However... Walsh is a great target that is being largely ignored. Dan Maffei is a good candidate and Walsh can be taken. Maffei needs all the help he can get cuz he hasn't been getting anywhere near enough!

What conceivable evidence is there that John Kerry's campaign could have been done better by you or anyone else? Comparing any real campaign to an imaginary one is just so much Fantasy Football.

Personally, I'd bet on Tony Coehlo with a telephone and a stack of index cards against the entire Internet.

It is quite possible--likely, I would say--that any other Democratic challenger would not have done as well as Kerry. For one thing, said challenger would have had to beat Kerry in the primaries.

And we all know how that turned out.

Why exactly does a 527 need a website? They're not running for office, and they have the benefit of a great deal more secrecy than normal campaigns and parties; let them use it.

I'm still trying to think of a good reason why a 527 needs a website. Does anybody out there have one?

....if Frost, Coelho, et. al. are able to take the lessons they learned decades ago and combine them with the technological advances of this century (setting up a website one can find on Google would be a good start), they could help make a difference in enough close races to help put the Democrats over the top.

Can dinosaurs evolve into homo sapiens that quickly?

on behalf of Kerry. Actually, they were never on behalf of Kerry. Virtually every 527 ad was a pointless attack against Bush. His approval rating is, and always has been, solely determined by outside events and impressions of them. Nothing we say influences the approval number in the least. Katrina came a year late for Kerry.

You defeat an incumbent via an exceptional charismatic challenger, or if the incumbent is stumbling with a pathetic approval rating, similar to Santorum's. If Casey wins, are we really going to use him, or his campaign, as an example of how to defeat a senatorial incumbent? Based on the handicapping on liberal blogs, most likely we will.

I posted on DU in early 2003 that John Kerry was just good enough to get you beat. That was the line Bill Walsh used about Steve DeBerg, the 49ers QB before they elevated Joe Montana. It was always remarkable lunacy to think an ideal resume was the secret to ousting a presidential incumbent, as opposed to basic likability.

But the 527s didn't get that so they flubbed the analysis and which cycle to emphasize. They would be of huge benefit now, boosting funding in all the local races and allowing our candidates to campaign on many issues.

Again, let's use QB as an example. Obviously that's the most important position on a football team. But does a coach draft nothing but QBs? That would be moronic. Especially if the position was already the strength of your team. But that's essentially what we are doing by focusing so heavily on Iraq. Newsflash: that issue is already in our favor. By hammering it so heavily it makes us feel great to rip the hated Bush and the GOP, but it does nothing to shore up the areas of our "team" that need help and could put us over the top in November. We are basically deciding we want to be like the '80s-'90s Marino Dolphins, a pantyhose passing team that relies on the one obvious strength and ignorantly thinks that will be plenty, instead of the grunt work in annoyances like drive blocking.

I know that will be greeted with, huh? And I expect that. All I can do is handicap ahead of time and stick my opinions on the line. I supported John Edwards in 2004, the only option we had with a chance to knock out an incumbent with fear as an ally. In 2006 we need heavy emphasis on the economy and homeland issues, if we're going to make the most of this otherwise friendly environment. We already forfeited any chance to bump our party favorables, which is what I posted we should have been doing a year ago. In 2008 we better toss out the progressive idiocy in a nationwide race and understand Mark Warner is the surest ticket to the White House via Virginia's 13 electoral votes. An open race is completely different than knocking out an incumbent, and 2008 figures to be a coin-flip popular vote, based on one party holding the White House for exactly two terms.

Do these guys have the access to the big donors who are supposedly spurning Dean's DNC?  Are they trying to capture that money and show they can put it to good use?  

This sounds a little strange to me.

My coworker di this one:

http://www.majorityaction.net/

I did the design for it's Senatorial counterpart:

http://www.senatemajority.org/