I have no idea what you're talking about. Who says he saved $195 million?

Maybe you'd want to ask the people of Cleveland.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Okay, I've looked into this Cleveland thing. (His two years as mayor of Cleveland appear to be his only qualification to be president.) Some excerpts from the Wikipedia article:

The Kucinich administration is often regarded as one of the most tumultuous in Cleveland's history. Kucinich relied heavily on confrontation politics as a solution to problems, a style that made him seem bombastic to the general public. His cabinet was often criticized for including members who were too young or inexperienced to handle their respective positions. For example, Kucinich appointed 24-year-old attorney Joseph Tegreene as his finance director, a move that alarmed business leaders due to Tegreene's minimal financial experience (eight months as a stockbroker).

...Kucinich, once in office, moved to reverse actions of the previous Ralph Perk administration that he campaigned against. He rejected a $41 million federal grant for a UMTA (Urban Mass Transportation Administration) people mover to be built in Downtown Cleveland. In 1976, Cleveland was one of four U.S. cities to receive federal support on such a project. The mayor commented afterwards that the people mover ought to go "back to Disneyland where it belongs." He also vetoed eight ordinances, most of which were tax abatements and subsidies.

...both critics and former supporters alike felt that Kucinich's actions against the police were too rash and that his administration was not capable of governing a struggling city.

Kucinich stated in a leaflet distributed throughout Cleveland. "Today I am asking for your support for Issue #2 - a 1/2 % tax increase - only because Cleveland has no other choice."

Melvin G. Holli in consultation with a panel of experts, placed Kucinich among the ten worst big-city mayors of all time for reasons of temperament and performance in the book, Best and Worst of the Big-City Leaders 1820-1993.

So. Let's have a look at what is, apparently, his only successful move during his career: blocking the sale of Muny Light. Feel free to criticize the numbers I'm about to use because I'll freely admit that this is a bit of an oversimplification (inflation and demographics changes make it quite a complicated calculation to do in a rigorous way), but I still think it's useful to try to inject some rational thought into the claims made by Kucinich and his supporters.

You cited a figure of $195 million saved over 20 years by blocking the sale of Muny Light - the Wikipedia article backs that up (though says only 10 years), and I'll accept it at face value.

In 2000 Cleveland had about 190,000 households. If we take the $195 million divided by 10 years we see that Kucinich saved the good people of Cleveland $19.5 million per year, which is an average annual savings of $102 per household. (Again, these figures are not all that precise. I have no idea how the $195 million was distributed over the years. Also, Cleveland's population dropped quite a lot during the 1980s, so there was presumably more than 190,000 households back when Kucinich was mayor. Or maybe not because the demographics have changed too.) So, yeah, not bad, right? A little less than a two dollars a week. (The true savings per household is probably a lot less than that because businesses and government use a lot of electricity and a large portion of the savings undoubtedly when to non-household consumers.)

"But wait," an astute observer might say, "Kucinich raised Cleveland's income tax by 1/2 point. (Because there was no other choice.) Surely that tax increase cost folks some money?" And, of course, it did. Using the 1990 median household income of $17,882, and assuming that the 1/2 point tax increase would have remained in place for some time (even if not forever, but did Cleveland's income tax ever drop to 1% after Kucinich convinced voters to raise it?) we see that the typical household was paying an additional $89 per year in order to save $102 per year on electricity. That's a net gain of $0.25 per week (again, ignoring the fact that a substantial part of the savings didn't actually go to households).

The above comparison doesn't even begin to account for the downturn in Cleveland in the years following Kucinich's mayoral administration. It's surely unfair to blame Kucinich for all the problems, and I don't blame him for the broad economic forces that drove the decline. Still, when one considers the combination of income tax increases, opposition to tax abatements for downtown developers, the dubious (and perhaps nonexistent) financial benefit from blocking the sale of Muni Light, and the fact that Kucinich oversaw the first financial default of a major US city since the Great Depression, it's difficult not to question whether his leadership can be seen as a success rather than an unmitigated disaster.

According to your rating system, the best possible mayor would be one who eliminates all taxes, and then gives out cash to citizens.  The previous mayor had raised expenditures 30% even as the tax base deteriorated.  Kucinich raised taxes and slashed expenditures.  Refuse to cut taxes while his city's broke?  How dare he!

The population mostly occurred before his term of office and at least slowed afterwards.

""There is no way in hell anyone can call Dennis Kucinich a Democrat." from a big city county Democratic chair?   That's heady praise.  Getting a contract almost put on you by the mob?  That's even more so.

Give me a mayor who's hated while in office and loved when he's gone over the reverse any day.  

According to your rating system, the best possible mayor would be one who eliminates all taxes, and then gives out cash to citizens

Really? What's my rating system? I certainly didn't mention one in this discussion.

Anyway, you may consider having the local mob boss hate you as praise, but that really has nothing at all to do with anyone's competency for public office. Go read Kucinich's issues positions and then tell me why he's worthy of a vote. Sure he's right about Iraq and the environment, but his economic policies would be calamitous.

You're adding money saved by citizens due to lower electric rates and subtracting tax increases, even though the tax increases went to erase a budget deficit.  This gives zero credit for restoring responsible taxing and spending habits.

This gives zero credit for restoring responsible taxing and spending habits

I don't blame Kucinich for the situation he found himself in, but allowing a city to go into default would not generally be considered a fiscally responsible policy, and that's the issue I was arguing with thefadd above.

Anyway, and as I mentioned before, Kucinich's policy platform is wacky, and not in a good way. Judging by the policies outlined on his website then he does not deserve to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. And I therefore do not take him seriously.

The person you quoted above who said Kucinich isn't a real Democrat may or may not have been correct at the time, but he's certainly correct today: In a number of ways (fantasy-based economic ideals, disdain for medical science, etc.) Kucinich's policies align him more closely with the Green Party than the Democratic Party.

It takes two sides to make a bankruptcy.  The bank was demanding that the city's utility be sold to a utility (which just happened to have interlocking directors) that the NRC had just ruled had engaged in illegal monopoly practices including deliberately causing blackouts in Cleveland.  They refused to negotiate about this, apparently including not considering taking the utility as collateral for a loan of only a small fraction of the amount they wanted it sold for.  Just how much do you have to allow your creditors to set public policy and steal you blind to be considered fiscally responsible?  The bank here set up a situation where bankruptcy was the only fiscally responsible thing to do.

Of course, it would have been nice if they had gotten a loan from someone else, but by the time Kucinich became mayor there wasn't time for that anymore.

I'm aware that his policies are far left, and that's the reason for the "almost" in the subject field.  As far as the "real Democrat" comment, from a party operative in a big city, that means being in favor of expanding government spending and wages.

I have a feeling that under Kucinich we'd see a huge expansion of government which would work great for just so long as he was president.

It takes two sides to make a bankruptcy

Sure, but the bank is not running for president. All I'm saying is that Kucinich's supporters like to use the Muni Light deal as an example of his leadership abilities, but when you examine that situation in detail Kuchinich doesn't come out looking so good. That there was a lot of blame to go around doesn't really change that fact.

The bank forced the city into bankruptcy by rescinding its credit because the city wouldn't sell muni light. Don't make this out as a liberal conspiracy theory thing--the bank was simply protecting its assets in what it thought was a bad financial move on the part of the city. The fact that the bank didn't have Kucinich's foresight should be counted against the bank, not Kucinich. It was just one more thing for him to overcome.

To speak to your other points, I frankly don't have much patience for ivory tower theorists like Holli who enjoy going around discrediting whole swaths of governance through buzz words like "tumultuous." It was tumultuous that he increased taxes half a percent? It was tumultuous that he rejected a failed federal program rejected by every other major metro area in the US? I'm reading your quotes and I'm not seeing a connection to the conclusions.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

The fact that the bank didn't have Kucinich's foresight should be counted against the bank, not Kucinich

Can you describe the "foresight" that Kucinich had? Even with hindsight I don't see much foresight on Kucinich's part.

I frankly don't have much patience for ivory tower theorists like Holli who enjoy going around discrediting whole swaths of governance through buzz words like "tumultuous."

"Tumultuous" was the word used by whoever wrote that Wikipedia article. Historian Melvin Holli compiled the list of worst mayors by surveying "biographers of mayors, and from urban historians and social scientists who had published work related to cities and mayors." I'll quote what Holli wrote about Kucinich because I think it's interesting to see not merely the events that surrounded his failed administration (and let's be honest, Kucinich is widely, if not universally, considered to have been a failed mayor), but to look at his personal faults that contributed to making those events:

Only thirty-one years old when elected, Cleveland's "boy" mayor had failings that were not the sins of venality or graft for personal gain, but rather matters of style, temperament, and bad judgment in office. Kucinich earned seventh place [on the list of ten worst mayors] the hard way: by his abrasive, intemperate, and confrontational populist political style, which led to a disorderly and chaotic administration. He barely survived a recall vote just ten months into office, then disappeared for five weeks, reportedly recuperating from an ulcer. When he got back into the political fray, his demagogic rhetoric and slash-and-burn political style got him into serious trouble when he stubbornly refused to compromise and led Cleveland into financial default in late 1978--the first major city to default since the Great Depression. That led also to Kucinich's defeat and exit from executive office. Out of office, he dabbled in a Hollywoodesque spirit world and once believed he had met actress Shirley MacLaine in a previous life, seemingly confirming his critics' charges that he was a "nut-cake." After that, he experienced downward mobility, losing races for several other offices and finally ending up with a council seat; but more recently, he climbed back up to a seat in Congress. Bad judgment, demagoguery, and default also spelled political failure in the eyes of twenty-five of our experts, who ranked Dennis, whom the press called "the Menace," as seventh-worst.

I'm reading your quotes and I'm not seeing a connection to the conclusions

Let me restate my conclusions from above:

1. Kucinich isn't for fiscal responsibility.
2. Judging by his position on other issues, he's a complete wingnut, i.e., his ideas are not grounded in reality.
3. Keeping the city of Cleveland in the electric generation business was likely not the financial masterstroke that Kucinich's supporters make it out to be.

Which of those conclusions are unconnected to what I wrote and quoted above?

Not entirely sure what Ms. Sue's link is to as I couldn't be bothered with recalling my (or plastic's) registration but you might as well go right to the source. The man raise over $6 million YE$TERDAY. He'll easily top $20 mil in the quarter and I won't be shocked if he does better in Q1 '08. Only time will tell if such monetary superiority translates into Diebolds (R).

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

This could be the ultimate test for those who believe that campaign war chests and spending money buy elections by themselves.

    We've already had two examples of how difficult it is to turn money and a high media profile into results in the primaries: Howard Dean and Ross Perot. Perot, who certainly didn't do himself any favors with his zig-zag on whether he was running or not, was still never much more than a spoiler in 1992. Folks liked what he had to say, the way he said it, and even those charts . . but actually putting him in charge of the country? Eh, not so much.
    Dean is probably the better comparison, though. He was getting a bunch of media attention, raising good cash (via the Net, and in the traditional way) as far as the primaries go, but he still wasn't close to sealing the deal even before the "Dean scream" fiasco. Why? Because of the same problem I suspect will torpedo Ron Paul: his supporters just aren't going to coddle voters the way a winning campaign has to. All the reporting I heard from Iowa (which could be bad, given the state of the MSM these days) indicated that when Dean supporters showed up at the caucuses, they weren't as interested in the give and take of public discussion as were the Kerry supporters, and so they ended up irritating the folks they were sent to persuade. Now, every Paul supporter may not be a wingnut, but from what I've caught of the Libertarians on C-SPAN, even the polite libertarians are prone to saying things that irritate the hell out of supporters on both sides. For example, at a Atlas Society meeting, the guest speaker derided conservatives for actually admitting that government intervention can be good once in a while* (and that they deserved to lose elections as a result), while the president and main speaker (I think it was a David Kelley, but can't remember for certain) said that religion was all well and fine as a personal choice, as long as you approached it solely from a scientific and logical perspective. Well, Jesus, that was easy-- centuries of arguments swept away just like that . . .
      Somehow I suspect this kind of stance won't be a winner in the Iowa caucuses.

     *My examples both concern conservatives, but what was said about liberals was dismissive, even contemptuous.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras