Some Dean supporters in the comments have been accusing Kucinich supporters of being impractical idealists. They agree with Kucinich’s positions – or so they say – but they don’t think it’s a good idea to worry about ideals while Bush is in office. Be pragmatic, they say. (Stop being so selfish, they go on, verging into personal insults – but let’s not go there.)
The funny thing is, I think of myself as very pragmatic.
Here’s the thing – the pragmatic question for progressives right now is not “which candidate can beat Bush?” (Personally, I think that IF Bush loses, it’ll be the economy that beats him, not any particular candidate). The pragmatic question is – or should be – “what can I do to best guarantee that when Dean or whoever runs against Bush, progressives at least still have a seat at the table?”
The way to do that is NOT to join the DLC in declaring that progressive views are unelectable and should not even be considered.
I think the best way to support progressive views is to support Kucinich – but be pragmatic about it. Pragmatism tells us a few things:
1) Kucinich is almost certainly going to drop out of the race before the primary voting April.
1a) But the longer Kucinich stays in the race and the better he does before dropping out, the more reason the winning candidate – whoever that might be – has to include and pay attention to progressive views in his candidacy.
1b) The longer and better Kucinich stays in the race, the more plausible future progressive Democrats will seem when they run in future Democratic primaries.
1c) On the other hand, if even progressives are unwilling to support progressive candidates – not even nine months before the primaries, when supporting a progressive is perfectly safe – then that just proves Nader right: there is no place for progressives in the Democratic party.
2) On the very remote chance that Kucinich does not drop out before actual primary voting begins, it’s perfectly easy to switch to supporting Dean – or some other, more “electable” candidate – then.
2a) From a pragmatic point of view, it doesn’t matter much to Dean or any “electable” frontrunner if you support him now or not; they have all the support they need right now. That’s what makes Dean a frontrunner. It’s later on, when the voting crunch time comes, that your support really matters.
2b) If Dean (or whoever) is really incapable of winning the Democratic primary if progressives support Kucinich, then he’s incapable of winning against Bush, and the “electable” argument can’t be used to support his candidacy. Bush is a far tougher opponent to beat than Kucinich is (sad to say).
3) If you’re not willing to support progressive views now, you never will be willing to support a progressive candidate. There is no safer time to support a progressive than early in a primary race. If you can’t support progressives now, you can’t support them ever.
Conclusion: The pragmatic thing to do is support progressive views when you can, and support other candidates when you have to.
In March or April – come voting time – maybe progressive Democrats will have to support a non-progressive candidate, in the name of beating Bush. I might do so myself, when the time comes. But now is not that time. Refusing to support progressive candidates right now does nothing at all to hurt Bush; all it does is help push progressive views and candidates even further into irrelevancy..
Okay, I might be cynical, but I think the candidate who can raise the most money will win the election. That’s what happened in the last presidential election and that’s what happens in all the state gubernatorial elections. Policies are not the key issue, except to the extent that they influence people to donate. The money goes to advertising and visibility, and that is far and away more important than any other candidate characteristic.
If so, we are in very big trouble, check this out:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp
Open Secrets also reports that many Democratic donors are donating to more than one candidate, some are donating to five. People know this money thing is big, the problem is that the people with the biggest money vote Republican–and they vote with their wallets…
Great post, Barry. Very persuasive. In a comment I left on a previous Dean-Kucinich post, I mulled over such considerations. Especially since it’s so damn early, it does seem silly to stake our claims now. My support of Dean arises mostly from thinking post-primary season, thinking of the Democrat most needed to beat Bush. Yet your primary-oriented argument makes a lot of sense. From what I can tell, Dean is pliable enough (like a good “centrist”), so we need to keep tugging him. Supporting Kucinich is a way to keep him from lurching rightward to fend off the Lieberman/DLC assault.
Sidenote: Watching the conservo-pundit shows in preparation for my Coulter cartoon, I found it amusing to see a, ah, different perspective, so to speak, on Dean. Hannity wants the Dean nomination because, like Limbaugh, his ultra-right orientation perceives Dean as so far left as to be out of the mainstream of American thinking—which the Hannity-Limbaugh ego assumes is in line with their thinking. The conservo-pundits hold up Lieberman as The Legitimate Candidate, the one they say would have a better chance of beating Bush. Sounds like reverse psy-ops to me.
Excellent post Mr. Amp. Another example of how you can make your thoughts and opinions way more comprehensible than I can. Thank you.
I find myself agreeing vehemently with item # 3. Year after year I see the argument that we can’t support a progressive now. Maybe years down the line, but not now. It is always later. The point about early primary season is right on.
“Another example of how you can make your thoughts and opinions way more comprehensible than I can.”
What a poorly worded sentence. Can we add “make mine” to the end of that?
Thank you for your thoughtful, reasoned defense of progressive ideals. It’s a shame that so many Democrats place so little value in doing what is right over what is expedient.
Losing is bad. Winning without honor and principle is worse.
“Balance the cost of the soul you’ve lost with the dreams you’ve lightly sold.”
What if you’re a progressive who really doesn’t like Kucinich?
All of this assumes that amount of support in the primaries has no bearing on performance in the general. I don’t buy that assumption.
“If you’re not willing to support progressive views now, you never will be willing to support a progressive candidate.”
Untrue.
Another unstated assumption: that national elections are the place to work this out.
Supporting progressives in local elections is quite pragmatic and realistic and even has a shot at success, depending on how hard you’re willing to work. On a national scale, given the current climate, I’m still not convinced.
I only wish Kucinich would offer dollar figures for the price of the presidency he would like to run. My belief is that progressive ideals are pragmatic ones, because they’re far more economical than the spend-crazy notions of moderates like Dean or neocons like the Bush Gang, none of whom have any interest in decreasing the size of our military. The problem with progressives is that they tend to argue morality, and conservatives argue that the pocketbook is morality, and when all else is equal, voters choose the option that looks cheaper.
I supported similar arguments when Max Sawicky was making them just before the MoveOn ‘primary’ in June. I was delighted to see Kucinich get such a large share of that vote, and happy that those K. votes probably kept Dean from getting over 50% (because I think that committing to one candidate so early wouldn’t have been healthy for MoveOn).
But since then I’ve been looking hard at what working for Kucinich in pre-March primary states would really mean. The trouble is that in most states, candidates who get less than 15% of the primary vote get no convention delegates. That creates the risk of wasting a vote, and/or costing the other antiwar candidate a vote (many Kucinich voters’ second choice would be Dean
If there weren’t such a high cutoff, I’d work to get K. on the ballot* and get out the vote for him, feeling confident he’d likely pass his delegates on to Dean at convention crunch time. Dean has so many workers already that he’ll almost certainly be in the primary. But 15% or nothing — that’s a tough hurdle.
*Here in Virginia, signatures have to be collected in every Congressional district by December to put a candidate on the primary ballot. The primary is in mid-February, same day as Tennessee.
If Dean (or whoever) is really incapable of winning the Democratic primary if progressives support Kucinich, then he’s incapable of winning against Bush, and the “electable” argument can’t be used to support his candidacy.
If everyone’s voting their principles, I don’t see how that must be true; the principles of a majority of primary voters are not the principles of a majority of general election voters. Really, this is like saying that Riordan couldn’t beat Davis because he couldn’t beat Simon, or that McCain couldn’t have beaten Gore because he couldn’t beat Bush.
Point well taken, Drew.
I’ve been trying to tell my friends all summer to try their best to not even talk about electability until after Labor Day.
I ultimately may decide to vote for the person who is likeliest to beat Our Only President, but I don’t have to make that choice yet. Even if you are considering volunteering, or sending money, you have a while to decide.
At this point, though, it is very hard to talk about the campaign without talking about electability. My month-long attempt was very tough; I’ve given up on making it to Labor Day. It did show me how poor our political conversations are; it’s hard to talk at all seriously about the candidates as people, or even about their policies.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks,
-Vardibidian.
Hey, can’t we be honest and admit that, in today’s America, Kucinich could stand for whatever he wants to, but won’t win the election simply because he looks like a dried apple doll? It ain’t right, but it’s the truth.
Well, I would say that the leftmost front-running candidates are Kerry and Gephardt, and a policy-driven Kucinich supporter might find one of their platforms a logical choice if Kucinich left the race. Dean fans often say, rightly, that Dean is not a liberal, so I’m not sure why they’d expect Kucinich fans to choose him.
Edwards and Lieberman are the DLC candidates, and the DLC mainly attacks Dean and Kerry. They liked Dean as governor. I’m backing Kerry.
Terry: I’ve heard (possibly on this board somewhere?) that he won’t win because he has a funny name.
Makes about as much sense as anything else right now.
well, here’s the thing. actual primary voting begins in January, at least where I live (Iowa caucuses are Jan. 19 or 23, I can’t remember which.) Kucinich will almost certainly still be running. so what do I do then?
Thanks for posting this, Barry. You made some great points and I agree with you. If not now, when?
Amp’s a smart guy, of course, and it’s doubtless a typo, but still, what is it with bloggers misusing “whomever?” Drives me nuts (probably on account of it’s the sort of pretentious error that makes my mom the retired English teacher hurl obscenities at the TV). I keep vowing not to bother commenting about it, but I always weaken eventually, and end up not feeling particularly better for it.
Hey, can’t we be honest and admit that, in today’s America, Kucinich could stand for whatever he wants to, but won’t win the election simply because he looks like a dried apple doll?
I think he looks a lot like Ross Perot, actually.
Nice post, Barry. I completely agree with your third observation and conclusion.
For what it’s worth, David, I’ve corrected “whomever.” :-p Thanks for pointing it out.
These posts confuse me for a couple reasons:
1) It might be worthwhile to support Dean because he is more Liberal than, say, Graham or Edwards or Lieberman. If splitting the progressive vote between more leftward candidates means we get a more conservative candidate, it might not be a good idea. However, I don’t think we have to worry about that because their are plenty of “moderate” candidates and they’re mostly bad at campaigning (apparently).
2) Unless I am on a Lefty college campus, I am almost always considered the “Most Liberal/progressive” person present. So, it’s always wierd to encounter people who think I’m conservative because I’m more conservative than them. I’m not moderate, nor are many of the Dem candidates. Now, obviously you should still support Kucinich in the primary if you agree with his positions more. However, don’t paint all Liberals with a moderate brush just because they are more “Moderate/conservative” than you. I don’t think you, Ampersand, do this too much, but I have met Kucinich/Green supporters who do.
3) Progressives need to work on presenting a better plan of action. I haven’t read anything by Kucinich that amazed me. Meanwhile, many of the more “progressive” people I meet don’t seem very progressive at all. They fluctuate between nationalistic on trade, cosmopolitan on national security, ethnic chauvinisms, wierd interest group combinations, and strange arguments about commercialism. I happened to be in a cafe today where Kucinich supporters were planning their campaign. It was utterly unimpressive. They all seemed to be total pacifists (not something I’m down with), overly concerned about the environmental impact of leaflets for the candidate (ummm, yeah, running campaigns have costs, sorry about that), debating the importance of animal rights (interesting, but I don’t see it catching fire with the rest of the country when people have trouble getting by), etc. They played wierd music with a voice over about the evils of Iraq war which actually managed to ignore American casualities as a downside. One person kept talking about how they needed a person to leaflet the South East for “cultural diversity” in a wierd tone, which was annoying because she clearly meant black people. Wierd.
Now, I actually think if you support Kucinich, you should support Kucinich. Ampersand, I find you to be the best voice for “Progressivism” I can think of. I would love to hear more about what concrete policies Progressives would enact rather than simply why NAFTA was bad, etc. I guess my only comment is, give me a real reason to vote Kucinich. Explain the positive differences between him and the other dems in a way that might be convincing. Also, progressives need to articulate a viable alternative to say NAFTA, the WTO, etc. Progressives need to explain how they see the world economy being structured. I still don’t get it, and most of the “progressives” I meet seem too focused on explaining the failings of Democrats rather than articulating plausible alternatives.
Great post!
Point 1c is one I would really like people to take a long hard look at. The DLC is discounting progressives and the best way to fight that to support progressives with vigor. There are a lot of untapped votes out there just waiting for a Kucinich. The DLC fails to see that.
I think that over the last 25 years, the Democrats have taken their core constituency — the progressives — or the “Left” for granted and tried to aim their message at a mythical “Center.” The Republicans in the mean time, have carefully cultivated their core constituency — the religious right — and the conservatives. This has led to a President being “un” elected with the vote of less than 18% of eligible voters.
This is because droves of people have abandoned the Democratic Party. Do you think that they vote for the Republicans? No! they don’t vote at all, because they think that neither party represents them, and they refuse to vote for the “better” of the two evils. Thus only 60 % of eligible voters register to vote, and about 60 % of the registered voters end up voting. Only a progressive candidate can mobilize these “non voters” to vote. The reason Nader did not get votes was not because he did not represent a popular view, but rather that he was not running on a Democratic party slate.
In my opinion, the progressives are better off with Kucinich — primarily because every progressive -even Dean supporters- say that Kucinich better reflects their views. The Democrats will never win by taking the DLC route — namely veer to the right — because if they do so, we are back to 30% of the eligible voters turning out.
If I believe that the person who reflects my views best is un electable, then I will not go out to vote anyway. I will be acting as Gephart did when he missed the vote on the medicare bill (Remember that the bill passed by one vote — and Kucinich voted against it) — his words “My vote didn’t matter anyway – if I had been there, the Republicans would have gotten somebody to come and vote to nullify my vote” This is the same defeatist attitude I see in most progressives today.
Therefore in my view the only person who will bring out the voters to the polling place – particularly those who have in the past believed that both parties are shilling for the corporate rich – is a person who they believe reflects their views, and has a history of taking their side. This to me at least has been and is Dennis Kucinich. People may also want to read the following article
The Fire This Time: Why Kucinich May be the Right Guy at the Right Time
http://soli.inav.net/~njohnson/kucinich/welch.html
Well, I think it’s perfectly fine to support Kucinich as long as he’s in the Democratic race. I do think Dean is a perfectly fine progressive liberal candidate and one I would happily vote for. I would happily cast a vote for Kerry, Kucinich or Dean in the primary. In the general, I will vote for any Democrat – even Lieberman (eek!) to defeat Bush — since as far as he is from my positions, he much, much closer than Bush.
What I question is the idea that DLC approved candidates can win. Their strategist lead the disastrous 2000 election so that Gore’s victory was so small the GOP could steal the presidency. Lieberman’s weaseling on the post-election vote counting cost Gore any chance of winning and set the apologetic, excuse me–but maybe we won–tone of the vote count struggle. They lead us into worse disaster in 2002 — with the GOP taking over everything…because they were unwilling to attack Bush or effectively oppose him. They lead us to the Senate takeover in 2000 and the House takeover in 1994. If the DLC had not pushed for the inept Clinton Plan and then sandbagged it when it unveiled, the GOP would have never won in 04. The DLC are the losers — and the only reason they have the reputation of being electable is that Clinton won elections — but he didn’t use DLC rhetoric to win. The DLC should stand for the Democractic Losers Caucus, but their cozy with the press and have an undeserved and inaccurate reputation for winning.
IT was the DLC decision to tell DeFazio he wouldn’t get a dime if he ran for senate and to put up that Mentor Graphics candidate who was an unknown that got us Gordon Smith in the Senate….that’s the typical idiocy of the DLC. It was their decision to not fund Bradbury’s campaign – effectively ceding Oregon to Smith for another 6 years. If the were noted for their track record, they would be gone by now instead of killing off the Democratic power bit by bit. Honestly, how many wonder if the DLC is really a caucus of GOP pod people?
Kija, in one of his last *Nation* columns, Christopher Hitchens claimed that the DLC was founded by a group of Dems who once went under the rubric Democrats For Nixon, and campaigned for him for both his first and second terms. Yeah, Hitchens is insane and I have no idea if this can be verified, but it gives one pause, eh ?
I think Clonal Antibody brings up a good point. I know that in the last election, many (if not most) of the people I knew that voted for Nader had not voted for [i]years[/i] before that (some for as long as 20 years or more). They were not registered, they did not vote. But they actually went out and registered just so they could vote for Nader — why, because there was someone they could vote for because they believed he was a good candidate, not because he was the “lesser of 2 evils.”
I know a lot of people don’t vote because they’re apathetic. But, let’s face it, there are a hell of a lot of non-voters out there who don’t vote because they refuse to vote for someone who who doesn’t represent their views. Maybe if the Democrats would start nominating candidates that did reflect their views, a hell of a lot more people would be voting.
I do know this, if Kucinich is nominated, I’d definitely vote. If Dean or Kerry is nominated, I’d probably vote. If Lieberman is nominated — I sure as fuck won’t be voting for him. I’ll either vote Green or Socialist or not at all.
That makes sense to me (to a point). However, I think that the playing field is different this election. Although it’s almost becomming a cliché, I do believe that Dean has entered uncharted territory with how this election is going to be run and won.
Now, on another note, I saw Kucinich on CSPAN during an AFL/CIO (I think I got that right) democratic debate, and Kucinich was the biggest (or smallest as it might be) ninny up there. He seemed to speak more from a bad Mexican dinner, than from anything that he truly believed. In fact, he spent most of his time unfairly attacking Gephart and Dean, and less time on any plausible policies.
Jon,
I suggest you watch the following
http://www.kucinich-washington.org/videos/kucinich_seattle.asf?PHPSESSID=248414c3c3a37d2cc01e06c3a448883f
or any of the pieces linked at
http://www.fluxrostrum.com/MindFlux/DennisKucinich/kucinich.htm
You should also look at two articles
the meeting Dennis section in
http://truthout.org/docs_03/080703A.shtml
and
http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/006203.php#more
Here are some more very persuasive articles as to why Kucinich should be supported
http://soli.inav.net/~njohnson/kucinich/jcox0711.html
http://soli.inav.net/~njohnson/kucinich/dkorhd.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0309/ridgeway.php
I have been fortunate enough to hear all the primary candidates except Lieberman and Graham at live events. (And I have heard altogether too much from Lieberman anyway!). I do think how a person communicates will affect their electibility and that it’s an important consideration. I am no expert because I find Bush’s nasality and whiny tone much more irritating that Gore’s droning condescension. I also have always been creeped out by Reagan, whose voice makes me think of a child molester — all breathy and faux tender. I actually get goose bumps when I hear his voice — the creeped out goose bumps. So, I don’t perceive the candidates the way the average american does…
I’ll grant that! But I have to confess Kucinich is really irritating and grating on the ears. He shouts when he should speak. There’s feedback from his over-enthusiastice volume! He makes my head hurt. How can he win nationally when he gives you a headache after 15 minutes?
And Edwards will put you to sleep in less than 10!!
I used to like Kucinich a lot, but I learned he’s not all that progressive, not very honest on some of his record, and … well check this:
Chart contrasting Kucinich and Dean
DtM:
Your chart would be a lot more credible without the commentary. “Grandstanding…” “Leading to chaos….” and so on are a huge turn-off & detract from the appearance of credibility. I’m not saying that you are not credible, just that you appear to be a Dean supporter and, as such, anything on the chart needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
May I suggest that you remove your commentary from your comparison chart? And place it in a commentary section afterwards? You might be a lot more convincing that way.
Also, your chart is plainly dishonest. For instance, to report DK’s past positions on abortion – but not report his more recent positions – is lying through omission.
I’m more or less supportive of Dean, and there’s a mildly good chance I’ll vote for him (it’s way too early to know for sure). That his supporters include liars like the folks who produced this chart, however, is a reason not to vote for Dean.
Leaving aside the problems I have with Dean’s sovereignty record, I just can’t see why Progressives think that he’s at all one of them. How can someone who supported a balanced budget amendment be considered anything but to the right of, well, Hoover. People need to actually sit back and THINK about the pain artificially balancing budgets cause. The most vulnerable are hurt by the severe cuts in social programs which always ensue. For example, here in Maine, respite care is now gone, in-home care will run out for most families within weeks, all because of the requirement to balance the state’s budget.
Dean balanced the budget in Vermont in the early 90s even though he was not constitutionally required to do so. Now, from an economic viewpoint, maybe it was eventually a good thing as he got the bond rating increased, yadda, yadda, but don’t even begin to think that the poor, disabled and elderly were not devastated by those cuts, and at one point Dean actually had the gall to publicly mock the poor (stating if the poor had any self esteem, they’d be working.) He was an avid advocate of “Workfare”, supported raising the retirement age and was an active member of the DLC while governor. He even praised NAFTA to the rafters, until it became an albatross around his neck in front of the Progressive crowd. People should read the editorials from the early-mid 90s in Vermont papers – lots of tears from social advocates.
Why is it in the blogosphere that being “socially liberal” balances out being “fiscally conservative”? I grew up in such a household, and it was called Rockafeller Republicanism (well, my dad at least – mom was a rabid Dem.) The Progressives in Vermont were so alienated by Dean’s economic plans, as well as his getting in bed with the energy companies and big business that they ran their own candidates and got nearly 10% of the vote in 2000.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t support Dean if they like that kind of social liberal/fiscal conservative split. But why does anyone think that the liberal portions of his agenda, all of which cost money, are going to addressed when he institutes his balance-the-budget austerity program?
But to get back to the original issue, while I agree that Progressives should support Progressive candidates such as Kucinich so as to influence the national debate, I also think it smart for Progressives to join more centrist campaigns to attempt to sway the candidates to the Left as well. This is one reason I’m working for Edwards (although I have no problem with a whole slew of Edwards’ economic and social proposals, many of which are well to the left of Dean’s, including his views of healthcare reform, which call for removing the anti-trust provisions and rejecting malpractice caps, both of which Dean has always supported.)
It might not the place for a foreginer to speak out but I am doing it in anyway…
Listening to the arguments I wonder if Americans are still holding your great Mojo. The frontier spirit that elected an independent president, and send men to the moon. If Kucinich is your vote from the heart, you should vote for him. Why do you spend so much energy in hypothetical situation of future senarios and then vote from your head?
Was not Jimmy Carter as obscure as Kucinich at this point of the game?
Also, IMFHO (F stands for foreign), among 9 canditates, Kucinich is the only one who has a chance to beat Bush. Bush is a giant of existing system which is: huge money, advertisement campaign to hypnotise audience, etc.
In other words, he is a master of corporate style election. Any canditates who play the same corporate sytle election game will be out-gunned, and thus readliy defeated by Bush.
The only way to defeat Bush is to become anti-Bush. Policy, Style, strategy, integrity, everything must be opposite of Bush. Reject corporate money, use grass-route techinque with eager volunteers gaining votes by person-to-person contacts. Anti-war protests in this spring has awaken the mass and have them realized what power they really have. Without tapping this power, Bush and corporate money will win.
Kucinich proved his integrity during his tenur as a mayor. What he has done was a very coragous thing. He stands out from the pack as the man of principle among the men of compromises. All other canditates would accept corporate money and play Bush’s game, but Kucinich is playing a game of his own. That is the only way to unseat Bush. Eight dwarves of Bush’s game has no chance.
The reality is that Americans vote first for who is charismatic and has an element of cowboy-like machismo. Secondly Americans vote policies.
Kucinich is Dukakis-like in the machismo department and has no chance of winning.
He is clearly the progressive left wing candidate
and Dean is clearly a Clinton-like moderate who has some of the same kind of charisma with additional agressiveness. People are in fear of terrorism and this gives them a sense of security.
If you are a progressive the first priority is to get Bush out of office. Dean is the most likely candidate despite the dream of a having a Nader or Kucinich as president
In response to Kija, I would like people to look at two further comparisions of Dean vs Kucinich comparisions
http://soli.inav.net/~njohnson/kucinich/dkorhd.html
http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html
Hey, can’t we be honest and admit that, in today’s America, Kucinich could stand for whatever he wants to, but won’t win the election simply because he looks like a dried apple doll?
Right, and Dean is such a hottie. /sarcasm
Frankly, none of the candidates are very good looking…and we all know people go at least partly by looks, when they’re confused by the issues. Remember that one King of the Hill episode where Hank was all set to vote for Dubya because he wore a red tie, but changed his mind because the man had a wussy handshake?
So, if we go by looks:
1. Bush. Looks like Alfred E. Neuman only with gray hair and more evil. Has also been compared to a chimpanzee.
2. Dean. Appears to have no neck. Sweats profusely. Sounds like the mayor on ‘Family Guy.’ Balding.
3. Kucinich. Still has all his hair, though it’s hard to tell if it’s dyed or natural. ‘Dried apple doll’ – but he’s still one of the youngest candidates. Vegan, so he’s unlikely to have multiple heart attacks like, say, Cheney(thank God that man was never President.)
4. Kerry. Nasty looking toupee, or else he’s trying for a Conan o’Brien pompadour and missing horribly. Looks like a soap opera character to me.
5. Leiberman. I’ve seen better skin on an elephant’s butt.
6. Clark. I’m not sure what to think of this guy as I haven’t seen many pix yet. But I’ve heard that human rights groups want him tried for war crimes.
So…there’s the looks assessment: They’re all pretty much average looking old guys. Level playing field as far as I’m concerned. But I’m voting for Kucinich because if we don’t make our views known with our votes, then what the hell do we have votes for?
Darkwillow, not bad. I see a future for you in the media empire once we depose Rupert Murdoch and replace it with a human.
Though I think “ahhhh… Art Garfunkel’s turned shrunken and eeeeeeeeevil !!!” every time I see Lieberman’s pan. Though it would be an important symbolic victory if you could prove that he reakkt *was* swaddled in elephant skin…
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Pacific Views