When I saw him, it was in advance of a small universal healthcare conference in the late 90s, and he was eloquent and charismatic in his support of it. I was very impressed by him, even though I was unsure if he was coattail-riding on the issue, or if he was sincere about it. I mean, he certainly didn't have to show up at the conference, and yet he did. I think that means something. Or else he was there because some friends from Hyde Park asked him to be there; also a possibility.

Since then, he's certainly moderated his stance on single payer, which is a disappointment to me; but given that you can't say "single payer" without GOPeons and insurance industry/HMO apologists screaming "Socialized Medicine" by way of a rebuke (even though every dire prediction of the "Harry & Louise" insurance industry ad campaign has come true under the existing for-profit system, ironically enough), it's probably understandable.

He may be using moderate language to disguise a larger progressive agenda (think Bush's "compassionate conservatism" in reverse -- say "bold liberalism"). Or, and perhaps dishearteningly, he may truly have moderated his stance on healthcare with a heaping teaspoon of pragmatism, since many of the people who would benefit most from single payer healthcare would, unfortunately, stupidly oppose it, not knowing what's good for them, what the rest of the civilized First Worlders are enjoying, believing the tireless anti-national healthcare propaganda of the industry.

I did like him drawing attention to what the Federal employees and Congress enjoy, and wanting the rest of us to enjoy that, too, and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to fund it. That's good to focus on.

Poor little private, for-profit insurance industry -- thank heavens you've got friends in Congress and among the misled to look after you. Never was a racket more diligently defended by people who stand to gain by its abolition.

So, in the land of the diehard Kool-Aid drinkers, what do you do? For now, he's sipping Fresca, but let's hope it's just because he knows that he can't whip out the good stuff until after the election, if people will trust in him and his vision. A very big "IF" these days, especially if Clinton and Edwards are serving up big ladles of treacle.

"that means you're headed in the right direction."

We all know "G.I. Joe" Lieberman would know all about heading in that direction -- he always makes right turns. But if you don't change course, you end up going in circles, which says everything about where we are in Iraq.

Great picture!

For some of the progs getting up in arms about the lack of support for Dennis Kucinich, or for the general lack of progressive, socialist, revolutionary, or (lordy) even liberal ideas among most of the Democratic field -- I hope they do realize that the last honest radical to make a credible run for the presidency was Eugene Debs? And he was rightly skeptical about electoral politics. He said it very well, long, long ago...

I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition.

Too true; I think of it any time people pin too much audacious hope on anybody's shoulders. I like Obama; he's a sharp guy...one cool, charismatic customer -- but there's no one political savior who can cover all the bases that need covering, now is there? Not Gore, surely not Edwards, certainly not Clinton. And no way in hell any of the Republican candied dates.

The problems we've got vexing us as a country require way more than some magic, all-purpose candidate; in a way, something like Bush is a toxic byproduct of the absence of the majority of Americans from the political process, rather than the confirmation or validation of it as a functional system.

More Americans participating in the process (not just voting, but everything, eroding the duopoly of the privileged political classes) would help -- a rebellion or a revolution? What we need is a restoration of democracy in this country. And that's more than a single leader (or party or ideology) can provide.