I guess the point is, in either 1968 or 2000, what you seem to identify as the non-Democrat left did not lead to a more progressive nation with more progressive policies

you respond to neither of my points about these elections – 1968 – Nixon campaigned to end the draft! and:

Nixon told Michigan Republican congressman Donald Riegle that the war would be over within six months of his assumption of office.

Nixon was able to capitalize on antiwar sentiment, because the Democrats were sticking to their costly failed, divisive and amoral policy.

will Obama recapitulate the same stupidity after 8 more years in Iraq and AfPak? Probably.

The amtiwar movement within the Democratic Party was trying to make the party do the right thing, but the party did the opposite, and lost.

and you completely avoided the other factors in play in 2000 – serious fraud, and the Supreme Court decision to stop the recount!

two sides to every coin, of course, but why your inability to reference my points?

Oh, but you say, the Blue Dogs are voting their districts, which are conservative/Republican. Well, guess what — 50% of even Republicans back meaningful health care reform, and 72% of all Americans do so. Why are the Blue Dogs so out of step with what their constituents want? Just follow the money.

I assume you accept my point that all other occasions since 1900, when one of the two major political parties split internally, the result has been a victory for the other major party, rather than for a third party. Historically, the best third parties have done is to have their most popular planks co-opted by one of the major parties.

I’m all for persuading Democrats to adopt progressive measures, but am opposed to your theme of endorsing Naderism or another similar movement. I think that is demonstrably the enemy of the good.

And given the complete mess made of the country by the Republicans from Reagan on (including Clinton, who was pretty much the best Republican president of my life, no matter the D next to his name), isn’t it about time, the elected officials governed a bit from the left rather than continuing to kowtow to the right?

And please, show me ANY example of Obama doing ANY governing from the left. FISA he caved on. He refuses to back up his promises to LGBT supporters. He has adopted Bush precedents on conducting the occupations whole heartedly. He has continued to support the Bush positions on secrecy and executive privilege, even using the same ludicrous arguments.

I guess he just must be playing some level of 24th dimension chess that is far beyond my abilities to follow along.

Yes, Obama won some moderate and even conservative CDs so I guess that means he can’t govern from his base at all.

Here’s a good question…if Obama won a conservative or moderate district, doesn’t that mean that conservatives and moderates voted for him…so wouldn’t it be unwise for him to govern exclusively from the left?

(FWIW: D for 40 years, and the party has been leaving me – and a lot of others – by moving to the right, more and more, in the last twenty years. Admit that we used to be liberal-to-moderate Ds, and are now radicals, simply by that shift, and you’ll also have to admit that we should, if only by our history, get a say on what a D is.)