Yeah Tony, your right. I like Edwards and a trial lawyer in that position would be good for all of us. 

I would like Kucinich to realize his dream and the one most of us have, seeing Cheney and Bush answering for their crimes. 

If the writers are still on strike it would be a real good reality TV show and get good ratings.

I’m watching MSNBC. Looks like a huge turnout. Lots of women, young people, first-time voters.

I can’t see Kucinich as AG. He’s not even a lawyer. Ambassador to the U.N. looks best for him. What about Edwards for AG?

Sharon,

In re-reading the article, (just to make sure that I understood it the first time) it says this:

Dennis Kucinich is encouraging his supporters to caucus for Barack Obama if he, Kucinich, fails to meet the minimum threshold of support. Iowa Democrats are allowed to re-caucus if their preferred candidate doesn’t perform above a certain level, usually 15 percent.

So, the wording is that Dennis Kucinich is ENCOURAGING his supporters to caucus for Obama.

It doesn’t give me the impression that he’s trying to ‘tell’ anybody who the should or should not support.

You could support Mickey Mouse if you wanted to.

So, suggesting that you suspected ‘better’ of him, is really sort of an indication that you must not have ever supported him yourself.

I think this elevates him, in the spirt of party unity…something we haven’t seen in a real long time.

Daniel in Honolulu,

You’ve got some good points. BUT..I’ve got another take, to be honest.

I agree that the GOP would rather run against Hillary, but I ALSO believe that if they have to lose, they would RATHER LOSE TO HER!!

Hillary, among ALL of the Democratic candidates, is FAR, FAR closer to the repug agenda. As a matter-of-fact, as far as I’m concerned, she’s a repug.

So, I suspect that any other democrat besides Hillary, will give the GOP a run for their money. I think they’d be perfectly satisfied with her, if they have to lose to anybody.

Sounds cynical? Well, that’s the way they operate.

Nope, NEVER enough to matter. The name should be a dead giveaway.

I like it too Tony.

But, not to be a killjoy or anything, John Edwards is making quite a showing himself.

Not to be dismissed.

Still, this IS great news…

Kucinich as AG?                         

I would rather see Kucinich as AG instead of VP.

Cheney on a spit.

Dennis appears to be in the denial process over the loss of his brother.Grief is one of the most puzzling conflicts the psyche can ever encounter.

There’s always going to be a few lunatics like you. Not enough to matter, I hope.

Any progressive who does not cheer this great news should have his head examined! Do you really insist on remaining politically alienated forever? Obama has brought Kucinich into the mainstream. This is absolutely critical. Can you imagine, for example, Kucinich as Ambassador to the United Nations in an Obama adminstration, with a huge portfolio to restore the effectiveness of the U.N., to join the International Criminal Court, to strengthen international law, and all the things that Kucinich talks about, like strength through peace. I can’t believe this is really happening! Kucinich and Obama supporters unite! We shall overcome!

The answer, I guess, is that he isn’t a Democrat either, just another Republican shill in disguise. Obama’s positions are all right-and-heading-further-right from what were once moderate Republican views. Obama is in fact another Republican pretending to be a Democrat espousing no truly Democratic positions other than racial equality. Little wonder the Republicans want to see him win Iowa and the Democratic nomination. That way the Republicans will have a lock on the Presidency no matter what the outcome in November.

What I face in Texas is actually much worse. My vote for president will be counted but probably it will not count.

I now understand why this wannabe contest is called a “race”. It allows the regulated trading of racehorses.
The Democratic Party, which hollers “foul” about the voter’s photo-ID cards (by-the-way, I agree with the critique),is engaged in its own voter-repression in Iowa. If you are a nurse or policeman on duty during caucus hours, let alone an Iowan soldier in Iraq [!!!!!], you cannot participate. How disgustingly hypocritical! Of course the Republican Party is not any better but at least it does not pretend to be that Simon-pure.
I do not remember that my ballot for the presidential election ever contained an entry which asked: “who is your second choice”? Yet the idiotic Iowan charade may produce a winner who is elected on the basis of “second choices”. It is of course obvious why that is so. Without “second choice”, some Iowan caucusers may never be able to return home or must return home without having designated a “winner”, whatever that means. Folks, lets stop criticizing other nations for the way they select their leaders and fix our own bad habits first.
The only meaning of the Iowa caucuses is that a minuscule group of overwhelmingly white and privileged people tell me whom they want to be the final nominees of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Why that merits the huge media hullabaloo beats me. For me the Iowa result will be close to irrelevant.

As one who for the past year has had one foot in the Kucinich camp and another in the Obama camp, I am very gratified by this endorsement. Thank you Dennis, and I hope that you and your ideas will have a prominent place in an Obama administration. Strenght through peace! Right on!

We have been Screwed for 8 years, tattooed is next then drunk, or do I have the order wrong?

A real endorsement.               

My stock in Obama just rose.

First off, the only candidate who has “resonated” with me is Kucinich.  He’s the only one consistently FOR getting out of Iraq, consistently FOR the working person and consistently FOR the people taking back our government from Big Money.

As I look back on the televised debates, I don’t understand why, if Kucinich REALLY wanted the job, he didn’t protest on national TV the sham that those debates were every time he participated.  Bottom line might be that that is exactly what would have captured the attention of voters and, in fact, they may have lost respect for Kucinich because they knew, like he did, that the debates were bullshit.

I’m reminded of Ronnie and the points he made with the electorate by saying “I paid for this mic, Mr. Green (I think his name was.)

The Big Three or Four will do nothing for common people and I’m surprised that, if Dennis is really sincere in his positions that he would sell out to them.  Now I feel worse about all this than I ever did.  We’re really screwed.

Who cares ? I won’t !

No reasoning with them. They fancy themselves as the only ones with the gnostic “eyes to see” akin to the end time believers that they are the elect. A certain elitist superiority assumption, don’t you think? 

  I really don’t care whose ring you’ve bowed down and kissed.

Oh Lordy! I give up. Throwing words around is a tactic perfected by Republicans.

Having met Kucinich, and having watched him now for years, I don’t see him as “seething,” EVER, or “immature.” (And “cult worshippers?” Jeez Louise!)

For those who have eyes to see, let them see ...

Is it possible, Obama offered the VP spot to Kucinich?
Seething is not a good thing to use for making decisions, if true I am dissapointed.

I watched the debates and it was transparent enough that Kucinich was sullenly harboring hostility towards Edwards. It is an immature aspect of Kucinich’s character that actually serves to undermine the issues he claims to champion for his little payback games.
  It was predictable and now his cult worshippers husltle to rationalize the action. Pathetic is the word.

You say:
“Kucinich was seething”
“petty revenge”
“sullenly elevating his ego”

How do you know what Kucinich’s motives (and emotions?!) are? The words you chose to use were loaded with emotion. It’s likely you are reading something into this that does not exist. Better to stick to the facts.

Kucinich was seething after Clinton & Edwards had their little pow-wow to see if they could pare down certain participants from the debates.
  You could say Edwards deserved it—but the stakes require rising above petty revenge. It reveals Kucinich sullenly elevating his ego over the issues. Thumbs down.

The gatekeeper of the Left flank champions issues and then makes a mockery of everything with his capitulation to party over principle. All of his New Age platitudes are as phoney as Obama’s I’m-a-uniter-not-a-divider bs. Excuse me, but change is not in uniting with Neocons or the Religious Right. Being one big goose-stepping Nation is not the change we should be championing. Obama is an empty suit playing a role, but not really deviating on the issues. Kucinich reveals his petty, vindictive side that makes a sham of all his appeals to peace and cosmic love when he transparently seeks to stick it to Edwards.

For me Obama and Edwards are even in standings on issues, but why Obama instead of Edwards? Any insight?