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

From Barack Obama's speech given on October 26, 2002, around the same time Dennis Kucinich was leading the House with this October 2002 analysis on the lack of a real case for war with Iraq. Highlights from his speech, which are pertinent to this discussion and can be found on Wikisource are: "Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances... ...I don't oppose all wars... ...That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics... ...I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." Obama is no man for peace. He does not take the difficult stands on peace, humanity, and sustainability that Kucinich takes or that all Democratic candidates for president should take. I include that he had good foresight on being able to make the distinction that a war against Iraq would require a US occupation. But I also highlight it because I wonder if the reason for not supporting a plan like H.R. 1234, the plan to end the Iraq war now ---not this phased re-deployment garbage--- is because he has to be right to be elected. And he knows being able to predict all that has gone wrong requires him to support the continuation of the war in the way he does so that he can show he is capable of dealing with Bush's occupation. Kucinich does not need to use ad hominems when talking about the Bush administration like Barack Obama does. He doesn't need to keep the war going to show how great he would be as president. Kucinich has the courage to survive, and the courage to stand up and fight for a necessary de-funding for the war. As long as you vote to fund the war, there is no way around it. You are voting FOR the war. He said in the Democratic debate held in Dartmouth, NH on September 26th: RUSSERT: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?" OBAMA: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. That translates into 2013 to me. It also makes things way worse when looking at the fact that Obama would leave a residual force of up to 60,000 troops in Iraq. On top of that, these measures you champion only "cut troops by more than half." Your still leaving troops in. In fact, read his Foreign Affairs published foreign policy. He would remove troops as a threat to the Iraq government if they do not do as we tell them and privatize their oil and violate union workers and setup their economy this way, etc. He would leave them there as long as security was maintained. What does the legalization of marijuana, being married to a woman half your age, and UFOs have to do with religion? Nothing. And simply put, if these facts were an issue for Kucinich, which they aren't, he would be able to make them positive. In fact, in all responses on UFOs so far he has made the situation a positive. Evangelical Christians will support Obama because he supports their war on the Middle East. They believe in the Book of Revelation and egging on Armageddon between the forces of Christ (America) and the Antichrist (all those in the Middle East that "threaten" them and or are complicit in dealing with that "threat"). Obama supports America as a Redeemer Nation. His policy fosters an evangelical belief that Americans are the Chosen People who are a specially ordained by God to remain alive while others aren't. He lets them work their divine plan, which brings a clash of civilizations to the world. BUT allow me to bring it back to the premise of this debate. I moved it to Obama only to answer to some of the points you brought up in Round 1. This is not about Obama. This is about the fact that no other candidate besides Kucinich can win in 2008. It's not that he should win---it's that no other candidate in the Democratic Party has the track record or arsenal of policies or the candor and vision to make the American people rise to the occasion and take back America. He is the only capable of making people from poor to rich demand radical change. The Republican Party can see how the Democratic Leadership has forsaken Kucinich. And they will go after that. The Republican Party with the help of Rove will show how they abandon Americans on health care, on sustainability, on energy independence, on worker's rights, on education, on immigration, on the economy, and especially on the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The Republicans will force Democrats to move to their side on the issues. They will get them to not talk about the issues with principled positions that should be stated in primaries and maintained throughout the election until the election in November. They will succeed with Obama, Edwards, or Clinton and win like the won over Kerry and Gore. Oh but you say Kerry and Gore won? True. Recounts show they did. And if only they had stood up for black voters that had been disenfranchised (not even black politicians like Obama have the guts to do that---only Barbara Boxer, some black women in the House, Dennis Kucinich (some midget dude), etc.) then there would have been no Bush. But because they let black people down, they wound up letting Americans down by being cowards and submitting to the corporate powers that be. Going back to the faith thing between Huckabee and Obama though. Interestingly, what the two have in common besides the fact that they both may face each other in a general election is that they both hold the campaigns that most rely on faith when articulating messages in their campaigns to people who attend rallies, speeches, and forums. If this were the case, would the presidential election become a theology debate and not a discussion about the issues that the next president should take care of? This is where Kucinich is better than Obama because he understands better the interconnectedness in the world and could talk to a Creationist like Huckabee and bring the debate on theology to dealing with real issues from a faith perspective if forced to by media, debate moderators, voters, etc. And ultimately, what will the issue of faith then come down to if Obama is up against Huckabee and it's not Kucinich? It will be who is strongest when it comes to religion, who is pro-life, who is against gays, who is against immigration, and who is for a Book of Revelations clash in the Middle East, etc. It will be who is most ignorant of humanity. And Huckabee would win---he's the most ignorant, Creationist politician running. Expand this to being about being a liberal. How does Obama expect to play that game? How does Edwards hope to play it? Democrats already are abandoning Hillary but what about Obama and Edwards? Democrats are naturally liberal but they still suffer because weak candidates waffle and shift and then lose. There's no stake. That's the problem with politics. Being Democrat is enough for Obama or Edwards. It doesn't matter that they are practically Republican---that they are so corporate. Ultimately, people will vote for Democrats because anybody but Bush or anybody but a Republican is the way Democrats vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting evil. If you cannot vote your heart, your heart will never win.