Amazon.com Widgets

« Frank Caliendo | Main | Bill Maher - New Rules »

Dennis Kucinich

Bill Maher interviews Dennis Kucinich. I wish Dennis looked just a bit more presidential. It's a sad world where appearance is a prerequisite for national office. Imagine Roosevelt in today's nip and tuck world, sitting in a wheel chair running for president. There is no way he'd be elected today. I like Dennis' stand on the issues it is nearest to mine of all the candidates. What is it about Dennis makes him not appear presidential. To paraphrase Randy Newman short people got no reason to run for president.




Quicktime Video 7.3 MB : 00:08:37
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Real Time w/Bill Maher
More Bill Maher video here


 

Comments

In what way doesn't he look presidential? Is it the jowl?

Bush lowered the bar for me in terms of 'looking presidental'

Norm, have you fallen victim to the illusion that one must have a "look"? Big Brother might have you...

Just telling like I see it, and I believe the history of the last 50 years confirms it. The U.S. is a nation of shallow fucks that place a premium on physical appearance. Is it impossible for a man under six feet to be elected president, no, just highly unlikely.

I have to agree with norm. He simply doesn't have the character of an "American President."

The American voters don't play the role of selecting a leader, they play the role of casting director in this damned theater.

He needs some grooming. A smaller knot in his tie would help and his shirts could have perhaps slightly smaller more appealing collars. He needs some high end wardrobe assistance in general. I beleive this would help his image greatly. He has got to look sharp. Also I think having his wife look a little less like a movie star and more like a wholesome house wife mother would also be quite helpful. I like him very much. He is standing up for the truth. Wow, if we could get a man like that into the position of world leadership. What a great day that would be for humanity.

appearance isn't the only reason he can't get elected. can't he at least say that he would order to kill bin laden if there was no other way to catch him? and, what he tells about international community and reforming the UN is nice, but that's a long term plan and not an alternative for current foreign policy. and single payer health care? it has failed in so many other countries so the US should move in that direction?

Are you fucking kidding me?!

Three things right off the bat: He wants to get rid of nuclear weapons. He wants to ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. And he's a vegan.

For one, you cannot get rid of nuclear weapons; that's just wishful thinking -- naive, crazy or otherwise. You cannot put that cat back into the bag. Same thing with handguns -- I particularly dislike this issue, because it's such a red herring: nevermind about "guns don't kill people..." -- guns do not create violence; poverty and despair creates violence. There is no correlation between gun violence and gun ownership -- but there's a huge one between gun (and other forms of) violence and poverty. Then you got the vegan thing: no cheese, no milk, cream or any other dairy products... No eggs, hell -- not even honey, because that's an animal product also. That's just batty.

Sadly; Norm is correct. Kucinich should clip the ears back, (a simple procedure) do some "tossing a football" pics; and hammer a few nails. Thats just the way the shallow political world is.

Gravel seems like an interesting guy:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/04/27/gravel-wont-be-buried/

But he too is incorrect that USA needs to get rid of the nukes. Won't happen.

The vegan position, not so much for health but for animal rights, simply does not work. Domestic farm animals evolved to live with humans. Through artificial selection their genes have altered to adapt with us. They can no longer live in "natural" wild environments without us. We provide domesticated animals protection from predators, food, and the ability to raise their young. In return, they provide us with food and clothing. If everyone on earth converted to a pure vegetarian diet, then what need do we have for domesticated farm animals? They can't live without us and if we no longer need their meat or hide, then we have no reason to raise them (except for a few to keep in zoos). If you think the free cattle roaming around the streets of India represents a solution, then you have not thought it through. These poor diseased starving creatures hardly represent an ethical solution any more than free-roaming feral cats and dogs, and they still require humans to keep them barely alive. I'm a supporter of animal rights but this is not a workable solution.

I don't think the problem with Kucinich is his appearance. It's that he seems like too much of a softie. I agree with most of his policies too, but Americans needs to feel like they're being protected, not caressed lovingly. People don't feel like they can respect him. They don't think he has any balls. I even noticed the way, Norm, that you referred to him as "Dennis" and not by his last name. That rarely happens with the other candidates. It's a repect thing.

I even noticed the way, Norm, that you referred to him as "Dennis" and not by his last name.

I often refer to candidates and office holders by their first name. I don't consider calling someone by their first name disrespectful. I add a last name if there is potential for confusion.

In Britain we had John Major and Tony Blair - Believe me, Kucinich is more interesting and charismatic than both.

His policies are decent (and MODERATE by world standards).

Put him in the movies! After a few years, he'll be president. The Kipper!

I don't consider calling someone by their first name disrespectful.

Funny because I call my parents by their first name and I often get frowned upon by many. My parents call each other by their first name and I immitated that at a young age. They saw no problems with this and thus I remain calling them Elizabeth and Raul. I've seen people call their parents "mum" and "dad" yet treat them like shit.

To look more presidential, Kucinich just needs to have more photo ops with his wife.

If you don't know what I mean, look it up, starting with Wonkette for example.

As far as I know his wife hasn't killed someone, like Laura Bush has.

I don't think his appearance is the problem. The Bin Laden comment, gun control, and being pro-legalization are his campaign killers. Which is sad, because I agree with him on just about every point.

My track record in voting seems to indicate that if I would vote for someone, they have little or no chance of winning.

I agree with Kucinich's policies and would vote for him without a second thought. The problem is that he is genuinely good. The American public is not about being genuinely good. It perceives that everyone is our to get them, and spirals into angry and aggressive tirades. It's mostly self-fulfilled profecies and allowing a fanatic Christian president teach everyone else in the world what a democracy really is.

"and single payer health care? it has failed in so many other countries so the US should move in that direction?"

Oh yes, the glorious privatized health system that forces us to pay more per capita on healthcare while getting in return a sanitary system that is ranked 28th in the world on its best showing. It is our god giving right to pay more for the same medication. Every one should be so lucky to pay up just for the privilege of getting a preventive consult by a physician. Who cares if we have to be attended by overworked doctors and jaded nurses and that pharmacist that have to such level of bureocratic overhead that have almost no time to be actual pharmacists, or that almost 50 million people (or 18% of the population) are uninsured, or that in instances seniors have to chose between food an medication, a system tha has plafes like Indian reservations with infant mortality rates in par with 3rd world countries...

I mean who cares as long as we get to have this wonderful system that puts for profit corporations in charge of the decisions regarding our health. I feel so honored to pay my premium every month, just to play the game of "what it is covered and what it isn't" everytime I need medical assistance, it provides with endless entertainmet... it sure makes life exciting!

As long as idiots like you are OK to get screwed and somehow thinking they are getting the deal of the century, we will have the mess that we have.

"Just telling like I see it, and I believe the history of the last 50 years confirms it. The U.S. is a nation of shallow fucks that place a premium on physical appearance"

Then how the hell do you explain Nixon? Who had the beauty and grace of a hunchback whale. Or Johnson who could catch flight due to favorable wind currents hitting his ears, or Ronald Reagan who was to beauty what a raising is to smooth texture. Or Bush the second, with that full fledged unibrow, the face of a simian, the grace of and class of a hillbillie, and the mental and verbal skills of a second grader.

Granted that Americans are shallow, and htat is true for most people in this world. However they are not voting people based on their physical appearances. A big chunk of Americans, esp in the right, vote who they are told they should vote for. The republican paty could present a orangutang and the GOP base would vote for it en masse. Heck the Bush/Cheney ticket wasn't that far off the beauty standard of a Baboon/Bonobo combination.

The most interesting part of this clip? When Maher says, "No one considers that you're really gonna win this nomination." and Kucinich replies, "Oh, I think I am."

Why would he say that unless he is completely delusional? There was a big pause, and Maher didn't even know what to say. I think the interview went downhill from there because as much as Maher may like some of Kucinich's ideas, he doesn't respect people that are delusional. Why can't the guy just openly admit and accept that his function is not to win the nomination, but to stir up the pot and get people thinking? Does he honestly believe he has a chance? Politicians are so weird and full of pride...

Also-- Erick, you implied that Kucinich has some sort of vegan agenda? Are you for real?

Anybody who thinks that gun control shouldn't be an issue is incredibly mistaken. Gun control should be a big issue. We shouldn't get rid of guns entirely, but we should be stricter on gun laws. There may not be a CORRELATION between guns and violence but there is a strict ASSOCIATION. It may not mean that there is a linear correlation between the two, but it does mean that we can find a pattern where there is violence and where there is an abundance of guns.

As for Kucinnich, I like him, I think what he stands for is great, I like that he believes diplomacy is a worthwhile answer for the global war on terror, and he seems to know what we are up against. Even though I am not a pot smoker, I like the fact that he plans on decriminalizing it. Socially, that is a very good idea.

Another reason to support Kucinich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kALg2VptE-g

I'm sold. But the more I think about him, the more I'm reminded of Perot and Nader. They really helped their constituencies seize the day didn't they? Oh well, better to be delusional than sell your vote to the highest bidder. I know who I'm voting for now. Thanks OMG! Off to send an email to 100 million of my closest friends...

user-pic

The president is not just a decision-maker but a leader so his or her overall presence matters. Kucinich doesn't really have that, but it frustrating because one could imagine him having it. There's no absolute physical quality for being a successful president, but in general serious rather than unserious, tall rather than short, decent looking rather than ugly or pretty, and grave rather than silly all help. This is why a lot of people don't think Bush is that presidential. Kucinich is obviously first and foremost a big-time liberal and that is why the media doesn't take him seriously. But he's also short, big eared, a bit too silly sometimes, and his voice is whiny. Like Obama he has an activist's outlook on politics (Obama worked as a community organizer); Obama just hides that better.

His record in Congress is something he should be proud of, though. He crafted one of the first bipartisan redeployment bills, before more Democrats had decided whether they wanted to oppose the war. He's a real legislator, not just a guy who pounds the podium on the floor.

I live in Canada, and I wouldn't feel very safe if the U.S. got rid of their nukes.

He's a funny guy and I agree with most of his points, but he's too far to the left for me. Being a vegeterian or vegan is a personal decision which I respect, but not a very good public health policy - I live in a rural town that depends largely on farming and ranching, and I know how a sub-par calving season can affect some people, not to mention if most people in the region suddenly decided to stop eating meat.

However, I agree with him about not killing bin Laden - almost everything I've read about al-Qaeda for the last 5 ½ years says that most of their cells are capable of operating outside the central chain of command, and they would still be capable of carrying out large-scale attacks.

user-pic

watch the debate on MSNBC if you get a chance!

There may not be a CORRELATION between guns and violence but there is a strict ASSOCIATION.

Correlation and association is irrelevant -- what about causation?

DZwonka,

Correlation can never prove causation. A strong association helps, but it takes even more evidence to prove a causation. The same thing went down with cigarettes and cancer.

Dennis Kucinich easily out played the hawk Bill Maher.

"You can be the CIA guy" was checkmate in about 4 minutes.

And yes the global war on terror is a hoax. Truth from a politician!

Can we handle the truth?

90/60? I studied physiology and perfect blood pressure is 120/80. Are the unit different in America perhaps?

Jamey, I think you are entirely off base about Kucinich’s response to Maher's comment about his inability to win the Democratic nomination. When Kucinich says, "Oh, I think I am" with a slight grin I think he's being funny and playing up the opportunity to seem optimistic about being a politician with views the broadcast media labels "radical" but are actually "refreshing". The truth is he won't win. Others on this thread have commented on the obvious reasons why. However I would argue that his presence in the arena is just as important.

This two party system is bullshit.

He doesn't 'look' presidential to me because he's actually talking about things in a way I relate to; that is, I undestand him on a personal level. Ironic then that in succeeding in what candidates try to do he becomes un-electable.

user-pic

I think Kucinich looks just fine. He is 60 years old and looks young for his age. What does "look Presidential"mean anyway? The big problem I see is that most people feel Kucinich is not electable because the mainstream media blacklist him and derides him when they do. The problem with this is when most people believe it. When the government and media can brainwash over 50 percent of the populace, we no longer live in a democracy and the type ofpolice measures we see now can be implemented.

When Kucinich says, "Oh, I think I am" with a slight grin I think he's being funny and playing up the opportunity to seem optimistic

Exactly. When he said it he didn't strike me as crazy; just good-natured, confident, and erroneous.

I think the reason Kucinich doesn't seem "presidential" is because he isn't so overwhelmingly full of himself, and doesn't play any alpha-male bullshit. No grunting and swaggering, no air of intimidation. He's a nice little guy with an open face, not a thug in a suit.

While most of the folk below the Mason-Dixon line wouldn't mind havin' a beer and telling racist jokes with Bush or McCain, the same can't be said for Kucinich.

Why would someone in Canada feel less safe if the US did not have nukes? I would really expect the exact opposite. If we get tangled up in a nuclear war, the fallout will most certainly reach Canada.

As others have pointed out, Kucinich is not pushing for a vegan policy, he simply agreed with Bill Maher that if people ate healthier, we'd be better off. It did seem like Bill was trying to lead him into saying he would use that as a public health policy, but he did not follow Bill's lead.

There is plenty of unhealthy vegan food out there as well, by the way. Deep fried tofu, vegan rum cake, vegan cookies, etc. Most soft drinks are probably vegan as well.

Shallow and unfortunate as it may be, appearances do matter in matters of persuasion. Now would be a great time for Kucinich to get a makeover. He can always say his wife made him do it.

The smaller tie knot was a great suggestion. Such a simple thing.

Yes, this stuff is absolutely dumb and trivial, but it's got to be considered. Notice Hillary has refined her appearance over the years; I'm convinced that was a necessary part of being taken seriously as a senator, much less a possible president.

I just wish there wasn't that video of Kucinich singing "Old Man River." It's almost as ridiculous as the Rudy-in-drag video.

To paraphrase Randy Newman short people got no reason to run for president.

As a 5'2" male, don't I know it. I tip my hat to any short guy who bags a hot taller chick. I'm not saying I'd vote for him; I'm just saying I tip my hat. :)

Whether intended as a joke or not, his response to Maher's statement "No one considers that you're really gonna win this nomination" is an evasion, and it bears directly on point of the very question Norm posed.

It's not an irrelevant or unfair query. And his failure to give a thoughtful and substantively responsive answer only reinforces the perception of him being a lightweight.

It was an obvious question which he should have seen coming, and which he should have knocked out of the park. There is a long history of unlikely candidates who have yet been successful, precisely because they made believers out of people who posed that very question. Paul Wellstone. Bill Clinton (does anybody remember his horrible 1988 convention speech nominating Dukakis?). Jim Webb most recently. Al Franken is having to address the basic question now too.

If Kucinich can't bat down the premise, he doesn't display an ability to deal with even harder questions, that an elected president would have to contend wih. And folks understandably have less confidence in him as a result.

javi.mahai wrote:

Then how the hell do you explain Nixon? [...] Or Johnson [...] or Ronald Reagan [...] Or Bush the second

I don't recall who these guys beat in the primaries, but the guys they beat in the general elections were no raving beauties either. And when Nixon lost to Kennedy, it was partly because TV had made physical appearance a bigger issue than it had ever been -- remember the sweaty upper lip?

I actually don't think it's so much physical beauty as a different kind of physical attribute -- an alpha-maleness, or at least the illusion thereof -- that people react to. On the Republican side, Chuck Hagel has it, I think, despite not being very tall (unless I'm mistaken). McCain doesn't.

You people (and Maher) need to learn to spot when someone is speaking in ideals and when they're talking realities.

bz: nice post. well said. Kucinich's response ("Oh, I think I am") does bear directly on Norm's point. It's not just about physical appearance. It's the whole package.

I've got to disagree with mabovo. We all know Kucinich won't win. That's not up for debate. But I don't think that he was trying to be "funny" and "play up the opportunity to seem optimistic." You can tell from Maher's reaction (he was the one sitting there interviewing him.) He wasn't laughing along with any sort of joke. He honestly didn't know how to respond to such ridiculous optimism. And like bz said, "[Kucinich's] failure to give a thoughtful and substantively responsive answer only reinforces the perception of him being a lightweight."

I think my comment, "Why can't the guy just openly admit and accept that his function is not to win the nomination, but to stir up the pot and get people thinking" shows that I completely agree with you that "his presence in the arena is just as important." It is. But this ignoring the truth of his situation kind of makes him look like a schmuck. No offense.

user-pic

"Why can't the guy just openly admit and accept that his function is not to win the nomination, but to stir up the pot and get people thinking"

What do you mean his "function"? He's offering himself for the nomination. It's not just his idea, a lot of people (though nowhere close to a majority) are supporting him and working for him as well. If people want to vote for him for the nomination, who is he to say that their support is unserious, futile, or merely symbolic?

When politicians with little chance of winning refuse to acknowledge what the best estimates of their chances are, it's not just spin or delusional thinking. It's basic respect for the fact that elections and not polls are decisive in our democracy. The media get irritated with that, but that's because they are obsessed with the horse race rather than the understanding of the alternatives.

What if something other than 'looks' was important? What if you realized peace is good for business? If you want to make peace your essential issue then it comes down to Dennis Kucinich versus Ron Paul. This would be a very interesting contest. For me the tie breaker was Kucinich filing articles of impeachment against Cheney. Go Dennis!

You people (and Maher) need to learn to spot when someone is speaking in ideals and when they're talking realities. -- Rob

I do think Kucinich could stand to be more down-to-earth, but there is a sentiment I detect in your statement that I do not agree with.

Let's just say, I would rather have someone slightly naive in charge of the most powerful nation in the world instead of a pea-brained warmonger like Bush.

Still, that's one thing I like about Obama over the other candidates... he tends to sound very serious about his job (except for that fucking promo he did for some sports team; I felt disgusted when I saw that), and he speaks deliberately and with thought.

The rest of the candidates more or less sound like they think the whole thing is a game. Kucinich sounds too enthusiastic and giddy to me.

Also, the correct response to Maher's question about offing Bin Laden: "I will do what is necessary". Kucinich's stammering was pathetic.

If Kucinich had said, "You're right, I'm going to lose" then everything he does from here on out in the campaign would be pointless. Maher's question was too cynical and Kucinich was left to look too optimistic because of it.

Also, those who think he's a militant vegan or whatever your worries are - he made it very clear in the interview that his choice of diet is his personal choice and not a policy idea. He didn't even admit to being vegan.

I think he needs to make more public appearances with his wife. If he did that the idea of him as a small man with no swagger would evaporate. She is by far the best looking, and one of least "Stepford Wife" of any of the other potential first ladies I'm aware of. Her and Edward's wife are both true class and strengths to their husbands and women in general. A great change of pace from the vacuous shell that is our current Prozac-numbed First Lady.

Correlation can never prove causation. A strong association helps, but it takes even more evidence to prove a causation. The same thing went down with cigarettes and cancer.
-- Renato

What The Fuck are you talking about!?

Of COURSE correlation doesn't prove causation. Correlation, association -- same thing -- it's irrelevant. 99.7% of all mountaineers who died attempting to climb Mount Everest drank milk -- there's a correlation; an association -- and no goddamn causation (I'm sure there are countless other examples that are far more sensible than that one).

That's exactly the point.

There are lots of places where firearms are readily available -- urban areas in particular -- yet there's little gun violence.

And then there are places where it is difficult to obtain firearms -- like Washington DC -- that has a lot of violence, guns or otherwise.

Gun violence is just a symptom. It's not the decease. Nor are guns.

Dzwonka, that you just used an intelectual fallacy. The 99.7% of the dead mountaineers on Mt. Everest did not die because of milk, however 100% of the people who died by way of gunshots died because of guns.

Banning/restricting milk would have avoided 99.7% of deaths on Everest, however bannin/regulating guns would have prevented 100% deaths by bullets.

In other words, you were talking about oranges when the matter was about apples.

I'm speechless. I hope he knows how to win this election because this is the American President I have been waiting for. Too bad I can't add my vote to that.

...however bannin/regulating guns would have prevented 100% deaths by bullets.

Another fine example of the fact that 86% of all statistics are completely made up. There is no surefire way to prevent gun related deaths, as long as we have guns anywhere in the world. Some asshole will always find a way to get his hands on one, whether there are laws against it or not (look how well the "war on drugs" is prevailing).

And to be honest, does anyone here really believe that if a certain person wants to kill a large number of people (regardless of reason) that the inability to find a gun will stop them? What if Cho couldn't have found one? What was stopping him from finding a bucket, a bag of fertilizer, and some diesel fuel?

For the Record, Correlation and Association are not the same thing. You cannot say there is a correlation between Guns and violence because they are both categorical variables. When you have two quantitative variables, you will be able to have a correlation.

The End.

Banning/restricting milk would have avoided 99.7% of deaths on Everest, however bannin/regulating guns would have prevented 100% deaths by bullets.
-- javi.mahai

Holy moley -- that's blissbury! Irrational, rambling nonsense. I'll make a note of ignoring that user's posts from now on, I reckon.

I just met with Congressman Kucinich today at my school (UNC-Asheville) and talk about a nice guy.

We had a town hall meeting for an hour where he took questions and that was great. Later on he gave a speech at our gym to about 2,000 people and he absolutely killed.

I don't think he's got a chance to win, but he's won me over. The guy has a ton of charisma (I had no idea...he needs to show it) and he's just a friendly, down to earth guy. He's got some great ideas and I just really like him. He impressed the shit out of me. I really think if he got more exposure, he could have a much better shot at being elected. Some of his ideas are a little out there, but a lot of them are just really, really good. Things that EVERYONE (you would think/hope) would be able to agree on.

He wouldn't have a problem here in Canada. Hell, look at Jean Chretien. Stop electing celebrities--most of them are dumb as posts. Abraham Lincoln wouldn't stand a chance with this attitude either. So ditch the attitude. Somebody has to launch a campaign that says, "Let's face it folks: beauty times brains equals a constant. Cute people are dumb. So this year, vote ugly... "

Come on, stop it! Stop talking about how he is "un-electable". All it takes is for you to stop thinking it.

I voted for Kucinich in 2004 (pointlessly, since my state was late in the primaries, but it was the right thing to do), and I'll do it again in 2008.

The only reason people keep saying he doesn't have a chance is because... everyone else says he doesn't have a chance. His communications director (in a WNYC interview) has expressed frustration at the fact that the media simply don't cover him, even when he gets multiple standing ovations at events where other candidates (who are less well-received) are covered in great detail. The media have written him off.

What concerns me is that all the people here who have said they love what he stands for but don't think he can get elected will vote for someone else. That would be a travesty.

I think President Kucinich would be a Good Thing for this country, here and abroad. I only wonder how much of his agenda he would be able to get done. An administration based on peace and taking care of each other is a hard sell in this country, alas.

And, please -- just because he's vegan doesn't mean he expects everyone else to be, too. Does everyone in this country have to eat meat because W does? Come on, people!

I don't agree with those of you who say Congressman Kucinich is "crazy" and "naive," but at least you're not talking about his looks. I am so tired of that. He's not running for Prom King, for God's sake. He's an intelligent, focused, good-hearted man. He should be our next president. And those of you who question him for being vegan ... grow up. Better a vegan than an oil man.

Seems like a cool dude

I think most of us agree that the 2-party system is bull, but the propensity to vote only for a 'viable' candidate is probably one of the major reasons it has come to this. I think things would be different if we all voted for whom we sincerely believe deserves our vote, regardless of his or her 'viability'. Otherwise we create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I would hope that those who find only some of Kucinich's positions to be unrealistic do not discount other, more attainable goals, particulary if these are way overdue in this society.

Personally, I find that cynicism must be incredibly widespread when things like non-profit healthcare and promoting peace are deemed to be the unrealistic, naive dreams of a deluded man. It really is sad.

He's got my vote. For me, everyone else represents 'no change', basically. Hopefully the internet will allow the political process to wean itself somewhat from its need for mainstream media coverage.

On a lighter note, I don't know about looks and size, but...when was the last time the US had a...bald president?

user-pic

Kucinich is a good man and he has my vote. I agree that he may not be the most "presidential-looking" candidate, but if his judgment is sound and his stances are ethical then I trust people to look past the superficial.

It's absolutely time to reach out to other countries, embrace our "enemies," and celebrate our differences. It's way past time to bring the troops home, it's time to stop fighting the pointless "war on drugs" (especially hemp and marijuana), it's time to stop discriminating against people because of their sexual orientations, and it's especially time to do something about oil and the environment.

As to his being a vegan, so am I, and I think I'm the better for it - healthier and more respectful of life. I certainly wouldn't force my decision on anyone, the choice is entirely personal. At the same time, I think it speaks to his general message of an interconnected world and of a world that should value all life.

Dennis Kucinich is one of those rare jems that a materialistic world like this can ever offer. Some may think he sounds impractical but he speaks of things that NEED to shape our future. To me other candidates look very deceptive and power hungry. What you now want a president to get a plastic surgery for you to vote for him ? That's a shame. He being a vegan just shows that he believes in non violence. Of course I can understand lack of basic intelligence among gun crazy warmongers.

Sometimes...the most valuable gifts come in the plainest packages!

Looks pretty presidential to me - check Dennis out here and download a song dedicated to him - for FREE!

Peace, RA4k

user-pic

Kucinich is a true progressionist and the only real anti-war candidate. It's too bad that people would count him out as president just for not having "balls" or looking like a "softie". He is a bright and experienced politician. He stands solid in all of his issues and would be a favorable change for the United States. I can only hope we don't elect another cowboy or actor.

Navigation

Support This Site






advertise_liberally.gif

Google Ads

Advertise Liberally Blogroll

All Spin Zone
AMERICAblog
AmericanStreet
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
The Bilerico Project
BlogACTIVE
BluegrassReport
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass.Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
CliffSchecter
ConfinedSpace
culturekitchen
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribis Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
GreenMountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making PoliticsFun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MinnesotaCampaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
My Left Nutmeg
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
PinkDome
Politics1
PoliticalAnimal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Slacktivist
SmirkingChimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Tattered Coat
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Carpetbagger Report
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives

scarlet_A.png

Chess Tactics Training

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2014 Norman Jenson