Oh how I like Kucinich. Unfortunately, I just don’t think he’s electable. The public will not elect anyone whose name they can’t pronounce or who looks like a character from the Lord of the Rings. (Apparently they will elect someone who looks like a character from Planet of the Apes. Twice.)

Cases in point: Nader, Perot, Simon, Mondale…

What I really want to know is what are the Democrats thinking? We so desperately need to win this election, and the front runners are a black man and a woman… two minorities that have NEVER held the presidency before… ?

Scott- Don’t get me wrong. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. The media just isn’t very kind to him.

Maybe it’s just the fatigue of the informed, but right now I think I’d vote for a trained harp seal in an Eva Gabor wig just to make something happen that is different from the current administration.

Barack and Hillary are great choices (even if they aren’t as progressive or solid as Kucinich), but does THIS year have to be the year we cross our fingers and hope that America’s dissatisfaction with Bush is enough to overcome their other prejudices? Why not throw Barney Frank into the mix? Or maybe the senator who wanted to take the oath on the Koran (can’t think of his name atm)?

Note: I’m not saying that I hold these prejudices. I’m just not naive to think that they won’t play a large role in this next election.

Nicole-

How so? Because Obama is not my first candidate of choice? Did I ever say I hated him? No… I like him for the most part. In fact if he becomes the candidate for the Democrats, I will campaign for him.

If you want to make such inflammatory remarks, at least explain yourself or you are the one hiding behind a keyboard.

I could care less if he is your first candidate of choice. But when you justify not voting for him (to all of your readers), because America isn’t ready to get over its race issues, you must be responsible for those words. You are invoking fear into anyone who might have though about voting for him. Americans are very much victims of groupthink, and if you are going to blog in a public arena (the internet) - you should be more responsible. I would have never supported Joe Lieberman for President, and it had nothing to do with ‘Gee, I don’t think America is ready for a Jewish president’. If you don’t care for Obama’s policies, inexperience, etc. — Fine, then say so and present a credible argument. But the crap about America not being ready is tired, lame, overused and lazy. Also, the casual reader has no way of differentiating between if you are truly racist, and are playing off of people’s fears, or truly feel that way. In any event, it would serve everyone best to stick to the candidates’ platform and policies.

Nicole - In a country where issues of race, and for that matter, sexuality, are still causes of violence and discrimination and debates about Affirmative Action and Immigration, Same-Sex Marriage and other ethno-centric issues are still major hot buttons, to believe that America is “ready” to vote solely on the issues is naive and misguided. It is a very credible and real issue.

The fact that you are so quick to throw the word “racist” around without fully comprehending the intent of the statements made here just prove my point.

For the record, Barack does not support same sex marriage, his support of No Child Left Behind is somewhat questionable. He is not nearly as experienced as other candidates.

And like it or not, the fact that he is African American will play a major part in his elect-ability.

Personally, I’d support a black muslim polygamous lesbian in a wheelchair if she were willing to stand up for the same beliefs that I hold.

Nicole-

So if we acknowledge the facts, i.e. racism still exists in America today and could be a problem for a minority candidate, then we ourselves are racists?

I see no logic in that, but I’ll agree to disagree.

I think the fact that gay rights issues are so much more on the table this cycle compared to last shows significant improvement with the Democrats. I would guess that most of the Dems (if they never needed to win another election in their life) would probably publicly support gay marriage. Unfortunately, they probably believe doing so would cost them too many votes as is. Yes, it’s incredibly frustrating, especially for people whose lives these laws actually impact. By not speaking out, these candidates aren’t showing leadership, but perhaps they’re showing political expediency. Unfair and pessimistic, yes. But that seems like the sad reality.

I probably won’t be supporting Kucinich, but I like that he’s in the race to help keep the rest honest.

Kucinich will never get the nomination. Period. Why? He’s not a member of the “team”. He tells the truth. He’s too honest and humble. Remember our former governor Bruce Babbitt? Very similar. He told it like it was, and was shown the door when he ran. But, for what’s it worth, the next president will be a democrat. It makes no difference who runs on the Republican ticket, nor on the democratic. People are fed up with the lies, the ineptitude, the brash incompetence of the current leadership.

The fairness doctrine is unfair. Leftists want more voice on the air. Well, since most all print media and all three networks are so liberal, the right needs an outlet. CNN has been around longer than Fox, has more divisions, yet now has a lower audience count. Why? People are also fed up with the distortions and lies spread by the left. There’s a reason Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Medved, Dr. Laura, and many other right-wingers are so popular: they’re entertaining. Can’t say the same about anyone on Air America. Geez, I’m glad I’m a libertarian!

“They” say that voting for Kucinich is throwing your vote away, but the primaries are where we get to express our opinions to the greatest degree. Sure, Hillary or Obama may end up with the Democratic nomination, but if a large enough percentage of votes go to Kucinich they won’t be able to dismiss out of hand many of his sentiments. In 2004 I remember thinking that Edwards would’ve made a wonderful presidential candidate, and in fact during the debates looked and acted more presidential than any of the other jokers (including Kerry). Now, not so much. I don’t know what happened to him during the intervening years, but he’s just not rocking my world any more.

My 2-cents…

Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Medved and Dr. Laura are entertaining???? Really??? We as a society have fallen a LONG LONG way if we find such truly inflammatory, inaccurate HATE speech entertaining. Truly a sad commentary on Americans.

So, Marco, do you then believe it is not a form of hate speech to call a woman a slut, or to call a man (gay or straight) a fag? Do you find that to be entertaining? Do you think it is okay for a talk show host (liberal or conservative) to refer to hurricane victims as “scumbags”? How about a talk show host stating that they would like to kill a filmmaker? Is that okay? Is it great entertainment for you? Because these are all things that your “saner, more educated and reasonable conservative talk show host” Glenn Beck has said.

Dennis Prager’s comments regarding Ellison’s use of a Koran rather than a Bible surely didn’t promote intolerance for the Islamic faith. No, it didn’t do that because the people listening would certainly understand that he’s just making wild comments to “entertain” an audience. Right? Oh wait, the people who listen to these types of rantings are (in Marco’s own words) “the wackos, racists, homophobes and commies” of society. So lets just add some gasoline to the fire of their hatred. Let’s tell them that the forefathers of our constitution were just kind of “kidding around” when they put in the lines about separating church and state. Because, of course, every GOOD American follows the Bible to the letter. That’s why we have such “high moral values” being illustrated by all of our political leaders.

America was built upon the concept of diversity — we are, afterall, the “melting pot” nation. The diatribe that the majority of conservative talk show hosts spew is nothing more than prejudicial hate mongering. It is pandering to the religious right and it is harmful to society and to the United States of America as a whole.

Um, it’s too soon to pick a candidate.

~ducks back under desk~

What made Howard Dean “unelectable” happened before the infamous “scream”. On one of the Sunday talk shows (I can’t remember which one now… I’ve been racking my brain on it all afternoon) PRIOR to the scream, Dean was asked how he felt about the media monopolies that are so prevalent now. He stated that he would like to break them up. That began the downfall of Dean’s campaign which spiralled out of control after the scream. The media made and broke the Dean campaign, and they can do it again with any of the Presidential hopefuls now.

Thanks Scott. I agree with you. I am always amazed at the cynicism lined up against Kucinich by people who start off with “Well, he’s right on the issues…” and end up with “but he can’t get elected.” Those who vote in the primaries based on “electibility,” “stature” or “charisima” are really undermining our democracy because they are lying about their issues. If candidates are elected for any reason than the issues they espouse, then the people havn’t gotten the candidate who represents them on the issues. The voters have cheated not only themselves but everyone else. That defeats the whole purpose of democratic elections. The problem is we don’t vote for issues but personalities and the personalities are so phony because they are calculating what will get them elected in the game of appearances. Kucinich and Gravel are the only candidates who are speaking their minds based on what they truly believe. I prefer Kucinich’s enlightened awareness of the unity of humankind to Gravel’s libertarianism, but at least Gravel is honest, which the media darlings Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are not.
Based on the issues, Kucinich is the “gay” candidate, the “black” candidate, the “green” candidate and the “feminist” candidate. Yet the cynical media and fearful Democrats don’t give him a fair hearing, because in fact all those positions are threatening to the current two-party dictatorship in which the corporate plutocrats in control of both the Republicans and Democrats have joined forces to keep control of the political system every bit as rigorously as the communists control their one-party dictatorship in China.

[...] this online tool I reconfirmed that I most closely match Dennis Kucinich on his policies, and that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, [...]