Edwards, Kucinich, Gershwin, and a lot of little-known blues musicians

[eridani]

You can probably see where I'm going with this. Back in the 20s, there was "race music" and then there was "real music." Gershwin took the former, diluted and repackaged it and was wildly successful in selling it to the whole country. Kucinich is a comparatively unknown blues singer, and Edwards is Gershwin. Or you could do the Elvis and Big Mama Thornton analogy just as easily.

I'm not trying to insult Edwards here--just keep on extending the analogy to see why. Gershwin was a very fine musician in his own right, and many people who hadn't ever heard the the music he based his own renditions on were soon inspired to find out more about the originals. After Gershwin, it became far more common for lots of black musicians of every style to have significant crossover audiences. And get real--how many Americans would ever have heard of Ladysmith Black Mambazo without Paul Simon?

Do you suppose that bluesmen living on pennies from their cups ever resented Gershwin? Did Otis Redding die still pissed off that it was Aretha Franklin who recorded the canonical version of Respect? You get what I mean here--Kucinich wouldn't be human if he didn't resent Edwards, even though he made a really serious mistake in letting that interfere with his strategic judgement.

This sort of thing predates 20th century American music and 21st century American politics by eons.

A hundred cities now claim Homer dead
Through which the living Homer begged his bread.

A message to all Kucinich and Edwards supporters. It's all about the VALUES. It's all about the ISSUES, the ones that Kucinich has always been behind and the ones that Edwards has come around to supporting. It's all about how we can push whoever is the eventual nominee the furthest in our direction. It's all about how we all have to work toward creating a political culture in which people of modest means feel that they have at least some ownership of the system, getting beyond that "Why even bother--they're all crooks" attitude, that Another World Is Possible, that having their lives run by the One Percenters is not inevitable, that a garrison state based on permanent war is not inevitable. It's all about an ongoing commitment that goes way beyond a single presidential election year.

The best strategy for any of us thie year a is highly individual thing. Are you in a caucus or primary state? Early or late? Red, purple or blue precinct/county/state? Who has the lead when it comes time to make your final decision? Is there a risk of Edwards not being statistically viable at that point, or will he put on a surge? It's hard to know until you have to decide.

For me, it's caucus state/blue precinct, county and LD. I'll take my progressive politics up straight, thankyewverymuch, like hot undiluted expresso. No foamed milk, raspberry shot or even a little extra hot water for this kid. I'd do the same if it was all red where I live. Purple? Well, in that case it might make some sense to foam up a little milk just in case.

To all the Kucitizens still hanging in there. Our candidate is a visionary. Social change on any issue has historically required visionaries on the barricades like MLK, Jr, and also armtwisters like Lyndon Johnson to get legislation through. Kucinich wants to be MLK, Jr and LBJ at the same time. The odds for successfully combining these roles are not high, and terminally perky people who even want to try it don't come along very often. Kucinich actually does know this, which is why he calls his candidacy a long shot. As in 2004, we will probably wind up with a kitten. Keep asking for a pony anyway--it advances the agenda.

To all the Edwards supporters. I called out my candidate for bad judgment, publicly and privately. Howzabout you do the same with yours on the debate participation issue? First they cut out Gravel, and then Kucinich. Given that Edwards is the most outspokenly populist candidate still allowed on stage, who do you think is going to be next? Even if he continues to gain support, the MSM is going to be pulling the ignore and then demean strategy more and more often and pretending it isn't happening. They may even succeed in sinking him completely. Dean Scream, anybody? The full-out feral cat face-clawing treatment won't be necessary--a light paw-swat with claws barely tipped out will do.

To anybody who has ever said "I agree the most with Kucinich, but he isn't electable." If the candidate you are backing instead convincingly pulls ahead and you still haven't voted/caucused, support Kucinich. Stand up for the agenda you really want, because at that point your other choice no longer needs you.

Yours in solidarity for any of the candidates

[AndyA]

1. I think the media has already blocked Edwards to a large degree.

You never hear about the #2 in Iowa...just Barack and Hillary.

That reinforces my support of Edwards. The corporate owned media, which has given us so much censorship and propaganda, is at it again because they fear Edwards.

Since large corporations and their money are largely responsible for the abuses forced on the American people, with their dirty (lobbyist) money given generously to Congress, I find any candidate willing to belly up to the bar and take lobbyist money unfit to serve as President.

They have compromised themselves.

Hillary: "Thanks for the money, but you know if I'm elected I'm going to push through legislation that will cut your profits and make you lower your drug prices in America so people can afford them."

Barack: "You guys have been just great, the money is wonderful and so is the media coverage. Of course, when I get to the White House I'm going to focus on what's right for the American people, and I'll allow you to sit at the table and participate, but you're going to have to give up a lot of what you've gained during the Bush years. It's just not fair to the American people at large."

Yeah, right. That's going to happen. Right after Bush admits he's made a mistake by spying illegally on American citizens, and that he's destroyed evidence in an attempt to cover up his crimes. :eyes:

[eridani]

2. I think you're right, but Edwards has colluded with this

He needs to raise a stink ASAP about debate inclusion, thereby making media coverage another of his issues. His grassroots supporters ought to be telling him this, ASAP.

Edit: Edwards' aggressive campaigning suggests that he might call for accountability; Kucinich has already said as much.

[Webster Green]

3. Dennis will get my vote in the primary!

He got my vote in 2004, and he will get it in 2008.

I guess I'll have to vote for whatever democratic candidate the
fascist media selects for the general election....even if it's Clinton (:banghead:)

[eridani]

4. Clinton will get competence back in government, probably appoint--

--judges that aren't whackjobs, and put further assaults on reproductive rights off the table. Won't it be nice to at least get that stuff out of our way so we can fight her on our other issues? (Hey, just trying to cheer myself up at the prospect.)

[Webster Green]

7. Oh yeah, the worst dem is still better than any repuke!

And if the pukes manage to steal another one, we will have to take to the streets to save our democracy.

[Adelante]

5. Edwards is nowhere the fighter Kucinich has been forever

"The voters of New Hampshire deserve to hear all the Democratic candidates' views on who can best lead America in a fundamentally new direction, and that's why I urge these networks to allow full participation in this week's debate," Obama said in a statement.

But in an interview with UnionLeader.com, John Edwards said he is staying out of the issue.

"I don't get to set the rules for the debates. I'll let the people who are in charge of the debates set the rules. And I'll be there," Edwards said.

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Clinton%2c+Obama%3a+Include+all+of+us&articleId=491c03d9-f9e1-4653-9688-7c0a0a9731ef


The big fighter man.

And last summer it was EDWARDS whispering in Clinton's ear to make the debates smaller. Too bad Kucinich heard.




When Howard Dean was under attack by Republicans two years ago, Edwards said helpfully that Dean didn't speak for the Democratic Party. I never understand why he is called a fighter or people believe he will fight for them. He does what it takes in his own interest and that's it. Why would he fight big corporations when he has his wealth invested in them?

I'm supporting Obama in the primaries, but will vote for Kucinich, if the scenario presents itself where Obama doesn't need my vote.

[eridani]

8. That's why Kucinich went for Obama instead of Edwards

However, I'm phonebanking for Kucinich and the second choices are running at 2/3 Edwards to 1/3 Obama, so it was a strategic boner. A non-frontrunner should in all cases act to keep the race among frontrunners as even as possible. Also I really wish Obama had walked his talk and refused to participate in NH unless all were included.

You'll recall in 2004 that Kucinich backed Edwards instead of Dean out of pique at the MSM labelling Dean "the" antiwar candidate. That was also against the wishes of Kucinich supporters, but it at least made strategic sense as Edwards was polling in single digits at the time.

To be sure, John is Johnny Come Lately, but he's coming in the right direction at least. So is Obama today with that outsourcing statement. Which is why Kucitizens will never stop asking for a pony, even if we wind up with the kitten. The kitten's issue positions will be way better at least.

[Adelante]

10. I don't think it was pique in 2004

Even though Dennis was for sure piqued about Dean. But Dennis and Edwards weren't competing in 2004. Edwards was going for the Gephardt people and Dennis wanted Dean people, and if they could throw a few each other's way when it was possible to add up to viability, all the better, they could deal. This time Kucinich is having to fight for his own base and "pique" doesn't begin to describe it. Remember, Dennis only called for his supporters to break for Obama on the second ballot. That was it. It wasn't an endorsement at all. He said he had one thing in common with Obama: Change. He later said to Tucker he had directed his support to Obama, instead of Edwards, because he believes Obama is "sincere." I think in 2004 Dennis believed John Edwards was a sincere centrist. Not his cup of tea, but for real. Kucinich, besides being pissed off this year, no longer believes in John Edwards. GreenArrow said the other day that Edwards is running on Kucinich's record instead of his own this time around. I think that's what it amounts to, but then, I never believe a word Edwards says, so take my opinion for what it's worth.

[eridani]

13. I think that in 2004 Edwards had squelched the inner trial lawyer--

--that was really really pissed off when kids got their guts sucked down swimming pool drains. He suppressed it to win the Senate in a conservative state and to run the "safe" pro-war don't get the money people mad way in 2004. Edwards might well be a fake, but also he might have felt the Al Gore effect from losing. Which Al Gore is fake? The 2000 cautious overmananged Gore that picked Liebermann as a running mate, or the on fire inconvenient 2007 Al Gore?

It is very true that Edwards is running on Kucinich's record. I want ALL of our fawking candidates to be running on the Kucinich platform!! That means they would have to change their current positions on a lot of issues. The problem with that is what, exactly?

Kucinich said in 2004, when he stayed in the race long after it was statistically over, that he stayed in to change the direction of the party. Well, despite the shit sandwich frontloaded schedule the money asshats have stuck us with, it IS changing. And I approve. Kucinich is right at the the heart of the movement in that direction.

[Adelante]

22. I wish, in particular, everyone was running on Kucinich's health plan

So I hear you. But about running on Kucinich's record, it's a matter of whether you believe the person running on Kucinich's record. Obviously, you do and I don't; and neither does Kucinich anymore. In your earlier post, you said, "Also I really wish Obama had walked his talk and refused to participate in NH unless all were included." Obama made a supportive statement; Edwards made an unsupportive statement. Yet Obama is the one who is expected to "walk his talk" while all Edwards has to do is talk. That's my problem with that.

[eridani]

25. That's why I'm pushing Edwards supporters to gently ream their candidate a new one

He might just get the point that it would be a politically smart thing to do, and it would have the same effect regardless of the sincerity level.

I don't know if Edwards is sincere about the Kucinich platform, but I know that I really like it that someone thinks it is politically smart to at least appear that way. Some other candidates think it is politically smarter to pander sincerely to homophobes.

[Adelante]

31. I respect your point of view

I myself will never vote for an IWR Yes voter or co-sponsor, not as long as I live, never, and I don't give a fig how sorry they are. Everybody has their lines not to be crossed. FWIW, I did email Obama in support of your particular one. :hi:

[GreenArrow]

14. pique at the MSM labelling Dean "the" antiwar candidate

It was actually Dean who labled himself as such, and even when called on it, refused to quit.

[eridani]

6. Yeeehawww! Obama comes out against outsourcing!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3974763

Finally, something specific to hope for. Keep it up, Dennis and John--maybe even Clinton will start pandering to populists now.

I don't even give a rat's posterior if it's phony--I like it when they pander to ME instead of to homophobic asshats.

[no name no slogan]

27. THAT'S why we need as many candidates in this race as possible now

Even if there's no chance for a few of them, they can keep sniping at the edges, keeping the "mainstream" candidates honest, and keeping their feet to the fire.

:thumbsup:

[LWolf]

9. Excellent, thank you.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[zalinda]

11. And here's my take on it

Kucinich wasn't going to get the nod, whether Edwards was in the race or not. Period. He is a little too "Let the Sunshine In" for most Americans. While some people get him, most people don't. He is as known a quantity as Edwards, and yet polled in at 1 or 2 percent. Kucinich has been in the "news" for at least 6 months or more, at least here on the Internet, and yet still polls low. Edwards disappeared for awhile and still polled higher. That tells you something.

Now, as for Edwards' "record", here's what I think happened. He won his Senate seat, I don't know if he had advisers or not. But, when he got to the Senate, I think he tried to work with the system. Whether you know it or not, freshmen Senators are often railroaded into voting for things they don't want to vote for. It's called seniority, and the Senators wield it with a heavy hand, after all he was from a state that didn't matter much in the scheme of things. What he saw in DC was disheartening for him, he wanted to make a difference and he couldn't. He decided to run for President, because he wanted to change what was going on in DC. But, his campaign advisers ran his campaign and also advised him to take the VP role with Kerry. Kerry kept him on a leash and wouldn't let him speak up for the poor. I think that up until this run for President, he has been playing the political game, and he hated it. From everything that I've read, he has wanted to make a difference in the lives of every day working people. Elizabeth was a bankruptcy lawyer, and I'm sure that her stories about people having to declare bankruptcy over medical bills also spurred him on. I think this is his real voice, and not one that has been filtered through politics.

As for the debates? I don't think Kucinich was excluded because of where he was polling, but because he tends to become confrontational. I think that ABC wanted this debate to be a round table discussion and Kucinich likes to point fingers. He can become quite heated if he thinks that he is right and others are wrong. I don't think that Kucinich would have come off as very Presidential in this debate format.

zalinda

[eridani]

15. ABC didn't want the audience wildly cheering when Kucinich talked--

--about real universal health care and fair trade. Are you going to deny that that has ever happened? Should I go dig up the video of the labor debate again?

Kucinich doesn't just think he his right on issues--he IS right. And Edwards agrees; to the extent of now running on a lot of the Kucinich platform instead of his own 2004 platform.

[NorthCarolina]

16. You Hit The Nail on The Head nt

[zalinda]

24. Oh course you are right

St Dennis is the ONLY one who ever had these thoughts, he owns them. Why, hell, he should copyright them because they only belong to HIM. Let no other person speak of the same ideas as Dennis Kucinich, what blasphemy! Apparently the Edwards' "two Americas" also belongs to Kucinich, even though Edwards was saying that in 2003, because we ALL know that Kucinich is the ONLY TRUE PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. Give me a break! Kucinich isn't polling high because people dismiss him. These are non-political, non-policy, average everyday working people, they have said, Kucinich is not electable.

It doesn't matter if you have the solution to world peace, if no one listens to you, it doesn't matter. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Kucinich is the tree. He is unnoticeable. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. And Kucinich supporters do him no service when they put him up on a pedestal as the only true Democrat, and call all other Democrats pretenders to the true meaning of the Democratic Party.

zalinda

[eridani]

26. Right. Two Americas was all that Edwards ever said in 2004

--along with "I'm handsome and I'm southern" You apparently haven't noticed some real substance from Edwards on health care this time around, instead of the fluffy 2004 bullshit on the same issue. He's changed on the war. Everyday people listen to the MSM horseshit about electability and a lot of them believe it. Are you proud of the ones that still think Saddam did 9/11? Not blaming them--it's always the fault of the hucksters and not the marks.

Kucinich is not the only politician who is right on all the liberal/progressive issues, but until recently he has been the only presidential candidate who has, other than Gravel (who has a crappy health care plan). I'm delighted that other candidates are moving his way, even though he may very well not be.

[riqster]

34. When voters hear Kucinich, they like what they hear

...but of course, few get to hear him. The Dem establishment and the MSM make sure of that.

[GreenArrow]

12. Actually, Edwards is lot more like Pat Boone

See, I don't think Edwards actually believes the issues, but is rather, using them as a means to a rather personal end, just as Pat Boone never really liked rock n roll (as his music attests; it neither rocks nor rolls) but used the form, very superficially, to sell lots of records, undercutting the original and superior artists at the same time.

[eridani]

17. Don't you think that Edwards is a little, well, AGGRESSIVE these days

-to be mistaken for a milquetoast like Boone? If it's only pandering, it's a damned convincing effort at looking like the real thing. And I LIKE it when politicians pander to me instead of to homophobic asshats.

[GreenArrow]

19. I think it's an act.

Even Pat Boone did a "metal" album. No matter what the topic, Edwards maintains his smug smirk, his inner eye focused on himself, all the while aware of the performance he is giving and the impression he is making. It's paint by the numbers liberal populism, and if he does a good job of coloring within the lines, and uses the boldest primary colours, it's still unoriginal and inauthentic, even as he presents it as something profoundly personal. I just don't believe him.

[eridani]

23. But what if he is painting himself into a corner where he would have to ACT on populism?

Can't say as I prefer a "sincere" collusion with homophobes, or a "sincere" statement that voters shouldn'e expect too much of what they want.

[GreenArrow]

33. oh, he'll act,

and make a big show of it, with all sorts of flowery emotional language carefully calibrated to elict only the most positive feelings, but any actual results will be cosmetic in nature, perhaps like a minimum wage increase. Or his insurance plan, not substantially different than either of his main competitors, all which simply put an additional burden on citizens. Any of the three main contenders will provide a softer, gentler touch on American style imperial corporatism and will move things away from the overtly nasty and agressive approach that we've seen from Bush et al. You can't really support illegal wars of agression and conquest, the death penalty and the drug war, and talk convincingly about poverty and corporatism, at least IMO.

[Sparkly]

18. If the decision is a done deal by the time Maryland votes, I'll definitely vote for Kucinich.

And I absolutely think the debate would have benefited from his participation. (I still want to hear the other candidates forced to answer WHY they think it's better to have for-profit insurance companies involved in 'universal' health care.)

But I don't see how Edwards distinguishes himself from Clinton or Obama on issues. Their policy proposals are nearly identical.

[eridani]

20. True for health care

True for getting out of Iraq until a not too long ago when Edwards said take even the troops out who are doing training tasks and no permament bases. He's caught up with Richardson, though is not to the Kucinich position of no more funding yet.

His movement on issues has always been in the more populist direction.

[Sparkly]

21. They've all said "no permanent bases."

They're basically all on the same page.

Kucinich was just there long before.

[eridani]

28. Whoa! Even Clinton? Last I heard she said something about defending the embassy

--just as bad as permanent bases, IMO. Again, good for all who have caught up with Dennis.

[Sparkly]

29. There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings about their positions...

Senator Clinton has consistently opposed the creation of permanent bases in Iraq. In 2006, Congress placed a restriction on the use of any funds to establish bases in Iraq. Last week, Senator Clinton wrote President Bush to advise him that this agreement must not commit the United States to permanent bases in Iraq, and must include a commitment to the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Today she called for him to agree to get Congressional approval before completing the agreement.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4580

Here's Edwards:

We should leave behind in Iraq only a brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers.

(snip)

Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.

Take Additional Steps to Stabilize Iraq

Edwards believes we should intensify U.S. efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

[Sparkly]

30. And, here's Obama....

He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

[GreenArrow]

35. I'm waiting for them - other than Kucinich -

to say "reparations." Seems only fair when invading someone's country illegally under false pretenses.

[eridani]

36. Progressive stands in straight up shots, no ice or soda

That's our Dennis!

[maxanne]

32. this is very wise eridani

thank you for saying it.

I'm in NH - so I can vote for the whole pony tomorrow. I want single payer health care. I fear that the plans of the other candidates might actually hurt our chances of ever
getting it.

Everyone should wake up and smell the coffee about the strategy to keep candidates out. I've seen a lot of support around here for cutting DK out of debates. Well, as
the Edwards supporters are now learning - your candidate could be next. The GOP, by the way, does not do this. They stand up for including all of their candidates.
We could learn a thing or two from them.

[Desertrose]

37. Nice eridani, thanks.

"Our candidate is a visionary. Social change on any issue has historically required visionaries on the barricades"

I am grateful DK is doing what he's doing.

Peace
DR