A few points: first, your personal assessment of what may work procedurally and what will not is just that: your opinion. It might be accurate, it might not. But it is not settled law of the universe.

Second, the notion that Kucinich's position is “no more or less noble than Stupak's” is complete nonsense. The “nobility,” to use your words, of a particular position is based upon the morality of the position itself…not the likelihood of its success. Even if you're 100% correct about the futility of Kucinich's refusal to vote for this bill on principle in terms of it being able to accomplish what he seeks, that wouldn't say anything about the “nobility” of the position itself. It might just mean that he wasn't able to come up with a more effective strategy.

The morality (or “nobility”) of a position and the effectiveness of that position have always been – and remain, despite your attempt to conflate them – entirely separate things. I prefer trying to find ways to get both at the same time: a morally sound (or “noble”) act combined with a smart strategy for getting it adopted…but I recognize that it's quite possible to have a very effective strategy for a very un-noble position, just as sometimes, the cards are so stacked that doing the “noble” or morally upright thing is not likely to be effective.

In fact, that's the very definition of “lost cause.” Doesn't make it any less noble just because there's no way to (or one can't find a way to) get it to work. And it is an idea which verges on monstrous to suggest that a position's or an act's nobility can be defined by how likely it is to be adopted. That's not even saying that the ends justify the means; it's saying that the means ARE the ends, an idea I reject completely.

I don't know the minds of either Dennis Kucinich or Bart Stupak, so I will stipulate that either or both of them could be doing what they are doing simply to further some ulterior motive. Perhaps Stupak thinks that by exercising his power in this way – to kill a signature piece of legislation – he will become more powerful; I just don't know. Perhaps Kucinich thinks something similar, though I highly doubt it. But, assuming that both of these men are doing what they are doing for the reasons they've consistently stated, then both are acting from what they believe to be principle. But that doesn't make them equivalent acts or positions. Why not? Because you have to – just as I have to, and each of us has to – weigh in ourselves on whether we agree with the stated morality or “nobility” of each of their acts. In my case, it's easy: I agree with Kucinich's commitment to genuine reform of the healthcare system, including a commitment to single-payer, eventually, while I have always disagreed with the draconian and intrusive propositions of the Stupak crowd, going back to the Hyde amendment, etc. I feel that at best Stupak and his crowd (however large it is) are severely misguided, and quite possibly are genuinely anti-woman, which is a position I'd call nothing short of despicable. So I place the “nobility” of Kucinich's position and his actions (quite separate from my views on how smart he's being in going about trying to see them enacted), through my own personal moral lens, as quite “noble” indeed, while I view Stupak's as somewhere between badly misguided and functionally IMmoral; not “noble” at all – again, despite how effectively (or not) he's going about pursuing them.

meanwhile if someone were to suggest that Obama was more interested in making sure the insurance or pharmaceutical companies don't get in the way of his re-election than in negotiating drug prices as promised, or having all negotiations be in the open as promised, or be open to proposals from all sides as recently promised, you brush them off as counterproductive, idealistic, etc. etc. etc. ugh.

Kucinich didn't hide his position when he ran for his seat (or the presidency). His constituents voted for his position on the issues. If President Obama had the same moral fortitude and follow-thru in what he told us when he was a candidate, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. to suggest that kucinich, by holding to ~his~ campaign promises, is ignoring his constituents or giving america the middle finger is not only wrong, but counterproductive to the goal of having a functional government that we can trust, rather than a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate interests.

the senate bill was watered down and watered down to serve the narrow interests of all manner of conservatives who will not vote for it anyway. Here's a congressman whose position on healthcare has remained consistent. Here's a congressman who has authored alternatives and amendments instead of just saying no to gain political points or a sweetheart deal for his state. Here's a congressman whose spine could achieve a better bill. We need more like him, not attacks on him.

Consider if the solution being proposed for our environmental, oil dependency, and energy problems were to require everyone to buy a hybrid, and all hybrid car manufacturers were already making obscene profits and all their offerings in the marketplace had the same issues Toyota has. This is, in a nutshell, what the Senate is suggesting for healthcare. Opposing such a solution is not the evil it's made out to be.