'The Public Good versus Private Greed'.

THAT out to be our motto.

So far I feel we're missing THE key point; the netroots advocate for a progressive America.  That is NOT Specter.  Would Sestak back the 'public good versus private greed', the prevailing progressive frame?  Are we even in agreeement that is what we advocate?  

We ought to approach Rep Sestak with a VISION (frame) in mind, and discuss how we can go forward.  But, I doubt our movement is this mature (developed) in its vision.  If not, then we are still in the Dems vs. Repugs quagmire, and acting reactionary (reacting, rather than advocating).

YES!  I'm a Pittsburgh native, and former 30 year resident of the state.  I campaigned for progressive Rep Bob Edgar against Arlen in the eighties.  We NEED a MAJOR progressive challenger against him, if one will step forward, such as one of the state's eastern Dem. representatives.

I'm a former 30 year resident of PA, who campaigned for progressive Rep. Bob Edgar against Arlen in the eighties, and I feel we need a progressive challenger against him in the Dem primary.

THANK YOU Charles for the great story! I suggest you try to publish your story in the broadest circulator you can find.  You have provided for us (me) a concise overview of a problem that seemed remote and confusing.

Yet, your 'bottom line' - the last sentence - says it all;  <As Mike Davis concludes we face a planetary catastrophe due to "industrialized and ecologically unhinged livestock production" based on a swine capitalism.>

So, this crisis with food, ecology and health is not confusing or remote after all.  It is systemic with a global economics that values profit before the planet, animals' welfare and our health.  For all of us in the generation of Schumacher and "Small is Beautiful", we are all too familiar.  

I'm heartened with the democratic approaches to food that are growing, with farmers markets, slow food, organics and the White House organic garden, and sustainability.

Ye, who complains about ELECTIONS in Latin America, which aspect of state-corporate-war society do you like MOST:

ENRON Democracy - in the 1990s, their shut down of AZ power plants crippled Calif's economy with rolling brownouts, while Conservative Rep Darryl Issa personally funded much of the recall of Gov. Gray Davis.  State-corporate-war plans were thwarted when Republican Issa was blindsided by the Arnold Schwartz.

ENRON then bankrolled Pres. Bush's inaguration bash.

ENRON then bought the U.S. energy policy, pushed thru with no public oversight by V.P. Cheney (who of course, came right out of the Haliburton board room).  Ohhh........

Haliburton then has a MAJOR role in the Iraq War-for-oil.  Hundred of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians later, here we are.  AND ye complain about Latin American democracy?

Why, Venezuela has their own oil!  And ye 'yankees' wonder why Latin America will VOTE for a populist Democratic Socialist, rather than the state-corporate-war model, western democracies 2000s answer to the 1930s European state-corporate-war model.  Hmmm.  Have a nice day!

Pres Hugo Chavez has: cut the poverty rate in half; provided nearly universal health care to the rural poor; and this week WON another election.  So, complaints about him from North Americans reveal MORE about the 'yankee' than about Chavez, I would offer.  

On the other hand, the U.S. has followed the transnational path (aka 'free market conservatism') and we have: two wars, with no end in sight; rising unemployment; a destroyed industrial and manufacturing base; grand thievery from our ruling financial elites along with unabashed corruption from our corporate marauders.  Besides, I offer that this recent Venezuela election was more fair than the 2000 U.S. Pres. grand theft, where the Supreme Court handed the presidency to the second place finisher.  And North Americans are wondering why the world will NOT follow our state-corporate-was dominated society?   BTW, there is a term for state-corporate-war governance -- do you know what that term is?  (Hint - it is used to describe Spain, Italy and Germany in the 1930s).  Have a nice day!

WOW! GREAT ad!  Because you nailed it; some religious people are attempting to govern their beliefs over other American citizens. I feel we must campaign for our country's religious freedoms. Since our founding, when white men were the only ones allowed to vote and hold property, most Americans (women, ethnic and people of color) have struggled for true freedom.  Progressives are united to continue our collective civil rights struggle.

Thank you, Todd.  I couldn't agree with you more.  And thank you for mentioning the 'common good', which far too few progressives understand.  For example, if progressives had a framework, then  a speech like the Dem-SOTU would have at least mentioned the frame.  So, we have a ways to go ourselves.  Let's remember, the right wing (frame) had to wrestle control of the Rep Party away from the Rockefeller-Nixon-Kissinger moderates a full generation ago.

How are we doing on our way to 60 seats?

Senate seats which I'd offer better than 60-40 chance of picking up: New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico.  Seats which now rate more or less 50-50 pickup are Minnesota, Oregon.  Seats which are in play, with good Dem challengers against a weak Repug incumbents: Alaska, Kentucky.  We've got a good challenger in Maine but lag well behind now.  So, how do we get to 60?  I feel that will depend on the advantage of our national ticket.

Strickland does not have the experience to be a credible VP, IMHO.  If Hillary wins nomination (which I would like), then I recommend someone like Bill Richardson.  Now there is a man with tremendous experience, and his Latino background helps tremendously in NM, AZ, CO, FL, OH and other states with large latino populations.  However, if a man (like Edwards, whom I would like) wins the nomination, then a two term and well repsected female governor like Kathleen Sebalius (Kansas) or Janet Napolitano (AZ) would be excellent choices.  They would help with either the large farm belt or southwest populations, both of which Dems are gaining strongly, and they could help close the deal.

"Progressive and proud of it" is FINALLY an attempt to define an alternative to the small govt, free market, rugged individualistic conservatism.  I believe progressives must clearly state our vision, something like, "Personal freedom and community reponsibilities make for a greater common good."  We must place the commons - our earth, schools and unviersities, energy and infrastrucuture, etc - at the heart of our vision.  This distinguishes us from free marketeers, who hold nothing sacred but the ability for money to flow toward concentration. And that is THEIR concentration, not your.

I've spent more than 20 years in Maine; these numbers do not surprise me.  Tom has a serious "progressive gap" in Maine.

Progressives comprise a significant percentage of the Democratic base.  Tom is viewed by many progressives as too moderate.  For example, Tom would not meet with a Peace Action sponsored town hall on the Iraq War for months and months.  Tom is viewed as not out front on the war, has not joined the Progressive Caucus, has not co-sponsored the Dept of Peace, and has not sponsored single payer legislation (Kucinich bill).

A progressive ran an independent challenge to Tom in the '06 Cong. cycle; the challenger pulled 9%, yet Tom still won with more than 50%.  Our strong Green Party in Maine will consistently pull 8% to 10% in gubenatorial races.

To win statewide, against Collins, Tom NEEDS these progressives  (volunteers, network, money, energy).  They are not behind him - now.

I've spent more than 20 years in Maine; these numbers do not surprise me.  Tom has a serious "progressive gap" in Maine.

Progressives comprise a significant percentage of the Democratic base.  Tom is viewed by many progressives as too moderate.  For example, Tom would not meet with a Peace Action sponsored town hall on the Iraq War for months and months.  Tom is viewed as not out front on the war, has not joined the Progressive Caucus, has not co-sponsored the Dept of Peace, and has not sponsored single payer legislation (Kucinich bill).

Progressives ran an independent challenger to Tom in the '06 cycle; the chalenger pulled 9% of the vote, yet Tom still won with more than 50%.  Our strong Green Party in Maine will consistently pull 8% to 10% in gubenatorial races. Tom NEEDS these progressvies (volenteers, netwrok, money), and he does not have them.

I second the forcast from dpA; I'll extend the 44-45% national vote to a prediction of more than 60 Dem Senators (Dems' +s in VA, MN, NH, OR, NB, CO, ME, AL, and at least one of KY, GA or TX).  Our big differences I feel will be with the black-brown AND under 30 vote.