Multiple standing ovations, incredible excitement and energy.  Her speech was excellent- she was obviously very touched by the presence of Murtha.

There's no doubt about it: Bill Richardson is a fat, unattractive man.  And if the Republicans tore apart the rather handsome John Kerry for having a horse face, I can't imagine what they'd do to Richardson.  But, that said, I still think he looks presidential- unattractive but statesmanlike, wise, grandfatherly.  Either way, can someone get him a damn personal trainer?  The fate of the free world may depend on it.

I am going to try to compile a cohesive list of his accomplishments and policy positions in the coming weeks, so an accurate portayal of his governing philosophy can be presented.

um, can someone delete this comment...now?

Is there video of this debate anywhere?

*SEC, not FEC.

I was referring to the discussion on OH-02 linked below...

In hindsight, I probably should not have included that sentence about "dubious ethics."  Though Armstrong has been cited by the FEC for stock-touting, it is my personal belief that those allegations have been trumped up by opportunistic Kos/Armstrong haters and conservative bloggers (ie: bizzyblog aka tom).  I was more reflecting the prevailing attitudes on OH-02 than my personal beliefs and the campaign I represent.

http://blog.oh02.com/2006/06/16/the-blog a-nostra-draws-heat/

Good for you guys.  I have no problem booting a bad Dem incumbent for a better progressive in safe districts.  Harmon has always irritated the hell out of me.  Onward for Winograd!

It's okay.  I really don't have a Gore ax to grind.    I love the man, but I think it's valuable to debate the merits of his potential candidacy just as it is valuable to debate the merits of all of the 2008 candidates.  Speaking from personal experience, is easy to jump on a presidential bandwagon before thoroughly evaluating the pros and cons.  I've been a committed Feingold, Warner, Richardson, Edwards, and Gore supporter at different times.  Right now, I like the idea of a Warner or a Richardson, but my mind is still wide open.  

Whoa, I think you have a deep misunderstanding of my motives.  In general, I find the comments section to be confusing visually, so I started another post to facilitate a more organized discussion.  I will not delete my diary, regardless of your misinterpretation.

I am not a fan of the animated message popping up.  It comes across as too cheesy and distracting.  I can't imagine this having a positive or inspiring effect on first-time visitors to the site.  That all said, the internet team at ForwardTogetherpac.com has, on the whole, created a truly great website that serves as an inspiration to me personally and hopefully to all internet activists.  The blog, videos, clean and attractive design are all perfect.  Wonderful job to Jerome, you, and anyone else involved.  

This theory seems a little farfetched.  As demonstrated by his campaign so far, Brown isn't nearly savvy or competent enough to pull something this complicated off.

EDIT- I meant "connecting guns" not "connecting hunting"- sorry. ha.

Connecting hunting with conservation is just about the silliest way to frame an issue out there.  Conservative gun owners covet their right to bear arms as a flexing of their civil rights, their small government stay-the-fuck-out-of-my-lives mentality, and their rugged individualist perception of themselves.  Gun owners are not, however, the kind of people who would willingly associate themselves with a "loony leftist" movement like environmentalism. That's not to say that the majority of gun owners do not, at heart, love and value nature.  But we must understand the ideology of the group to whom we are trying to appeal.  And environmentalism is not a popular concept in the ideology of this group, who are rural or exurban conservatives whereas a small government civil rights message DOES make sense...

I absolutely agree, Americain.  I much prefer Hackett's approach than Brown's sneaky and underhanded way of smearing his opponents.  Sherrods needs to fire Phillip de Villis.  He plays dirty, he's ineffective, and he's a liability to the campaign.  But Sherrod obviously likes what he sees which is why he kept de Villis on even after he was caught red-handed attempting to create a false consensus following Brown's freakout at Tim Russo.  Sherrod needs to understand this current online operation of smearing Paul Hackett reflects upon his personal character.  

I do plan on taking audio of the event as well as taking pictures.