Why isn't Kucinich being mentioned. I am so tired of choosing some of the middle of the road person who doesn't embrace all of my ideals. That is why we lost last time. We were split between what we wanted and what felt like was possible. If Seabiscuit could win, so can Kucinich who embodies everything I want. I want health prevention...not early detection. I want the freedom to use herbs and vitamins and not be worried that the Europe and Canada restrictions will take away our rights here too. I want someone who works for me instead of what we can do for him. I just don't get why he is being shunned. He has vision, presence, and is refreshing.

Moderation note: moved from Democrat Debate to Election 2004-Jaime

Kucinich isn't being mentioned because the Democratic Party insists on filling in the role of the Center-Right party, which opened after the Republicans sprinted to the extreme militant quasi-Fascist right. Kucinich isn't Mid-Right like the other Democratic candidates, he remained left of center, so his party wont support him.

How about Howard Dean? He's a right of center candidate who pretends to be left of center? The Democrats will support him.

I'd have to agree pretty entirely with TragicClown on this. While I can't say that the Republican Party as a whole is quite as extremist as BC would have it (in that I don't see the other half of the possible political spectrum in this country as being as broad as his placement of the two major parties implies), they would clearly be the party whose constituency would include the abundant quasi-fascists in the US. The Republican constituency would also include - whether the party addresses their agenda in real terms or not - the more racist elements in our society and the political wing of the substantial Christian right (as well as, obviously, the more moderate - and sometimes genuinely - conservative faction). The Republican Party is also a much better deal for the wealthy - especially the ridiculously wealthy.

All the Democratic Party needs to be (as an alternative) is the party which doesn't necessarily cater to all of the above. They don't need to accommodate the more progressive elements of our society - and, for fear of losing their massive centrist audience, they no longer do. Also, like the Republican Party, the Democrats have become more corporatist than capitalist - and, for fear of losing their sponsorship, they can't possibly include the more socialist voices in our society. (Whether that sponsorship is as essential as they believe or not is another debate - though, without massive campaign reform, it probably is.) They have, therefore, become an increasingly vague and compromised "opposition".

Because of the Democratic Party's shift, the prevailing ideology of the country's politicians is no longer as representative as it should be. Organizations striving for power - including many who support the more extreme wings of the Republican Party - influence that apparent ideology so that what appears "neutral" is shifting steadily to the right. The media (because of what, in fact, is an elite corporatist bias) supports what has become the dominant, if misrepresentative, political "norm" and portrays any liberal deviation as radical.

Yeah, Seabiscuit won. But he didn't have to worry about lobbyists, PACs, and Rupert Murdock. And Terry McAuliffe is no Tom Smith.

Because of the Democratic Party's indolence, cowardice, and lack of vision - and their overweening desire to grab as big a hunk of the audience share as possible, regardless of the demographic - they're losing a lot of their post-war market to the Greens and the Libertarians. If the Democrats embraced many of the overlapping positions of those two parties on social issues - and were willing to compromise on some of the more genuinely conservative economic concerns of the Libertarians (starting with reform of the federal government itself in terms of fiscal responsibility) - they could gain more votes than they'd lose from the "moderate" right that they currently feel they must appease. And they'd maintain their hefty center-left vote.

But they're not going to do it. They're too timid. They don't want to compromise their lack of beliefs. And it's unlikely that the Greens would concede to a Democratic candidate in 2004 even if it were Kucinich. Without the Green vote, the Democrats don't feel that they can afford to move any further left than Dean - and, frankly, I suspect they feel he's a bit of a stretch (if only he weren't becoming so damned popular). With tepid endorsements from leading politicians within the party (fearing the alienation of their own constituencies) and a circumspect courting of the "left-wing" vote that wasn't too obvious, Kucinich would go down like George McGovern.

Given the current political climate (especially the division of the left) - and what is possible over the next six months or so - Dean is just about electable. Kucinich is not.

Dennis Kucinich and I reside in the same state (Ohio) and while I appreciate the job he's done as a Congressman, I have no intention of voting for him in our state's presidential primary, should he somehow stay in the race that long.

Kucinich is a boutique candidate. He can't win a statewide race in Ohio such as U.S. Senator or governor, but he can win a congressional race. There hasn't been a Senator to go from Congress to the White House since John F. Kennedy. One of the history buffs on the board would have to tell me when the last time a backbencher Congressman pulled the trick off.

But most of all, Kucinich has almost no national presence and I would bet he'd be hard-pressed to carry his home state let alone avoid being crushed in a electoral landslide of McGovern proportions. That's who Kucinich reminds me of; George McGovern. Kucinich gets the nomination and Bush wins at least 40-plus states. A nice guy and a capable politician who's playing waaaaay out of his league. If Karl Rove is licking his lips for a chance at skewering Howard Dean, he'd salivate over Dennis Kucinich's record.

Kucinich is entertaining in the off-season, but when it gets time to play the game he's strictly a spectator.