All you folks so unhappy with President Obama, let me ask you a question...

[Jim Lane]

128. I'll take the bait. Yes, Kucinich WOULD have done better.

He would have pushed a genuinely progressive agenda -- an agenda well to the left of Obama's, and pushed with much less regard for the elusive "bipartisanship" or "post-partisanship" that seems to have beguiled Obama.

Result, first two years: Most initiatives blocked by Republicans in Senate, but outcomes still somewhat better than what Obama got.

2010 midterms: President Kucinich campaigns against "Do-Nothing Congress" and paints Republicans as obstructionists. Voters, who've seen two years of sharp confrontations, understand that he's right. Democrats retain House majority and pick up a few Senate seats.

Result, second two years: Republican filibusters routinely crushed (or maybe filibuster rule finally abolished altogether). Policies of demilitarization, progressive taxation, health care reform (not dependent on big for-profit private insurance companies), and economic stimulus produce recognizable benefits for the 99%.

2012 election: Kucinich re-elected with 56% of the popular vote. Dems retain both houses of Congress, with Republicans still unable to obstruct across the board (although some Kucinich proposals fail because of opposition from conservaDems).

Look, I can't prove that would've happened. But I think it's a reasonable shot. Obama was actually in a better position to pull it off than Kucinich would've been, but Obama chose a different course. All we know for sure is what happened with the course he did choose.