> The "primary challenge" to Obama from the left was and is
> personified in Dennis Kucinich. There is no alternative in sight.
I was just re-reading the 18th Brumaire, reflecting on the similarities and differences between Louis B and Barack O. But what's more a propos here is the overall lesson: that certain types of personality play particular roles in history -- from epic to tragicomic -- as they conform or fail to conform to the Zeitgeist.
I don't know if Kucinich would be the chosen one. Feingold seems to be vying for the role as well. Others may still rise to the occasion, or not. Kucinich keeps trying, and trying is sine qua non. Because people try with whatever is out there. Perfect soul mates don't exist in politics either. So I'm not ruling him out.
But, other things equal, we have to recognize that, aside from the very hardened (social) objectivity of the hierarchical division of labor, the need for leadership, a caudillo, etc., intertwined with it, there is a collective imagery or imagination of the attributes of strong personal leadership, etc. And that imagery has its measure of social objectivity. I mean, it may be more in flux than, say, the vertical division of labor, but still, largely the realm of "irrationality" (or "randomness" or whatever), especially in a society like ours.
If you wish, that's our Pavlovian or "reptilian" collective brain, except that it's not biological but socially conditioned. My thinking here is that, if we are going to bash our heads against a social, economic, or political wall, we should pick a softer one. But who knows.