How Kucinich Supporters Could Help Stop Hillary

I know Kucinich supporters don't like Hillary Clinton. When I write about her, they respond, again and again. "She's a bought and paid corporatist." "She backed the Iraq war from the beginning." "She supported the regressive bankruptcy bill." In fact, many say, "If she's nominated I'm staying home." Or. "If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll change my registration to Independent and vote third party."

So think about how you'd feel if the headlines after the early caucuses and primaries read "Hillary places third," and you were part of that process. Imagine if those losses helped stop her nomination, the party ended up with either Barack Obama or John Edwards as the nominee, and one of the two became America's president. I suspect you'd feel a whole lot better than having Hillary as president. And way better than our enacting Bush revisited through her losing to Guiliani, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, or even the reborn John McCain, who's not only promoted the Iraq war since before it happened, but even got caught on video singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" to the words of the classic Beach Boys song, as if war with Iran were some kind of joke. I'm sure you'd rather see Edwards or Obama than any of these.

But of course you'd rather have Kucinich. He's the most progressive, you say, and that's true. He opposed the war from the beginning and even organized Congress against it. He's got a great platform, and is strong on every issue, the antithesis of a corporate tool.

But he's also not going to be the nominee. No one has come from polling one or two percent at this late date to capture the presidency. No Congressman has won since James Garfield. There are just too many other candidates at this point with too much support, momentum, and money. If Kucinich hasn't captured America's imagination enough so far, there's just not time for this to happen fast enough to win. I also think his message plays better with already committed progressive audiences than with those less political, one reason it hasn't resonated more in the polls. And my guess is that America's just not ready for a vegan, which while it shouldn't make any difference, offers prime fodder for the Karl Rove types about how he's so out of the mainstream he's going to try to take away people's macaroni and cheese.

So if Kucinich can't win, supporting him in the key early races means valuing a symbolic educational campaign over one that has the capacity to actually affect who is nominated.
I think Kucinich people can make a difference, and that the tradeoffs are worth it to support Edwards or Obama.

Right now Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all running virtually neck-and-neck in the Iowa polls. Any of them could win. Any could come in third. In the latest averages, they're within five percentage points of each other, between 25% & 30%. Whatever the outcome, it's going to set the tone for subsequent momentum, media coverage, money, and everything else that makes such a critical difference in who wins. Because the primary and caucus schedule is so compressed, and quite possibly over by mid-February, whoever emerges from those first few primaries with major momentum will likely be the nominee.

So how could Kucinich supporters, with their candidate polling at 1%-2%, even make a difference? First, because it's a caucus system, this favors groups that are organized and enthusiastic. Only 125,000 people attended Iowa's Democratic caucuses last round, but they sank Howard Dean's candidacy when he was the clear favorite going in. If Kucinich supporters could get out 12,500 people that's 10% of the vote, if 6250, 5%. Neither would be enough to qualify under the 15% threshold for representation, but if they could account for even just a few points difference in how the delegates are allocated, that might shift who comes first among the three leading Democrats. It might make the difference between Hillary being the nominee and Edwards or Obama.

A bit more on Hillary's dangers: I've written about her potential to shatter the Democratic coalition and bring about a Republican resurgence even if she gets in. Recent polls actually show her losing or in a dead heat with McCain, Giuliani, and in some polls, Romney and Huckabee, Even if she does get in, progressives are likely to be fighting her on half the initiatives she proposes. She also spent more money in 2006 than in all but one Senate campaign in America's history--to win a race she could have won in her pajamas, and at a time when shifting dollars to other Democratic campaigns would likely have gained a few more seats.

So are Edwards or Obama any better? I'd say Edwards is a whole lot more progressive now than in 2004--sometimes major life crises will do that to you. But even back then, he was progressive enough that the Kucinich campaign instructed its supporters to team up with those of Edwards and tip each other over the Iowa vote thresholds wherever possible. Edwards isn't perfect, but I've seen him go into a room of trade union activists and lead not just with economic justice issues where he knows he's going to get a strong reception, but with the Iraq war and global warming--the opposite of pandering to his audience. I've also seen him use scarce campaign money to run ads asking Congress to stand up to Bush on the war. And he was the first of the three major candidates to have a strong and comprehensive global warming plan, and the first to have some comprehensive universal health care plan. He's spent a lot of time addressing issues like poverty that are hardly political winners. And yes, he's a bit wealthy for my tastes, but at least he made his money fighting major corporations. He's speaking out enough about their power on the campaign trail, that this makes him my first choice, though Obama also has a lot that's attractive. In contrast with Hillary, neither of them are taking money from corporate lobbyists, and neither voted for the awful Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran.

Obama's also got some pretty progressive history. He spoke out against the war before it started, and has continued to do so, even if I would have liked his voice a little louder. Both he and Edwards are clear that it is unacceptable to keep American bases in Iraq, while Hillary Clinton has equivocated. Equally important, Obama began as a community organizer, working in low-income communities, then returned to represent social justice advocates after his graduation from Harvard Law School, foregoing far more lucrative opportunities. Obama's also watched his mother spend her last months while dying of cancer having to read through the fine print on the forms of an insurance company that was trying to drop her coverage. That's an experience that could resonate with America. Finally both Obama and Edwards talk explicitly about the links between past movements for justice, and the need to build their successors in the present--while Clinton, I believe, sees current activists mostly as a troublesome threat. To me those are significant differences.

It also matters that both Edwards and Obama also beat the Republican candidates in most major polls. That's important if for no other reason than because one more Supreme Court Justice like Alito or Roberts, and we'll spend the next thirty years with courts that would have make Mussolini proud. And because the Republicans will do little or nothing on the most critical threat of global warming (even John McCain recently absented himself when his vote could have broken the Republican filibuster on the most progressive energy bill in 30 years). And because pallid as the Democrats can be, and they can be pallid, they won't appoint people like the National Labor Relations Board officials who have been busily reclassifying nurses as supervisors so they can't join a union, and prohibiting the use of workplace emails for union-related concerns. So winnability matters as well.

Over the next six weeks you're going to have a choice. You can vote for Kucinich in your primaries and caucuses, make a symbolic point, and maybe give him a shade more clout to stay in the race. But whether he gets 1% or 5%, his presence when they're done is going to be minimal, and his coverage negligible as well. Your other choice is to do what you can to try to make Edwards or Obama the nominee, and potentially help tip the balance in who ends up president. To me, that's the greater political impact

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email [e-mail] with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Comments

[scinoir]

IF Kucinich had a vote for every idiot who actually supports his candidancy but feels obligated to vote for one of the "frontrunners", then he would be the nominee.

How dumb are you people. The primaries are about voting for the person you support. The one most likely to support your views. Why are you holding your nose in the primaries. Thats what the presidential elections are for!. EVery 4 years you complain that the candidates are all the same, that you are voting for the lesser of two evils. Well, I have no sympathy for you. I am watching you create the situation you complain about each time.

You are making your bed, now lie in it.

[peonyharp]

"I am stunned by my "Progressive" friends who buy the line about Dennis not having a chance. I ask them 'When exactly did you cease to matter?'." -- protagonia

I asked before borrowing. :)

I'm not going to settle, but will vote honorably.

[MTGradwell]

I find it remarkable that, even though Democrats were propelled into the senate with a mandate to end the war, they continue to fund it (and the only person who seems to be working to scupper war funding is GWB!?!); and not only that, they marginalise and exclude from debates any presidential candidate who isn't a proven warmonger. Then, to add insult to injury, Kucinich supporters are asked to abandon their man because he can't win, and instead support one of the warmongers who excluded him.

Much is made of the fact that Edwards now concedes he was mistaken to vote for the Iraq war; but Edwards didn't just vote for war, he actually co-sponsored the bill authorising it. He was at the forefront of the push for war. More recently he has been a leading proponent of an aggressive confrontation with Iran: the US has “abdicated its responsibility and had not done enough to stop Iran” and "ALL options must remain on the table". "ALL options" is code-speak for war. But Edwards' fulminations pale into insignificance compared to Obama, who not only said that "use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran", which is "a threat to all of us", but also he would favor "surgical" missile strikes against Iran.

These guys aren't anti-war; they just reckon war should be handled properly, and they can handle it properly. Well, we'll find out soon enough, if one of them wins. Obama certainly knows how to rub the Chinese up the wrong way. Maybe we'll have a proper war instead of this tiny Middle East thing.

While it's likely that Clinton would be even worse, the question has to be asked, HOW did the Democratic party get into this position, with frontrunners who seem to be even more pro-war than Bush? Who colluded with who? How many blind eyes were turned?

And is it really too late for anything to be salvaged from the disaster? We're still at the point where not a single vote has been cast.

[JMEB]

Kucinich probably mirrors my own positions more than any other candidate, at least on the social issues.

But I won't be voting for him.

I agree you have to vote strategically. I plan on voting for HRC because I believe she has the best chance to win, and because despite all the FUD being spread here, she has solid Democratic credentials and plenty of brains and gumption to solve this country's problems.

But if Obama or Edwards win the primary, then I'll happily vote for either of them. Either would be vastly superior to anyone on the Republican ticket.

[DrVeruju]

"I also think his message plays better with already committed progressive audiences than with those less political, one reason it hasn't resonated more in the polls."

The main reason is that Dennis has been airbrushed out of every debate and totally ignored by the BS Media. I have never heard his name mentioned on a TV news program. (But I could have missed it as I don't watch much TV anyway.)

[JayHubbell]

Oh paleeze! I don't trust any of the candidates other than Kucinich. Edwards had his chance. I don't buy Edward's "born again populist" sermon.
Obama similarly preaches but fails to practice.
And Clinton may be evil but is she really that much more so than the the other two?

Stick with the only honest one running. The one that has always walked the walk and does more than give a good stump speech. I hope Iowans revolt against the establishment and choose the Kucinich over the retread trio.

[MNmommy]

This isn't American Idol, it's the presidential election - strategic voting is so cynical. Vote for your candidate whomever that is. Hopefully, you'll vote for the Democratic nominee because anyone one of the Democrats is better than what the Republicans are offering.

That's the bottom line.

[MsLiz]

I found a website which explains how the Iowa caucuses work:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question721.htm

In Iowa, caucus goers can vote for Kucinich, and if he doesn't muster much support, they can then vote for their second choice.

Remember, at the national convention, Kucinich can also ask his delegates to vote for another candidate of his choice.

I am sorry we don't do caucuses in my state. It takes a little longer, but it would allow me my token vote for my dream candidate, but also allow me a second chance to make a difference.

[trevor01]

Anybody but Hillary is the drumbeat that will shut out the democrats most decisively. Ironic the percussionists are mostly democrats. We'll get and continue to learn how to live with that sad reality. One small consolation - she's done her best, knows that, and will be fine whatever the outcome.

[SunshineDaydream]

Carl Rove?

[US55588144]

Anyone with common sense would be supporting Joe Biden, the only Democrat guaranteed to win in the fall.

[EyeWantOneNation]

Paul - This is exactly the kind of tripe - crap, actually - that we Kucinich supporters have been fed since day one!!

The "electability factor"!!

If we REALLY want our vote to count; vote for one of the "front-runners" that can do something with the vote we cast!!

We see in independent polls, by the DFA, IndependentPrimary and others, that Kucinich is far in front of the other candidates. Yet we're told these polls don't count!!

What polls DO count??? Those conducted by corporate owned newspapers; corporate owned TV such as FOX, ABC, or others??

Every single Democratic candidate considered a "front-runner" has gaps in their platforms!
Whether it be environmental issues, foreign policy, health care, and on and on. Not one of these candidates has stood up for the American people and the Constitution of The United States of America.

EXCEPT Dennis Kucinich!!!

Go ahead and tout your reasons why our Kucinich votes should be placed elsewhere...
I have seen too much damage done to this country in the past few decades; we need strength and healing and true leadership...

and I WILL be voting for KUCINICH!!!

[bcb232]

so you would rather people note vote for who they believe in, but instead to vote on either obama or edwards, so they can defeat hillary?...and that is how you want your candidate to win the presidential democratic nominee? not by winning the old-fashioned way of citizens going to the polls casting ballots for who they believe in...but instead by them voting against another candidate? and especially, since that candidate is hillary clinton...... this is only my opinion but that idea embodies the exact opposite of what the democratic process is about. people should be going to the polls only to vote for the candidate their instinct tells them will get the job done. that's the whole point of democracy....and what makes this post even more disappointing is the treatment for hillary clinton. there's a lot of talk in this election about experience, and the media and the candidates like to cite postitions and titles that the candidates have held. i find when it's not election time what really constitutes political experience is being there over the years and always having a postition publicly about current events, crises, or whatever the nation is involved in..... i think the group of democratic nominees is an amazing field, i look at every single one of them and have the feeling that with each one of them the country will be led in the right direction, in different ways, and with different ways to get there.....but the idea that hillary clinton shouldn't be a part of this is wrong and baseless. i've been witness to hillary's political career, i knew where she stood on the issues, some i agreed, some i disagreed, but never once did i feel like she wasn't on the democratic side, on my side. and i consider myself a democrat.....just one man's opinion.

[Snakeback]

Edwards seems the most palatable to the center. I'm wary of Kucinich because although he says some good things, I don't see him as being a pragmatist. I don't see Kucinich building strong coalitions within the Democratic party, let alone across party-lines. And I am afraid he will get it wrong on foreign policy and the military. We need pacifists, don't get me wrong, but not for Commander-in-Chief. We need someone who understands the proper place of the military. Bush thinks we should use it all the time for everything. I feel Kucinich would never use it, even when its needed. Both are wrong. The military needs to be kept strong, and used very judiciously. A Commander-in-Chief should be able to listen to pacifists, and pick out the right things in their arguments.

Obama scares me because although he gives great speeches and has rock star status, when you look at WHAT HE HAS ACTUALLY DONE - you hit a big void. He has missed so many crucial votes that there's no way it's accidental. He avoids votes on purpose - lots of them. Obama is an eternal campaigner - but he doesn't work at the task of governing very much - and that scares me - a lot, actually.

Edwards is the only one that carries a progressive banner and actually seems to work for the causes he mouths off about on the campaign trail. Unfortunately he's not a rock-star type, and he's not one of the world's wealthiest politicians - qualities which probably would make him a better leader, but also reasons he might lose the nomination.

People have to understand - America is sick to death of idealogues, left or right, and we are sick to death of mushmouth politicians who vacillate on the issues, then screw the voter when the crunch comes.

I don't want a mushmouth, I don't want a war-mongering AIPAC-slave, and to be honest I don't want a UFO-chasing vegan to be Commander-in-Chief either.

[happytrails]

ANYONE BUT HILLARY! We need change.
ANYONE BUT HILLARY! We need a LEADER.
ANYONE BUT HILLARY! We need someone we can TRUST.
ANYONE BUT HILLARY!