Transcript:  No.  No absolutely not.  I mean two . . .  The two-party system is really a one-party system.  You can call it the Demuplican party or the Republicrat party.  Take your pick.  Everyone knows I’m telling the truth about this.  You know at the top . . .  You know look where we are.  We’re at war.  Both parties have supported the war, even though the Democrats have said, “You vote Democrat and we’ll get you out of Iraq.”  Right.  Here we are a year later.  Both parties support the oil companies.  Otherwise you’d have a windfall profit tax.  Both parties support the insurance companies.  Otherwise you’d have a not-for-profit healthcare system.  So when you look at some of the key economic issues that Americans have . . .  You know both parties support these multi-national corporations.  Otherwise you wouldn’t have all these jobs lost.  Now the mythology is, “Well vote Democrat and your job will be protected.”  No, because the Democrats brought you NAFTA and China trade.  So you know you . . .  My candidacy is about changing the direction of the Democratic party.  It’s about having a real Democratic party as opposed to a fake version of the Democratic party.  And people know that their choices are being limited.  So should there be more choices?  Look, I’m a green Democrat.  I’m an independent Democrat.  In some ways I’m a libertarian Democrat because I stand up for people’s basic constitutional rights.  Don’t forget, you know, Democrats in the Senate helped pass the Patriot Act.  You know one candidate for president bragged then about how he was the co-author of it.  So let’s have a real difference between the parties, and let’s have a real debate.  If you don’t have that, we absolutely have to have more . . . more political parties.

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript:  Education is in and of itself a personal benefit – a personal right, actually, that people have in a democratic society.  And so before we get into a discussion of benefits, let’s talk about education as a right.  Each person in a democratic society has a right from the earliest age – let’s say age three – all the way through and including college to have a fully funded, paid education.  This should be one of the foundational purposes of government.  Now when a child has the chance from the earliest age to learn languages, to learn English, communication skills, they then become able to participate in a community.  And as young people grow, that community keeps expanding from this  . . . from the village, to the city, to the world.  We need to have our young people the best educated in science, in language, in the arts, in music, in literature, technology.  I mean there’s so many different areas of human endeavor that our children should have the chance to excel in.  But you know what?  Check out the cost of tuition in Iowa, my friends.  Ask yourself how many families are being excluded from having their young people being able to go to school because they just can’t afford it.  And then let’s talk about the world economy. 

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Question: What element of the Democratic platform do you most disagree with?

Transcript: You know I smile because I’m probably the only one running for president who took an issue to the democratic platform personally and asked them to act on it.  And let me tell you what the issue was: healthcare.  In 2000, I took this proposal for a not-for-profit healthcare system – Medicare for all – to the democratic platform committee.  I was asked by the campaign of the presidential candidate to withdraw the proposal because it was . . . it was not favored by the insurance interests who were contributing mightily to the Democratic party.  And virtually the same thing happened in 2004.  So here’s the Democratic party, these candidates are saying “universal healthcare” like it’s some kind of mantra.  “Universal healthcare, universal healthcare.”  And people go, “Oh, they’re for me.  They’re gonna give me universal healthcare.”  The insurance companies want universal healthcare as long as the government is subsidizing them so they can maintain their . . . their holding their privileged profit position.  I’m talking about no more healthcare for profit.  Everyone knows these insurance companies make money not providing healthcare.  Everyone knows that.  So I’m saying no more for-profit healthcare; not-for-profit system; all the money goes into care for people.  And then you have enough money not only for basic care, but for vision care, dental care, mental healthcare, long term care, prescription drugs – all covered 100 percent under the Kucinich program.  The Democrats, noooo.  They wanna protect the insurance companies. 

Question: What element of the Republican platform do you most agree with?

Transcript: I don’t know that . . . that I accept much of the platform of either party, but I will tell you this – that I work with Republicans in Congress who stand for protecting the Constitution; who are absolutely opposed to the Patriot Act; who believe that wire tapping, eaves dropping is an undermining of constitutional protections to be free from your person for unreasonable searches and seizures; who believe that government functions best when it stays out of people’s private lives.  So that aspect which seems to go more towards, you know, what Republicans think are things that I support.  And I also think that . . . that this idea of . . . of Democrats and Republicans is a good idea as long as there’s a real debate.  But when the debate becomes blurred because you have corporate interests contributing to Democrats and to Republicans, then you have the American people being disserved.  Then people in those parties maintain their privileged position while the economic status of their constituents begins to erode. 

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: Corn used to be used to feed people.  Hello?  I mean if you drive up the price of corn because you’re using substantial amounts of it for ethanol, you’re going to cause the price . . . people not being able to afford their basic foodstuff.  Now ethanol might be interesting for a transitional fuel for the moment to get us away from oil; but we have to realize that we need real sustainability.  It’s you know . . .  Ethanol is not sustainable because of the impact it has on food prices.  And no one else other than myself is saying that in this presidential race.  Now I know it’s easy to pander to the voters in Iowa where they grow a lot of corn, but imagine this.  Imagine if that corn is used to be able to feed the hungry of the world, and where farmers can get their fair price.   The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recently come out with a report that says that coal is contributing greatly to the erosion of global climate quality.  And what are we seeing?  We’re seeing Wall Street and American banks just loaning money everywhere to try to build more coal burning facilities.  We’re seeing this country going in the opposite direction that we should be going.  Not only U.S., but India and China which are also major contributors to greenhouse gases.  What should we be doing?  Here’s what we should be doing, and here’s what a Kucinich administration will do.  I call it the “Works Green Administration”.  It’s a whole new approach where government becomes an engine of sustainability and helps use sustainability to achieve a full-employment economy.  We would create manufacturing of wind and solar micro technologies which would then be available for application to millions of homes around the country – as well as maintenance jobs – for millions of homes around America.  We would insulate millions of homes, keep drastically lowering the energy consumption within homes.  And as you lower the energy consumption, you also lower the cost of energy to homeowners.  The Works Green Administration would make every department of the federal government an engine for sustainability.  Transportation – fund mass transit programs so you lower your oil consumption.  Agriculture – promote small family farmers.  Lower your transportation costs by selling into local markets.  The Department of Housing – green housing – everything you build becomes a matter of sustainability. The lighting – natural lighting.  Or the kind of bulbs that you use; the kind of energy systems used to heat a house – passive, solar or whatever.  You build all these into housing. The Energy Department becomes about the transition away from oil, away from coal, away from nuclear and towards wind, solar, green hydrogen . . . you know, geothermal – all the types of energies that . . . that help us move away from those things that are harming our planet. 

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: Well, you know, I was asked those questions throughout my career.  In 40 years, I’ve . . .  I think I’ve had about 33 elections counting primaries and generals; won 25 or 26 of them.  So I, you know . . . I know how to win and I’m prepared to be president.  Now look, I know I’m an underdog.  But recent polls show me just a few points out of third place in New Hampshire.  The Democracy for America poll of Internet activists of a week or so ago, I came out first in the largest poll in the country of Internet activists.  So look I know I’m a long shot.  But you know what?  So are most American people.  It’s a long shot for people that they’re gonna have their retirement security; a long shot that they’ll have a good paying job; a long shot that they’ll have healthcare and won’t go broke paying the doctor bills; a long shot their kids will go to college.  I mean American people understand long shots.  Imagine a long shot who becomes your president and relates to you.  I mean that’s why these polls can change, and I just have to move up little, by little, by little.

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: Well first of all it started with love, as all stories do.  I met someone years ago, fell in love, and found out she was a vegan.  Now I didn’t know what a vegan was.  And for those of you who are tuning in and you don’t know what a vegan is, I’ll make it simple.  It starts with your approach to what you eat.  It means that I don’t eat any meats, poultry, fish.  I don’t eat any dairy products.  You know there goes Iowa, right?   In the book that I mentioned earlier, “Courage to Survive”, I talk about a bout with Crone’s disease that I had since I was a little kid.  I didn’t know until years later in life that dairy products had something to do with irritating that condition.  And so when I switched diets – this was in 1995 – I started to achieve a level of health that I didn’t have before.  I lost a little bit of weight to be sure, and it became an adventure to find out what’s appropriate substitutes – beans, grains, tofu.  There’s a lot of different substitutes that you can have in moving towards a vegan diet.  But I had a level of health that I hadn’t experienced before.  So I’m not gonna tell anyone, “Well this is the way you have to eat.”  I can share with people what I’ve discovered by changing my diet.  And I have enormous amounts of energy . . . and clarity, by the way.  So I don’t feel like I’m dragging.  And I have more energy than people half my age.  I’m 61 years old, and you know I . . .  I have a very young wife.  And you know if you’re gonna be in a relationship, you better be in good shape because, you know, you’ve got to be able to have a lot of vitality.  And I have enormous vitality because of my diet. 

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: You know this whole idea about pax Americana needs to be looked at.  I mean there’s an arrogance behind it.  We’re not the only country in the world.  And an Americentric view is actually dangerous because it says that . . . that our decisions . . . that we don’t have to worry about the impact of our decisions on the rest of the world.  We can make 25 percent of the greenhouse gases and who cares?  We’re America.  We can arm ourselves to the hilt and tell other countries, “Don’t you even so much as have a nuclear power plant.”  See you can’t do that.  You can’t . . . you can’t . . . you can’t have a credible position in the world saying, “Don’t do as we do; do as we say.”  And so because the U.S. spends more than the rest of the world put together for military, we’ve used our military might to try to impose our views on other countries when our morality should do if we had leaders who took that position.  But they don’t, so we use arms.  And we end up in a mess where we’re hated in different countries.  I want America to be loved again.  I want America to be respected as a country that takes care of its own people.

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: How would you view America if a country invaded yours and killed your family; wrecked your home; destroyed your water systems, and electric systems, and schools and mosques?  How would you . . .  What would you think of that country that did that?  I mean we have to get real about the impact of what this administration’s decisions as licensed by a Democratic Senate in 2002 – the impact these decisions have had on the people of Iraq.  The people of Iraq have lost at least a million innocent civilians who perished in this war, a war that’s been based on lies.  Now since Iraq is one-twelfth the population of the United States, let’s take that million and let’s extrapolate it to the United States.  It would be as if we lost 12 million people.  How would we feel if a foreign power invaded our country, blew it up, killed 12 million people?  Would we like them?  Would we ask them to come in and have tea? If we saw Saddam Hussein executed for “killing his own people” – if it was wrong for him to kill his own people, is it right for us to kill his people?  I mean we have to regain our moral compass here.  So how . . . how should Iraq look at us?  Well they sure shouldn’t look at us as liberators because we stayed.  And we stayed and went and fought door-to- (48:37) door.  And why did we go there from the beginning?  Did we go there for liberty?  Did we go there for the American flag?  Did we go there because we were trying to bring American values to Iraq?  Or did we go there for oil?  Let’s think about it. How should the people of Iraq look at us?  They should look at us from 10,000 miles away.

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: That all options are on the table with respect to Iran.  And that’s something Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards and Obama have all said.  Now they may not be saying it now because the drumbeat of war is louder.  But they said it at a time when the Bush administration was looking to see who would support their ideas about buildup towards war against Iran.  So Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, and Senator Obama have all licensed the Bush administration’s buildup to war against Iran, and it is very dangerous.  The Bush administration is . . . this is . . .  At this point it’s . . . it’s well known that they’re talking about retrofitting B-2 stealth bombers with 30,000 pound bombs to be dropped on nuclear research labs in Iran.  It’s a dirty bomb you could call it.  You could call it another Chernobyl in the making.  I call it a war crime, and we have . . . we have officials in the White House who have already committed war crimes by planning an attack on a nation that did not attack us; and by planning to drop a weapon that will have a catastrophic effect that will release radiation when it’s dropped on these nuclear research labs.  There will be radiation released that will go perhaps hundreds, even thousands of miles that will poison the land and poison maybe millions of people.  There’s another question here.  It’s not, “What’s the most dangerous idea that I’ve heard?”  The question is, “Where’s our conscience? 

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript:  Social Security is rock solid through the year 2040 without any changes whatsoever.  Now it’s true the Bush administration has taken massive amounts of money – like IOUs – out of the system; but they have a legal obligation to repair it.  This isn’t . . . repay it.  This isn’t something that, you know, is like an optional thing.  They go to jail if . . . if they don’t keep their responsibility there to put that money back in the system and keep refreshing the system so that people get paid.  No one’s missed a payment.  I want everyone who is watching this to be aware: Social Security has never missed a payment, and there’s no reason for it to.  Now one of the things if Social Security starts to run, you know, short of money in real time . . .  I’m not talking about these projections because Social Security’s condition in the future is really a result of projections.  Now if the projections show that we’re starting to run short of money and the revenue begins to drop, then you raise the cap on the money that is taxable for Social Security so that you can meet the . . . the demands of and requirements of the system.  So you know if you keep going low with your projections, you raise the cap.  But what no one’s talking about . . . and because I’m the only one running who’s talking about a full employment economy . . . if you prime the pump of the economy, if you get people working, there’s more money in . . . coming in, so the fund is supported.

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: Well of course it was a bad idea.  It was a bad idea because NAFTA was written specifically to drive down wages.  I mean Ross Perot was right.  When he warned America that we were going to lose millions of jobs, he was 100 percent right.  He knew what the Democrats at that point weren’t ready to say, and that is that NAFTA was going to cause America to lose millions of jobs because wages would . . .  because manufacturers . . . corporations would seek other countries where wages were lower; where workers didn’t have any rights at all; where they could make a bigger profit.  Now let’s think about this for a minute.  It was a democratic president who passed NAFTA – President Clinton.  When he passed it, the Democrats lost the Congress in the next election.  Why?  Because people just lost confidence that Democrats would protect their wages and protect their jobs.  In this election, you have many people running for president who voted for NAFTA, or who supported NAFTA.  And I wasn’t in the Congress, but I made my position very clear right from the beginning that there should be no trade agreements unless they include workers rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles.  Let’s look at where we are right now.  We’ve lost millions of jobs to NAFTA.  We’re losing millions more due to China trade.  As president, my first act in office will be to cancel NAFTA and get out of the WTO, and to have trade based on those workers’ rights principles; plus protection of the air, the water and the land; environmental principles; plus prohibitions on child labor, trade labor . . . or slave labor and prison labor.  So I offer that to you for your consideration because trade is one of those areas where the democratic parties absolutely failed the American people – sold them out.  And I’m the one Democrat who understands that workers need a president who isn’t going to be mourning while there’s grass growing in parking lots where there used to grow . . . where they used to make steel, cars, washing machines, bicycles, automotive supplies, and now there’s grass growing in parking lots.

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: I absolutely believe that New Hampshire should be at the front of the primary schedule.  New Hampshire has been a very open process.  Iowa is different.  Iowa has become so professionalized that the state democratic party there is trying to put a fix in.  So I reject that kind of approach, and I think that it’s really important that New Hampshire have the chance to stay the first primary.  But I think that . . . that the process in Iowa needs to be looked at again, and maybe Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus standing should be reconsidered.  I don’t think that any state should be guaranteed that they keep their status as first unless they actually make efforts to be open.  And Iowa hasn’t done that.  It’s excluded people from debates.  It’s . . . it’s taken efforts to exclude candidates from various forums.  I don’t think that that should be permitted in someone . . . in some state that has a first status. 

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: I think that 9/11 probably, for a few good reasons, made the government more secretive so that we wouldn’t betray some of our sources and methods to the enemy. But I do believe that on the signing statement issue where the president has basically made a statement when he signs a bill into law saying that he either will not obey it, or will not implement it, or will only partially implement it, it’s a terrible turn of events. I think it’s a fundamental assault on the balance of powers. I will never as President of the United States issue a signing statement that has anything to do other than how I will implement the law to its fullest degree. On the other aspect of the issue about sources, and methods, and phone records and all that kind of stuff, that’s another manifestation of the gridlock we hear . . . we have here. Why shouldn’t the relevant committees, the intelligence committees and the Executive branch sit down and work out the best way to track down people who want to destroy America, and at the same time preserve individual liberties? And all of that is complicated by the dramatic changes in telecommunications capabilities as we see almost on a daily basis. But we should be able to adjust to that, and in a balanced and bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately we’re not.

I’d call over the intelligence committee members, and I’d sit down with them and I’d say, “What’s your problem?” I would try to point out to them what our national security interests are. And I also would tell them that I respect their role. There is a role for Congress in the formulation of these policies, and I will respect it. And I will appeal to their angels . . . better angels of their nature because this is an issue of national security. It should not spill over into national partisanship.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript:  Well I can understand why people wouldn’t vote. Because the system looks raped.  People think that it doesn’t matter – that the media has already determined who’s going to be the next president, or Wall Street has already made its choice.  People do not participate in the political system when they feel there’s no stake in it for them.  But imagine how many people will vote.  When I’m the nominee of the democratic party and people know by voting they’ll have healthcare; by voting they’ll have daycare for their children; by voting they’ll have a college education for their young people; by voting they’ll have a job; by voting they’ll clean up the environment; by voting they’ll lower their energy costs; by voting we’ll repair the global climate; by voting there will be peace.  See when you put those in practical terms, then people see a reason to vote.  But at this point where our political pageant is reduced to a version of American Idol, why would people care?  How could they see that in any way connects to their practical aspirations?  So you know my candidacy, because of where I come from . . . because of 40 years of involvement in politics and in government, I understand what it is that people care about.  And then when you reach people in that way, you . . . people will . . . will . . . will become involved.  It’s like build it and they will come.  Build a . . . build a political system which tells people, “Don’t worry, you’re gonna have healthcare – total, universal, everything is covered.  And it’s not gonna cost you anything.”  That you’re already paying for it.  “Don’t worry, your child is gonna have daycare.  Don’t worry, your child will be able to go to college.  Don’t worry, you’ve got a job.  Don’t worry, we’re gonna protect your pension.”  When you build that kind of an approach, people will vote.

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript:  You call this program the Big Think, okay?  Bush-Clinton, Bush-Kucinich.  Now think of how that’s going to change things.  That’s where my focus is.  I’m not thinking about anyone becoming the next president except myself.  And I have a purpose in offering myself to the American people so that everyone can have a job, and everybody can have healthcare and education so we can rebuild America; so I can help make government an engine for sustainability; retrofit millions of homes with wind, and solar, and micro technologies; lower people’s energy costs; lower our carbon footprint; lower our consumption of oil.  I mean you know there’s . . . there’s a purpose that I have.  And my purpose is not to indulge in any kind of conversation about dynasties or things like that.  That’s . . .  If my focus was there, I shouldn’t even be doing this interview.

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript: The American political system works; but the question is, “Who is it working for?” It’s working for the auto companies.  It’s working for the mining companies.  It’s working for the banks, and it’s working for the utilities, and it’s working for the insurance companies.  And it’s certainly working for the pharmaceutical companies. So the system works.  The question is, “Who does it work for?”  Now I can tell you who it doesn’t work for.  It doesn’t work for middle America.  It doesn’t work for working families.  It doesn’t work for single mothers.  It doesn’t work for small business owners.  There’s a lot of people it doesn’t work for.  And what I’m determined to do as President of the United States is to make sure that we have a government that works for everyone. Now one of the reasons why government doesn’t work for people is there isn’t much of a difference between the two political parties.  You know the Democrats and the Republicans at the top really are pretty much the same. 

Recorded on: 10/19/07

Transcript:  I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio the oldest of seven children, and my parents never owned a home.  We were renters.  By the time I was 17, we lived in 21 different places, including a couple of cars.  That experience of growing up in the inner city, which I’ve outlined in a book that I’ve just released called “The Courage to Survive” is an experience that really had an indelible imprint upon the way I look at the world and upon my soul.  Because it . . . it taught me compassion.  What people go through to just try to make it day-to-day – the importance of a job, of healthcare, of being able to put food on the table and clothes on kids’ backs, the importance of education – these are all things that are a part of people’s practical aspirations.  And having been riveted in that experience growing up in Cleveland, I understand as someone aspiring to be President of the United States how terribly important all these things are for . . . for people.  So I’m . . .  My worldview is truly shaped by that experience in growing up.  Now I know the whole world didn’t live in conditions that were near poverty.  I know that.  But I also know that those who do don’t have many spokespersons in government.

Recorded on: 10/19/07