Washblog

Would you say that the members of the group made their decisions wholly on the basis of the candidates' stances on the issues -- or did they also consider electability?

I'm wondering this as I consider Kucinich more progressive than Edwards.... This is despite Kucinich's pro-life background, as 1.) He was never an ideological hard-liner advocating overturning Roe v Wade, etc.; 2.) He's changed direction since 2001/2002 and now votes and advocates pro-choice (Continuing Evolution); 3.) He's always been genuinely pro-life -- in the non-ideological sense, caring for all people living in the world as well as for the 'unborn' -- extending respect for life to animals as well, as expressed by his vegan diet, his proposal for a Dept. of Peace, his opposition to the murderous war on drugs, etc.

I have to think about this.  Why do I consider  Kucinich as more progressive?  I realize that actually, I consider him to be more consistent and reliable as a progressive presence, not necessarily higher-scoring if we gave him an issue-by-issue test.

For example, Edwards, to his credit, has admitted that his vote to give Bush authority to take pre-emptive action in Iraq was a mistake.  But he did vote for it.  How on earth did he not see the lies for what they were?  Kucinich saw through the Bush administration from the beginning and not only voted against it -- but spoke out forcefully.    

This Sept 11, just a few days ago, when Kucinich was the only member of the House to vote against the Sept. 11 resolution in he said:

"It is important that Congress wake up to the truth and exercise its obligation under the Constitution to save our nation from being destroyed from the lies that took us into Iraq, the lies that keep us there, the lies that are being used to set the stage for war against Iran and the lies that have undermined our basic civil liberties here at home," Kucinich said in a statement.

"The September 11 resolution that Congress considers today should have made reference to those matters. It does not, so I cannot support it," Kucinich said, also calling for a halt for further war funding and the troops to be brought home.
(from Fox News, 9/11/07:

Kucinich sees the lies, knows they are killing us -- and is not afraid to speak out.  Like Edwards, he also sees that consolidation of economic power into fewer and fewer hands is at the center of our problems.  But he has been speaking out about this from the very beginning. This is not an argument for Kucinich over Edwards.  It seems clear that Edwards is more electable than Kucinich and electability is key.  I'm just trying to explain why it would puzzle me for Edwards to be seen as more progressive....