We've been advising fringe-mindedIowa causcusgoers how to vote if their first-choice is declared unviable attheir caucus meeting. (See advice for Biden and Richardson supporters.) But Kucinich's endorsement of Obama seems to go against hisplatform. He acknowledged as much in a press release, but said, "Sen. Obama andI have one thing in common: Change." Issues-wise, here's why Kucinich issupporting the wrong mainstreamer:
Health care: Kucinich wants a single-payer, universal health care system. We're talkingtax-funded, government-administered,mandates-aren't-necessary-because-it's-automatic health care. Kucinich is sucha pinko on health care that Michael Moore endorsed hisplan.
Obama, meanwhile, has a planthat's been derided by lefties as being too conservative. Adults aren't even mandated to get health care, soeither Hillary Clinton or John Edwards deserves his health-care focusedconstituency. But even Kucinich saysall their plans suck .
Trade : While Obama says the usual NAFTA-is-a-no-no talk, he votedfor a free trade deal with Peru (as did Clinton). JohnEdwards is the only one of the Big Three to come close to jiving withKucinich's lefty trade talk.
Iraq ( PDF ): Bill Richardson really deserves the support here, but he isn'tguaranteed viability , either. Given that, Kucinich and Obama do share somesimilarities on Iraq. They didn't want it to happen in the first place andthey've voted against funding it in the future. So, on the war, Kucinich'ssupport of Obama seems defensible.
It's important to note that Iowans don't vote forDennis Kucinich. He pulled in 1.3 percent of the primary vote in 2004 (some ofhis support went to the (relatively) more electable Howard Dean, anotheranti-war candidate). The latest
shows he'spulling in one percent this year, as well. A state that nicknames its residentsthe Hawkeyes seems inherently opposed to the