In theory, what you say is on the ball.  That's what's written on paper, but institutions are more than something written on paper.  And I think that the agenda setting power of the US President has not been given significant notice.

My concern is that we have a US President of the "Left" who promotes liberal not social democratic policy.  And that when the pot boils over, social democratic policies do come, but from a third party.  And that you have this political "revolution" where the party system collapses like happened in Italy in 1994.  But that was not a time of economic crisis, 2008 is.

As for primarying, I think that this may actually make things worse.  Because I think that a lot of this movement has been directed (in money terms) by liberal, not social democrats, and that when faced with a conflict between social democracy and liberalism, many of the new Congresspersons and Senators have adopted a social democratic path.  

And because the movement behind these primary challenges is fundamentally liberal, not social democratic, I think that the risk exists that social democrats will be the subject of challenges by liberals.

Pelosi? She's been a god damn joke, she's the uberliberal who's been at odds with social democratic tendencies from the new members.  She blocked labor from meeting with the new members at the same time as she set up a meeting for Robert Rubin.  After I created a stink about it on Daily Kos, her staff emailed me saying that there would be a later meeting with labor.

So far as I can tell, it never occurred.  

Now who's the wunderkind behind the Obama campaign?  

Rubin and his disciples.

They were successful in using the primary to make sure a liberal , not a "social democrat" was the nominee.

Do you see a theme here?


And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg