Question for Anti-War Kucinich Supporters

[HFishbine]

Now that Kucinich has demonstrated a willingness to support a pro-war candidate, I'm wondering if candidates' positions on the war are no longer a consideration for Kucinich supporters.

[tinanator]

1. Sorry, your premise is flawed

actually your just wrong about that. So, next question?

[metisnation]

2. Democrats

No I think this is the case of Democrats uniting to defeat the evil emporer Bush. Thanks for taking the bait GOPers.

[lcordero]

3. what Kucinich knows is that Edwards will eventually have to

reconsider his "war" position because he can't have a war and a recoverying economy at home at the same time.

Kucinich knows that Edwards will be forced into deciding in between spending 100 billion dollars in Iraq or at home.

Edwards is going to be forced to decide in between withdrawing from Iraq or betraying the people that elected him by drafting their young.

Edwards is going to be forced to decide in between keeping a half a trillion dollar budget for "defense" or funding education and healthcare and reducing the deficit.

[polpilot]

4. Kind of like Kerry considering his war vote or Bush deciding war v no war.

That's comforting...and SMART.

Dean '04...

[lcordero]

5. I don't understand

[youngred]

21. ignore it

its a half point from someone just trying to stir up trouble

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Now that Edwards has declared his willingness to support

a consistently anti-war candidate, it seems obvious to me that he's not a gung-ho warmonger.

[LWolf]

7. Great reply, Dembones.

Somewhere along the way, DU seems to have "ignored" the fact that this was a two-way street.

The reality is that Dennis did not, and will not, change his position on Iraq or on war. He will, in whatever capacity he finds himself in, continue to advocate for peace. He will also continue campaigning. He is who he is.

Are there people out there who thought Dennis was a nice, cute little guy who would quietly pack up and go home if the deck were stacked against him? Think again. He's a nice guy, but he doesn't give up or give in.

Trading supporters, cutting deals....didn't we all just watch this on CSpan last night? Wasn't that a normal part of the whole process? Didn't we hear the Dean lady promising a delegate if people switched to the Dean camp? And plenty of conversations among all supporters about how to go about viability and delegates, and how to get the job done?

So Edwards and Dennis joined the conversation with a suggestion....just like everybody else.

It is disingenuous to manufacture shock and/or horror over this process.

[HFishbine]

10. About that two-way street

It's clear from the results that there were enough Edwards supporters to have made Kucinich a viable candidate. Yet, that didn't happen. Kucinich supporters were duped.

[LWolf]

16. Do you mean at the caucus

we saw on tv, or across the entire state? We saw what should happen; people taking a recommendation into account and then making their own choice.

And who knows what the effect was state wide?

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Did Edwards really throw any support to Kucinich?

Kucinich only got about 1% of the vote, which will translate to 0 convention delegates.

[IrateCitizen]

13. In short, yes.

Part of the deal between Kucinich and Edwards was allowing some of the Kucinich folks to fill Edwards delegate slots. It is reported by John Nichols in his "Online Beat" column on The Nation online:

Sister Gwen Hennessey, a veteran peace and social-justice activist, quickly led the nine Kucinich backers into an alliance with the Edwards backers -- who agreed to allow Sister Gwen to fill one of their delegate slots.

This is an example from just one precinct.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. No, he got 39 outright precinct delegates

and an unknown number of "stealth" delegates who were counted under Edwards' numbers.

No delegates have been chosen at any higher level.

[HFishbine]

11. Edwards not gung-ho? Really?

Here's what Edwards says about his pro-war position:

1) He wasn't mislead by the "intellegence." He thought "Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat."

2) We were right to go to war despite lack of international support.

3) Even if he knew AHEAD of time that there were no WMD in Iraq, he says, "It wouldn’t change my views."

Edwards had a justification for war that was even more tenuous than the near-immenent threat the administration was playing up. Yet, he allowed the administration's claims to go unchallenged, even though he "wasn't fooled."

Sorry Kucinich supporters. You were duped.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[youngred]

22. No, Thanks, We weren't

I was well aware of Edwards position, as I'm sure many Kucinich supporters were.

Why does everyone seem to think that Kucinich supporters are incompetent rubes?

[goodhue]

9. End the Occupation

Bring Our Troops Home Now!
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

Read DK's statement and please note what he says about Dean's alleged anti-war candidacy:

"This is the beginning of the campaign," said Kucinich. "We've got 49 states left to go. The media had long ago predicted the winner of the entire process and even the loser of the general election, and tonight's caucuses have the pundits scratching their collective scalps in bewilderment. I moved from ninth place to fifth and won delegates despite the 15 percent threshold.

"The longtime poll leader dropped to third, which some pundits are erroneously crediting to Dr. Dean's status as an anti-war candidate. Dr. Dean did not consistently oppose the initial stages of this war and he has said that he will keep our troops in Iraq for years.

"As I climb higher in New Hampshire and each successive state, and as the situation in Iraq continues to worsen, Democratic support for peace will be reflected in my campaign's success. I predict a brokered convention in July. By the end of this month my campaign will have raised over $10 million, including matching funds, and I'm just getting started.

"As part of my strategy in the Iowa caucuses, I worked out an arrangement with Senator Edwards that may have allowed each of us to pick up a few more delegates. Our supporters, of course, ultimately chose their own courses of action. But none were left with their only strategic choice being leaving their caucus and going home. John and I are friends and I wish him the best. But we have 49 states left to go, and we're each on our own."

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_011904b.php

[Iverson]

12. gotta draw a distinction

There's a difference between an arguably poor tactic and being "duped."

If someone were to hector Kucinich supporters until they left the party, what good would that do you?

[mdmc]

15. Kucinich had to serve somebody

It might be Dean, or Kerry... but he choose Edwards. No harm...

[Hep]

14. Why Edwards? He isn't Dean.

Dean burned his own bridge there. He was one of five candidates who opposed the war and claimed the title for himself. Time and time again he repeated it.

It's OK though. I'm happy with Dean's finish. A much needed dose of reality.

[genius]

17. Aside from Kucinich and Sharpton, Edwards and Kerry are the most anti-war

of the candidates. They voted against the $87 billion Dean said he would give to Bush.

So here's how I see the line-up:

anti-war/occupation
Kucinich, Sharpton, Kerry, Edwards, Clark

pro-war/occupation
Dean/Lieberman

[ThirdWheelLegend]

19. About where I would put them..

Kucinich, followed by Sharpton probably are the strongest anti-war.

Why do I believe Sharpton's words and not Dean's rhetoric? Honestly, I can trust Sharpton.

TWL

[youngred]

20. The War in Iraq is NOT the only issue

It IS a major one, but not the only one. I support Kucinich because I have loved his early, honest and true opposition to the war, as well as his social, economic and foreign policy stances

[iowapeacechief]

23. The Dean campaign's irresponsible use of IWR...

...as litmus test, especially the cheap-shot misapplication of "pro-war" and "anti-war" labels, will be the undoing of their otherwise rather attractive movement.

A month ago I'd have told you Dean was probably my second choice for the Iowa caucuses. Then I saw Kerry improve his presentation of peace and security positions while Dean failed to retract or restrain or justify his team's "first" and "only" claims. Now I think I'm seeing an increase in his supporters using the "pro-war" epithet.

The provocation does nobody any good--nobody except Bush and the other, real "pro-war" hawks. I wish those Dean backers who "get it" would speak up and persuade the name-callers to wise up or at least be quiet, but I'm not optimistic it will happen. Therefore, if the cheap shots continue and appear to reflect intentional policy all the way to the top of the campaign, I must change my stance from temporary disappointment to open disagreement.