Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (5124)	12/30/2003 8:25:31 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6358

Kucinich, Passionate to a Fault By Terry M. Neal washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Friday, November 21, 2003; 12:20 PM There are four types of presidential candidates: those who inspire passion, those who exude the appearance of electability, those who do both and those who do neither. Put Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) in the first category. This is a man who thrust himself into the limelight last year, declaring himself a presidential candidate after helping lead his party's opposition to last year's vote on the Iraq war resolution. No matter that virtually no one in the country had a clue who he was. His campaign has failed to gain much traction, a problem he-as faltering presidential candidates have done since the dawn of democracy-has blamed on the media. (Anybody remember Gary Bauer?) Self-deprecation doesn't come easy for politicians, even those who are polling in low single-digits in the polls. But Kucinich opened his meeting with Washington Post editors and reporters with a healthy dose of it on Wednesday. Asked at the beginning of the meeting how he planned to win his party's nomination next year, he quipped: "I'm going to start by exceeding expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire. I exceed expectations if I get one vote. Everybody will say, 'how did he get a vote.' " Pretty funny stuff. But kinda true, too. Protest Candidates Rock Of course, Kucinich will get a few votes. Protests candidates always do. Like Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes on the right before him, these candidates speak for real constituencies. But they rarely can muster a majority mandate. Kucinich is an unapologetic, old-school, anti-war, social liberal who believes strongly that the Bush administration has lied and deceived in dragging the nation perilously into an unneeded, counterproductive war in Iraq. Those feelings we knew. What we didn't know was how deep his anti-war feelings went. In the Washington Post interview, Kucinich was asked where he stood on the war in Afghanistan. He said he opposed it. This seemed a bit of a contradiction, given that Kucinich had just finished saying that he believes strongly in America's right to defend itself against attack. But wasn't America defending itself in Afghanistan? "The government of Afghanistan itself didn't attack us," he said. "That's the thinking. The attack was not justified." But didn't America ask the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda leaders? And weren't the Taliban providing cover and security for al Qaeda's leaders? And didn't the Taliban refuse to turn bin Laden and other leaders over? Yes, Kucinich said. But America had an "obligation" to work through the United Nations first to deal with the problem. "We needed to take advantage of the moment and go to the world community and say, 'Work with us collectively to hunt down these terrorists.' " So you didn't support the bombing? Kucinich was asked. "Not the way they did it," he said. "I thought the bombing was counterproductive." Oops, My Bad Kucinich was asked if he really believed he could win the nomination, much less the election, with that position on Afghanistan. That war was a popular one among Americans, most of whom saw it as a clear case of self defense. It was here that the congressman seemed to sense he was getting himself in trouble. "I'm not making Afghanistan an issue," he said. "I'm making Iraq an issue." Well, he might not be making it an issue, but George W. Bush certainly would make Kucinich's position on Afghanistan an issue if he were the Democratic nominee. Kucinich called the Post two hours later to clarify his position, as staff writer Edward Walsh reported yesterday. In fact, Kucinich said he had voted to authorize military action in Afghanistan. "On the philosophical question as to whether it was justified, the answer is yes," Kucinich said. "The record on that is clear. . . . I misspoke." But he still maintained that he disagreed with the administration's "tactics" in Afghanistan and that it should have done more to involve intelligence agencies from other countries. Standing on Principle Kucinich is not afraid to take controversial or unpopular positions, but sometimes he seems to overreach, as he did in the Post interview on Afghanistan. For instance, he said as president he would immediately negotiate to turn over full authority and responsibility for rebuilding Iraq to the U.N. and remove all U.S. troops. Certainly, more Americans agree with his criticism of Bush's rationale for going to war, but most, according to polls, believe America must finish the job, now that it is there. Mainstream voters often express admiration for candidates on both the right and left who are willing to take principled stands on unpopular positions. But it's also admirable to acknowledge that your positions are likely to be considered outside the mainstream. Yet Kucinich-who also advocates a national single-payer health care system-insisted that he was the only electable Democrat in the field because by the time next year's election rolls around, public opinion will have shifted squarely in his direction on these and other issues. "I don't see anyone getting 50 percent of the delegates going into the convention, and I feel I have as much chance as anyone else," he said. © 2003 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive