Democrat Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second, long-shot bid for the White House as he faces a tough fight to hold onto his other job—U.S. congressman.
In an interview with Cleveland’s Plain Dealer, the six-term House member said he was quitting the race and would make a formal announcement on Friday.
“I will be announcing that I’m transiting out of the presidential campaign,” Kucinich said. “I’m making that announcement tomorrow about a new direction.”
Kucinich has received little support in his presidential bid; he got 1 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was shut out in the Iowa caucuses although he has a devoted following.
Kucinich, 61, is facing four challengers in the Democratic congressional primary March 4, and earlier this week he made an urgent appeal on his Web site for funds for his re-election. Rival Joe Cimperman has been critical of Kucinich for focusing too much time outside of his district while campaigning for president.
His decision comes a month after his youngest brother, Perry Kucinich, was found dead.
Kucinich said he will not endorse another Democrat in the primary.
Kucinich brought the same sense of idealism to his second run for president as he did in his first bid. He said he was entering the race again because the Democratic Party wasn’t pushing hard enough to end the Iraq war.
Huge disparities between votes cast on Diebold electronic voting machines and actual hand counted tallies are emerging during the New Hampshire recount, with Hillary Clinton gaining the most from over a hundred unaccounted for votes in one Manchester Ward.
The recount in Manchester’s Ward 5 revealed a disparity whereby establishment candidates received over a hundred ‘black hole’ votes between them that could not be tallied during the hand count.
Diebold Result
Hand Count
CLINTON
683
619
EDWARDS
255
217
OBAMA
404
365
At the moment there is no indication of where these extra votes came from, but the figures again cast the accuracy of Diebold voting machines into severe doubt and provide further evidence of the need for a return to hand counted paper ballots only in all federal elections.
Brad Friedman at The Brad Blog continues to provide great coverage of the recount, unlike New Hampshire’s foremost news outlet WMUR, whose “only source seems to be whatever (New Hampshire Secretary of State) Gardner tells them,” according to Friedman.
In addition, 550 ballots in Stratham were not read by the Diebold machines at all and were rejected as blank ballots.
Voting Rights attorney John Bonifaz also told Friedman of his deep concerns about the transparency of both the initial election as well as the recount.
“I’m very concerned that this is not a fully transparent process that is happening there,” he said.
Diebold memory cards used in New Hampshire, which have been proven to be vulnerable to hacking and could easily be used to steal an election, are “missing” according to state officials.
Bonifaz, “Says he was told by Secretary of State William Gardner that his office doesn’t get involved in tracking what happens to those memory cards. Some have reportedly been returned to LHS, and may have had their memory erased already,” reports Friedman.
“When you have a private company counting 80% of the votes, and you later learn that the memory cards are unaccounted for, you have a serious question about the transparency and accountability in that process,” Bonifaz said.
In another shocking development, vote fraud expert Bev Harris witnessed first hand that a majority of ballot boxes had 8 inch slits in their side. Election Defense Alliance’s Sally Castleman followed the boxes back to the ballot vault and also noticed the cuts. Read Bev’s report here.
No worries, say New Hampshire officials when cuts up to eight inches long are spotted in newly delivered ballot boxes. “The only seal that counts is the one on top.” Except the seal on top can be peeled off without leaving a trace, then reaffixed.
Black Box Voting has been doing a chain of custody exam for the New Hampshire Primary’s recount. On Wednesday night, Election Defense Alliance’s Sally Castleman mentioned a troubling observation: After following the ballots back to the ballot vault following Wednesday’s recount, she had the opportunity to enter the ballot vault, and noticed what looked like cuts, or slits, in the side of many ballot boxes. New Hampshire officials assured us that these cuts, which slice through the tape, seals and box itself do not permit access to the uncounted ballots, pointing to a label on the boxtop which they call a seal. But the “seal” can be removed, like a Post-it, and reaffixed. So it’s not a seal all! We wanted to know if the ballot boxes were slit while in the vault, in the transport van, or came from the towns with slits in them.
I confirmed this morning that many if not most of the boxes scheduled to be counted today had slits in them. I went out when a vanload of ballots arrived, and saw that they were slit at the time they arrived by van. Susan Pynchon and I drove to two nearby towns and watched as they handed over their ballot boxes to “Butch and Hoppy”, the two men who drive around in the state in a van picking the ballots up. We observed as they loaded boxes of ballots into the van with no slits at all in them. We videotaped each of these up close. They arrived at the destination without slits. The label on the top was affixed, but in some cases was crumpled, or also damaged.Of course, the label affixed to the top can be removed and reattached without telltale signs.No vault tonightA significant departure from the normal chain of custody path occurred tonight. They decided not to use the vault to store the ballots.
Edwards and Obama LIE about not taking money from lobbyists
Obama claims at the Nevada debate: “I don’t take money from federal lobbyists…” when in fact all 3 democratic candidates take money from lobbyists
Hillary Clinton: $567,950
John McCain: $340,365
Mitt Romney: $229,475
Rudolph W. Giuliani: $212,100
Fred Thompson: $90,000 Barack Obama: $76,859
Duncan Hunter: $30,900 John Edwards: $18,900
Mike Huckabee: $6,964
Ron Paul: $0
Dennis Kucinich: $0
By the way, some of the people who dropped out took money too, but I cut the list down for ease of use. One could argue that Kucinch or Hunter really aren’t in the race anymore, but they’re still polling in some places. Paul is definitely still pulling support, but not a ton.
However, Mike Gravel and Alan Keyes do not make the list because they weren’t serious in the first place. Sorry guys. Better luck next time.
ABC News finalized the roster of participants for Saturday’s Republican and Democratic debates in New Hampshire, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — who has a small but vociferous following and finished ahead of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the Iowa caucus Thursday — will participate in the debate along with Giuliani, Rep. John McCain (R-Ariz.), former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
The face-off begins at 7 p.m.
The Democratic field is decidedly smaller with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Texas Gov. Bill Richardson.
Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) dropped out of the race after dismal showings in Iowa. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) did not meet ABC News’ criteria for inclusion, which included placing at least fourth in Iowa or polling 5% or higher in one of the last four reputable random New Hampshire or national surveys.
Sunday’s Republican forum hosted by Fox News Channel has drawn criticism from the Paul camp for excluding the long-shot candidate. Fox News invited Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani to the New Hampshire forum, which will be moderated by Chris Wallace.
During coverage of the Iowa caucuses, Fox News’ Shepard Smith wondered out loud if his network shouldn’t reconsider inviting Paul to participate in the forum. Fox News has yet to announce any changes to Sunday’s forum.
Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich on Tuesday asked his supporters to make rival Barack Obama their second choice if he doesn’t meet a cutoff point for voting in Iowa’s caucuses.
Kucinich, an Ohio congressman at the back of the pack of Democratic hopefuls, seemed to concede a loss in the caucuses. He said his recommendation was for “Iowa only.”
“Senator Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters,” Kucinich said in a statement.
Candidates in Thursday night’s caucuses must reach a level of support in each of the state’s 1,781 precincts – typically 15 percent of those who attend. Candidates who fail to meet that aren’t considered viable, and their supporters can move to another candidate or go home.
“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice … because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade,” Kucinich said. “But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice.”
I can’t believe I actually made the mistake of voting for this guy. But then, all of us are entitled to a mistake or two.
From Politico: “Ralph Nader unleashed on Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday — criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business — and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.”
That is, for the CFR’s candidate, as Edwards is their darling. I don’t know if Nader is unaware of this. No, he is really too smart to be that brain dead. Obviously, Ralph Nader is a shill for the New World Order. It figures.
In an 11th hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to “recognize” Edwards by “giving him a victory,” the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will “pander to corporate interest groups” if elected.
Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because “she is a woman who doesn’t want to be labeled as soft on defense and she doesn’t want to be shown as taking on big business.”
Sure, Ralph. And Edwards will dismantle the military-intelligence network and send the corporate death merchants a-running for shelter.
And there is a bridge in Brooklyn and it is for sale, too.
Nader, a four-time presidential candidate, called Edwards a Democratic “glimmer of hope.” He has long criticized Democrats as indistinguishable from Republicans, chiding both parties as slaves to corporate financing and interests.
It was Nader who famously — or infamously to many Democrats — siphoned off enough liberal votes from Al Gore in 2000 to hand New Hampshire and Florida, and as a result, the presidency, to George W. Bush. Since 2004, however, Nader has been increasingly controversial within the political left. He was booed at a national conference of progressives earlier this year.
Is the CFR a “glimmer of hope”?
It is if you are a fan of one-world government, as Nader apparently is. Does Ralph believe the machinations of the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Foundation are in the best interest of the American people?
“The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established,” explained the late CFR historian Carroll Quigley, who served as Bill Clinton’s mentor. “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government,” declared Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the CFR.
But let’s be fair — John Edwards is not a member of the CFR. He only hangs out with them. Earlier this year he delivered a speech to the CFR faithful and warmed the cockles of their hearts. He co-chaired a CFR task force with Jack Kemp. John Edwards is a consummate insider and he will deliver our sovereignty to the globalists on a silver platter.
In Thursday night’s debate, defending her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment – which critics have charged was intended to escalate towards military confrontation with Iran – Senator Clinton said, “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has assisted the militias… in killing…Americans.”
This unsubstantiated allegation echoes unsubstantiated claims by Senator Lieberman and the Bush Administration that both Lieberman and Administration have claimed would justify U.S. military attacks on Iran. But, as Senator Clinton surely knows, the Bush Administration has not produced evidence to substantiate these allegations. Why is she repeating them, now, when even the Bush Administration has moved away from them?
On February 12, the Washington Postreported on a much-awaited U.S. military briefing in Iraq that was supposed to substantiate these claims. “The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the ‘highest levels’ of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops.,” noted the Post, adding that “the U.S. government has never publicly offered evidence proving the allegations.”
Iraq’s deputy foreign minister said the Iraqi government remains in the dark about the U.S. investigation into Iranian activities in Iraq. “It is difficult for us here in the diplomatic circles just to accept whatever the American forces say is evidence,” he said. “If they have anything really conclusive, then they should come out and say it openly.”
The components of the one device shown at the briefing “require precision machining that Iraq has shown no evidence of being able to perform,” U.S. officials said.
But as NBCreported on February 23, U.S. military officials subsequently admitted that these devices were indeed being manufactured in Iraq. That doesn’t prove that some were not also coming from Iran, but it does undermine the previous U.S. claim that they had to be coming from Iran since they couldn’t be manufactured in Iraq.
Regardless of what was true in the past, U.S. military officials are now saying that Iran has halted the smuggling of bombs into Iraq. “We have not seen any recent evidence that weapons continue to come across the border into Iraq.” Army Maj. Gen. James Simmons said, the Los Angeles Timesreported Thursday. “We believe that the initiatives and the commitments that the Iranians have made appear to be holding up.”
It’s very unfortunate, to say the least, that Senator Clinton is still pushing the claim that Iran is responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq when even the Bush Administration is moving away from it. “Aktar maliki min il malik,” as they say in Arabic – more royalist than the king.
Despite pledging to stop corporate lobbyists and playing herself off as the defender of the common man, Hillary’s contributors speak for themselves. Several internet sites can be found that disclose public donations, and Hillary’s is a laundry list of corporate bankers and media barons. Sure, Hillary’s got her fair share of rock stars and movie celebs supporting her, but she’s also got major money coming in from different business sectors. There’s nothing illegal about it, but it highlights just how fused our two-party system has become, and just which wheels are being greased behind the scenes. Hillary Clinton publicly espouses populist messages and promises to repeal corporate welfare and subsidies, yet is being bankrolled by the very corporations that she pledges to fight. As the old saying goes, ‘Money talks’…
Just a few of her corporate sponsors.
Jack Abernethy, CEO of FOX TV
Chris Albrecht, HBO chairman
Paul Allen, Microsoft co-founder
Lloyd Blankenfein, Goldman Sachs chairman
Warren Buffett, Berkshire-Hathaway, billionaire
Ron Burkle, Supermarket magnate
August Busch III, Anheuser-Busch chairman
John Catsimatidis, Supermarket mogul
Peter Chernin, News corps. COO
Donny Deutsch, Adverstising exec
Barry Diller, media mogul
Tom Freston, former Viacom president
Brad Grey, Paramount pictures chairman
Vernon Jordan, Washington power broker
Jeff Kindler, Pfizer CEO
Norman Lear, TV producer
John Mack, Morgan Stanley chairman
Rupert Murdoch, News corps. chairman
Ronald Perelman, billionaire investor
Sumner Redstone, Viacom chairman
Brian Roberts, Comcast chairman
Hilary Rosen, lobbyist, former RIAA CEO
Haim Saban, media mogul
Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon chairman
Terry Semel, former Yahoo CEO
Ben Silverman, NBC chairman
Sy Sternberg, NY Life insurance chairman
Howard Stringer, Sony CEO
Richard Thalheimer, Sharper image chairman
Sandy Weill, Citigroup chairman
Robert Wright, former NBC chairman
So we have Peter Chernin, Barry Diller, and Rupert Murdoch, all big wigs at the ‘right wing’ FOX news corps, all donating and publicly supporting Hillary Clinton. And of course it even came out in the mainstream news that back in May Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for Hillary’s campaign.
Mrs. Clinton has brought in $304,000 in PAC money from the business sector, which makes up for a total of 56% of the total PAC money she has netted. She has also received over $500,000 from lobbyists, $935,000 from banks, $269,000 from pharmaceuticals, $4.7 million from securities, and $2.2 million from the TV and movie industry.
Millionaires and billionaires from all sectors: business and marketing, real estate, media and television, movie studios, pharmaceutical cos, energy, all donating to candidates… even the ones like Hillary Clinton who offer to stop corporate welfare and turn back the influence of lobbyists in Washington. The picture is clear. The power elite in Washington are simply a group of incestuous cronies and demagogues, and have only one interest in mind: self interest. The business and corporate sectors know that the economy is tanking, and are doing everything in their power to maintain success during the consolidation period. And there’s one candidate they know who will not expose their operations, and who will continue the status quo of the great raping of our land, and that candidate is Hillary Clinton.
More complete list of Hillary’s donations can be found here.
“Ron Paul supporters may be using e-mail spam and dirty tricks to gin up support for their presidential candidate on the Internet,” Fox News claims, and then drags out an expert to pour on the slime.
“This is clearly a criminal act in support of a campaign, which has been committed with or without [its] knowledge,” University of Alabama at Birmingham computer-forensics expert Gary Warner told Wired News. “Warner says his lab traced the e-mails back to servers in Asia, Africa, South America and Europe—signifying that whoever sent them may have used a botnet, or world-wide network of hijacked computers, to pump out massive volumes of e-mail.”
Of course, it is entirely possible over zealous Paul supporters are guilty of such tactics. As well, it is possible a neocon or “conservative” operative is guilty of attempting to heap dirt on the Ron Paul campaign, although Fox does not bother to reach this conclusion. No wonder they are considered “fair and balanced.”
“Ron Paul spokesman Jesse Benton says the campaign has no knowledge of the scam. Warner himself says that he has no reason to believe that the Paul campaign had anything to do with these messages,” adds Wired News. “Some participants in the online political world have long suspected Paul’s technically sophisticated fan base of manipulating online tools and polls to boost the appearance of a wide base of support. But the UAB analysis is the first to document any internet shenanigans.”
Of course, any such “shenanigans”—real, imagined, or conducted by dirty tricksters tasked with taking out the libertarian candidate—pale in comparison to the concerted corporate media and big political machine effort to ignore Paul and lock him out of the election process.
“The finding is significant, because Paul’s online support—as gauged by blog mentions, friends on social-networking sites such as MySpace and popularity in online polls—has garnered him wide mainstream print and television coverage, despite his relatively poor performance in offline polling,” Wired continues.
Naturally, Ron Paul’s grassroots and ingenious viral campaign irks the heck out of his opponents because it is not a dog and pony show controlled by transnational “news” and “entertainment” corporations, determined to shove Bilderberg Hillary or Rudy the mob boss stand-in down the throats of voting Americans.
HANOVER, N.H. – The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.
“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.
“I’ll get the job done,” said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.
Foreign policy blended with domestic issues at the debate on a Dartmouth College stage, and several of the contenders endorsed payroll tax increases to assure a stable Social Security system.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, as well as Dodd, Obama and Edwards all said they would apply the tax to income now exempted.
Richardson said he wouldn’t and Clinton refused to say. “I’m not putting anything on the proverbial table” unilaterally, she said.
Current law levies a 6.2 percent payroll tax only on an individual’s first $97,500 in annual income.
Biden also said he was willing to consider gradually raising the retirement age, which is now 67.
Kucinich said that while he favors taxing additional income, he wants to return the retirement age to 65, where it stood until the law was changed in 1983.
Health care, and the drive for universal coverage, also figured in the debate.
“I intend to be the health care president,” said Clinton, adding she can now succeed at an undertaking that defeated her in 1993 when she was first lady.
But Biden said that unnamed special interests were no more willing to work with Clinton now than they were more than a decade ago.
“I’m not suggesting it’s Hillary’s fault…It’s reality,” he said, carefully avoiding a personal attack on the Democrat who leads in the polls.
Biden said a “lot of old stuff comes back” from past battles, adding, “when I say old stuff I mean policy. Policy.”
Across the stage, Clinton smiled at that.
The moment was not the only one in which attention turned to the former first lady, a campaign front-runner bidding to become the first woman president.
Asked whether presidential libraries and foundations should disclose their donors, she said she had sponsored legislation requiring it. Asked whether her husband’s foundation should voluntary disclose, absent a requirement, she said, “you’ll have to ask them.”
“I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband,” she added.
She seemed to suggest differently at another point, after being asked whether she would ever approve torturing a suspected terrorist to prevent the detonation of a big bomb.
She said no, and Russert said former President Clinton, her husband, once suggested it might be appropriate.
“Well, he’s not standing here right now,” she said, an edge in her voice.
There is a disagreement, Russert rejoined.
“Well, I’ll talk to him later,” she said with a smile.
A question about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 drew a cheer from the students listening in the Dartmouth auditorium.
And expressions of support only from former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Kucinich.
The opening question of the two-hour debate instantly plunged the eight contenders into the issue that has dominated all others — the war in Iraq.
With the primary season approaching, all eight have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters likely to provide money and organizing muscle as the campaign progresses.
Edwards said his position on Iraq was different from Obama and Clinton, adding he would “immediately drawn down 40,000 to 50,000 troops.” That’s roughly half the 100,000 that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has indicated could be stationed there when President Bush’s term ends in January 2009.
Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and Clinton’s, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq.
“I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq,” he said.
Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.
Asked whether they were prepared to use force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, several of the hopefuls sidestepped. Instead, they said, all diplomacy must be exhausted in the effort.
Moderator Tim Russert of NBC News asked about Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani’s pledge to set back Iran by eight to 10 years if it tries to gain nuclear standing.
Biden flashed anger at the mention of the former New York mayor. “Rudy Giuliani doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about,” said Delaware senator, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“He’s the most uninformed person on foreign policy that’s now running for president.”
The debate unfolded in the state that has held the first presidential primary in every campaign for generations.
The contest is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 22, but that is expected to change as other states maneuver for early voting position in the campaign calendar.
The debate was broadcast on MSNBC, New Hampshire Public Radio and New England Cable News.