I guess it depends on what you mean by "best." If by best you mean who do I think from all the available candidates best represents my views, my concerns, my values - then either Dennis Kucinich or Brian Moore from the Socialist Party USA: http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/ are the ideal candidates to whom, hypothetically, I could lend my support.*

But if by "best" you're asking me a pragmatic question about long-term and short-term political aims best advanced by current candidates then that's a wholly different question. You have to understand that my politics are a hybrid of social-democrat (Scandinavian socialist-type mixed economy), socialist/Marxist analysis and anarchist traditions, with also a casual interest in Michael Albert/Robin Hahnel's Parecon and a couple other radical models.

You also have to understand that the US Democrats are quite a bit to the right-wing of almost all European right-wing parties, so if you set aside Kucinich, I'd not be within a country mile of that party. I'd like to see USian progressives continuing to build on the advances made at the recent Atlanta WSF. Eventually you will need a truly progressive third party to the left of the Democrats.

*Note that I've only given their platform little more than a cursory glance and I know very little about the party. Saying that, there's nothing I've seen yet in the platform which I would object to.

gorgonheap wrote: "I think if Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination that he would take a lot of democratic votes others, say John McCain wouldn't have."

Possibly true. What's more likely I think is Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination, and then - although he has so far denied any intention of such a thing - he'll run as an independent. If he doesn't run as an independent then my suspicion is that a very large part of his supporters simply won't vote, abandoning the race to the Democrats.

Gorgonheap wrote: "Hillary, I don't think she's in the right time. She has strong standings with the far left but I really don't think people are ready to vote for a woman president."

Ah...what is your definition of "far left"? Traditionally "far-left" refers to Stalinist and Maoist politics but probably that's not what you mean. Or are you refering to people like Michael Albert, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, et al? I assure you that you'll find no fans of Hillary Clinton here.

Perhaps you're using the term "far-left" the way Bill O'Reilly uses it. In that case why didn't you just say mainstream Democrats?

Logically wouldn't most left-of-centre Democratic Party supporters be for Dennis Kucinich?

deedub81 wrote:
I think that last line sums it up. Ron Paul supporters are "a bunch of liberals pretending to be republicans."

and that notion is exactly the kind of thinking that is parroted by a party line toer, rather than someone who is familiar with the actual ideologies. The ONLY issue RP opposes the Republican party on is the war. End of story. On all other issues, he is basic, sometimes hardline conservative. What liberal in their right mind would agree with Ron Paul on anything besides ending the war? Especially when there's Dennis Kucinich for us. Ron Paul, who I greatly respect for his committment and obvious integrity is not THIS liberal's choice at all. Kucinich is the liberal Ron Paul. Kucinich has less chance of getting the dem nominatin than RP has a chance of being listened to by the media but if you want to talk about ideologies, don't call RP a liberal. He's most decidedly NOT.

jwray stated: "Electing him (Ron Paul) would risk another conservative appointment to the supreme court."

I trust him for what decisions he would make for any appointments to government positions. He's not like the neocons, jwray. He wouldn't put a crazy unqualified person like Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court like Bush tried to do. Remember - Ron Paul is a Libertarian.

I also agree that Dennis Kucinich would be an excellent choice - another honest candidate. You stated that Clinton or Obama would be preferrable to all of the Republican candidates. I disagree... Ron Paul would be preferrable to them because Clinton is elite neocon trash that takes her orders from the NWO agenda of the CFR and Bilderbergers. Obama is also a CFR member but I'm not sure to the true extent of his possible corruption. It's clear that they both are going to keep us in the perpetual war that the Bush administration got us into.

Ultimately this is a bad thing for America... many of our soldiers die each day in a land which we have no claim to - so that Cheney's Halliburton can tap the oil resources of the region. Meanwhile the auto industry developed hundreds of electric cars and as momentum for these cars and the advancement of the technology was taking root in California, they decided to remove these leased vehicles from their owners and destroy them all. Yes, they crushed them and are preventing us from using non-petrolium dependent vehicles. Watch http://www.videosift.com/video/Who-Killed-The-Electric-Car-1 -- All of these things tie together you know. This is the result of the domination of the petrolium industry. Including the war.

Ultimately though, your probably right, Kucinich may not make it past the primaries because most people are on the 1stTube and are fed a streaming neocon diet. This may be the ultimate downfall of our Country.

Title is so important. Subject matter is also crucial.

Videos that are current,political,combative,WTF!,"viral",scientifically geeky, RON PAUL! will naturally float towards the top 15.
Yet I still post Renaissance composers and Ranking Roger and expect them to make top 3. However . . .

Active commenting and engaged participation on the site (through interesting video descriptions or passion for the posts) are also critical to success. I have had far less time to participate recently due to moving across country and my posts are failing at an alarming and unprecedented rate. I would like to blame it on Lucky's code (and I do think that the loss of collective clubhouses has hurt somewhat), but the fact is that I am drive-by sifting now.

Title it right . . .or post that upcoming Ron Paul/Mike Gravel/Dennis Kucinich cagematch with a bad title and it won't matter how shiny the star is.

Yeah, Kucinich is wonderful. Unfortunately the US has very few left-wing Democrats like Dennis Kucinich. Generally the Democrats are well to the right of most European right-wing parties. Also I think it's important to remind our USian friends that liberal and left-wing are not at all the same thing.

This is easily the most admirable thing I've seen from a politician in a long time. Dennis Kucinich is behaving the way a President ought to behave. Kudos to Kucinich for setting such a fine example of communicative and honest foreign policy, and kudos to the poster for such a great video.

BillOreilly stated:"he really needs to switch parties and work for Billary"

Yuck, that's an ugly thought.. actually I think he'd work well with Dennis Kucinich though. They are the only two candidates that seem to be fighting for proper checks and balances and protecting the Constitution...

They're the only ones that truly go beyond all this partisan bullshit. Just take a look at the online voting in the links I posted previously. It looks like they're in the lead.. go figure. What? they are not "real" polls? You mean the corporate-controlled selective polls that show the ex-CFR members in the lead are "real"? Well, that's a surprize.. NOT!

Ron Paul represents what a true original republican is(you know-- from the days of yore). Not the mass-media-hyped extremist-far-right wackos in control today.

Government is a necessary evil?

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

--George Washington

We're the stupid ones here whining about our own mistakes. Don't be so harsh.

Dude, we're not harsh enough. The reason guys like Kucinich tick me off is, there are important decisions to be made based on historical realities (e.g. give tyrants the smackdown, don't coddle them) and guys like this just gum up the works.

"Do we really want far-left Congressman Dennis Kucinich to be chairman of the subcommittee on national security?

This is the same Dennis Kucinich who once introduced a bill 'to abolish all nuclear weapons,' who has refused to condemn Hezbollah terrorists, calling instead for us to have a 'recognition that connects us to a common humanity and from that draw a flicker of hope to enkindle the warm glow of peace.' Poetic but dumb."

--T. Sowell

So that was everyone except Dennis Kucinich and Gravel?

twiddles: "Or it is way too early to endorse a candidate..."

Point taken.
-----------------------------------------
qualm: "perhaps the above quote is symptomatic of that markedly USian ailment of assuming that everything, and everyone else worth paying attention to is also USian. I'm not USian. But if I were:

Dennis Kucinich is the only potential candidate for president for whom I could vote."

I agree and I didn't mean to imply that what I said applies to everyone around the world and within this community, just those that are responsible for making a choice in the matter.

"This is a clear indication of fear of peer persecution and/or embarrassment of the choice they've made."

Bzzzt! Wrong again. But perhaps the above quote is symptomatic of that markedly USian ailment of assuming that everything, and everyone else worth paying attention to is also USian. I'm not USian. But if I were:

Dennis Kucinich is the only potential candidate for president for whom I could vote.

Whom do you think is the better candidate then? Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that I trust and Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate that I like. Oh btw, the IRS? I'm sure they have our best interests in mind.

Go to http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0184.html (for full article)

Excerpt:
US Rep. Johnson Joins 10 Others on Cheney Impeachment Bill
By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News (June 29, 2007)

(APN) ATLANTA – US Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA-04) has joined ten other Members of Congress in supporting H Res 333, a bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I believe it was time to send a message to the Vice President and to the Executive Branch as a whole," Congressman Johnson told Atlanta Progressive News in a statement issued verbally by spokesperson Deb Speights.

"I have certainly been displeased with the operations of the Executive Branch, particularly with regard to the secrecy, the incompetence, and the lack of cooperation that is coming out of the Vice President’s Office. I think the response to [reject] the subpoenas was the last straw," Johnson said.

Johnson was one of three US Reps to join the bill yesterday, and the only Georgia Member to have signed on so far. Johnson’s predecessor, US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), had been a strong supporter of impeachment, including, among other things, introducing her own Articles of Impeachment against President Bush at the end of her most recent term.

US Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) made a speech on the House Floor, “The Vice President Should Resign or Face Impeachment,” announcing his plans to support the bill. US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) also joined yesterday.

The other total supporters include original sponsor, US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), plus US Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Albert Wynn (D-MD), so far.

US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA-05) had said on WAOK radio in December 2005 he would sign a bill to impeach President Bush should it come across his desk. Lewis has not signed on to this bill even though the misdeeds of Cheney cited in H Res 333 would equally apply to Bush..

In addition to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Democratic presidential candidates Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have also asked tough questions about the U.S. post WWII foreign policies. In this knee-jerk, 30 second sound bite culture, I have doubts that their positions can be heard enough to rise above ad hominem attacks and result in intelligent, reasoned debate within the mainstream media.

While I personally feel the U.S. has a right and responsibility to protect itself for legitimate defense reasons, these many covert wars, proxy wars and preemptive wars, have too often been waged to further corporate financial interests, rather than to protect our national security. Sadly, The U.S. public is sold these wars on false premises, fear, misdirection and blind patriotism. And often, we are simply altogether ignorant to their existence.

All of that said, I do still believe, that there is another side to the picture. The United States has often been a great benefactor to the world, coordinating an unprecedented amount of humanitarian efforts, and fostering principles of democracy with truly positive results. These efforts are applied unevenly however. Some regions of the world are supported while others are left to suffer unimaginable humanitarian crises.

It appears to me that we experiencing a shift in cultural attitudes and in awareness of these issues. Perhaps after 2009, we will begin to see changes in U.S. foreign policy that better reflects public opinion.