Dear Iowa, Vote for Dennis But Don't Listen to Him

By David Swanson

I love Dennis Kucinich and think he is far and away the best candidate running for president. He and I are speaking together on a panel in New Hampshire this weekend. But asking his supporters in Iowa to vote for Obama as their second choice makes no sense to me.

First of all, any Iowan willing to take instructions on whom to vote for would not be backing Kucinich. Every television in Iowa tells voters every day not to vote for Dennis. His supporters are not the sort of people who obey instructions. They should back him aggressively in every caucus, and if they can't get 15% go home or back the candidate of their choice, as they will do regardless of what I or Dennis has to say.

Second, 99% of Kucinich's supporters do not live in Iowa or have much of an idea how the Iowa caucus system works. They see absolutely no need to make this sort of announcement, any more than they saw one the last time around when Kucinich pointed to Edwards as a second choice and the media all announced that Kucinich had dropped out and endorsed Edwards.

Kucinich backers see a huge gulf between him and the other candidates on the issues. They believe him when he says, as he's said on and off for four years, that if the Democrats nominate a war-candidate, he won't support them. Kucinich and most of his supporters consider Obama a war candidate, yet here he is - 11 months early - already endorsing him. It's not much of a leap to envision a Kucinich endorsement of Clinton if nominated, and that turns the stomachs of a lot of Kucinich backers.

Third, the media was guaranteed to do what it did four years ago and announce that Kucinich had conceded. The corporate and even progressive media are now doing just that. Here's Michael Moore:

"Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let’s not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their 'second choice.'"

Fourth, while none of the other candidates comes close to Kucinich, Edwards is more likely to end illegal occupations, refrain from launching new ones, and shift power away from the wealthy and the military-industrial complex than Obama. If Dennis is going to back someone else, the rest of us can do the same. My distant second choice is the man who just announced the withdrawal of troops from Iraq over 10 months once he's in office: John Edwards. My first choice remains voting and caucusing and campaigning for Kucinich. Vote for him, but don't listen to him.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

it's as simple as A-B-C

The calculus Kucinich is using is that Edwards is too distant a hope to stop Clinton, so lending support to Obama may be our last, indeed only, hope to save ourselves from yet another warmongering corporatist President.

Obama may well be much closer to Clinton than Edwards in that regard, but still, he's not Clinton -- who came in second only to Giuliani as favored by CEOs in a poll reported on MSNBC, and that's over all the rest of the Republican candidates, mind you.

So I think he's a lot smarter than you make him out to be. He knows damn well he's not going to win, much to all our disappointment. So he's trying to do everything he can to help us salvage what we can, and he sees Obama as a better choice than the presumptive nominee. Give the guy a break.

your ABC comment

Agree but this is still wrong. If you give up after the first battle, what will you do when it gets worse? He should have supported Edwards because he was still very close...Stalin celebrated the October revolution anniversary in the red square while the Germans were surrounding Moscow.....He later won...Your Dennis will at the end support any Democrat against the Republicans even if the former was a war monger .
Isn't that so?

Absolutely

Kucinich does not have to concede to Obama at this point. That is just ridiculous. I will not vote for Hillary or Obama or Edwards. If Kucinich does not get on the ballot we have the absolutely wonderful Cynthia McKinney to go with. She would take care of the black and woman issue all in one fell swoop.

Agreed, & the impeachment issue, peace issue, health issue..

however she would make a wonderful VP, as you've suggested before, for Kucinich, WHEN he does win ;-D Would she accept?

STUPID MOVE DENNIS

Well america I guess there goes free health care for all americans, free education, etc....

At least Edwards will work to stop the wreak in Iraqi

Dennis go home you are done!!!!!!

David,

Why is Kucinich in the race... ?

To win?

Or...

To pretend to want to win?

THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT REALITIES.

Which does he exist in?

Vote Edwards for peace sanity and justice

!!! Vote for Edwards! Please. This is so important if you come here for some sanity, for progressive viewpoints, there is a real chance to put a progressive in office. There will be only one of three winners in Iowa. It will be Clinton, Obama or Edwards. A result of anything other than Edwards winning, means the primary is over and Clinton or Obama gets the nomination.

This is the full page ad JRE placed today, read it and ask yourself if this is the ad of a person that wants to transform American. To bring America back to democracy, rights, peace and an economy that benefits all of not the 1 %. This is a bolder rallying message than any I have heard for a long time.

http://www.johnedwards.com/assets/downloads/JEFP_DMR_Full_Page_20080101....

Micheal Moore quotes Edwards:

"I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Take this opportunity to reclaim America.

Good points...

You make a good argument, but I do have some questions:

When it mattered in 2002, to decide on the necessity of war, or not, who took the time to think out what the future might look like; What the consequences of a rash decision would bear; What the evidence says and even if said evidence was legitimate, or not; And who read that AUMF of 2002?

Now, my followup question: Who regrets not being that person?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.