At the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, MA there was one man who vocally challenged John Kerry’s nomination for the Presidency of the United States: Dennis Kucinich. As the state delegations cast their votes for the nomination, Kucinich was a lonely voice of opposition amongst the largely pro-Kerry crowd. Despite the fact that he received but a few of the Ohio delegation’s votes, his opposition can be seen as symbolic. Kucinich after all represents the hard-line left of the Democratic Party- and as he prepares to seek the nomination yet again, his calls for complete and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq could possibly give him sway amongst the hard-line lefties in the Democratic primaries. Unfortunately, this is not true of the American people.

Most Americans want to see victory in Iraq, or at least says our president. But according to the December 13, 2006 Washington Post, “ Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the U.S. mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops” reports a Washington Post-ABC News survey. The problem is this is exactly what our generals are doing. The Iraqi military is still building, but not fast enough- and while army generals work toward strengthening Iraqi security, Americans see body bags and complete chaos in the streets of Baghdad. Perhaps this is why the war has grown so incredibly unpopular, and perhaps this is why viewpoints such as Kucinich’s have become increasingly enticing.

The war is now the focal point of the Kucinich for President 2008 strategy: capitalize off the unpopularity of a war by proposing a solution.

As a congressman, Kucinich is calling for Congress to immediately cut the funding for the War in Iraq, but the incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has diluted this extreme proposal. Pelosi at least recognizes that despite the fact that this president’s approval ratings may be in the lower twenties, and despite the fact that eight in ten Americans favor a shift in strategy, they don’t want to see the lives of 3,000 American troops to go to waste. Pelosi’s recognition of this fundamental understanding puts her at an equal playing field with the president- but where they differ is what ought be named the “way forward.”

Kucinich’s proposal for the “way forward” is far too drastic. Even though he may appease the hard-line Democratic Cindy Sheehan’s in the primaries, I believe there is a sizable crowd among Democrats with common sense. For this reason I know that Kucinich won’t even be competitive in the lead up to 2008, and why I believe his campaign is destined for failure.

First of all, Kucinich simply isn’t an attractive personality. He is boring- in both his ideas and his character. His plan to cut and run is not novel and in fact presents itself as (at least) a solution, but simply doesn’t work. If American’s learned anything from Vietnam, it’s that cutting and running is a waste of money, material and most importantly, human life.

Secondly, Kucinich’s voting record is way too liberal. He is an anti-war, pro-ACLU, AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood Democrat. Consider his voting record with the following interest groups by the acclaimed, credible Project Vote Smart:

1. Abortion: Kucinich votes with Planned Parenthood 56% of the time/ NAPAL Pro-Choice America: 100% of the time (2005)
2. Federal Funding of the Arts: Kucinich votes with Americans for the Arts: 90% of the time (2004)
3. Taxes: Kucinich votes with Americans for Tax Reform (anti-tax increasing lobby) 10% of the time (2005)
4. Business: Kucinich votes with the Small Business & Entrepreneurial
Council 13% of the time (2004)
5. Energy: Kucinich votes with Campaign for America’s Future (alternative energy lobby) 100% of the time (2006).
6. Environment: Kucinich votes with the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100% of the time (2005).
7. Foreign Policy: The Citizens for Global Solutions, a lobby which “[…]envisions a future which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone” gave Congressman Kucinich an A+ rating. (2005)
8. Gun Control: The National Rifle Association gives Congressman Kucinich an F rating. (2006).

If lobbies are any prediction of how a Congressmen position themselves on the issues, it is easy too infer that Kucinich is incredibly liberal. He may be supported by some in the Democratic primaries, but ultimately a man who is more liberal than John Kerry himself will not secure the nomination because his voting record easily attests to solid liberal extremism. If Democratic delegates learned anything from the Walter Mondale campaign of the ‘80’s, it is that extreme liberals are not popular, and are easily defeatable, and for this reason gives me proof that Kucinich cannot win the nomination, nor the presidency.

So this leads me to my final reason why Kucinich cannot win the nomination: most Democrats realize that his run is more symbolic than realistic. Kucinich himself states that he is in the race because he believes the party has grown out of touch with its roots, and Democrats understand his sentiment. Inevitably, he is running to represent that hardliner liberal voice of the Democratic Party, but modern delegates (especially given the incredible rise of conservative Democrats inducted into the party in the recent mid-term elections), know that an electable president is not a Walter Mondale, but a centrist—a compromiser. Kucinich is the last throw of liberalism in a party that has an increasingly large tent- and his run in ’08 will be seen as such.

Kucinich was expected to run. He is a familiar face who (like Vilsack) announced his intentions early to gather as may resources as possible. Unfortunately for Kucinich and Vilsack, many of those resources will be waiting for Obama and Clinton if and when they decide to run. Hopefully soon.

Reaching the end of 2006, political observers already have their eyes on 2008. Yes, it is time to start thinking of potential presidential candidates- and in a cycle where the possibilities are infinite- several names are already rising to the top amongst broad speculation.

On November 9th, former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack filed papers with the Federal Elections Commission to run for the presidency of the United States. Vilsack is the first to declare his intentions, while other prominent Democrats such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh are still considering runs. On the Republican side, popular figures such as Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are also considering runs and are expected to announce their intentions in the near future.

The most important question still remains, “when?” When will these candidates come forward with their intentions to run for president, and how soon can we expect a defined crowd of presidential hopefuls? Hillary Clinton has been playing her cards masterfully as at every opportunity she has glazed over the question stating that she is “serving New York”, or how about Barack Obama’s recent avoidance of the question with, “I am going to wait until after the legislative recess.” Everyone is putting it off; everyone except Vilsack.

The reality is presidential politics is like a complex game of chess. There exists only so much money and resources, and the strategy at every moment of the campaign is largely significant. Sure, there are individual contributions- but the amount of PACs and private donors a candidate must secure is considerable. Therefore, in announcing Vilsack’s intentions earlier than anyone else, he is working toward securing resources that later presidential candidates will make competitive.

Vilsack’s strategy has one advantage and one complication. Outside of Iowa, he is a political unknown; a Democrat who is not recognizable beyond the farm country outside of Des Moines, Iowa. In the history of presidential politics, presidents have come from these places. They have been governors of states, who during their campaigns worked to build an image, a platform and a strategy for the future that average Americans can identify with. Building an image separate from the scum of Washington, DC and based in the great old American heartland is just what makes a person electable- and Vilsack’s campaign may very well capitalize on that. In announcing his intentions early, the Iowa governor has the ability to build his image, secure a base and position himself on the issues long before anyone else. PACs and big private donors can begin to examine him now, because later the field will only get more crowded with hopefuls, and his message more diluted.

The shortfall in announcing early: more time to be ripped apart. The longer a bleeding human floats in the middle of the tropical sea, the more likely they will be bitten, if not ripped apart by a shark (or several sharks). The longer Vilsack remains in the field (now 2 years) the more likely the media can rip him into pieces, and the more likely he will say something stupid not only before the general electorate, but before his base. Remember that in order to win the presidency, the first step is winning in the primaries, and in order to do that, a hopeful must move to the right or left to appease the base, then move to the center to be elected by the American people. Well, in announcing his intention early he stands a greater chance of saying something that may alienate his base, or the people in general. This only complicates his campaign.

However, Vilsack ha one interesting thing working for him: he has kept an avid connection with media sources. First utilized by Howard Dean’s 2004 Presidential Campaign, blogs have become an outlet for presidential hopefuls to get their message across. Not only is Vilsack keeping a blog, but he is also advertising himself on youth social networking sites as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube. His campaign has been very centered on trying to secure an energized youth (the effectiveness of which remains to be seen.) Irregardless, his ability to not screw up will be incumbent upon his ability to transmit a unified, clear message- and if he can go two years without screwing up, his (un)name recognition may work to his favor.

I do say “may” with caution. In the primaries he (may/will) face political populars Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- and though presidents may have come from outside of Washington since the time of JFK, there are always exceptions (especially when considering the powerchest of Clinton’s money and the powerimage of Obama). There are no rules, only exceptions- and in presidential politics it’s all about the game. If Vilsack can play chess right, he may make it to the primaries, but if he finds himself against Clinton or Obama, his chances (even if he announced his intentions early) are scare to secure the nomination.