Why Can't Dennis Kucinich Be More Like What Jesse Was In 1988 Or More Like What Paul Wellstone Was?

Posted on: May 28th, 2007 by Neil Aquino No Comments

Ideally, I’d vote for the most liberal Democratic Presidential candidate in the 2008 Texas primary. Regretfully though, that candidate in 2008 is likely to be the same person it was in 2004---Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

I like Representative Kucinich well enough. I wish he were my Congressperson instead of the one I have. And yet--I can’t take Dennis seriously as standard-bearer for my views on the national stage. 

My first vote for President was for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 Ohio Democratic Primary. I knew Jesse would not win the nomination, but he made it to the convention and he made his case with a strong speech.

The late Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota considered running for President in 2000. He did not make the race in part due to severe back pain. Wellstone was the real thing and I think he would have done a great job carrying the banner as a serious candidate of the left.        

Dennis Kucinich is no Paul Wellstone. I know some folks get excited over the Kucinich’s push to impeach Vice President Cheney. To me, whatever I think of Mr. Cheney, that stuff is a waste of time. It marks Mr. Kucinich as a candidate of narrow segment of the left and not a candidate who can carry the message to a larger audience. 

Reverend Jackson and Senator Wellstone were men with a more broad appeal than Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Kucinich won 3.8% of all Democratic primary votes in 2004. Compare that low number against the 29.1% of primary voters Reverend Jackson won in 1988. 

It’s not all about the numbers. Beliefs count as well. But anyway you figure it, Dennis is not the man in 2008.      

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

For me so far I'm leaning towards John Edwards because I feel he is most to the left on economic questions. My view could change but that is where I am at now. I feel that if we don't address these questions of economic unfairness that we are not going to have a country anybody has any faith in. I will say though that Obama not having long exeperience is not a problem as far as I can see. By the time he gets to November 2008, should his campaign make it to that point, he'll have been through a tough process. Thanks for your comment and for reading the blog.

I too voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988 and then grieved over the outcome of the election (Reagan), even threatened to move to Canada. Of course, I couldn't have known then what the Republicans would bring to bear -- it's been worse than I could have even imagined, especially of late. The Democratic candidates all have gaps. As you said, Kucinich is the most liberal (and so offers the most change), but he has no charisma to convince the rest of the country. As a woman, I dreamed of the day we had an electable female presidential candidate -- but Hiliary's early support of war as an answer gives me chills. John Edwards has populist ideas, but doesn't seem to answer minority and international issues for me. Obama is impassioned and forward thinking, but inexperienced. I just want a candidate who returns America to its open-armed, nurturing of populist freedom from oppressive government, oppressive business practices, oppressive religious tenants and oppressive military actions. What to do?