but then be pragmatic in the general. Seems to me that this doesn't work well for progressives, particularly in a crowded field. What if we were to turn that around and vote pragmatically in the primaries?

I ask because I'm torn again this cycle. Last time around, although my default candidate was Kucinich, I supported Dean through the primaries and would have voted for him had he not dropped out before the Georgia vote. Dean wasn't the most progressive candidate in the field, but he got (and gets) progressive concerns, and he struck me as the most viable, and happiest, "compromise" candidate.

This time, the media have, of course, crowned Hillary and Obama, neither of whom impresses me particularly for a number of reasons. Not to make this into Yet Another Hillary Thread, but it seems to me that the danger of her, were she to be elected, following her husband's triangulatin' ways and wasting a Dem turn in the White House by getting little of import done is not to be dismissed.

So, what to do? Would all the support the left could muster mean much in the final outcome for Dennis, or does it make sense to look at someone acceptable-to-good (ymmv on this count, of course) who can win over the kind of candidate we know we don't want?

And who would that be? I understand the IWR concerns, but I like Edwards for my money. But that's me. What say you, fellow leftwing freaks?