« I Forgot To Mention | Main | My Favorite TONY Coverage »

June 16, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


how do Kucinich's stated foreign policy positions place him at odds with the Dems who are considered more electable tactically? (I really don't know the answer)... Because if there isn't a huge substantive difference between, say, Kucinich and Edwards, except one is perceived as a crazy hobbit and one is the only Dem candidate who beats all of the Republican candidates in head-to-head polling, I say going with the latter might not be a bad idea...

Tom Lee

Rob is right on. There is a strange and pervasive notion that , as I have heard many times " I really like what Kucinich says but he is not a viable candidate." Strange how actually voting for him in the primaries will make him viable. Does any other candidate, for eaxmple, really intend to end the occupation of Iraq? Hillary intends to leave the Embassy (590 million dollars) and bases and the others plan on somewhat similar dragging out of the agony. Kucinich has a great universal health care plan. Ever read in the "mainstream media" about it? Something has to happen to wake people up to the stonewalling of the press against Dennis Kucinich. Rob's article will certainly help.


On the contrary, my article will not help, Kucinich will never become a viable candidate, and a vote for him will be cast devoid of tactical considerations and therefore rendered immoral.

To respond to Isaac though - It's difficult to answer your question because there's not much discussion amongst Democrats about their foreign policy differences. On Iraq, I believe Kucinich is the only candidate who advocates replacing US troops with UN troops. But there's no debate that I know of about which is a better course - leaving residual US troops, removing all troops, replacing with UN troops, partitioning, not partitioning - other than candidates claiming their plan is better than the others with not much further explanation. (I disagree with Tom's perception that Kucinich is the only candidate intent on ending the occupation; I'm not sure how he arrived at that conclusion. If you're still reading, Tom, please expand upon the statement.)

What truly distinguishes Kucinich, in my opinion, is his long-term goals, those being ending the use of war as an instrument of US policy and striving for elimination of nuclear weapons. These are drastic measures that no other candidate dares to speak of. Other differences are that he will not use the tactic of assassination, even against Osama Bin Laden, citing as his reason the law of universal morality. And he's for US sublimation to international law. I recall hearing John Edwards once state his belief that the US should participate in the ICC, but other than that I don't hear much about it.

I consider these fairly enormous substantive differences, but I reiterate that I think anyone who votes for Kucinich is making an immoral decision. Funding his campaign, though, and subjecting his policies to intensive debate (as well as those of the other Democratic candidates) might not be a bad idea.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker