is to put my speech in the trust of government. they same government you say is run by the corporations. i don't like the established media either but the problem has been people sitting on the sidelines not doing anything. those same big media giants all started in the same place by a couple people as a small business. there is no reason the same can't happen today. people just don't support small business so if you slash your own throat it's your fault. what i find amazing is the same media the left hates it will use as a source. i see it all the time on daily kos. a story they will use to validate an argument (usually against anything non-liberal) more than likely comes from the established press.

secondly, i don't buy this lack of the voice of the people in the age of the internet. the internet is a libertarian as they come - little if any government control. you can't tell me there aren't many differing opinions available on the internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congressman Kucinich is the only candidate running that has the complete interests of We the People at heart. All the others, save possibly John Edwards, are owned by, and serviced by, corporate money and mainstream-media influence.

I'm totally confused by his request to his supporters to align with Senator Obama in Iowa, instead of John Edwards, and I sensed in his interview with Mr. Moyers a discomfort when discussing it. I'm sorry he made such a wrong, in my opinion, decision with this.

I'm hopeful that he can have binding influence in the Democratic platform during the remainder of the campaign. He's a champion of integrity. Nobody can place even a close second to him on that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a distinct difference between the Free Market and Capitalism. The former is devoid of government and the later needs the government in order to exist.

Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko will put it in perspective. But in short, the US has not had a 'free market' economy since the time of Alexander Hamilton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is reposted from my blog, And Now For Something Completely Different. I figured it directly relevant.

Another connection I should make to my LAST POST and Zizek in particular concerns what is to be done. It seems clear that not very many Democrats, practically none really, actually oppose Dennis Kucinich for his stance on issues as such. None of the front-runners have said anything like this as far as I know anyway. Likewise, most reproaches to Kucinich from voters involves a one-pony show that amounts to: he has great ideas but can't win. Like the proper approach to the German's acceptance of the figure of the Jew in my last post, we cannot take the basic fact of the ideological constellation (in this case the idea that only the front-runners can possibly win the election) for granted when we try to understand how it constrains us and how to change that. The question we must ask here is not "why can't he win?" but "what does it mean for you or anyone else to say that he can't win?" The distinction here will have a similar effect as with the German and the Jew: the claim that Kucinich can't win has nothing to do with Kucinich, or the election even! It has everything to do with what I listed in my last post, though to put it succinctly again: it has to do with a freedom of democratic politics, and the implicit freedom and responsibility that go along with it.

What, then, should we do if we want a candidate of change and integrity while maintaining our freedom to actually choose one? The answer is obvious, though I do not think very satisfying: we should vote for Kucinich anyway. Zizek discusses in an excerpt from his book, "On Belief," titled "The Leninist Freedom," the difference between what Lenin called "formal" and "actual" freedom. The former is the freedom to do the things as allowed in a given ideological framework. In the case of my last lengthy blog-post, that is the freedom to vote for any of the neoliberal front-runners. Actual freedom is to be allowed to change the conversation completely, to do what is deemed from within the current ideological framework as "impossible."

People seem to have some grasp of this distinction too, as a not uncommon complaint I hear and read is that all the front-runners seem the same, so there is little meaning to saying we have a choice among them. No one really goes the extra step to distinguish between this ostensible choice and the truly free choice to say fuck it to what people are saying is "realistic." The ground-work for this is already in place though too. People also come up with the complaint that the mainstream media is "choosing" the Democratic nominee for them, and that this isn't right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clearly, Kucinich gave his support to Obama in Iowa, given certain conditions, which he outlined in the interview.

Obviously, a reasonable argument could be made that Kucinich's endorsement of Obama is the driving force behind Obama's victory (with the notable exception of cynical Republican crossover votes).

One wonders how Obama would have done without Kucinich's endorsement?

In my opinion, Obama's victory in Iowa underscores Kucinich's influence--not to mention the power of his message--among rank-and-file Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moyers asked him in the interview why he didn't support the more progressive Edwards instead of the less progressive Obama. He refused to answer on the show, saying it would take too long. But in my mail box a couple of minutes ago came his answer, in the form of an e-mail mass letter. Here it is:

New Hampshire, Iowa and Edwards

Dear Supporter,

For the record:

1. New Hampshire is the first state where we are aggressively campaigning. Due to the Party lockout in Iowa, we chose to focus on New Hampshire.

2. I am the only person running for President who voted against the war, against funding the war 100% of the time, against the Patriot Act, and who stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system. Nevertheless I was excluded from Saturday night's ABC Presidential debate, or four tone monologue as it was.

3. 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.

While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.

We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.

We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity.

Dennis Kucinich

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and I will definitely vote for him. Other Dem candidates (not Hillary) pulled their names (Obama and Edwards) screw 'em. Dennis is it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]