For me the question is not so much whether or not to support Dean or Kucinich but whether or not radical forces should support a Democrat at all. If the radicals are going to support a Democrat Kucinich is certainly more radical than Dean. I do not give the slightest hoot as to which of them is more photogenic or more "electable" in the eyes of the corporate media. ANY Democratic candidate who addresses the real issues in this political/economic climate stands a good chance of beating Bush. My strategy is to help elect the most radical of all possible Democrats. It will not be a cure-all for the problems that are of concern to radicals in the US, and most of the people in the rest of the world, but we will stand a better chance of substantiating changes in various policies with a more enlightened administration. I really believe we owe it to ourselves and the rest of the world to stop the court appointed despot in the white house before he does any more irreparable damage.

I would like to inform everyone, just incase you all were wondering about this seeming contradiction, that Kuchinich has a long piece on his web site about how he came to support Women's Right to Choose. I am glad he decided to support Choice because if he didn't support it then I would not vote for him no matter how "on" he is about the other issues. I am not going to sacrifice women's equality for a "mostly progressive" agenda. Choice is definitely a litmus test. A progressive against Choice would show a significant lack of continuity in world view. But Choice, Healthcare and the Iraqi War are not the only issues of current contention. Also of concern are: Affirmative Action, Racial and Gender Discrimination, Nuclear Disarmament, Campaign Finance Reform, Civil Liberties, Clean Water, The Right to Drinkable Water, Lack of Corporate Accountability, The Death Penalty, Private Prisons, Corporate Imperialism, GATT and NAFTA, The Drug War, The Out of Control Deficit, Education, The Wack Tax Cuts, The Environment, WTO/World Bank Manipulation of Entire Countries, Gay Rights, GMOs, Military Spending, Nuclear Safety, Farmer's Right to Farm, Farm Worker's Right to a Living Wage, Access to Prescription Drugs especially for the Elderly, Social Security and Pension Protection, Fair Trade, Universal Health Care, Weapons & Non-Proliferation, Workers Rights...and probably a dozen other things I am not thinking of right now. Kucinich is down with all of that. Dean on the other hand does not yet seem to understand that all of these issues are connected. He is progressive on three or four--maybe also gay rights--issues. But he has not built a convincing world vision of peace, freedom and liberty for all people in a sustainable, nature preserving environment. Dennis Kuchinich has, slow as he may have been to come around on Choice. The difference becomes apparent when you visit each of their web sites.

An example of Dean's lack of coherent world view came across my email today from supporters of Kucinich. The issue was the military budget and here is the story vebatim:

> WHO IS THE PEACE CANDIDATE?
>
> Beginning Tuesday, activists who've joined the peace and justice group
> MoveOn.org will be able to vote online. If you are one of the many
> planning to vote for a "peace candidate," please read this email
> closely, and forward it to others.
>
> An interesting exchange occurred at yesterday's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
> Candidates' Forum, in answer to a question about the "Digital Divide"
> that separates minorities and the poor from middle class whites in
> computer access. Congressman Dennis Kucinich received warm applause
> when he declared: "As long as we're spending so much money for the
> Pentagon, and so little money for education, we're going to have all
> kinds of divides in this country…The only way we're really going to
> close the divide in this country is to start cutting the Pentagon budget
> and put that money into education."
>
> Howard Dean spoke next and commented: "I don't agree with Dennis about
> cutting the Pentagon budget when we're in the middle of a difficulty
> with terror attacks."
>
> That's a stark contrast on one of the biggest questions facing
> Democrats. Dean describes himself as a fiscal conservative adamant
> about balanced budgets. But if the soaring Pentagon budget is
> untouchable, are we being candid with voters about delivering them an
> enhanced domestic agenda of which Democrats can be proud?
>
> With Democratic candidates promising increased spending in such areas as
> healthcare, education and the environment, how can the federal budget be
> balanced while Pentagon cuts are deemed off-limits?
>
> Dennis Kucinich has made cuts in the bloated military budget central to
> his campaign. He has repeatedly pointed out that Pentagon spending will
> soon rival the military budgets of all other countries in the world
> combined, that unneeded and Cold-War era weapons are still being
> produced, that Star Wars missile defense is a boondoggle, and that the
> Pentagon has a trillion dollars in irreconcilable accounts.
>
> Kucinich's commitment to fundamentally shift our nation's budget
> priorities toward civilian needs like healthcare, schools, cities,
> retirement security and environmental cleanup has attracted thousands to
> our campaign, and last week helped earn the endorsements of progressive
> Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and leading peace activist and businessman
> Ben Cohen. (Text of endorsements at http://www.kucinich.us.)

An ironic, white-haired gentleman once said "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." Sage thought. This military logic makes about as much sense as keeping a loaded gun in your cookie jar to make sure your family is "safe." No safety nor peace ever came from a warrior mentality. In fact the opposite is true. A candidate for peace must understand that weapons make war, always and only war. Peace is achieved through cooperation regarding resources. Gestures of cooperation create trust which is a necessary condition for peace. Military gestures create the opposite of trust. The fact that our government is bent on spending unfathomable amounts of money on weapons undermines trust between nations thereby derailing this definitive condition for peace. If Dean is a "peace candidate" then why does he not know this?

Anyway, I think you can see where I am coming from here. For what I would like to accomplish politically, Kucinich is a far better candidate than Dean. Incidentally, he also is running a kick-ass internet campaign. I know that means something to you. And we have a group in Pittsburgh that "meets up" for Kucinich. Don't underestimate him, Phil, he's real. He also is not accepting corporate contributions. His entire campaign is grass-roots, which speaks volumes in itself. Look. If you think the internet can tip the playing field back to something resembling democracy, why are you bent on dissing the more radical candidate in favor of the one that is practically endorsed by the Washington Post? (MoveOn ariticle from a few days ago.) Work with me here, Shropshire, forget the dazzle and look at the issues. Then vote for Kucinich in the MoveOn Primary.