When Howard Dean ran against the Iraq war in 2004 he was the only candidate doing so.

[GreatGazoo]

The eventual nominee, Kerry, never took on Bush or the war directly, just said he would do a better job with it.

Howard Dean is credited with being among the first to organize outside the mainstream. To use the internet to find new bases of support and to give a voice to those who find TV to narrow. His energetic, from-the-hip style had Rove scared. Rove called him the 'the Democratic Ronald Reagan.' The media pushed the narrative that Dean was to liberal to win and then they used one simple "scream" at his post-Iowa rally to declare his candidacy dead.

Kerry went on, tried Republican Lite against a very unpopular President. It failed.

Deja vu?

[Fawke Em]

1. Wes Clark ran against it, too.

But I get your point.

[GreatGazoo]

3. and how could I forget Dennis Kucinich.

But ultimately it was one more time than we were not allowed a real range of choice. It was just continue the war with Bush versus continue the war with Kerry at the helm.

[islandmkl]

2. it is not beyond the TW/DNC's operating scheme to offer voters a choice:

between them and the RNC there are two versions of Republican values, positions, and programs....luckily this year, the actual Republican candidate is/might be so off the rails that even Republicans are having a hard time swallowing him (but they always do)...and the time-tested (since 1992, anyway) RepublicanLite™ candidate which should get the 'loyalist' Democratic vote and maybe some disillusioned Republicans who can't stomach their candidate...

sounds like a winning formula...

and we can just wait another 4 or 8 years and see if we can finally get this oligarchical yoke off our necks...