He supports more than anyone else in the race with the possible exception of Giuliani an extremely unpopular war. The war, press reports (mostly in mainstream, corporate-controlled American organs, to be noted) to the contrary, shows no signs of either ending or producing any results other than further death, destruction and drain on the public purse, and will continue to be a fiasco that everyone but the elites in the media, congress and, to a steadily decreasing extent, big business (outside those few sectors making out like bandits in the adventure).

He also offers no real help to average Americans on the crises facing them - home ownership increasingly at risk, rising food and energy costs, stagnating wages, increasing wage inequality and a certain economic slow-down (and, imho, a very real possiblity of a deep recession).

In this, he is very much in step with the vapid conventional wisdom one reads on the pages of the various organs of punditocracy accross the land: much sound and fury, signifying nothing. To be fair, with a few exceptions (in most cases by degrees, ie not fundamental, unfortunately) this is true of all the candidates, major and minor, of both parties in the American political duopoly.

The big polarisation is between the views of the ruling elites (mostly bi-partisan, neo-liberal on economic policy and hawkish on foreign policy) and the interests, realised or not, of real American workers. This becomes obvious whenever there's serious economic stress in the US. I'd suggest things may in fact about to become interesting in this regard in coming years.

Alas, within the actual halls of power in DC, polarisation is just for partisan show. There is no there there.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill