>
> Because Dennis Kucinich is unendorsed by the Master
> Class, and most US leftists do not back any presidential
> candidate who isn't endorsed by that class, even if the
> candidate is a Democrat.
That's absurd. Sure, I'd vote Kucinich in the 2008 primary if he were on the ballot. I really like the guy's positions, he's the most righteous Democrat running (right on bro, dig it). And in this primary, what's to lose? But only as a protest vote. The only reason to ever vote for any Presidential candidate who has never polled above single digits is as a protest vote, and the only time it makes sense to cast a protest vote is when you are sure that your vote won't end up being a material benefit to the very much worse of the two candidates who do have a serious shot at winning.
I voted protest in 1996 because, according to the St. Petersburg Times the day before the election, Clinton was seven points ahead in the Florida polls and I was pissed off that he'd caved on AFDC. You can bet your ass that I didn't vote protest in Florida in 2000.
If, at primary time, the leading Dem candidates were, say, Edwards vs. that horrid freak Lieberman, and the polls were really really close where your vote might actually mean something, and you were in a swing state, would you still vote for the hopeless yet charming Mr. Kucinich?
How about if it were Edwards vs. that trimmer Clinton?
Yours WDK - WKiernan at gmail.com