Kucinich Drops Out of White House Race

Comments (53)

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 4:33 PM:

Doesn't matter

Obama is the man

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 4:36 PM:

Pity that. Hopefully Mike Gravel stays in for a while yet, because I like John Edwards too much to have him described as coming in last place.

LJ wrote on January 24, 2008 4:37 PM:

The third factor was willful neglect on the part of the media.

mcc wrote on January 24, 2008 4:39 PM:

Well, it's been fun.

Madorsky wrote on January 24, 2008 4:39 PM:

He also is facing some formidable challengers in the primary, although they will likely split the anti-Kucinich vote and allow Dennis to be renominated.

Mike wrote on January 24, 2008 4:41 PM:

I feel bad for him. He has the best ideas, but just doesn't do a good job of communicating them and selling himself. I hope he gets re-elected.

deets wrote on January 24, 2008 4:45 PM:

You'll be missed K, someone besides Obama had to be around to keep this race legal.

Matthew wrote on January 24, 2008 4:46 PM:

Kucinich who?

That he stayed in beyond when anyone even remembers who he is is simply pathetic. I hope he loses reelection, even if to a Republican, as the Democratic party needs more serious representatives that don't embarrass themselves, their district, and the party with fantasy bids for presidental office.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 4:46 PM:

I just saw the video of the 5 year old today asking Bill Clinton at a campaign rally what marriage means to him.

To see him squirm like he did on national tv when he wagged his finger -

"I did not have sex with that woman"
was priceless.

chris wrote on January 24, 2008 4:48 PM:

c'mon now Dennis, now it is time to endorse Obama, then we can get a few less of the Hillzombies who try to say Obama is a Republican, but then I guess we'll probably get a few more who say Obama is Karl Marx. *sigh* can't have everything I guess.

Matthew wrote on January 24, 2008 4:49 PM:

Greg, are you serious, is Mike Gravel still a candidate?! Yep, great idea, he stays in so Edwards isn't listed as last. Pathetic.

wengler wrote on January 24, 2008 4:50 PM:

Matthew,

Yes, let's please replace a Progressive Democrat with a Corporate Republican. Your priorities are certainly in the right place.

Perhaps you could start paying for this war instead of finding ways to screw over the rest of us.

Lookingforhome wrote on January 24, 2008 4:55 PM:

He had another visitation...some big things planned that he can't talk about right now!

And hey Tapper, can you post the 5 year-old girl thing another 20 times, it's not boring yet...

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 4:55 PM:

I hope he loses reelection, even if to a Republican, as the Democratic party needs more serious representatives that don't embarrass themselves, their district, and the party with fantasy bids for presidental office.

Er, o.k., irrational hatred duly noted. What is it to you if Kucinich stayed in the race beyond the point where he could hope to win? I rather like Rep Kucinich and wish him many successful returns to the House. He does a good job for his part of Ohio.

Matthew wrote on January 24, 2008 4:56 PM:

Wengler, look, the guys a joke and is quixotic quest was pathetic and reflected poorly on his ideas and on the party. I completely agree with some of his ideas but found him to be a loser messenger. The Democrats have sufficient majority in the house to weed out those who do not represent the party or their ideas. (And it would be the first time the party chose to support another candidate in the primary. And, should a Republican win, then focus on dumping them in two years.)

Lee wrote on January 24, 2008 4:57 PM:

OK, but I am not crazy about the cable people or the media people in general deciding who gets to run.

Kucinich for Prez wrote on January 24, 2008 4:58 PM:

I think he quit just to see if he could get TPM to mention him. But to the end Eric justified the media owners' decision to ban him from debates for "due to his very poor showings in the caucuses and primaries" rather than because they didn't want him to influence the discussion.

It's too bad. He was the best candidate.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 5:01 PM:

Yes, Mike Gravel is still in the race (or, as it perhaps the more accurate way to phrase it, has not yet dropped out).

hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 5:04 PM:

"Another Kucinich-free day here at TMP."

Oh, wait...

We'll miss you Dennis, even if this time around we hardly knew you. I can honestly say, Dennis Kucinich is in it for the right reasons.

Why are you guys even responding to Matthew at this point? Don't you recognize a troll when you see one?

grover_rover wrote on January 24, 2008 5:08 PM:

Matthew, Kucinich IS one of our best members of Congress, and represents progressive values more than almost anyone. We need him in Congress, even if he can't get the big things done. We NEED people who are willing to stand up for what is right, like impeachment, and real universal health care. He was the ONLY candidate in this race who had a decent plan for truly fixing our health care system. The other candidates' plans are just bandaids. He was more useful in this race than any of the other 8th tier candidates if you ask me, at least he used his time there to try to push the debate in a more progressive direction. The other 8th tierers just sat around and echoed the same things everyone else was saying. Anyway, Kucinich is awesome, despite him being a little weird at times, he is a true asset to the Democratic party, and one of the few people in our party that keep a little bit of hope alive.

jimBOB wrote on January 24, 2008 5:09 PM:

Electoral irrelevancies like Kucinich and Gravel are part of the early election season, kind of like Christmas decorations. But, like Christmas decorations, if they stick around too long eventually they just look sad.

ManofTruth wrote on January 24, 2008 5:11 PM:

Let Matthew rant all he wants. By his own words we can tell he isn`t old enough to vote yet. Maybe following the election is his 8th grade class project.

bnb wrote on January 24, 2008 5:13 PM:

It's a victory of style [and money] over substance.

Jim Martin wrote on January 24, 2008 5:17 PM:

Eric:

The cable news networks stopped inviting him to debates, due to his very poor showings in the caucuses and primaries so far....

Oh, was that why? That was why MSNBC changed the rules at the last minute in Nevada to exclude him, when the existing rules would have included him? "Oh, sorry, we didn't mean the top four contenders -- that was when someone other than Kucinich was in fourth place. We really meant the top three. Or at least, that's what we mean now."

It has nothing to do with MSNBC being a division of GE, a major military and nuclear-power contractor, then. It has nothing with Kucinich's message being something the corporate media don't want us to hear. Thanks for clearing that up.

Mike wrote on January 24, 2008 4:41 PM:

I feel bad for him. He has the best ideas, but just doesn't do a good job of communicating them and selling himself.

He actually does a really good job of communicating his ideas, when a media outlet gives him a chance. For example, back in September he did the entire three hours of Ed Schultz's nationally-syndicated radio talk show. Ed offered the same opportunity to the other Presidential candidates, btw. I think Edwards also took him up on it, I'm pretty sure Clinton and Obama didn't. Three hours of unscripted talk, taking calls, discussing his position. No spin, no BS, no bobbing and weaving, no triangulating, no slogans. You can hear it here (first of 12 parts):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2T7EHIHRSY

But for some strange reason, he just can't get any coverage in the corporate media.

Must be his poor showing in the polls. I'm sure that's it. Eric said so.

Matthew wrote on January 24, 2008 4:46 PM:

I hope he loses reelection, even if to a Republican,

Nice of you to stand up for your party. One more Republican in the House in 2009, if Matthew gets his wish.

And they say Nader voters are spoilers.

Matthew continues:

as the Democratic party needs more serious representatives that don't embarrass themselves, their district, and the party with fantasy bids for presidental office.

So, a "fantasy bid" is apparently a bid by anyone who isn't anointed as Serious by the corporate media, I guess. No, we don't need a diversity of voices in the Democratic Party, nor in the Presidential campaign. Just keep things nice, safe, "centrist" (as a Canadian TPMCafe poster observed, their right-wing, for Canada, Prime Minister, Paul Harper, would be considered far left here on many issues) and corporate. No challenges to the existing corporate order, please, and besides it won't work, we'll just label it a "fantasy."

Matthew wrote on January 24, 2008 5:19 PM:

ManofTruth, cute.

Ad jimBOB points out: "...if they stick around too long eventually they just look sad."

FYI, hello_world, sorry, not a troll. Nor a whiner or pouter like so many who seem to post.

Can any of you seriously suggest that Kucinich or Gravel warrant more coverage on TPM or other media than they've gotten? Their ideas aside (and I don't know if Gravel has any), do they as messengers rank attention? They have no constituency of merit. Their ideas are unfortunately discounted by the messenger.

Transcendental Floss wrote on January 24, 2008 5:22 PM:

The marginalization of Dennis Kucinich by the public, the media, even his own political party reflects deep, deep problems in this country, a deadening combination of cynicism and an entrenched status quo.

Also, it speaks to just how thoroughly the Republicans, despite their weakening position, continue to effectively control political rhetoric. When someone like Kucinich is written off so easily by labeling him a radical, liberal, hippie, socialist, you name it, what this really means is that the Democratic Party continues to be the Republican Party's bitch.

Transcendental Floss wrote on January 24, 2008 5:24 PM:

P.S. I don't blame Kucinich at all for saying that he won't endorse any of the other Democratic candidates.

Doug wrote on January 24, 2008 5:25 PM:

Did the mothership finally return? Kucinich phone home.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:32 PM:

Doug wrote on January 24, 2008 5:25 PM:

Did the mothership finally return? Kucinich phone home.

Doug, are you proud of being unoriginal and shallow?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 5:32 PM:

P.S. I don't blame Kucinich at all for saying that he won't endorse any of the other Democratic candidates.

Fair enough, of course, but do please remember that Sen Obama was the only one to object to Rep Kucinich's exclusion from the debate.

Transcendental Floss wrote on January 24, 2008 5:39 PM:

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 5:32 PM:

Fair enough, of course, but do please remember that Sen Obama was the only one to object to Rep Kucinich's exclusion from the debate.

Duly appreciated, but too little too late.

Kucinich for Prez wrote on January 24, 2008 5:41 PM:

Mathew:"Can any of you seriously suggest that Kucinich or Gravel warrant more coverage on TPM or other media than they've gotten?"

You mean more than none? Damn straight. What is TPM about if not ideas. Why cover candidates who don't say anything?

Most of the candidates answer questions that are asked, saying as little as necessary. Kucinich wasn't just trying to get past a question, he was trying to save us.

SecularAnimist wrote on January 24, 2008 5:47 PM:

Eric Kleefeld wrote: "The cable news networks stopped inviting him to debates, due to his very poor showings in the caucuses and primaries so far"

The giant corporations that own the cable networks excluded Kucinich from the debates, because they don't want the American public to be exposed to ideas like universal single-payer nonprofit health insurance under open, accountable, efficient public administration; or withdrawing from NAFTA and GATT and building a full-employment domestic economy instead of shipping jobs to cheap labor markets overseas; or immediately ending the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq; or impeaching Cheney and Bush for their treasonous lies to the American people and the US Congress.

Only candidates who are beholden to and approved by America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. are welcome at the corporate-sponsored debates. They reluctantly include Edwards, perhaps because unlike Kucinich they don't take Edwards' anti-corporate rhetoric seriously; but they have still done everything possible to "disappear" Edwards from the campaign coverage following his victory over Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

The Facilitatrix wrote on January 24, 2008 5:59 PM:

I am sorry that Kucinich has dropped out, because he truly has laid an excellent foundation for what he would have done as president. It's all there on his Website.

However, Edwards also has detailed and comprehensive progressive plans for his presidency. And Edwards, although he gets to be in the debates, is also a "forgotten" candidate.

Look at this post from October that draws on an interview from the Christian Science Monitor with Edwards: http://www.thebluestate.com/2007/10/if-democrats-vo.html
It's entitled "If Democrats vote on issues, Edwards wins."

The blog by desmoinesdem on the dailykos points out what Edwards would do for the middle class, which not many have realized, due to the emphasis placed on Edwards work for the poor: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/30/75916/281
From that post:
Edwards proposes three tax breaks "to strengthen the middle class pillars of saving, work and family." From the campaign website:
* Savings: A new "Get Ahead" tax credit to match up to $500 a year in savings for families earning up to $75,000—that could be used for retirement, college education, buying a home, investing in a small business or during a financial or medical emergency, and new "Work Bonds" to offer additional targeted savings incentives for low-income families. The credit will be refundable to benefit low-income families and the size of the credit will be reduced for families with higher incomes. All families earning up to $75,000 will be eligible.
* Families: Expand the Child Care Credit to pay up to 50 percent of child and dependent care expenses up to $5,000 and make it partially refundable, and allow stay-at-home parents to help pay for child care for newborn infants.
* Work: Triple the Earned Income Tax Credit for single adults and cut the marriage penalty.
In addition, Edwards would raise tax rates on certain types of wealth income. From the campaign website:
Nothing better reflects the problems with our tax code than the lower tax rates for capital gains. As Warren Buffett says, there is something wrong when he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. As president, Edwards will:
* Raise the tax rate on capital gains to 28 percent for the most fortunate taxpayers – taxing the investment income of the wealthiest Americans similarly to the wages of the middle class.
* Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest-income households and keep the tax on very large estates (above $4 million for couples).
* Declare war on offshore tax havens by cracking down on tax shelter promoters, cooperating with allies to fight tax havens, and closing the "tax gap" by improving IRS customer service, simplifying tax filing, auditing more large corporations and high-income individuals and requiring more third-party reporting.
* Close unfair loopholes like the tax breaks for hedge funds and private equity fund managers and unlimited executive pensions.

And just a few hours ago, Edwards came out on the FISA vote:
Edwards: '[Dems] should do everything in their power... to stop retroactive immunity'
Edwards on FISA 24 Jan 2008 09:21 am This kind of thing is one reason I'm glad he's still in the race: "In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program. It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists." http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 01/ edwards-dems-should-do-everything-in.h...

I am not against either Clinton or Obama. But I've read their platforms, and I've seen and heard them backing off on issues that Edwards doesn't. I'm basing my opinions on who puts forth the most progressive platform.

With Kucinich out, that leaves Edwards as the real progressive. And for anyone who says he can't win, guess what--each one of us can make that a true or false prophecy. We all have votes to use, and they don't have to go where ANY media--mainstream or not--tells us they should go.

fougasseu wrote on January 24, 2008 6:01 PM:

He had something to say that was important, that no one else was saying, and he said it in a disarmingly open-faced way.
I hope he continues in public life, and would love to see a book by him about his private life. His personal story is really interesting and virtually unknown. And he's very funny, something that no one got to see during the campaign.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 6:14 PM:

And he's very funny, something that no one got to see during the campaign.

Au contraire, anyone who watched him empty his pockets on the Colbert Report got to see him be winsome and witty and very funny.

Hip wrote on January 24, 2008 6:21 PM:

I hate to see him leave the race. He is a principled guy.

Anon wrote on January 24, 2008 6:24 PM:

I think Dennis has a great sense of ethics and good ideas. I will hearing him and seeing him with his wife. Definately, the better half. No disrespect intended.

wes2 wrote on January 24, 2008 6:26 PM:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is significantly easier to come off as a man of principle when you have nothing at stake. It's also easier to get through the whole campaign without any serious press scrutiny, contributing to one's stance as man of principle. Just sayin...

That said, I'm with Lee -- letting stations decide who to invite is a sham. What MSNBC did was deplorable.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 6:43 PM:

He may be beamed back up though

drubs wrote on January 24, 2008 7:33 PM:

Wow the corpse isn't cold yet and folks on this blog want him to endorse. give the guy 24 hours he's got to be tired.

out of the loop wrote on January 24, 2008 8:25 PM:

The idea that someone is pathetic simply because they fail to witn is itself pathetic. Are we so obsessed with winning that we need to ridicule those who lose? Further, winning an election is not the sole legitimate reason to run in one. Running provided Kucinich with a platform to articulate his ideas. So, let's stop sound petty and calling someone pathetic only because he didn't garner enough votes. Eugene Debs never won a race for President, but he ran time after time in a heroic effort to keep a movement alive. Are you ready to call him pathetic too?

audit the polls wrote on January 24, 2008 9:08 PM:

I guess having no corporate support or press coverage nowadays is a badge of honor.

Hey Dennis,there's always 2012 or 2016. Maybe if Edwards wins, there will be a different press by then.

Gregg Gordon wrote on January 24, 2008 11:19 PM:

"They have no constituency of merit."

I think the city of Cleveland, Ohio, would be considered a constituency, and I am sure they think themselves of some merit.

3rdAndLong wrote on January 24, 2008 11:39 PM:

What exactly does the Democratic party stand for? The remaining candidates obviously don't stand for the rule of law, as none of them would publicly support impeachment of Cheney or Bush. Obama serves up platitudes, then sticks his foot in his mouth praising Reagan. Hillary is perfectly content to sell out our jobs to H1B visa holders, won't admit that she made a mistake on the Iraq war authorization and keeps rattling the sabre at Iran. Edwards is willing to apologize for his previous votes to go to war in Iraq and for the Patriot Act but unfortunately a president isn't going to be getting do-overs on critical decisions. The thing that really bothers me is that the party doesn't have the guts or desire to tell punk CABLE news outlets or small time newspapers that ALL candidates are presented or NONE are presented. Kucinich was excluded before a single caucus or vote was held in this country. The Democratic party really needs to take a hard look at itself in the mirror. As a life long Democrat, I have never been more disappointed, and I never thought I would have to say that after observing the way Democrats cowered in fear in the face of Ronald Reagan. Democrats won't even face the responsibility of verifying that the New Hampshire vote wasn't manipulated. One should take a look at bradblog.com to get a taste of the b.s. that we will be dealing with in the general election. Every other major industrial democracy in the world has universal health care and the Democratic party is afraid to bring this to the US ?!? The corporate control of the media and the uber-rightwing judiciary cannot be overcome by accomodation-seeking politicians. Did any of the remaining Democratic candidates speak out on Jane Harman's "Home Grown Terrorism Act"? At least Kucinich was on record voting against it. We need someone who actively campaigns on overturning the Military Commissions Act, the PATRIOT Act, the corporate give-aways of the Energy bill, the Bankruptcy bill, NAFTA and FCC regulation changes, just to mention a few of the issues. Democrats know that we need to push HARD for an energy Manhattan Project now! Imagine if we had allocated the funds now going to this half-baked stimulus package to a real energy development program. We cannot continue borrowing to cover our energy consumption, overseas military adventures and endless purchases of consumer goods. We must demand accountability from those who knowingly created and sold "Hairballs of Risk" (not my words, but taken from the voice of Corporate America, The Wall Street Journal: "Wall Street Wizardry Amplified Credit Crisis", Dec. 27, 2007) and those responsible for delivering AAA ratings for these "investments". Everyone taunting Kucinich better think long and hard about how insulated they really are from the problems immediately staring us in the face.

Rene wrote on January 24, 2008 11:41 PM:

I'm saddened when someone as intelligent and insightful as Kucinich gets so blatantly marginalized by the media. Clearly the best choice but common sense is too scary for the average American voter, I guess.

For those who commented that he somehow didn't convey his ideas well -- I just don't know how to reply to that. Always felt he was extremely clear and concise if you ask me. Lack of exposure yes, but "lack of clarity" can only be explained if you never listened to the man.

My favorite line from Kucinich: "Why didn't you vote for the Patriot Act" -- "That's because I read it". That's one for the ages...

Goldspinner wrote on January 25, 2008 12:13 AM:

3rdAndLong,

Damn right!

destor23 wrote on January 25, 2008 12:28 AM:

His ideas were far more rational and insightful than the media gave him credit for. Why is that, exactly? Isn't the treatment of Kucinich kind of an example of what's wrong in our politics?

I never would have voted for him, but would have liked to have heard more from him.

Jim Martin wrote on January 25, 2008 12:57 AM:

Transcendental Floss wrote on January 24, 2008 5:22 PM:

Also, it speaks to just how thoroughly the Republicans, despite their weakening position, continue to effectively control political rhetoric.

Of course. They own the media.

More specifically, their interests and those of the corporate media coincide nicely. And there's plenty of corporate "Democrats" feeding at the same trough. Starting with Pelosi and Reid. And given that the Senate is fixing to sell what's left of the rule of law down the river with the FISA "update" and telco immunity (they want immunity for doing nothing wrong, or so they say), let's not forget that great Defender of Liberty, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller.

NewYorkerForObama wrote on January 25, 2008 1:45 AM:

Kucinich won't endorse, but you can-- come out and show your support this Saturday in NYC: WALK FOR OBAMA. 11am at 130th and Lenox, Noon at Union Square. Both walking to a 2PM Rally in Columbus Circle. RSVP and more details here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4rc9j

Show the world that New Yorkers want a President with integrity and vision.
OBAMA '08!

Michael wrote on January 25, 2008 3:17 AM:

Kucinich has been the only one who has been holding up a mirror to America telling voters, "Here, look at yourselves and what you are doing." Of course neither the MSM (Main Shit Machine) nor the Democratic Party want any part of the truth.

wengler wrote on January 25, 2008 6:09 AM:

Matthew,

Your "constituency of merit" comment has an elitist air about it more consistent with a political ideology I can't think of subscribing to.

Eric Kleefeld,

Representative Kucinich was not invited to the last debate before the Iowa caucas held by the Des Moines Register. The same outlet that allowed Alan Keyes his one and only television debate appearance the night before. The Congressman has continuously and consistently advocated for ideas and issues not even brought up by the other candidates, including single-payer not-for-profit healthcare and the introduction of a peace agenda.

What I have found highly disturbing is not that people disagree with Kucinich, but they do so in a tone dripping with condescension. A paragraph in a book about an event 30 years ago allows the corporate media -who are loathe to invite him to speak in their forum in the first place- to pigeonhole him as the guy who saw the UFO. We really deserve the system we got for tolerating the absolute vetting of candidates by heads of corporate entities. This semi-democratic corporatist republic will never deliver what I am guessing most of the people who support Democrats want.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 8:52 AM:

Their ideas aside (and I don't know if Gravel has any)

Gravel has ideas I haven't heard expressed anywhere else:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmL4vQS5by4

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)