Jefferson's second term was an unmitigated disaster. The Embargo Act wrecked the economy in ways rarely seen again until the 1930's. The New England states nearly seceded as a result (for all those who think wrongly that secession was a uniquely southern phenomenon). He left office in disgrace, hated more than any departing president until possibly January 2009.

That being said, his first term was remarkably successful - he had Congress under his spell, the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark, and prosperity. Taxes were nearly abolished, and he scored an important foreign policy victory containing the Barbary pirates of Tripoli. Considering that he weakened the navy, this was all the more amazing. That same weakening led to the disastrous Chesapeake and Leopard episode during his second term, which in turn, was used as a major justification for the doomed Embargo Act.

Of course, the irony of Louisiana was not lost on his Federalist detractors - he admittedly "stretched the Constitution until it cracked" when he made that decision, going against his usually firm strict constructionist stance. But Napoleon was strapped for cash, and Jefferson couldn't resist getting control of the Mississippi and flipping a bird to England at the same time.

Jefferson's presidency was much like the man - a study in deep contradictions and contrasts, greatness and tragedy displayed in the extremes. He thought so little of his time in office, mainly because of his second term, that he didn't even place the accomplishment on his self-written epitaph.

Jefferson's final full year in office was 200 years ago. We are as far removed from the bicentennial today as he was from the drafting of the Declaration of Independence - which gives us a parallel perspective on the longevity of his service to the republic, and how the bright beacon cast by the Declaration softens even the darker and nearly forgotten aspects of his legacy.

I love his music. I have a shitload of his CD's and vinyl going back decades.

But.

Like his songwriting, his politics can be just as hit-or-miss. He can be crassly opportunistic and wrongheaded. For every "Tonight's The Night" work of brilliance, there's two "Hawks and Doves" or "Trans" destined for the remainder bin.

He can empathize with the scared person, sure enough. In the wake of 9-11, he was saying we should give up some of our civil liberties for security. He wrote "Let's Roll" in a fit of pseudo-heroic posturing. I almost thought he was going to tour with Toby Keith. I thought, "Fuck him, he's a Canadian, what right does he have to tell us what to do with our civil liberties?" No wonder Ronnie Van Zant (another Neil Young fan who understood the frustrations and contradictions that come with being one) wrote "Sweet Home Alabama".

It's any way the wind blows with Neil. I cringe when I think of how he supported Reagan in the 80's. I loved how he 'redeemed' himself when he slammed Bush Sr. on his "Freedom" album. I loved "Living With War" just about as much as anyone here. I could almost kind of forgive "Are You Passionate?" as a result. Some may defend his all-over-the-map rationalizations as quirkiness or independence - I prefer to think of it as too much fucking weed and coke over the years.

I suppose, like RVZ and many others, I have to live with the fact that his songwriting genius is just as occasionally and maddeningly compromised and limited as his world view at times. I take his views on impeachment with the same molecule of sodium chloride as his boner for Reagan.

The oppressors' first refuge is to claim they are the oppressed.

There was a twisted op-ed in the LA Times today about how gay marriages impinge on 'freedom of religion'. Last time I checked, there was no mention of a god in the Constitution, state or federal. There IS the 14th amendment. As for the 1st amendment, if people loving each other and committing to marriage, regardless of gender, have some magical powers in stopping another's constitutionally-protected practice of deity-worship, I am at a loss to explain it. Let freedom ring for both deity-worship-and-ritual-observance choice AND life partner choice! One does not need to negate the other.

Oh! Wait! I get it! The freedom to ostracize and deny rights to others is now a measure of 'religious freedom'. Shit, looking at Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion is busting out all over in that country. Or not.

I though religious freedom meant worshiping or not worshiping the deity or deities of one's choice or non-choice. Or observing the rituals of same. Or the absence of rituals. And throw in the parts about the prescribed dogmas one must adhere to (when convenient, of course), and the proscriptions masked as spiritual purity and "god's will", when they are actually just rationalizations of bigotry. So if the dogma of one's religion commands them to disparage homosexuality or the sanction of marriage for homosexuals, by all means, they are free to disparage. But that same freedom does not give one the concurrent freedom to deny others their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, and you can't stop homosexuals from marrying just because some desert-dwelling crank wrote it down on some scrolls 2,000 years ago. The guys in the powdered wigs over 200 years ago were, mercifully for us, products of the Enlightenment and not the Bronze Age.

Let freedom ring!

Obama's selection of Jason Furman as economic advisor is criticized

Labor union officials and some liberal activists say Furman is too enamored of globalization and too easy on Wal-Mart.

By Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

11:02 PM PDT, June 10, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Labor union officials and some liberal activists were seething Tuesday over Barack Obama's choice of centrist economist Jason Furman as the top economic advisor for the campaign. The critics say Furman, who was appointed to the post Monday, has overstated the potential benefits of globalization, Social Security private accounts and the low prices offered by Wal-Mart -- considered a corporate pariah by the labor movement.

Furman, 37, is linked closely to Robert Rubin, a Wall Street insider and Clinton economics aide who eventually became Treasury secretary. Rubin's views on global trade and deficit reduction riled liberal economists and labor activists, though his presence gave the Clinton administration valuable credibility in the business and financial communities.

"We are very much taken aback that Furman has been put at the head of this team," said Marco Trbovich, a senior aide to United Steelworkers President Leo W. Gerard, whose support is considered crucial to Obama's success in heavily unionized areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota and other battleground states.


More: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...


Sounds like more of the same ol' same ol'. "One caanot deliver change without inevitably serving the needs the system first."

I never counted you among the 'hive', for what it's worth. I was dismissing the juvenile supportes on both sides, and making it clear that just because I understand the impulse to provoke, doesn't mean I condone it.

I don't consider myself a hardcore Hillary supporter. I was behind Edwards, and could have tossed a coin either way after he dropped out. But I trust my gut, especially in politics, and while Hillary has many deep and varied flaws (I could go on for pages about her shortcomings if so inclined), I think Obama is a shyster and a con man who will lead this party over a cliff like the Pied Piper. I haven't forgotten his Bidenesque overtures to the Republicans and the "purple state" horsehit from not so long ago. Just wait until he gets his first NSA briefing. You are going to see capitulation, spin, and triangulation that would leave Bill Clinton dizzy. But it will be delivered with hosannas and amens to make it more palatable.

"Change" is one of the oldest saws in showbiz, I mean politics. Let's face it, "change" doesn't need a hard sell - by default anything but Bush or McCain is "change" on a grand scale. But I think the expectations for Obama are unrealistically high, and his hardcore base will either be disillusioned, or put themselves in deep denial and rationalization about his inevitable failures. There will probably be a split, and we will watch both sides go at it in April or so.

I am getting this out of my system now, while the race draws to its interminable end. I will vote for Obama, but any money I donate goes to the DNC to fight McCain. I can't get worked up about him. I smell snake oil with him, and have since he first emerged on the national scene. I have a built-in immunity to soaring rhetoric. I want, and demand, substance.

I have also posted in other threads that I would be very happy with Jim Webb as the VP pick. I would be less than excited about Richardson, Sebelius, or gawd forbid - Biden. They are all rank and file hacks of the old school. Especially MBNA Joe.

Anyway, there's the unvarnished ZombyTroof for you, as I have been delivering it around here for nearly 7 years. JenJen

His strengths are considerable. He is strongly pro-labor in a state which ranks 48th in union membership. He was the first statewide candidate in VA history to walk the picket line in support of a strike. In 1989, he helped the United Mine Workers win an important battle against the Pittston Steel Company. This is very important, as the Democratic Party needs to reclaim its working-class roots.

His stance against Bush and the Iraq quagmire is his second pillar of strength. His background in national security runs deep, and as a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam, he won the second and third highest medals given for combat. There will be no 'swiftboating' of him.

No ghostwriters needed. He is an acclaimed author of both fiction and non-fiction, including several major screenplays. He shuns pollsters, lobbyists, and focus groups.

He is pro-choice.

Certainly, there is no such thing as the perfect politician, or we'd have to run for office ourself. To point:

It is true he served as Asst. Sec'y of Defense during Reagan's last term, and Sec'y of the Navy for the last of those 4 years. But when Congress mandated defense budgest cuts in 1988, Webb resigned after fighting diligently within the Pentagon to preserve fleet infrastructure and personnel. He lost to the Pentagon faction who wanted to spend the reduced budget heavily on SDI and other weapons boondoggles. Webb saw how this would hurt the integrity of the fleet, being sacrificed for contractor greed. Although he expresses admiration for Reagan (the senator's biggest flaw for old-school liberals like me), you have to wonder what he thought of the PATCO strike-breaking and other anti-union actions by the Great Prevaricator. He is much too independent-minded to be eagerly embraced by either party, as was evidenced in the race against Allen. But I am certainly happy that he reclaimed his Democratic roots, as relayed through moving stories of his grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, and cousins.

He is passionate about restoring sanity to our national security policy, fiscal policy, and labor policy. If Obama wants to make 'change' real and lasting, he would do well to pick someone who can help him get there. I am leaning heavily in favor of Webb being on the ticket. By the time I finish the book in the next day or two, I will most likely be there fully. A most impressive background and resume, from a person of formidable intellect, character and integrity. True to his Scots-Irish roots (for which I share a great deal), he is a born fighter.

You can wish it were so, you can close your eyes and click the ruby slippers together, but there is no such thing as a 'clean' politician. It isn't possible. The unicorn has more credibility as a creature than a 'clean' politician.

I am not saying Obama is sleazy because he has strong and undeniable ties to Rezko and his money. Even the scrupulously honest Harry Truman had his Tom Pendergast. What I am saying is that even the best-intentioned politicians HAVE to grease the skids somehow, just to have a shot. It's a money-and-favor system, and it's not for the weak, or naive idealists. It has been this way since the Greek city-state, through the Roman Republic, and it was ever thus. It's the natural order. And it imperfect as it can be, it works more often than not.

The Great American Political Novel of All Time says it best: "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something."

There is always something.

I have always found the term "revisionist history" redundant, and a bit naive. All history by its very nature as a record of the past, is subject to constant revision, and rightfully considers new research, synthesizing it with older data, keeping what is useful, discarding what is not, understanding a subject's context, the prevailing mores, and cultural norms. It is an art more than a science. But it requires dismissing myth's seductions, with a willingness to look at people as they are, to cast off the plaster deities of old, and properly recast them as mere human beings of flesh and clay feet. Jefferson, clay feet and then some, was as flawed and complex and brilliant as any of the founders, which is why he constantly merits such scrutiny, and yes, revision.

A few rebuttals and addendums to your post:

When he was chosen to draft the Declaration, he included a call for the end of slavery, and placed the blame for its existence in the colonies sqaurely on King George III (never mind the Dutch role via New York, and that Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery, et al). Due to the inflammatory nature of his charges, and the unsupportability of his claims, the anti-slavery clause was struck from the Declaration. The committee was headed by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, whom ironically, were the closest to being abolitionists for their time, while Jefferson was the slaveholder. This committee's veto would hang with great peril over the republic until the thirteenth amendment passed in 1865.

In his "Notes on the State of Virginia", which in my opinion is his most important work, he discusses his views on slavery more candidly. Although the racial theorizing makes one wince - it is important to keep in mind that he was writing as a well-intentioned scientist and not motivated by hatred. He prophetically announced that slaves were destined to be freed. But as others of his time, would leave it for those in the future to decide. He never resolved his admittedly paradoxical views on the subject. Most memorable line: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that god is just." (God in the most deistic sense possible, as he was not a christian).

I do agree that his Statute for Religious Freedom in Virginia is a landmark, if for nothing else, influencing James Madison to include its core tenet in the first amendment of the Constitution some years later.

As a delegate in the Virginia Assembly, he and fellow delegate George Wyeth once considered the proposal of a bill which would outlaw slavery in three generations. They backed down and never introduced it, knowing they couldn't overcome the objections which would most certainly come from most quarters.

The University of Virginia was an important achievement. Jefferson wanted a national university, which would be more democratic in its objectives, affording a broader education (hence, being a true university as the name intends) than the usual law, Greek/Latin and rhetoric-centric coursework of his rather aristocratic alma mater William and Mary, or the equally effete Yale and Harvard institutions in New England. He wanted much more emphasis on science and mathematics than was the norm, being that he was America's truest embodiment of the Enlightenment principles of Locke and Newton (his two principal heroes).

Although it would be hard to argue that ending the importation of slaves was anything but a positive development, the fact is, it did lead to harsher fugitive slave laws, and did in no way improve the lot of slaves. Rape would now be the chief means of obtaining additional slaves, and hence slavery would continue to fester as a divisive wound. Still, ending the importation was an important step, but it was done for economic reasons, not humane ones. It was a form of protectionism, as a way for the slaveholders to rebuff the unpopular tariff. After all, even the Confederate Constitution of 1861 called for the non-importation of slaves.

Jefferson's greatest failure may very well have been the Embargo Act of 1807, during his second term as president - which is the reason that otherwise notable achievement did not make it to his self-inscribed tombstone. It took a prosperous country to the edge of permanent economic ruin, and nearly caused the New England states to secede. Jefferson's intentions, as always, were noble - it was a measure to maintain neutrality and avoid war - but the effects of the embargo were in many ways more ruinous than war may have been. Along with the devastation, it did nothing to achieve the ending of British impressment of American merchant seamen, a problem left for Madison - with war resulting after all. Jefferson left office the most despised man in the country, even moreso than the current White House occupant. Only time would soften his reputation, as the long shadow of the Declaration has protected him from the passions and preoccupations of the present.

Is when those in possession of true and correct thought seek to browbeat even the mildest of the dissenters into conformity.

If you don't support the true and correct candidate, or have the one and only correct interpretation of an event, or when the merits of your argument are deliberately sidestepped because they don't follow ideological prescription, then you are ignorantly and thoughtlessly labeled an appeaser or authoritarian.

It's disgusting, vile, and intellectually dishonest to the utmost degree.

How many of you have (or have had) a 401k?

By and large, they are usually made up of mutual funds, which (pardon my Investing 101 lecture) are an aggregation of stocks (and/or bonds) derived from many different companies. Some are comprised of stocks from a specific type of industry (like tech stocks) and others can be comprised of what level of risk they involve (high-yield bonds). There are other types, but you get the idea.

So if you have a 401k (or you invest in mutual funds on your own), I bet you have NO IDEA which specific companies are in your portfolio at any given time. Mutual funds can have lots of turnover within them within short bursts of time - perhaps a tech-sector fund can trade its Apple stock for some shares of IBM, etc. The point is, you could find out, but think about how much time and effort this takes from dayto day. That's where fund managers earn their keep.

It's likely John Edwards didn't keep on top of his hedge funds for the same reason - it's time-consuming and involves lots of micromanagement. And if that doesn't answer your "isn't he supposed to know these things?" question, then he knows now, doesn't he? He is doing the right thing by getting out now.

Let those who have the purest of portfolios cast the first stone.

Edwards is no hypocrite. I posted a thread some weeks back explaining that anyone who dares speak out about poverty and the class taboo in this country will be savaged. It's still the most verboten topic in mainstream political discourse. At best, it's dismissed as "firebrand populism", and at worst, "class warfare". Either way, the person is marginalized with due haste.

I support John Edwards for president. I do think his chances for securing the nomination are less likely now than at any time during the campaign. But the reason is because of how this will be spun and dissected in the media these coming weeks. Not because of poor judgment, hypocrisy, or phoniness on his part. He isn't perfect by a long shot, but neither is he the empty haircut of which his detractors claim.

After reading the first few dozen pages of his new book The Assault on Reason, I have concluded that America does not deserve him as president. I believe the damage to America is done, and probably irreparable, but I applaud him for soldiering on, and even if he does run, I am not sure the dumbed-down state of American discourse he decries in the book would permit him to flourish the way he should. Ironically, I believe the experiences of 2000 and since would prove him to be a much better candidate, one who fits his potential. The potential we always knew was there, but was frustrated by both his campaign style and the hostile media coverage. There is no reason to believe, even if he ran the most brilliant campaign ever, that the media would be any better this time around. In fact, it may even be worse, or he wouldn't have written the book at all.

I do not see the book as a platform for launching a 2008 campaign. In fact, I see it solidifying his post-professional political resume, along the lines of Jimmy Carter when he got involved with Habitat for Humanity and global peace initiatives. Gore's traction picked up with "An Inconvenient Truth" and gathers momentum with his new book. It will continue, without him seeking elected office of any kind.

I will wait until I finish the book and see if I change my mind. But I doubt it. Al Gore is too good to be president of the United States of America.

From 1980 through 2001, I visited Monticello four times. I never failed to gain new insights and appreciation each time. The true Renaissance genius of the Sage shines through in every facet.

Jefferson is doubtlessly one of the most complex of the framers (I loathe the term 'Founding Father' - it's much too quasi-religious and paternalistic) and probably inspires more intense feelings both positive and negative than any of them, as this thread bears out. He had the same effect in his lifetime, as evidenced by his bitter rivalry with Alexander Hamilton and mutual distrust of Aaron Burr. He is often the projection of our greatest hopes and fears about how we see America, and how we want to see America, for good or ill.

Much is rightfully made of his abilities as a statesman and interpretive philosopher. He distilled Montesquieu and Locke for the masses. His skills at architecture and invention put him among the elite of his time. He could very well be contradictory, and even hypocritical. He was a visionary, and he was a schemer. He was a politician. He was... human. With all the flaws and virtues of us and then some. Then projected at large by us, because after all, he penned the document that made us these United States. Naturally, he will always have history's sharpest scrutiny placed upon him.

Read his "Notes on Virginia" and witness him grapple with his ambivalence towards slavery, predicting its inevitable demise. His musings on the characteristics of slaves can make one wince, but there is no malice, just the sore limitations of his own time, even as he struggled to transcend it. Being a firm student of the scientific method, he left the door open to be wrong about his conclusions, and that were he alive today, he would see that science had indeed proven him wrong about African Americans and many other subjects of interest. His faith in reason to combat error was one of his redeeming virtues, even as his flaws were naked and many.

The "Statute on Religious Freedom in Virginia" is one of the essential founding documents of our nation. Its principles are under assualt today by the very people he warned about in these writings. We owe his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association for his immortal term "wall of separation between church and state". This inspired his friend James Madison to include this concept (no matter how it was worded differently, to you theocrats out there) in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights years later.

As governor of Virginia, Jefferson enacted laws which broke up large tracts of land held by aristocrats upon their deaths (who saw him as a traitor to his class, much like their descendants did with FDR), prohibiting their heirs from completely taking them over. This was in accordance with his philosophy, romantic as it was, that the small independent yeoman farmer is the future of the land. Jefferson's romanticism was perhaps his greatest virtue and flaw all at once.

Analyzing Jefferson and reaching sharp and strongly held conclusions about his character is an exercise one must approach with a healthy sense of perspective and self-confidence in the face of his formidable achievements. Be careful of what you may find, for you see much of yourself. He is not so much the American Sphinx as he is the American Mirror.

1984, Mario Cuomo's keynote address to the Democratic Convention, "A Tale of Two Cities":

Thank you very much.

On behalf of the great Empire State and the whole family of New York, let me thank you for the great privilege of being able to address this convention. Please allow me to skip the stories and the poetry and the temptation to deal in nice but vague rhetoric. Let me instead use this valuable opportunity to deal immediately with the questions that should determine this election and that we all know are vital to the American people.

Ten days ago, President Reagan admitted that although some people in this country seemed to be doing well nowadays, others were unhappy, even worried, about themselves, their families, and their futures. The President said that he didn't understand that fear. He said, "Why, this country is a shining city on a hill." And the President is right. In many ways we are a shining city on a hill.

But the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city's splendor and glory. A shining city is perhaps all the President sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. But there's another city; there's another part to the shining the city; the part where some people can't pay their mortgages, and most young people can't afford one; where students can't afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate.

In this part of the city there are more poor than ever, more families in trouble, more and more people who need help but can't find it. Even worse: There are elderly people who tremble in the basements of the houses there. And there are people who sleep in the city streets, in the gutter, where the glitter doesn't show. There are ghettos where thousands of young people, without a job or an education, give their lives away to drug dealers every day. There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don't see, in the places that you don't visit in your shining city.

In fact, Mr. President, this is a nation -- Mr. President you ought to know that this nation is more a "Tale of Two Cities" than it is just a "Shining City on a Hill."

More: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/m...

There have been three major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the past 15 years (and one of them homegrown by a vet of the first adventure in Iraq, for fans of irony). The premise that the neocon sandbox fiasco in Iraq would somehow prevent another one - a premise absurd and nonsensical to most of us - still provides tons of Goebbelsian fodder for Bush and the Talking Points Robots of the Right and their minions in the media. It was hilarious when we first heard the line "We have to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to over here!" Now it's reached a level not even satire or ridicule can do justice, but what the hell - I'll do it injustice anyway.

Is the threat of transplanted terrorism just more fearmongering? Is it some kind of perverse negative reinforcement, designed to motivate us to support the Iraq Quagmire based on the spectre of dodging roadside bombs on our daily commute? Here in L.A. there is no roadside bomb that couldn't be promptly disposed of by a few carjackers, random taggers, and the occasional fleeing white Bronco. A terrorist would be just one more asshole stuck on the Santa Monica freeway with the usual 300,000 others. (You can adjust this paragraph to fit your hometown. Go ahead, try it.)

What really cracks me up though, is that this tired mantra of the 'terra-ists comin' to get ya' is often quoted and believed by the deluded wingnut crowd. Aren't they the same ones who brag about how many semi-automatic weapons they fondle each night in bed, and how our freedom depends on all of us god-fearin' patriots being absolutely armed to our eyebrows?

What exactly is the problem here?

You'd think the gun-sniffers would welcome some domestic insurgent insertions into American Soil. "Bring 'em on!" they'd say. Fueled by the kind of cheerleading fervor only Sean Hannity can provide, it would be lock and load time! Hell, these Fox-soaked mongoloids ought to be sporting mighty Big Boners of Death for the chance to shoot a few terrorists lurking behind their backyard fences.

So what, even inexactly, is the fucking problem here? Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly, even Laura fergawdsake... all constantly warning us of the dangers of premature withdrawal (a method reportedly favored by the Pope) - leaving even the half-brained among us mystified about why the possibility of waves of undocumented terrorist immigrants pouring over our shores should fill us with just enough fear and apprehension that maybe, just maybe, we will support whatever it is they are doing. If they only knew what that was.

America is armed beyond our collective teeth and well into the glass of Polident. America should welcome the terrorists and teach them a thing or two about random violence. America should do all of that and more - but clearly the camo-wearing backwoods warriors who believe that they represent the Home of the Brave, who believe what Bush, Petraeus, and Neil Cavuto tell them, are actually just chickenshit cowards after all. Exposed, by the Very Big Lie that if we "don't fight the terrorists over there, we'll have to fight them over here." For fans of irony this doesn't disappoint, but for fans of satire, I failed, as it is truly and finally, as dead as Bush's brain.

As for me, I am ready... I am proud to be a Democrat and our field blows the Republicans out of the water, and then some. Not that we never do in the first place, it's just that this is the strongest field of Democratic candidates in decades. And the Republican field is as weak as it has ever been. The media, as always, will be a much more formidable opponent and we must be ever vigilant when it comes to their aiding and abetting of the Republicans. Yes, there is Diebold and the spectre of another stolen election, but my optimism burns brightly and I firmly believe we will prevail.

We who have known the war was wrong all along.

We who have known the lack of affordable health care would reach epic proportions.

We who have known that environmental degradation would only worsen under Republican rule. The soft-pedaled term "climate change" is now being called for what it really is: Global Warming.

We who have watched with shame the abuses and damages to our civil liberties, including the cornerstone which is habeas corpus. The perpetuation of torture, spying, and warrantless searches and wiretapping have made a mockery of the Bill of Rights.

We who have watched America's standing and reputation deservedly take a beating world-wide, with the goodwill after 9/11 disappearing between the gap in Condi's teeth.

We have been right all along about all of this and more. For these reasons, we will be rewarded for our patience, perseverance, and persistence.

We have lost many fellow travelers who helped us in this Good Fight. Paul Wellstone. Scott Lowery. Andy Stephenson.

We have lost too many in Iraq. We have lost our way in Afghanistan.

We have also gained many new allies. We welcome them every day into the fold. We're stronger every day.

No matter whom you support for the next president of the United States, we all know too well what is at stake.


So in the face of all this, you should be proud of your choice, and be proud of how far we have come these past long and treacherous 6 years and counting. So much more to do, but we're almost there!