Kucinich's primary showing does NOT mean that there aren't many progressives in the party.

[Ken Burch]

Kucinich's failure to get many votes was tied to factors that had almost nothing to do with his stances on the issues.

1)The trivial media fixation with personal appearance.
Unfortunately, even though what you look like has nothing to do with your capacity to lead, the media won't allow a non-handsome candidate to make a credible showing. And even Du'ers went along with the ugly fixation with looks. The vicious "Keebler elf" photoshop image was run here as much as anywhere. If Dennis had looked like Wesley Clark(or, even better, like George Clooney), we might have had a very different primary process this year.


2)The media/party insider insistence with "winnowing the field" This knocked almost ALL of the candidates, even the most conservative ones, out of the race before the majority of Dems even had the chance to vote on them.

3)Personal tragedy. Dennis' brother committed suicide early in the year. After that(as would have been the case with anyone)his heart clearly wasn't in the race.


Meanwhile, the polls showed and continue to show widespread support for policy ideas well to the left of what our party leaders were allowing to be considered as platform items. The country backs single-payer healthcare, wants the labor laws reformed so that union organization is easier(hell, is possible, as far as that goes)wants electoral reform(the abolition of the Electoral College, Instant Runoff Voting, and proportional representation. Also, the country clearly wants a break from the militarist foreign policy of the last eight years(including, let's make it clear, an abandonment of the insane notion that we should go to war in Iran).

So there is support for progressive ideas, no matter how Dennis did this year in the presidential campaign.

The "Dennis' campaign proves progressives got nuthin'" line should be retired.

Progressives are not the enemy, and we shouldn't be getting treated like the red-headed stepchild of the party.

[riqster]

1. Amen

Kooch isn't really all that far to the left if you look at the Dem platforms of just a few years back. He is a pretty reasonable guy, sailing in a sea of Right-Wing memes.

[Cleita]

2. Also, Dennis was essentially ignored and shut out of the dialogue very

early in the campaign. If the country would have had the chance to hear what he has to say, I think his showing would have been impressive.

[Occam Bandage]

3. No. It simply means that only a negligible number of Democrats

supported a progressive candidate this primary, as is the case every single year.

[Ken Burch]

5. Which does NOT mean the party is justified in ignoring progressives.

And which does NOT mean that progressives should just shut the hell up and know our place.

[bunnies]

4. 4) Utter lack of a campaign

Did he ever even set up an office in Iowa? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

7. His brother had already died by then, IIRC.

Probably Dennis should've withdrawn earlier.

I don't really understand why no organization had been built by his people in Iowa since 2004. There was always a lot of sympathy there for his views.

[WI_DEM]

6. I truly think DK would have more credibility if, rather than run for president again, he had run for

governor of Ohio or the Senate seat in 2006. Frankly, I don't think most members of the house are really taken all that seriously when they run for president, but Governors and Senators are. Plus it would have shown he could win statewide, something he has never been able to do in a primary.

[Ken Burch]

9. Perhaps you're right.

I think Dennis may have feared that, if he had stood for the Senate or the governorship, the party insiders would've ganged up on him in the name of ending his career(he'd have had to give up his House seat for either position)and driving his supporters out of the party.

Perhaps Dennis should go up against Voinovich for the Senate in 2010. There would, I think, need to be negotiations with the party insiders to make sure they didn't "rodentcoitus" him.

[riqster]

74. 'Rodentcoitus'!!!!!

:rofl: Best euphemism of 2008!

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Perhaps most pregressives are smart enough to realize that a centrist candidate is more electable

[tekisui]

13. Ding! Ding! Ding!

I love Kucinich, he was my first choice, on principle.

But, he couldn't have came close to being competitive in the General. Not close at all.

[camera obscura]

17. Agreed

[1corona4u]

10. His failure to get votes is due to the fact that he's a loose canon.

He needs to learn diplomacy, then maybe he has a shot at something else. It's not what he says, it's the way he says it.

Personally, I would never vote for him. Never.

[rvablue]

16. Amen. n/t

[Breeze54]

37. Yeah!1!1! Hey Dennis? Just sit down and SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!

Gheesh!

:grr:

We need MORE "loose cannons" on the hill, imho.

Not a bunch of sheep, like the last 8 fucking years!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. Absolutely - amen - hallejuah!

Honestly, whenever I take one of those quizzes to match you up with a candidate, mine almost always comes up with Kucinich, and yet there's not a shot in hell I'd ever actually vote for him unless he were the last Dem standing. He's much more of an activist than a politician.

[Doremus]

11. FDR was progressive because the people DEMANDED him to be.

After 20+ years of hard-right policy, a half-hearted left turn now still leaves us in the red.

We need a strong course correction just to get back to middle ground.

Corporatists, Repug OR Dem, aren't going to give an inch unless we force them to.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Didn't he adopt progressive policies in order to garner support that would have gone to a socialist

candidate? (Not sure if this is true or not, but I thought I might have heard something like that before.)

[Ken Burch]

21. Well, something similar to that but not exactly the same.

In the 1932 election, Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party candidate, won almost a million votes. FDR, sensing that this was a base for a force that could cut into the Democratic vote in the future, embraced some of Thomas' ideas(not all, of course).

As a result, a lot of people from the more moderate wing of the SP crossed over to the Democrats in 1936.

[wyldwolf]

28. yes, that's exactly what he did

[Doremus]

33. No. There was great social unrest, general strikes, protests

People were fed up with being kicked to the curb and they let it be known.

He didn't go there on his own, he was guided to his progressive policies by an angry populace.

I imagine we'll get to that point again, someday.

[Two Americas]

12. exactly right

A few things that people overlook -

In many opinion polls, when candidates were listed off to get people's response, the most common response to the name "Kucinich" was
"who?" People cannot be expected to support a candidate they have never heard of.

In districts where Kucinich was able to reach a significant percentage of the voters, he did very well.

The more people know about politics, the more likely they were to support Kucinich. DU is a prime example of that. Kucinich was consistently winning opinion polls here. This suggests that there is nothing wrong with Kucinich, but rather there is something wrong with the way campaigns are being run and information is being disseminated to the public. The "run to the right" and "centrist" advocates here would just as soon that the public stay ignorant, I fear, as do the corporate interests and the right wingers.

Kucinich has other electoral liabilities beyond his politics, so even were the playing field level, even if he had a fair chance at the nomination, still a rejection of him should not be construed as a rejection of left wing politics. I believe that the centrists and conservatives within the party tolerate Kucinich because he can be used to discredit left wing politics.

[Uzybone]

14. Wrong headed argument

Not all progressives think DK was the only candidate to support. I supported one who I thought would be effective and could win.

[Ken Burch]

15. And your post supports my argument.

It was never a case of "if you didn't support Kucinich, you didn't give a damn about progressive ideas". Sometimes it was strategy. Sometimes it was personality.

[wyldwolf]

18. there aren't many of the stripe who would support him

Seriously. Unless some how some way they didn't know he was running. Maybe they really do boycott the "evil corporate media." LOL. But if there is so many, he should have made a better showing.

[Ken Burch]

23. "many of the stripe"? Could you clarify, pray tell, exactly WHICH stripe?

Did you mean to imply THIS:



(You like a bit of McCarthyism, and I like puns and beer, so on that level we can find common ground)

"he should have made a better showing"?

In our system, it doesn't work that way. Like anyone else, progressive voters will stay away from a candidate the media declares to be "unelectable".

Kucinich's showing is NOT an accurate measure of progressive strength in the party.

And anyway, what did progressives ever do that you're so mad at?

Do you really miss the "white only" restrooms that much?

Or do you still like to pretend that Vietnam and Iraq were winnable wars?

[wyldwolf]

26. ignoring your silly rant, the stripe of progressive drawn to Kucinich types

:crazy:

By the way, if you're going to subtly accuse someone of racism or McCarthyism for using the word "stripe," start with the founder of DU who wrote in 2001:

"Democratic Underground welcomes Democrats of all stripes."

http://web.archive.org/web/20010406034952/democraticunderground.com/about.html

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

39. Oh, now we've gone from "stripes" to "types"?

What's next, "Kucinich and his ilk"?

Sheeessshhhh.....

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

40. uh, no. "types" is giving you trouble now?

:rofl:

You always did ignore the points that made you look foolish and then try to change the subject.

[Ken Burch]

41. There wasn't actually any point in any of your posts in this subthread.

You've simply used insulting terms("your stripe" and "your type") to imply that Kucinich supporters and other progressives weren't as Democratic as you are.

You haven't made ME look foolish. You've only made yourself look spiteful.

It's not like it's YOUR party and the rest of us are just outsiders.

[wyldwolf]

42. You equated "stripe" to racism and McCarthyism even though DU uses the word in the same way!! LOL!

THEN you ignore that when it's point out and get pissy of the use of "type." NOW you're pretending to be insulted.

You've made a career on DU with divisive posts. It's funny. really.

[Ken Burch]

46. I didn't equate "stripe" to racism.

You used the term to mock Kucinich supporters and other progressives and that was uncalled for. And your use of it WAS, at least implicitly, McCarthyism.

You can never just argue with somebody, wolf. You always have to be insulting about it.

[wyldwolf]

53. Ken Burch, "Do you really miss the 'white only' restrooms that much?"

[Ken Burch]

57. That was part of a separate question I had to you about why you had it in for progressives.

It wasn't tied into the "stripe" thing.


Your hostility and disdain for those of us to your left is still something I don't understand. If you disagree with us, fine, but why the contempt and derision? Why act like we're a lower order of life? We're just as American as you are and we have just as much place in this party as you do.

[wyldwolf]

60. A separate question? LOL! Right...

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

63. Look, there's no reason for you to keep belaboring this thing.

You aren't looking good here.

[wyldwolf]

66. you never were real good about staying on topic. Must be your "stripe."

[Ken Burch]

67. Is there a REASON you aren't letting this go?

And there wasn't actually a topic in this subthread. It's just that you made a snide comment and you won't let it go that I called you on it.

Just move on. There's no reason for you to keep on about this.

[wyldwolf]

69. you call referring to a commonly used word as racism and McCarthyism as "calling me on it"

Another characteristic of your "stripe."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. This is why Kucinich and his supporters are ignored.

It isn't the policy - it's the attitude.

[Ken Burch]

58. What attitude? Wyldwolf was dissing us and I simply didn't choose to let it slide.

When he referred to progressives as "your stripe", it was like he was saying "your kind".

I don't mind disagreement but personal derogation isn't acceptable.

[wyldwolf]

61. yeah (sicker) the "dis" was calling progressives a "stripe" - same as DU officially does

:rofl:

[AtomTan]

20. The msm saw an opportunity for a compelling narrative in the Hillary vs Obama race,

and in whoever ran that race facing off against another rich white old guy in the general. I believe they successfully marginalized the candidates who did not fit their narrative. I like Obama, and I voted for him in the NC primary, and I voted for him in the general, but I have no illusions that he is a hard progressive or will pursue anything but a centralist agenda. Which is what he has always said and continues to demonstrate. That righties keep characterizing him as ultra-liberal just shows how far right the national conversation has veered since the 1970s.

[onenote]

22. Making excuses

Let's look at the reasons given for Dennis' failure to rally the progressive vote:

1) The trivial media fixation with personal appearance. So progressives are easily manipulated by the media and are concerned about personal appearance over substance. Didn't know that. Certainly doesn't fit my personal experience with progressive thinkers.

2)The media/party insider fixation with "winnowing the field." Well, its true that the field was "winnowed down", but Dennis actually stayed on longer than most. His withdrawal came after Biden, Dodd, and Richardson had already dropped out and just a week before Edwards (another candidate with an appearance problem, I guess). There is nothing new or unusual about candidates dropping out before a majority of Dems have had a chance to vote on them. Always happens that way.

3) Personal tragedy. The death of Dennis' brother certainly was tragic, but it wasn't the reason he dropped out. Far more important to that decision was the fact that he was facing a serious primary challenge and he decided, correctly, that he needed to turn his attention to a race he could win (but might lose) and away from the one he knew he had no chance of winning.

I agree that Dennis didn't fail because there aren't enough progressives in the Democratic party. He failed because progressives in the Democratic party found other candidates that decided warranted their support more than Dennis.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Corporate media manipulation, just compare the time given during the primary debates.

During the later primary debates when we only had two candidates and during the General Election debates, the moderators at least made a pretense of trying to be equal in the time allotted, but during the early debates, not to mention regular "news" or pundit coverage, several candidates were totally ignored for long stretches of time.

I can't figure out why equal time wasn't given in the early primary debates unless the corporate media was too afraid one of the lesser known candidates might come through?

[bain_sidhe]

25. Agreed... I support many of his policy ideas, but not him

IMHO, he's not Presidential material... far too inflexible and self-righteous (I've often thought of him as the George Bush of the left... he knows he's right, and "compromise" is a dirty word to him). He's better suited to being the watchdog that keeps the "leadership" in line.

But his policy ideas have a LOT of support among people who didn't necessarily want *him* to be the standard bearer for the party.

[Cleita]

35. Unlike George Bush, Dennis comes to his positions from research and

careful reasoning. Also, having attended a town hall style meeting with Dennis, he is more than willing to field questions from everyone who will challenge him both right and left. George if you remember has to have hand picked audiences at his town halls. He's not George Bush's opposite at all.

[mvd]

27. Also, many progressives didn't think he could win

I supported him in the primaries, but I'm not sure how many other progressives bothered to. I think he would be a great President. It might not be his time yet, but hopefully Obama's election is the first step in making someone like Kucinich viable.

[BzaDem]

29. That may be true, but he still lost, and someone who called for bipartisanship won.

Elections have consequences. After all, most people supported Kerry's position on the issues in 2004 according to exit polls, but still elected Bush.

I don't think anyone ever said "Dennis' campaign proves progressives got nuthin." It simply means that someone who has the same policies and temperment as Kucinich will not be President, and someone who is much more centrist and amenable to bipartisanship will be president (and this is not a betrayal of what Obama ran on, but simply a realization that Obama won).

[iamthebandfanman]

30. but only because progressives supported him

keep that in mind :b

if obama hadnt carried us when it was down to him and clinton, he woulda lost the primary.

[BzaDem]

31. Progessives could always stay home and give the election to the Republicans

Any group that makes up 20% of the electorate could of course swing the election away from their interests. That's how party politics always works.

Progressives chose to support Obama because they agreed with him more than Hillary. That is not the same as Obama choosing to be a progressive.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. Ummm...excuse me...

BUT THE FUCKING PRIMARIES ENDED FIVE MONTHS AGO. GET THE HELL OUT OF YOUR PARENTS' BASEMENT AND GET A FUCKING LIFE!

[Ken Burch]

38. I'm only mentioning the primaries because other people keep using them

As if they prove progressives are a tiny minority in the party.

It's THOSE people who are obsessing about the primaries, not me.

And I left my parents' basement twenty-six years ago, bozo.

[knixphan]

34. AGREED!

:fistbump:

[TheKentuckian]

36. Kucinich should not be the bar that progressives are measured by

I mean come on he's one candidate. People may be head over heels over his policies but not so much Dennis, himself. I have serious temperament concerns myself, how far is Kucinich from being our own version of Newt Gingrich?
Not to mention that he is far from a dominating presence and he isn't very masterful at selling his ideas but rather attracts those that already share his policy concepts.

Just because the guy wants to do many of the things I want to see does not mean he is actually the right person to execute them or that he has the charisma to motivate and lead the many.

[grantcart]

43. DK result in the primaries was the result of a non existent campaign.

Everyone will agree that his positions - which are hardly that extreme - command a significant percentage of the Democratic Party.


He came to San Diego in the middle of the campaign on a committee investigation and didn't bother to piggie back an event.


He wanted a platform to influence the discussion and that is what he got. He had no illusions that he was a serious candidate and he didn't take his own candidacy seriously.

[Ken Burch]

45. Look, there's no reason to bash the guy.

My point was that the level of support Dennis picked up in the primaries is not a measure of support in the party for progressive positions.

Your diss of the guy was unnecessary. His campaign didn't harm anything or anyone. Besides, I doubt you'd have backed him no matter what.

[grantcart]

48. My point is that a persons policy positions are not a very good indication

of how their policies may be accepted in the party which is in agreement with your OP Great guy, great policies, lousy candidate.

I wasn't dissing the guy just his prospects as a candidate. I love the guy and I loved McGovern but I am not going through that type of campaign again. Your right I would have gone with almost anybody other than DK for the nomination and would have swallowed my 'anybody but Hillary' position and gone with Hillary over DK.

[Hotler]

44. Kicking!

[Tigress DEM]

47. Progressives are WONDERFUL! What Kucinich brought to the debates was really needed.

We had 8 candidates and without splitting up the party we couldn't push an all progressive agenda in the same way it wasn't going to be enough to go back to the Clinton era. I think we had a huge show of strength and every bit of diversity helped. It made it hard to the rethugs to really find a way to make anything stick.

THIS time it was about getting the rethugs out of office and it had to be with the most votes possible.

Still, I think the next message is "election reform and runoff voting" because we have to tell our guys that they are only in because we knew that full on DEM was the way to win. AND the gist of the message is, "If the DEMS can't get 'er done, the rethugs will be squashed some more and the DEMS challenged."

Our DEMS for some strange reason work best when the fire is right under their butt. OK we can do that.

I think even if someones views are REALLY far left it helps in achieving a real balance. The rethugs pulled everything so far right that it got skewed to the point it was hard to have a common sense conversation.

Besides, valuing all viewpoints for their merits and picking the time and place to pursue one option or another just makes good sense.

To every season turn, turn, turn as the song says.



edit for spelling on does not equal one
damm spell check

[HughMoran]

49. Just 'cause he looks like a Romulan had nothing to do with it.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ken Burch]

50. Uh, Hugh, I MENTIONED the looks thing.

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

51. I know!!

I just couldn't resist!


You're taking yourself and this whole "progressive" thing a little too seriously IMO.

[tomp]

52. not to mention the purposely embarassing ufo question.

although, as much as i love dennis, i think he blew the answer to that one. his answer should have been, "you've got a lot of damn nerve asking me about ufo's in this political climate. i'm not going to answer your stupid question. i insist you ask me a serious question. " or something like that.

[peace13]

54. So happy that people kick the only American to stand up for our Constitution

and the soldiers that bleed and suffer for us every day. Kucinich is human, not perfect. He stands strong and steady on the issues that matter. If I had to pick one politician based on values and honor alone it would be Dennis. I thank him for his contributions to my world. Peace, Kim

[ecstatic]

59. I once supported Kucinich, but after digging some more after his Ron Paul

praise, I no longer think he is qualified to be president. He just says what he thinks the left wants to hear. It certainly helps with fundraising. Google his activities from decades ago.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. Hogwash.

Dennis has such a poor showing CONSISTENTLY because he would simply make a horrible president. He's whacked out of his mind, doesn't have the experience, and has only been elected to some easy for him house position.

But I agree that it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of progressives in the party; it just means that many progressive recognize the blatant facts that Kucinich for president is a joke.

[Ken Burch]

64. Does the guy really deserve your hatred? Jeez.

Enough bashing on him already.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

65. Don't Mistake Honesty And Accuracy With Hatred.

I don't hate Dennis whatsoever. I'm just being objective and accurate with my portrayal of him as well as why he had such a poor showing. It's called intellectual honesty. Your OP is totally inaccurate and misguided as it relates to the reasons why.

[mvd]

68. I see it as just opinion

And my opinion differs from yours 100% here. :hi:

[mvd]

70. For example:

"He's whacked out of his mind" - to me, he is a breath of fresh air - not whacked at all. His candor endears him to me. The UFO thing isn't such a big deal - a perfectly sane member of my family has seen one.

"doesn't have the experience" - multi-terms in the House is ok IMO, and experience isn't always a plus. Obama will be a very good President IMO, and he served one Senate term.

"and has only been elected to some easy for him house position" - hasn't been so easy when the corporate establishment throws everything they have at him

Kucinich isn't perfect. He does a bit of grandstanding. Sometimes he will also modify his positions, like all politicians do. But in my opinion, he would be a great President.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. LOL You Have A Kucinich Avatar.

Wouldn't expect you to agree. :)

[mvd]

72. I proudly wear it. But I'm also pragmatic

Obama could be the better person at this time, considering the country's dynamics. :hi:

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

73. I'm a proud liberal; I'm also pragmatic

FDR was the quintessential pragmatist. He adopted a situation that demanded action and his attitude was, "We'll try something. If it doesn't work, we'll try something else.'' He was not wedded to any particular philosphical agenda, and that is how he revolutionized the federal government.

[codjh9]

75. I also think it's kind of like my view of voting Green vs. voting Dem. I've voted Green on the loca

level before, but no way am I going to on a state or national level unless I think they actually have a chance to win. Similarly, while I share Kucinich's 'far left' views (heaven forbid :^), I feel like I have to vote for someone who has a chance to WIN, even if they're not as far left as I'd like them to be. This is not a statement against The Big O whatsoever, believe me, btw.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. 2004 and 2008 were different, very different

Kucinich did very well in the 2004 primaries in places where dedicated groups of volunteers were able to overcome the media blackout. He got double digits in Minnesota (17% statewide, more like 25% in the Twin Cities), certain parts of Iowa that the Minnesota volunteers targeted (the area around Decorah), certain parts of Wisconsin (but NOT supposedly "far left" Madison), Washington State, (but NOT supposedly "far left" Oregon), Hawaii, New Mexico, Maine, and Utah (yes, Utah).

In all cases, the secret was dedicated volunteers running guerilla campaigns, because from where I stood, the Twin Cities media would have ignored DK if the volunteers hadn't pestered them. Case in point: we invited the local TV stations to cover his speech at Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis. Sixteen hundred people showed up, filling the auditorium to SRO. The TV stations came, but only one of them played a 30-second clip that showed no crowds and no audio. The other three stations did nothing at all. What did they cover instead? The fact that a county sheriff in rural MN was caught up in an adultery scandal.

We started with the 2003 Minnesota State Fair, with volunteers leafleting at every entrance. I leafleted every house in my precinct, where DK got 20%, despite the old pols in the caucus telling us that a vote for anyone other than Kerry was "wasted."

The volunteers were truly a "rainbow coalition" of ethnic minorities, unionists, GLBT people, seniors, suburban family types, attorneys (including DU's own dpbrown), state legislators in an advisory capacity, you name it. They got the campaign literature translated into Spanish, Vietnamese, and Somali and distributed them at informational meetings for new citizens. They leafleted at Twins and Vikings games. They held house parties. They did everything that a person can do without much money.

As summer 2007 approached, I kept waiting for the DK campaign to tell me that it was time to get geared up for the State Fair. No such call came. In fact, there was NO activity in Minnesota.

The first contact from the campaign came in late December, just a couple of weeks before he dropped out, asking for money. I told them I wasn't going to give money to anyone who didn't run a visible campaign. The earnest young man told me that DK was drawing crowds in New Hampshire. I reminded him that Dukakis had drawn huge crowds, too.

After DK dropped out, I compared notes with other supporters I knew of around the country, including Desert Rose (New Mexico), Tinoire (California), and dpbrown (here in MN). They all said the same thing, that they had been waiting for word to start working and that it had never come. dpbrown told me another startling detail, that the woman who had headed up the successful MN campaign in 2004 had contacted DK's headquarters, volunteering to head up the MN campaign again, and no one ever returned her calls.

I suspect that the campaign was either half-hearted or sabotaged from within, because why would anyone not use a volunteer list garnered from the states where DK had his greatest success in 2004? That should be Campaigning 101. When I complained about the way the non-campaign was being run, someone on another board told me that people should just take it on their own initiative to go to DK's website.

As for "far left" policies being unpopular, I've been reading and contributing (under another pseudonym) to the comment areas of my local paper and the New York Times for the past couple of months. Aside from the righties spouting Limbaugh-inspired talking points, the overwhelming sentiments are FOR single-payer health care, better mass transit, ending the Iraq War, bringing the corporations under control, curbing outsourcing of jobs, a higher minimum wage, getting moneyed interests out of politics, and better consumer protection.

A candidate who espoused these positions AND had the campaigning savvy of Barack Obama would be unbeatable.