordinary competitive energy and true lack of enviromental regulations is ripping the heart out of American (and Canadian) manufacturing is China...which would benefit far more than we would if Kucinik kept true to his pledge to break up the NAFTA free trade block.
I thought back in 2004 if the ticket had been Edwards/Kerry instead of the other way around, the Democrats would have gotten a lot more votes. Edwards is well liked by voters, much as Bush was. They like easy charm. I haven't been willing to vote for him for obvious reasons, most of them detailed by others on this thread. BUT if he chose Kucinich as his running mate, I would. Mainly because I can take the long view. It would make Kucinich a viable candidate in the future, the public would get to know him (the media can't hide a Vice President) and our country really needs him, even if we have to wait. Although I do believe time is short. I also believe that Kucinich can influence Edwards. They do like and respect each other. And Edwards does have compassion for the poor. I believe that. He's been there, and unlike Clinton, isn't trying to forget it. And we know Kucinich's background. He was homeless as a kid, he spent time in orphanages. His tour as mayor of Cleveland showed that he values integrity over career, and that is my highest ideal in a politician. I can count on the fingers of one hand (with two missing) the number of politicians who meet that standard (and two of them are dead). So, an Edwards/Kucinich ticket would get my vote. Otherwise, forget the Democrats. Leave them in their swamp.
I respect myself and will vote for Kucinich. Even Bill Clinton said that the term "electable" is a BS. In the worst case scenario, a corporate whore will go to the White House. Again.
What about Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee as a possible vice presidential candidate. . . .
I agree that Edwards is doing a better job of articulating the anti-corporate position but that Kucinich has the better record. Gravel also has the beter record and is pretty outspoken. I also agree with one commenter who noted that Edwards has the wrong position on nuclear power and clean coal. My preference would be to pair up Kucinich and Gravel, but I know that Gravel is even more of a long shot than Kucinich. Edwards projects better in the media and probably has a greater probability of success against Hillary. Let's hope that he means what he says about corporations and that he gets some better (non-corporate) advice on nuclear power and clean coal.
I appreciate Mr. Edson's column. And I would like to see Kucinich on ANY ticket, preferably as President. I agree that we need to be focusing now on the primaries/caucuses coming up in February. I strongly support Instant Runoff Voting in our elections, and it would be very interesting to have a national IRV poll ahead of the primaries/caucuses. One point Mr. Edson failed to include when citing the differences between Kucinich and the 'major' presidential candidates is that Kucinich knows what SUSTAINABLE energy is and most of the others do not. Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson all list nuclear power and 'clean' coal among the energy 'alternatives' they support. Biden supports putting $$ into 'clean' coal and carbon 'sequestration'. (I was unable to open the energy plan page on Chris Dodd's website.) Nuclear and 'clean' coal (which is neither clean nor free of CO2) are not sustainable forms of energy, for a number of reasons including environmental destruction, serious health and safety issues, security risks, transportation and storage risks. I have to admit I have trouble voting for anyone who voted for the Iraq invasion. I knew what it was about and that it was a mistake. Any Senator should know as well. Kucinich is my #1 choice hands down. In the online vote after the Democrats debate on ABC's "This Morning", Kucinich came in 2nd, and the poll was yanked off the website the same day. All that said, if Kucinich were vice-president on an Edwards ticket, I would go for it.
You/Me 2008!
Works for me!
A minor point, but one I think is worth making: When is the last time a senator or house member was elected president? Let's see...
Bush Jr - governor
Clinton - governer
Bush Sr - vice president
Reagan - governor
Carter - governor
Nixon - vice president
Seems like a clear trend. People feel more comfortable electing a president with previous executive experience. Bill Richardson is a governor, but doesn't seem to be generating a lot of enthusiasm. Al Gore seems the logical choice and we already know he can win. He did in 2000.
Let's just focus on the primaries here. It is my understanding that Prez candidates do not declare who their running mates will be until after getting the nomination. So, given that.....
I would like to see a national "instant run-off" poll. At least that way I could assess where Kucinich/Gravel/Richardson/Dodd votes would go. Up until now, I have steadfastly stuck to supporting and voting for Kucinich in the primary and voting independent/Green when Kucinich doesn't get the nod. However, as we get closer to voting time, I am becoming more and more frightened by the war and nuke stances of Hillary and Obama. I am becoming more concerned that either one will be "Bush" lite on this issue. And that is scarey.
I only have one primary vote, and it won't be IRV. I already know I can't vote for Hillary or Obama under any circumstance. I also know that I don't want Hillary in the White House by default either. It's a genuine conundrum (sp?).
I also believe that Earthian has made a very good point. Kucinich needs to stand for more than just himself and his ideas. He needs to stand CLEARLY as a representative of the Progressives. As such, Kucinich could really add value to an Edwards ticket. I also believe that Edwards could pick up a lot of ground if he did the same thing NOW. Edwards wouldn't have to be as far left as Kucinich, but he needs to at least prove that he understands and supports the Democrat's base. Edwards would also have to take a much stronger stance against war, empire building, nukes, and the war machine/complex before I would ever give him my vote.
Edwards' timing on issue flips (Iraq, health care, fair trade) has been a li'l too convenient for my taste.
No friggin way that HRC, really a metro Chicagoan, will have room for Obama on a ticket.
Kucinich has proven electability issues. Sad but true.
Our best cause/hope, absent Gore, is an Obama/Richardson ticket.
GO BEARS !!
Nader/Kucinich or Kucinich/Nader
now there's an America to call home
I'd vote for Kucinich in any combination, even with Edwards provided Edwards agrees to resign shortly after taking oath.
Gore as a Green/Paul. Kucinich for Dept of Peace. Nader for AG. Edwards for Sec of State. Gravel for Dept. of Democracy. Clark for Sec. of Defense, RFK for EPA.
Phony, hypocrytical, self-absorbed ambulance chaser. Took 30% of settlements from people who had the wrong leg cut off. Heartlessly ruined the careers of countless doctors who made human mistakes.
Yeah, sounds like a good Democratic standard bearer to me.
(Continued)
I say Kucinich is campaigning selfishly *as an individual* not as a progressive *by name*. Is Dennis afraid that if he identifies with the progressives he will lose the oh-so-confused moderates? Does he not get the importance and relevance of distinguishing himself, categorically, as a progressive alternative to the corporate Democrats? I don't know. But you know the answer as members of "The Progressive Community" here at CommonDreams.
What should Kucinich do in light of this article by Hank Edson and the many comments by readers here?
Kucinich should use the framing offered by George Lakoff in Moral Politics and his other writings (progressive versus conservative), and by Charles Derber (see his book Hidden Power) with his concept of corporate and progressive regimes.
*Before* Edwards came out with his anti-corporate rhetoric I called the Kucinich headquarters urging a staffer in his office to communicate to Dennis to convey his message through his campaign as a representative of a progressive citizenry *by name* and oppose the corporate Democrats *by name* and he hasn't done it. Very sad.
So Hank Edson has done the readers a great service by responding to our complaints and criticisms of his earlier article by addressing the real issues.
Edwards needs to revise his policies so they are actually progressive (Green-Nader-Kucinich-CPC) *and* Kucinich needs to run, not selfishly as an individual, but as a progressive *by name* against the corporate, conservative Democrats who support the status quo, corporate regime *by name*. Otherwise my progressive colleagues, he will continue to fail to distinguish himself from the six corporate Democrats (not counting the progressive Gravel). And will continue to hover in the one to three percent range in the polls.
I urge everyone here who agrees to call the Kucinich headquarters and convey this kind of message. There may still be time.
E-mail: info@dennis4president.com
Telephone: 1 (877) 41-DENNIS
And if you want to see a clear exposé of the framing of corporate versus progressive regimes and associated politicians, see Derber's free online lecture at:
http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/derber2/
Dennis Kucinich is failing. Let me explain.
Kucinich is progressive on all the issues, including what JeffR (above) emphasizes to bring about "competitive, democratic elections." Read his issues site for more details.
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/
On the other hand, Edwards is largely a corporate Democrat with the rhetoric of an anti-corporate progressive. Don't believe me? Look at the issues on his site and compare to Kucinich/Green Party/Nader.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/
If you read the fine print, there is little that is progressive there: no retooling of America with conservation and renewable energy sources; no strict adherence to international laws; no war crimes trials for those who attacked Iraq; no empowering workers in their corporate workplaces; no elimination of the for-profit, insurance based health care system; no proportional representation in the Congress; no cutting the bloated, imperial Pentagon budget, etc.
The goal for progressives is to unite politically around the Green Party/Nader/Kucinich/Barbara Lee/Congressional Progressive Caucus platform and to end the now-27 year-old corporate regime and replace it with a new progressive regime. But--and this is crucial--the author Hank Edson is correct when he says this:
"Kucinich may meet that standard, but he is inadequately communicating the unifying theme of all his positions: they are all anti-corporate power."
Oh so true! Dear readers (and Hank), show me where Kucinich *ever* says "I represent the progressive citizenry" or "I represent the progressive movement." Show me where Kucinich says "I oppose the corporate Democrats who support the policies of the corporate regime and its wars at home on poor people and its wars abroad on other resource-rich nations." Show me where Kucinich ever, at a debate, points to the leading candidates and says "You six are corporate Democrats by your policies. Mike Gravel and I are progressives. We represent the progressive citizenry because we are for progressive policies, not corporate, conservative, militarist policies like the corporate Democrats on this stage." He never says it. Never.
See two parts below:
As one who has known\Kucinich since his college days here in Cleveland, I can assure you of his iron clad commitment to decency, honesty and a pro-people agenda. Frankly, he is the only Democrat in the primaries that I can support.
I was poking around the League of Conservation Voter's ratings (http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/) on the '08 candidates, and Edwards got the worst rating among the Democrats shown
True, check out the LCV's board of directors (http://www.lcv.org/about-lcv/board-of-directors/)
Among those on their board: The Albright Group and Rockefeller Family.
So one must clearly question the LCV's global, corporate and monied biases. But they didn't rate Edwards well. Rated at a 59, he's far behind even Hillary.
As far as AIPAC goes, I think we all should recognize that any candidate must still kiss that ring or face the certainty of being torpedoed (that is if the candidate becomes a threat to win the nomination).
I love Kucinich but I do not believe that he is running to win in 2008, but instead running to publicize what he believes to be the truth. He is a very intelligent guy and he must know that to win in 2008 one must compromise and tell certain lies and make certain concessions, including ones to AIPAC, and he prefers to contribute to the debate by staying clean and truthful. And I suspect that he also believes that if dramatic changes occur, such as an economic catastrophe, and the public's consciousness is raised dramatically he may actually have a chance to get the nomination in the future if he maintains his reputation today.
I certainly wish a clean honest politician who was concerned with the interests of the majority of Americans, the common ordinary Americans, and the future of the peoples of the world could win the presidency in 2008, but that prospect appears to face astronomical odds.
as someone above noted:
"Kucinich WON polls on MSNBC and ABC .. it doesn't get more mainstream than that - but when he took the lead, the polls lost significance and placement on the national websites…
Corporations run our country. Until that problem is solved, it seems elections and campaigns are a farce. But - we all play along …"
---Don't be surprised if you get another corporate dog and pony show¡¡¡--
Raise hell if the Democratic ticket are war-perpetuating CFR retreads!
I'm already thinking vote Green Party &
McKinney. I predicate a corporate ticket and Kucinich isn't going to be on it~!
http://myspace.com/draftmckinney2008
Yet if Edwards' mideast policy is necessarily bootstrapped by AIPAC, etc. it'll be more killing, more passive-aggressive Empire building, more waste, more corruption and the same old replay of the Bill Clinton years. Any Democrat who gets into the White House at this point, apparently must pass the AIPAC/Republican nod of approval with regard to mideast policy. It seems clear, to me anyway, that Clinton was allowed to become president so long as he left the Iraq project of the Bush Dynasty at least in a holding pattern between King George I and King George II.
At least, these are the sorts of Democrats the MSM has selected for us. The MSM and their backers apparently adore AIPAC, clearly adore corporate-friendly and law-free zones. And they approach the sort of management vaccuums and chaos left by Bush & Co. as opportunities to gain huge sums of money for one sort of bailout or another.
I agree with others about the bickering. Now is the time to bicker. When it comes down to voting for Republicrats in both of the corporate parties selected by the MSM, then's the time to vote Green or something else. There's a point beyond which compromise isn't possible.
The sad fact of the matter is that, realistically speaking, the greatest hurdle at this point that a Kucnich/Nader ticket would face is Hillary. Not the Republicans.
Don't have time right now to read everyone's comments, but was glad to read this piece.
I agree and disagree with the portrayal of Kucinich. While his platforms are unparalleled in their vision, purity, and integrity, the "bite" is missing. Just recently I made the epiphany that Edwards explicitly talks about taking on corporations. At a stop in New Hampshire, someone asked him about taking on the Military Industrial Complex. Since I deal in political art, I visualized making a "John Edwards vs. The Military-Industrial-Complex" comic book. PS I'm not kidding about that... if you're an artist or know anyone interested, contact me.
This is not to say Kucinich is unaware of the M-I-P. It is SO implicit to the very fiber of who he is and what his candidacy is about. But... it needs to be more overt to rally people around it. These guys are both fighters, and while I love the "Strength through Peace" motto, I recognize many people just can't get over their cynicism to fully embrace it.
So when Edwards talks about taking on corporations, with intentions to call them out and give their lobbyists the boot, that is the type of spitfire attitude we need. I still prefer Kucinich, don't get me wrong. I'm truly excited for both of these men to keep stoking the fires and rally REAL American values.
PPS - Has anyone considered that, if Al Gore stays out of the race, he will support Edwards? I mean, he endorsed Dean in 2003 and I read a recent article that phrased Edwards' climate change plan as "Gore-approved". Seems relatively logical, yeah?
"Wake up call at this blog -
Can we please get behind two people?
Now?"
Why? When did this become a march-in-lockstep blog? What do you think the build-up to primaries is all about? Silence?
We'll agree to candidates at some point in the future. Until then, it's an open playing field, a free-for-all: Bitch, whine, root, hassle all you want.
When clear choices emerge, THEN we'll get behind two people.
You question Edward's corporate ties? Look to his Fortress Account holdings. Doesn't get much more corporate than that. Or the campaign contributions he has accepted from health insurance companies.
The Dem leadership seems to want to put Edwards forward as their candidate - after the woman and the black man are put asside ... regardless of what the actual people of America want. Kucinich WON polls on MSNBC and ABC .. it doesn't get more mainstream than that - but when he took the lead, the polls lost significance and placement on the national websites...
Corporations run our country. Until that problem is solved, it seems elections and campaigns are a farce. But - we all play along ...
Zeropointfeild,
I agree. It doesn't matter what your ego knows--that Kucinich has the right policies. What matters is whether a canddate is electable.
The American people are too overworked and ignorant to look into candidates purely on a substantive basis. That leaves you with Edwards who at least has the name recognition.
Under no circumstances will I vote for Obama or Clinton or Richardson or Biden. The only candidates I would vote for are Edwards, Gravel, or Kucinich. Edwards is leading in Iowa despite the Hillary Noise Machine and the Obama style of substance campiagn. I think that's pretty amazing. Ergo, I'm behind Edwards.
Nannie has the best idea I've seen on this forum. Nader/Kucinich '08. Good lord, I would have faith in democracy again if that happened.
Paul, I'm pretty sure Ron Paul's ideological base falls somewhere between gun nuts and assholes.
Here's the lowdown in flyover country.
I have been doing a very nonscientific poll here in Indiana of what kind of president people want, who they'd like to be president, etc.
I hear the people talk about jobs going to Asia. Health care. Worries about Chinese imports. The problems with no child left behind. And about how Iraq is not the war they want to be in. They are also ashamed to admit that they feel fooled by Bush and Co.
If I ask "What do think about Dennis Kucinich?" they reply "Who?" or dismiss him as too far left.
But they do respond to Edwards with something less than the disdain they show for Hilary and even some respect.
"Isn't he the trial lawyer who stood up for people against big corporations? and ran with Kerry?"
Wouldn't it be great to get votes for a progressive-leaning candidate in the RED-neckiest red state that hasn't gone blue - well - ever?
Older Republicans here, lovers of the Constitution, and Vets; Soccer Moms and Church-goin' blue collar workers and Hispanic Immigrants make up a large segment of this population who are sympathetic to the progressive/populist movement.
Edwards/Kucinich might be the best way to get some much needed anti-corporatists into office.
Peace,
and Justice
and Democracy!
Wake up call at this blog -
Can we please get behind two people?
Now?
We have any number of iterations for the ticket.
Edwards seems most electable - Kucinich the most straight forward talker, and actually the most upright.
Let us do this.
There will be time for others.
Let us do this now.
Doesn't anyone remember 2004, when Kucinich sold you out and gave your votes to Kerry and War?
Kucinich is tolerated in the Democratic party because he keeps people like you voting for Democrats like Kerry. What do progressives (Kucinich included) get out of this bargain?
If Kucinich really believes in the causes he espouses, why does he still support the Democratic party?
The Kucinich coolade today is no different than the Jesse Jackson Rainbow Coalition coolade. Jackson's 1988 Program was every bit as progressive as Kucinich's today - and he got 28% of the primary vote. The Democratic Party thanked progressives for their vote, and gave our causes nothing. It is a ruse to keep progressives within the Democratic Party.
I wonder where Ron Paul's genuine ideological base is -- being both pro-life and pro-capitalism. Disaffected young conservatives? Or perhaps the Buchanan old guard -- isolationist and not zionist?
I'm appalled, but not entirely surprised, that neither in Edson's article nor in any of the comments posted so far, is mention made of the diametrically opposite positions of these proposed "running mates" on the issue of imperialism in American foreign policy, especially in our blind support for the aggressive agenda promoted by the Israel Lobby. Edwards is firmly in bed with that Lobby, as demonstrated at his hawkish appearance earlier this year at a conference in Israel, while Kucinich has recently been touring the Middle East on a personal mission to promote peace-making among the combatants there. I'm sorry, but peace and the comity of nations IS the issue of this campaign, and of all the candidates, only Gravel, Paul and Kucinich meet THIS gold standard.
a huge thanks and proper respects to Hank Edson for this "follow-up" article.
he spoke, we listened.
then WE spoke, and HE listened.
i had almost forgot that could happen in amurdica absurdica 2007. yes, thanks, Hank.
sure wish the citizenry of this country would realize that a private, for-profit vehicle is no efficient way to deliver healthcare.
i suspect that the fact that Edwards knows they DON'T yet realize it in large enough numbers, might be what keeps him from joining Kucinich outright on that issue.
personally, the candidate who would really excite this voter is the one who would explain to people why we must commit to, and invest in, JUSTICE - by passing law to limit personal fortunes to the maximum self-earnable.
someone who will say what outcome is going to result if we don't, and who would point out clearly that passing law against unlimited personal fortunes is not an option, but job ONE.
nothing of consequence will change until we turn to justice and obey her.
and if we do, there is not much problem left to tackle because restricting personal fortune to the maximum self-earnable wipes away THE MOTIVE for the crimes.
there really are no second-best options to investing in justice. besides, it pays the biggest returns.
murder the idea of having wealthpower giants if you love life, my friends.
Thank you Hank Edson!
It's nice to know that the authors of these CD articles do sometimes take note of comments, and in this case, address the issues raised.
The thought of Kucinich/Edwards or Edwards/Kucinich brings hope, even if it's but a slim chance - it's a chance, and not entirely out of the question. If the US keeps banging the war drums in the direction of Iran, perhaps more people will decide that Kucinich IS electable after all.
Thanks again, Mr. Edson.
Honestly, I don't think I will ever understand how in the world anybody can support Ron Paul. Does nobody look at what he stands for? He's a Libertarian in Republican clothing. He's a racist and a hardcore evangelical Christian with no qualms about making our country a theocracy. I don't want him having ANY part of our government.
Hank: I do not believe that we have lost our democracy to corporations or corporate donations or lobbyists. I do believe that by gerrymandering and creating safe districts politicians stole our democracy for their own gain. Politicians at both the federal and state level have rigged voting district boundaries to make almost all the seats safe. We no longer have elections, we anoint incumbents.
This has resulted in behaviors by politicians that have destroyed our democracy. Because incumbents feel safe, they do not need to appeal to the middle and mainstream voter. They can, instead, appeal to the extremists who give more money. Politicians can take money from corporations without fear of reelection.
So I see the politicians and they way they have drawn district boundaries as the root of the problem. The corporations give money because they can. I do not see the corporations as the driving force. The individual media corporations do what makes them feel safe; they support politicians whose security will lead to their security.
And, this is why I see Edwards as a trickster. He misleads us. And, I think you agree with him. Fighting corporate power distracts us from the fundamental issue. I do not see Edwards as addressing integrity in the election process. I see him blowing smoke in our eyes while he waves his hands and makes claims about addressing integrity. Without redistricting, it does not matter who is president when it comes to honest elections. Edwards must know this. I believe he is throwing us yet another misleading campaign promise.
So, I think your focus on corrupt corporations misleads us. I believe greedy and corrupt politicians have created a system that invites seemingly corrupt corporate behavior. If you fill your dog dish every hour, you cannot blame your dog for overeating. Dogs eat and corporate executives seek advantage for themselves.
I do not know of a single politician that wants to reestablish competitive, democratic elections.
Jeff
I would be nice if both of them would make a statement together...
"That they would run on the precept that they both share as co-owners the power of the Presidency, and that while one would accept the title out of political necessity, it would be as speaker only and that otherwise they would share it equally."
We need both of them to turn this contry around.
We might even make it a trinity by the two formally recognizing Nadar and his contributions too.
All should put aside their greed of being the ONE president and act in co-equality and unison rather than unilaterally.
If there does happen to be a Clinton/Obama ticket it would be difficult to beat. I mean come on, a woman and a black? Blacks tend to vote in a block, and numerous women I've talked to unquestioningly side with Clinton based not on her positions, but solely on her gender. I'm just not sure whether their egos would let them get past the Clinton/Obama or is it Obama/Clinton 'thingy'. Maybe their corporate bosses will have to decide that one.
On the other hand, toward the left side of the body politic (& less likely to migrate), Kucinich/Edwards or Edwards/Kucinich seems a great combination. Both seem genuinely interested in doing the correct (Note: I didn't say 'right') things beneficial for the American people, so I don't see their egos standing in the way of their pro-American ideology.
On the other side, after some study of Ron Paul, although he might seem the most reasonable Republican running...HE'S STILL A REPUBLICAN. If he is really intent on showing he should be separated from that pack of thieves, he needs to disavow the connection. By not doing so he reaffirms my 'gut' feeling he is not to be trusted. If it really came down to it, though, between Rudy, Mitt, or Ron, Ron is definitely the evil of the three lessers, please excuse my intentional dyslexia, lesser of the evils.
Kucinich and Gore in any arrangement they can make! We've got to start encouraging/contributing/demanding more from both of them, one that he doesn't quit, and the other that he get going! This article and those possibilities have been like breaths of air in the stifling old grandmas' salon that this election is so far....
Edwards/Kucinich, great idea! Someone to make the speeches/someone to do the thinking. Like the mirror image of Bush/Cheney........
Vote Ralph Nader 2008
Edwards/Kucinich 2008?
.
Gore/Kucinich 2008!
Nader-Kucinich 2008
Ideal for the timing. We need honest and trustworthy leaders.
Corporations taking avantage of our elected officials are the death of America.
We should start at the town,city,and state levels.
HANK
STOP PORTRAYING KUCINICH LIKE THAT!!!!!!!
The only reason he has to be spoken of as the weaker candidate when his policies are what the majority of this country wants is because the media is and always does push the "real deal" guys into obscurity so no one hears that the emperor has no clothes.
Stop playing into that game, instead expose the game and start coloring the discussion as it truly is and not how it's being slanted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34uVX_NEbRA
"Americans can't recognize the truth when they see it. What could be more import than that?"
Bill Maher
(see youtube clip)
I'd vote for them but don't hold your breath on the DNC running them.
I always get a laugh out of "winnable". Against what resistance?
Let's see -- Americans want out of Iraq, believe in large numbers that Bush/Cheney are failures, have taken the country in wrong directions on MANY policy points. Americans seem to want universal/single-payer health care, they want shorter work weeks, more job benefits, they want more affordable housing, they're fed up with corruption in D.C.
On the issues, the genuinely "winnable" candidate appears to be Ralph Nader.
Now if you mean "winnable" in the sense of not being a pariah with regard to the MSM, then maybe Paris Hilton should run?
If people are going to dismiss Edwards as "corporate owned", by God, provide some examples, not just empty rhetoric.
I like what the author says. I also have to agree with berrypicker, above. Kucinich is clearly the obvious choice.
But I understand that Edwards has a much greater overall chance of winning in this system at this time. Time after time, the polls (if we can believe them) show that he's the only winnable candidate on both sides of the aisle.
I've enjoyed listening to Kucinich speak for years almost as if he were speaking to me.. much in the same way Bernie Sanders speaks to me. If government is to be for the people and by the people... I just wish they would quit dancing around the elephant in the room and argue to replace the failed system of capitalism and install an economic democracy.
How much research does it take to know that Edwards is Corporate owned? I find it to be pretty common knowledge. Well, you have half the ticket correct. Kucinich 2008, 2012.
Mike R...avel??????????????!!!!!!!!
Your still doing it. If Kucinich has met the test of Edwards gold standard, why don't you list their names in this order?: Kucinich/Edwards 2008
As I earlier commented regarding
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/29/3475
As a Canadian I have followed republican and democratic presidential debates very closely. While I do not believe in interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, there are only two candidates who stand out in appearing more committed to the truth, than self interest: Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul. If either of these two candidates were elected I might hope to see them restore much needed trust, honor, and accountability to the US presidency, both domestically and internationally. Most people tend to cheer for the front runners, wanting perhaps to back a winner. In that context my views are obviously those of a looser, expressing as I do support for two fringe candidates at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But before I am dismissed as that, I would urge Americans everywhere to participate fully in the political process and find out as much as possible about the caliber of the next President of the US before they assume office, rather than after.
"An astute leader will distinguish that the source of the war is the real evil, not the war itself."
I agree. Stop talking about the absence of WMD and place more emphasis on the real reasons why the corporate-led, Empire-building U.S. entered this war.
I find it fascinating that, it seems to me at least, the loooooooongest threads are usually about or around Dennis Kucinich. And they are usually either completely positive, dancing around support, or why he shouldn't be supported. Hmmmmm. Sounds like--if fear weren't involved--we'd have our Progressive front-runner. (I really wish you who mention it would let go of the 2004 support for Kerry. That really has no relevance without knowing ALL the details.)
The looooooooooooongest threads are the ones I don't read. Ron Paul campaigners are like that, and so are Kucinich campaigners.
It's a blog, not Wikipedia and not campaign headquarters.
broken robot-
That's a good point. When this country began, usually whoever was Secretary of State would be the popular choice for president. Strange how that works... Lord knows I don't want Condi running this country.
ARA CHarleston, I'm with you on the Paul thing. The guy is just another Christian evangelical nutwing. Why anyone thinks his ideas are "progressive" I'll never know. He wants to basically dismantle the entire federal government and turn it into a Libertarian's dream state. He's against any kind of federal assistance programs like Social Security and Medicare and is all about CAPITALISM as a religion...
The gold standard is Kucinich. Why must we always equivocate? He's the best candidate. The only one with real pedigree when it comes to putting his vote where his mouth is. Why must we assume we'll have to "settle" for something less?
Not an original thesis, but an obvious one.
I especially endorse the idea of cooperation before the primaries, to reverse the slash and burn attacks between our candidates.
Clinton-Kucinich?