ELECTABILITY AND THE DRUG WAR

I found a rebroadcast late last night of Bush's appearance on Meet the Press but fell asleep after about twenty minutes. I must have still been listening in my sleep though because I was having nightmares about Bush getting re-elected. I read the transcript this morning. The words alone didn't read as badly as they sounded while seeing him in a shifty-eyed panic, twitching in his chair.

It was a pathetic performance, but not as painful as his disastrous photo op at the rib joint. I won't bother to discuss the content of his remarks since he recited the usual lies and evasions. The most interesting thing about the whole affair is the hand-wringing going on among the usual Bush apologists. Their smug confidence seems have been badly shaken by this dismal appearance. And they should be scared - it was all too apparent that any astute ten year old could have shredded him in a debate.

Regime change is beginning to look almost easy but don't let that lull you into complacency. We still have to reclaim the Democratic party if we're to see any meaningful drug policy reform. The Dems have almost as much drug war blood on their hands as the Republicans do. Despite Carter's and to some extent Clinton's good intentions, the prosecution of the drug war has escalated under the administrations of both parties.

Now that it seems apparent that Kerry's got the nomination sewn up, it's more important than ever to support Kucinich in order to get the DNC's attention. Kerry is not taking the issue nor the reformers seriously as evidenced by such conduct as consigning the most active thread on his Internet Forum, a discussion on drug policy, to the limbo of the "other" category instead of giving it a prominent place on the first page and he has ignored the request for his written position on agricultural hemp made by Vote Hemp, unconcerned that it cost him a good rating from the organization . We addressed his Beers problem earlier.

Kucinich is running on a platform that the DNC and every pundit considers unelectable. It's a good platform that every progressive Dem in the country should be able to fully support. I've spoken to many progressives and all of them said that sure, they like his positions better but they went with Dean (or whoever) because he is electable. This kind of thinking is the reason there is no longer any difference between the two parties.

The final results in Maine showed Kucinich with a remarkably strong third place finish at 16% that went nearly unremarked, not only in the mainstream press but also on the left side of the blogosphere. They ignore Kucinich while they're reporting Clark's and Edwards numbers as if they mean something important. I can't believe I'm the only one that finds Dennis' rise from single numbers to double digits significant.

The pundits and the powers-that-be have dismissed Kucinich's candidacy as inconsequential. They overlook an important piece of this year's political picture. Reactivated issue voters. I saw it here with Robert Reich's gubernatorial campaign. The pundits declared it impossible, but these were the voters - old liberals who hadn't campaigned for decades and newly registered young people - that stormed the caucuses and made a mockery of their predictions.

Reich lost the primary but the voters won an important victory in that loss. Our numbers delivered the message to the Mass Dems that the voters want change in the party. The party has been listening on the state level ever since. Dennis most likely can't win the big nomination either, but a vote for Kucinich in the primaries could deliver the same message to the National Committee.

There's plenty of time to close ranks behind the nominee when the fight is against Bush. For now backing this losing candidate could win some respect for a progressive agenda and drug policy reform.