Looking at the how the election results broke, it's pretty clear the Democrats abandoned Dean's strategy of having an underlying national strategy to back up the individual candidates.

Regardless of the tide Etc. in favor of Republicans, nothing helped them win big more than the return of the Democratic party of old where "everyone is/was on his/her own" under Kean.

All the elements of team spirit Dean had imbued the Party apparatus with was gone.

Prior to Howard Dean, the Democrats had the deserved reputation for poor organization, lack of unity/focus Etc. vs. the traditional smooth running Republican machine.

Howard Dean came in after 2004, and by 2006 he had created a national Democratic structure that was good enough to beat the Republicans, even in Alaska.

It was his 50 state strategy that put money into Alaska after decades of being considered a lost cause. It was key to Democratic Senator Begich's win from Alaska. It created a state party structure Begich accessed to turn out his vote.

2 years after Dean, nothing was left and a golden opportunity to exploit a split Republican constituency was lost.

After 2008 despite his success, Howard was told his services were no longer needed, and Kean replaced him.

It was Rahm Emmanuel who apparently insisted Howard Dean go.

Rahm was angry Howard Dean got the credit for the successful strategy that carried the Democrats to victory in 2006 and 2008.

Rahm hated the campaign in all 50 states Howard Dean instituted, considering it a waste of money. He felt he deserved the credit for the party wins as the campaign chairman of the House (I think that's what the office is called).

The unity that gave Pelosi the speakership several years ago was due in large part to a unified House effort - members joined together to make sure the public knew Democratic house members stood with the people on key issues. Dean's national party apparatus helped in many ways the public doesn't see - psychological support is extremely important to candidates running in tough races. Knowing you're on a team helps too, and Dean made sure Democratic candidates didn't feel like lonely soldiers.

This time around they made NO effort to show a united front, and the Republicans did. For Republicans it was the "bogus grass roots" Tea Party.

The senate and governorship the same. All across the nation it seemed it was the "Individual Democrat" vs. the Republican party machine represented by whoever.

Yes money matters, independent groups matter, all factors matter, but none is more important than unity of purpose on our side.

It certainly won the day for Republicans in 2010.

Under Kean the "Democratic brand/team" that Howard Dean had built up was also abandoned.

The party no longer was able to maintain a good public face for the public. Yes I know a large part when the President is from your party, he plays the major role, but it is NOT supposed to be just the president.

Yet that's what Team Kean must have figured was a good idea figuring Obama's speaking skills were so good, they didn't have to worry about support.

Nobody continues to win when one of the first things done after the 'big win' is to dismantle all the elements of the party that won it all.

By NO means is this a slam on President Obama.

I'm strictly talking party planning, execution of strategy, maintaining unity, backing each other up, what the party strategy focus is/was Etc.

The role Dean played is a supportive one when your man is president. It's there to help him shine and the party stay 100% ready to face politics day to day.

Not having Dean there, someone who knows how to "support" not just take orders, started to hurt President Obama early on.

Without Dean the DC political game became President Obama a team of 1 versus the entire Republican party.

It didn't help that petty party squabbles that Dean was able to keep private started to become public again, making the Democrats look weak.

While I know it won't happen, if Democrats want to win in 2012 Dean needs to be brought back to restore order.

Maybe they'll realize that in letting Dean go, they let the one man who would have effectively had the President's back during these long 2 years, and will have during the next two. Should they bring him back.

Bringing Dean back is unlikely though, but I can hope.

Obama's EPA riles Bush's industry hacks

Something to think about for those of us who are NOT blinded by his failure to pursue our own pet issue of greatest importance...

Also since President Obama took office, our food supply has become dramatically safer for the same reasons, he has delivered a lot of the change he promised.

Too bad neither of these have the emotional appeal of a personal single issue like gay marriage or ending the war.

As important as they may be, cleaner air, and food safe to eat are just as important, and affect everyone, not just a segment of the population.

Too bad for President Obama so few people, even liberals and progressives are aware of just how bad things were getting under President Bush.

I guess the lack of "safety recalls" and the lack of case filed against polluters under the Bush Admin. = "success" in controlling it.

No matter what I feel he has fallen short of this November, I will support him.

Not supporting him is the stupidest, most self-defeating thing any true liberal or progressive can do.

Not because the other side is worse, but because he actually is getting things done.

 
When it comes to a situation like he describes as possible, Europe would step in, just as they did with the Greek financial problem.

He is wrong on that point also.

If Europe hadn't stepped in after wringing every possible concession from Greece, Germany and France would have paid in the billions, because it was mostly their banks who held the debt and still do.

The bottom line is even if the rest of Europe did NOT care, they would act because the EU is a single market. Access in one nation often means equal access to every EU nation.

The fact that this guy seems oblivious to this, and the implications is all you need to know what he says is nonsense.

It's also a bit paranoid.

It's the kind of thinking that got us into 2 wars.

It's cold war thinking.

If China is so evil, why are we doing business with it.

And it would have to be "that evil" to justify worrying about a small purchase in total of Greek bonds.

His whole premise is just poorly thought out and utterly illogical.

Every nation has ulterior motives. We may not agree with China's ulterior motives, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

Time needs to pass before jumping the gun and automatically declaring a Chinese investment in Greek bonds proof of laying the groundwork for sabotage of the EU.

Finally a far more logical and sensible explanation in this case is revealed when one takes into account the PRChina's willingness to take much smaller markets vs. a vs. competitors.

This is not due to a desire to subvert and take over as much as a different world view.

The Chinese figure it's better to make a 1000 deals very fast and build quickly to make 1,000,000,000.

That's very different from the blatantly singularly greed motivated modern Western basis for action which is to get the maximum amount possible by any means possible for every single deal.

Both sides are equally interested in money, but the PR China doesn't hold maximum yield as the only principal upon which to base every decision.

So the reason the PR China is stepping in is it sees a golden opportunity to make quick and easy money offering to lend to Greece at lower interest rates than the Western financiers.

Being so flush with cash, they certainly feel no pressure to demand the highest interest rates matching western financing, and by offering Greece this deal and indirectly Europe, the PR China can score big points with almost all the Governments who are all very tired of the hard as nails tactics of modern finance.

By giving them an alternative - competition, sooner or later they will have to match the lower offer add value to justify the higher price.

By doing this PR China can help the European economies recover more quickly and relieve itself of the pressure to allow its currency to float.

All very normal rational reasons for this sort of thing.

The paranoia he uses in order to "figure out" the PR China is just unnecessary and silly.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/massive-fis...

During the Bush years, the FDA and other Federal agencies responsible for ensuring the safety of products sold to consumers to helping companies "comply with regulations without creating undue expenses and damaging their market" possibly driving them out of business (yes I know what bullshit).

As the Bush years passed, companies became "clients" of these agencies, rather than their regulatory responsibility. Working together with them became the priority.

The result was devastating to the consumer.

Once the regulatory agencies under Bush basically abandoned their protection role, the flow of unsafe garbage from overseas became a flood.

We'll never know how many Americans were harmed in this way, for immediacy is a must when finding out who what when where. Yet the Bush Admin regulators did nothing or threw up their arms and gave up without a fight.

We rarely saw a recall of any product.

The response by Bush admin regulators to finding food tainted with bacteria that could cause food poisoning says it all.

The FDA spent months trying to find the source. Eventually it gave up, without ever figuring it out claiming the supply chain was too complex and long to prove or find any one supplier who was at fault.

Basically unscrupulous food suppliers got away with murder, because some died from that food poisoning.

UNDER OBAMA this changed pretty quickly.

The recent discovery of salmonella bacteria in eggs was solved in weeks.

The often used excuse of the Bush Admin -the suppler chain on any one product being such a complex web finding sources of contamination was next to impossible- was not heard.

Instead we saw successful action, and the guilty company's executive testifying before congress explaining himself as the investigation goes on.

OBAMA has restored the Government's role as THE GUARDIAN of the consumer, and the FDA the watchdog of our drug industry.

Johnson and Johnson is NOT going to get away with another "phantom recall."

It no longer sees companies it regulates as "clients". They re once again regulatory responsibilities, done in the name of and for the public.

It NO LONGER MAKES THE SOLE CONSIDERATION FOR TAKING OR NOT TAKING ACTION the needs of businesses who flout our laws are derelict in production.

Today's big toy recall is a case in point.

Millions of toys are being recalled for safety reasons - poor design has caused numerous injuries in small children.

Compare that to the toy recall under bush. Nothing was does about lead in the paint used in toys made in China until the media took note.

President Obama's admin. acts without any need for media embarrassment.


It is like night and day.

President Obama has restored the Government's ability to regulate and ensure the safety of consumer products, medications Etc. after President Bush corrupted it by appointing industry hacks who spent their days foiling its efforts

Yet almost nobody on our team even bothers to mention these successes!

Have so many of us become consumed with a single issue that we have become "glass half empty" types unable to recognize when President Obama actually fulfills one of his promises?

He promised to restore the Government's ability to keep our food supply safe as possible, and ensure manufacturers don't get away with selling defective or dangerous products, and after 2 years of regular recalls, he has succeeded.

Yes I know I'm repeating myself saying the same thing in different ways, BUT IT BEARS REPEATING until it sinks in that we have received something tangible from the Obama administration and Democrats in charge.

We canNOT depend or expect the media to report the good stuff or explain that these changes happened, because President Obama believes in the government's role as protector of the consumer.

In trying to assess the Obama administration the worst thing we as Democrats can do is adopt the Republican tactic of only judging based on how he has failed to so far deliver on something, like health care.

Conflating distinct issues is not only unfair it's wrong and illogical. We have to stop making celebrating his successes contingent on succeeding on everything.

All too often the issues are utterly disconnected, and success in one has no bearing on success on another issue.

He has delivered big time on changes that benefit all of us in a variety of big and small, life and death matters when it comes to restoring the Government's food, drug and import regulatory role.

We should NOT deny him credit or fail to acknowledge the good and credible changes, because he's stalled on another issue.

There are many days left in his administration.

There will be many future opportunities to push his admin to do the right thing on DADT, Health care Etc.

In the run up to the midterms however, our focus should be on the hardcore, real and good changes he's made that benefit every American equally.

This is a must, because if we don't speak up no one will. If we don't we will ultimately share the blame for allowing the other side's big lies become the truth on which Americans decide who to vote for this November.

http://www.statesman.com/business/wal-mart...

Oh before you reply, the snarky dismissal - that this only partially compensates for the gases produced by "producing their products" is bogus, because every company that makes something necessarily produces greenhouse gases as a byproduct, yet I know of NO major mega-corporation making any effort to compensate in any way. In fact most do the exact opposite.

Give credit where credit's due.

It is the ONE major retailer that actually LISTENS to its critics.

Yet every time Wal-Mart does the right thing, the tone deaf, "image and label" conscious progressive liberal type declares its just another way to suck the life out of its customers; that it's too little too late or that Wal-Mart should pay for benefits that are above the industry norm, and certainly better than its competitors. Why, well because it's Wal-Mart.

They say this while turning a blind eye to other retailers who do as bad, if not worse, and who have their products made in the same Chinese factories that Wal-Mart uses.

Just a few "positive improvements" made by Wal-Mart, that no competitor like Target has attempted to do.

1.Organic food

2. Encouraging suppliers use better ingredients and keep costs low by having a top notch line of in-house food products (Sam's Choice products use sugar over HFC, natural vanilla over vanillin, butter over margarine Etc.)

3. Coming up with a health plan that even part time workers can afford

4. Virtually single-handedly bringing the ear of incandescent bulbs to an early end, by aggressively pushing flourescent and LED bulbs at the lowest prices possible and declaring they will be among the first to stop selling them. Once Wal-Mart declared their intentions they actually lobbied various competitors to follow suit, like Walgreens Etc.

5. Wal-Mart provides "low cost" paycheck cashing services that save a lot of money for the typical working class person who lacks a checking account and previously only had those extremely high cost check cashing services to depend on.

Yet no one gives credit to Wal-Mart for saving the most hard up wage earners 5-10% of their paycheck. The reason is something like - well they should cash the check for free, because they're going to spend it at Wal-Mart. Umm, Wal-Mart comes pretty close to doing just that.

6. Wal-Mart is a pioneer in providing low-cost health care to the public by opening a chain of clinics to attend to the many health issues that many of us rush to a Dr. for, when all we really have is a bad cold.

Instead of pricey Drs. visits that many of their customers can't afford insurance or no insurance, they get a low cost per visit with a medical practitioner usually a nurse or physician's assistant who is more than highly trained to handle such routine health matters. Of course serious issues are referred elsewhere.

Again no credit from Progressives and Liberals, because they KNOW the only reason Wal-Mart did this was to increase the sales in their pharmacy Dept. Well even if they did, the fact of the matter is they are providing an AFFORDABLE, EASY ACCESS basic healthcare for many people who otherwise go without and possibly get much worse.


7. Even when it fails Wal-Mart tries to do the right thing as in selling reusable shopping bags at 50cents strategically located at the checkout. As for why they charge, while providing plastic for free. Well, free means no value to many which would turn those reusable bags into to trash as easily as the plastic ones are now.

Wal-Mart has a big part in keeping the effects of the growing poverty in this nation from being felt in full force. Often being able to shop at Wal-Mart is the defining difference between feeling poor and helpless and empowered, if only for the fact you can provide for yourself and your family with income that just wouldn't cover it at small mom and pop shops that specialize in high prices and outdated products.

The biggest sign of the self-indulgent ignorance that fuels the knee-jerk anti-Wal-Mart sentiment on the left side is "everything is made in China." Well first name a retailer who's stuff isn't.

Second, few of the things made in China and sold at Wal-Mart have been critical to the health and growth of the American economy for decades. Our industrial base is declining absolutely, but I doubt if it is due to toxic toys from China, or super cheap garden tools and seeds Etc.

The things that were and still are "critical to economic health" of the United States are high-priced items that are NOT part of the "everyday necessities" that is Wal-Mart's bread and butter.

Wal-Mart is not a perfect employer, but which retailer does better? None.

Wal-Mart would support laws that improved worker protections as long as EVERY competitor had to adhere to the same standards. Yet anti-Wal-Mart types keep demanding ONLY Wal-Mart adhere to the higher standard, leaving its competitors alone.

The sad irony is the contempt so many progressives and liberals have for Wal-Mart, the blinding sense of self-righteousness has resulted in a corporation that is probably the MOST responsive and progressive major corporation in the USA being seen as an enemy of the people.

I wonder what things could be accomplished if progressives and liberals stopped making a lie part of their strategy to improve this country. Wal-Mart at its worst is no worse than any other retailer.

The truth is, just doing what it does Wal-Mart has done quite a few positive things directly in response to pressure from the public often from the Left Side of things that have met with a cold shoulder from any other major corporation.

Rather than looking for reasons to continue to hate it, we should focus on finding time to talk to the one major corporation in the USA that actually willingly listens to the public.

I have a feeling, based on their history of responding that they'd do even better, because they'd not have to make improvements while defending themselves from the big lie that Wal-Mart is the worst of the worst.

Corporations may be heartless and soulless but the people that run them aren't, and clearly the decisions the leaders of Wal-Mart have made over the years that are good for its customers and the country, beyond that which makes money says they care far more than any other similar group.

 
It will all come out sooner or later.

The cell phone inadvertently closed shut while she was talking right on her eye with 10gs of force causing black eye #1

Dazed and confused she blamed the innocent, law abiding, justice defending peace offer.

When he extended a kind helping hand to help her, she yanked away like all guilt-ridden, lying criminals do and made another phone call, only to get a second black eye when her seriously defective phone with jackhammer closing joints slammed shut on her good eye causing her second black eye.

Naturally this sent the criminal woman into a frenzy.

The tender hearted cop realized this was all being captured on film and turned off the camera to spare the woman the inevitable humiliation that would follow should this vid reach the public.

By the time he came back though it was escalating.

Fustrated that she couldn't complete a call with her cell phone she threw it violently to the ground only for it to bounce up almost as fast and hard right into her forehead causing that wound, ricocheted off her head off the wall and hit her again and again, breaking her nose in the process.

The good, decent police officer tried to help but the cell phone was like some sort of new military tech able to respond in kind to any attempt to disable it by disabling the owner of the cellphone.

5 minutes later the ricocheting cell phone finally came to stop after the repeated blows knocked her bloodied, to the ground unconscious.

Too late the good peace officer realized he should have filmed this for proof of his good intentions and that is where we come back in after he turns the video back on.

The battery of the misogynistic cell phone had run out though, and didn't attack the woman again.

So naturally when she came to she blamed the good officer who was only trying to help her. Oh yes he was.

Bad bad progressives being so groundlessly suspicious of all our men in blue who spend 24/7 thinking of ways to protect us.

This sounds for more reasonable than the description of what happened given by the police man's lawyer. LOL

That is extremely important when trying to understand how the rapidly developed trade relationship between the USA and China developed to its current unhealthy state.

If you have you wondered from time to time just how can it be possible for it to be cheaper to bring over products that are already pretty cheap to make from China - things like gum, lotion, everyday products that can't have enough margin to justify importing this is a big part of the answer.

Importers and exporters are exempt from all fuel taxes.

This is a huge "tax break" especially for importers over exporters, considering that the smaller the overall price of the product you are selling the bigger factor a "tax break" tax break on all fuel taxes becomes in making a profit.

I understand that fuel is the biggest expense shippers face.

For those who might not know "shippers" are NOT part of the manufacturers or big name companies we know. They are little known multi-billion $ companies paid to transport goods across the globe.

They exist in a world few Americans are only dimly aware of. Their key role and vast impact rules and regulations governing international trade have on the local economy by way of creating unfair advantages for overseas industries vs a vs. local industry is even less widely known.

The average tax per gallon in the USA, 46 cents.

A typical loaded semi might get 3miles per gallon fully loaded driving the miles from LA to NYC.

Fuel Taxes alone would amount to $460 per load - that's a grossly rough estimate. the purpose is only to compare it to the taxes an international shipper would pay.

An international shipper transporting from Hong Kong to LA, CA would pay $0 in fuel taxes despite traveling many times further!!

Considering the total savings, this tax break can be the profit margin plus for many international shippers.


Can you imagine what would happen if they had to pay European level fuel taxes usually several dollars in the heavily taxed Euro nations.

Everyone locally all local businesses and industries have to pay this tax to ship their products to local consumers. When they do, they get the privilege of paying the local going tax rate.
When you factor that in to the cost of making something suddenly the strange proposition of it being cheaper to make candy in China and ship it to the USA starts to make sense.

International Shipping has all sorts of incentives to make it "affordable."

Free market advocates conveniently NEVER mention this.


In their eyes this is essential to make it possible to trade internationally.

Which is of course nonsense.

Cheap stuff like candy and other consumer products would not be cheaper to make overseas without such hidden subsidies.

World economic efficiency does not benefit when taxing policies create false paradigms that grant benefits to decisions that otherwise would make little economic sense.

Instead hidden subsidies like this one create fertile ground for the growth of parasitic trade whose margin would not exist were it not for the subsidies, and by no measure meet the principal behind the original decision which was to take advantage of differing costs of manufacturing in the world to locate and send the manufacturing most efficiently done there.

Theoretically there should be ample locations, many with their own "strength." This diversity is supposed to prevent a super concentration of manufacturing and industry in any one world location.

The "international fuel trade tax exemption" cripples this mechanism resulting in the development of parasitic trade relationships that only benefit one side in terms of long-term growth and development.

Paying the going tax rate for fuel would NOT kill international trade.

It would slow it down to its natural level and help it return to sensible reasonable levels of growth, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY encourage the businesses who shipped work overseas to come back home.

The products that truly do benefit from overseas production would stay there - going a long way to restoring the integrity that was behind the original act to exempt fuel used by international trade from all taxes

Removing the cutthroat advantages these subsidies create in trade benefits both sides.

China would be allowed to develop more sensibly and avoided much of the nightmare associated with becoming the world's factory floor and its people suffering from the effects of the massive pollution this has caused.

Americans would have been able to move away from those industries that are better done in China without the massive economic dislocation that is stripping this nation of its economic strength replacing it with fantasy wealth based on nothing more than financial rules and regulations that only exist because every player promises to respect them.

because when it comes down to our biology, what drives us Etc. we are very much animals, like dogs, cats, monkeys Etc. Our huge powerful brain does NOT alter what this means.

Because so many don't realize or refuse to accept it confusion results like that expressed above as he flays around looking for an explanation to why women don't won't do this except in rare cases.

The ability to act like this is tied to one thing - a much higher testosterone/estrogen ratio than a woman.

How hard you laugh or how quickly you dismiss this is directly related to the level of ignorance you have towards human physiology.

The proof is hard and solid.

Millions of men have had their testosterone levels collapse for a variety of health reasons.

And one of the most reported results is a dramatic reduction in aggressive behavior. They become more go with the flow, less likely to make issues of things on all levels.

They also lose the control of emotions that men usually have, because they "feel" them more.

Similarly women who experience long-term rises in testosterone up to those of a man undergo changes that make them far more aggressive, obnoxious than other women, and if not treated will experience changes in their body to make them more masculine, some permanent. One that is odd, but true is an enlargement of the clitoris echoing what happens in the womb to male fetuses.

If you think I'm kidding, I'm not. It's true.

When it comes to this issue, understanding the difference between men and women has nothing to do with our culture, or sexism.

It has everything to do that on certain levels we intelligent human beings still are hard wired like all animals are, and no amount of intelligence has yet proven able to overcome this hard wiring.

We as a species may have moved beyond simple unthinking instinct, but not much.

In many ways the 'freedom' we feel defines the human species vs. "animals" is far more like "thought through instinct."

We find ourselves wanting something, and justify doing it.

All too many of these habits like banking, saving money we convince ourselves is due our greater intellectual ability analyzing the future and planning ahead Etc.

Yet "banking" as in 'saving' for the future is practiced by many animals, squirrels, dogs, cats. All will try to hide extra food when it's available - to eat in the future.

The difference is we "justify/explain" why we do what we do.

We elevate our drive/instinct and call it the anxiety, discomfort we feel NOT being prepared when we do not save.

This "need to do it" is a far bigger factor than we want to admit, and why we go to such great lengths to explain so many of our actions as a result of some sort of thought process rather than a response to an impulse of our still powerful instincts to survive, reproduce, eat Etc.

Also we don't admit that successfully doing these things does not require any planning really. Our justifications and rationalizations though are important for making us feel human though.

As for the animals, they cannot and don't need to intellectualize why they do what they do, they just do it - thus instinct.

Understanding that can go a long way to realizing just how much of human behavior is driven by hormonal influences MEN as well as women. In the case of men testosterone is the make or break hormone.

If we as a species lost some of overwhelming sense of superiority and belief of "differentness" from simple animals, we'd be able to solve many of the problems we think impossible to solve, because we'd know why we did what we do is often not tied to "a rational thought process" as much as a "drive rooted in deep instinct" that all animals share in some form or another including humans.

Bernie Sanders could have easily stood up and been the ONE, UNCOMPROMISING senator that refused to cave on the public option or any other must have element of the health care debacle.

He has one of the safest Senate seats of them all.

He could have said, now that you caved to Lieberman, I will NOT vote for this Bill unless MY demands are met.

I will NOT be the 60th. vote for the "Health Insurance Corporation Profit Guarantee Act."

One organization which strongly supports and donates to progressive causes CREDO even set up a petition imploring Senator Sanders to do exactly that.

Yet he declined giving the reason that the Senate is run by Corporate Interests, and his opposition would change a thing.

Tell that to Lieberman and Nelson.

As true as that may be that corporate interests run the upper house, when it comes to what Bernie Sanders can do, the only Socialist Senator, this should have been the ultimate motivation; should have been gasoline on the fire that drives Bernie's desire to be a Socialist Senator.

Not just on a policy level, but a personal one.

This is the ONLY TIME in the last 50 years (probably a lot longer) when everything depended on the actions of a SOCIALIST Senator in the United States Congress.

And historically I do not recall any other time ever when a Socialist Senator had the MAKE OR BREAK POWER over such an important bill

For socialists in general this could have been the moment to show the Left that the spine they seek is in the Socialist Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders.

The reason being of course was the power of a lone senator had never been so great; thanks to the unique kind of cowardice of the Democratic Senatorial leadership and their amateur understanding of the parliamentary rules that govern Senate business, and a super majority that depended on gaining the agreement of a few disloyal few.

Just how singularly gigantic this could have been for the most left wing Senator in the Senate is made clear by how it is now gone.

Bernie Sanders when his moment to shine came, caved just like all the Corporate owned and operated Senators he is now criticizing as well as President Obama.

Bernie is not in Blanche Lincoln's predicament who's in great danger in Arkansas; whose caving actions can be at least understood even if Never supported.

He will be re-elected as long as he wants to be senator.

So he is truly one of the few senators who could have withstood the pressure.

What he wrote makes sense, but standing up to the Corporate Senators before this disaster would have made much more sense.


The fact he caved so easily with nary a word, and caved when he could have stood tall and RISKED NOTHING in doing so - makes me very suspicious of his true motivations.

We on the left need to learn one thing, and that's don't be so quick to declare anyone who speaks up a standard bearer. Before doing that we need to make sure their actions match their words

Jonathan