Read other letters about this article
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...