Thursday, January 03, 2008

Kucinich to Obama as Nader to Edwards

So Kucinich has sent a letter to Iowans to support Obama. Nader is throwing his support to Edwards. What the hell do you make of these two decisions?

I guess I can see why Nader would support Edwards since Edwards is railing against big corporations. But why would Kucinich, who is still a candidate himself ask Iowans to support Obama?

Thanks to Crooks and Liars for this link.

22 Comments:

Blogger ZILLA said...

Well, he's only written to precincts where he believes he will NOT be successful, right? Is it an indication of who he truly would like to see be successful if he can't be, or is it the ol' divide & conquer (or something)?

Do any of the d-contenders support Hilary second to themselves?

Politics, meh. Can't wait for this campaign to be history so we can get back to grumbling about what a lousy job the next administration's doing.

Favorite Christmas gift this year: Bush Administration count-down calendar, featuring a Bushism on each and every tear-off page!!! Did you get one?

January 03, 2008 4:10 AM  
Blogger FranIAm said...

Politics! Ugh!! PoP please make me a drink. Despite the early hour (although it is always noon somewhere...) I find myself very thirsty indeed.

The Kucinich thing pissed me off tremendously. And it is clearly politics at work, even for Special K.

What a disappointment to me! I understand how the process goes, but I am saddened that Dennis went this way, instead of getting behind Edwards, for example.

This Hillary v. Obama race is making me as ill as the Republicans are.

The Nader thing makes sense.

Oh... and um, can I get a refill on my drink please? Thank you. The wind chill here makes it "feel like minus 20" (I went out to grab the paper on the porch, it feels like minus 200!) so I need some fortification for both weather and politics.

January 03, 2008 4:17 AM  
Blogger Colonel Colonel said...

Kucinich disappoints me- I also would think he has more in common with Edwards. This is a surprise.

January 03, 2008 5:11 AM  
Blogger fallenmonk said...

It made me mad as well. I thought Kucinich was more progressive than that. A good way for the Dems to not have a Dem in the White House next year is to run Obama.

January 03, 2008 5:27 AM  
Blogger niCk (Mem Beth) said...

It's a Chess Game! The best person for the job will never get it, it's not about competence. It's a game to see who spends their millions more wisely and can convince moronic citizens to vote for them, citizens who get all their knowledge of a candidate from campaign commercials inserted between football plays and news of the latest female skanks becoming skankier.

Not that I'm becoming cynical or anything like that, I will still vote, and that person will have no chance in hell becuase I make my decision based on experience, competence, and who values the ideals set forth in the constitution, qualities unknown in politics lately. I don't make choices based on slick ads or prepared speeches.

January 03, 2008 5:35 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

I'm pretty sure I know why Kucinich did what he did. He's crazy as a fruit loop. Obama should be worried that Kucinich is urging people to vote for him.

The whole thing is probably going to help Edwards.

Oh wait. Nader is crazy too.

Looks like Hillary is going to be the winner.

January 03, 2008 5:55 AM  
Blogger Comandante Agí said...

Because Obama has seen the truth...

UFOs are real!

January 03, 2008 6:32 AM  
Blogger dguzman said...

You'd think he would've waited until AFTER he dropped out of the race to support someone else. Makes me question his sanity, unless maybe he really sees himself as such political poison that he'll bring down Obama with his "support" and thus help out someone else--Hillary? Edwards? But then that would make it seem that his whole campaign was disingenuous from the start--which would be even more disappointing.

It's just very confusing to me why he'd do that.

But the Nader for Edwards thing makes some sense.

January 03, 2008 7:10 AM  
Anonymous scott said...

After maintaining an interest in politics for the past forty years, I think I am finally disgusted with the process of presidential elections from stem to stern. It seems farcical that one or two hundred thousand (tops) party faithful in Iowa will move the ultimate candidates about 40% along their way to nomination. I suppose this is because the parties want to winnow the field down quickly and save money for the general election. After New Hampshire, a state of dubious relevance to me, the Democrats will have their nominee and after South Carolina, the Peckerwoods’ standard bearer will be clear.

I’ve said before that intra-party politics was never designed to be democratic, but this is turning the marketplace of ideas into a ghost town.

What really pisses me off is continued existence of the electoral college and the STATES’ continued insistence on a winner-take-all allotment of electoral votes. If 49.99% of voters in a given state choose candidate B, it counts for absolutely nothing. They could have stayed home and the outcome would have been exactly the same. It stinks. I checked after the 2004 election and as I recall, twenty-three states have a smaller population than Harris County, Texas. Every state has electoral votes equal to is congressional representation, a minimum of two senators and one representative. When I did the math, even assuming that five million people in Texas are undocumented aliens, the voter in South Dakota or Wyoming has three to four times more presidential voting power than I do. That stinks also. And neither party wants to change it.

It is a miracle I haven’t become a cynic.

January 03, 2008 7:25 AM  
Blogger robin andrea said...

It really bugged me that Kucinich came out and supported Obama. It made me think he really is as cuckoo as people have said. Nader's support makes sense.

January 03, 2008 7:26 AM  
Blogger Randal Graves said...

It was obviously an alien influence.

- Tim Russert

January 03, 2008 7:47 AM  
Blogger Joey Polanski said...

Th Dem caucus in Iowa is a two-stage process. In stage 1, those who support a cannidate who dont get at least 15% o th fokes showin up will not be countd unless, in stage 2, they eithr move to support a cannidate that DID get at least 15% or band togethr to give some cannidate at least 15%.

So, you see, seckond choice, in the DEM caucus, mattrs. Kucinich was askin his supportrs to make Obama their seckond choice.

Ocourse none o this makes KuKu any less of a jokeski. I guess his thinkin is sompm like this: "If I dont have enough supportrs to remain viable, then I hope my supportrs will throw their support to the least quallifyd cannidate who IS viable."

Thatd be Obama ... easy.

January 03, 2008 9:03 AM  
Blogger Jazz said...

Totally off topic Sweets, but your snowman should be up on my blog today.

January 03, 2008 11:20 AM  
Blogger TomCat said...

I don't think Nader's support for Edwards will help him much, but am thankful for any help at all. I just hope Nader does not launch another 3rd party campaign. Think what a better country this would be today had Nader not run in 2000.

As for Kucinich, he was my favorite when the process started, but now I have lost all respect for him. Endorsing that horrible racist wing-nut, Ron Paul as a running mate was more that enough reason to delegate Dennis to the tinfoil hat brigade. Now on top of that he has betrayed progressives everywhere by endorsing a corporatist over a fellow progressive. :-(

January 03, 2008 11:23 AM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

Yeah, that one floored me. Nader got it right, but what was Kucinich thinking?? AARRGG.

January 03, 2008 12:47 PM  
Blogger Mauigirl said...

I still don't get why Kucinich would announce this BEFORE the caucuses. You'd think he'd wait and see how he did.

January 03, 2008 12:51 PM  
Blogger an average patriot said...

POP
The more I learn about those caucuses the more ridiculous they get. From what I understand 2nd is as good as first and Dennis advocated his support in his weak counties. Anyway those caucuses are asinine and both party's are different. They are as dangerous to us today as the (s)electoral College. This explains the arcane caucus process in caucuses 101

January 03, 2008 2:49 PM  
Blogger Mary Ellen said...

All of this just shows that Kucinich is just as much a Washington insider as the rest of them. It's nothing but a stupid game to them.

January 03, 2008 4:08 PM  
Blogger Sparky Duck said...

Hell if I know, I am still scratching my head at the USF performance last week.
quack quack

January 03, 2008 8:42 PM  
Blogger enigma4ever said...

I have no idea what it means...it gives me a headache...just hearing Nadars name makes me cringe...( Sorry but I still am mad at him about 2000)

January 03, 2008 10:25 PM  
Blogger Daniel said...

Obama and Huckerbee! Sounds like a comedy duo.

The American political system is sure complicated as the previous comments suggest. Down Under we don't have a President (thank God) and the winning party elects who is going to be Prime Minister. It's the KISS system in action.

Hope you guys elect someone who is not an immoral retard this time. Please!

January 03, 2008 11:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe the Troll said...

I see that Daniel has noted that his rants weren't getting him anywhere at Lucy's so he brought them here. How nice for you.

The fact is, Daniel, that Australia is not important enough on a global scale for the world to even care who your PM is. If it weren't for the weird animals and the Opera House, most of the world probably wouldn't even notice that you're down there.

You've been offered several opportunities (by Cody, O'Tim, and myself) to suggest what you think would be a superior system, and you never do it. Just more snotty put-downs. I see now that you've at least explained loosely how YOUR system works, and I can see why you didn't want to do that before.

So you let the PARTIES pick your PM for you. No independent candidates there, I take it. Yet what has this supposedly "superior" keep-it-simple-STUPID system produced? Only the most loyal lap-dog America has.

Australia is the ONLY country, after all, that has joined America in every war it's been involved in since the beginning of the 20th century. You joined us in Iraq, redeployed in 2005, and are still there.

The opposition of the people to the war did not matter in Australia any more than it has mattered here, in fact. So what did your "superior" system net for you, Daniel? Independence? Hah! As far as foreign policy goes, you might as well be our 51st state. Moral superiority? Who is worse, the fool or the fool that FOLLOWS the fool? Have only American soldiers contributed to the chaos in Iraq, or have our loyal allies also helped? The fact is, Americans can't be called war criminals without the Australians joining us as they did in the invasion and everything that followed. Your "superior" political system doesn't protect you from that, even though I guess you can pretend that the fact that you didn't actually elect anyone insulates you from blame.

It takes more than simple snottiness to make a valid political point, Daniel. Are you ever going to try to move beyond that? Are you capable? It WILL require doing some research before you comment, after all.

January 04, 2008 8:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home