Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic presidential candidate who can beat a Republican in 2008.

Obama has voted FOR funding the war however since being elected. As long as you vote for funding the war, you are SUPPORTING the war. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are only able to promise our troops will be out of Iraq by 2013. With an administration like the Bush administration, how do you end an illegal war? How was Vietnam ended? The leaders of America decided to stop funding it. They dictated what Kucinich has, which is that you use the money already appropriated to bring our troops home now. Obama has been AGAINST the war from the beginning but unlike Kucinich, he has not been against ALL wars since the beginning. In his now infamous speech, he said he is in favor of "smart" wars not "dumb" wars. We cannot afford a future war with Pakistan, Iran, or any other Middle Eastern country. We cannot afford further militarization of America in our schools and in our free market economy. If Obama was "future-oriented" and really cared about the "illegality of the Iraq war", he would support impeachment. If we do not impeach Cheney then Bush now, we stand to set a dangerous precedent. Impeachment is not personal. It's not political. It's constitutional. And it is necessary to preserve the rule of law and to ensure that future generations are not subject to the same tyranny Americans have faced under Bush. What happens when Edwards, Obama, and Kucinich (the candidates Democracy for America are telling Democrats to vote for) split the vote against Hillary and she wins? What happens when she steps in and gets all that power after being given the most money from defense contractors? Or what happens if Edwards or Obama becomes the nominee and loses because of failing to frame the debate like John Kerry did in 2004 and a Republican wins? Obama may be black but that does not mean his presidency will benefit black people. If he really cared about black people, he would be talking about the massive incarceration of blacks, the racism and classism of Hurricane Katrina, the death penalty, marijuana laws, etc. But remember, in 2005, he had the chance to step up for blacks that had been disenfranchised in the 2004 election but chose not to step up. Kucinich stood up for black people and demanded a reexamination of the official ballot count while Barack stood silent. He may be able to unite people but for what? Compromises are good but not if they produce bad policies. And he won't even say SINGLE-PAYER. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is a funny thing to hear from these candidates (Edwards, Clinton, Obama) because it still means more of the same. It still means they are keeping the insurance interests in power. However, I understand that they are afraid to take them on. That's why Americans support Dennis Kucinich. Do you really believe corporations will listen to a Democratic leader or just plain government for that matter tell them to put people before profits? That's essentially what Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are trying to get voters to believe. And it's misleading. This system is broken. And the only solution is one Obama is afraid to touch. But this isn't just about Obama. This is about Kucinich being the only candidate. But you tell me---How does a candidate like Obama plan on beating Mike Huckabee? When Mike wins Iowa, how do you fight him? Kucinich can handle the Christian evangelical movement and transform voters into supporting Jesus through ideas of peace instead of militarization. But Obama has never spoken a word about the Department of Peace (to my knowledge). Kucinich would never get cowed into having to always defend his faith while Obama would take the bait forever and always. Huckabee will put Obama on the fence with abortion, immigration, the war on terrorism, etc. Kucinich already has a developed arsenal of policies that show the interconnectedness of these issues. His policies delve deeper into our nation's problems than Obama's. He could take anything thrown at him when his patriotism is question whereas I doubt Obama or Edwards or Hillary could not. They would shift their positions to gain votes if targeted even if their principles are sound. We're talking about a courage to survive here. We're talking about strength through peace. We're talking about civil liberties being of the utmost importance. We're talking about a necessary redistribution of wealth. We're talking about a vision here that is evocative of the days of FDR. Neither of these Democratic candidates are as grounded in the history of the Democratic Party as Kucinich is. He's been around for 40 years. People are bored with Obama, Edwards, and Clinton's narrative. Kucinich comes from a life of homelessness. That background speaks to people who have and are experiencing hardships. Dennis is a true symbol of the American Dream. People are bored with the saturated, homogenized, and minute visions of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. If anything is going to move people to stand up to Republicans, it will be true Democratic values for humanity that draws a link to the presidencies of FDR and JFK---and in fact, LBJ's Great Society. Dennis has raised his ideas on peace and sustainability to the level that the Religious Right has raised their issues on Jesus and how Christianity should influence America. Only Dennis can take on the Christian consumer society we are unfortunately creating that puts a stranglehold on Americans by forcing them to be part of a docile work force and be ignorant and naive. Obama may be the forerunner but he's no forerunner on the issues. And when he, Edwards, and Clinton fail to motivate people to change, how do we stop four more years of corporate Republican power that has the possibility of being more Christian evangelical and ignorant than ever before?