Reply #131: An argument can be made that Hamsher is losing

[saltpoint]

ground for the Left.

She's an expert film-maker.

But she's at best an amateur political analyst and a total wreck as an advocate.

There is a steady impression by progressive voters that Left-party candidates and movements are sometimes -- I do not say all times -- but sometimes ineffective and marginal because -- and here, you will just have to fill in the blanks: Underfunded? Outnumbered? Bitter? Dismissive? Narcissistic? Unwilling to compromise? Not representative of the working class psyche? How is it that left-party candidates have offered their candidacies to voters and voters, in astonishingly huge percentages, reject those candidacies?

The left, including Hamsher, stands for things a working class voter ought to very deeply care about, and the voters do in fact care about those things, but nevertheless do not support those candidates.

That's more than a serious problem. That is a self-canceling reality.

I am arguing for efforts toward realizable goals via effective means. Jane Hamsher does not recommend herself to that hinge. She has every right to continue playing footsy with Grover Norquist and characterizing Barbara Boxer's initiatives as "McCarthyesque" if she chooses; but at the end of the day I don't want anybody asking why the Left never gets anywhere in an election. The two are related. In a big way.