Right now, two of the Democratic candidates running for President have taken stances decidedly to the left of the rest of the field on Iraq. On the one hand, Dennis Kucinich has openly embraced defunding the war and defeating any appropriation bills that provide for the continuation of war. On the other hand, Bill Richardson is advocating for no residual American troop presence in Iraq apart from those who will protect the American embassy. It is particularly interesting that these two candidates are taking such strong stances on Iraq, given that many would consider Kucinich to be the most progressive candidate in the field, and many would consider Bill Richardson to be the most centrist. It is even more interesting that to date, despite his generally "centrist" positions, Bill Richardson has been far more successful in pushing the intra-Democratic debate on Iraq to the left.
Many would argue that the entire purpose of Dennis Kucinich's campaign is to push the party to the left on issues such as Iraq. However, it has actually been Bill Richardson who has seen his support in Iowa and New Hampshire rapidly rise by putting "no residual troops" at the center of his campaign. First, look at Bill Richardson's website. "No residual troops" has clearly become the centerpiece of his campaign, with three extremely prominent mentions of his stance on that issue on the front page. Next, look at the Iowa and New Hampshire trends at Pollster.com. Richardson has risen from roughly equal to Kucinich in both states at the beginning of the year, to clear contender status in Iowa and equal to Edwards in New Hampshire. I think there is a direct connection here. Neither Iowa or New Hampshire have sizable Latino populations, neither of them are Western states, none of their Democratic members of Congress are in the Blue Dog or New Democratic coalitions, and virtually every Democratic is on the air in both states. In other words, it isn't Richardson's ads, it isn't Richardson being a moderate, and it isn't Richardson taking advantage of favorable demographics in either state. Richardson is rising because of his "no residual troops" stance as much as he is rising because of anything else.
That Richardson has succeeded where Kucinich has failed is, I think, and important lesson for many progressives who wish to push the Democratic Party to the left. The difference I am seeing between Kucinich and Richardson is that Kucinich appears to be a difference between trying to shift the party to the left by getting face time on television, while Richardson is actively forcing other Democrats to come clean on how many troops they will elave in Iraq by leveraging significant support in Iowa and New Hampshire. While Clinton, Edwards and Obama have yet to state how many troops they will leave in Iraq, if the current pro-Richardson trends in Iowa and New Hampshire continue, before long they will have no choice but to do so. At current rates of growth, Richardson will be head in Iowa by November, and leading Democrats will have a choice: either lose in Iowa, or state how many troops you wish to leave in Iraq. Kucinich, by contrast, will continue to show up at debates.
In the end, this is the fundamental reason why I will never support Dennis Kucinich in the primary campaign. He wants to move the discussion to the left, but he is failing to do the organizing needed to actually move the discussion to the left. No one will take your issues and your positions seriously if you do not demonstrate broad support for those issues within the electorate. Bill Richardson may be far more centrist than Dennis Kcuinich, but he is making a more progressive impact on the 2008 Democratic campaign than Dennis Kucinich, and that really is what all progressive should be looking for. To create progressive change, it isn't about finding the candidate with whom you agree on everything, but about finding the candidate who can make the biggest difference on the issues you care about. Dennis Kucinich is fond of using specious survey methods to argue that more Americans agree with him on many issues than any other candidate. However, if more Americans agree with you than with any other candidate, and yet you remain mired in the polls and with far fewer small donors than virtually any other candidate on the Democratic side, shouldn't it occur to you that either you are not he right person to deliver the message on those issues, or that you are running a terrible campaign? You can't change the debate in a campaign if you can't use support of the electorate as leverage. No matter how progressive Kucinich is, he simply is not making an impact on the campaign and that is overwhelmingly his own fault.
STATE BLOGS
