KUCINICH: Celebrities donating and a shot at Matthews-the-Idiot

[Mairead]

(from a mailing)

You may have seen in the press that our campaign received donations from many well-known artists, including Bonnie Raitt, Ben Affleck, Edward Norton and Jeff Bridges. You don't have to be a celebrity to give to our campaign. In fact, our campaign has surged in the last 4 weeks thanks almost entirely to small Internet donations, average gift $77. Many of the artists can't give us any more because they've contributed the maximum allowed by law. Please donate at https://kucinich.us/contribute.php {emphasis added}

MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS will not be spreading the word about the Kucinich campaign. He's too busy shouting over our candidate and
mischaracterizing his positions. So please forward this email to
friends and loved ones.

[chimpymustgo]

1. I love Edward Nortion and Jeff Bridges. And Ben Affleck.

I must say I respect their opinions. Mairead, I know you are a big DK fan, and I like his progressive stands. But his appearance on Hardball was even worse than Dean on Meet the Press (and who would have thought that was possible?).

Maybe I shouldn't post this, because I don't want to bash DK. I just don't see him being able to beat Bush. But I am glad he's in the race, and impressed that he's getting such great endorsements.

[Mairead]

2. How *couldn't* he beat Smirk?

The only ones who don't like his policies once they hear them are the elites and their dupes. That's not a lot of people, really. Yes, many people are confused about where their interests are (and with all the relentless pro-elite propaganda, who can blame them!) but once they get clear about it, they know what to do. The number of people is quite small who are pathologised enough to go on voting against their own interests even in the face of the evidence. As Alinsky said: once people feel they can make a difference in their own lives, they stand up.

Think what a difference it would make if, instead of standing on the sidelines hoping that our second or third choice will somehow win, we decided to get into the middle of it and make our first choice win. If your support would create a win, why would you choose less than the best? Why would anyone?

[chimpymustgo]

3. Mairead, I think DK is too far left.

And he's too short, he's not married, he comes off as kind of weird and goofy. His change on the abortion issue is a tough nut to crack, and he is really going overboard to make amends for it. I need to hear an explanation of how he came around to changing his position on this very important topic. IMO DK does not have the kind of "appeal" that will translate into votes.

Cleary, choosing a candidate is like picking a spouse. Some of the characteristics you like are very tangible - but some are not.

I happen to like Edwards - in spite of his war vote. I like his down to earth approach, his ideas for getting the country back on track. I think he really cares about "the little guy". He is smart, compassionate, funny, good-looking, has a great wife, beautiful kids, a compelling personal history, understands the race issue, and I think he can connect with voters who blindly vote Republican, even though it is not in their best interest. I think Edwards matches up best against Bush - he's the anti-Bush. I think on the whole, he's he most electable of the candidates (though I think Kerry is pretty good, too).

I hope I haven't gone on too much here: I don't expect for one second that you will change your support for DK based on my opinions (and I hope this does not come across like some of the missives on this board where people just insist that their guy in the one, so what's the matter with you - get on board!)

I repeat - I am glad DK is in the race - he adds to the debate. But I don't see him having a broad-based appeal to enough voters. That's just my opinion. Time will tell us the truth.

[veganwitch]

4. whats wrong with that

he's not married....Cleary, choosing a candidate is like picking a spouse.

thats good. i wouldnt want to commit adultery.
;l;l;l;l

and i really dont see people making that big of a deal (except maybe here) about his stance on abortion.

[Desertrose]

5. Wow...I'da never thought about all that.....

"He is smart, compassionate, funny, good-looking, has a great wife, beautiful kids, a compelling personal history......... I think Edwards matches up best against Bush - he's the anti-Bush. I think on the whole, he's he most electable of the candidates "


I didn't know I was supposed to choose my candidate that way....gosh...surface appearance, now who'da thunk that??

...and here I am going for stands on the issues and intelligence and a vision for the country that includes or is even based on peace & prosperity for all people....damn....

and simply it all boils down to looks, having a beautiful wife & kids.....
a compelling (huh???) personal history ...well whatday know?!

To offer this as the best a candidate can give strikes me as very very scary.....wonder if this could have something to do with the mess this country is in....

(I don't intend to be mean here cmg...but I find this whole thing just mindboggling....sorry)

Peace
DR

[blm]

7. chimpy...believe it or not...

I had a crush on Kucinich when I was 17, and I have always been fairly striking in the looks department (I don't think he noticed me). He really does have more sizzle than you think.

[Mairead]

9. "Clearly, choosing a candidate is like picking a spouse."

Men may claim they look for intelligence and moral worth in a wife, but I have observed that when they must choose between a brainless beauty and a woman of admirable character and plain face, the beauty wins most of the time.

--Amelia Peabody Emerson, in Elizabeth Peters's Children of the Storm

:evilgrin:

[LWolf]

12. I appreciate your opinion.

I don't agree with it.

The qualities that make a good leader have nothing to do with height, IMHO. It's how you connect to people. It's not how tall you are.

The qualities that make a good leader have nothing to do with your marital status. I've also been divorced twice, and am currently unattached. Should I slink into a hole somewhere, unacceptable to the general public, unable to contribute anything to society, unable to have a legitimate voice because I don't have a spouse? In contrast to this bizzare notion, I am a leader. I am a strong leader in my profession; well respected, and able to accomplish a great deal of good. Even without a spouse.

Weird and goofy....totally subjective. You'd probably think I was weird, too. Many do. Yet, they still come to me for assistance in a professional capacity, because I get the job done. Because I can be trusted. Because I can make things happen. Goofy? I'm not sure about this. When I think of goofy, I think of a Disney character, or I think of a kind of silliness. The silliness is just fine with me. The ability to laugh, especially at yourself; to see the humor and the possibilities in all situations...that seems like a positive quality for a leader. Maybe goofy means something different to you than it does to me.

I don't think DK is as far left as he's made out to be; either that, or I'm a lot further left than I thought I was. I think if people listen, and pay attention to what he's about, he doesn't need to be concerned about a "broad based" appeal. Last night I attended a large social gathering of local people; most are republicans. Their paychecks are dependent on the local defense industry. I got into an interesting conversation about health care with a small group. They were describing what they thought health care should be, and they described DK's "medicare for all" plan to the letter. They've never heard of him. They are republicans. They think this health care issue is near the top of our priorities. I didn't enlighten them...yet. If I told them this was the plan of one of those liberal dems, they would be horrified. I will drop some comments here and there until they ask; slowly but surely, if the actual issues are pointed out, rather than the rhetoric, they will support him.

Time will tell. I'm choosing the candidate I think would be the best for our nation, broad-based appeal or not. And I'm working to broaden that appeal; all I have to do is get people to take a close look at what he stands for. He will appeal to them.

Time will tell; I am optimistic.

[peaceandjustice]

13. I don't like his policies...

and I don't think I'm a dupe for the elites. A U.S. Department of Peace is an expensive gimmick. The U.S. would already have the infrastructure to pursue peace under a progressive presidency through a State Dept. supportive of womens rights and human rights treaties and the ICC at the UN, a Commerce Dept. that attachs living wage standards and environmental and public health protections in trade agreements, A defense dept. redesigned to defend America and not corporate interests, and a justice dept. that prosecutes corporations who exploit illegal immigrant labor as vigoriously as they prosecute illegal immigrants and ensures the accused a right to a fair trial regardless of income.
I'm also shocked by his anti-freedom of speech vote on the flag-burning amendment, and concerned about how sincere his sudden support for reproductive rights is.

[Dragonfly]

14. If you are going to go after...

the "expensive gimmick" Dept. of Peace legislation, at least have the scholastic integrity to research same. If I remember correctly, the DOP would be initially funded by extracting 1% off the DOD budget. As far as the "gimmick" slam, when the hawkish U.S. Institute of Peace was born, those of us who live with the depth of certitude re America rapidly breaking down have hoped for the checkmating coalition of true peacemakers to form up, challenging USIP's wayward notions of how to lay substantive groundwork for a truly peaceful and just world. After the first reading of the DOP conceptual framework, I realized that a flexible and inclusive blueprint for steering toward a semblance of sane governance exists.

Within a Kucinich presidential administration, our hopes for happiness, liberation and across-the-board equity will achieve lasting, radiant reality.

[LWolf]

15. Well said. In DK's words:

The United States, brought forth by the power of human unity, seeks to be reborn. We invoke the Spirit of Freedom. We hear the cadence of courage echo across the ages: "Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness". Once again, the hour has come for us to stand for unity, even as our government tells us we must follow it into war. Once again the hour has come for us to be strong of heart. The direction of human unity is forward. We are on the march. It is our government which must follow, or be swept aside. Thank you.

[ChadCoffman]

6. Kucinich's backbone was ripped out by Matthews [n/t]

[Mairead]

8. Don't be silly.

That backbone is hallmarked steel, the only backbone of that grade amongst all the candidates.

Matthews best shot amounted to childish rudeness. Any two-year-old does as much.

[blm]

10. I'm with Mairead on this...

Matthews was inexcusably rude from the start to the finish. He couldn't find ONE moment of grace to give DK. Not one. It was the worst I'd ever seen of Matthews and that's saying alot.

[Desertrose]

11. It always says more about

the abuser...
Matthews just proved (yet again) what a low life bully he truly is.

Any man who has self worth would have done exactly what Dennis did...kept his cool .

Matthews cut away from him BECAUSE he didn't get a rise out of Dennis.
Anyone can feel superior and smug when the cameras & mic cut out the other guy. In a battle of wits Matthew goes in unarmed.

and yeah...in person, Dennis has plenty of charisma IMHO...

Peace
DR

[gottaB]

16. Great endorsements!

n/t