I received a fund raising appeal from these folks, and at first glance I was tempted to donate. But their come-on said, in effect, we'll decide who is most 'progressive' in the primaries and back that person. Who are they to make that determination? I see the primaries as a local matter, and the person who most fits the local political conditions will win, which in many cases is far from the most 'progressive' person....so why waste money on a loser? Why not just give money to greens?

Money doesn't elect anyone-- it just gives someone the funds to make their case, which is what keeps many progressives from even having a chance. The DLC types in primaries always have money from corporate supporters, so Progressive Majority is a chance to level the playing field.

And I can't imagine the list of folks on the advisory committee not talking with local progressive groups in deciding who to back, so this is not a "national versus local" issue, but one of helping to direct national money to key races.

It's worth remembering that only about 40-50 Congressional races out of 435 are usually even competitive. Big corporate money flows into those swing races and progressives need a way to make sure progressive money is there to at least partially counterbalance it.

Good points, Nathan. Perhaps I'm seeing it from the perspective of an Ohio voter. Here, in statewide races, the only real muscle is provided by labor...money is very scarce for Dems, so labor provides muscle in lieu of cash...so they provide backing to what they see as the most 'progressive' candidate, people that can't win anything outside of urban areas. I just wish we had some dlc types here...we might even win a seat or two on the statewide level and have some hope of representation instead of none.

I also think that there's this feeling amongst 'progressives' that they have all the *right* messages, but for want of money or somesuch they go unlistened to....but there's some point at which you have to seriously question the message outside of looking for excuses for losing.

Regards, and keeping my checkbook open for you in 2004....

I like the MoveOn.org folk too. They are good at getting money to people that can use it and are good at vetting the candidates.

If it is a given that all people are truly the same at heart, and that all is equal, then if so many other people around the world accept at least moderately liberal governments, and the republicans barely win outspending 3-5 times the democrasts, it's foolish to believe that money doesn't play any part of it. Sooner or later, if you don't pay a lot of attention, all those negative add's and the constant slandering of everything "liberal" in the press are going ot influence your opinion. If you don't think the average person is that stupid or ignorant in this country, you don't know any average people.

I can't believe people are still bickering about Nader. I voted for him here in NYC but I wouldn't have in Florida. But let's not forget that the old Gore couldn't get 500 or a 1000 of those 92000 people away from Nader.

I am beginning to think the unthinkable which is that I am probably going to go back to voting for the lesser of evils, in the Presidential race. Much as I dislike the DLC and let's say Joe Lieberman, I belive that George Bush is the most dangerous man elected President in my life. I do care who runs against him, but I will probably vote for any opposing candidate I think can beat him who is NOT a right wing Republican.

I would hate to see people losing site of the imperative of keeping Bush from a second term at all costs.

this is more of what i was trying to say, when i said "blow me." so i take back the blow me comment, and support this approach, and move on, too.