Kucinich, like the rest, is not perfect. But, he was my choice in 2004 and will be in 2008. Viggo rocks!

KICK A**!! If it takes a little bit of celebrity to get people's attention, then so be it. Kucinich has been the single most honest and well-spoken candidate going for the past few election cycles. Go VIGGO!

"... Mortensen then pulled open his button-down shift to reveal a black t-shirt with the word "Impeach" emblazoned across the front..."

... Now 'that' is a poster I would like to see, and purchase!... :-)

That Hannity was taken down a notch was worth reading this item. It's too bad the t-shirt wasn't on the outside of the button-down.

Mr Nichols,

Thank you for this reporting. . .just a little fresher air. I am glad that others in the limelight are as sick of the media as I am and wrote blogs as such. Everybody reading should be. But writing on Common Dreams menas little we are talking to navel gazers like ourselves. These comments go no-where and what we get as commentators is nothing!

I knew there was a reason Mortenson is my favorite actor - now I think I'm in love.

viggo is one of the film industries best actors and a kick ass person to boot. hooray viggo!

What are Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon thinking? Electability, perhaps? Getting 90% of your agenda on the table, instead of 0%?

Edwards is the most viable progressive candidate. What's wrong with supporting that?

And before the Obamamites chirp about their "progressive" candidate, let me ask you what is progressive about keeping combat troops in Iraq, building new nuclear power plants, non-universal health care (policy to be determined by pharma/insurance companies), and supporting the Israeli terrorist government?

Just sayin'...

john nichols ,i read the trilogy when i was young and ever since the year 2000 , my thoughts have gone at least once daily to rest on the dark shadow of mordor spreading across our nation and our world . that is exactly the analogy my mind picked to explain everything that has happened since the year 2000 , i have never seen the movies , but tolkien's books and frodo's journey up mount doom , lingers as the most likely explanation of the journey we have been forced to go on.

Take that, Sauron, er, I mean, Dick Cheney!

Awesome, It's like A History of Violence. You can only push a guy so far...

The main stream media has fallen all over themselves for the past year and a half to determine who will be the next president. The so called debates held by the MSM have been a joke to say the least. THEY have chosen the silly questions, THEY have decided to whom those questions would be directed AND THEY have singled out their choices. By leaving other well intentioned candidates standing in the wings totally ignored as if they didn't exist was disgusting. By not giving them the opportunity to express their views with the others rendered the debates meaningless. Debates should be held one on one with a competent moderator, not a celebrity anchor. There are plenty of intelligent spokespersons who could have and would have done a sincere job. Instead of refereeing a king-on-the=mountain freeforall these so called debates could have been very informative and worth the time for the audience to pay attention. They could have learned something valuable about the candidates instead of the turns of back slapping and back stabbing. This may turn out to be the dirtiest campaign in the history of our country and perhaps the ugliest election day. Makes one proud to be an American with freedom and justice for all. The mentality that Dennis Kucinich is unelectable has been not only fostered by the MSM but reinforced at every possible chance. Those who feel that by voting for Kucinich is a losing vote are mistaken. By losing those would be votes it is for sure he doesn't have a chance, and that is exactly what the MSM is shooting for. My advice is to prove a point one and for all that their influence is nil, spit in their eye and vote for the gentleman who really does stand for what Americans really desire.

Character counts, and you don't hit someone for being human, even if you don't agree with her:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/07/hillary-tears-up-on-the-c_n_80254.html

I will, under no circumstances, vote for Edwards, even if he is the nominee.

Kucinich's platform:

* Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Insurance Act.
* The immediate, phased withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
* Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
* Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
* Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
* Fostering a world of international cooperation.
* Abolishing the death penalty.
* Environmental renewal and clean energy.
* Preventing the privatization of social security.
* Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
* Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
* Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
* Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
* Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
* Ending the War on Drugs.
* Legalizing same-sex marriage.
* Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
* Ending the H-1B and L-1 visa Programs
* Restoring rural communities and family farms.
* Strengthening gun control.

Bravo, Viggo! Dennis is the Man. Don't parley, impeach. Does anyone really think that the Republican elite are ready to give up their ill-gotten gains to "bring the country together again"? Gird for battle. It will be hard fought, but we can win.

That Edwards-Progressive guy mentioned in the comments above--isn't he the one caught on an open mike last year conspiring with Hillary Clinton to limit the participation of others in the debates? Opposing democracy and the road to it is NOT Progressive.

I agree that we have a VERY tough fight on our hands. And for that we need someone who is willing to hang in there, even when things look bleak. I've been a Kucinich supporter up until recently. But I was really thrown for a loop when he asked his supporters to back Obama during the Iowa caucuses (what's the good in predicting defeat like that?) It felt to me as if he left the ring before the bell even sounded. If I was looking for a candidate who excelled at playing politics, I've have chosen to support someone else.

Disappointed, yet again...

Max Google Fortress investment group and John Edwards and see what you come up with. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. HST! Go Dennis Thanks TEX

Three points:

1. Good for Viggo, er, Aragorn son of Arathorn!

2. If more influential people, and not just celebrities but also political writers, had started doing this a long time ago maybe Dennis would have been in the running by now. But it's better late than never.

3. I continue to find it astonishing that people are still saying that Dennis is a cop-out because he urged his supporters to vote for Obama, instead of Edwards, who earlier tried to exclude "less serious" candidates, in collusion with Hillary Clinton, from debating. By doing that, Edwards let us all know that he doesn't want the little guy to hear the truth, thereby negating all his populist rhetoric. And I'm willing to bet that Dennis knows Obama better than any of us here do, and there's no way Dennis would do something that he thought was bad for the little guy. Fighting for the little guy is his life.

Of course the Swiftboaters will go for the Kucinich-Baggins angle.

Viggo writes poetry, does photography, is a great actor, speaks a couple of languages, has a couple of horses and looks damned good on one. He was already my perfect dream man (besides my dear husband). To find out that his politics are like my own and that he can whup-ass on Sean Hannity is just the chocolate icing on a huge, fudge-filled, chocolate cupcake.

rmax,

Get real. Edwards is almost as much of a corporate pawn as Hillary and will say anything to anybody to win. Vote Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318

Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.

He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."

This is fun to contemplate--two classes of spoiled elites livid with envy towards each other each trying to marginalize the other over politicians (yet another class of spoiled elites). Who needs the striking writers when you can contemplate this kind of entertainment.

And in the midst of it all sits Dennis Kucinich, probably the closest to a normal human being of them all probably wondering how it all came to this: wasting his time while celebrity pundit entertainerss and celebrity actor entertainers rank as more important than the bloke actually runing for the office.

Aragorn is the dude.

Noam Chomsky's praise for Mike Gravel:

http://www.gravel2008.us/content/noam-chomsky-applauds-senator-gravels-past-and-present-accomplishments

I'm in Manchester, NH, working for the Gravel campaign, butI hope to bump into Viggo at the media row tomorrow and introduce him to Gravel. Hopefully Dennis doesn't get jealous.

To those of you questioning Kucinich's decision to throw support to Obama in Iowa, consider Gravel. His comments on Obama? I paraphrase:

Obama is the MOST dangerous candidate, because he raises expectations. At least Hillary is aware of what she is doing. Obama is oblivious to the fact that he's part of the military-industrial-complex and Wall Street. When he can't follow through with his promises to the people, that is extremely dangerous, and will create a generation of jaded individuals that have had the rug pulled out from under them.

Change is just a term that's popular with focus groups. It doesn't actually mean anything, and hope without substance means nothing. Obama is doing nothing more than selling blue sky; he is the first completely media constructed candidate in history, a creation of Time Warner.

Nope, sadly Obama is, ___so far and he is on a roll, he is strong in South Calolina and Florida too.

By buying into the "electability" nonsense, we have ensured that the best candidate will not be elected. We are going to deserve what we get.
As ticonderoga said, if more people with media influence (Michael Moore for instance) who claimed that Kucinich was their guy, but unelectable, had spoken out in support of him long ago, he might be the Huckabee (?) of the Democratic Party! It's outrageous and very depressing.

PeaceCzar - "Obama is the MOST dangerous candidate, because he raises expectations. At least Hillary is aware of what she is doing. Obama is oblivious to the fact that he's part of the military-industrial-complex and Wall Street."

I couldn't agree more. If he ever tries to buck his master once he's elected, he'll suffer for it.

Kucinich has the brains and the guts to do the job as he has shown by his bill to impeach the lovable Cheney, but he is short on charisma as well as stature, so we are beating a dead horse there. Edwards and Obama are not perfect and we will not find anyone that is, so they appear to be the best chance to beat the regressive Repos. If Bush-Cheney get their war going with Iran or Pakistan, forget it, we will of course need their parties candidates to protect us from evil.

Now I'm laying out a long post, covering multiple points; with particular emphasis on the Kucinich pledges to END the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, and speaking from real experience due to the kind of impact these programs have had and maintain against U.S.-citizen and official resident professionals and other workers (although I think everyone who works for income is professional; ideally in quality work- or crafts-manship too).

I appreciate very much that Viggo Mortensen used the film's forum tour to oppose war on Iraq; it is good action in itself, but also and clearly shows that he has not been asleep. Would be all the better if he had also been against the war on the Taliban [and] Afghanistan from the start too, but that he opposed the war on Iraq and in the manner that he did, this was definitely and very good. Peculiarly, I've read for several years now on this war and never came across any mention of him having done the above; therefore, being a person who doesn't support warmongering actors, etc., I'm glad to learn that Mortensen did this. (It's also a movie that I'm entertained by for R&R and principles every time I view it, so this adds to my appreciation of what Mortensen did.)

THANKS to MYRTLE for posting a concise listing of Kucinich's platform! It looks very, very good; UNBEATABLE. I'm not sure about instant-runoff voting, electoral methods are, I just found in Wikipedia content (at a copy site, http://www.thefreedictionary.com ), well, the methods are many and overall complex; it'll take me some time to read up on all of this stuff; particularly to read multiple times for ensuring proper understanding. But, heh, I'd vote for a kingship as long as it was and remained democratically elected, with true elections, without any fraudulent ... elections crap being unenforceably punished; and impeachable, etc. to be included (and, unlike in the U.S., enforceable when provably called for, as our present situation is).

In any case, instant-runoff voting is not something that would cause me to oppose Kucinich's candidature at all, and his platform clearly tells me that he's electable alright; as was also the case in 2004, if not for a very disturbing and corrupt DLC! We just need a sane, just, honest, caring, ... country, first. Ooops; we may have to wait for a ... number of reincarnations before finding that the country has finally grown up, become sane.

Only, what happens if, hypothetically, he is elected president, while MOST of the Congress and the Senate are CORRUPT and, I expect anyway, would surely give him a lot of ... difficulties, resistance; along with the strong "backing" of their puppeteering rulers? I expect he'd have such problems and seriously ... en masse, but it's no reason at all to not support him and his platform. My question therefore is just speculative, wondering; not being at all meant to present any negativism or opposition towards his campaign, which I want him to stick with and as firmly as he can.

Well, we can perhaps hope that the boost he deserves and which Viggo Mortensen has excellently begun to provide will be significant enough that Kucinich can finally start to get reasonable media coverage.

Mortensen, and other well known and popular people, might have to do as he did in N.H. in many enough other states in order for Americans to have a greater chance of learning of this support for and Kucinich himself though. After all, how many U.S. msm news media will be reporting this story on the N.H. debate? I expect it'll be mentioned at most [little]; very little, if at all.

Why Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are supporting Edwards? It's of course their right, sure, agreed; and perhaps he's not among the very worst criminals and idiots running in these campaigns. But he definitely is NO Kucinich-like candidate, and the least people like Robbins and Sarandon, everyone for that matter, [should], and for the sake of democratic principles, state that they back whoever they choose, but while the news media MUST nonetheless include ALL running candidates, leaving NONE out, and to ensure that each candidate receives equal coverage in terms of presentations of campaign platforms, and Q&A. And given the situation today, campaign advocates perhaps, if not surely, should specifically refer to Kucinich, and the far less heard of Mike Gravel, being excluded and very intentionally so. After all, it is obvious that it is done intentionally, and there's no reason to not accuse the media of or for its treasonous and unacceptable ways.

AND while I find most of the reader comments to be fine, I appreciate ANNABELLE's explanation for political debates needing to be overseen or run by NOT news media, but by COMPETENT MODERATORS. They need to be the kind with spine and enough authority and integrity to make sure that all running candidates receive their equal share of time in the debates!

To not provide the latter is to minimally be treasonous, or, and at best, awfully incompetent, but while treason is the situation with what's going on in the U.S. (today, and before). It's to be criminally traitor, and possibly worse, what the "news" media has been doing.

EXCELLENT CAMPAIGN PLATFORM KUCINICH HAS. It needs to be broadly and strongly supported!

And I have a particular liking for the inclusion of ending the H-1B and L-1 visa programs that, and due to all of the racketeering involved, killed my economic viability for the nearly past decade; put me in the "poor house", third-worldism, permanently, so far. We U.S. citizen professionals hit to ... total obliviousness due to these visa programs being fruit and utility of racketeering "fellow" citizens. MANY of us were hit very, very hard; economically [clobbered].

Paul Craig Roberts reported on the H-1B vs unemployed U.S. pro's situation for I think to recall was either 2003 or 2004, maybe 2005, saying that around 500,000 H-1B imported "temp" workers (who, btw, were around 50% from India (where globalist U.S. corporations like IBM, Dell, MS, Intel, and plenty of other Big High-tech corp's were working on offshoring and foreign-outsourcing to, very much)); well, around 500,000 H-1Bs were then employed in the U.S., while an equal or roughly equal number of qualified U.S. pros were UNEMP'd, zero income, in the "poor house" because of this one h-1b program.

We even had some recruiting firms saying, in their websites, that holders of H-1B and TN-1 (NAFTA) visas were welcome to apply, while U.S. citizens "NEED NOT APPLY", because, of course, our applications would be heading the waste baskets or shredders ... like immediately anyway. Lovely situation is that; not!

There were the motives, greed of those large U.S. corporations, but also extreme and widespread greed among recruiting firms, and with the additional kick-in of the greed of the AILA, American Immigration Lawyers Association; ALL RACKETEERS, and ALL treasonous. Economic treason [is] treason too.

Some, if not many enough, U.S. hi-tech pro's had to resort to giving up our apartments or housing, switching to living in cars; but some of us (including myself) still had loan payments to make on the cars, and [we] then have or had what to look forward to? Well, handing the vehicles over to the loaning banks or creditors, and then sleeping on park benches, or in cardboard boxes ... somewhere. Not much to look forward to; therefore, there was a vacant room at my U.S.-retired parents' house in Quebec, so I came here to try to have a chance of really being able to work to find income again; but, alas, lousy situation, not an area for someone with my ten years of experience.

Some of us go belly-up and [only] due to the greed of other citizens, and then we face ... lifetimes with ZILCH for income possibilities. It can and does happen in even North America; there [is] third-worldism here and not just with people who have little for education and nothing to speak of for work experience. It's even become a bad situation in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, where professionals with previous years of academic studies relevant to the fields of work end up unemp'd in early and mid-40s being unable to find work again; in serious enough part, eventually anyway, because the effort is so depressingly difficult and [long] that some people can't keep up the motivation to search.

I've stopped; there is NOTHING in the area where I'm rooming, and there's no way to be able to afford to return to try to get education in another field. It's been too many years; employers for low-skill jobs fear considering people like us and for understandable reasons, while those requiring skills and education like we have, but upgraded skills for the newer or more commonly used technologies and programming languages don't want us, expecting us to magically find ways to upgrade ourselves.

Immigration, in its various forms, can be okay, and is sometimes the only humane choice to allow; but it can also and very easily be used as just another tactic of politicians or political parties in power trying to gain supporters while domestic support is or has been declining enough to be perceived as a threat.

The "thing", "trick" is for everything to be done [justly]; always. If we all followed this paradigm and weren't brainwashed into being dumb, etc., from young childhood by similarly brainwashed and dumb parents, and schools, then we'd have a much better and fluidly functional, dynamic, ... society and world. (Real, sound home education can more than make up for the bs that schools "provide" or try to indoctrinate us with; definitely. But many families are already victims of having been transformed into being idiots.)

From my years working in the industry and after becoming aware of the real and very serious threat that the H-1B program represented for us, I learned that it's G.H.W. Bush, while Pres., established this program, and against irrefutably sound argumentation by prof. Norman Matloff of I believe UC Berkeley, or UC ... someplace else in Cal., and arguments from the U.S. Dept of either Labour or Commerce, but which totally opposed the visa program. Matloff was more fair; acceptably having argued that 15,000 visas per year and only for people possessing masters and PhD degrees when these were specifically stated requirements for jobs could be or were justifiable; having only opposed the visa program when lesser educational qualifications were required.

NAFTA also allowed in workers from Canada, but this was much less of an impact for U.S. professionals; and the Canadians would not relocate for cheap labour wages, as MANY if not most H-1Bs did to just get in to the U.S. Once the latter achieved this entry to the U.S. with their 3-year visas, they then united and worked to oppose efforts to get the visa program curbed, as well as worked at achieving fair and better wages; while we were being wiped out all across the country.

But NAFTA has been, okay, very profitable, sure, for the profiteers, but very bad for MANY others; in all three countries, the U.S., Mexico, and Ca. (And the WTO and IMF are full of hellish bs; even if they use honest-like spokespeople to try to put a "nice face" on these ... entities.)

It's ALL about greed, racket, etc.; and therefore economic treason(s). And the H-1B and L-1 visa programs haven't been bad for the recipients of these visas, except wherein they were severely low-balled to begin with, which they usually were, but which they (often enough anyway) overcame; and other abuses, like slavery (including quite brutal) by foreigners and of foreigners imported for "employment" through the L-1 program. Other than for those exceptions, and many enough they were, my point is that the H-1B (I won't speak on L-1 in this case, knowing little more than what I'll say about it, while being able to say much more about H-1B, and without prejudice against [any] of these foreigners) program wasn't bad for the recipients because even when they were and/or are low-balled, they can save and enough that when they return home, if and when they ever do, they then have considerable funds when considering the economic situations [there]. And working in this manner, any contractual status in the U.S. when needing to work further than around 60mi. from home for that matter, means tax-exempt (not wages but) per diem (i.e., additional daily expenses) amounts of money that are meant to cover duplicated costs of living, so like when maintaining the rent on your primary residence, while additionally needing to pay for another one close to where you'll be working; these sums can provide good savings ... of tax-exempt money.

That per diem alone is regulated in such a loose manner (accounting-wise) that a good portion of these tax-exempt funds can be used to accelerate savings very considerably; relatively speaking. It's not like winning a major lottery, but if collected over enough years, and it doesn't take many to make a significant difference, then the sums that can be saved just with per diem assistance can be considerable.

I learned that because I collected P.D. during one seven-month contract on which I got low-balled to H-1B level of being low-balled. Until you had worked for enough end clients and each one sufficiently enough to be able to later start calling them back yourself, directly (else they wanted nothing to do with you except through recruiters or employed workers, full-time or contract), now and then, then we normally had to work through recruiting firms; and, hell, were they generally DIRTY, scumbag charlatans (generally; not always).

SO IT IS GOOD TO SEE that Kucinich maintains his pledges to shut down the WTO, NAFTA, and the H-1B and L-1 visa programs.

Bad though is that recruiting firms and the AILA didn't have a half-decent clue about what's involved in our work, which is one of the burn-out fields of work; and which we do 40 hours and more per week, as well as needing to dedicate plenty of time to keeping up with changes in the industry, which have been many and serious enough, while these racketeering shmucks spend very, extremely little time with any particular contract and racket away LOADS of profits with relatively little, almost no real time spent. For them, it was better than winning a serious lottery "award".

In one or two years of mere recruitment "work", recruiters could manage to gain more profit than I did over ten years! It was always a low-balling marketplace, and I learned about a U.S. law which is either federal or in some states I had worked and been seriously low-balled in, a law requiring equitable compensation; but I only learned of this in 1997 (another thing schools don't teach, this law). It's a law which unfortunately has a statute of limitations for filing periods, and the very max. that I saw was 12 months, or else all were six months; therefore, I've always been out of "luck", i.e., justice, in this additional and govt-enforced regard (while not being the sole person this applies to; plenty are denied justice in this particular topic area alone, and which doesn't even compare to all of the injustices in this world, but still bad anyway).

Of course U.S. hi-tech pro's who were "gold rush" racketeeringly greedy also contributed their "share" to the demise of the rest of us (they were much why fairly compensated Canadians were sought, f.e.); but, and if the country had a [fair] govt, then this would've been easily and reasonably addressable. This greed and lust could've been curbed in little time and with little effort. Conversely, AILA, recruiting firms, and globalist-offshoring firms, however, could lobby en masse and buy politicians; and H-1Bs united and strongly so in large protestation march in DC, while U.S. pro's couldn't unite to any noteworthiness at all. (Heh, it's a selfish, individualist society, culture, after all; right! Damn right; and wrong as hell.)

AILA was what stunned me; but it's easy to understand why they were (racketeeringly, gangsterishly) involved in this "picture" too. They wanted the cap on H-1B visas totally lifted around 1997 or 1998 and held an AILA-only conference specifically on this topic in [Mexico]; not the in the U.S., but Mexico! It always has struck me as odd that they felt that they could not hold their obvious conspiracy meeting in the U.S., so I can't see it as anything other than trying to make the location one that they'd receive ideally no resistance at; at most very little. Or maybe they wanted to be close to sales points for (excellent) Alcopoco Gold, say (?). And that they ensured (maybe not the A.G., but the rest, sure); and we only learned of it after the fact anyway.

F.e., in Massachusetts, five H-1Bs had been low-balled, and they moved to seek compensation; only, they were lucky and it's not lawyers by the State govt that took over and saw to these workers getting the retro. compensation they [deserved]. Meanwhile, and over in California, an H-1B had also (as was common) been screwed and he used a lawyer, the state didn't step in for him as happened in Mass. It was an open-and-shut case, momentary matter to settle in court; the lawyer only needing to present what the wages, on average, were for pro's with the experience this H-1B had, vs show what this h-1b was suckered and (in equitability terms) abused with. Doesn't total more than a day's work for the lawyer, but he got around $170,000, while the h-1b got around $40,000!!

Quite zee little racket is that lawyers' gaming, eh! N'est-ce pas! Damn right it is!

When Kucinich states that his platform includes closure or ending of these visa programs, NAFTA, and the WTO bs, then he is most definitely and irrefutably right. This alone makes him an electable candidate; but combine it with the rest of his platform, and he's irrefutably winner alright.

We just need a SANE and just country, which we and very unfortunately don't have.

I was very disappointed in 2004 that after Kerry was nominated, then Kucinich switched to deciding to back the DLC nominee. But I have to agree that others supporting him and who've posted comments here recently are right; he's still kept up his efforts in Congress and these are to be highlighted, to never be overlooked or treated superficially. And I don't like his now supporting Obama just because Kucinich believes that the country just isn't sufficiently sane enough to vote sanely yet; but, and as he stated back in his 2004 campaign, he aims for reformation of the Dem. Party! In that respect, he's therefore being integral and realistically so; he knows the party can't be reformed just based on wishing that it'd happen, and knows that it definitely needs very serious reformation. He's "readable" in these terms.

So, yuck, yuck, "oh my God", he supported the corrupt DLC's nominee, Kerry? Well, Kucinich evidently has been focused on trying to remain [realistic] as best as he can personally do or see. And I doubt that an independent being voted president while the Congress and Senate being MOSTLY of the two main parties would have any success; the Congress and Senate being as corrupt as they are, and independently puppet and bribed as they are by the real ruling elites, a president of Independent status will achieve what? Surely not much, if anything at all, of good; I expect.

Meanwhile, Kucinich is multi-term elected and re-elected Congress member of one of the two main parties, so it's therefore understandable that he can make his mission to be to ultimately aim for what's needed and which is major reformation of the main party he's member of. It's to take the [realistic] as opposed to the idealistic, utopic, dreamful approach.

It's very clear that he got the intellect that he did not from schools, but from what his family went through surely much more-so. Schools don't teach students to be as socially sound as his platform is.

Either that, or he's a greater con than the rest; but then schools also don't teach this stuff, either. If this was the case, then whoah; ... [trouble]!

I think he's honest, and Nader also thought so back in 2004, but since awokened to the fact that the DLC is so corrupt that it is very unlikely to ever nominate a candidate member like Kucinich. And he hasn't softened on his campaign platform; but which we can legitimately consider as [integrity], and, in his platform's case, a healthy and refreshing integrity (even if he isn't nominated).

He maintains his platform; it's up to Americans, i.e., US'ians, to WAKE UP! So, WAKE UP U.S.A.!

"The Abraham Lincoln Brigade:
A Profile in Courage, Honor and Hope",
by Stephen Lendman, Dec 26 2007,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7683

I think that that article is FITTING.

QUOTE: "kb January 7th, 2008 6:37 pm

.... I've been a Kucinich supporter up until recently. But I was really thrown for a loop when he asked his supporters to back Obama during the Iowa caucuses (...?) It felt to me as if he left the ring before the bell even sounded. If I was looking for a candidate who excelled at playing politics, I've have chosen to support someone else.

Disappointed, yet again…"

I UNDERSTAND that reasoning or perspective, but it may well be [premature], I've come to ... think of. As stated near the end of my prior and long post, Kucinich also does appear to be acting like a realist; realising that he has very little chance of the DLC nominating him, while, and likely in part because an equally sound Independent candidate elected as president would have very little realistic chance of being supported by the VERY CORRUPT Congress and Senate that the country has, Kucinich's aim, as he stated in 2003 and/or 2004, that campaign period, is [reformation] of the Dem. Party, which we all know to be one of the two sole (two-of-two) main parties in U.S. politics.

He maintained that ideal ever since; while being realist, instead of utopist, etc. And he knows that his platform is a very serious or major threat for the real ruling elites and rich "Americans", i.e., US citizens, and rich foreigners profiting from a very corrupt USA.

He's not unaware of these realities, knows about them well, and has fought against them for a LONG time already.

So as disappointed as I was in 2004 when Kerry was nominated and Kucinich said he'd support whoever the DLC would nominate, some people recently made good posts here referring to the fact that he's still stuck to his principles; and this helped (not that I was near totally unaware, but still a little) to awaken me to the fact that he indeed has done this and that it all fits ... reality, realistic understanding. I therefore have to stand back a little, to take a little time to think it all through, run it all through the "number crunching machine", and then ... voila; I then realise that he indeed is up against powerful influential forces and MUST BE REALIST.

In that, he also surely realises that some supporters will become "turned off" or away, but a person in his position can't even risk publicly explaining every detail of his or her refined awareness and thinking, so they have to hope that enough people will stick through all of the "thick and thin", while he or she still continues to do right, all that he or she can provides for efforts aiming to try correct or, minimally, stop wrongs.

I was also put off by his recent statement of support for Obama as (secondary, very imo) candidate; but whether it be any of the others, besides Gravel, who has no more chance of being nominated than Kucinich does, and probably or surely less, I guess that I can't really fault Kucinich suggesting Obama for candidate to his supporters as being unrealistic.

Not that I'd vote for any of those people, but, and again, Kucinich clearly stated that he definitely aims to try to bring about [reformation], major correction, of the Dem. Party, which is one of the sole two main parties in the U.S., and which, today, is in power in Congress; if only they applied that power, instead of sitting on it.

As has long been said, appearances can be deceiving; even often are. So we must work on not judging [prematurely]. Before giving up hope for a candidate with a platform and personal history like he has, maybe we better take a step back and carefully re-examine the [whole]"picture" FIRST.

He is caught up fighting against the fiercest, worst, ..., and most powerful [organised crime] gangsterism in the world; not some minor problem is that to try to correct.

Ever heard of the book entitled, something like anyway, "Swimming With SHARKS", btw? It is a "concept" which definitely applies in the arena that he "swims" in every day of his political life or career; and while some of these sharks are juniors, they're not all that, and then there are the real ruling elites ... working from behind closed doors and in individual terms, as well as, while variably so, through collaboration(s).

Gangsters commit murder, etc. Corrupt and powerful govts are used to overthrow legitimate govts, assassinations of good state leaders, wars of aggression, economic wars, etc., etc., all for the sake of robbing others of their natural resources and power; wholly and extremely ruthless people they are. They make (shark) Great Whites look like minnows.

Very difficult waters are these to try to swim in.

Don't understand enough about real gangsterism? Consider your govt and all it's very LONG done, and then dwarf to be able to gain perspective on other gangsterism groups; including Mafia, i.e., Cosa Nostra, Hells Angels, and so on, for they're nasty and sure can be tricky to have to deal with, but still [nothing] in comparison to the U.S. govt and then combined with its allied NATO and other govts. Then we speak of the TOP RULING ELITES.

Ever hear of Kay Griggs? If not, then maybe the over 7-hour interview with her one weekend and by a pirate U.S. priest might be of interest. www.kaygriggstalks.com Don't ask me what's true and not of what she says, but I can say that what I've read about what she says is very realistic, very in line with former USMC Major General Smedley Butler's 'War IS a Racket', etc., etc. Her short-term second husband was a U.S. military colonel, if not higher ranked, worked for what he said (in his drunken spells) were "The Boys", i.e., ruling elites, was assassin for them and then became assassin instructor; ETC.

Is what she says based in truth, wholly or in part? I don't know; but it nonetheless is very realistic based on what I've read of what she says, realistic enough imo that I don't doubt that she tells important truth. But I've not seen the video; and if you and other readers don't want to view such a lengthy interview, then web searches turn up articles that are much shorter.

Kucinich "swims" not in junior world or arena. It's not kindergarten world there.

So I've readjusted my judgements on his above-stated decisions about other candidates and his stated goal of trying to help bring about reformation. Switching to running as an Independent wouldn't do him or the country any real good; it might seem nice idieologically, but pragmatically, in practical terms? NOT; it wouldn't help anything. Staying where he is and continuing his efforts there can't realistically pay off any less.

It's like the idea of "reading between the lines".

And because of that, I won't hold it against Kucinich stating support for Obama as (secondary) candidate. One thing we can surely derive or guess about Obama's supporters is that they are NOT anti-Muslim, and that is a PLUS in itself. I just wish he hadn't sided with war on Iran; but will need to put that aside for now, and I think it's unlikely that war on Iran will be launched anyway. Doing that is surely a very risky matter from the political p.o.v.; and if that's indeed true, then it may be sufficient to cause the ruling elites to say, "NO WAY", in the end but before such a war is launched (this time around).

They know a majority of Americans are against continuing the war on Iraq, so ....

Kernel "Kucinich has the brains and the guts to do the job as he has shown by his bill to impeach the lovable Cheney, but he is short on charisma as well as stature,"

In my 50 years of life I have yet to me anybody with charisma that was worth being friends with much less being my leader.

cha·ris·ma
Merrian Websters definition.
http://webster.com/dictionary/charisma

1 : a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader)

2 : a special magnetic charm or appeal

stat·ure
Merrian Websters definition.
http://webster.com/dictionary/stature

1 : natural height (as of a person) in an upright position

2 : quality or status gained by growth, development, or achievement.

Obama may have the charisma but that's all it is. Edwards has a little of both charisma and stature but that's not enough. Kucinich may not have any charisma but his stature is by far superior to any of the others.

When choosing a leader experience has proven to me that someone with charisma shouldn't even be considered. They are doomed to failure because charisma is the only thing they know how to relied on to succeed. Someone of stature is the one worthy of respect and leadership. Of all the people running on both sides Kucinich is the only one with the stature to lead.

Charisma is what you look for when the person in question has nothing of real demonstrable substance to say. Check out Kucinich's latest short video at YouTube---articulate and SPECIFIC on EVERY major issue. Give me that versus vague happy-talk of "Change, change, experience!" ANY day....ABC/Disney and CNN-Lockheed Martin (both of them busy pumping for war with Iran) would much prefer voters who respond to shit such as "like-ability" which was what they did to get Bush elected over 2 other candidates with actual brains....Will X "work" with voters? Will Y "work" with voters? They drool for some way to get automatic responses from voters as they think Oprah has with her fans....

dougnwagner from your posts regarding Obummer I must conclude that you are either a shill, a dupe, or a republican. If Obummer is nominated then we will have another republican administration, is that really what you want?

rickster___ I have supported Kucinich until he apparently gave up on himself and threw his support to Obama, which seemed to settle the matter. I agree charisma is not all that makes a great leader, but it certainly helps to get elected. As for the stature, I had in mind his physical size, which does not help him either. We have to deal with reality, and that means support a candidate that has a chance of election. Charisma certainly helped JFK to beat Nixon in that contest so it is a factor to consider.

If we only had instant-runoff voting, Kucinich would win!

Well I have not yet given up on Kuchinch, but my states primary is after Super Tuesday so I'll be watching to see how he does till then, if he continues to throw support to Obummer I will have trouble casting a vote for him.

Kernel " I have supported Kucinich until he apparently gave up on himself and threw his support to Obama, which seemed to settle the matter.

In my opinion that was an honest mistake but I can understand his reasons for doing so. It probably helped to put Hillary in third place and out of the limelight, which is a good thing. If nothing else it got people to thinking about other choices.

"I had in mind his physical size, which does not help him either."

If physical size is a determination for you, you need to support some professional defensive lineman. What does physical size have to do with someone's leadership abilities? Did you even read item Number two of the definition of stature, here it is again for you.

stat·ure
Merrian Websters definition.
http://webster.com/dictionary/stature

2: quality or status gained by growth, development, or achievement.

Based on that definition Kucinich is the only one running that has any stature and even he's not prefect.

Thanks, John Nichols and the 'Nation' magazine for the article.
Thank you ANNABELLE for your comments, MYRTLE's list, as well as Vfor911, MIKE CORBEIL's essay, and RICKSTER469's English lesson and for his response to KERNEL's assumption on Kucinich.

Kernel, with due respect, and I complimented you once or twice before on some of your posts on CD, please don't be fooled by the party line of MSM about DK. Napolean Bonaparte was small in height and still regarded as a national hero in France. Adolph Hitler had charisma and in the beginning, mesmerised his people with enthusiastic speeches and all the rest. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not charismatic like a 'matinee idol', but was the greatest president of the twentieth century. "by their works shall ye know them"

In my state of California, I will be writing in the name of Dennis Kucinich next month in our primary, and as long as he stays in as a candidate, I'll write his name on my paper ballot this November.

MRYTLE'S listing is why I stand with Kucinich. His record is SOLID GOLD as a House of Representative Congressman. If all people who want progressive change vote for Kucinich in their state primaries and the national election in the fall, he can get the nomination and demolish any Republican running, because he is armed with facts and figures and honesty. When it comes to character Kucinich is taller than Paul Bunyon or the Jolly Green Giant.

Kudos to Viggo Mortenson for being a 'real-life' hero!

lawrence wrote:

"… Mortensen then pulled open his button-down shift to reveal a black t-shirt with the word "Impeach" emblazoned across the front…"

… Now 'that' is a poster I would like to see, and purchase!"

Oh, you and me both! I wonder, if enough of us want Viggo to do that and to use the money to benefit Kucinich's campaign, do you think that they'll do it?

Viggo.....puh-LEEZ consider doing this for Dennis! You've got a lot of red blooded American women who just find you to be way too sexy for words, and a poster like that would doubtless sell like hotcakes on-line!

Dennis? Will you ask Viggo to do that? For us? And most especially, for your campaign? Trust me, you'd raise a LOT of money doing this! I almost hesitate to say this, but.....I think it'd be a real.....*ahem*...."slam-dunk"!

rickster469 & others,

I agree on the physical size commentary. Height (insofar as it lent physical strength) was important in the chieftain era because the leader had to deal with the following:

* Personally going onto the battlefield.
* Getting his ass kicked, physically, at any time by his beta-males or subjects -- and whoever he went up against.
* Furthermore, the measure of a good chieftain in that bygone era was one who shared the most amount of wealth.

Since none of these apply today, we either need to dial back to that era -- or else start election people with IQ's greater than their ages...

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Viggo!
I've supported Kucinich in the past and continue to support him. Whether or not he has a chance to win is not the issue with me - it's the fact that he brings the real issues of our time to the table and in so doing, forces the other candidates to address them. No wonder MSM and the traditional political parties are attempting to marginalize him. Get us back to the old "Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum scenario where the general public doesn't even know what the real issues are. There's a revolution in the ballot box going on in this country and we're looking for real change. Personally, I'd love to see an Obama/Kucinch ticket. Kucinich would be Obama's best life insurance policy. Being old enough to remember the assasinations of the two Kennedys and Martin Luther King, I'm afraid if Obama wins, the powers that be will not let him survive.
Thank you again, Viggo. Let's get a "real" debate going.

Paul Bramscher "was important in the chieftain era because the leader had to deal with the following:

* Personally going onto the battlefield."

Sounds good when can bush and chenney suit up and go to Iraq. I think it would do them good to spend, oh lets say a week, on the front lines in the heat of battle.

Obama is every bit the corporate snail as the other two front runners. Vote any way you choose Wagner but your bombast is getting a little over the top. And so is your denial.

Paul Bramscher,

I've been reading a book that you may have read or might be interested in. it is tittled;
'UTOPIAN COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA, 1680-1880',
written by MARK HOLLOWAY and published in 1966.

New Harmony, Indiana

nspire,

You're my new hero!

Go VIGGO!!!! I wish there was more of a public outcry about Kucinich's exclusion, but it doesn't surprise me that I hear the crickets loud and clear.

… aw shucks, us corn feed malcontents are mostly just footnotes in history, and museums now.

I did really like playing in the town's maze, and cannot take credit for my grandparents (and long dead relatives) and Mom's sense of "direction", although you've brought those memories again to light, which is at the least a reciprocation worthy of note.

I guess some elements of the genes for peace still runs in my veins, and flows down my sleeves …

Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »