[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

And now I would just like to highlight that I have said from the very get-go, and in fact based solely on his use of the peace sign in his logo (see my thread about judging the candidates' artwork), that Kucinich was going to come off like this to an awful lot of people in the country. I imagine he is probably a very good man, and though I haven't studied his background and experience, I have no problem believing he could show a successful track record in office, and as I've said, if his function or role is more than anything perhaps to be the voice of the conscience of the party or to ask the difficult questions others are afraid of and therefore aid the debate as a whole and so forth, good for him.

However, his presence and style and what he's advocating doing, apart from whether that is well justified or advisable or whatever, is unfortunately playing into the image conservatives have been painting of Democrats for quite some time now, with some reasonable degree of success, as well: that they tend to be loopy types who don't have a handle on reality out there, who cannot handle ideas of national security and definitely aren't to be trusted with it in office, who carry the ideals of hippies that were trailing out of fashion already 30 years ago and which didn't get us anywhere, and more stuff like that, however you want to describe it.

In the end and without trying to judge him or his ideals or their content, but rather just focusing on the impression with the public at large, one wonders (as perhaps is the case over on the other side with Ron Paul, for example) if he can be said to be helping or, perhaps, hurting the party's general goals and image, overall, with his presence. It is just reality and reality needs to be dealt with.

My tack has simply been to pursue that line of thinking and see if it doesn't apply to what are generally considered more mainstream candidates that are garnering more attention and seen as more serious possibilities and getting higher poll results and so forth. And again I have been doing that without judging them personally or the content of their ideas to be bad, for example when I first came out a long time ago, well before this thread started, and said, "OK, I'll say it: don't run, Hillary!" With her particular case and background and the high negatives she has and so forth, it was just a natural line of thought.

Sorry to ramble but I see these reactions as corroboration (for better or worse, but corroboration, nevertheless!) that this approach I've been discussing is a valid and important one, not as something that can, or should wisely be, just ignored, or left aside until the nomination process is finished and the actual election is upon us.

Steve

But Steve you are putting little faith in the American people. I think the greatest obstacle facing the Democratic Party ,regardless of the candidate,is to define itself clearly and concisely to the American people. It is one of the reasons I asked you earlier for some bullet points on Obama's positions. The danger politically is to allow our opponents to define us and our candidates.



As far as national security I don't think even the Socialist Workers Party could have screwed up the way the administration has over the last 6+ years even before 9-11/ Here is some info from the NIE that was released:

17 — The United States will face “a persistent and evolving terrorist threat” over the next three years, as Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks comparable in scale to those of Sept. 11, 2001, the nation’s intelligence agencies said today.Despite efforts to root out Al Qaeda terrorists from their strongholds in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan since 2001, the group has been able to protect or rebuild a cadre of “operational lieutenants” and its top leadership, the estimate declared.
And while Al Qaeda remains the greatest single terrorist threat to the United States, its leadership will continue to prod other terrorists in “extremist Sunni communities” to “mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities,” the 16 intelligence agencies agreed.
Moreover, the Lebanon-based Islamic militant group Hezbollah, which has carried out attacks against Americans overseas, may be tempted to attack the United States if it feels that it or its main sponsor, Iran, is threatened by America, the assessment said. Finally, the United States may suffer small-scale attacks from other, non-Muslim terrorist groups, the document warned.

Pakistan’s tribal areas have effectively become havens for terrorists