I received this article about all of the Democratic candidates

[Mikimouse]

article last night. I will post some excerpts here, along with the name of the website. I couldn't get the link to appear as an active link, but if you copy and paste it, you can access it.

On edit: the link is now active-see bottom of the page.


DEAN AND KUCINICH
By Paul Rogat Loeb

Like many progressives, I've felt torn between Howard Dean's and Dennis Kucinich's respective strengths. I've resolved this conflict so far by embracing my indecision and giving money to both. Kucinich has spoken out, eloquently and thoughtfully, taking stands that challenge the conventional wisdom of our time, and point toward powerful long-term alternatives. Dean's stands are more cautious, but he's revived the Democratic Party by being willing to challenge Bush on a host of key issues, and brought more ordinary citizens into electoral politics than any Democratic politician in years.
When Dean says, "America is not Rome," it contrasts starkly with an
administration that's tried its best to make us the world's imperial
policeman.

A year ago, a surging global peace movement offered hope, but I saw little to cheer me on the U.S. electoral front. The most prominent Democratic candidates--Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman--had just finished helping give Bush his victory on the war vote. In Gephardt's case, he helped write the resolution, line up the House votes, and take the political postures (literally standing with Bush in a supportive photo op) that made resistance from the Senate far more difficult. Kerry lambasted Bush's unilateral policies, then turned around and supported them-a piece of political calculation based solely, as far as I can tell, on some astonishingly craven
notion of Presidential electability. If possible, Lieberman was more hawkish than Bush on Iraq from the beginning--which shouldn't surprise us, since Lieberman gained his Senate seat by using the financial support of William F. Buckley to bait moderate Republican Lowell Weickert for being soft on Cuba, and no Democratic Senator north of the Mason-Dixon line has a more conservative record than Lieberman. Although Edwards seemed a decent new face, he also voted for the war and belongs to the Democratic Leadership Council, which has counseled endless accommodation ever since Bush was handed the White House.

<snip>

But it's hard to imagine Kucinich winning the nomination, let alone the Presidency. He's served only briefly in the House, and as he's acknowledged, no House member has been elected President since James Garfield. Kucinich's stands, though they'd be unremarkable in Western Europe, are probably too radical for our corrupted political culture. And I keep having nightmares of potential Republican attack ads hammering away at his being a vegan-using this stand to make the 99% of Americans who aren't vegans and the 95% who aren't vegetarians feel like he looks down on them for eating a piece of
chicken or drinking a glass of milk: "This is a man who's so far out of the mainstream," they might say, "he wants to confiscate your macaroni and cheese."

<snip>


When Howard Dean first challenged the then-pending Iraq war, it was a
welcome contrast from the front-line Democratic contenders. But his campaign initially seemed almost as improbable as those of Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley-Braun. I was hoping for someone with greater visibility to jump in-like Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois or Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. But as Dean continued to speak out, he began building a citizen's movement. By challenging Bush in a way that he presented as utterly mainstream (being a doctor helps), by challenging the Democratic party to return to its roots, and most importantly, by refusing to take a path of timidity, he's galvanized people's hopes, giving them something to believe in and act on.
He's succeeded less because of particular policy positions (which, aside from the war, are not so different from those of the other "mainstream" Democratic candidates), than because he's willing to fight for them, and challenge Bush's astonishingly regressive path.

<snip>

I have used Dr. Loeb's books and articles as supplemental readings in many of my classes, and value his insight. Please take a look at the complete article. (www.paulloeb.org)









www.paulloeb.org

[Mikimouse]

1. Kick, because I think the article needs to be circulated

It seems to about as non-biased as it can be. I really thought that the people at DU would be interested in it, so I e-mailed Dr. Loeb and asked his permission to post it here. I heard from him this morning.