Is why when an incumbent R is challenged in a primary, and generally loses to a rightwing nutter, the pundits et al say he/she lost because they weren't conservative enough.
Why can't the D party pull off this same dynamic? The country as a whole is simply not a center right country, even though our media overlords have done their best to push us into believing that as a fact.
Why can't the D party push a little purity test through in safe D districts? Ala Al Wynn vs. Donna Edwards. That was manna for my soul, and I only hope she goes on to be the leader she campaigned as.

That would be the only way. One thing for sure, national issues, AS SUCH, aren't doing it for us. Otherwise, we'd be looking at presumptive nominee Dennis Kucinich or possibly John Edwards.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

grassroots and all. The power of national democracy, when it is working, is as an aggregator of local opinion and demand. What progressives have done, just to be didactic about it, is a two-fold error. We have allowed our differences between specific interest groups to overwhelm our greater common interests, fundamental issues around which we should be making common cause, and we have allowed the Right to win the debate on values and the worthiness of goals in large part because they appeal to emotions while we stubbornly insist on an approach from reason alone.

That fixation on reason is one of the causes for discontent among some traditional progressives with Obama's soft-focus emotion-based style, and when I say that I am pointing right into the mirror. The soft, squishy concepts like Hope make my skin crawl, yet it is exactly that approach - but from the negative side - that the Right has used effectively to marginalize the Left and convince the Middle to side with them. We need better slogans, because Vacuous Bush with simple Flag and Fear slogans will beat Smart Dennis with detailed position papers on peace and healthcare every day of the week.

Properly formulated, policies that connect education and health care and a living wage to the lives of the American Middle can transform the nation and reach into the hearts and minds of every working class individual regardless of their background or their aspirations, because we are bound together by many more things than there are ways to divide us.

Segmental appeals to special interests, however, begin by emphasizing precisely those differences. Feminism, racial civil rights, gay rights, etc etc, inherently set apart the interest group from the whole and force alienation as a key part of the dynamic.

The Right is handed the club with which to defeat us; we craft it for them. There are more straights than gays; instill them with a little fear, just a little, and the power of numbers insures that gay rights are defeated. The same works for any issue where a divide between the majority and the disenfranchised minority can be drawn.

Education is cast as a religious issue through prayer, or race with bussing, and attacked from the view of taxation; the conversation revolves around anything but education, and the Right wins these arguments because there are more religious people than agnostics, there are more white people than colored, and nobody wants to pay taxes. Meanwhile, poor white people in the Tennessee hills are equally penalized by poor education as are poor black people in downtown Detroit; they should be allies, and instead they are opponents. They are opponents because we have failed to communicate to them their common needs.

I am all for primary challenges, and all for electing progressives to office; where ever they present themselves as candidates who can possibly win, they should be embraced. With only a few exceptions though, those opportunities for this cycle are already settled and further focus for now must be on the stark realities of political possibility - any emocrat is better than any Republican. Where there are progressives on the general election ballot, they should get the full backing of every progressive in the country. It is as important for progressive goals to elect Darcy Burner to the House as it is to elect a Democrat as president.

But putting energy into running Cindy Sheehan against Nancy Pelosi is just plain foolish. (I quite like Cindy, she has a good heart; some of those around her, pushing her into becoming a caricature of herself, not so much.) Pelosi has already spread the word that Sheehan is to be treated with respect; no harsh words, no matter what, dignity and calm and professional is the way to deal with her. All said and done, Nancy will return to DC next January having won 70% of the district vote instead of 80% and altogether be none the worse for wear - nothing will have been changed.

Where Sheehan should be running is against some idiot Republican, harry him from hill to dale and make mock of him from every angle possible, from the war to the economy to health care. She wouldn't win in any of those districts either, but that effort would be at least noble and draw sharp contrasts and perhaps inflict damage on Republican chances nationally instead wasting time at best or at worst helping Republicans by doing slight harm to the Democrats. Insurgency needs to be focused on the vilest enemy first, not on someone with whom you disagree 10% of the time.

The election in 2010 will be a huge opportunity for progressives, since we all agree that an Obama (or for that matter a Clinton) administration will do little to advance progressive causes. We will have all of the same societal problems we have now, but they will be worse; the arguments in favor of adopting progressive goals, and thus progressive candidates, will be starker and easier to present and the audience will be more receptive. Maybe by then we will have become more clever as well.

Step 1. 2008: Drive the Republicans from office.

Step 2. 2009: Reformulate progressive goals so they appeal to the masses.

Step 3. 2010: Elect more progressives to the House, the Senate, and to state and local offices.

Step 4. I'm working on it.

to elect as many Democrats as possible to as many offices as possible, as a setup for the 2010 elections when we need Democrats to dominate as many governorships and state houses as possible and when we need to push as many progressives into office as possible.

The Democrats, with a larger progressive contingent, will then control the gerrymandering after the next census and naturally manipulate the district outlines to maximize their control over power. In general, on average, this will tend to marginalize reactionaries and amplify the power of progressives and persuadable centrists.

Try focusing on solutions for tomorrow instead of bemoaning how awful things are today. Unless, of course, perpetuating today's misery is your objective.

I'm not contradicting you; I'm just not sure about this.

For instance, I'm thinking of the town hall meeting I went to recently where the very centrist Democrat Jason Altmire shared the stage with the Republican Tim Murphy (both are local congresscritters). Altmire has provoked the anger of us health care people by reneging on his promise to support H.R.676, and boasted that he votes with the Republicans about half the time. He is no favorite of mine, in other words, and I'd love to replace him with a real fighting Democrat. (BTW as far as I can tell he's not part of the Blue Dog caucus, but this is the only centrist Dem I've had any contact with.)

But given a choice between Altmire and Murphy (which we're not, they're in neighboring districts), I have to say that Altmire wins hands down if I'm thinking about his likely voting pattern given his voting record, especially on torture and the use of mercenaries, as well as his self-presentation, his knowledge of the issues, and his willingness to try to sell hard truth about oil to a hostile crowd.

Life is complicated. Electoral strategies are hard.

I totally agree that these people need to be "pushed or scared"! We have to go out into RL and do it.