The environmental endorsements start rolling in 10

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   siahtam Posted 1:14 am
   15 Oct 2007

   Why?Why is it in any environmental group's interest to endorse candidates in presidential primaries?

   Permalink

2. 

   gmunger Posted 2:13 am
   15 Oct 2007

   becauseBecause primaries matter. At least in theory.
   I suspect these groups would rather endorse a primary candidate that best reflects their views, in hopes of influencing the outcome, than to sit on the sidelines and regret it later when they have to hold their noses and endorse someone who is considerably more less-than-perfect.
   Unfortunately, the way presidential primaries/caucases are organized (disorganized?), only a handful of States (the early birds) end up deciding who the general election candidates are and the rest of the States' primaries become irrelevant. Why can't every State hold their primary on the same day? Seems to me the process of choosing presidential candidates is too important to leave to only a handful of States.
   And speaking of, I have yet to speak with anyone who has spoken with anyone who is supporting Hillary. Who are these phantom voters the pollsters seem to be finding so easily?

   Permalink

3. 

   caniscandida Posted 6:08 am
   15 Oct 2007

   Yes, because.Well, I like John Edwards a lot; I voted for him in the NY primary in 2004, and am prepared to do him the same favor next year.  But it is not as though everyone else has been ruled out just yet.  So endorsements such as this one do matter, to voters such as myself.
   
   Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

4. 

   askantik Posted 7:33 am
   15 Oct 2007

   So effectively...Friends of the Earth Action is settling on the best "top tier" candidate rather than the best overall candidate.  It's quite obvious to anyone with a brain that Dennis Kucinich has the strongest environmental policies.  Whether or not you agree with his stance on other issues, you have to know that he stands stronger than any other candidate on green issues.
   The fact that organizations like this one are embracing candidates that are the "lesser of the top tier evils" is pathetic.  Maybe if we embraced who we really thought should win, we'd end up with a President who actually did something.  I'm not necessarily criticizing them for not endorsing Dennis, because everyone has their own opinion, but it's just like how certain unions are endorsing John Edwards when it is TOTALLY obvious that Dennis Kucinich was by far the most moving speaker at the event at Soldier Field.  No one else got a standing ovation and, as Dennis said, no other candidate is a card-carrying union member.
   Why are people settling on something that is less than the best when the best IS an option?  Maybe if instead of settling on someone who is sub-par, if we supported who we thought should REALLY win (no matter who that person is), then there'd be more than just the "top tier" candidates.  I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich up until the primaries are over and if he doesn't win the nomination, I'll support him when he hopefully runs as an Independent.  I do not feel that the "top tier" candidates selected by the mass media are the best choices to be the top-ranking official in the most powerful nation of the entire world.  Do you?
   Watch some videos of Dennis Kucinich at the official DK YouTube channel, visit his official website, and finally, check out his interview right here on Grist.  I think if you do some research, you'll see that Dennis is in fact full of honesty, integrity, and courage and that he is truly a great alternative to selecting the "lesser of evils" from the media-chosen top tier candidates.
   
   

   Permalink

5. 

   larrycham Posted 3:28 am
   16 Oct 2007

   FOE endorsementI agree that Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate on the environment and many other issues.  I recall that in the Grist interview of the candidates, only Kucinich said that we would never have sound environmental policies until there is a change in consciousness. Other candidate mostly offered a predictable laundry list, though I thought Obama went beyond this just a little.  
   I assume that Friends of the Earth believes that to endorse Kucinich would be to throw away their influence, when they might be able to actually influence the who actually gets the nomination. It is a sad reality.  
   
   A pervasive change in consciousness is our best hope for developing a sustainable future. -- Thomas Berry

   Permalink

6. 

   caniscandida Posted 4:53 am
   16 Oct 2007

   "sad reality"Yes, AskAntik and LarryCham, Dennis Kucinich is the most brilliant and profound thinker in American politics right now.  And we should not forget to count among his many virtues, that he is vegan.  The people of Cleveland are very fortunate to have had him in their lives for so long.
   The late Paul Wellstone was approaching greatness along those lines.  I cannot help feeling that recent history would have turned out better, had he not died in that plane crash in 2002.
   Unfortunately, appearance seems always to have counted in American politics.  One knew at once, in 1988 and 1996, that Michael Dukakis and Robert Dole were beginning with a considerable disadvantage.  Critics of John Kerry said the same thing of him in 2004.  And that Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter (the first person that I ever voted for, by the way) should ever have won, had more to do with the anomalous circumstances of LBJ's war, social upheaval, and then the wake of Watergate.
   As for Al Gore in 2000, the less said about that the better.  David Roberts has just now said a great deal about it, and I am still digesting it -- it is a bitter meal indeed.
   The relative "electibility" of candidates is a necessary subject for primary voters to consider, for better or worse.  It makes us look like game strategists, I know, as though all we want is to win for the sake of winning, and the honest judgment of our conscience about what is best for the country has no effect on how we vote.  Nevertheless, I think an argument can be made, that considerations of electibility rightfully have a place in our considerations, and that they can be just as conscientious as what we may think on matters of substance.
   In this case, I do honestly like the way John Edwards has founded his campaign on his sincere passion to fight for working people and others in our society who are struggling and at a disadvantage; and I like the way he goes about relating other big issues to that fundamental concern, especially foreign policy, health care, energy and the environment.  But yes, Dennis Kucinich may be saying even braver and wiser things on all those subjects.  And I may still vote for him, after all: I happen to live in New York, so I am one of those very lucky Americans whose vote does not count, and who are free to vote for anyone and anything with absolutely no inhibition.
   For that matter, I am not at all sure that Edwards is "electible."  He could be, but I am not convinced of that yet.  It strikes me as odd, and troubling, that African-Americans, for example, in South Carolina especially, are weighing only two candidates, Hillary and Obama, and are showing little or no interest in Edwards, a North Carolinan with South Carolina origins and some policies that one would think should make him competitive among South Carolina blacks.
   
   Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

7. 

   Greta Posted 10:37 am
   16 Oct 2007

   Kucinich; and Colbert on KucinichI was considering voting my conscience, for Kucinich, in the primaries. Not expecting him to win, but also not expecting it to derail another candidate who could better compete in the main event.
   By the by, did you see the recent "Colbert Report" where he accepted Colbert's challenge to empty his pockets?  Hilarious! (See http://ComedyCentral.com "Nobel Fleeced Prize" clip.)
   Greta
   
   www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

   Permalink

8. 

   drfrances Posted 10:37 am
   16 Oct 2007

   If You Support KucinichIn many ways, Dennis Kucinich is a great candidate. But in the current system, I don't think he is a viable Presidential candidate. Kucinich supporters and others who support candidates who aren't "front runners" should actively support instant runoff voting.
   Without a system like instant runoff voting, voting for a great candidate who can't win can be a dangerous thing to do. The 2000 election certainly showed us that.
   Instant runoff voting is used in many places worldwide and could make a huge difference in American politics. If you want to learn more, please go to the Fair Vote website at http://www.fairvote.org/.
   Frances

   Permalink

9. 

   Greta Posted 10:39 am
   16 Oct 2007

   Comedy Central clip correction:The clip is now in "The Lineup".  Not sure its title, but the thumbnail shows Kucinich.
   
   www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

   Permalink

10. 

    Greta Posted 10:43 am
    16 Oct 2007

    link:http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_v ...
    
    www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

    Permalink