Apparently it’s true. Denis Kucinich is urging his supporters to support Barak Obama if he does not meet the 15% threshold at the Iowa Caucuses. But, let’s make this clear. Kucinich supporters at the caucus have two votes, if you remember the discussion from the other day, and it is for the second vote, for caucus goers, that should use their vote for Obama.
Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday, and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Senator Barack Obama. “This is obviously an ‘Iowa-only’ recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.
But, why Obama???? I’m floored by this decision. What does Kucinich know that the rest of us may not know? He doesn’t really explain anything on his campaign site, other than to say Obama also stands for change.
Reading comments at the various news sites reporting on this Kucinich decision, there are hints to a growing Kucinich/Edwards rift. But, support Obama??? And apparently, I’m not the only one surprised by this decision. But, it’s Todd’s thoughts that almost echo my first gut feeling, that Kucinich is thinking electability over issue here.
I suspect it has more to do with choosing the candidate he feels will be the most viable anti-Hillary candidate.
Maybe, it’s because Nadar is asking his supporters to move their support to Edwards? There is no love lost between the democratic party and Nadarites — as many in the democratic party still blame Nadarites for the dems “loosing” to Bush in 2000. (However, Gore has now found his strength — not in a president but in an Ambassador for the Earth.)
[...] Crone speaks on the issue and cannot figure out what is behind the rift. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social [...]
You needn’t be so surprised about Kucinich. You linked to my post at Liberal Values regarding Nader but should have also followed the link in my post regarding Edwards which makes this clear:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2416
What does Kucinich know that the rest of us may not know?
I don’t know, what don’t you know about Barack Obama? Is there a specific issue which you can think of that would endear him to either Clinton or Edwards over Obama?
Honestly, Sean, Edwards has moved farther to the left since throwing his hat into the ring. At this point I truly believe that Edwards is far more progressive than Obama. Perhaps, Ron, this is why Kucinich may feel uneasy about Edwards, not just his original stance on the war in Iraq? Because Edwards has moved his thought process more often than Obama, even though it was in the direction of being more progressive?
But, I personally, have a very uneasy feeling about Obama. I fear the continuation of corporatist rule under an Obama presidency almost as much as I fear the continuation of corporatist rule continuing under Clinton. I do not believe that he’ll be able to accomplish his baby steps towards universal health care (as opposed to universal health care coverage the 3 dem front-runners are touting). And I worry that Obama will not have the balls to take on Congress. that’s just for starters.
I still don’t get it. My mouth is wide open. All senators voted for the Patriot Act, and many voted for pro-China trade pacts. Granted, many Senators stood up to the Iraq War vote, but had Obama been a Senator then, does anyone think he would have?
Does anyone really think Obama is a liberal?
I smell a rat. I think Kucinich has a personal grievance against Edwards for whatever reason. Maybe because Edwards laughed off his sallies during debates one too many times, and didn’t take him seriously.
I am baffled — Edwards strikes me as the closest thing to a liberal to have a chance at the White House since Adlai Stevenson. I mean, isn’t that obvious to everyone, including Denis Kucinich?