Now, as usual, I basically agree. But little of this is new and I think in some ways you sacrifice a touch of accuracy to make your point.

First off, Michael and I have discussed and criticized the more "purist" leftists for quite some time. And I have to say in 2006 we seemed to have a far better coalition of progressives and moderates than I have yet seen. So I would like to think progress has been made.

Second, I can't speak regarding the NDM meeting you refer to...I wasn't there. I do know that the leadership of NDM doesn't fit your characrerization at all. And regarding Marjorie's group (now, I should add, combined with NDM's Brooklyn group) I think you are wrong. When my wife and I joined (both of us Dean leaners) and since then I think MOST of the people I interact with there are former Dean supporters. I think you don't give Marjorie enough credit: she was able to bridge the gap, bringing many of us Dean supporters into Kerry's circle. Thinking of all the Marjorie-connected people who are still active, the majority of them preferred Dean to Kerry but worked hard for Kerry after the primary. Similarly, many DFNYC participants in Park Slope (can't speak for elsewhere) identified themselves as starting working for Dean then supporting Kerry. So I think you are being unfair to these groups...though again, I will say that you are correct regarding a wider phenomenon of "purists" who will be your mortal enemy if you differ from them by .5% on issues. I will say, though, that your criticizing people for not talking enough about Kerry is interesting the the context of your calling for silence on racism in other forums.

Finally, although I don't believe you are a Hillary bot, I definitely see where Michael gets that view. You do bring her up and emphasize that she is "most qualified" pretty much as often as you can. Reminds me of the somewhat smug Yassky supporters who were kind of patronizing about supporting anyone else and would say, "but you MUST agree that Yassky is the most qualified." You are doing something similar with Hillary...and you may even be right, but do we really want someone who is experienced as an apologist for Bush's war? Furthermore, the discussion was about Kerry, not Hillary. Now you are free to bring up Hillary, but the fact that you do so in almost every discussion does give the impression of a Hill-bot.

Anyway, there is something in what you say regarding leftists being unwilling to support perfectly good candidates (like Gore and Kerry) and hence sitting it out while Republicans win. But 2006 seems to have been a turning point in that.