Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich answers questions about his racial politics in the 60's and his presidential bid in a Salon Interview today:

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.

On abortion, he sounds like he's backtracking to us, to cover his recent switch from very pro-life to tolerant of choice (he certainly cannot be called pro-choice). Here's his current "precise" position on the issue.

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.

But it took him several q's and a's to get there.

On war with Iraq, Kuchinich says there are two conditions that would make him support it: "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."

As to what kind of President he'd be, Kucinich answers:

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....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.

Kuchinich sounds good on war and foreign relations, but not as good as Gary Hart, and he has way fewer credentials in the area. We don't trust him on the abortion issue. The jury is still out on the race issue--we don't have enough information to call that one. Bottom line: we like him better than Lieberman, Gephardt, and Sharpton, but not as much as Hart or Edwards. And probably a little less than Kerry and Dean. Graham is out for us due to his strong support for the death penalty. In fact, he's the only Democratic contender who has signed death warrants.

However, it's still early and we haven't definitively made up our mind, particularly since the field is not yet closed.