I'm not especially excited about these sorts of things. I'm not even sure if the Port Huron Statement really had any practical political effect. Manifestos certainly have their appeal.
One thing, though, I'm not sure that fact that these have been or are written by a small, unrepresentative group is a problem. After all, The Declaration of Independence was a perfect example of just such a document.
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers fall into that category, too.
That's a very good question. And I'm not backing a candidate at this point.
I'm not too excited about any of the announced candidates right now.
Getting involved at this point in the game, unless I'm helping raise money for someone I really like, isn't likely to do much anyway. Although, I do have friends who ask me who I'm backing, all the time. A good chunk of them (the one's I know who don't work in politics) will take my advice very seriously. But it's still very early.
If Gore jumped in I think I'd do a lot to help him. I've got other things to worry about right now anyway. We've got our first statewide caucus in just a few months.
What's funny is that the narrative in the press is that the Democrats are beholden to a radical minority in their party. That minority is said to be the "anti-war" faction. But the story reverses the roles. The small minority in the Democratic party who support the status-quo are the ones holding the party in check. We know, though, that they are out of touch with American opinion.
What really startles me is that the Blue-dogs don't seem to have that much control over the money funding elections nation-wide. How do they wield so much power?