"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."

Let me make it clear that I still worship Ralph Nader and think that he is the greatest journalist that ever lived. But I didn't and wouldn't vote for him, at least not on some Third Party ticket. Yet there are those of you who voted for Nader and now you know that there is in fact a difference between even evil DLC democrats and the Resident in Chief. Let's not make the same mistake twice. By the way, I'll take on Bob Harris and Tom Tomorrow as well just to make this interesting. Bob argued that this particular vote doesn't matter that much so you may as well vote your conscience. Keep in mind that if a candidate gets 50 percent of the vote they get the Moveon endorsement. That kind of matters. Moveon was able to raise $600000 for Wellstone during the campaign. In theory, they could lead a public financing initiative that could mean independence for a Dean or Edwards or even a Kucinich candicacy. In other words this vote matters. The only thing I wish they had done is used a mixed balloting system. Where's Norm in all of this...?

But why would I support somebody who doesn't agree with me totally? Because I think that modern elections rest on the 20 percent of swing voters out there. And, and this is a gut thing, I think that Dean could reach those voters more effectively than Dennis. It's not just some of his centrist policies, I think Dean is just a much better and more charismatic speaker. That matters in the age of television. Even if we get a kind of perfect compression over the net before the election, you'll have to look good on netcasts. It will take a superior politician to beat Bush. It's that whole Kennedy/Clinton thing, charisma counts. Oh, and for his centrism, keep in mind that the DLC is already attacking him. That certainly makes him left enough for me...I just think that Dean is the most electable "anti-war" candidate.

"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."

How are we defining kickass? You know who leads in the grass roots internet efforts called Meetup? Howard Dean far and away. Edwards comes in a distant second. Where's your kickass guy on that list? Where's his daily blog? Dean has one. Where are the links on Kucinich's imaginary blog to the Internet movers and shakers? I don't like Dean's link to Instanpundit but I think I know why he put it there...(oh lawdy don't let it be his position on Israel..) And this thing about the Internet is that it's not a money thing. It's clearly an intelligence thing. Dean didn't have that much more money than Kucinich when this thing started. He's getting lots of individual donations. That's just better, smarter campaigning. I think the net can be a decider, especially if we can create an alternative media out here that's just more compelling than the usual network idiocy...but it will take a smarter, more competent to take advantage of the net's exponential advantages. Right now, that Dean guy looks a lot like that smarter, more competent guy whatever his faults.

With that said, there's a very good chance that no one will get 50 percent of the vote and we will continue to have this debate in the future, because there will be other Moveon votes. I will take another look at Kucinich. Policy wise he is closer to what I stand for...But my vote for Dean stands for now.