Obviously there are idealogical differences in the party...but if you look at them in comparison to differences with the Republican Party as currently cinstituted...they are pretty minor.

The divide is about method and message.

We can have debates here over say National Health Insurance, and we will get a debate that appears idealogical, but really it is more about a view of the process we should go through to achieve our goals.

For example, if you pinned down those not in favor of pushing a single-payer plan, you would probably find that most of them would actually welcome such a system. And if you pinned down someone in favor of pushing such a plan, they would probably admit that passage is probably not possible in the current climate.

The divide between Dennis Kucinich (and many others) and Hillary Clinton (and many others) is not so much about idealogy as about method and message. Kucinich believes it is important to get out our position on a single payer plan, and stick to it. Do not compromise, but take an unwavering position and bring the country to us. Someone like Hillary Clinton would welcome a single payer plan, but believes the country is not ready to accept such a bold plan, and so the best way to get there is to nibble at it one piece at a time, with the view that it is ok to compromise as long as some progress is made.

I take the latter view, but I recognize the value of the former. Dennis Kucinich is a chest thumper -and I am not using that as a pejorative - someone who boldly articulates a goal, and sticks to that goal without compromise. He believes it is important to convince the country of the correctness of that vision. Paul Wellstone was the same way...I admire both men.

However, men like Kucinich are not viable in a national election. The type of person that is going to be elected is more the Hillary Clinton type (just an example, not looking for a Hillary electibility debate). Someone who is going to work within the system and is gonna compromise.

There is nothing wrong with that. Every great President started out that way, recognizing the politicial limits of what they were proposing. But, every one of those great Presidents had someone like Dennis Kucinich pushing them down the path, and articulating where we were going to ultimately end up.

Abraham Lincoln, hardly an abolitionist ultimately freed the slaves, pushed along by people such as Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth. But his correct political instincts told him he could not advocate that position until the right time. FDR, with an insensitivity to race had Eleanor to bring him along, and thus began the identification with the Democratic Party among African Americans. JFK and LBJ had MLK laying the groundwork for civil rights legislation and the Great Society...

In fact I would argue a President cannot be truly great without such a presence...and I would argue we cannot be viable electorally, or as an effective governing party without both types of people.