<p>Vertically challenged? Kucinick is the same height as McCain: 5’7.</p>
<p>Really?! … By the way–I love Kucinch. He would have been my candidate if I’d thought he had a chance in h*** to win. I heard him speak locally a few years ago and he was simply brilliant. :)</p>
<p>Thank God the American people had the good sense to ignore that KOOK.</p>
<p>Oh, please, barrons. He would have made a fine president. In my opinion, the best candidates are never electable.</p>
<p>I’m a loyal-enough Democrat in most cases, but I’ve always found Kucinich to be an annoying little twerp.</p>
<p>Oh, how could you? 
Seriously, I know what you’re saying, coureur. And you too, Barrons, when you described him as a “kook.” Still, he’s brilliantly smart, passionate in his beliefs, and most certainly not one of those wishy-washy flip-floppers that we CC-ers so love to skewer.</p>
<p>“I’m a loyal-enough Democrat in most cases, but I’ve always found Kucinich to be an annoying little twerp.”</p>
<p>Twerp or not, I can’t see how anyone, given the recent revelations, wouldn’t believe our Fearless One doesn’t deserve an impeachment trial. (As to whether he is guilty, well, that’s what trials are for.)</p>
<p>Absolutely. Kucinich is about the only one out there really pushing to impeach “The Decider” … (aka “Not a Divider”).</p>
<p>“Still, he’s brilliantly smart, passionate in his beliefs, and most certainly not one of those wishy-washy flip-floppers that we CC-ers so love to skewer.”</p>
<p>Sounds like Ron Paul.</p>
<p>Both are unelectable.</p>
<p>Or my guy Ralph Nader.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. Kucinich was the Ron Paul of the left this year. Both were about as electable as my cat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I used to love Ralph Nader and what he fought for. Not anymore. I question his mental capacities these days far more than I’d question McCain’s! He’s become egomaniacal to the point of insanity and has squandered the wonderful legacy he once had. So sad. :(</p>
<p>Ralph Nader has made himself into the Harold Stassen of this era. Like Stassen his perpetual runs for the presidency long ago became a joke. The only difference is back in the day you kind of got the idea that Stassen got the joke. Nader is too self-absorbed to see the absurdity of his own actions.</p>
<p>Nader is no more of a crackpot today than he was in the 1970s when he was stealing my college tuition fees to fund MassPIRG.</p>
<p>Reminds me of an issue of the Borowitz Report (comedian) talking about Obama being accused by liberals of trying to win the election. An excerpt:</p>
<p>The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) is trying to win the 2008 presidential election.</p>
<p>Suspicions about Sen. Obama’s true motives have been building over the past few weeks, but not until today have the bloggers called him out for betraying the Democratic Party’s losing tradition.</p>
<p>“Barack Obama seems to be making a very calculated attempt to win over 270 electoral votes,” wrote liberal blogger Carol Foyler at LibDemWatch.com, a blog read by a half-dozen other liberal bloggers. “He must be stopped.”</p>
<p>But those comments were not nearly as strident as those of Tracy Klugian, whose blog LoseOn.org has backed unsuccessful Democratic candidates since 2000.</p>
<p>“Increasingly, Barack Obama’s message is becoming more accessible, appealing, and yes, potentially successful,” he wrote. “Any Democrat who voted for Dukakis, Mondale or Kerry should regard this as a betrayal.”</p>
<p>I thought that you could opt out of MassPIRG.</p>
<p>^^Wait, John Mccain is only 5’7"???</p>
<p>I’m not worried about the election anymore. Sadly, short men don’t get elected by the public to positions of power.</p>
<p>We haven’t elected a president that short since Mckinley in 1900, and that was before the era of television and just after McCain was born.</p>
<p>Oh, dear: We’ve had: racism, sexism, ageism, and now, umm, er, inchism? I can’t call it heightism since the problem is lack of height. Shortism?</p>
<p>Well, I’ve just sat through the Rick Warren interviews. McCain did pretty well. No one listening to him need worry about his stamina and memory. He scared me about his policies, though.</p>
<p>McCain did do pretty well, but some of his answers seemed a bit “canned.” At least to me they did. Obama, on the other hand, seemed much more self-reflective and thoughtful in his responses.</p>
<p>I agree with you, though I don’t mind the canned nature of some answers. After all, after giving so many speeches, it’s hard for a candidate not to repeat himself (or herself) without sounding canned. </p>
<p>But I worried about the practical consequences of some of the policies that McCain was espousing. There was all too much bellicosity in his answers, it seemed to me. I also worried mightily about his position on choice and on Supreme Court appointments. I happen to agree with Obama that the present Supreme Court has been too acquiescent in the executive’s expansion of power at the expense of other branches of government. </p>
<p>I like this format–very similar to the Compassion Forum I watched earlier. It allows the candidates space to elaborate and avoids so much of the low debating tactics that detracts from learning about their positions and policies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought so too. … McCain’s Supreme Court response also troubled me. Whereas Obama specifically noted why he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas (not qualified, inadequate legal mind), McCain simply counted off all of the Court’s perceived moderates and liberals. He was definitely playing to his audience. His answers, I’m sure, wouldn’t have been so quick and sassy had he been speaking … oh, say, before the National Organization for Women.</p>