Following Clay's good thoughts on if Dean is a movement or candidate (answer still could still be both, especially with momentum), its a question that raised another quesiton for me. Naval gazing amongst activists gathers no lint. Or for hunched over technologists spending too much time close to their belly-buttons. But Clay is right that this calls into question the connection between bottom-up and top-down. Implementation is reality. Inevitably, the top co-opts the bottom when past the tipping point. Assume for a minute that Dean is not mainstream. Not to say Dean is a third-party candidate, but issues of war and participatory democracy were not mainstream when he raised them. Third party candidates have never won, but their issues become the issues of both parties. Kerry's podium has a URL on it, the environment and finance reform of campaigns past are at least cow-towed -- and the system of representation is better for it. So the question is this: will the co-opted issue be war or participatory democracy? Obviously, the responders to this question will be biased in favor of the later as they have to use enabling tools to respond. Regardless of response or campaign outcome, abandonment of identifying issues isn't or going to happen, because the point tipped.