I've heard various opinions about Dennis telling Iowa caucus goers to vote for Obama on the 2nd Ballot if he doesn't get the 15% threshold during the 1st caucus round. The way a democratic caucus works (unlike a regular primary) is that people get to vote again (for another candidate) if their candidate doesn't get enough people in their corner during the 1st round. Although I think Dennis is head and shoulders above any other candidate, I do recognize that Obama (unlike Hillary or Edwards) stood up against the war in the beginning (although he later voted to fund the continuation of the war)...so it shows that he has some foresight.

Personally, I think this is a good move by Dennis....
He's gotten A LOT of press from his statement about Obama. This extra bit of press may cause many people to investigate Dennis' voting record and his stances on the issues. Furthermore, he's spending more time campaigning in New Hampshire (the next voting state) than ANY other candidate.

Indeed, Dennis is still playing to win and I think he may surprise some people with how well he does in New Hampshire.

We'll see...

Thanks for reading :)

Peace

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

Edwards is the "most-improved" mostly because his past record is so un-progressive. I am shocked by progressives who fall for the rhetoric of a guy who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, for NAFTA and for limits on the capital gains tax. Edwards is running as a populist now because he has nothing left to lose.

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

It happened to me too. Although I started looking seriously at Edwards a few months ago. I am hard pressed to understand why he has gotten so little support from progressives. No, he's not perfect. Yes, Dennis' policy positions are more completely in line with mine. And I'm appalled by Edward's opposition to gay marriage. But he's been a populist a long time. He was fighting poverty before it came into vogue (after Katrina). He used his skills as a trial lawyer to fight against big business and for the little guy and his success is what made him wealthy. He's the only one who has a sane healthcare policy. And to remain in the top tier, he's had to work tirelessly meeting the people. The press hates him because he's a populist and an anti-corporatist. And too many in the left have swallowed the press's juvenile focus on his $400 haircut rather than his credentials on working for the people of the United States, especially those who can't afford $400 haircuts.

I hope caucus goers follow their own good senses and not heed the words of Dennis Kucinich nor of Bill Richardson or some of the others who are choosing the second choices for their supporters. It does give one pause that someone whose judgement you've trusted can go so wrong. This really counts. Edwards could be a great candidate and a great president.

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

I've said it before and I will say it again: Edwards' angry rants about the abuses of the corporatocracy play well with those who are well informed and committed to a left leaning agenda, but for most of America his rhetoric is scary and distasteful. It does not need to be.

Edwards could just as well emphasize the reestablishement of good working conditions and better wages, affordable and accessible healthcare, peace and prosperity, restoring the honor and dignity throughout the world, protecting consumers from toxic food and products, respecting privacy and autonomy of citizens, and bringing down the size and cost of government (half of which is military and spy related) without altering the nuts and bolts of his agenda one bit. All he needs to do is put more attention on what fighting the good fight aims to accomplish instead of getting caught up in the anger and combativeness of the fight itself. That would play a lot better to a wider audience, an audience that is getting fed messages from NPR to Fox News that Edwards is to angry and mean to be president as it now stands.

He has an opportunity to become the front runner by simply retuning the style of his message. If he has what it takes to be a successful leader, that should not be a tall order. Let's see if he can pull that off before he gets stuck with the bad boy label and is pushed aside by the MSM and the viewing public as an also ran.

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

it's quite obvious that the Obama team has made overtures Kucinich about where Kucinich will be in an Obama administration.

Edwards is the best we have. Period.

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

Many of us realized that Edwards was the most progressive of the viable candidates much earlier on. We could have used your "reconsideration" months ago.

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

I think Kucinich sees through what is essentially "all talk" on Edwards' part. What has Edwards done that matches up to his rhetoric. Edwards wants to be Ralph Nader, without all that Nader-unelectibility baggage, but in reality he's a trial lawyer and washed up ex-senator who lost the presidential bid with his lackluster running mate, who now works for a hedge fund (so he's a hypocrite too).

On the other hand, Obama has been strongly against the war, and across the board is more progressive than Edwards, when action and not just political rhetoric are compared. He is proven by nation polls to be the most electable in head-to-head hypothetical scenarios with each of the republican contenders. None of the other Democrats are so favored in winning against the republicans. That's because Barack is the "Reagan" of the progressive left, and he is winning the hearts of Independents and Republicans, while standing for progressive core values. Just as reagan pushed a radical conservative agenda, Barack could advance major reforms of the govenment in a progressive direction. Importantly, the Iowa Caucus results demonstrate that his charisma and vision make historical turnout happen.

I have two other comments to make with regard to Barack Obama.

1. Barack clearly is a master of the art of communicating progressive values in a way that inspires even those who did not yet identify with such ideas, and is always consistent with a coherent system of progressive values. Hillary and Edwards lack such farsighted vision and treat people as if they are stupid. They insult our intelligence by saying things the hope will help them win. Barack, on the other hand, communicates coherently and does not contradict the driving force that clearly has been behind his decisions in the Senate, in the Illinois state government, and in his civil rights victories.

2. People need to understand that the Hope versus Fear language is not bullshit. Hillary apparently thinks it's hilarious and makes fun of that language-- to her %29-in-iowa peril. This is a key CONCEPTUAL strategy and it has to do with raising the bar of expectations in politics. Perhaps more importantly it has to do with success and the leverage that comes from success. Hope is proportionate to the reinforcement of faith that comes from work having desirable results. Hope grows when the things one has optimism and works toward non-cynically, yield results that exceed the conventional bar of political progress. Therefore HOPE is not just rhetoric (unlike Edwards' or Clinton's one-liners), it is a strategy for raising the bar and achieving true progress.

If any of the other candidates understand this it is Kucinich, who is himself a farsighted idealist. He understands that in order for a candidate like himself to win, we must change the political conversation. He is out of step with the MSM, but why? What will it take to change the mainstream-message-machinery. I say, and I think Kucinich will agree-- it takes a uniter/communicator like Obama to lead the way to a new progressive paradigm in politics. Then, in the political mileaue being heralded Obama, candidates like Kucinich will be taken more seriously (assuming hope will grow as results take shape. let's do the hard work and have the corresponding faith that they will!)

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

... meaning that Mr. Edwards is a fraud. And I'm someone who, back in 2004, predicted that this country will soon be crashing into a People vs. Corporations battle. So when I heard Edwards sounding the charge, it caught my interest. Not because of what he was saying. But rather because he's speaking the truth, yet he's such an obvious fraud. He's the sort of person who is acutely aware of what sort of demeanor and positions would be attractive to other people (hence his stupendous $ucce$$ as an ambulance-chaser jury-swayer). So here's my take on Edwards and Kucinich and Iowa: (1) there is a palpable public awareness of corporate domination in this country; (2) we Americans may be stupid, but we're not that stupid, and we can sure as hell spot a $400-haircut ersatz 'populist' headed our way.

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

As I mentioned above, I made some predictions back in December, 2004 about America's dire future during Bush Jr.'s second term on my "Duck and Gather" blog. Aside from the obvious ones like "Supreme Court will lurch to the right" and "Republicans will lose in 2008", here are a couple of interesting ones:

1. Oil will hit $100/barrel; gold, $1000/ounce
2. Democratic party will either dissolve, or Clintonism will be defeated and the party will embrace the anti-corporate view
3. Political far left (e.g. Green leanings) and far right (e.g. Libertarian leanings) would politically join

Given Obama, Edwards, Ron Paul, the "Clinton face" and such, and given that my predictions still have a year to run, I'd say they're looking pretty good.

BTW -- I hope that other prediction of mine doesn't come to pass: pandemic.

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

He probably didn't endorse Edwards as a second choice this time because of Edwards getting caught conspiring with Hillary earlier this year to have a "smaller group" to exclude the candidates who are "not serious." It's like Revenge of the Nerrd.

It pissed me off too. See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwgLlDbwNwU

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

can i say how happy i am that giuliani bit it so hard? and how weak does huckabee look on a national ticket? and how about that clinton loss? wow. a big night; the candidates that represent my worst fears are collapsing at the roadside. if the iowa caucus proves anything, it's a refutation of the idea that the media will pick our president.

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

Sharing the history of your sense of the Demo primary was very helpful to me. I confess that I have not been paying close attention. I did hear bits of the debates and some interviews on PBS with the leading candidates. I liked the interview with John Edwards.

Obama has demonstrated that he has charisma. His eight points ahead of Clinton and Edwards in Iowa is impressive. (I admit I have a sneaking suspicion that what has been referred to as "new voters" may have been neocon students hoping to put up a candidate the GOP base will hate even more than Hillary. If so, they won't keep it to themselves; we'll know soon enough.)

I'm glad to see the candidates play off against each other. It's more than a game. The Demo debates have refined some of their positions. But as far as what the candidates stand for, I am as concerned about who they stand with--or better who stands with them.

And that's what your piece was about, Mr. Solomon. I have developed respect for your enduring consistency, so where you end up will make a difference to me. Onward.

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

good judgment?

I'd pick the latter on the basis that policies can be inherited (just look at W) or picked up casually (a youthful decision to join a particular party) and may over time be reevaluated and improved.

Judgment, on the other hand, is more innate and is probably pretty much a fixed characteristic.

Kucinich's policies are good but I'm not sure about his judgment.

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

Yes to all you say! AND...my biggest problem with Obama is his stance on Israel and Palestine; it doesn't make peace in the middle East look very hopeful. He seems too cosy with the Israel lobby.

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

Not only do I agree with virtually everything Edwards has to say; what he is saying is the only substantive agenda I can discern in the midst of fuzzy, refrigerator-magnet rhetoric from the other candidates promising to be agents of "Change." He displays a genuine, much-needed, about-time animus toward the omnipotence of our corporate oligarchy. It's also a huge point in his favor that, unlike Hillary, he repudiated his vote for the war, and that he's promising to bring the troops out of Iraq within a definite time period.

Obama is a prodigiously gifted speaker, and probably sincere, but he lacks both specificity and experience. (And we've seen the consequences of that all too painfully.) While Clinton, of course, is nothing but Bush-Lite.

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

obviously edwards is more progressive, he is supporting labor and collective bargaining. obama and mrs clinton are rich suburbanites, edwards understands norma rae, labor, and cancer. I don't know about anyone else, but I think a trial lawyer who holds the line on the donald trumps ivanas and halliburtons of the world is our last "hope" if there is even the possibility of free elections anywhere anymore.

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

if obama is so progressive (and mrs clinton is from illinois too) why did they allow the mercenary paramilitary blackwater to install a huge compound 75 miles from chicago? because they are more republican - illinois now has the opportunity to install martial law (easily) on heavily democratic chicago - effective bushwhacking - even san diego didn't stand for that and repudiated the blackwater base there. who was home, illinois senator?

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

Getting back to the reality on the ground, none of this matters as long as our election system is hopelessly fubar.
What are we going to do about it?

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

Dear Norman,
The reasons Dennis choose Obama over Edwards may include some of the following. You decide:

http://nextpresidentofusa.com/conmanjohn.html
Did you know that John Edwards convinced the Senate Democrats to vote for war?
Do you know Edwards' nickname, 'Nuclear Johnny'?
Did you know that Edwards was one of the strongest advocates of the Patriot Act?
Did you know that John Edwards was a big proponent of Homeland Security?
Did you know that John Edwards has the worst environmental record of any Democratic Presidential candidate in this century?
Did you know that Edwards plans to give your health care money to the insurance companies while leaving you uncovered?
Did you know that Edwards makes money from mortgage foreclosers?
Did you know that Edwards represents the rich America and considers middle class American folks to be "slummy?"
Did you know that Edwards makes money off poor people?
Did you know that Edwards was the son of a mill manager? Not the son of a mill worker.
Did you know that, for John Edwards, $400 is a lowcost haircut?
Did you see the video of John Edwards stabbing a close friend in the back?
I supported Dennis in '04 as well. While in the NH campaign, I've gotten to know him personally; a most remarkable man. It's no surprise that he's won nearly every progressive online poll, as he is the best candidate & proves that by providing all the right answers & policy solutions that American wants & needs. All that remains for a Kucinich victory, is for the voters to give themselves permission to vote for the candidate they really want--Kucinich--because the best candidate will represent them best. Edwards is a pseudo-populist, riding on Kucinich coattails, now that Dennis' call for corporate responsibility has finally gotten some much deserved coverage. But Dennis gained his populist title the old-fashioned way: he earned it. Your disparaging of Kucinich reminds me of a quote by Krishnamurti: "We rationalize everything, & at the end of it we've found nothing." Abandoning support for Kucinich with such ease indicates little understanding or support of the man to begin with. Put your anger & disappointment in perspective: those of us who support the reforms & progress Kucinich represents, are in this for the long haul.

Namaskara,
David E. Mynott II
Boston, MA


Without sharing there can be no justice
Without justice there can be no peace
Without peace there can be no future.

share-international.org

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

I'm proud that we finally, as a nation, can have a front runner presidential candidate who is black. But I'm still working for Edwards. My problem with Obama are his voting record and his source of funds. He reminds me of Bill Clinton of years past who campaigned in strong, but general and amorphous progressive terms. However, he led as Republican light as he was advised by the DLC and his corporate financiers.

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

But I suspect that if Edwards had been his Senator as he was mine he would be less swayed by the current Edwards as Eugene Debs act. I too often was frustrated by Edward's middle of the road at best {defender of Bush outrages more often!} replies to my requests for actions in defense of our Constitutional rights and justice. I agree with Jim Bob.
Edwards has nowhere to go but left . My experience of him here in NC leads me to believe that if he gets the nomination his dive to center right{aka Republican Lite} will be rapid and unapologetic. I have no delusions about Obama and I doubt Kucinich does. I do see Obama slowing the Clinton juggernaut as positive. Sorry Norman but for better or worse only Kucinich gets my support.

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

UNFORTUNATELY, DENNIS KUCINICH HAS SOME KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITH JOHN EDWARDS. SO HE FILTERS THROUGH THE TRUTH AND CREATES LIES ABOUT A FINE MAN. HE SAYS HE SUPPORTS BIRACK OBAMA WHO HAS ACCEPTED MILLIONS FROM BIG CORPORATIONS. BETWEEN BIRACK AND HIILARY $200 MILLION IS BEING SPENT. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THEM AND THEIR ADS EVERYWHERE. CHECK OUT AN EARLIER ARTICLE IN THIS MORNINGS ALTERNET ABOUT BIRACK OBAMA

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

530. Storm and Iowa Primary (1/3/08)

When recent media poll dramatically changed the rate of Democrats' candidates - by pulling down Hillary Clinton's and push up John Edwards', I felt that Feds would put their own representative - Edwards - to the throne of President. Generally, unless something big happened, the public's opinion is not so easy to change. A dramatical change of the polling data without convincible reason only reflects intention of Feds. Feds is the one who manipulates the media.

Yesterday, two news touched my mind. They were about weather. It said snowstorm socked Midwest, dumping more than a foot of snow and creating hazardous driving condition there.

Since it becomes common that Feds alters a climate condition to help its operation, I think Feds created that storm to help John Edwards in today's Iowa Primary. I wrote "John Edwards".

I used to put that kind of article in political thread. But before I could finish the article in a reply, it disappeared - I lost connection to internet. It happened before when I wrote article Feds disliked. I had to re-write it on WordPad than copy and paste it to avoid the loss of article. Then there were repeated losing connection of internet when I tried to post it on the board. The harassment convince me what I wrote is accurate. Feds is afraid of it. I decide to put it in this thread too. Here is it:

John Edwards (1/2/08)

John Edwards works for the Inside Group. He has the characters of a Feds. Feds is a tool of the Inside Group to control this country. They monitor and spy on people. Blackmail and intimidate politicians. Murder and assassinate if necessary. Infiltrate different groups with moles. Manipulate media and rig the election. Feds has no its own opinion. It works to the order from its master. He smiles at the man whom he plans to kill tomorrow.

John Edwards is such kind of man. Media used to post a picture of his smiling face. Is he liberal or conservative? Nobody can tell. Because he has no distinctive opinion. He ducked the debate to avoid express his own opinion. (when he was a Senator) He tried not to offend anyone, either individual or group. Because his work is to monitor others but not to be noticeable. That may be why he resigned from the Senate. (tries not to express his own opinion so no mistake can be exploited by his opponents when he later joins the campaign)
But in crucial moment, they came out to carry out their master's policy. That's how he voted for Patriot Act and Iraq war Authorization bill. He only shows his true face in critical moment.

Now is a crucial point. Bush is so unpopular that to rig a victory for GOP will be too obvious a forgery. The Inside Group needs a representative in Demo. Hillary, though is a follower of the Inside Group, can't compare with Edwards - a representative of Feds' own.
This is how to rig the Iowa Primary. Different from normal election which is easy to rig. ( a rigged election done by the election office controlled by Feds and the result justified by manipulated media poll) Iowa Primary (Demo) depends on the presented individuals. It's hard to rig the count of the presence of people. (just like it's hard to rig the campaign donation money of Ron Paul's) Then how Feds can do to rig the primary? - by altering the weather. They create an extra cold condition for the Iowa.

Edwards will win the Primary because his supporters (A troop of Feds informants who work under discipline) will attend the vote despite how cold the weather is. The supporters of other candidates will be affected by natural humanity softness. Most people will stay at home if it's too cold and dangerous outside. That's how Feds to rig an election with climate change.

(to be continued)

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

The other news that reminds me this is a rigged election (by altering weather)

"Clinton Backers: Californians try to sway voters

By Mary Anne Ostrom
Mercury News, 1/2/08

Cear Rapids, Iowa - Iowans are being warned to stay indoors because of deadly cold temperatures and dangerous roads, but a dozen Silicon Valley campaign foot soldiers are in a race over snow and ice to get them to come out for Hillary Clinton."

An Iowa victory will justify the later rigged election for Edwards. Make the rigging more reasonable. That's why Feds tries its best to make Edwards "win Iowa".

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