The Kucinich Question

Which side are you on?

It was July 12 in Detroit, and all eight Democratic Party presidential candidates had just finished sparring at a forum sponsored by the NAACP when John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were caught hatching a plot to rid future debates of all but front-runners.

The two were apparently unaware that Fox News’ microphones were still turned on to overhear their mutual exasperation at sharing the stage with those on the losing end of opinion polls.

According to the Associated Press, Edwards whispered, “We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.” Clinton agreed that the broad format had “trivialized” the debates, adding, “We’ve got to cut the number…They’re not serious.”

Dennis Kucinich, who would certainly be excluded if Edwards and Clinton succeed at this scheme, rapidly issued a press release stating his outrage: “Candidates, no matter how important or influential they perceive themselves to be, do not have and should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not…Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial president.”

Indeed, Kucinich stands alone among the current crop of candidates in his consistently principled stand on issues ranging from opposition to the war in Iraq to support for single-payer health care, immigrant rights and the legalization of gay marriage.

During a nationally televised MSNBC debate on September 26, none of the three front-runners–who all claim to be “antiwar”–pledged to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of their first term in office in 2013. Clinton argued, “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.” Barack Obama stated, “I think it would be irresponsible.” Edwards admitted, “I cannot make that commitment.”

Kucinich answered with a refreshingly concrete antiwar resolve: “We can get out of there three months after I take office.” He added, “To me, it is fairly astonishing to have Democrats who took back the power of the House and Senate in 2006 to stand on this stage and tell the American people that the war will continue till 2013 and perhaps past that.”

And while current Democratic Party talking points blame Iraqis for the chaos enveloping Iraq, Kucinich supports reparations for the Iraqi people from the governments who have caused their suffering, arguing, “The U.S. and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property.”

While Clinton has lurched rightward on support for abortion rights in recent years (stating in 2005 that abortion is “a sad, even tragic choice”), Kucinich is the only candidate who has shifted leftward on the issue of choice. He actively opposed abortion for many years but reversed his stand in 2003, stating, “[I]t finally came to the point where I understood that women will not be truly free unless they have the right to choose.”

Kucinich also stands firmly on the side of immigrants rights, however much his own party has compromised, arguing, “No fines should be paid [by immigrants], no one should be made to go back, and we should stop scapegoating immigrants.” He seeks to abolish NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) because it drives down Mexican wages and opposed the Security Fence Act to further enhance border control.

But Kucinich has no hope of winning the Democratic Party nomination, for his unwillingness to compromise on sound humanitarian principles dooms that outcome. This fact, combined with his steadfast refusal to accept corporate donations, relegates his candidacy in 2008, as it did in 2004, to the margins of the electoral arena, a project willingly enabled by a compliant mainstream media.

The Kucinich campaign complained, for example, that ABC News “deliberately cropped [Kucinich] out of a ‘Politics Page’ photo of the candidates after their August 19 debate” and removed an online “Who won the debate” survey after Kucinich came out the winner.

Nevertheless, like a scorned relative who always shows up to family functions, Kucinich refuses to disengage from the Democratic Party establishment that, as Clinton and Edwards attest, tolerates his presence only with gritted teeth.

But Kucinich’s loyalty to the party that holds him in such contempt will perform a useful service in delivering left-wing support for the party’s chosen, corporate-backed nominee in 2008.

This is a service that Kucinich will undoubtedly perform. Look back no further than 2004 for a preview of what lies ahead. After a principled antiwar campaign, Kucinich promised his supporters he would fight for a plank opposing the Iraq war at the Democratic Party Convention in July 2004. But no antiwar debate materialized, and Kucinich’s stunned supporters were left with no other choice than backing pro-war John Kerry as the anointed candidate.

Kucinich must therefore be faulted for compromising his principles in one crucial respect. He remains beholden to the Democrats–a ruling-class, imperialist party that coexists in a power-sharing arrangement with the Republicans–offering voters no genuine alternative to the status quo.

If Kucinich truly believed his own rhetoric, he would leave, creating the possibility for building a viable third party that could express popular opposition to corporate rule.

Sharon Smith is the author of Women and Socialism and Subterranean Fire: a History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States. She can be reached at: This article first appeared on the SW website. Read other articles by Sharon, or visit Sharon's website.

32 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Abu Nurah said on October 4th, 2007 at 8:04am #

    Amen! Kucinich only grants legitimacy to the establisment by playing their game. Yes, he’s a thorn on their side, but at the end of the day he’s on their side.

  2. gerald spezio said on October 4th, 2007 at 8:20am #

    Both Hilarious and Edwards are trained and credentialed lawyers sworn the the rule of law and the rule of lawyers, who “were caught HATCHING A PLOT to rid future debates of all but front runners.”

    “I saw a man pursuing the horizon, round-an-round he ran.
    A very political lady was desperately alarmed at this.

    You can never… she warned the man
    You lie he cried and ran on.”

    Our literary friend and fellow Merican, Stephen Crane, almost.

  3. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 4th, 2007 at 9:24am #

    Still Kucinich’s. And ours, Ms. Smith.

  4. Binh said on October 4th, 2007 at 9:37am #

    Kucinich shepherds the left sheep back to the Democratic party slaughterhouse when they think about grazing in Greener pastures.

  5. Gary Corseri said on October 4th, 2007 at 10:22am #

    In a nutshell, Binh’s got it right; and, of course, Sharon Smith has covered the ground expansively–but carefully.

    I heard Kucinich speak at the Unitarian Church in Cambridge, MA in 2004. He’s a good speaker. A slender, little man who projects strong intellect and moral convictions.

    I tried to ask him why, given his beliefs, he didn’t ally with Ralph Nader, why he stuck fast to the Democratic Party, which had caved on the 2000 election and was then trying to out-tough the Repubs on the war. Unfortunately, my upraised hand never got the nod.

    The questions persist and have grown more crucial. If Kucinich wants to be taken seriously by anti-war, anti-imperialist dissidents who are appalled at the direction this country has taken–baring the fangs of fascism and Empire–then he’s got to be more than the drummer-boy for our decadent non-opposition party.

    It’s time for him to stop sitting at the table with his omnivorous, bloodthirsty relatives. Like Christ among the money-changers, time to kick over the tables.

  6. gerald spezio said on October 4th, 2007 at 10:23am #

    Binh, Sclachthaus funft for the untermenschen.

  7. Derrick Grimmer said on October 4th, 2007 at 12:51pm #

    Yes, I supported, donated money to and heard speak, Kucinich, back in 2006. And, as Binh and Gary Coseri suggest, Cong. K will shepherd the wayward lefties back into the Dem branch of the War Party after the anointed candidate is put forth (to “run” against the one from the Rep branch).

    Never again for Kucinich for me.

    Either Mike Gravel or Ron Paul. Best. a Paul/Gravel independent ticket, write in if necessary.

  8. Deadbeat said on October 4th, 2007 at 2:50pm #

    Kucinich is this generation’s Jesse Jackson. Jackson’s run had much more potential to shake up the system since his run was considerably broader than Kucinich and Jackson won several primaries. In the end however
    Jackson’s run during the 1980’s had the same debilitating effect on the “left”.

  9. rgaylor said on October 4th, 2007 at 4:13pm #

    Maybe this and maybe that.
    If I had any stroke with the Kucinich crowd I would suggest that he stand as a third party choice … not Nader, not green … just Kucinich. I live in NM and by the time we get around to voting it will be another case of either giving the front runner a vote of confidence, or not voting out of frustration.

  10. Hue Longer said on October 4th, 2007 at 6:28pm #

    Thanks Sharon,

    No one owns the truth…anyone can wield it. When he made his oath of fealty in 2004, people should have stopped applauding him for his ability on all other matters to add 2 + 2

  11. iyamwutiam said on October 4th, 2007 at 8:15pm #

    “Indeed, Kucinich stands alone among the current crop of candidates in his consistently principled stand on issues ranging from opposition to the war in Iraq to support for single-payer health care, immigrant rights and the legalization of gay marriage.”

    However- “he must therefore be faulted for compromising his principles in one crucial respect. He remains beholden to the Democrats–a ruling-class, imperialist party that coexists in a power-sharing arrangement with the Republicans–offering voters no genuine alternative to the status quo.”

    Sighh- what world do YOU live in when your not at your word processor? You must have obviously been in this country for less than a year – as you are UNAWARE that the US has the fewest parties i the world – 2!!! This is not new – and if fact – I am not even sure you vote – because of you actually WENT to a primary – you will know that they will NOT let you vote for a candidate (Democrat or Republican) unless you are REGISTERED – therefore NO independents/ or other “ilk” can add their voice for a candidate.

    Why would you disparage a man – who in your own words and by his deeds has been exemplary. Why would you end – with the thoughtless tripe anout being ‘beholden to imperialists’ etc. Sheesh – its not like he can run on the Socialist democorat ticket – SINCE THERE ISN’T ONE – and we have seen the utter futility of people like Perot/Nader. The Green Party – obviously suffers from SOME pathology to NOT support one of the sincerest consumer activists in the US – who has more on his record than the entire cadre of the party put together.

    I am not sure if this is some pathetic attemp at viral marketing or just a case of incredibly astounding naivete coupled with a complete dissassociation of reality.

  12. Jeremy Wells said on October 4th, 2007 at 8:47pm #

    Cindy Sheehan left the Democratic Party. In one interview she said she would like to see a People’s Peace Party, but nothing further developed.

    Think of all the millions of people, thousands of groups, that are organized against the war, against global warming, desperately need a national health plan without profiteering, etc. All of these people are a natural constituency for a new political party that speaks to the needs of the people and not to corporate profit.

    A new party to reject the corporate take-over of the federal government. A new party to stop the wars for profit, oil and power. Is this such an impossible fantasy?
    Where are the true leaders of the left? Thus my fantasy:

    We the people, opposed to the destruction of the planet and it’s peoples, now atomized and powerless in “grass roots” and “special interest” groups, must unite our efforts and resources into a new party to replace the corrupt Democratic Party! A new party that rejects corporate funding in order to end the corporate plunder of the federal government.

    A new party explicitly opposed to the Project for the New American Century. Opposed to unending war for profit and power. Cut the military budget by 50%, shut down the 700 military bases around the world. Re-instate taxes cut by Bush gang.

    A new party that commits the entire resources of the country to end global warming, end imperialist wars, implements true non-profit universal health care. promotes mass transportation, develops renewable energy, and produces the essentials for human survival.

    A new party that promotes an economy that works towards fulfilling the economic needs of all the people, not just to profit a tiny minority of super wealthy. No more people living on the streets! No more hospitalized people being dumped into the streets when they have no money or health insurance! (See the film SICKO)

    A new party to unite all of the oppressed people of this country. A new party that cuts across all the false social and cultural divisions that keep us forever powerless (racial, ethnic, age, language, etc.). A new party to unite us against the unending destruction of peoples and planet.

    A SOCIALIST PARTY to promote the end of gangster capitalism, run-amok capitalism, which is supported by both Democratic and Republican parties.

    A new party to support the labor movement and all working people. We urge the labor movement to stop supporting the Democratic Party (already besotted by corporate money), and to focus its precious resources to fund a new national radio and television network. By being on the air 24 hours a day the labor movement can provide the latest news, information, education and current affairs analysis desperately needed by all working people. This effort, combined with the formation of the new party, will be a bold step towards reviving the organized labor movement.

    For years we have listened to radio programs like DEMOCRACY NOW! that has discussed with numerous “grass roots” groups desperately struggling to make a positive change in society. Anti-war protest groups, civil rights groups, union struggles, affordable housing groups, teachers unions, health care access, seniors about Social Security, have involved millions of people. Now is the time to unite the energy and resources of the people into a new party.

    The new party provides a means of uniting the “special interest” agendas of each group into the platform of the new party. The new party candidates, selected from the various individuals and groups, would become the candidates representing their cause and the new party. The new party will contest for office at every level of government in order to take power. The new party will provide the new leadership and new programs this country desperately needs.

    There is still time before November 2008 elections to start this process. Even the announcement and preparation for a founding convention of such a new party will shock both Democrats and Republican incumbents. They will know that their days are numbered!

    The needs of all previous “minority” and “special interests” people now become the platform of the new party representing the vast majority of people. Can the existing activists of so-called “minority” and “special interest” groups overcome their existing powerlessness, and link up with each other to start this new party?

    This all-inclusive struggle will attract millions of atomized working people, often non-voters and uninvolved people, who have been atomized, exploited, brain-washed by corporate media and ultimately destroyed by gangster capitalism.

  13. Jeremy Wells said on October 4th, 2007 at 9:11pm #

    One final coment: For the best DAILY coverage from an international, socialist perspective, please read: World Socialist Web Site at

  14. Mike said on October 4th, 2007 at 9:12pm #

    Thanks for the information. The discussion seems to be pretty interesting here. On the one hand, I like Kucinich’s ideas – and his principles – but the fact that he has held on to the hem of the corpse that was once the democratic party for so long concerns me greatly. Personally, I think that we need many new parties, as a registered independent, I’m all for the creation of an Independent Party. Who knows, maybe such a group could form a coalition with the Greens, the Workers Party, and the _ _ _ _ _ _ Party? The only way that we will get anywhere in the push to move this country forward is to bury the two brats who’ve been hogging all of the votes for all these years; the ass and the elephant.

  15. art rymer said on October 5th, 2007 at 5:30am #

    You praise Kucinich’s “consistently principled stand” on Iraq and other issues, and you imply that he should be against capitalism and that he doesn’t belong in the imperialist Democratic Party. But go to his website, and you see that two of his main “Issues” topics are “Strength through Peace” and “Saving Capitalism.” He may be principled, but his principles aren’t opposed to capitalism and imperialism.

  16. Hue Longer said on October 5th, 2007 at 5:32am #

    AND to stop falling victim to polorized bullshit…Hearing about the Blackwater cunt, Prince funding Nader to thwart Dems shouldn’t make a reasonable person waver. Penis over the gun should not be the conclusion of any person who sees themselves as brave

  17. Hue Longer said on October 5th, 2007 at 5:33am #

    sorry dissidents for my drunken rants and spelling

  18. Mark Hawthorne said on October 5th, 2007 at 8:16am #

    Dennis Kucinich is also the only vegan candidate, avoiding the use and consumption of anything that comes from an animal. Unlike most people, Kucinich is aware of the enormous suffering animals endure in order to provide humans with entertainment, clothing and fleeting gustatory pleasure. His ethical stance on this issue puts him head and shoulders above the other candidates, in my view.

  19. corylus said on October 5th, 2007 at 10:52am #

    Ah, sleepy dreamers, you all seem to believe that the American electoral system is something (including “worth saving”) that it isn’t. It most surely is about continuing the delusion of democracy, when democracy will never be dictated from the top down. It is definitely about containing the diverstiy of people into cleverly designed ideological boxes, the better to rent asunder the myriad needs of people and our environment. Above all, electoral politics is driven by corporate Machiavellianism, letting the masses battle over the scraps of its capitalistic waste. No candidate worth voting for would ever run for state- or federal-level office — the only leaders we need are those who refuse to participate in the charade, and work to bring down capitalism and its fascist network of government and corporations. American politics are antithetical to democracy and the needs of humanity and the environment upon which we depend. Participating in the grand scheme of American politics, including voting, perpetuates the grand lie that we have a choice. Start cutting holes in your boxes, people!!

  20. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 5th, 2007 at 12:22pm #

    Art Rymer. My read on Ms. Smith is different from yours. She’s holding open the possibility that K. will not only turn his back on the Dems but also be the candidate of a third-party challenge; and that challenge, to have a snowball’s chance of winning, simply cannot stand for the destruction of capitalism. True, K’s principles are not opposed to capitalism. (I think you’d have a harder case with K’s principles not being opposed to “imperialism”.) But what are you gonna do?

    In my opinion, “socialism” has no more been tried in modern conditions than Communism or Christianity, to throw out a couple of C-words. And I can’t imagine anyone arguing seriously that the forms of (nation-sized) mixed-socialist-capitalist things we’ve seen have more than extremely tenously embodied anti-capitalist principles.

    To keep a Kucinich-option open is simply good sense. Because with only a slight turn of the kaleidoscope — like a launch against Iran — the issue could, could become survival, and not good sense.

  21. hp said on October 5th, 2007 at 7:33pm #

    Mark, good point. In fact, a profound point. Dennis is obviously the only truly civilized human being of the whole lot of them.

  22. Trevor said on October 5th, 2007 at 9:52pm #

    Tip for Sharon: Read the World Socialist Web Site at For many years now, the World Socialist Web Site has been calling Kucinich a fraud who plays a key roll in delivering progressives to the Democrats.

  23. gerald spezio said on October 6th, 2007 at 4:05am #

    Oh, Kucinich is a veggie guy.
    I did not know this.
    That is nice, very nice.
    No schlacthausen for Kucinich.
    And there you have it.

  24. John Caruso said on October 6th, 2007 at 3:00pm #

    I wrote up some very similar thoughts here:

    An excerpt:


    As things stand now, Kucinich’s main function on the national stage is to provide a fig leaf for the Democrats on their left flank, and to sap the energies of progressives by giving them a safe establishment figure on whom to focus their time and effort. By continuing to be a token progressive in a party full of utterly compromised corporate centrists, he’s only undermining his own causes and enervating his natural allies.

  25. David Gaines said on October 6th, 2007 at 6:06pm #

    I admire everything about Kucinich except his peculiar refusal to (1) debate his opponents when he runs for reelection back home, which I’m afraid makes him sound laughably hypocritical when he demands to be included in presidential debates, (2) explain his votes in Congress, and (3) stand up to the Kerry camp in 2004 when he embarrassed his delegates by folding up like a house of cards just before the convention.

    I agree with the various analyses that express bewilderment as to why he stays in the Democratic Party.

    Speaking of bewilderment, an earlier comment here caught my eye….what is with these people who pop up all over the internet and seem to be progressive to one degree or another, ot at least pretty liberal, and then promote Ron Paul as some kind of savior for the left?

    WTF? Folks, I am a recovering libertarian. I drank the capitalist Kool-Aid for years in the 1970’s. I voted for Ron Paul when he was the 1988 LP candidate for president. Hello…….this guy wants to abolish all federal cabinet departments except for defense……he wants to abolish the FDA, OSHA, the minimum wage, NHTSA, the FAA……shall I go on? He wants to bring back the gold standard. He is, as is every libertarian, an almost mystically fanatical proponent of the “free market.” He, like every libertarian, looks at Milton Friedman the way Mormons look at Joseph Smith.

    Being against the war and against NAFTA isn’t enough. Why on earth would the person I described above appeal to anybody even remotely progressive/liberal?


  26. Hue Longer said on October 6th, 2007 at 9:43pm #

    good point on Paul, David

    I see many a Republican presented with the inescapable truth of their party go to Paul as a final bastion …so I am at least partly glad that people who never used to think for themselves are at least forced to consider unimaginable reality when singing praises for Paul. Maybe it’s an introduction into things they thought only reserved for “left wing Commie whacko’s” which will lead them to where you stand.

  27. Max Shields said on October 7th, 2007 at 1:54pm #

    Why would Kucinich ever campaign as a candidate who wants to end capitalism?

    He’s running on Peace. Not anti-war. He’s pretty clear. In fact he’s the clearest thinker in the race bar none.

    He provides an alternative to war, and alternatives to preditory capitalism not by being anti- to satisfy a handful of people who don’t even vote. He understands that economic solutions come from a new model of sustainability.

    Free trade is a problem; fundamentalism of the market per corporate globalization is the problem. We have models that can replace this pathology. Kucinich has read and embraces Henry George – Progress and Poverty. He understands what creates poverty and what can change that. He knows how cooperative business models are proven for centuries as alternatives to the monolithic corporate models. Cooperatives are human-scaled and can readily service social services, quality food, alternative energy, and health care as well as manufacturing sectors. That are the answer to the TINAists.

    As far as his run for the Pres. of USA, it’s futile. He should not be running on the war party. Both parties are anachronistic. They will not change, but they hold incredible power.

    Kucinich has provided explicit and implict signs that he understands this but can’t seem to get off the notion that he can change the conversation and perhaps sneak by as a darkhorse. Ah, even if possible, then what?

  28. Steve said on October 7th, 2007 at 3:32pm #

    Those who urge Kucinich or someone to lead a third party run from the left need to explain why it would turn out differently than Nader in 2000. To review–many left/liberals in 2000 embraced Nader, ignoring his lengthy history of xenophobia and hostility to gender politics. Come election day, he attained 2.7% of the vote–barely half of the way to the 5% that would have allowed him to attain federal matching funds. The basic constituencies of the left–African Americans, union members, supporters of social movements like abortion rights and gay rights–avoided him, often voting for him in even smaller numbers than the general public (all of theses groups see a very clear difference between Republican and Democratic administrations, notwithstanding the obvious failings of the latter). His performance compared very unfavorably to such third party candidates as George Wallace, John Anderson, and Ross Perot. This very modest electoral achievement was magnified by the fact that a plausible case could be made that without Nader Gore would have won both Florida and New Hampshire, and hence the national election (if this had not been the case–if Bush or Gore had won by a landslide–Nader’s candidacy would probably be trivia along the lines of Barry ‘populist party’ Commoner). Rather than embracing this fact, Nader’s followers have fled from it. The Green Party now appears to be more or less completely irrelevant (difficult to say from my perch in North Carolina, since even in Nader’s heyday it was a joke here), judging from the sectarian battles within the organization described elsewhere on this website. Kucinich in 2004 inspired some of the same people who supported Nader in 2000. Kucinich came nowhere near attaining enough delegates to have any cards to play at the convention. This time around, he appears to have much less support. Jackson in 1984, and especially 1988, was a much more serious candidate who attracted considerable union-member support. However, the ‘rainbow coalition’ was seriously marred by the cult of personality around Jackson.
    Even third party candidates with a much broader appeal than Nader, i.e. Perot, have difficulty becoming an enduring force in American politics. That is because the US’ electoral institutions are heavily weighted against the emergence of third parties. Strangely, almost no one on the left in the US ever seems to talk much about the prospect of transforming them so that would be otherwise. That would require transforming the constitution of the US, a tall order to be sure, but more plausible than a third party Presidency from the left.
    The left needs to build power outside the electoral arena. Either win over existing unions, churches, social movement organizations, etc or create our own. Electoral strategy has to be made through something like a democratic process within that left-base, which, as I’ve said, doesn’t really exist right now. Simply announcing a third party run without such a base will again do little more than antagonize some of the left-liberals (especially many within the African American community and union members) who could plausibly be allies in a more serious struggle, or, more likely, will be too marginal to offend anyone.

  29. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 8th, 2007 at 3:38pm #

    I don’t know, Steve. Your indisputably valid points don’t add up to me to anything but: do nothing and hope. And hope for what? That the Chipmunk will attack Iran?

    Beginning your piece, I thought, “Well, 2007 is not 2000.” Then I thought, “2007 is not 2004.” Then, why compare Wallace, Anderson, and Perot with a possible Kucinich, now? Now is two thousand and seven, or eight to be exact. And why say, “Simply announcing a third party run without…a base” will be a loser? — would we be “simply announcing,” and is it like it’s always been in past years, when third parties got stomped?

    Maybe my not having followed the “sectarian battles within the (Green Party) organization described elsewhere on this website,” like you have, gives me a little less historical-intellectual perspective, and that’s a good thing. I don’t see any reason to give Kucinich or any of his potential supporters a lot of intellectual hooey based on past history (I love THAT EXPRESSION), when for crying out loud, the man has enough sense to realize he might get shot. Or do you think the neocons have turned everything else in the country back, but haven’t restored the good ole days of American Presidential politics, when national elections without assassinations were like Halloween without ghouls?

  30. Timber said on October 8th, 2007 at 5:10pm #

    Steve–it’s a red herring to blame Nader for Gore’s 2000 loss. Setting aside a completely ham-handed campaign run by DLC stooges, more Democrats voted for BUSH than for Nader. No one likes to bring that up.

    When Democrats stop voting for Republicans in the name of “faith,” “national security,” “economic growth,” or any other amoral aspect of nationalistic narcissism, THEN they can start whining about the Naders and other challengers from the left. Until then, they’re just trying to distract from the very real and demonstrable fact that they are more in agreement with the party of George W. Bush than they are with the left.

  31. Tony Baltic said on November 27th, 2007 at 4:52pm #

    What the fuck is wrong with you people (most of you anyway). Kucinich has given us the chance to vote for sanity in a nuclear tipped and ecologically wounded world. Every other candidate is insane. So what are you going to do? So many of these posts are stunning in their ignorance. We don’t have time to build a third party. We have to do things to rescue the earth NOW. If Dems don’t vote for K, it just proves to me that they have really bought into the imperialism and the exceptualism that has defined this country from the very beginning. Only now this national pathology is in its final stage. Maybe K won’t be able to help us stop the apocalypse. But his election would certainly give humanity a huge opportunity if we have any chance at all. Fuck it. I don’t even know why I care anymore. We’re doomed. So i’m just going to drift away in beer and rock-n-roll.

  32. Tony Baltic said on November 27th, 2007 at 4:56pm #

    Moderation? We need more anger. Taser this. Fuck moderation.