Kucinich is not a credible figure and should not be taken seriously as anything but an attention-seeker. For instance, Kucinich just called Fox News a 'legitimate news outlet' and argued that Democrats were cowards for not going on there to debate. Kucinich profits when the left loses, which is why he hated Howard Dean in 2004 and consistently attacked him more aggressively than any other candidate.
He's also not a particularly clean politician in terms of progressive politics, and I'm not just talking about his anti-choice views which switched in 2003 as he started to run for President.
As those who are familiar with Kucinich's career know, he's been in and out of elective office almost literally since he was a kid. Now, some folks have written in to tell me that Cleveland Magazine has a long-standing beef with Kucinich. But I've read a good bit of press coverage on Kucinich from the 1970s. And the point about racial politics is not limited to that article or publication. Basically, in the early days -- before he was running citywide, let alone nationwide -- Kucinich's political schtick was posing as the champion of the 'forgotten' white ethnic voters over against the rising force of black political power. Sort of a great white hope type, or great Slavic hope, if you will. There was plenty of acrimony between blacks and white ethnic voters in Northern cities in the late 1960s and early 1970s. So it was fertile political ground. And playing on that divide for political gain was not at all uncommon. That fissure, after all, was one of the things that broke apart the Democrats' coalition in the North. Kucinich didn't create it. But at the time some pols chose to play to it while others didn't. Now, what does it mean? This was a long time ago. And at the time Kucinich was, almost literally, a kid. When he was elected Mayor later in the decade I think he was still only 31. Plenty of folks from the South who are still active in politics today -- many of whom now get lots of black votes -- were still segregationists in the early 1960s. So people do change their stripes. And bygones often get considered bygones. But people have been scrutinizing the backgrounds of a lot of politicians from the South, particularly Republicans -- I have as much as anyone. So I don't think it's unfair to raise this point. This is particularly so since Kucinich is now putting himself forward as a candidate for national office as the champion of the progressive wing of the Democratic party. People do 'evolve' politically -- and not just in the euphemistic, wink-wink kind of sense. People really do change. And they change their style of politics too. But usually, for this to work, or be legitimate and believable, the pol in question has to make some sort of public accounting for why circumstances changed or why he or she did. Given that Kucinich is now making a play for the votes of dyed-in-the-wool liberals, a bit more of such an accounting seems in order.
Basically, in the early days -- before he was running citywide, let alone nationwide -- Kucinich's political schtick was posing as the champion of the 'forgotten' white ethnic voters over against the rising force of black political power. Sort of a great white hope type, or great Slavic hope, if you will.
There was plenty of acrimony between blacks and white ethnic voters in Northern cities in the late 1960s and early 1970s. So it was fertile political ground. And playing on that divide for political gain was not at all uncommon. That fissure, after all, was one of the things that broke apart the Democrats' coalition in the North. Kucinich didn't create it. But at the time some pols chose to play to it while others didn't.
Now, what does it mean? This was a long time ago. And at the time Kucinich was, almost literally, a kid. When he was elected Mayor later in the decade I think he was still only 31. Plenty of folks from the South who are still active in politics today -- many of whom now get lots of black votes -- were still segregationists in the early 1960s. So people do change their stripes. And bygones often get considered bygones.
But people have been scrutinizing the backgrounds of a lot of politicians from the South, particularly Republicans -- I have as much as anyone. So I don't think it's unfair to raise this point. This is particularly so since Kucinich is now putting himself forward as a candidate for national office as the champion of the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
People do 'evolve' politically -- and not just in the euphemistic, wink-wink kind of sense. People really do change. And they change their style of politics too. But usually, for this to work, or be legitimate and believable, the pol in question has to make some sort of public accounting for why circumstances changed or why he or she did.
Given that Kucinich is now making a play for the votes of dyed-in-the-wool liberals, a bit more of such an accounting seems in order.
Thanks for a response, Matt. Let me first address what Nell said:
I'm as big a supporter of Jim Webb as anyone, but he's said since the beginning of his campaign a year ago that he doesn't want to vote for a withdrawal timeline attached to funding.
I know, somewhere in the back of my head about this. It's a military approach: you don't give your script to the other side. My point is, I Congress just forgets about giving Bush this $124 BILLION, there won't be a timeline any way.
Matt:
To say that Kucinich 'is not a credible figure' is pretty extravagant. He is not perfect! (Which candidate walks on water?) But he's been right a hell of a lot lately. In fact, he would be my choice if I thought the stars were lined up for him.
Give BUSH another $124 BILLION for WAR??? No frickin way. NO FRICKIN WAY!!!
Start with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be. American has an army in Iraq, and it will cost at least as much as that to withdraw it. America also has a President that acts like a dictator, one that must be brought down before we can begin to withdraw troops. Money is going to troops in Iraq, and you should get used to that fact. The elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 had consequences, as did our failure to end the Cold War. This is one of the tragedies of American history unfolding in front of our eyes. As Americans, though, we have to accept responsibility for our country's actions and do the best we can.
Matt: I respect your views and what you have accomplished with this site.
However, when I read phrases like "start with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be," or "Money is going to troops in Iraq, and you should get used to that fact," I cringe at the subtle but evident condescension, which I trust was not deliberate on your part.
As someone who has been involved with a series of against-the-odds victories at the grassroots level over the past decade, I am used to hearing such phrases from those in the Democratic establishment (not something I consider you part of... yet).
Countless times I was told by folks who valued their positions and influence more than their own ostensible ideals that our goals in various David-v.-Goliath battles were unrealistic, unachievable, even dangerous... and that our methods were extreme, overly radical, etc.
Every time, however, the people won when they stood up for what they really wanted -- not what professional politicians and pundits told us was possible.
In one of these battles, our adversary spent $60 million on their campaign (in a town of just 7,500 people) and the bad guys still lost. We won, by the way, without help from our Democratic Senators (Clinton and Schumer) or Attorney General (Spitzer), and other party officials who dodged the issue like the plague while the little guys and gals at the grassroots did all the gutsy, hard work.
So I don't have much patience for Dems who say what is and isn't possible to achieve.
The war is wrong, dead wrong, deeply unpopular, and getting moreso by the day. What this past few weeks says to me? That one of the biggest obstacles to ending that war is simply a lack of real leadership, guts, and imagination in the party, in my opinion.
So please be careful about sounding even a little bit like you're lecturing people about recognizing realities, etc. It's not that there aren't unrealistic people on the left (as in all ideological camps) but saying so is kind of an ugly and defensive habit of the elements of our party who you, among others, have historically challenged to aim higher.
