Old Media has more punch, and Top-down Media too, but i use Mainstream Media, or just Media.

I think there's real added value in the whole Lieberman thing to persuade those in the middle like Schumer to pay more attention and care to those of us who vote for them, and to adjust their actions accordingly (which is where i see Schumer--he's movable as opposed to many) He's one of my Senators and beats Hillary by miles (altho that's not saying that much).

Take the horrendous bankruptcy thing---what would Schumer do with a seat on the Finance committee to fix it? It's absolutely and vitally necessary to pin him and others down on specifically what they'll do if we give them a majority. And Schumer's ambitions are modest, compared to many--he knows he'll never be on a presidential ticket nor does he want to be. So let him and everyone show us what will be fixed, reversed and otherwise done right instead of horribly and tragically wrong, as it is now.

there was a poll about it, and it's 46% in favor of censure, and 44% against--again, our elected folks let us down.

Already it's been a success--the media's all talking about the admin's unpopularity and incompetence, if not talking about their admitted lawbreaking, and each reminder of the things they're failing at, and the things they're doing wrong helps. Frist is a fool and if they do get a vote, GOP lawmakers up for reelection will be on record as supporting Bush's illegal acts, which gives all our incumbents an immediate issue to run on, if there weren't enough already. I still don't see us picking up the ball and running with it--it's pathetic.

basically, we're the canaries in the coalmine, and from their success with anti-gay shit, they're broadening out to women's rights. Next comes birth control (already starting, with pharmacist laws, and the plan B stuff) and then divorce (just starting now), and schools (also already starting in some states).

Every little success they have emboldens them to go further.

An important related point (regarding Phelps, but very applicable: ... And that history should be the most important part of the story. Because the move from the funerals of gays to the funerals of soldiers shows the inevitability that people whose beliefs are rooted in hate will eventually attack something that you hold dear. There are probably too many people in this country who didn't really mind when Phelps's band of psychopaths protested funerals of people like Matthew Shepard. And it's time that Americans know that if they stand by while people attack homosexuals and their rights, eventually those same people are going to come for them.

i recommended too--unfortunately, you may not get too many--people don't want it brought up at all, even though the GOP is already using it in their campaigns--see this hateful thing

We're supposed to just be quiet and support those who don't speak for us at all--it's sad.

I get the feeling he's going the Carter post-presidency route--fighting for the things he cares about (which are never mentioned anymore at all, even with Katrina, and certainly not by anyone in Congress now) and trying to do good in the world--i say good for him!

I think that if people are disappointed with his tv appearance, you really have to ask why the bookers chose him instead of other people--he's made it clear he's not playing the game anymore, and they probably just wanted someone who wouldn't hit as hard as others would, which upsets their script, and makes the repubs even whinier and more vindictive than usual. They only book people who don't fight back as hard--it's usually a Biden or some other weak bigmouth. Edwards beats Biden any day.

I'd be proud to vote for him in 08--he has principles (and i love Ms. Edwards). I do not want any sitting Senators to get the nomination--i want someone who's doing real work to help Americans, which they're not doing in Congress--they're hurting us. Give me a primary with Edwards, some Governors--at least one female one, a few activists, and a vet or 2...i'll be thrilled.

...Peninsular and Oriental and DP World set approval by the U.S. security committee as a condition for the sale. In regulatory papers, the companies said either the committee must agree not to formally investigate the purchase or Bush must not move to block the sale for national security purposes. ...

Bush mentioned specifically like that--not the "government" or "regulatory agencies" or anything?

and Halliburton can then sweep in as the Great American Hero to oversee our ports?

 is taking bids on New Orleans.

them improperly as well: ...[T]he Port Authority of New York & New Jersey will seek to terminate its lease with Port Newark Container Terminal, a current operator at Port Newark. Under the terms of the lease, the type of transaction engaged in with Dubai Ports World requires prior written approval from the Port Authority; none was sought and none was given. The lawsuit will be filed in Superior Court in Essex County. ...

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port. ...

and Rumsfeld? -- ...RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend.

UPDATE: Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. As such, he was one of the people who, according to the Treasury Department, unanimously approved the sale on February 13. How could do that when he didn't even find out about the sale until last weekend?  ...

he's right tho: ... The 2006 election will see then, the Republican base turn out. The Democratic base not turn out, and not enough moderates able to tell the difference to shift enough seats to put the Democrats in a majority in either chamber. The establishment will say "see we gained seats!", the consultants will take money, and get to work on the next batch of "Save ROE V WADE" letters for Senator Casey to sign.
This isn't pessimism particularly, it is noting that Republicans are turning up to protect their key entitlement, and Democrats aren't. People vote when they have to. The Democrats have no "have to" to vote for.
::
So to answer Eli's question, there is no surface make over that changes the nature of this election. Instead the Democratic Party must change the fundamental objectives it has for power, and change the way it views its own party base. Hate the base, and there is no way to get, and hold, power. Vote for the Reactionary agenda, except to slow it down on the margins, and end up marching right at the end of the parade. Take silver from the Romans, get hung as a Judas.

It's not depressing--it's reality. How that changes tho, is a rocky road. As long as the predominant attitude, even among progressives and liberals, is that you have to continue to support the party no matter what, then it's time to look elsewhere. How did Bernie Sanders get elected anyway?

Here in NY people with money loved him, and were giving a lot until DC started calling donors to dissuade him--see Mixner's quotes: ...But veteran political activist David Mixner, who described himself as "a fanatically strong supporter" of Hackett and who helped sponsor a New York fundraiser, confirmed that he "received calls from a couple people in Congress urging Paul Hackett to withdraw or not to contribute money to his campaign. The reasons ranged from he can't win, to he's too controversial, Brown has more money, is more centrist, and more appealing. It was that inner beltway circle crap," said Mixner. "They are people who have no idea what's going on in the country but believe they know everything."

Mixner added, "I don't think it's inappropriate to call me. What's inappropriate is that the people calling me were the same people who asked him to run, and now they wanted to push him out. That's what made this unique."
 ...