Solomon hit it on the head: Kucinich backed the wrong candidate. Once it become clear that Al Gore was not going to run, I became a strong supporter of Edwards. If you're from IOWA, and were going to caucus for Kucinich, I strongly suggest that you caucus for Edwards, instead.

Solomon, you are well-named...

It is good to see some reasonable heads prevail. Kucinich has been fuming ever since Edwards called him "cute" in response to one of his glib one-liners.

I'm one of those who has always agreed with Kucinich, his policies have always been so close to my own, but for some reason could never support him politically, with the same passion I had for Dean, and now for Edwards.

Now I know why.

As for Edwards being the "most improved" progressive, I will add that at least he is willing to admit he is wrong and change his course for the better. Obama has consistently back-pedalled from his supposed progressive roots to entice Republicans and independents to his floating cause.

And Hillary has been hitched at the hip to the anti-progressives since she was elected to the Senate.

So Edwards is the only one of the three left who represents what we all believe in, if not completely, at least in a big part.

I think this support for Obama, stems from that little open mike chat Edwards had with Rupert Murdoch's Lunch mate, Hillary....That conversation was in contempt of Democracy and the right of the People to decide...WE PICK OUR CANDIDATES...NOT THE CANDIDATES, OR THE CORPORATE MEDIA!!!!!! That being said, I'm willing to give Edwards a second chance, despite what Dennis Say's, based on Edwards pprogressive credentials in other areas....IF YOU ASK ME, WE HAVE TOO MANY POLITICIANS, EVEN THE GOOD ONES, WHO THINK IT'S ALRIGHT TO SET THE CONSTITUTION ASIDE AND WHEEL AND DEAL IN SMOKE FILLED ROOMS....OUR LAWS ARE ABSOLUTE AND THEY APPLY TO EVERYONE!!!!!!

Mr Solomon, you are right on the money. Kucinich has made an irrational and quite frankly repugnant choice. IF he was going to sink, and I was not so certain of that, his choice of Obama is simply the wrong one to make to folks to whom his ideas appealed. If this is truly spawned out of pique as some suggest I would not want him as president. If not, his slogan about being right has been called into serious question. Edwards is now "the man".

Norman Solomon quotes an Edwards publicity flyer, which I have received: "Corporate greed has infiltrated everything that's happening in this democracy. It's time for us to say, 'We're not going to let our children's future be stolen by these people.' I have never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist or a special interest PAC and I'm proud of that."

This is not true, as near as I can make out. According to opensecrets.org, Edwards has taken $18,900 from "lobbyists" during the current election cycle (compared with about $75,000 for Obama and a whopping $568,000 for Clinton) as of October. Unless he's defining lobbyists in a different way, he's taken a dime from them. All of the candidates have taken legal contributions from various industries using the loopholes available (maybe not PACs, but the moral equivalent). Overall, Edwards seems to specialize in contributions from lawyers and law firms rather than the health care industry or insurance, for whatever that's worth.

Both Obama and Edwards are still pretty vague on health care, trade and the war, compared to Kucinich. Whatever Kucinich calls for Iowans to do is a local political strategy rather than a genuine statement on the issues, and I too am sorry he decided to favor Obama over Edwards. I intend to vote for Kucinich in the New Hampshire primary because I want his consistently progressive ideas to prevail, and I'm not as sure as Mr. Solomon that Edwards is more progressive than Obama overall, based on conversations with them and their supporters here in NH. If I lived in Iowa, I'd still caucus for Kucinich and let the rest of the evening take its course based on which of my neighbors favored which second choice. I certainly wouldn't change my first choice.

While Norman Solomon's essay is pursuasive, I would not give up on Dennis Kucinich just because of his endorsement Obama as the second choice for his supporters in Iowa. Dennis is no fool, and no doubt there is a rationale basis for his choice. We will probably learn more in the weeks ahead.
While Edwards is my second choice, Dennis continues to be the candidate I will support and work for here in California. The progressive left of the Democratic party has no better standard bearer than him and to the extent we gain him delegates to the convention we know that our views will be well represented and with any luck adopted by the nominees and platform.
While Edwards has staked out a position against corporate dominance, he comes lately to the position. Dennis' track record is indisputably consistent for his entire life.
Roland Finston, Palo Alto
PDA sustainer

Right on Mr. Solomon! I've been an admirer of Kucinich for a long time but my choice for the Democratic Nominee has been Edwards since day one. I think it is a mistake to take a risk at this most important time in our Country's history, that we are ready for a minority candidate be it a woman or a minority race. John Edwards is principaled and has good practical ideas that will get this Country moving in the right direction again. I believe that he has the strength to do right for all; The average American, the poor, minorities, our soldiers sent to fight a bad war and he will help improve our World image. We need a person who understands the needs of the common working person and I think Edwards is that man; I don't think that it is just rhetoric, he really believes in fairness and improving the daily lives of all Americans. That combined with his willingness to get us out of this War asap will make him a great President. Let's all hope that most people can see through the media's pushing of Obama and Clinton and give Edwards his due.

Well, he ain't no saint after all. Dennis has now proven himself to be as full of ego as any politician we have ever known. That's no problem for those of us who knew this all along. They're all just politicians and getting elected is the name of the game. That being acknowledged - whatever his pique is at Edwards - it does not trump the Progressive Movement's need for the most Progressive candidate. Obama is a DLCer to the core. Edwards is on a strong left turn trajectory. This was a sad epitaph to a noble campaign. So, bye bye Dennis... you were strong on the issues but weak on the Movement. One last remaining contest for Dennis is to watch and see if he will turn over his mailing list and extra funds at the end of all of this to PDA to help build the Progressive Movement. That would be redeeming.

I think Dennis Kucinich gave up on John Edwards, by urging support for Barack Obama, and that just strikes me as wrong, any way you cut it. When John Edwards has been given the microphone, he has challenged corporate greed and the wholesale selling of our government to big business, and for that I support him. I want that voice to win.

Norman Solomon has it right again! It was extremely disappointing to hear Dennis Kucinich ask his supporters to back Obama. After studying the top three candidates and their recent statements, it is clear that John Edwards has the best policies for progressives. His stance on bringing home the troops and healthcare are clearly more progressive than Obama. It is time to get a leader in the White House that will work for the people. At a cost of $400.00 per voter in Iowa, we all need to be working on making Clean Money a reality.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Solomon. Despite the fact that Dennis Kucinich is a true public servant and has a proven, long-term progressive voting record, his appeal to followers (to support Obama) shows that either he has been too busy to really scrutinize Obama's record or he feels that Obama has the best chance of winning. We already know that most of the corporate media has shut out adequate and fair coverage of candidates who represent progressive change, and we know that they love Hillary (because she represents no change from business as we now have it). Despite the fact that Kucinich has been the leading candidate in several independent, progressive polls, it is obvious that the American people will not be "buying" him as their presidential choice. Of the three frontrunners, the one individual who has shown a committed support of progressive issues is Edwards, despite the fact that these may differ from stances he may have taken in his past. I believe that his family's personal experiences, his negative experiences (with Kerry and with voting irregularities) in the last presidential election, and the fact that he is nowing running for national office (rather than in one southern state) have helped to create a more passionate and progressive populist. I agree that he is clearly our best choice.

HELLO?!?!?!
Has anyone heard of Governor Bill Richardson?!?!
My dream ticket would have been Richardson/ Kucinich.
I would urge you all to look at Gov. Richardson's website and see what a truly QUALIFIED candidate looks like. Bill Rihardson has the experience and background to Face the disaster BushCo has left us, and really do the housecleaning necessary to bring positive change

Edwards, Obama and Clinton? Status Quo, offering nothing of real substance that differs from GOP. The GOP is going to hand them the reins and then blame them for the whole mess as they struggle to pander to GOP interests in the interest of re-election. Richardson and Kucinich are the only candidates who offer anything substantially different form business as usual.

Come on people! Do you really give up on the one man who stands for everything we believe in that easily?

I'm voting for Kucinich anyway, and anyone who changed their mind because of his asking his supporters to vote Obama as SECOND CHOICE should re-think. Kucinich is smart-- do not doubt the man who has stood up for us so many times before. Also do not forget Edwards and Clinton trying to shut "lesser" candidates (like Kucinich) out of the debates.

I would presume that Kucinich's thinking is along the lines of if Obama gets the nomination, maybe he'll appoint Kucinich to his cabinet. Maybe this isn't what Dennis has up his sleeve, but I assure you whatever it is, the man is fearless, intelligent, and won't give up-- so you shouldn't either.

But one this IS for sure: (THIS IS BIG FOLKS, DON'T MISS THIS!)

IMPORTANT: NEWS FLASH: HEADLINE: An Obama administration with Kucinich in the cabinet is WAY (WAY, WAY) better than an Edwards but Kucinich-less administration could EVER be.

I agree with askantik for the most part but I've got to say that I don't trust Edwards at all.He may
be saying some decent things now but Johnny come lately hasn't walked the walk.

Dennis is proven over and over again.

Having endorsed Kucinich, I'm extremely disappointed that PDA felt it necessary to revoke that endorsement because they did not agree with Kucinich's "second choice." Switching their endorsement to a "viable" candidate couldn't wait until after the primaries? What happened to voting our conscience on issues? Did anyone at PDA talk with Kucinich about his reasoning before coming out with this condemnation? Unbelievable.

I'm voting my conscience. I've been for Edwards all along.

NUTS! ON BOTH MEN! KUCINICH IS CRAZY, FIRED AS MAYOR FOR OUTRAGE TO HIS UNREAL PROPOSALS. EDWARDS MADE ALL HIS $$$$ SUING DOCTORS. HE WANT SOCIALISM PLUS.
INCLUDING THE DISASTER OF "FREE" MEDICAL CARE. BOTH HAVE ZERO EXPERIENCE & WILL SAY ANOTHING. DISHONORABLE & VERY LEFTIST. NEITHER HAS SUPPORT FROM U.S. CITIZENS.

migtex1234 should try decafe. I, for one, much prefer socialism to what we have today. Norman Soloman has it exactly right, I was really disappointed when I read the Kucinich appeal to his supporters. Just when you believe some one is above cheap politics something like this comes along.
Shame on Dennis, he has seriously damaged himself. If I was in Iowa I would just skip over Kucinich and vote for my 'OWN' second choice!!!

People are free to arrive at their own conclusions. “Their own conclusions” is the operative phrase.

What rarely gets mentioned is that all the candidates (with the exception of Kucinich) draw many of their advisors from the same rancid Washington, D.C.-insider cesspool. There are ex-military hawks. There are NAFTA and unfettered free trade lovers. There are neoliberal/neoconservative (hard to tell one from the other) champions of anti-worker globalism. There are advocates for the for-profit health care industry. These advisors have one thing in common. Like Dick Morris, they will pledge allegiance to whomever buys it until someone else comes along and ups the ante. Then whoof! They’ll disappear like smoke (and mirrors) only to re-appear in another campaign offering lame excuses for ditching the first one.

Sorry folks, that’s the way it is.

Big money and a corporate media that filters the news it wants us to hear are running the show, and the whole electoral process is designed to limit our choices.

As a Kucinich supporter the best counsel I can give myself is to refrain from searching for pop-psychology “reasons” for Kucinich making the statement he did. I am neither a reader of crystal balls nor qualified to read minds. I’m choosing to continue to support the Kucinich candidacy, and if that ultimately leads to another candidate so be it. Kucinich - I trust - has a plan.

In 2008 the next president of the United States of America will be a representative of neoliberalism or neoliberalism-lite, or an out and out neoconservative.

When I hold my nose and vote it will be for someone who I believe will do the least damage to the 90% of us who make up working class America. (Republicans automatically exclude themselves from consideration.)

Like I said, sorry folks, that’s the way it is...and will continue to be until we “mortals” decide to take our country back.

I have heard all of the talk about supporting the true "progressive" dem and supporting the dem who can "win" (conventional wisdom varies widely on which candidate fits that label) but I have finally decided that I want a candidate who is inspirational in his speaking ability, doesn't have a lot of baggage from inside the beltway, one who can write their own book without a ghost writer, one has seen the world beyond upper middle class America most recently, and one who has overcome challenges presented by a "foreign sounding name" and a skin color different than the majority of Americans. I believe John Edwards will make a great attorney general in the Obama administration and Dennis will make a fantastic secretary of health and human services.

Let's not do what Nader did in 2000 and water down the chances of winning in 2008. Better to have a candidate who intellectually agrees with most of our progressive positions than to sabotage our chances by nominating someone who is not as gifted.

The note from Norman Solomon had so much good content! If only John Edwards were so coherent, I'd actively support him in a heart beat. But unfortunately, for many moons now, I've been getting emails that open with mind-numbing fluff like this:

From the Bus: I thought you would enjoy seeing some pictures ...
Last Day, can we make it?: Small change for big change ...
Don't miss ...: John Edwards is crisscrossing the Granite State ...
America Rising: If you could be in Iowa with me right now ...
Running Track: When I was in high school ...
Telling it like it is: ... we're just 34 days from the Iowa caucuses ...
Shaking in their boots: "The one that scares me is Edwards ..."

If the Edwards camp went in for straight talk about what's crucial, I think they'd do a lot better.

I've always respected Soloman's opinions, and his recommendation sounds fairly well thought. HOWEVER, it gets tiring to get conflicting info as to who is the best of the big $3.

Kucinich's voting record and his stances have been impeccable; Edward's have not. Listen to the "new" Edwards and you hear a lawyer who is able to sound like they are a "populist." Do I prefer him over Obama? I'm still not sure one is better than another.

You can back up either guy as an agent of change and I guess I really do prefer the populist message over the religious-tints that I hear in Obama, but PDA should stick with it's original candidate (whom a majority supported) through thick and thin before choosing a 2nd.

Two questions about Edwards.
1) Can we trust him to follow through on at least some of the anti-corporate pro-labor statements he has made over the past 6 months?

2) Why doesn't he support single-payer health care? It's a clear anti-corporate position that is fairly easy to explain and is bound to attract a lot of public support.

Somebody mentioned advisors as the best indicator of what a candidate might do after he/she is in office.

Who are the health-care advisors for Obama and Edwards?

I too was very disappointed when I heard Dennis's suggestion to Iowans to vote for Obama on the second round of their caucuses. I'm not sure how caucuses work but apparently if candidates don't get 15% of the vote on the first round they are no longer viable.

I think Dennis just told Iowans to support Obama on the 2nd round of the caucuses, knowing he himself didn't have enough support because he'd been kept out of the debates and the Demoines Register was pitching against him.

I think he chose Obama because according to the polls Obama and Hillary are in a dead heat and he was trying to break Hillary's lead- Just guessing but that's the political way of thinking...

I'm sure he's still expecting to do well in all the other Primaries where he's been allowed to campaign on the issues - because he's right!

Vote your conscience in the Primaries. You may not have a choice in November.

Shirley

Kucinich did not endorse Obama, the Iowa caucus is all about politics, he may think he's got the least chance to do well, or the best chance to beat Hillary!

From a friend to all Edwards afficianadoes:

http://nextpresidentofusa.com/conmanjohn.html
Did you know that John Edwards convinced the Senate Democrats to vote for war?
Do you know Edwards' nickname, 'Nuclear Johnny'?
Did you know that Edwards was one of the strongest advocates of the Patriot Act?
Did you know that John Edwards was a big proponent of Homeland Security?
Did you know that John Edwards has the worst environmental record of any Democratic Presidential candidate in this century?
Did you know that Edwards plans to give your health care money to the insurance companies while leaving you uncovered?
Did you know that Edwards makes money from mortgage foreclosers?

Did you know that Edwards represents the rich America and considers middle class American folks to be "slummy?"

Did you know that Edwards makes money off poor people?

Did you know that Edwards was the son of a mill manager? Not the son of a mill worker.

Did you know that, for John Edwards, $400 is a lowcost haircut?

Did you see the video of John Edwards stabbing a close friend in the back?

Did you know that John Edwards used his wife's cancer to promote his campaign while cheating on her?

John Edwards is not a true progressive taking on corporations. If he was truly taking on corporations, he would protest the corporate-controlled media's lockout of half the Democratic field from the Jan. 5th ABC/WMUR New Hampshire debate. Even Hillary Clinton issued a statement about that, as did Obama. Edwards did not issue a statement, and said he'd stay out of it. Some fighter against corporations ...

When you have only one true progressive candidate in the race -- Kucinich -- and a bunch of non-progressives, the choice of who to support has been and remains easy. That Kucinich gave advice to Iowa supporters to caucus for Obama as second choice is a completely bogus reason not to vote for Kucinich, and sounds like more of an excuse than anything else. Obama is more progressive than Edwards on some issues (like the debate), and Edwards is more progressive than Obama on other issues.

But neither of them is a progressive on enough issues to earn my vote. Only Kucinich is.

I'm very saddened and conflicted today.

I have long supported and defended Dennis Kucinich and expect I will always appreciate his steadfast courage and actions speaking truth to power. His recognition of the need to stop our Congress from backing the neo-con conspiracy to force the "benchmark", corporate-friendly hydrocarbon law on the Iraqi parliament and his call to impeach Cheney for his massive crimes against the Constitution are singularly crucial to supporting the very concept of justice. We all owe Dennis our gratitude. He is a leader with integrity standing high above his opportunistic colleagues.

But circumstances have converged to undermine my confidence. I just finished reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine", and it has had a profound effect on me, illuminating a wider arena of our political circumstance than I knew existed and confirming many of my greatest fears. Some of those fears, ironically, had been brought to my attention by Dennis Kucinich. Free-market corporate control through forced privatization is the essence of both the proposed "Iraq oil and gas law" which Dennis exposed on the floor of the House in a historic hour last May, and the decades-long disaster capitalist conspiracy detailed in Naomi's stunning compilation.

I guess I must have been in denial since Dennis proposed a cross-party ticket with himself and Ron Paul about a month ago, a slip I couldn't let interfere with my appreciative loyalty to one who carries the banner for progressivism. I was aware of Paul's Libertarian position and often tried to wake up his zombie-like followers, who appear ready to follow him blindly into ridding our society of any vestige of social justice as a side-effect of their honest zeal to quit our involvement in Iraq and disastrous free-market agreements. Maybe he was mis-quoted, or I didn't really read that. After all, they're diametrically opposed on health-care and tax reform. Can't be.

I didn't even rationalize it. I just denied it.

Now this. Throw support to Obama over Edwards? To say Edwards has a flawed record is an understatement. But to compare Obama's regrets for his faults to Edwards' honest contrition on Iraq and the bankruptcy bill, well, Obama seems to have no regrets for comparison, yet his short record certainly has much cause for regret. There is no single issue on which Obama is more progressive than Edwards. Yes, both are flawed candidates, but now, clearly, so is Dennis Kucinich.

This could have left me at quite an impasse, but I was really awakened by Norman Solomon's comments today, and one in particular, "Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads."

Edwards is challenging power. He recognizes the dangers of oil dependence and global climate change. Edwards is pointing to excessive corporate influence as he appeals for economic justice. He is openly challenging the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. If he hasn't read "The Shock Doctrine", he is channeling it's warnings.

Thank you Naomi, thank you Norman, and thank you Dennis. I won't forget you, but it's that crossroads where I must re-assess which road I should take. More than one has promise for real progress, but I can't afford another breakdown on this journey.

All of you who are turning on Dennis Kucinich should be ashamed of yourselves. I believe in Dennis, unlike the rest of you fair weather supporters. In case you've forgotten, Dennis IS still running for President. Why should he tell his supporters to back Edwards and thereby sabotage his chances to be competitive in the races going forward? Also, have you forgotten how Edwards was overheard conspiring with Clinton to exclude "second tier" candidates such as Dennis from future debates? Is that the progressive guy you're backing while stabbing Kucinich in the back? It's no wonder that people like Dennis don't get elected and instead you settle for a centrist senator who's now talking the talk (at the 11th hour), and you all fall for it, hook line and sinker. You all deserve whatever you get. I'm sticking with Dennis.

WTF! When Kucinich won the PDA poll, he barely got a nod. Now I get an e-mail from PDA endorsing another candidate because Norman Solomon doesn't agree with Dennis Kucinich on a relatively minor campaign decision. This feels terribly disingenuous, especially if we're expected to believe PDA is actually dedicated to democracy.

You will recall that at this point in the campaign four years ago, Kucinich asked his supporters to vote for Edwards if they failed to get 15% for Kucinich on the first round. If I got the facts straight, Edwards had agreed to ask his people to do the same for Kucinich, but never did. That would help to explain why he went with Obama this year.

I don't know for sure how Dennis made this decision. I may easily be wrong. But Norman Solomon may be wrong, too, and he's using our organizational letterhead to publicize his mistake. Either way, I hope all progressives will continue to support Kucinich.

Kucinich probably knows that Edwards is not to be trusted as president. Edwards supported the attack on Iraq, as did other Senators, based on either ignorance, political expedience, or unwillingness to do the reading assignment. I will not support any candidate with those characteristics. Obama has not betrayed our troops and our nation.

Kucinich has truly blown it. He seems to have thrown progressive principles out the window to endorse a greenhorn amateur who hasn't even yet figured out what he believes in. Does Dennis have Alzheimer's? Oh, and this crap about who voted to authorize the war without realizing they were dealing with a pathological liar of a President. Get over it. I know I have and we really could use your disdain and efforts on the front lines to prevent the 'Iran War'

I completely don't trust Edwards. I believe he has picked an issue (us against them, the rich against the poor) which I am not sure he even believes in. How can somebody who lives in a $2 million house and get $400 haircuts know how the poor feel? His father worked in a mill but he was a supervisor. I put Edwards and Romney in the same category - somebody who will say anything to get elected.

Norman and fellow citizens,

I would like to suggest that we ask Dennis Kucinich what his reasoning was for turning his support over to Barack Obama in Iowa today before passing harsh judgement on him. I am also disappointed by this decision. I have remained a Kucinich presidential supporter since 2003, as well as his Dept. of Peace legislation and more recently his Impeachment bill. Also, he is one of the very few (3 Dems and 3 Repubs) who voted against HR1955 last month, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" bill! So, let's at the very least give him a chance to explain this latest decision and at most allow him to make errors in judgement once in while. They will be much less serious than the bad judgements I have seen and continue to expect from John Edwards, such as his support for the Israeli built wall around Palestinian homes.

Dear Mr. Solomon,

I wholeheartedly agree with you: Kucinich is the right choice for the right reasons. He may have made a mistake in this action. You may want to write him and let him know.

I assume his reasons are actually "reality based politics" only: He wants Obama over Clinton. If you throw in a little more idealism you can see him backing Edwards.

I, however, disagree with this "reality based politics" idea. I think that you MUST ONLY vote for the candidate who represents you. If only 10% of the country believes in the ideas that Kucinich espouses, then so be it. I am one of those 10%. I do not believe in the ideas espoused by Edwards (or at least I don't believe in his actions, his words do sound good), Clinton, or Obama. I will not vote in the primaries for a candidate who does not represent me.

Thank you for a good letter.

Incidentally, the major reason I oppose Obama is that I read his opinion in a Harper's article in which he was considering voting yes for the clear skies initiative (a poorly named, unenvironmentally sound bill) because it might serve to benefit the companies in Illinois. He mentioned that if he had been in a more coal-rich state he might have been forced to vote yes on it. This idea of representation is entirely insane and unwise to me. The leader of a people does not do what is good for the people in the short term. He/she does what is best overall. It is obviously best for the world to get pollution under control and to create a sustainable culture. This is an unwise view of representative democracy.

Misha
Rochester, NY

Like a good many others, I guess, I am surprised at Dennis Kucinich's seemingly peremptory and premature support for Sen. Obama, as voiced during the course of the Iowa caucuses. While on issue after issue, I have found Kucinich to be my candidate of choice, the nature of presidential politics in America today requires a little more circumspection from informed voters. Like it or not, and admit it or not, the lack of this kind of circumspection on the part of Ralph Nader in 2000 proved very helpful to George W. Bush, and as a result we have been for seven years now stuck with the single worst, most inept and and most corrupt president in American history, bar none.

Things at times happen too fast in this age of quick-response cyber-media, and one of the things that may go insufficiently noticed in such an age is how a candidate grows and changes over the course of the race; how the demands of a protracted national campaign may impact his or her own personal growth and ability to measure up to the demands of the sought-after job. While my support for Kucinich remains strong, over the past several months I have seen no other candidate grow and change so well, and begin to look more "presidential", in the best sense of the word, than John Edwards. Nor, apart from the shabby considerations of personality-based non-issues, do I hear anyone proposing anything more consistent in substance with the truly progressive agenda Kucinich promotes than Edwards.

Although I would assume that readers of a blog like this one are sufficiently informed and sophisticated to support candidates based on their substantive positions on the issues, much of the voting populace in this country is not. And, sadly enough, it still seems to me that the country as a whole has not yet grown up enough politically to understand why a man at 5'7", whose entire public career has been based upon integrity, principle and action, as opposed to media-contrived considerations about who is "electable", might just be the best person they could possibly vote for. If the Kucinich campaign continues to languish with relatively little national support, and if the media continues to do everything it can to marginalise his candidacy, I will then look forward to supporting the only other "authentic" and truly believable qualified candidate I can see anywhere in this presidential race. And that's John Edwards.

What I have posted on this at Democratic Underground

Fixing a major political blunder—it still isn’t too late to tell your Iowa precinct captains to follow their consciences


Just to make things clear, you still have my support even after doing a dumb thing like recommending that your Iowa caucusgoers support Obama in cases where you don’t meet the 15% threshold. I will always be for the undiluted full strength progressive agenda for which you are the current standard bearer. I’ll never stop asking for a pony, even if I eventually wind up settling for a kitten.

I’ve been doing enough phone banking to realize that in caucus states, though many have Obama as a second choice, most of your supporters have Edwards as a second choice. I’ve found that primary caucus strategies primarily come in three flavors; bandwagoneering (lining up big bucks behind a frontrunner early), best of the frontrunners (look at the highest polling candidates and pick the most progressive of the lot), and finally the keep asking for a pony even if you’ll accept a kitten stance. (I’m of course discounting the “wouldn’t it be neato keeno to have a black or female or Latino president” factor, as the people who pay enough attention to politics to be interested in caucusing tend not to be influenced as much by this and are far more issue-oriented.) People can agree on basic values and still be very hard to shake from their personal commitment to a particular strategy.

In my caucus state, Edwards is the choice of the majority of the type two strategists, even though Obama has some support from that contingent as well. If you were serious in 2004 when you said that you stayed in the race until the end because you wanted to move the Democratic Party in your direction, why the slap in the face when Edwards actually takes your advice? That’s how Edwards supporters are going to perceive it at any rate. Obama was closer to you in 2004 than he is now (what with slamming liberal “special interests,” having a homophobic nutjob headline one of his concerts and spouting Republican talking points on Social Security), but Edwards has moved closer—a LOT closer.

If I were in your position, of course, I’d be really ticked off that the media labels Edwards the “anti-corporate” candidate when you were there first and have been for years ever since facing down the Cleveland banking establishment, just as in 2004 they labeled Dean the “antiwar” candidate when you were the one that actually organized enough opposition to the IWR to get a majority of House Democrats to vote against it. And I’d probably be really, rally mad at Edwards for having an informal chat with Clinton about eliminating “second tier” candidates from further debates as well—especially if I’d overheard it.

You got a lot of your supporters angry in 2004 by recommending caucusing with Edwards instead of Dean (who was closer to them on the war issue), but whatever the emotional roots of that decision it at least made strategic sense. Edwards was polling in single digits at the time, and it made the most sense for candidates below the 15% threshold to do deals with each other rather than with frontrunners. This year, Obama as a strategic second choice is sheer strategic idiocy. Your best chance, as you have to know, is with a brokered convention. (And believe me, most supporters of any of the candidates who want to be national delegates would be absolutely delighted to have real power for a change instead of being bit players in a preordained Kabuki theater act.) Nationally Edwards is running a sometimes distant third to Obama and Clinton, and the way to make things more even would have been to recommend Edwards as a second choice in Iowa.

That said, recommending Edwards instead of Obama was actually just the second-best option for you. Your first choice should have been to tell your Iowa supporters to follow their consciences. Guess what? That’s what they are going to do anyway! I heard about your very emotional meeting with your national delegates in 2004 second hand, but you were there. I remember it—why don’t you? Despite the pressure from Kerry, you wisely concluded that trying to herd cats was a futile endeavor. In the end, 20 of your 63 pledged delegates switched to Kerry but others held firm.

Understand that your supporters are not only cat-like in their independence, but that we are also more inclined to be feral than domestic. Feral as in “Cross me on my issue and I’ll claw your face to shreds. And don’t even think about bothering me with that ‘Heeerre kitty kitty kitty’ nonsense during election years either.” Your supporters are extremely passionate about at least several of the issues that you advocate for—peace, economic justice, real universal health care, restoring the Constitution, impeachment and many others. They will support as second choice whatever candidate appears to them to be the next best on whatever matters the most to them. I really hope that you will consider going with the flow here and reverse your initial recommendation. I think that your 2004 National Convention decision should be a model here.

Dennis, you have a huge heart and a sharp brain, but sometimes you could do with a little extra ice water in the veins. Please get used to the notion that if you truly are a real visionary, it is inevitable that others will water down your visions and claim them for their own, and you will get credit late in the game if ever. It certainly took the Cleveland City Council long enough, and most of the time you aren’t even going to get that much. You must know that from knowing human history. Keep going anyway.

Now the dust is stirred up from the Iowa second place finish of John Edwards, are we ready to admit our best hope for not only changing the White House staff but the attitude of our government toward the our World remains Senator Edwards?

It is not just the removal of Bush-Cheney Administration but the person put in charge, the NEW decider. In my mind the task would be best turned over to John Edwards to RE-TOOL and provide the leadership to reverse the course of the current twisted leadership.

Congressman Kucinich has been a tremendous voice for the changes needed, and will continue to earn respect for his positions on the issues, however now is the time to step out and see what is truly possible and what is not.

John Edwards looks to me to be the right person to carry forward the progressive movement to victory. Victory is what it is all about, if not now, when?

Harvey Akeson,
Tucson, Arizona

This has been a very interesting conversation--a few things need to be clarified. PDA has not endorsed a presidential candidate. Kucinich and Edwards, in that order, combined for two thirds of the votes in our straw poll, with neither candidate breaking the fifty percent mark.

We invited our members to step up and start self organizing for the candidate of their choice. While we had a handful of requests to organize for Richardson, Obama, and Biden, there were not enough respondents to create a team so those folks were referred directly to those campaigns. Close to 100 people, pretty evenly divided, volunteered to work on the PDA effort for Kucinich and Edwards.

Since then both teams have been meeting weekly by conference call to discuss strategy. For three weeks, PDA has worked in coalition with the Kucinich campaign, who decided to put its muscle into New Hampshire opting to not aggressively campaign in Iowa. PDA directed our Kucinich supporters to New Hampshire and our Edwards supporters to Iowa, asking the Iowa DK supporters to pick Edwards as their second choice. We stayed on course with this strategy even when DK, much to our surprise and without so much as a heads up, announced that he was throwing in with Obama, who is not as progressive as Edwards is, and completely ignored the strategy we laid out with them. It is certainly their right to change strategies, but we have not. And as allies in the progressive movement, it would have been the courteous thing to do to inform us in advance of such a decision.

After the results of last night's Iowa caucuses, we see the mood of the country is tilting towards a progressive agenda--and we have one in the progressive challenge 2008 (progressive2008.org). PDA is encouraging the members of our community to use this agenda to bird-dog candidates and to spread the word among voters as we work for the presidential candidate of our own choosing.

PDA wants to see a progressive-minded candidate become the President. If DK pulls it off, then that's great, if he doesn't--we have a viable progressive candidate in Edwards. Either way you look at it, from whatever camp you reside in, it's our agenda we want to put into practice and of all the candidates these two--Kucinich and Edwards--are the most likely to support it.

I agree Laura. We can get what we want when we work for it. This is from http://www.progressive2008.org/

Tired of double-talk from the candidates including those who seek the votes of progressives?

Let's reclaim the debate. . . by confronting them with the Progressive Agenda that we believe in! Public officials and 2008 presidential contenders can be measured by and challenged to support this agenda, published below.

Be a part of Progressive Challenge 2008!

* Add your name to the list of Progressive Agenda that includes respected artists, musicians, elected officials and other peace and justice leaders.
* Confront presidential candidates through the media or as they come to your communities in search of votes. For example: Do they support full troop withdrawal from Iraq and pledge no attack on Iran? If they claim to be for universal healthcare, why don't they support single-payer Enhanced Medicare for All?
* Distribute the Progressive Agenda widely face-to-face and via email to friends, neighbors, relatives and fellow activists. Print out a copy and duplicate it. Refer to this agenda in blog comments, letters to the editor and calls to talk shows.
* In general, bird-dog candidates for President, Senate and Congress at their public events, and everywhere you can.

Join the Hunt for Real Progressive Leadership!

I would not base my support for Dennis Kucinich on who he likes as a number 2 candidate. I continue to base my support for Kucinich on the only thing that matters to me: his convictions as demonstrated by his actions for peace and justice. Kucinich is the only candidate who explicitely believes that nonviolence should be the organizing principle of American society. He has always been there with us as a leader trying to stop the Iraq War from the start, organizing congress to oppose the war and working tirelessly to get the progressive message out. Kucinich has always remained consistent in advocating for everything I believe in. I can't say that about Edwards or any other politician.

Let's vote our hearts and our convictions. Let's vote for the one candidate with the strongest progressive record, the candidate who stands for our shared values. The clearest message we can send to the Democratic party and to the world is to give our votes to Dennis Kucinich so that his voice has a chance of being heard.

I'm not sure why Kucinich did that, but I'd be interested to know.

I like Edwards and think he's done more than almost anyone to call attention to the 'two Americas', but he says 'I will double the budget for [military] recruitment and raise the standards for the recruitment pool so that we can reduce our reliance on felony waivers and other exceptions.'

Reducing the number of waivers is a good idea, but doubling the recruitment budget -- already approaching $4-billion/year -- is an absurd response for anyone not running as 'hawk-in-chief'! It would make a lot more sense to cut the Pentagon budget, including recruiting, by 50%.

In my opinion, Edwards' positions do not come close to Kucinich's in vision or consistency.

Stop whining!

PDA member Rep. Shirley-Jackson Lee endorsed Clinton. Not a peep was heard.

PDA member Rep. Lynn Woolsey endorsed Clinton. Not a peep was heard.

PDA member Rep. Charlie Rangel, over the objections of US and Peruvian workers and despite protests from the indigenous people of Peru, railroaded Bush’s US-Peru Free Trade Agreement through the House. Not a peep was heard.

PDA member Rep. Dennis Kucinich “released” his Iowa supporters to Obama, and suddenly it’s like he committed an act of treason.

A few self-anointed ambassadors of the progressive cause believe that their “unpolluted” versions of what progressivism is all about are somehow sacrosanct. Sorry, that just ain't so.

Lee, Woolsey, Rangel and Kucinich all champion the cause of peace and justice. Although they all have warts, by and large they advocate - and fight for - a progressive agenda.

Others in the PDA have also made questionable calls, but as a group they are a voice for reason and compassion.

And Kucinich gets singled out? Baloney! The whiners attacking him are full of sour grapes.

By the way, the word “progressive” has been hijacked. Progressive politics embrace New Deal principles. New Deal principles speak to the needs of the masses who actually do the heavy lifting in our nation. Lord save us from the coiffed and manicured “experts” who believe they know what’s best for those of us who make up blue collar America. (C’mon and dig a few ditches with us and we’ll have a dialogue between equals.)

Rather than finding fault with a decision Kucinich made, rather than circling the wagons and shooting inward, the struggle would be better served if our energies were used to fight neo-fascism in our country and elsewhere. 1/5 of the people in Congress “get it”. That means that 4/5 don’t. Instead of infighting, let’s increase the number in Congress who get it.

Lastly, turn your backs on those who proclaim the New Deal a thing of the past. Those backsliders are addicted to retreat or they are ideologically-challenged.

Its all about the strategy to move the party LEFT. The plan ( I surmise) was to make sure HRC doesn't squash the race. It worked. Obama trounced HRC and Edwards moved up too. so there! Thank you Dennis for keeping the fight going. We now have more time to make the case for true progressive values.

Kucinich is the progressive leader that America needs. I am not willing to lose hope that he will be our President; however, I must honestly think about and consider the other progressive leaders I have from which to choose. Personally,I could support the presidency of any of the following: Kucinich, Obama, Clinton and/or Edwards based on their domestic issue positions as compared to what and whom I have had to depend for political leadership for the last 66 years. With the exception of Eisenhower who registers fairly well in my memory as a good guy that is not much of an endorsement.But let me point out one stark reality: neither Clinton or Edwards will be able to navigate successfully the murky Middle Eastern conflicts as well as Kucinich or Obama. Edwards and Clinton lean too far to the knee jerk liberal left (which at times is a good thing) in their support of Israel and therefore will not deliver the type of solution that makes this a safer and saner world in which all of us earthlings wish to live.We as progressive probably will acknowledge the failure of liberal thought to be absorbed and appreciated by mainstream America for lo the many years since Franklin Roosevelt even though it was all we as budding progressives had to cling to as Democrats and/or alienated Republicans (Watergate Survivors)all through the Nixon, Reagan and Bush I and II years. Kucinich sees problems for what they are and always seeks reasonable solutions. Obama is a dynamic thinker and will not seek a partisan solution over the well-being of Americans and the peoples of the Middle East (unless undermined by the so-called liberal press (please call if you ever find it) and AIPAC). My last point is that Solomon -despite his usual and to be respected wisdom -doe NOT address that Edwards and Clinton are not the leaders we need at this point in time to guide the world to resolution of the problems affecting America as the result of the ineffective Middle Eastern foreign policy of multiple administrations. I am surprised at his oversight but feel he can overcome this.(Smile). PS Richardson is a nice man but really....leader of the free world? He may believe he has conducted diplomacy with relative success but after watching him in the so-called debates I think he must wear adversarial parties into submission just waiting for him to formulate a thought.

I can only point out a few obsevations about John Edwards. First, he made millions litigating against doctors in the south(so much for corporate greed). First time I see him getting a hair cut at super cuts, I will know he can admit he is wrong. I suspect that he has a panel of advisors puppeteering his actions and words according to the latest political pulse poll. Kucinich seems to be what he says he is to me, unlike all the other smole and mirror politicians. What this country really needs is a complete change in the imperial nature of the system. Term limits for all politicians, an executive branch that is required to answer to congress, election and campaign reform, PAC reform, more bills like "read the act bill", limits on corporate profit (ie health insurance companies paying millions of dollars in bonus payouts and making huge profits while the system is in failure mode or Exxon-Mobile with a multibillion dollar quarterly profit etc etc). I am afraid that until basic constitutionally based reforms are made in the political process and the governing of this country, it will not matter much who is president.

Obama is the man. Edwards voted for the war resolution and no matter how many times he says he regrets that vote, he won't get past it, just like Kerry couldn't. I love Kucinich, but I am so happy that he asked his supporters to go with Obama if he didn't have the 15% threshold. Obama has that magic that's hard to describe that will make him a powerful leader. He's John Kennedy and Martin Luther King rolled into one. The United States may have a chance. I'm fired up and ready to go.

Solomon displays ignorance of the Iowa process. It is integral to the process that caucus participants have a first and second choice. He displays disdain for Kucinich supporters, who have a right to know who Kucinich would recommend, even if they might personally choose differently. Mr Solomon attempts to hijack Kucinich support in NH for Edwards with this bit of sophistry. Thats the real big difference between Kucinich supporters and the Solomons and Clintons: Honesty.

I was very impressed by Obama at the New Hampshire debate last night and his speech in Iowa "A beacon of hope and liberty for the world again."

Mr. Solomon asked me to reconsider Edwards even though he is funded by the powerful corporate law firms. I could disregard Mr. Solomon's dishonest assessment of the Kucinich tactic of backing the candidate who could deliver the strongest blow to Hillary. So I took another look at Edwards, and what I saw was a candidate that cares nothing for the democratic process, for equal time, and for free speech. Did he stand on the ABC debate podium and protest the outrageous exclusion of Kucinich. No. I would suggest that Mr. Solomon reconsider Mr. Edwards.