One good candidate, and they don't even recognize his existence

From an AP article (emphasis added):

But Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who unsuccessfully sought his party's presidential nomination four years ago, said the United States "illegally attacked and invaded Iraq in a war based on lies. Now those same lies are being used to tell the American people we must escalate and continue to fund the war in the name of the troops."

Would it have been too much trouble to say, instead, that Kucinich is "seeking his party's presidential nomination" for 2008? Because he is. And he's far and away the best Democratic candidate (and of course far better than any Republican candidate). But the ignoring of Dennis, which was overwhelming four years ago, seems to be even more complete this year. Most articles about the swiftboat load of candidates don't mention him, instead focusing on Obama's "audacious" challenge to Hillary's "front-runner" status. Even the better cartoonists give him the "professor and Mary Ann" treatment ("and the rest"):


From Mark Davies.

Even I haven't mentioned him much lately. Frankly, working on his campaign in 2003-04 was depressing: We had the best candidate, with a lot of interest here in Michigan (only Dean seemed to have more). Yet Kucinich was systematically ignored, never presented as a viable candidate. And somehow John Kerry, who had almost zero support among most Michiganders for most of 2003, ended up winning the primary in February 2004. And now, even though Kucinich was far and away the most right (correct) of the 2004 candidates, his candidacy still doesn't exist in the media. At least his 2004 candidacy finally got a mention.

If Democrats are serious about ending the war and preventing more wars, reducing defense funding, and basically turning this country in the right direction--they have a candidate. Too bad they never hear about him.