Tag: Dennis Kucinich

One of the key buzzwords of this Presidential race is change. The voices of change cumulated in a Democratic victory in 2006, and since then, the voices of change have only gotten louder and louder. Supposedly. And yet, when we look at the front-runners for the election, we see that the conventional candidates — Hillary Clinton and John McCain — are poised to take the nomination starting with Super Tuesday. A showing below 15% in South Carolina could doom John Edwards, while both Hillary and John McCain are leading by substantial margins in California. While the Republican primary is a lot messier than the Democratic primary, it seems that with his wins in South Carolina and Louisiana, Mike Huckabee’s home turf, it seems that McCain is an odds-on favorite to take over the Republican nomination.

This brings us to the question of change — do we really want change? The buzzword of this election has been change, yet we see the two establishment candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, establishing themselves as frontrunners in the primary. It seems that people on both parties say that they want change, yet saying that they want change and actually having the courage to vote for change are two different things. It is a lot like a bad relationship — we say that we want to break up, yet when it comes time to actually do it, it is much more comfortable to stay in the relationship than it is to make a clean break and start over. We say that we don’t like where we are and want to move and make a fresh start; however, when it comes down to do it, we are more afraid of the unknown than we are of staying in a bad situation.  

The CBC/CNN debate in South Carolina is history.  One of the issues covered was that of Univeral Health Care.  The Big Three each have their plans, which are built upon some form of our current system of health insurance.  The other major plan is HR 676, The Conyers/Kucinich Plan for Medicare for All.

I get the sense that a lot of people out there — not necessarily a plurality, but enough to justify having a public conversation with them — share roughly my preference order with respect to the remaining non-Gravel Democratic Presidential candidates.  In terms of what I’d like to see in a nominee, I’d give Edwards a 90, Obama an 84, Clinton a 72, and I’ll explain where Kucinich fits in later.  So here’s where I stand after today’s debate, and y’all can hash it out in comments if you want.  There’s no special reason that you should be that interested in what I think, so there’s no particular reason that you should be abusive in comments.  I’m mostly setting this down as my own diary for the record, so I can refer to it years down the line.  (Thanks again, buhdy, for providing this service.)

Jeralyn links to this Las Vegas Sun analysis of the Nevada Caucuses. According to the Sun, it all boiled down to this:

And though it’s easy to slice and dice and analyze strategy, there’s this: Nevadan Democrats put their faith in Clinton and her experience.

At dozens of precinct locations voters interviewed by the Sun cited Clinton’s experience as the overriding factor in their decision.

Clinton’s “experience” over Obama’s call for “change.”

Jeralyn says this:

I continue to believe that when it comes time to vote, those adversely affected by our tumbling economy are going to be less concerned with aspirational change and more apt to ask which candidate has both a concrete economic program and a track record showing the ability to push it through.

I hope that’s true, but on an even broader scale. Because I don’t hear much about anyone’s economic programs. Even in the endlessly blithering blogosphere, the campaign themes are repetitively dumbed down to “experience” vs. “change.” And Jeralyn is spot on that people actually want to know about concrete policies. It would be nice if the campaigns and their supporters realized that.

If people really want real experience, they’d have supported Bill Richardson. If people really want real change, they’d be supporting Dennis Kucinich. The people who continually hype the illusion of Clinton’s “experience” or Obama’s “change” need to be a bit more honest with themselves, and figure out what it really is that makes them so adore their favorites. Maybe, then, they will do a better job of selling their candidates to we skeptics. Or maybe they won’t.