Prior to Bush and Cheney's invasion there were a few politicians who stood - generally by themselves - and decried Congressional support for an ill-advised, ill-planned, and what has become an ill-prosecuted war in Iraq. Most of the arguments posited AGAINST the invasion dealt with a belief that Iraq had no cache of WMDs, and that there was no connection between Iraq/Saddam and those who perpetrated the attack on the Trade Towers.

The media backlash against these naysayers was disgusting and pols like Kucinich and Jim McDermott found themselves dodging attacks from the right wing and even some of their colleagues in Congress. That Kucinich and McDermott have never heard an apology...from anyone...for having demonstrated the strength of their convictions remains a blot on the media and the DNC. Forget Faux News...

Senator Clinton's position on Iraq was faulty to begin with. Her delayed, reluctant criticism of the Bush administration, and of the military adventure in Iraq, will continue to color my estimation of her ability to lead. Frankly, Senator Clinton has long since morphed into the consummate politician looking to get elected. It would appear that she is as connected to K Street as Bush/Cheney and that she is determined to perpetuate a system that allows for the kind of horrific governance that has brought about the maelstrom that is Iraq. Short of a public apology for her support of this war, and the abandonment of her determined stance that an American military presence will have to remain in Iraq, I could not, in good conscience, vote for her.

Dennis Kucinich is the best of the field, and the most transparent, non-self-serving candidate on either side. The shame is, he has NO chance because he is not a card-carrying member of the same club to which Clinton and the Republicant candidates belong.

That leaves Barack Obama. While he is cut of much of the same cloth as Clinton, he has consistently been against the imperialistic military adventure in the Middle East. Moreover, his presence in the White House would serve as a public refusal to further support the despotic behavior of George Bush - First or Second.

Mike Gravel? A very entertaining wild card.

...when the nation we serve is the one we deceive...

You can be sure that the White House, with the GOP's absolute support, is searching for and examining every strategy to forestall or postpone the 2008 election. There is simply too much incriminating material - too much to be disposed of and not noticed - for a Democratic administration to start digging into.

Kucinich's remark about the difficulty in telling which candidate, or which party, is which, is right on the mark. It might not make him popular with Dem party workers or blindered supporters, and his remarks might appear hurtful to the anti-Republicant cause. But his observation is, essentially, true.

It's possible that every federal campaign, save for a couple of landmark elections in the 19th and 20th centuries, has been distilled down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. That has certainly been the case for the past 47 years. You will not convince me that Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush (either) or Clinton were the BEST men (you will be able to transgender this statement if Hillary wins) for the job. Hardly.

Kucinich, himself, is a better candidate than anyone in the current field. He has walked the walk for three decades. He has proven that he has the intellectual, political and emotional qualifications to be an apt leader. But he has as much chance of winning his party's candidacy as does Karl Rove.

No, the candidate for 2008 will be someone who has strong ties to corporate and institutional entities, someone who will seek to perpetuate an environment that is avidly anti-constituent (if you don't think of corporate lobbyists as 'constituents' as does Hillary).

It won't be Kucinich, just as it wasn't Tsongas or Bradley.

Here's to the new boss, same as the old boss...some things just don't change...