(So as to avoid appearance of dogging someone for a comment passive-aggressively, I'll refrain from pointing you to the source page.)
I quote from a discussion of NARAL, Casey and a "broader movement".
Casey will win. The primary is a formality. Whether that is good or bad is not as important as the fact that it is. And we have to plan our politics accordingly; that is to say, who would we rather have win between the two who have a legitimate chance?
I'm not pissed at the speaker so much as the attitude. We scream and yell for progressive candidates, and then virtually IGNORE them when they exist. Of the 94 comments (to date) in the original discussion, Chuck Pennacchio is mentioned only twice. Yep. Twice.
And people from this particular blog community aren't unaware of him. Trouble is, a familiar defeatism is apparently creeping its way into the consciousness of the very group that could help him get elected.
Imagine if the blogosphere got behind Dr. Pennacchio the way it rallied around Paul Hackett.
Isn't the definition of "legitimate" based, in part, on our efforts to raise awareness about progressive candidates? I mean, what the hell are we doing here if not using our tools as "citizen journalists" (no matter how pretentious the term in some cases) if we don't pick up the slack left by the mainstream press?
It's up to us to talk about candidates that we support. It's up to us to do all we can to raise awareness in our local communities about choices outside of the usual contenders. And if we just roll over and blithely accept that progressive leaders are the stuff of fiction, then I swear I don't know why any of us feel qualified to pontificate about politics at all.