Dennis Kucinich might be a great guy who is very smart but...

[Mortos]

his quirky behavior at public speeches and, to be perfectly frank, his appearance will insure that he is never anything more than a novelty candidate. I am not trying to start a flame war with Kucinich supporters but you have to realize that in the world of American politics, which is too focused on appearance and likeability, Mr. Kucinich cannot compete.

I think he does a great job as a congressman and is obviously well liked by his constituents.

His consistent stances on policy and support of the American working class are incredibly admirable attributes.

But when he does things like singing "16 tons" at a televised press conference he just looks foolish and takes away from his chances of being considered a serious contender. I agree with his philosophy behind the song but to perform it in front of a predominently black audience shows a lack of common sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea5l2zu8rmk

Maybe he doesn't care about his public image but the voting public does. His ideals are more important to him than his projected persona which is admirable but not realistic for a presidential candidate.

For those of you who will undoubtably attack me or this post, answer this question:

Does Dennis Kucinich's aforementioned behavior help or hurt his chances of becoming president?

[saltpoint]

1. If you can sing better than he can, you can talk. If not, you owe

Congressman Kucinich an apology.

On many counts.

"His appearance" ? You judge people by their physical personalities? You judge candidates the same way?

A little critical thinking would go a long way, seems like.

Kucinich's supporters have very good reasons for their support.

He's a good man.

And he deserves better than he got in your dismissive post.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Well said!

Dennis has been consistent in his stands on issues. He has plans, real, workable plans, to get us out of the messes we are in. He is not corruptible.

Now let's look at who is really dismissing his candidacy. The mainstream media, who have already decided it will be a match between Obama and Hillery. The same MSM who were in cahoots with Cheney and the Plame affair. The same MSM that is lazily throwing out every wild rumor as "fact" because who checks to see if the "facts" are true or not?

Whoever becomes our candidate must realize that the MSM is biased and not above treachery. If we get a candidate who "tests" the waters to get their stand on issues, we will get a candidate who will be whipped to shreds by the MSM. If we support a candidate like Kucinch, who has integrity and is willing to fight for his principles, the MSM will do a number on him, sure, but won't be able to sway him off his chosen path.

Our job is to use the Internet, face to face meetings, pamphlets, etc, to get out the true message of whatever candidate we have as a nominee, because, rest assured, the MSM is not on our side. It is easier to get out the campaign workers if the person they are working for is someone like Dennis Kucinich. I will never feel I have to apologize for a policy statement he's made or a position he's taken. You want tall, dark, and handsome? Go to a movie. You want a Top 40 singer? Go buy a CD.

[Mortos]

11. I want a candidate

who doesn't do silly mockable things in public.

What did singing that song to do with the point he was trying to make or help it?

It didn't. So why do it?

[Mortos]

5. My post is not dismissive of his policy or sincere belief in his ideals

My post is questioning his political sense when he does things like sing 16 tons.

I believe he sincerely believes what he says and I agree with the majority of his policies and platforms.

His political sincerity is what we need more of, his political prowess is his weak point.

[Mortos]

8. He may be a better man than I,

but I can sing better.

[saltpoint]

14. Ok on that point, Mortos. More power to ya. I can carry a tune well

enough but it still doesn't have much persuasion to it.

I sound better if the accompanist plays louder.

[Forkboy]

9. I'm a Kucinich supporter and didn't find that dismissive at all.

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

17. Forkboy, one suggestion might be for posters to select as a starting

point the virtues of a given candidate.

It makes for a much more supportive atmosphere.

ABC News is visibly dismissive of Kucinich. Then-correspondent Ted Koppel berated Kucinich on a program in 2004. Many of us wrote to ABC News to object, whether we were Kucinich voters or not. You stick up for your guys.

Dr. King's not-the-color-of-their-skin-but-the-content-of-their-character theme resonates here. Since Kennedy-Nixon, we've become a media-centric culture and many people, sad to say, vote accordingly. I consider that dismissive. And I don't think we should be doing ABC News' job for them of berating Democratic candidates. On any grounds. Each of us can vote as we wish in the caucus/primaries upcoming.

[The Magistrate]

39. A Pleasure To See You About The Place, Old Friend!

Here's hoping it will be less rarely experienced!

[Forkboy]

52. Good to see you as well

And I should be around much more often.So people are in for it unless they run for it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. In the shallow world we live in,

where presidential candidates are supposed to look like Michael Douglas or at the very least Sam Waterston, no one with brains and vision really does have a chance. Answer me frankly: would LINCOLN have a chance in today's political world? Absolutely not. He didn't have the looks, the money, the accent (his was a "country accent"-today he'd be derided as a "hillbilly" or worse), the experience, the willingness to be corrupted.

Today, we don't want people who are the best to be in office. We want the ones who look pretty and talk in sound bites. Our ancestors must be rolling over in their graves.

[havocmom]

3. Absolutely correct!

If a candidate isn't telegenic, what he/she has to say matters not.

[Mortos]

7. The reality is

that in American politics today, appearance is important and more important is how a candidate carries him or herself in public appearances. That and "would you drink a beer with?" take precedent over intelligence and policy platforms.

Mr. Kucinich is very smart and he should be smart enough to know that his recorded public appearances will be used by the opposition to mock him or belittle hime. Why give them the ammo.

The Daily Show poked fun at this performance because it was funny and a little bit weird thing for a presidential candidate to do.

[GreenArrow]

27. the parallel to that is

If a candidate is telegenic, what he/she has to say matters not.

[havocmom]

29. Which has been pretty well proved by recent history

'course, it helps when the folks who want the pretty but dumb elected are the same that own the media.

Edited to add: Aside from favoring the attractive, we, as a society, tend to get behind the candidate who makes us feel good about ourselves. bush lowered the bar so much that even willfully ignorant louts can feel good about themselves.

This is partly due, I believe, to too much poor parenting. Kids grow up missing some important bit of KNOWING they are important and as adults, look too hard for that denied parental acceptance. Any candidate who can feign that acceptance is appealing. And we all know about the tendency of the abused to stand by an abuser... it explains why fact and logic can't make a dent is a part of the population. They have a lot invested in deluding themselves that they have a 'loving father' in some asshole politician and too many lack the genuine self-esteem AND critical thinking skills to see how they are being led around by their needy egos.

We like pretty things and we tend to be needy therefore, easily manipulated (as a population, not necessarily us here at DU, though I do see hints of it here)

MHO, FWIW ;)

[Skittles]

13. don't say "we", say "most people"

I voted for him

[Forkboy]

25. Me too!

:hi:

[bigdarryl]

6. he's the only one who has a set of nuts to oppose funding this police action in Iraq where...

all the Senators are tap dancing around the issue.

[SaveElmer]

12. What 'nuts' does it take to propose something...

That has no chance of passing...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

31. How do you start affecting change?

By your logic, then, Rep. John Quincy Adams should never have presented petitions dealing with slavery to the House of Representatives. He did it because he felt it was constitutionally and morally right. His petitions were rejected for years, but he kept presenting them. Pro-slavery people, thinking he was only interested in abolition, gave him pro-slavery petitions to present, which he did. He even presented a petition that said he was insane for presenting petitions about slavery (imagine how Hannity would spin THAT one!). His persistance eventually paid off, and, just before his death, the rule keeping petitions dealing with slavery from the floor of the House was recinded.

If we don't have brave Representatives like Dennis Kucinich proposing bills against the war, no change will ever happen. The world will think that we all totally agree with Bush's aggressiveness.

I find it interesting that history has judged Adams's stand about the petitions favorably, and count his tenure in the House as a greater success than his presidency.

[SaveElmer]

32. John Quincy Adams...

Had a distinguished record of accomplishment to back him up...he had gravitas...and he took political risks...

Kucinich does not...he doesn't actually try to make progress...he simply takes positions and proposes legislation that has no chance of passing...thus making no progress.

Taking the positions he does simply results in genuflecting from the left...no risk taken. If he wanted to expend some of his capital he would roll up his sleeves and work to make progress...which would require compromise.

That is a price he apparently is unwilling to pay.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

37. You mean him taking on the power company

when he was mayor of Cleveland was nothing?

And compromise on Iraq? What sort of compromise? We leave in, say, a year, two years, ten years?

[SaveElmer]

38. He was a very poor mayor...

With one accomplishment....I will grant him that...

Since he has been in Congress what has he done...?

He could start by realizing he is not going to win the game by throwing a hail mary on every play...sometimes you have to go for the short drop...

The non-binding resolution condemning escalation is a good start, he should support that.

On health care...

Instead of introducing a single payer health care plan which has less than zero chance of passing, he is going to have to realize we are gonna get there in smaller steps, and work toward that...

I don't think he wants to lose his popularity with the left wing of the party frankly, so he won't do this...he doesn't appear to be willing to expend political capital making the hard choices

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

42. Oh yeah, so many Dems have gotten sooooo far

with their "incremental steps". Those steps are so incremental that I haven't seen anything that would benefit someone like me, who is without health insurance and can't afford individual coverage.

[SaveElmer]

43. In case you didn't notice...and I guess you did not...

Republicans have been in charge for the last several years...

It was in a few papers!!!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. but the Dems didn't even try to do anything then

but I guess the point was why try since they weren't in the majority. Rather better to remain quiet like they agree with what the GOP wants.

[Zorra]

46. Compromise with whom? The republicans or the corporate owned DLC?

We've already seen where compromising with these corporate sponsored right wing organizations leads us - 3,120 dead American troops, a war based on lies, massive debt, a compromised Supreme Court, the liberty crushing Patriot Act, the recent Bankruptcy legislation, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

It wasn't Dennis Kucinich that brought us these wonderful "compromises".

The price DK is unwilling to pay is the price paid in selling out the People of the United States by "compromising" with the dark side.

Proposing genuinely effective legislative solutions and having them be ignored is at least better than wasting time and money proposing bullshit legislation that will get passed but just won't work effectively.

Dennis does roll up his sleeves and works to make progress...I think you somehow got that confused with someone getting down on their knees as a corporate whore and "working" to make "progress".

The two actions are very different.

McCain/Lieberman in '08! Yay!
:sarcasm:
:puke:

[SaveElmer]

50. I was thinking...

With the other elected members of the House of Representatives...

Which...and I know this is very hard to believe...don't agree with each other all the time...

I know that is a concept foreign to the progressive purist faction...but it is a fact of life...

All great legislation has come through compromise....

DK is afraid to jeopardize his popularity with the left wing, so makes no serious attempt at passing anything meaningful...

[livvy]

10. I met him briefly in Washington during the weekend of the march.

He had stayed at the same hotel we did, and sat with the four of us, while he ate his oatmeal. He didn't say much. His time was very limited as he was speaking at the march, and was trying to put some finishing touches on his speech.
Before he left, he asked where we were all from. In the brief moment in introducing myself, we of course made eye contact. They say the eyes are the mirror to the soul, and my impression was there is indeed, a good soul behind those eyes. I know it sounds hokey, but, for what it's worth, that was the impression that I got.
I'm not a supporter of any candidate at this point. I have my preferences for President, but one has indicated he would not run, and the other has not committed his intentions either way. I will say, we could do a lot worse than Kucinich. I believe he is a man of integrity, and one that would do his best in the interest of the People.

[Forkboy]

15. It doesn't bother me,but I don't think it helps him.

I find it sad that people are judged on such shallow things,but that is life in America right now.

[jarnocan]

16. How about Obama and Kucinich-an OK ticket? Ilike them both

along with several others. I do think Obama is a more viable, electable personality. He is brilliant and charismatic. Just a thought.
The BRIEF singing- like a quote- from the song to make a point is not that big of a deal to me.

[skipos]

18. There are plenty of reasons why Kuc came in 6th place in 2004

and probably will do the same in 2008, but singing isn't one of them.

[mike_c]

19. well, color me weird because DK is the only one I'll be voting for....

eom

[fed-up]

20. apparently you and the right wing will mock anything valid or NOT (this is not) nt

[mtnsnake]

21. If appearance is the bottom line, then few Republicans would ever have a chance

....past or present. They are historically the most butt-ugly bunch of politicians in the universe and beyond.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

22. Kucinich would be a great president...

...and he's exactly what this country needs ... and your right, this could never happen, but it has nothing to do with his appearance or what you describe as his "quirky behavior." To become President he would first have to overcome the DLC power brokers of the Dem party as well as the machete wielding, corporate owned MSM, which would do hatchet job after hatchet job on him if they observed his candidacy gaining serious grass roots momentum. We all saw what happened to Dean.

If he were, by some miracle of miracles, to get the '08 Dem nomination, and then by some even greater miracle of miracles, corporate owned MSM were to actually wake up and realize that without him or someone like him to help lead us out of the abyss this country is going under and taking corporate owned MSM with it, THEN, and only then, Kucinich (or someone like him) would not only be elected President but would win the general election by a record setting landslide. This, of course, is assuming the Diebold Brigade is not bold enough to flip 9 of every 10 votes cast, which may not be a safe assumption.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Kucinich is the best I have seen the Dems offer

[LWolf]

24. You are right.

He is a great guy. He is very smart. He does present himself a little differently than the status quo candidates.

You are wrong.

He doesn't "just look foolish." Looking or acting "foolish" is a personal perspective. When he's in the room, one thing that his listeners notice is that he is "one of them." He is not one of the Ivy League elite. He is as intelligent and well-informed, but he is more "real" to those of us who don't hail from the upper echelons of American society.

I know that you are campaigning for Obama. That's fine. You must have identified Dennis Kucinich as serious competition for the Senator, since you seem to be on a DK roll today. I can understand that. The only thing Obama has going for him that DK doesn't is his physical presentation.

That might work for the percentage of voters that value appearance over substance. That might provide you with the fodder you need for "going negative" with your campaign efforts. :shrug:

I would suggest, though, if you are interested in the reality rather than the spin, that you show up somewhere Congressman Kucinich is speaking and listen. Watch him interact. Talk to him yourself. He is amazingly open to talking one-on-one with people where ever he goes. I think you'll find that he doesn't appear "foolish."

[alarimer]

26. I think I'll vote for him

The primary in Texas is pretty late so the presumptive nominee will already be decided by then and I don't think it will be Kucinich. Unless he is the nominee, my vote will be a protest. I am sick of "rock star" politics.

[Peace Patriot]

28. Mortos' OP is about whether or not Kucinich would "sell," not about

whether or not he would make a good president.

Do we want a drug addled, damaged-at-birth bully who says things like his political base is "the haves and the have mores," and jokes about the deaths of 100,000 innocent people by looking for WMDs under the Oval Office rug, as president?

Or do we want a man who throws renditions of "Sixteen Tons" and "America the Beautiful" into his speeches, and who some people call "Dennis the Menace" because of his youthful appearance and big ears, but is nevertheless the most brilliant, incorruptible, strong-willed and visionary public official since Thomas Jefferson?

The first IS president. The second CANNOT be president--according the Mortos--that is, cannot be "sold" as a candidate--because of his quirks.

I dunno. Why bring this up? Why not give him a chance, and see how voters respond to him, this time around? He ran before, but in a rigged election, and in a quite different political atmosphere. For instance, the country was divided about the Iraq War at that time, with a majority against it, true, and a majority that would be a landslide in a presidential election (around 55%), but now it's about 75% opposed to the war with overwhelming disgust at Bushite arrogance, corruption and criminality. The powers-that-be--who are all pro-war--want to foist only pro-war candidates on us and give us no choice. Then they throw in Obama with a name like Osama, and push him hard--a good man, for all we can tell, but you can see their ghoulish teeth salivating for his flesh, anxious for the fun of ripping him to shreds. Does he have the steel that Kucinich does? Dunno. And Time magazine picking candidates and putting them on the cover always makes me nervous. Would they ever put Kucinich on the cover, who is also a man with no money? And is Obama real, or is he a DLC/Corporate Ruler stalking horse, a backup plan? Somehow I know that Kucinich could never be that. What you see is what you get. Maybe that will appeal to Americans, who are definitely in a rebellious mood. Fuck image. Is the man real? Will he do what he says?

Will it matter to the American people in 2008 that a candidate has big ears, looks like a cartoon character, and likes to sing during his speeches, but is otherwise a man of steel whose policies are exactly what most Americans want--peace, fairness, lawful honest government? Or will Americans even have a chance to be exposed to his ideas, with the Democratic Party leadership already decided upon a War/Corporate Democrat whom the rich are larding with campaign money?

I sent Dennis Kucinich an email in 2004, telling him to artificially grey his hair a bit. I was all for him. I voted for him. But I could see the image problem. He never replied. He probably thought it was the stupidest email he ever received (if he even saw it). But I was sincere. I wanted to make him over, give him the APPEARANCE of gravitas--a quality he has in abundance, but that just doesn't photograph. The camera reduces him. He is not telegenic. I keep waiting for the day when Americans realize what a con TV image is--and how we've given our power away to war profiteering corporate monopolies, who are using that very thing--image--to oppress us. Look what they did with "Mission Accomplished" and chickenhawk, AWOL Bush in a flight suit! The stupidest, most criminal jerkoff ever to hold high office!

Anyway, I think we've got bigger problems than that an honest, intelligent candidate cannot get elected because he has "quirks." We have the problem that the election system is still highly riggable--not just with millions and millions in cash from nefarious sources, but ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY riggable. We have a completely non-transparent, Stalinist vote counting system, that the Democrats, most of whom were (s)elected by this system, are only going to make SLIGHTLY more transparent.

You want rage. Here are the people who will be "counting" all our votes in the 2008 primaries and general election, using "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls, even if the somewhat Democratic Congress passes HR 811:

DIEBOLD: Until recently, headed by Wally O'Dell, a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer," right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush-Cheney in 2004"; and

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture), initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship; until recently, they were run by two brothers, Bob and Tod Urosevich. (One of them got outa Dodge last year--can't recall which one.)

Our "Democratic" Congress is right now trying to figure out how to give these SOBs billions and billions more of our taxpayer dollars to "upgrade," "patch," add printers to, service and perform secret "tests" upon the filthy, rotten, entirely non-transparent election system that gave us George Bush and Dick Cheney, more war in Iraq, and, more than likely, another war on Iran, while appearing to be responsive to the "concerns" of the voters that our votes have been hijacked. Bottom line, this system is putting about a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushites, warmongers and corporatists. That's what it was designed to do--by the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress--Tom Delay and Bob Ney--in collusion with the biggest crooks in the Democratic Party--Christopher Dodd and Terry McAuliffe. We have to outvote the machines in order to get a slightly better Congress that is STILL not representative of the American people.

75% of the American people want this war ended, and still this Congress is farting around, trying to find a "centrist" position on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and on a list of high crimes and misdemeanors such as we have never seen in our entire history.

This is our biggest problem--not who can be "sold" over our hijacked public airwaves, but how ANY decent, peace-minded, intelligent presidential candidate can succeed in these circumstances.

[Southsideirish]

30. He could market himself as the "anti-candidate" - mocking the slick, packaged

pretty boys as "Madison Avenue" prepped clones. He could be the "real deal" - the man in the street, the guy sitting next to you on the el (well, maybe not THAT guy...but you get the idea.)

It would reveal the shallowness and cowardliness of the poll-driven candidates while un-veiling himself as a new type of authentic person candidate of the future.

While I hate to say it my old hero, JFK, was the first of the pretty, packaged bunch and, while I would love my guy Al Gore to run and win, but if he chooses not to run, Dennis could bring in a whole new era of ordinary people running - warts and all.

I think people are really sick of slick. I know I am.

[Nutmegger]

33. I'm so proud of America

where appearance and quirks trump substance and passion.

Yup, we're such smart voters.

[Moderate Dem]

34. Not a Kucinich fan at all, regardless of his singing

[GCP]

35. Me neither

For some reason, I just don't get him.

[Peace Patriot]

36. Moderate Dem and Godlesscommiepervert, notice your language. You just

don't "get" him. You're not a "fan."

What does "getting" someone mean, if not image, in the sense of a generalized perception of pixels on TV or in newspaper photos? It usually does not mean substance, and if it does mean that, in the way you are using it, you don't say so. What about Kucinich's POLICIES do you not "get"? What about Kucinich's record of public service do you not "get"? "Get" is very vague, if it is not fleshed out with details. For instance, what do you not "get" about his early and adamant opposition to the Iraq War?

And being a "fan" is equally vague--and speaks even louder of image politics--especially when it is unaccompanied by any statement of substance. Are you not a "fan" of his early opposition to the war? WHAT are you not a fan of--except "image"?

So, both of you are reflecting the problem that I have just laid out, of image and telegenic qualities triumphing over substance--with image so easily manipulated by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. In this current tyranny by the corporate news monopolies, Abe Lincoln could not be elected president. One of our greatest presidents could not be elected, or so the pundits of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and all of us who censor candidacies accordingly, would tell us! Think about that! That ugly, gangly, ill-clothed son-of-a-gun wants to be president? Har-har!

[MadHound]

40. You know, a lot of people thought the guy was crazy, going on national television

And played the saxaphone. A few months later, Clinton was in.

As far as Kucinich's positions go, I think that actually his steadfastness on them is actually helping him this time around. He had the right positions in '04 and stuck to them. He was a bit ahead of his time, but this time around people are looking at him and going, "Hey, the guy was right then, he's smart, he's bright, I think I'll give him a chance" As far as looks go, well hey, such shallow minded thinking can be overcome with good plans and a good campaign. If you wish to vote on people based on their looks, that's your problem. If you want to vote for somebody who has the best platform out there, then Kucinich is your man.

[Greyhound]

41. Not going to attack your post, I think you are probably right, but I am

going to support him as long as he is a candidate nonetheless, because he is the right man and the best candidate. Once the DNC machine get through eviscerating him, I'll support Clark as he doesn't have the same problems as Dennis, though he doesn't have much chance in the primaries either.

OTOH, I will attack what passes for the amerikan mind, when this kind of statement is, most likely, correct. If you are reading this and disagree, ask yourself our country got this this fucked up in the first place. In amerika today, neither FDR nor Lincoln could ever be elected, couldn't even get through the primaries.

[AnOhioan]

45. Let me just say that DK...

is the obvious choice for those of us who are tired of "movie-star" politics. Dennis won't be on the cover of GQ anytime soon, so what? He stands for ideals that I believe are right and just. He takes no crap from corporations and lobbyists. He stands up for the ordinary American tying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. He does not tailor his message depending on the audience he is speaking to.

I think his forthrightness and intellectual honesty are aspects sadly lacking n most politicians. To me, he is a breath of fresh air after inhaling the crap that we have suffered for for so long.

He has my vote as long as he is running.

[Lone_Wolf]

47. Him being in the primary is very important...

It keeps important issues in the lime light. He is way ahead of most of the other candidates on the real issues.

[burrowowl]

48. Dennis came here to ABQ during the last

campaign and all I can say is thta he is a wonderful speaker, doesn't wear Armani suits and was well loved. He is not tall, but what the heck! Lincoln was a tad ugly. Is the U$ of A so enarmoured of the skin and not the deep?

[burrowowl]

49. DK is on C-Span now 2300 MST!

[saltpoint]

51. Dennis Kucinich will be a guest on Diane Rehm's NPR program

tomorrow, February 13.

[e-mail]

[leftofthedial]

53. you're right. On one hand, we have

a bevy of candidates who supported king george's war until it became unpopular, now they have a wheelbarrow full of lies and alibis about why their support for king george, his war and his imperial powers wasn't *really* support. Not *really*. Sure, they voted "yes," but they didn't really mean it, or they didn't really understand what "yes" meant, or they didn't think the scion of America's greatest criminal family would actually *use* the power they gave him.

On the other hand, we have

An actual Democrat (the only one in the race) who sang "16 Tons."


How could we possibly support Kucinich?

[Strawman]

54. Maybe it's not always about "strategy"

Maybe it's about someone bringing our concerns to the debates. Maybe its about acting on the assumption that it ought to matter what the progressive wing of this party thinks.

That's a specious argument anyway. We know he has little chance of winning this election. Dennis' candidacy is about giving progressives a voice and giving their arguments a public hearing in a meaningful forum: the primary debates. Attacking Dennis is mostly a way to tell progressives to STFU and get in line. Our voice and our ideas are not required, just do as your told: stuff some envelopes, phone bank, knock on doors, and make sure you show up to vote on election day. That might not be your intention here, but I'm tired of the false see-saw dichotomy that says our party is stronger when progressives fail to be reasonable and support an "electable" candidate. I think it just saps the vitality out of the party. And I'll admit, I've been as guilty of this kind of thinking as anyone else.

That being said, I don't think Dennis is above criticism for his public demeanor. I think he can be quirky and, if some of the anecdotes I've read are true, even jerky to people sometimes. If he weren't the only progressive messenger, maybe I could entertain the idea that there might be a better messenger in the primaries.

[Zhade]

55. It certainly shows how sad we are as a nation that he can't be respected for his principles.

NT!