(a lengthy post, which I've left uncut at the end of this one, because I couldn't decide which parts were the relevant ones to reply to, so I apologize for eating bandwidth.)
I'd agree that Kucinich is a waste of time, but that's on the basis of two questions. The first is the likelihood of his getting the nomination, which seems slim right now. The second is my own dislike of the guy, which is another matter entirely.
But Brad's addressing an important issue here, namely, what should the American left be doing? Should we operate within the Democratic Party, perhaps earning some leverage, but probably facing some serious compromises with liberals? Or, should we be operating within a separate political movement, a la the Greens, and perhaps exacting some leverage from the Democrats in this manner?
Here's how I understand it. If we stick with the Democrats, we're compromising with a party that has been working rightward for the past two decades, to the detriment of, well, nearly everything. And deciding to work with such people means swallowing a lot of our pride and having to contend with the entrenched DLC figures. There's the sense that the Democrats would regard us as essentially prisoners of our consciences, so they might not feel the need to compromise with us. So there's the chance that working within the party could just be futile and self-deluding.
On the other hand, if we do break off and build the Greens, that may weaken the Democrats enough so that they'd have to start making nice-nice with us. There are at least two downsides with this. The first is this: If there are enough Progressives out there who leave the Democrats, it could cripple them enough to ensure Republican victories over and over. The second is even worse: if there _aren't_ enough of us to hurt the Democrats, then we'd have to face the fact that we're just a bunch of marginal cranks without enough of a constituency for anyone to worry about dealing with us.
And although I did vote for Nader in 2000, I can think of even _more_ downsides to breaking off like this. The first should be fairly obvious. Progressives are a contentious bunch, and we tend to split away from groups when we find even tiny differences of opinion. That's why we're suspicious of the Democratic party, after all. If the Greens aren't vigilant enough about, say, protecting abortion rights, or if the Green candidate doesn't denounce biotech or NAFTA or the war with sufficient forthrightness, there's going to be some cranky lefties denouncing the Greens for selling out, cowardice, neoliberalism, or whatever. (And chances are, it'll be done in _Counterpunch_.) In other words, we'd probably start squabbling amongst ourselves far too much to make a third party viable.
So one could say that, if we're going to squabble and argue and debate and demand allegiance over fine points, then we might as well expend that energy on the _Democratic Party_, where it might actually have some impact beyond our own consciences and egos. And consider: if we're leaving the Democratic Party because we don't want to compromise, then that's kind of an indication that we're not ready to deal with real-world politics in _any_ context. So we might as well compromise.
There is another avenue of action which, as far as I know, nobody's ever considered. Perhaps we ought to _join the Republicans_. I'm sure their rank-and-file would find some common causes with us-- environmental protections affect suburbs as much as cities and rural areas, gun owners support conservation, and there's always suspicion of the State to draw us Americans together. After all, if the Democrats aren't all that different from them, then we might as well debate working within _that_ party as well.
>This was a spinoff from a discussion elsewhere on Kucinich that might be
>relevent here:
>---------
>Well, as I've already explained, an "extremist" like Kucinich doesn't
>stand a chance in hell of even getting much notice in the primary
>season, much less get nominated. So, by relying on the Democratic Party
>_organization_, there will not be any progressive voice or presence when
>it matters, in the run up to the general elections in November, when
>(some of) the masses are paying attention. Only a Presidential campaign
>mounted by an _organizationally_ independent progresive left party, like
>the Greens/Nader in 2000, will get even marginal attention in the present
>political climate (very reactionary) and therefore be an objective
>progressive left presence on the political scene.
>
>And that's what happened in 2000, and with a candidate better than
>Nader, it would have had an even greater impact. Look at the hysterical
>reaction of the Dems that year.
>
>For all of this not to be true, for a Kucinich to actually get
>nominated, would mean that there would exist a radically different
>political situation in the U.S., virtually a pre-revolutionary situation
>in an advanced state, much more so than in the late 1960's, that the
>Dems would try to reverse with one last throw of the dice. And for
>that, they'ed need quite a Machievellian Kucinich, lol. (The actual
>Kucinich is a rather ascetic, saintly figure, alas, who still talks of
>America as the 'Shining City on the Hill' - as did Reagan, and so does
>not really break with the American Ideology, and it is why he can call
>those resisting the American occupation "criminals" (no doubt because
>they kill our saintly boys), a repulsive statement that deserves
>condemnation. Kucinich still sincerely worships at the Altar of
>America. Rather like Nader himself. But we need a Machievelli, not
>another Savonarola. See http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#100903)
>
>If this were the case would it mean I am wrong in my general view of the
>political character of the Democratic Party (backed by over 150 years of
>historical record on this party) and that the Nathan Newmans are right,
>the Dems have "returned to their roots", etc? No, my view does not
>exclude the scenario in the paragraph above, obviously it is included,
>but only as an extreme limiting case that proves the general rule.
>
>Because the historical record also shows that even this limiting case
>only appears when there is an organizationally independent and objectly
>threatening force from the left, as for ex., that which (unfortunately)
>produced the Popular Front in France (Blum, here, there had to be
>something on the left to 'front' with), or US liberal progresivism
>(TRoosevelt, Wilson, here they didn't front with the US Socialist party,
>but threw Debs and others in prison), or to a lesser extent, liberal New
>Dealism (CPUSA, who did front, but the real threat was 'international
>communism' represented internally by this organization).
>
>The conclusion is that no matter what shade of left politics you
>espouse, (for the record, I espouse _no_ fronts with future Democratic
>Party Leon Blums, but that is another discussion) there is no way around
>the fact that the only viable strategy is to build an _organizationally_
>independent movement that struggles in every way to project an objective
>presence in whatever political environment. With respect to this
>strategy, the Kucinichs only siphon off precious activist energies away
>from building such an effort in 2004 and into a worthless void. Which
>is no doubt why the Dems tolerate him.
>
>Without this strategy put into effect, you won't even get a tepid
>liberal reform.
>
>No how, no way. And the fact that we are still debating this basic
>issue is why I'm pessimistic on the US Left, and don't share Seay's and
>Henwoods' overly optimistic assessments of this Lefts' capacity to
>understand. The US left is backward and provincial.
>
>Kucinich is a total waste of time. Just impotent politically correct
>postering, not a strategy. That too many people don't grasp this
>confirms my own assessment of the US Left. And no, I'm not hardly the
>only one who thinks so, you can be sure.
>
>