I'm sticking with Kucinich, and here's why. [View All]

[Joe Fields]

I cannot, in good conscience throw my support behind any candidate who refuses to address the crimes of the Bush administration. Hillary refuses to address them. Obama believes that mistakes were made, but nothing rises to the level of impeachable offenses. He would just as soon sweep everything under the rug and promise that when he becomes president, he will have an open government. Edwards comes right out and admits that crimes were committed by this administration, but that he doesn't favor impeachment. Instead, he feels it's more important to focus on his nomination.

I am sick of politicians with blind ambition. They can talk all they want to about how they fought for the common people before they got into politics. That rhetoric would carry some weight with me, if they carried that through as politicians. But you cannot, get it, CANNOT seriously travel the countryside, spouting off about how you champion the people of this country, when you are too chickenshit to pull back the curtain and shine a bright light on the charlatans that have made a mockery of our constitution and are handing the treasure of this country over to powerful corporations. Going after Bush and Cheny, holding them, as well as Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez and a host of others accountable, is a logical and extremely necessary extension of protecting and defending our civil rights. To not do so as a politician is just plain cowardly.

Only Kucinich has had the balls to call for impeachment, to actually introduce articles of impeachment. He seems to be the only one of all the candidates who "gets it."

If I have to, (and it looks that way) I will write his name in, come November. I'm through compromising. I've found the candidate who I KNOW will fight for us, and work hard to make this a better world, and I'm not about to switch.