It is not impossible that in the first-caucus state of Iowa --
where Kucinich kicked off his campaign and where he hopes to
make some inroads -- his views will find some real support. For
these he will no doubt get some stiff competition from
firebrand Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, who also
supports repealing the 2001 Bush tax cuts and prioritizing
health insurance coverage for more Americans, and who opposes
the war against Iraq (though in a far more qualified way).

The oldest of seven children, Kucinich first hopped on a
national stage in 1977 when, at age 31, he was elected mayor of
the city of his birth, Cleveland. It would be a short
mayoralty; after Kucinich refused to sell the city's
municipally owned electric system at the urging of the city's
banks, the banks defaulted. In 1979, Kucinich lost his
reelection bid. In 1984, he was elected to the Ohio Senate; in
1996 he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he
chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus and is known for
being an outspoken and reliably liberal voice on every issue
save abortion. He opposes free trade agreements like NAFTA and
has spoken in favor of the formation of a Department of Peace.

As his diminutive profile has slowly begun to emerge to the
public, certain key issues have arisen that will likely dog him
-- such as his pro-life positions, and charges of racial
political turf fights in his past. But he insists, in an
interview, that -- his New Age-speak of a "holistic" candidacy
aside - - he knows what he's up against.

"I'm not new to this," Kucinich says. "I did not just fall off
the Christmas tree."

Kucinich spoke with Salon by telephone:

Do you really, truly think you have any chance to win the
Democratic presidential nomination?

Yes. Because I'm the only candidate who has a message which
encompasses international politics and domestic politics and
shows the links between the two. I'm the only one. The only one
who has a real economic platform for the United States; it's
fair to say I come from the FDR school of the Democratic Party,
which is a full-employment economy, to work for lower interest
rates, to cancel NAFTA and the WTO, and return to bilateral
trade conditioned on workers rights, human rights, and
environmental principles, guaranteed healthcare for everyone,
guaranteed Social Security.

My political career goes back to the '60s and those were times
of vigorous debates. But race was not a factor in those
debates. The debates were on issues, not about race -- there
may have been differences of opinion. But they were never about
race. When I was running for mayor I said that half of my major
appointments would go to members of the African-American
community, and they did. I could cite a long, deep connection
with the African-American community. I have a very strong
constituency in that community. So in the '60s was it possible
that there were some differences of opinion? Yes. But it was
never based on race. Never. Not a chance. Not even the people I
clashed with in major ways would ever say that.

You've been in the House since January 1997. How many inroads
have you made toward your presidential goals?

First let me tell you what I have done. I have been one of the
leaders in challenging trade policies and globalization. I've
organized members of Congress to beat back a couple attempts at
passing an extension of NAFTA, though we eventually lost that
vote about a year ago. I led the effort to get 114 Democrats to
take a position that America's trade under NAFTA and before the
WTO ought to have conditions on human rights, worker rights and
environmental principles. A letter we sent to President Clinton
on the evening of the WTO talks in Seattle ended up being very
influential and turned that discussion on its head for at least
a time.

Is there a reason why little of this was actually successful?

We are in a Congress where Republicans have resisted efforts to
provide healthcare for all, where Republicans have helped to
pass trade laws against the interests of our country.

But let's say it's January 2005. How would President Kucinich
get any of his agenda passed?

The way to do it is obvious. You run a campaign where the
nation becomes so excited with the possibility of change that
you bring in a new Congress as well. Look at FDR in 1932 and
you'll see -- he brought in close to 100 new Democrats. It gave
him a Congress that gave him the ability to get it done.

Your speech to the DNC last Saturday was about the war and
about foreign policy.

I led the effort in the House of Representatives; I organized
126 Democrats to challenge the administration's policy. And
this is not only about Iraq. The White House relies on
preemption and unilateralism, and in this complex world that
can only mean more danger to United States.

You've had to answer lately some questions about what seems
like a shift in your position on abortion, which some have
accused you of doing for political expedience, so allow me to
ask some as well. In 1996 you ran for Congress as a pro- life
candidate --

Wait, wait, wait. When you say I ran as a pro-life candidate,
that implies that I ran on that as a campaign theme.

Well, when you first ran for Congress you said that you
believed that life begins at conception, and in the past you've
been pro-life.

I've had a five-year voting record, that's right. Like
everything I deal with, I took a lot of time to think about
this issue. This is a very complex issue. When I've been faced
with it for voting purposes, there are a couple things I
brought to it. First off, I never favored a constitutional
amendment to criminalize abortion or to overturn Roe v. Wade.
It's important to understand that from the beginning.

But there are a whole range of positions that come into this
discussion, so in my voting record that you're talking about,
from the second part of the last Congress, it came out that
I've been giving thought to this issue over the years. There
were some issues that came up in the second part of the last
Congress that started me to kind of express my concerns about
the way the issue was headed.

Specifically you're referring to a May 2002 amendment by Rep.
Loretta Sanchez [D-Calif.], which would have allowed for
federal funding of abortions in overseas U.S. military bases.
In September 2001 you voted against allowing such funding, but
in May 2002 you voted for it.

That was an issue when the woman was paying for it, and the
question was as to whether or not that woman was going to have
the right to obtain an abortion using her own funds in a
military health facility. I voted for the Sanchez amendment to
allow women in the military to use their own funds to pay for
that.

And despite having a generally pro-life voting record, you
support Roe v. Wade?

Yes; I've never been for overturning it. In fact, I had an
opponent in 1998, Joe Slovenec, who was from Operation Rescue,
and one of things he was pressing for in the campaign was a
constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I've
never been for that.

I know that my voting record indicates very clearly that over a
five-year period I have voted in ways that have been supportive
of those who have worked to make sure that quality of life is
affirmed. And there have been some cases in which those votes
can be construed to be part of the polarity that this country's
in. But expanding one's view is beyond changing one's mind.

Well, can you explain to me precisely what that view is?

I support a woman's right to choose, which is guaranteed by the
Constitution. And on the other hand, I want to work to create
alternatives to abortion. And I think it's possible to do both.
Most Americans would like a leader to be elected who steps out
of the polarity and tries to reconcile people and recognize
that people may hold viewpoints that seem diametrically opposed.

In 1996 when you won your congressional seat, you declared, "I
believe that life begins at conception." Have you changed your
mind on that?

No, no. Not at all. That's what I think. But we live in a
pluralistic society and there are many different spiritual
beliefs in this Congress.

If I were a pro-choice Democrat how could I trust you?

I think what I've been able to demonstrate to people is they
see someone who wants to lead this nation, someone who has the
capacity for growth and the ability to look at complex and even
divisive issues anew, and that I've done that.

Let me ask you about another apparent inconsistency. On "Meet
the Press," in arguing against the war, you argued that the
way to remove Saddam Hussein from power "is continue to use
sanctions which thwart his efforts to grow." But in the
Progressive magazine last November, you wrote, "The time has
come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those
sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein
as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in
causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children." How
do you reconcile those two statements?

I probably should have used a modifier on "Meet the Press." I
should have said smart sanctions. I would oppose some sanctions
-- no military equipment, nothing for the nuclear industry;
most people would agree with that. But I wouldn't want
sanctions on dialysis equipment, on surgical instruments, on
oxygen tents, on water-purification chemicals. I wouldn't want
sanctions on nasal gastric tubes or on any kind of medical
supplies or anything of use to the water.

Are there any conditions under which you would support military
action against anyone?

There are two conditions. After an attack on our country or an
imminent threat backed by incontrovertible evidence. Those
would be my foundations of principle. But no such evidence
exists in case of Iraq, and Iraq has not attacked our country.

You know, the day after attack there was a National Security
Council meeting and, according to Bob Woodward in "Bush at
War," in that meeting you had [Defense Secretary Donald]
Rumsfeld saying, 'Let's go after Iraq.' That's on page 49 of
his book. Check it out if you haven't read it already.

So this plan to go after Iraq has been on the boards for a long
time.

But would those rules, those "foundations of principle," have
permitted the U.S. to take action to stop the Nazis before
Pearl Harbor? It would seem that President Kucinich wouldn't
think we should take any action.

You're taking about a condition before the advent of the United
Nations. Now that we live in a world where there's a structure
and a United Nations charter, Hitler's activities would have
been the subject of a Security Council action and the world
community could have responded.

But it sure seems like the United Nations has a fairly high
tolerance for genocide. Didn't the U.N. sit back during the
reigns of terror in the Balkans, in Rwanda?

There have been, yes, and I think that an American president
can set a standard for engagement throughout the world
community. But I don't think it serves the purpose of this
country to conduct its affairs unilaterally. And I don't think
serves the interests of this country to have a unipolar
worldview.

You continue to emphasize the United Nations as this beacon of
hope and goodness. But there are serious substantive reasons to
look askance at the U.N. Libya, Syria and the Sudan -- where
there is still slavery -- have been given seats on the U.N.
Human Rights Commission.

Well, then, let's look at the United States. The United States
made an alliance with Saddam Hussein. We sold him biological
and chemical weapons agents and then did not object when he
gassed his own people. What kind of a president would I be? I'd
be the kind of president to reassert America's moral authority
by withdrawing this doctrine of unilateralism and of preemption
and of first strike, and by working with the world community on
matters of global security wherever those matters rear up. The
United States, through working with other nations, can address
these issues, but we shouldn't be expected to be the policeman
of the world. And we -- if we want to retain any moral
authority, we have to look at the consequences of our actions.

So what would President Kucinich do to stop, say, Milosevic's
genocide in the Balkans?

I would go directly to the United Nations and develop a new
level of involvement and accountability. We have to get the
world community to function as a world community. And the U.S.
cannot do that if we're coming from a position of unilateralism.

You and other opponents of the war keep saying "unilateralism."
But President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have
spent a great deal of time lobbying other nations to get their
support, and while ultimately we may or may not get the sign-
off of the U.N. Security Council or NATO, if military action
begins we will be doing it with many other nations. The prime
ministers of Denmark, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Poland,
Portugal and Spain, and the president of the Czech Republic,
all published a statement of support for a war against Iraq.
We'll get help from Turkey and Jordan. It's anticipated that
U.S. soldiers will fight alongside those from Australia,
Britain, Poland, Spain --

That comes from the last Gulf War. And some of those same
policy themes are working their way through on this one. Is
there anybody in the world who thinks we're going to war
against Iraq for altruistic reasons?

I would imagine that of all the presidents we've had, you
probably would most emulate Jimmy Carter. Nonetheless, it was
during Carter's administration when Iran seized our hostages
and held them for 444 days. For all his idealism, it did
nothing to end the fact that there are a lot of people out
there who for ideological and other reasons are dead-set on
doing us harm.

But the war on Iraq will only make us more vulnerable. The FBI
admitted that in Sunday's New York Times, that if we go to war
we'll be more vulnerable to attack by lone-wolf terrorists. And
once we endorse preemption and unilateralism, what's to stop
China from going after Taiwan, or Russia from going back into
Chechnya? Or on first strike, what's to stop either India or
Pakistan from doing the same over Kashmir? We have to be
careful specifically because the world is so complex.

You know, I started my career in politics in 1967. I'm not new
to this. I did not just fall off the Christmas tree. I
understand the world is complex. I know that there are people
out there who want to hurt other people.

But the only path to the future is for the United States to
cooperate internationally with as many nations as it can. If we
go at it alone, we will be stuck alone. My philosophy comes
from a worldview that looks at the world as one. It's a
holistic view that sees the world as interconnected and
interdependent and integrated in so many different ways, which
informs my politics. I think this world's ready, and I think
the country's there.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer

Jake Tapper is national correspondent for Salon.