JE supports the little guy???????? Who is more little in this election than DK?

[madmunchie]

Hippocrisy. Still shows in JE's candidacy. The Candidate that is going to represent the little guys, had a prime opportunity on the debate, yet he did and said NOTHING. He silently let the corporation - NBC make that decision as long as it didn't hurt him personally. That is what I expect of JE. Had he said something, I might have questioned my opinion of him and began looking more closely at him. But he, as usual lived up to my expectations of him.

[Justyce]

1. I don't think wealthy politicians are what he means by "the little guy". nt

[madmunchie]

7. In this election DK is certainly the "little guy", he is overwhelming snubbed and ignored

by msm / corporations...... IF JE were not invited to the debate, WHAT WOULD HE HAVE SAID???????? HONESTLY??????

He is self serving PERIOD. The funny thing is that I believe JE would have made such a big splash doing this, he would have personally gained tremendously by "selflessly" standing up for this obvious unjust move made by a giant corporation.

[jackson_dem]

71. What did Kucinich say when Gravel was the first one to be kicked out the debates?

And has Kucinich ever spoken out for the right of Lee Mercer to participate?

[LWolf]

8. In what world does DK qualify as "wealthy?" n/t

[madmunchie]

16. In the world of JE supporters.

[Justyce]

17. He earns over $165,000 per year... hardly

in the working class/minimum wage/labor group Edwards refers to as "the little guy". No, he's not a millionaire, but he has a powerful position that pays very well...

[no name no slogan]

22. In D.C., that's not a lot of money

especially when you have to maintain two households (one back in the district in Cleveland, one in D.C.). And considering he puts in 80+ hour weeks every week, it really does not amount to much at all.

[LWolf]

23. Yes.

He does NOW. Average his lifetime income, and what do you get?

He has a powerful position that pays well, and that he must campaign to keep every two years. Not exactly job security.

Anyway, being well paid is not the same thing as being "wealthy."

The comment was about "wealthy politicians."

[Two Americas]

76. on planet earth

Look at the global poverty statistics.

[LWolf]

77. There IS a large segment that falls between the two, obviously. n/t

[Two Americas]

79. there once was

There once was a large segment between the two in this country, yes, but no more. I think that for those who are still in that group, and only see those people who are still comfortable in a middle class lifestyle, it may seem that "everyone" is there. I think that those more fortunate people tend to look right through and not even see all of the less fortunate around them. The “extras” are just background and are given little thought or recognition.

Much of this depends on one's point of view - are you looking down from the top, or up from the bottom? The view is dramatically different, and it is the rare individual whose viewpoint is not influenced by their status.

But I was relying on the statistics, which I why I suggested that you consult them for yourself.

I think this is how Kucinich sees things, by the way.

[LWolf]

80. While the middle class is still disappearing,

we do not go from "poverty" to "wealthy" with nothing in between. Which is the point here. Claiming that there are only two economic classes, poverty and wealth, is ludicrous.

[Two Americas]

81. not really

If there were still 10 people in between, I suppose we could say that there were still a middle class. There would probably never literally be "nothing in between." We always would need to use some judgment, define terms and makes some distinctions. "Middle class" implies a comfortable living - however we define that - with most people being in that range. That certainly is no longer true by almost any measure.

There most definitely are "two economic classes" if we separate people into those who have to work for a living - trading their time for dollars - and those who do not. Those in the latter category control as much wealth as those in the first, and the first category represents 99% of the people. Of those only 10% have household incomes of $90,000 or greater, and over half are bunched down at the bottom. So while we would probably never have a situation where every single family is either in crunching poverty or else flying high, we certainly are trending that way.

And of course people's incomes are not going as far as they once did, and people with household incomes in the $50,000-70,000 range are struggling and insecure, and the vast majority of people in the country are below that level.

Very, very few people in the country enjoy incomes at the level or higher than our representatives earn.

I am not sure what your argument is here or what you are looking for, so I am just making a stab in the dark here.

[LWolf]

82. My point is this:

Justyce said, in post # 1 in response to this thread:

"I don't think wealthy politicians are what he means by "the little guy."

I object to the suggestion that

1. Politicians are all "wealthy." Yes, they make more money than most of us, in a job with little job security, and have expenses in DC to maintain as well as in their home states.

2. Dennis Kucinich, specifically is "wealthy." Look at his net worth in comparison to his peers.

I also think it's ok to categorize him as "one of the little guys," as the OP pointed out, based on his whole life history, rather than just the most recent decade.

[no name no slogan]

10. DK is far from wealthy.

In fact, he's not even a millionaire.

[Two Americas]

75. upper 10%

I agree that this is not "wealthy" although relatively speaking it is, since he is in the upper 10% here and the upper fraction of 1% globally.

This is as much a function of how far the rest of the population has fallen as anything. Over half of the households are trying to get along on a third of what he makes, and for almost everyone in the country his income level is far out of their reach.

[asdjrocky]

2. Give me a break.

[madmunchie]

9. It is the principle. JE Clinton and Obama are the "big guys" in this

campaign getting all of the msm attention and courtesy, DK was discounted like he didn't even matter and the viewers were not allowed to see ALL OF THE CANDIDATES..... DK went to court to fight it and won but the THE GIANT CORPORATION APPEALED....where was JE??????

[hfojvt]

3. as a candidate, Kucinich is not the same thing as the working class

He's one guy trying to run for President, and probably hurting Edwards candidacy the most, as he splits the progressive vote.

[no name no slogan]

13. More like Edwards is hurting the Kucinich candidacy

Kucinich has a much more progressive record than Edwards does. He's also a card-carrying union member (Edwards is not).

If anytihng, Edwards is distracting progressives from a REAL progressive candidate-- one who has had his life threatened by the mob for doing the right thing by the people.

[madmunchie]

19. I'm with you on that. JE should have shown how the GIANT CORPORTIONS

unfairly make these type of decsions for the American People. He had a perfect opportunity to put his money (and we all know he has lots of it) where his mouth is.

[hfojvt]

24. he also was very highly unlikely to finish second in Iowa

or poll 15% in New Hampshire with or without an Edwards candidacy.

I am not anti-Kucinich. I just think we have more of a common enemy in HRC and don't need Kucinich supporters attacking Edwards.

[no name no slogan]

26. We used to get the same thing from Dean supporters in 2004

Kucinich and Dean were fundamentally different on many issues (healthcare, Iraq, NAFTA). Kucinich and Edwards are fundamentally different on many issues, too (healthcare, Iraq, NAFTA). Yes, there are similarities, but there are similarities between Kucinich and Clinton, and between Kucinich and Obama, too.

The common enemy we have is the GOP. In the meantime we've got a very spirited primary race, and we should support the candidates of our choice until the race is over. :)

[jackson_dem]

72. How can he be hurt? He has always polled at two percent even when Edwards was a non-factor in 2003

[TwilightZone]

4. They're opponents. Why would you expect otherwise?

I don't think a lot of presidential candidates spend a lot of time running around plugging their opponents.

[madmunchie]

14. Yes, just because they are opponents negates the principle of JE's fight?

which is that corporations are unjustly running things the way way that benefits them? and not us? It is not as basic as "they're opponents", I thought that they were looking out for OUR INTERESTS and saying that our voice - any voice should not be silenced. What was done to KC was squelching a voice that had a right to be heard and JE should have been fighting for OUR rights to be heard, not his own candidacy. Afterall, like I said before, this fight is THE fight that he keeps talking about...he could have actually put it into action and elected to stay silent for his own benefit.

[stray cat]

5. I think he meant working Americans rather than fellow politicians

If DK is a competitive presidential candidate I hope he can take care of himself. I hate it when I have to bail out the president....

[madmunchie]

48. 1st of all: DK is working as a public servant for the American People

and compared to HRC, Obama, & JE, he is a small struggling candidate. It is all relative.

#2. "I hate it" when the MSM decides which candidates will be heard and which ones will be silenced. I would like to be able to hear ALL OF THEM to make up my own mind.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. If you are not counting stature, Mike Gravel is more little

[jgraz]

11. That's some stunning political analysis right there.

To hell with the struggling blue-collar workers. Edwards really needs to stand up for a 6-term congressman and presidential candidate.

:eyes:

[madmunchie]

15. Who said TO HELL?????? I said the fight is inclusive not exclusive

ANYBODY is treated unjustly by rights being taken away should qualify.....or are we disqualifying people is a certain income level and a certain stature? Are you saying that JE is in support of class warfare?

[PresidentObama]

12. Whine, whine, whine.

[madmunchie]

18. Thanks for the response to my post, even if it is showing yet another non response

(which is common from a JE supporter) to a question and a opinion about JE and his obvious seperation of words and actions.

[PresidentObama]

21. I just like you turned this whole situation around on Edwards.

[tired_old_fireman]

20. Do you have any clue what real struggle looks like?

I'm talking about the struggles of not being able to pay for healthcare, food, a roof over ones head. That is who Edwards is fighting for in this race.

He isn't fighting for some well off congressman and his trophy wife who will never have to worry about healthcare or his own financial well being. Dennis is fighting the good fight, but I think people like the Sarkysians are much more the little guy than Dennis.

[madmunchie]

25. Yeah, actually I do. I've had a great deal of hardship in my life as a matter of fact

and "being the "child" of a millworker, is NOT a hardship because he knows who is parents are, he lived modestly, but he had a home and parents, which is more than where I started. I don't where it on my sleeve though. I too have had hardships thru childhood into adulthood and beyond. I've had more than my share and maybe that is why I look at this and I say, when somebody is being discriminated against I don't care if they are black or white, male or female, rich or poor that is why they say the law should be blind. A prejudice is a prejudice and injustice is an injustice - when you say you are standing up for the rights of people versus corporations ALL PEOPLE count, otherwise you are showing prejudice and discrimination.

[tired_old_fireman]

36. Okay, you have a point when you put it that way.

I really had a problem with thinking of Kucinich as a little guy because he is not.

[madmunchie]

39. Thank you for your response.

[Clintonista2]

27. Mike Gravel?

[madmunchie]

28. Did he fight to be on the debates like DK did? Of course he should not have been

excluded either though. My point is though, DK fought to be on those debates against the corporations and JE stood silent.

[Clintonista2]

29. So the point of your OP is that Kucinich fights REALLY REALLY HARD...

Then loses? That doesn't inspire me.

[madmunchie]

31. No, my point is that JE is supposed to be saying that Corporations are hurting us in many ways,

his whole fight is about 2 Americas, The powerful against the weak, the coporation of NBC squelched free speech and only allowed the candidates of THEIR choice to be heard, even though others exist. JE would have screamed bloody murder and he would have found plenty to say about the injustic if he were the one and not DK. He had an opportunity really show how much he really meant what he said.

DK stood ALONE against the corporations with time against him, I don't feel that he lost, WE lost and JE, once again proved who he really was going to fight for.

[Two Americas]

30. politician

Kucinich is a politician and a leader, not the "little guy." The "little guy" slept under a bridge last night.

Yes, Dennis has been shut out. Yes, it is very disappointing, but certainly not surprising. Yes, Edwards has disappointed us but so has Dennis. I am disappointed in his disorganized and chaotic campaign this time around. I am disappointed in his shift in focus from labor issues to cultural war issues. I am disappointed in his quasi-endorsement of Obama. Still love him, but he did disappoint me. But in an ocean of disappointment, these, and your complaints about Edwards are mere drops.

What is the point of starting a bashfest between Kucinich and Edwards supporters, though? Let's have some perspective and proportion.

[Kucinich4America]

32. "What is the point of starting a bashfest between Kucinich and Edwards supporters, though?"

The "point" is typical DLC triangulating as usual.

Kucinich is obviously my candidate. Edwards is my second choice, though admittedly I am concerned about the disparity between his current rhetoric, and his past track record.

A continuation of the Bush-Clinton nightmare is completely unacceptable, and I have serious concerns with Obama's pandering to the right wing, especially the homophobes.

This being the case, I have no interest in bashing Edwards. I hope he wins South Carolina, since even I'm not optimistic to believe Dennis has a snowball's chance in Hell down there. Overall, I hope people wake up to the media/DLC hype and vote in their own interest for a change, and realize that Bush/Clinton have not, and never will, represent them.

[madmunchie]

34. It is not to be meant as a "bashfest" Why, when someone brings their opinion/observation

out and it doesn't "complement" a candidate, it is called a bashfest. I think that it is absolutely unacceptable that DK was excluded from the debates andthis is something that shouldn't be brushed aside. Trying to CATAGORIZE into something as trivial as a "basfest" is real sad.

[Two Americas]

37. you know what?

You are right. Unfortunately, being right is the consolation prize in politics, and we have been settling for the consolation prize for too long.

You pay no attention to the fact that most people agree with you already on your main point - "it is absolutely unacceptable that DK was excluded." It must be given the interpretation that you give it, it must be seen as having the importance that you see it having, blame must be assigned the way you assign it, the issue must be described the way you describe it, the debate must be defined the way you want it defined, and anyone not agreeing with any of that is the enemy and must be subjected to a full scale assault.

[madmunchie]

41. No, and since this is an opinion forum, and I choose to state my opinion

I just put it as another notch to JE's belt of notches of differences of what JE says and what JE does

[Two Americas]

44. stating opinions is fine

I am talking about the way you are stating your opinions.

[madmunchie]

46. Hey, I am who I am and if you don't like it or agree with it, fine. Your not

agreeing with me however does not make my world or this democracy come to an end. I certainly hope that my opinion and my way of expressing it make your world or your democracy come to an end. I see healthy debate in an open and honest way and I relish it.

[Two Americas]

49. you are making my point

I agree with you about your main point. You are manufacturing a disagreement where there is none. That is my point.

[madmunchie]

52. There are things that you said that challenged my thoughts, views and remarks

Yes, we agree on some points and disagree on others, You seem intent on labeling me though and creating disaster out of my remarks where there is none.

"stating opinions is fine
I am talking about the way you are stating your opinions" that is trying to control the argument in my book

[madmunchie]

54. Manufacturing?????

"then the poisonous political atmosphere the right wingers have created has permeated everything and we are left in complete despair and dissolution. Anything - and it really does seem that anything will do - can be taken and magnified and used to smash and destroy any possibility of solidarity or consensus. There is no perspective or proportion, no sane separation of practicality from principle. Anything goes to win the point, no matter what damage may be done.

The only logical conclusion from your position is that the entire party and the entire political system is hopelessly beyond salvation. Within that context, we are completely unable to work together, to arrive at any consensus, to even attain any clarity or sanity. No two people can be allies for more than a few days, and then the next bomb is dropped into the middle of the discussion and the bitter and destructive feuding starts again."


YOUR ARE TALKING IN SUCH BROAD FATALISTIC TERMINOLOGY YOU LEAVE ME NO CHOICE BUT TO SAY, #1 specificity has its place in this discussion, which I use, you don't. #2 We are all watching months and months of DEBATE on television, WHY? because there are different opinions held by each candidate that should be discussed and seem to be of some value.....My little "debate" should be taken in the same context, just plain worthwhile discussion and opinion

"We are in a terrible trap here. I am open to your suggestions as to how we extricate ourselves from it. I can't see anything positive from remaining in it."

[Two Americas]

47. smash those Democrats

There is not a one of them, nor a one of us if truth be told, about whom some "notch" could not be added to your belt.

Smash 'em all up. You will be right, and we all will lose.

[madmunchie]

50. A bit overly dramatic - nobody is perfect and discussing those imperfections, qualifications,

abilities 10 months before the elections is hardly "losing". It is adding dimension to the debate and the election - at least for me.

[madmunchie]

33. Sorry, though, JE's whole identity is "fighting for the little guy"

Last I look most people supporting JE aren't "sleeping under bridges". His appeal is a little more broad than that. JE is the one talking about "2 Americas's" I take that to be discrimination applied is not good PERIOD. I don't think this needs to be turned into a class warfare, because #1 this is a bigger problem then just class, but discrimination on gender, race, sexual orientation...... By saying that one group's rights do not matter is just hippocritical.

My problem w/JE is that he says one thing yet seems to do another - or nothing in this instance and has a rich history of being on the wrong side of an issue in the not too distant past.

My problem w/DK is much of what you stated. Although w/ DK, I believe that he is who he said is and has a long history to prove it.

Conclusion is neither should be in WH right now. JE has integrity issues and DK capability issues. This still doesn't excuse NBC for what they did to DK and it doesn't excuse JE for staying silent and not standing up for a fellow US citizen who was being discriminated against and shut out by a Giant Corporation. JE spends a great deal of time railing against what the giant corporations are doing to this country and when he had a chance to really "bring it to them" in a really relevant way he didn't.

[Two Americas]

35. very sad

I can't tell you how much this saddens me. If even we are going to go after each other with crossfire style slams and attacks, then the poisonous political atmosphere the right wingers have created has permeated everything and we are left in complete despair and dissolution. Anything - and it really does seem that anything will do - can be taken and magnified and used to smash and destroy any possibility of solidarity or consensus. There is no perspective or proportion, no sane separation of practicality from principle. Anything goes to win the point, no matter what damage may be done.

The only logical conclusion from your position is that the entire party and the entire political system is hopelessly beyond salvation. Within that context, we are completely unable to work together, to arrive at any consensus, to even attain any clarity or sanity. No two people can be allies for more than a few days, and then the next bomb is dropped into the middle of the discussion and the bitter and destructive feuding starts again.

We are in a terrible trap here. I am open to your suggestions as to how we extricate ourselves from it. I can't see anything positive from remaining in it.

[madmunchie]

38. Right wingers didn't create ALL of this, we are responsible for our own ideas and our own

disagreements. To say that we are in complete despair and dissolution because we are in active debate about our political candidates is 100% WRONG. We need to disagree, otherwise we all are drinking the same koolaide. There has been arguments and disagreements about politics and candidates since the beginning of time. We are all very personally invested in the country's future and we have differing opinions about the way things need to be done and even what is even considered priority in our problems. To say that we shouldn't bicker and argue things our openly and honestly is precisely what the "powers that be" would embrace. Frankly that is more of a Republican way of dealing with politics than it is Democrats. After all, don't we have the bigger tent? the more diverse constituency? What would you expect from that ???? Complete compliance? , to arrive at any consensus Until it is time to walk into the voting booth to vote for the next POTUS, this discussion, debate and YES, even argument is vital to our Democracy. I'm sorry that you seem to want to embrace silence and compliance instead. The choices are not final and they are not made yet, and when they are, then we will look for a consensus and work together.

[Marrah_G]

40. Sorry is DK struggling to make ends meet every week?

Is his wife shopping at goodwill and walmart because they can't afford anywhere else?

[madmunchie]

43. Is JE's??????? Who is supposed to be standing up for the little guy? What diff does that have to

do with JE putting his money where his mouth is? DK IS the little guy when you put him in comparison to Clinton Obama and JE....it is all in context.

[Marrah_G]

56. Do you have any clue what he means by "little guy"?

He is NOT talking a six term congressman's run for the white house. He is talking about helping the working class.

How can you not understand this?

[madmunchie]

58. Class warfare

[madmunchie]

60. So how much money do you have to make in order to not be qualified to be discriminated against?

And what is the income level cut off for people that JE is supporting? Anybody making over $______________are excluded from JE's help concerning Corporation abuse ramifications.

[Marrah_G]

64. Okay... you are clearly living in a different reality then the rest of us

I'm going to stop because continuing it would be not only futile, but would just serve to make you look more out of it then yuou already appear.

[madmunchie]

66. Yeah, it is hard to speak to people with narrow minds and limited thought process.

[grantcart]

42. who was the politician that said

I had the support of all of the little people but they couldn't reach the levers?

[robbedvoter]

45. Gravel! Not even DK defended him! But good point in light of the fact that edwards

engineered their ousting from the debates.

[madmunchie]

51. What???????!!!!!!!!!????? I didn't know anything about that! What are you talking about?

[onenote]

53. if you are saying that both JE and DK stand up for the little guy,

then why would you expect JE to protest DK's exclusion -- presumably JE thinks his approach to protecting the little guy is better than DK's, otherwise he would drop out of the race and support DK, wouldn't he?

And if you're saying that DK is one of the "little guys" that JE is standing up for...well, sorry, but that's just wrong.

[madmunchie]

57. I'm saying that when NBC excluded DK from the debate, and DK fought it and went to court

enabling him to participate in the debate and then NBC appealed the decision and won, This all was just another example of a huge corporation trying to squash the little guy by silencing a voice that had every right to be included to be heard. DK is a legitimate candidate for the POTUS. We, the little people, were screwed because we didn't get the opportunity to hear from ALL of the candidates. JE who's main theme is AGAINST the giant corporations and the negative impact on the little guy - us and in this case DK too, because in comparison to HRC & Obama & JE - DK is is the little guy - JE let the CORPORATION silence him and deprive us of another voice in this campaign of debates.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. Do you think Kucinich's constant attacks on Edwards...

...during the last debate in which both participated might just have something to do with this?

[madmunchie]

59. So discrimination is OK when it isn't leveled at you or your interests?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

61. Go to the back of the bus, then.

Flagellate yourself, or whatever the fuck it is you're trying to achieve.

[madmunchie]

62. Another great response! Thank you!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

63. What do you want me to say? Your premise is total nonsense.

Using your logic, Kucinich ought to be standing up for Lee Mercer. Or the Green party's candidate. After all, why does it need to be in your own self-interest?

[madmunchie]

65. According to YOU.

[slipslidingaway]

69. Why label them as attacks, DK pointed out the inconsistencies

between his voting record and rhetoric.

[Two Americas]

67. here is what I want to know

Here is the outrage that is bothering me, and I want to know where the candidates and their supporters are on this one.

The wealth and income divide in this country has gotten so vast, and there are so many people struggling now. As the wealth in communities dries up and real income goes down and jobs disappear, many people are moonlighting and working as independent contractors in various service fields in a desperate attempt to keep afloat and survive. But it is getting harder and harder to make a living from doing services for your neighbors, since they are all going broke as well. That means that many people have to do various services for the people who are better off.

Yet the wealthy people are not willing to pay decent fees to people for the service they contract them for. Since there are more and more people getting more and more desperate everyday, and since there are no longer unions or worker protection enforcements to ensure that working people make a living wage, we have a race to the bottom.

Let's take one specific example - hairdressers. Now if a person who is more fortunate than I am, and who has the money to spend needs me to make a special trip out to the airport to cut their hair, and I have to lose a few hours in my salon and give up a couple of my regular customers, wouldn't you think that that fortunate person could fairly compensate me to drop everything and lose business and spend valuable time taking care of them? Even at, oh say, $400 I am certainly not going to get rich and I won't really do any better than I would have had I told them to go take a hike, saved myself the expense, and taken care of my 4-5 regular customers. People act like $400 is a lot of money, but I have to pay my help, the rent and utilities and taxes - all of which are going up - and I do have years and years invested into my business and my skills.

Let's face it. $400 is not what it once was, and for many wealthy people it is merely chump change. Are there any of the more fortunate people out there who can be generous with working people for once and who are considerate of their time and skills? Are there any of them who remember what it was like to be struggling and who can find a little generosity and compassion in their hearts?

That is what I am outraged about.

When are the more fortunate going to stop wiping their feet on us? Is there not one humane and generous person among those who have been successful who can see their way clear to paying a little extra that they can well afford when we jump and run and fetch for them?

Who is really for the little guy anymore?

[madmunchie]

68. You are absolutely right, and when we figure out who is REALLY for the little guy

the next 2 questions are: Do they possess the skills to deliver on their promises? Are they in any way shape or form, someone that actually means what they say? The first threshold is easier to meet than is the 2nd and it is the definitely 2nd that sunk JE - for me at least.

[Armstead]

73. A hairdressrr can say "Take a hike" if they don;t want to make the trip

You said it yourself.

Since this appears to be a slap at Edwards, I'd say that if someone felt that being asked to make a special trip for a haircut, and felt that $400 is not enough, the hairdresser has every right to refuse.

If I could make $400 for a couple of hours work, I wouldn't feel exploited. But if, as a businessperson, I did not feel that was a worthwhile rate, I'd say "Take your business elsewhere."

[Two Americas]

74. I was joking

I agree with you. I meant the post as a parody. Not a slap at Edwards.

[jackson_dem]

70. And Kucinich never said a word when Gravel and others, like Lee Mercer, were excluded

[Bluebear]

78. "Hippocrisy"