Personally, I like President Obama, but would be happier if he hadn't hitched his wagons to Wall Street.

However, I understand that is probably the only way one can get elected President in this day and age.

That said, would you prefer he drag the electorate and the corporate media kicking and screaming to progressive positions?

Understand that this would likely mean he went to the mat for the public option and we may not have gotten coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Bush and his Wall Street buddies might be in jail now, but Obama might be dodging actual bullets and have no path to re-election.

I'd like Obama to speak out a bit more for progressive policies and hold the people who embezzled trillions from America to account, but if that's career (or actual) suicide, then I'd rather have him in the White House splitting the difference and taking what he can get.

I see a lot of people acting like a President, a black President at that, can do whatever he wants. And admittedly, the last guy in the White House gave us that impression.

Personally, I suspect Obama is doing the best that he can. He's an extremely smart man, who has necessarily made some deals to get to where he is.

Understanding the political and electoral system, it's hard to imagine someone more progressive than Obama actually getting elected. It's something of a miracle that he did.

So to those of us who think Obama can do whatever he wants, without regard for the existing power structure in America, completely ignoring what happened to the Kennedys, etc., would you be happy if he went for broke, possibly endangering himself and his family for the sake of our personal politics?

Do you think it's reasonable to expect him to pull the country to the left, to personally make up for 50 years of corporate media domination of the political debate, to try to convince the majority of Americans that everything they've been taught about capitalism is wrong, and then run for re-election?

I know people are disappointed, and have every right to be, but I also think our expectations may be a bit unrealistic.

I don't like the way Obama used Social Security and Medicare as bargaining chips, but I'm also still not convinced there was a scenario in which he'd actually follow through on significant cuts to those programs.

Successful Presidents follow the American people. Presidents who think they can drag the American people to their positions generally end up going down in flames, like George W. Bush.

Is that really what we want?

I also had a parent who had all kinds of wacky ideas about everything, from crossing the street to germs, AIDS, etc.

I don't think this is a valid comparison.

For one, neurotic parents do what they do in order to protect their kids, often through ignorant or poorly considered reasoning.

The Bush Administration is the exact opposite. They deceived us into an invalid worldview for their own greedy motives.

When they invaded Iraq, it wasn't to protect us from WMD's, though they told us that. The real reasons were a combination of oil, revenge on Saddam for betraying Bush I, Israel, etc.

What's worse is that the country isn't a bunch of children. We are made up mostly of adults, and should be able to tell that this group of corporate criminals wasn't interested in what's best for America. At all.

I don't believe Rumsfeld actually believed the rose petal scenario you describe. I think he knew exactly what he was doing and got exactly what he wanted: a costly quagmire that would last the balance of the Bush administration and result in massive federal liquidation into the defense industry.

Look at Kellogg, Brown and Root...where's the 6 billion dollars they "lost"? That's tip of the iceberg...350 billion dollars were appropriated for this nightmare. Where's the rebuilding? The green zone is all they have to show for it, and that may not be there in a few weeks.

This played out predictably: grab the money, throw together a makeshift government, and leave the amiable dunce holding the bag. We're currently entering the last phase of this, in which the country has been pushed so far beyond its ability to rationalize this madness that the front man for this has to be hung out to dry. Bush may survive the next two years, but ultimately, it will be him, not Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Bolton, etc., who answer for this in the history books. Will anyone persuade the history writers that he was simply the frontman for the greatest heist in history? Or will we be left with the naive bullshit that he and his supposed subordinates actually said?

A great deal of work has been put into the notion that Bush and his people actually believed their own hype. Don't fall for it. They are laughing their way to the bank.

The only thing they are neurotic about is the possibility that we might realize what they've done and hold them to account for it.

Then you'll see what they really believed, when they are forced to cut deals to turn one another in. If that happens, you'll know that every single one of them knew exactly what they were doing, because they will tell you exactly that in order to get themselves out of consecutive life sentences.

Long story short: Don't believe the hype. They aren't neurotic parents. They are more like political cat burglars. We aren't children of neurotic parents...We are just the people who will wake up in a few years, open up the museum and realize everything's gone and start scratching our heads trying to figure out what happened.

Does that Senate projection include Lieberman? Cause I'm not convinced he's going to caucus with Dems. In fact, I'd be surprised if he voted to make Harry Reid Majority Leader.

Also, until the absentees are factored in, I can't really close the book on Virginia. It's just too close.

But if, as you say, we have won the Senate in addition to the House, then we have an opportunity to force Bush's hand on so many issues that he has feigned indifference on.

We can put forth a minimum wage hike and see who votes for/against it.

How about a civil unions bill? I'd prefer marriage, but civil unions is a start, and it will help gay couples.

Green tax credits? Middle class tax cut with a rollback of the 2001 tax cut package? More student loan money?

Cuts on defense boondoggles like SDI?

It'll be interesting to see how far the Dems are willing to go with their majority, if indeed they get the Senate as well.

What a fucking shocker. Looking at the exit polls, it's clear the R's stole heavily, but apparently not enough.

What impresses me is that we won a fraudproof victory. Whichever way the Senate goes, that shouldn't stop us from celebrating heavily. This is a victory for working people, a victory for America, and a victory for the rest of the world, who really desperately want Bush's Republican Party in the rearview mirror.

Tomorrow the hard work of putting America back together begins. Tonight, there's drinking to be done.

I'm a fiscal conservative, and I advocate for a strong social safety net.

Wanna know how my math adds up?

Cut defense contracting severely.

Defense contractors are a self-perpetuating cancer in our body politic. A total waste of money that do nothing but make other countries angry at us and rightfully give the impression that we are interested solely in military domination of any potential foreign opposition.

We have amassed so much firepower that it will take a decade for any nation to keep up, and that's if we stop dead in our tracks (fat chance).

So keep up R&D for worthwhile defense measures, but no more crusaders, no more mini-nukes, no more missile defense, no more money wasting unusable bullshit.

Fellow DU'ers,

I finally got a computer that was capable of doing video editing, so I decided to put together some of the video I shot at the big protest on the Mall last September, which several of us participated in.

The footage compiled here is mostly crowd shots, set to music, just under five minutes in length.

Some of my favorite stuff included here involves the Lafayette Park drum circle, Camp Casey on the Mall, the mobile Grover Norquist/NOLA Bathtub billboard, and massive amounts of people peacefully expressing themselves.

You may even find some familiar faces in the shots.

I take full responsibility for the camerawork, the editing, and even the music.

Quicktime required:

High speed broadband: 27.9 MB

Medium broadband: 10.5 MB

Now, whenever Republicans attempt to drag our candidates into the mud, we can campaign against Karl Rove.

Campaigning against President Bush works, but Rove's approval rating is even lower.

And he is undeniably a reputedly dirty campaigner.

Rove's departure to focus on elections nationalizes this race in a way that Democratic proposals never could.

We can now campaign against the politics of personal destruction whenever the Republicans try to impeach our candidates' credentials.

"Karl Rove would have you believe that (fill in your Democratic candidate here) is (fill in your smear). These attacks are the desperate flailings of those whose policies have failed the American people time and again."

Rinse, and repeat.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Dem_lead...

President Bush, 9/30/03:

"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

President Bush, 9/30/03:

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

President Bush, 10/28/03:

"I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information."

President Bush, 6/10/04:

Reporter: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"

President Bush: "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

President Bush, 10/28/03:

"I want to know the truth. ... I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

President Bush, 7/18/05 issue of USA Today:

"If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

White House Press Secretary, 9/29/03:

"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

White House Press Secretary, 10/7/03:

"Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business."

A raging liberal by today's standards. He left as a moderate, which had a lot to do with the fact that he got his Democratic colleagues' asses whipped in the 94 midterms.

Remember the Bill Clinton who spoke out for gays, went out of his way to address the AIDS crisis, got elected to the presidency as an admitted pot-smoking, draft-dodging, war protester?

Clinton did what he had to do to get things done, and yes, it moderated him quite a bit. He was always interested in using corporations to get his foot in the door...ask Al Gore what happens when you step on corporations' toes in a presidential campaign.

But the idea that somehow Clinton was this GOP lite when he got elected is ridiculous. Your hippie buddies said that Clinton=Raygun? Check the budget deficit, the diplomacy, the economy, and the crime level.

Unbelievable. The Clinton you wanted never could have gotten re-elected.

Most other Dems get the benefit of the doubt because we know the media and the Republicans have it in for them.

But we believe any old bullshit that comes down the ol' corporate propaganda pipeline (this story started at fucking Drudge, of all places) when it has to do with Cynthia McKinney.

Maybe she's right about the racism. Sad to see it extends to both sides of the aisle.

What a fucking reach that is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com /

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

Maybe this is what those private chats with the press corps were about..."Andy Card is leaving, so please spin it like we give a shit what other people think."

January of 03 (in sub-freezing temperatures), and in damn near every Iraq-war protest on the Mall since does qualify me as anti-war.

You need to seriously check yourself before you step to other DU'ers on anti-war credentials.

The question is whether or not we are helping to stabilize the situation or causing more unrest by our presence.

If Kerry had won, you can bet this would have turned into a peacekeeping mission.

As it stands, the Iraqis have legitimate questions about our intentions, and our refusal to internationalize the reconstruction effort (or make any progress on it) doesn't help any.

If we had simply gotten rid of Saddam and did what we said we were going to do, we wouldn't be in this mess.

A Clinton-style nation-building might have worked. A Bush style annihilation of Fallujah with no press privileges, massive giveaways to the military industrial complex in the guise of "rebuilding" while there's no water on doesn't do anyone any good.

But the fact that Bush is running the show incredibly poorly does not absolve us all of guilt here.

Ultimately, people are going to remember that the United States invaded, fucked it all up, and abandoned it, if you get your way.

That is not acceptable.

You are a journalist on the ground in Iraq.

You have spent the day watching and taking notes as the unit you are embedded with installs a playground.

A block away, an explosion tears a hole in a local market. You are the first reporter on the scene.

You can only file one report on today's events. Which do you report?

If Joementum can win, then I'm assuming America doesn't have a problem with the idea of a Jewish president.

I do agree that we are likely to see the stop Feingold campaign adopt the "But He's Jewish" angle at some point.

It could even come from our side.

After the intraparty smears in the 2004 primaries, nothing would surprise me.

But mass deportation or offering second-class citizenship isn't the answer either. And neither is patrolling the border with right-wing militias.

Basically, it depends on your reading of the IWR.

If you are a Democratic politician who doesn't want to be painted as weak on national security, you can say it is a vote to give the President authority to go to war as a last resort.

If you are a DU'er, you are screaming, "NO, YOU IDIOTS, HE'S GOING TO INVADE THE SECOND YOU GIVE AUTHORITY, HE AND HIS CRONIES HAVE BEEN ITCHING TO DO IT FOR YEARS, DID YOU MISS THE PNAC OR WHAT?"

We are left to deduce whether Dems in the Senate who voted for war had the common sense that we did to see the evidence on the table and conclude, as most of us did, that the Administration was trumping up the case for invasion based on bogus intelligence, and made a cynical decision with a presidential election season around the corner, or were actually gullible enough to believe the Bush Administration's WMD propaganda.

I know which side of this argument I am on, and am tired of arguing about it. That's my take.