Read other letters about this article
"The booing immediately drowned Kucinich out. He had committed a cardinal sin, demeaning the Democratic Party before a crowd that works countless unpaid hours a week to make the party stronger." Just like telling military families that the Iraq War is a disaster. But is it really better to tell them what they want to hear and hope everything works out in the end? How will such denial make the party stronger?
Either it is true that people don't vote because they don't perceive any difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, or it isn't true. If such people don't really exist, it's nothing to get exercised about. But if they do--and I would have thought it's a truism--then the Democratic Party needs to show them that it IS different, presumably through its actions. Those non-voters won't go away just because the candidate who pointed out their existence got booed. The booers' arrogant message is that it isn't up to the Democratic Party to earn people's votes; it's up to the electorate to vote solidly for the Democratic Party regardless of what it does, simply because it's not the Republican Party.
The bottom line is that the progressive bloggers (surely not all of them, to be fair) didn't want to hear Kucinich point out this fact because they themselves realize that the difference is far smaller than they'd like, and they got defensive. But what is their plan to increase that difference? Serve as enforcers and demand that progressives vote unanimously for the Democratic Party, then hope that it doesn't ignore them after they've served their purpose? (Hope over experience.)
What more do people like me want Hillary Clinton to do about her pro-Iraq War vote? Three little words: "I was wrong." Sure, she's afraid she'd look weak. But trust me, if she can't admit such an obvious mistake she's bound to look even weaker. (Remember the HAPPY DAYS episode where Fonzie said "Ralph, I was wrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnggggg..."?)
"Freedom is the right to say 2+2=4"--George Orwell