Kucinich, and not only for being out in front on peace, but also on impeachment & restoring the Constitution.

Posted by sloper at 12/19/2007

Dennis Kucinich is the most valuable progressive EVER and I hope that history remembers him as such. No one has ever spoken truth to power as consistently nor as persuasively. He is the last hope for this Democracy. If everyone who agrees with him votes for him, he will win. Then we'll all win.

Posted by Ellen Brown at 12/19/2007

John Edwards, for driving the policies that the other Democrats have followed--because they know he is right. Edwards has led on universal health care, the debate on the poor and working classes in this country, and, with the exception of Gore, is THE politician who has had the best, most progressive, most detailed plans on addressing global warming and other environmental issues. Were it not for Edwards, we'd have the same old, same old stuff out of all the other candidates. "Change" and "fighting special interests" would not be in the vocabularies of the other candidates.

Posted by CookieInPA at 12/19/2007

Dennis Kucinich. He is electable if you vote for him. That's what we do in democracies.

Posted by kusturica at 12/19/2007

I voted for Kucinich. But if you'd posted 'Naomi Klein', I would have voted for her too (instead?).

Posted by Taboo at 12/20/2007

Congrats on yet another loaded poll! Apparently not trusting your readers to give the answer(s) you'd like, you try to gently guide us - in this case by using the word "quixotic" in conjunction with Dennis Kucinich. Yes, we all know he's crazy and his cause is hopeless...right? Michael Cerkowski

Posted by mabel33 at 12/20/2007

You have a top four who all deserve the honor, in my opinion. Those who are fighting valiantly against America's self-betrayal are important, honorable, praiseworthy, and courageous, and we all need to support them. At this point, however, they have not broken through. If we take "valuable" as not only laudable but creating movement in the public and the world, we have to, regrettably, stick with the few who, through high profile, looks, or degree of injustice done, have managed to penetrate the outrage-fatigue and lies of lazy, corporate, and dull media.

Posted by Geogre at 12/20/2007

My vote for most valuable progressive of 2007 goes to Paul Krugman, who has been the most cogent and persistent critic of Bush and movement conservatism in the main stream media. I guess I can't blame The Nation for not nominating a NY Times columnist.

Posted by tonyzito at 12/20/2007

I agree. Your use of the term 'quixotic' was a blatant attempt to steer votes away from Kucinich. Why, after your editorial stating that he's the ideal candidate to represent the progressive agenda. And why not endorse him as such and do everything in your power to boost support for his campaign? Instead, you give 1000% more white space to candidates that DON'T represent the progressive agenda. I think that you need to go back and read your mission statement again. I also love Amy Goodman and Naomi Wolf and feel that their efforts are just as principled and influential as Kucinich's.

Posted by jlsolley at 12/21/2007

Tonyzito thinks Paul Krugman should be considered the most Progressive. Poor Krugman has been praying, literally praying, for a recession ever since Bush got elected. Almost every OpEd column he writes tries to encourage a recession. And every time the market dips he shouts, "See I told you the economy is doomed" and every time it goes back up he says nothing. The strangest thing of all is that Clinton left Bush a moderate recession and even with 9/1l, the corporate scandals and Krugman's prayers we aren't in one. Seven years of recession predictions doesn't make a man a Progressive. It makes him a dishonest, anti-American, shithead!!!

Posted by bean22 at 12/21/2007

Your lack of support for Kucinich and the deliberate use of the term quixotic is the reason I cancelled my Nation subscription and will never consider subscribing again.

Posted by gkaba at 12/21/2007

Kucinic electable? pffft

Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007

YOU GOTTA LOVE OLE DENNIS...

I do admire people like Kucinich (especially pols) who do things out of sheer principle even with small chance of success. Gore did good too, but I'm not sure how much impact "An Inconvenient Truth" actually had. Supposedly, it "raised awareness" but I wonder....

Posted by w_m_bear at 12/22/2007

As I write this FOX News (mushroom media) has wheeled out 400 global warming detractors. They say scientists but the list shows a large number of Fox station weathermen. Why is it the stupid people get out and vote and the intelligent ones stay home and hope it will all work out?Even with all the knowledge of the FOX media lies the FCC passes ruleings to further entrench the (mushroom media ) in our homes. Mushroom media= keep you in the dark and feed you shit! Any institution that is detrimental to the nation as a whole should not be tolerated. However we still have people who support this bullshit. Here's an idea, don't vote for impeachment , start calling for a fireing squad at the white house. The chickenshits will surely tell the truth if it will save their own lives. Read the inscription inside the Jefferson memorial. Pass those words along to your Republican friends. It's high time we took our country back from these illiterate followers of the blind faith that says " my daddy was a republican so I is too" By the way did anyone else get disturbed by yet another politician saying god is helping his campaign?

Posted by BlindBob at 12/22/2007

GKABA, JLSOLLEY and MABEL33 all make a good point. Any reason why you didn't ask for nominations first and instead framed this for your readers? Particularly when the MVP would be one we could choose to emulate in our own lives - which almost none on this list meet that standard.

Posted by srjenkins at 12/22/2007

I don't think Al Gore compares to Kucinich, but he definitely gets more press. Al Gore ran as a Democrat, but he blinked when he should have steam rolled over Bush in the debates. Kucinich is a real progessive; he believes the government should serve the people, not the other way around. I believe that The Nation has conveniently ignored him for a long time. Why? I cannot say, except that I detect a somewhat elitist snubbing over his humble background. Many, if not most, of those who staff this and other "liberal" publications have never gone without; so it is hard for them to identify with someone who did and went on the become a spokesman for those on the outside looking in. But Dennis is no ignorant populist, he is highly intelligent, extremely well-read, and very informed about how government works, where the money is buried, and what kind of action is needed to get this country back on track. It would be nice if The Nation would pay him more mind, but he really is doing very nicely without them.

Posted by Striver at 12/22/2007

Kucinich is the least valuable, because despite being right on the issues, he has accomplished zero.

Posted by tmarlow331 at 12/22/2007

Dennis Kucinich. no doubt whatsoever. Right and leading on on the most important and poignant issues: peace, health care, impeachment. Before anybody else, against any odds. If The Nation has guts left, it should endorse him without any reservation. The world is heading towards dramatic moments due to the peaking of fossil fuel: a principled man in the White House would be a powerful leading signal to the world. Let me subscribe the statement by KUSTURICA: vote for him and that will all of a sudden make him electable.

Posted by spano at 12/22/2007

Personally, I am nauseated that Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is on the list. It profoundly hysterical to suggest that this man is a "progressive" let alone the most important of the year because of the cash machine he is running.

My vote is that he be taken off the list.

As for the remaining figures, it is clear that some people have been easily dazzled. While Gore deserves his acclaim, what are the CONSEQUENCES this year of his activism and visibility? Jack-doodely! I don't even think there has even been a major increase in the number of pro-environment bills in the Congress, despite the "great" Democratic Party leadership of the Congress, which they numerically control.

So what makes Gore a candidate for MVP?

I believe Kucinich deserves the vote above all figures on the list.

(And, please, DO take Moulitsas of the list. The man is just yet another operator.)

Posted by Zero at 12/22/2007

I sometimes read The Nation online. But after reading your loaded poll and description of Kucinich as "quixotic" I am thoroughly disgusted. You clearly betray your prejudice and you are no better than a crypto-fascist.

Posted by busgeeth at 12/22/2007

Where is the value if you do not actually accomplish your goals?

Your best hope (and my worst) is that you pull the nation center-left. Perhaps in another 10-20 years, you may have the pendulum swing further to the left. Hopefully it will be 20 years so that I won't be around to see it.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/22/2007

Weird, that looks just like my office...!

http://tinyurl.com/2e2ob8

Posted by hsuBfools at 12/23/2007

Ron Paul: For having the courage to speak the truth about America's Empire and the need to eliminate it.

Posted by Tom Paine Jr at 12/23/2007

seems in my mind a dead heat between Chaney, Kucinich for 2nd place behind Gore who significantly leads dan emerson

Posted by jdem007 at 12/23/2007

What about Edwards? Not enough smut? My feeling is hes the only one that Amy would agree on some things with, like reevaluating the whole "god" forsaken mess. Peace...

Posted by union made at 12/23/2007

Russ Feingold - for continuing to have the strongest backbone in Congress.

Posted by MollieGee at 12/23/2007

Valerie Plame is not a "Progressive." I admire her and am pulling for her and Joe, but neither of them is a "Progressive," judging from their careers and statements. Challenge assumptions, Everyone! Challenge false premises. Challenge authority when they are in the wrong.

Posted by Seattle2006 at 12/23/2007

What's wrong with you, Nation? Kucinich is not Quixotic, he's right. He was right when Edwards and the others were wrong. China, the war, health care, you name it. I'd like to suggest another poll: Will the Democratic party learn from it's failure in '04 to nominate a candidate who actually provided voters with a clear choice in November, or will it forfeit the election by again nominating a candidate who differs from the status quo only in a matter of scale, not a matter of principle? Edwards, Clinton, Obama, these are all basically the same old thing and almost everyone can tell. Kucinich is something new. Cover him, would you?

Posted by audaciousman at 12/24/2007

To me and many I know its a clear choice ...its Dennis kucinich hands down .. all the way .He speaks for us and we respect him so much .He will make a great president ..no matter how hard they try to block him with no coverage .. the word is out and people are talking ..We Want Dennis!!

Posted by Connieo at 12/24/2007

The Nation and The Progressive are shamefully remiss in neglecting to cover Kucinich. Both those mags rant and rave about mainstream media not doing their job - well, they're not doing THEIR job in covering TRUE progressives. It's pretty sad and disgusting, hence why I cancelled my subscription to the Progressive and refuse to get one to The Nation. And yes, the wording in this poll is a smarmy attempt at luring votes away from DK.

Quixotic, my ass. It's called REALITY, something The Nation needs to grasp.

Posted by Alison Ross at 12/24/2007

We the People need to end the Military Industrial Comlex Regime, the New World Order/One World Government Scheme and the blah blah blah Corporate Fascist Free Ride Machine! I will not be voting for anyone else but Dennis Kucinich in the upcoming elections! Side Note: Beware of Al Gore. He is a member of the CFR along with Texaco, Mobile, and Exxon Valdez. His larger than life slide show presentation on Global Warming is a manipulation to get We the People to ultimately support a Global Tax on C02 emissions. His website does not have any activated pages discussing Industries role in dealing with Global Warming - it just has six activated pages discussing what We the People should to to help fix the problem. If a Corporate Owned/CFR membered presidentail candidate gets into the White House you can be very assured that We the People would be paying this tax and the Corporations would NOT be paying this tax. Dick Cheney in this poll, very funny, thanks for the laugh.

Posted by VoteKucinich at 12/24/2007

Al Gore didn't just raise the alarm. It had already been raised. But, what he did was make it an issue that can no longer be ignored. He showed the world that the "impossible" is possible. The corporations, and the governments they control, will no longer be able to hold this issue at bay. We will be moving in the right direction. Too little, too late, perhaps, but at least finally moving.

Posted by lightman28 at 12/24/2007

John Edwards is electable, Dennis UFO Kuchinich is not. Please be realists, people! We don't need another Ralph Nader proved wrong. Remember when people like Nader said there was no difference betwen Bush and Gore? Do you still beleive that nonsense? Get off the fantasy juice and climb aboard the reality bus. All the way with JRE!

Posted by BluePhildog at 12/24/2007

God dam it,Ralph Nader ran as an Independent and is not responsible for Al Gore. Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat that We can actually vote for. In fact I think He's the most electable candidate We've ever had.

Posted by moondog at 12/25/2007

Kucinich has for many years voiced the principles that publications such as "the Nation" have claimed to support, yet "the Nation" calls his campaign "quixotic". Is this because deep down you believe your own principles and political ideals to be hopeless? If so, why go on?

Posted by Canadian Jack at 12/25/2007

An election is not the same as being at the track. We are not betting, we're voting. When betting, you are trying to guess the winner. Your bet does not affect the outcome.

Voting is different. You should inform yourself of the various candidates positions on the issues. Then, thinking for yourself, vote for the candidate whose views agree with your own. While it may be only a small amount, your vote actually effects the outcome.

If you think for yourself and inform yourself of the candidates positions on the issues, you will almost certainly vote for Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis has won the DFA poll, the Nation poll, the Independent Voters poll, the polls after several of the debates. You degrade your own publication when you describe someone who is winning everything that is not run by the corporate meida as Quixotic (shouldn't that be capitalized?).

Despite the denigration of the wording of the question, it looks like Congressman Kucinich is about to win again. Will he pull a Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire?

He might.

Posted by heavyrunner at 12/25/2007

I see mention of Ralph Nader and Gore in this discussion.

The Democratic Party made a huge mistake in 2000 and it cost them the election. The ticket should have been Gore/Nader.

Posted by heavyrunner at 12/25/2007

Your editorial staff should be ashamed of yourselves for participating in the corporate attempt to turn the election into a farce by putting only Clinton and Obama on the cover of the Nation. As Eugene McCarthy once said, for many it "only takes a light rinse." It's too bad the Nation magazine is not being run by progressives with the necessary vision and courage to see through the brainwashing that tries to tell us who the "real candidates" are before a single vote has been cast. And to the echo that in an important voice of the American left like the Nation is really despicable and disturbing.

Posted by heavyrunner at 12/25/2007

Your editorial staff should be ashamed of yourselves for participating in the corporate attempt to turn the election into a farce by putting only Clinton and Obama on the cover of the Nation. Posted by HEAVYRUNNER 12/25/2007 @ 9:29pm

Quite. Stop scamming yr readers. Edwards is from the Carolinas & has the better chance there. Kucinich has won all the national progressive polls. What's The Nation's motivation/reward for excluding them? For labelling DK "quixotic"? Keep insulting yr readers, wily Nation editors/owners, and you'll end up like TNR, on the ropes, looking for a rich person to bail out the sinking magazine. Or is that the point?

Posted by sloper at 12/25/2007

This is a write-in vote for we the people.

Posted by srbeckman at 12/25/2007

Can't you people read? The Nation did not say that Kucinich was quixotic but said that the presidential campaign was quixotic! Why are you all blaming The Nation for something it did not do? Shape up!

Posted by fbelcast at 12/25/2007

My write-in candidate is Naomi Klein. "The Shock Doctrine" was an important expose of the key extremist/empowered RW myths, and her media appearances have been equally stellar.

Posted by es1981 at 12/26/2007

Obama is the MVP of the progressive movement because he has a plan and strategy to usher in a new era in progressive politics. Neither Hillary or Edwards have a plan or strategy to increase the power of progressives, and are simply running on personal ambition and using progressive voters toward this end.

Here is Obama in his own words "prior to" the campaign season:

I do think a broader question remains on the table. What is the best strategy for building majority support for a progressive agenda, and for reversing the rightward drift of this country?

To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I’m headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I’ve always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

Posted by Metteyya at 12/26/2007

There are a grand total of 3 honest people running for President in 2008. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. We are lucky to even have 3 honest people to choose from anymore.

Any politician who is in the CFR is a whore for Corporate America and will sell the best interests of "We the People" out in favor of Corporate America's interests. Corporate American donates the money to finance CFR "front-runner" candidates, and the CFR candidates promote the agenda of the CFR in return for the donations that helped get them elected to office.

Ever wonder why Bill Clinton supported NAFTA? He's in the CFR! Democrats are supposed to be for the poor under-unprivileged people. This "free-trade" bill is not free trade at all, or at least not FAIR trade.

As a result of NAFTA, workers in America lost their jobs and workers in Mexico work for an unfair wage while Corporate America gets richer in the process of exploiting the lower classes. I do recall Ross Perot adamantly warning the American people about how NAFTA would hurt American workers - but the Mainstream Media called him a kook, too. Perot was right.

John Edwards voted for free trade with China! Do you know how unsafe the products of China are? Many children have been injured by toys manufactured in China. We buy all this Chinese made stuff in bulk and we don't test it to see if it is safe.

China doesn't care about the people of it's own Nation. I'm quite sure they don't really care about ours either.

The Chinese government is one of the BIGGEST violators of human rights, and the UN does nothing about it. (Interesting note, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) created the UN, after the failed attempt to create the League of Nations.)

When are you sheeple going to wake up? Corporate America OWNS the Mainstream Media. Corporate America bought out most of the Congress and most of the Government leaders. (Check out all most any big name politician or political figure you can think of and they are in the CFR.) Corporate America has the Mainstream Media promote CFR candidates because it is in THEIR best interest to do so. Corporate America is happy with the status quo. Any person wanting to upset their applecart is labeled a nutbag, kook, or unelectable.

I suggest people start thinking for themselves instead of parroting information they got off the Mainstream Media. Research the information. See if your special candidate has a record for voting the way he or she is stating in their political campaign. I'm sick of Lego-My-Eggo waffler Hillary Clinton who will never give a straight answer on anything. Watch their speeches. See if they manipulate their audience by changing their answers to fit the demographics of the people they are addressing.

I voted for Kucinich. Even though he is fiscally retarded, he always acts in the best interest of the people and does try his best to preserve the Constitution and Bill of Rights (except for that wanting to ban handguns thing. I'm not quite sure how he's interpreting the 2nd Amendment but it doesn't appear to be the same way I do.)

I honestly don't think Kucinich understands how badly the Federal Reserve has economically screwed the American people. Let me remind you that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank and is not a government institution. Since the FED took over control of the "currency" in 1913, the value of the dollar has been depreciated horribly. In 1913, one US dollar equaled one Federal Reserve Note. Today the value of the 1913 dollar is equal to 4 cents. Inflation is a tax on the poor and middle class. Again the rich benefit while the poor pay the price and carry the burden of the Rich Elite. If we don't stop the FED, it's only going to get worse.

Today, I am 30 years old. In order for me to have a monthly retirement income of $5,000 in today's dollar, when I retire in 37 years, I will need a monthly income of over $21,000 a month! I am not kidding you. The inflation rate is out of control, combine that with a $9 trillion dollar budget deficit that keeps growing every second and you basically have sold your posterity into serfdom.

The only person even willing to address the FED and the Inflation Tax isn't even mentioned on this list. It's Ron Paul. We can't continue to go on spending like this without bankrupting the country. Wall Street may be booming, but watch what is happening to real Americans.

This is a class war. The goal is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The middle class Americans support the 12% of the people who are dependent on government programs and the 3% of the wealthy elite who don't have to pay any taxes at all. The middle class is dying, and it's being done to us intentionally.

If you've had enough of this, I suggest you vote for someone who understands what is going on. Voting for a President who is not interested in preemptive wars, or continuing fighting wars that we cannot win for the next decade and having to finance the wars by borrowing money from China would be a very good start. Your choices are Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul.

Ron Paul would bring all of our military troops home from overseas, not just the ones in Iraq. We have troops in countries where wars ended over 50 years ago - Germany, Japan. Why are they still there? That act of bringing all troops home would save us $1 trillion dollars a year and we would effectively be able to secure our Nation's borders at the same time.

Posted by tahney at 12/26/2007

i thoroughly agree with the outpouring of disgust over both the "quixotic" branding and the refusal of the Nation to endorse its own heart and soul. what the hell are you guys doing? what does this guy have to do to get recognition and support from institutions like this? how can readers of this magazine actually be duped into thinking that obama is "progressive," as one confused commenter noted above? you should be championing this hero the way he champions everything you believe in. i know that the magazine is dying. you should at least go out with a bang.

Posted by Ryan444 at 12/28/2007

quixotic eh?

Serves me right for getting up at 6AM and reading this trash after an all night Twilight Zone marathon.

Dick Cheney for progressive of the year?

How about Adolf Hitler for humanitarian of all time, for pointing out how naughty it is to kill jews, cripples and homosexuals?

Or Jack the Ripper...citizen of the year, for drawing our attention to this vexing mass murderer problem?

Exxon Mobile for environmentalist of the year, for....well...you get the idea.

I'm going back to bed!

Posted by nostredumass at 12/28/2007

TAKE DOWN THIS POLL OR REMOVE QUIXOTIC FROM THE KUCINICH DESCRIPTION. Your lead in being "practical" is the reason why kucinich is considered unelectable. this is the PRIMARY. what's the difference if Obama or Clinton get elected; this man is our best shot. be decent; admit you fucked up, remove it, and apologize.

Posted by Ryan444 at 12/28/2007

While the Kucinichites continue to bloviate, Michael Ratner is no doubt busy writing briefs to defend their (and our) freedom to pass gas.

The Congress won't oppose Bush and the Republican dominated judiciary won't either. Ratner has targetted cases and venues that will give exposure -- though not conviction or action by our partisan judiciary -- to the crimes and downright scoundrelous behavior of the criminal Bush presidency.

Posted by jkrogman at 12/28/2007

Add "bloviate' to the prejudicial terms used to marginalize Kucinich and his supporters.

My problem with this mentality is not that I think Kucinich is the only good Democratic candidate, it's that this "unelectable" mantra is a self-fulfilling prophecy that narrows the options for all of us, and plays into the cynical Republican strategy of painting the truth tellers as kooks. ALL of the potential Democratic nominees have vulnerabilities that the opposition will attempt to exploit. And if they don't, recent history has proved that a little swift-boating, inadequately addressed, can take just about anyone down.

Please, oh please, stop obsessing about which candidate will impress the swing voters, because you don't really know. Your "safe" choices in the past have often failed to perform in the main election. When the primaries are over, I'll buy the "lesser of two evils" argument this time, but until then, my conscience says Kucinich. If yours says Obama or Clinton or Edwards, I don't have a problem with that. But vote for them on their stances, not on your unproven notions about how the swing voters are going to respond. That's been proven to be idiotic strategy over and over and over again.

Posted by kusturica at 12/28/2007

First of all, let me say that I totally agree with JKROGMAN that Michael Ratner is a special case, tilting his legal lance in the direction most favored by all of us. That said, I chose Kucinich.

I absolutely agree with KUSTURICA-- marginalizing any of the Democratic hopefuls on perceived nonsense is self-defeating, whether you label Clinton as militaristic, Edwards as insincere, Kucinich as "Quixotic", Obama as self-rightgeous-- all these labels are false. Look at what they say they stand for-- look at what their platform says they stand for-- look at what legislation they've supported and what they have to say about that ( people can learn, otherwise there'd be no use for schools), THEN talk about these issues as they apply to you, your environment, your friends, the country, the planet. Are these stances ones you like? Agree with? Disagree with?

It seems to me that lately, when there have been poles to participate in, and voters can pick candidates based solely on what the candidates have to say, without knowing who is saying what, Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic side and Ron Paul on the Republican side are winning, before people find out who it is that is expressing their desires most closely.

There's a lesson in there.

While I agree somewhat with TAHNEY on his primary choices of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul, I don't think those are the only good choices-- Joe Biden and John Edwards impress, (especially with Edwards' experience winning cases against big guys in favor of little guys), tho Clinton is too "militaristic" for me. Richardson, despite an impressive resume, seems the weakest-- I don't know why, because, well, his resume is very impressive. Gravel's interface to his voting public is a little rusty, his message truth to power. And tho METTEYYA has a good point in saying Obama is a progressive of special note, I want him in the Senate for the next 8 years, THEN in the White House for his 8, then he can retire to the Supreme Court. After all, even then he'll only be 63, and no doubt leave behind a legacy progressives can take pride in.

And while I fear that the message from NOSTREDUMASS is too subtle for those at The Nation to figure out, I pretty much agree with HEAVYRUNNER and absolutely, totally (really) agree with SLOPER and CANADIAN JACK-- "Kucinich has for many years voiced the principles that publications such as "the Nation" have claimed to support, yet "the Nation" calls his campaign "Quixotic". Is this because deep down you believe your own principles and political ideals to be hopeless?..." and add my two cents by asking WHY IS The Nation SHOOTING THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT and, hence, ITSELF, IN THE FOOT?

Posted by c woof at 12/29/2007

"Quixotic" in The Nation's tagline would seem to me to refer to the campaign as a whole, not to Dennis Kucinich. I read that as saying that while Dennis is surrounded by the quirky and the flashy, he has been firm and consistent in talking peace, bringing others around to see the truth of that.

This has ALWAYS been Dennis's position.

Don Quixote, who in Miguel Cervantes' story "jousted at windmills," is the source of that term. To "joust at windmills"-- the metaphor-- is to demonstrate one's insanity. The United States has already made a belligerent ass of itself all over the globe. "Rescuing" Iraq by destroying it would have to qualify as quixotic, no? In such a quixotic world, sanity goes unrecognized because everyone's meters have shorted out from overload.

Looks to me as if we have had a whole lot of off-centeredness in this campaign, born of spin and desperation. I can remember, not too long ago, hearing women say they'd surely love a female in the White House and would vote for Hillary on that basis alone, WOW. I don't hear them saying anything like that now. Nobody really believes Rodham Clinton has anything in common with other women: she's more like a guy in a suit of armor wearing a woman's wig. We've seen more of her here in pre-caucus Iowa than was good for her. The Des Moines Register's endorsement, given their having quixotically shut Dennis Kucinich out of their recent debate altogether on the grounds that his state campaign manager worked from his home (while letting in Alan Keyes) is worth diddly. So there's THAT...

Then we have this Baptist minister who's a weight-loss champion. We have this charming camera-ready Edwards guy who claims to be for the little guy but has just built a 25,000 square foot house, and whose bright and appealing wife has cancer. We have this molto-bizarro Rudy Giuliani character whose primary claim to fame is that, like GW Bush, he milked 9-11 for all it was worth-- and of course we still don't know whether that was an inside job, though we kinda get a whiff of it. We have Mike Gravel and his tv commercial in which he stares into the camera and then walks off, to throw a stone into a pond-- hello? We have this youngish African American running, for goodness' sake, and if we are not racist (goes the riff) we need to elect him to prove that. We have this Dennis Kucinich guy who grew up in donated clothing -- the pants are variously described as turquoise or purple-- which the nuns at his school gathered up for him and his six younger siblings, and who once said he had seen something in the sky he couldn't identify-- which is the nugget at the heart of cavillers' gripe about him.

(I saw an unidentified flying object in the parking lot of my Iowa City supermarket the other day. When it landed, I identified it: it was some sort of smallish hawk. Dennis didn't say he saw a spaceship and neither did I.)

In some quarters, the race is all about "personality" because America has gotten accustomed to getting its news from the Weekly World News and its entertainment from "Bridezillas" and "American Idol." Anybody remember "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"? Anybody remember that prescient Andy Warhol who said the future would consist of everyone getting to be famous for fifteen minutes? Reporters today are constantly angling for the eye-catching "hook"-- OUCH-- to the detriment of real substance.

I am caucusing for Dennis Kucinich because of his POSITIONS and his consistency. He does not shift with the wind, like a kite. He does not speak with forked tongue. He is intelligent and forthright and brave. He is the guy who can turn this Titanic (our country, post-Bush41, post-Clinton, post-Bush43) around and return us to sanity and stability, to the degree that a nation can ever be that way.

Posted by Amalie_Bear at 12/30/2007

A postscript: I surely should have added in Ron Paul, and the rather amazing dynamics accompanying his rise in the public's approval, as yet another "colorful" element in this "quixotic" campaign.

Posted by Amalie_Bear at 12/30/2007

Amalie_Bear: "I can remember, not too long ago, hearing women say they'd surely love a female in the White House and would vote for Hillary on that basis alone, WOW."

"Wow" is right! It's amazing how Americans in the 21st century can still be so unabashedly sexist.

Posted by tshawytscha at 12/30/2007

My take on the poll question regarding Kucinich was not that his personal campaign is quixotic, but that the array of candidates is.

I will vote for Dennis in the Florida primary, why not? but at the same time I do recognise that he does not have the broad organizational support that ther major candidates do. I also believe that he needs to more specifically define how he intends to change our international policy away from militarism to diplomacy, and he does not do this.

Posted by Jim Willingham at 12/31/2007

I agree with Kucinich on about 95% of his positions. But, he is unelectable and everybody knows it in their hearts.

Posted by jsens at 12/31/2007

Posted by AMALIE_BEAR 12/30/2007 @ 12:38pm

AMALIE_BEAR, who is your second choice if Dennis doesn't hit the 15% threshold in Iowa, and why?

Posted by Metteyya at 01/1/2008

Kudos to all! I've only been reading/subscribing to "The Nation" for about a year now, but I have enjoyed reading all of your comments more than any article written by, Eric "Let's blame Nader for everything" Alterman. My interpretation of, "Dennis Kucinich, for putting peace at the center of a quixotic presidential campaign", is that Dennis, by focusing on peace, is the only candidate being realistic. Whereas the other candidates prefer to "attack windmills". With that said, I think The progressive of the year is a bicameral tie between Russ Fiengold in the senate and Dennis Kucinch in the house. The Preogressive eutopia would consist of Dennis being POTUS, and Russ President of the senate.

Posted by LeftMessiah at 01/1/2008