Formatting aside, this is exactly what's needed. Personally, I'd rather work from within the Democratic Party, but in or out, more Bernie Sanders' need to step up and take power from the bottom up. But it's not just the candidates, it's the activists, too.

I worked in the office for my rural county's Democratic Party, and which doubled as the office for the county Obama organizers (two), the county congressional candidate's organizer (one), an incumbent state rep, a sheriff candidate, and a couple of county commission candidates.

If I had to guess, I'd say the volunteers we had coming in broke down roughly as:

70% Obama
20% Congressional
10% State Rep
Friends and family only for the rest

It's a rural and very conservative place (home to the Hutaree militia, in fact), but Obama won the county, the congressional candidate barely lost it but won the district overall, and the state rep won reelection (but he was really safe from the start-- his last name is golden in my area). The sheriff candidate and the county commission candidates? They all lost.

So what we had was a ton of enthusiasm for Obama, and to a lesser degree other high-profile candidates. We had volunteers knocking on doors, but more importantly educating themselves on the candidate and his vision and talking with friends and family and winning over voters.

And then the more local candidates withered into oblivion. Some of them had good ideas and would have done a good job, but practically no one bothered to teach themselves about those candidates, knock on doors, or talk to friends and family. We had a ton of energy for the sexy guy on TV, but nothing for the offices that have a more immediate impact on our lives. Democrats and especially progressives remain perceived as a tiny and silent minority, when Obama's victory in the county demonstrated that we can be a majority, if we put in the energy.

It's a mindset that has to change for progressive activists. Change happens locally first, regionally second, statewide third, nationally last. We've got to build up.

I was probably a little harsh the first time around. I've met a few really great people in a couple of communities who ARE doing the hard work of local politics.

The problem, to me, seems to be that it's almost impossible to get these folks the help and attention they deserve. The big money of the progressive movement (unions, netroots fundraising, whatever) is mostly interested in getting the biggest short-term return on investment. That means spending on "better" candidates in high-profile races while the "best" candidates down ballot fend for themselves. There isn't a mechanism to send money or energy to help support them.

So if someone wants to start a PAC that runs progressive newspaper ads in competitive school board races and directs phonebank volunteers to worthy candidates for county sheriff, let me know. I'll donate everything I've got.

(Also-- sorry to everybody for the crazy formatting and the double-text in my first comment. I have no idea how that happened.)

People forget the classic Tip O'Neill saying way too often.

Howard Dean? Barack Obama? Bill Halter? None of that is about taking back the party. It makes noise, it gets people noticed, and it has a ton of value. But it's never going to take back anything.

Any real and lasting movement-- from within the Democratic Party or from outside it-- has to start by building a bench, changing minds locally, and supporting lower-office candidates. Forget Washington. This is a 40 year project that begins with county commissions, city councils, school boards, and, when you're done with that, state legislatures.

That's not to say you can't support the right people for the big offices. But I'm sick of hearing about primary challenges or third party challenges against senators or the president without anyone talking about the more important work that has to be done locally.

You want a more progressive country? You've got to build from the bottom up. This is what the grassroots is all about, but it's not fun and it's not sexy. And most of the time, no one in the blogosphere seems interested in doing it.

After the gay female Muslim judge, can we get a transgender atheist up there too? 'Cause you know that one would drive folks crazy!

The Cantor set is a nowhere dense set, but it doesn't have any isolated points.

That's kind of nifty.

I apologize if I wasn't completely clear, but I wasn't meaning to say that torture was the only reason why some people in the Middle East hate us. Rather, it's an example of why some people hate us, and an example of how our own actions fuel terrorist groups.

It doesn't especially matter why someone like bin Laden hates the United States, or even if he does. He is a threat because he can convince others to follow his orders and use violence against us, and he does that by making otherwise moderate people become radical.

Is it religion that turns them against us? No. Religion is a component, but you can follow Islam, and even follow an extreme form of it, without being a terrorist. Instead, he manages to convince people that the United States is the source of the many injustices in their lives. He points to how their lives have changed over the last 100 years, claims that all of the bad is a result of people like us, and paints us as an evil opponent.

But here's the crucial part: Even though most of it is all lies, it becomes convincing because interspersed here and there are little elements of truth. Sometimes, intentionally or not, we have done things that hurt people in the Middle East. They seize those bits of truth and develop elaborate lies around them or explaining them. But the bits of truth are the hooks that draw people in.

So what does torture do? It reinforces the lies that they've been telling about us with an especially ugly piece of truth. Propaganda is most effective when it builds off of things that people already know, and thanks to the Bush Administration and Abu Ghraib, everyone knows that we've been torturing people. Moderates in the Middle East can't combat the other lies because one lie was made true by George W. Bush.

By releasing the memos and getting it all out in the open, the Obama Administration is saying, "This isn't our policy anymore. We admit that the previous group did wrong things, but we know it was wrong, and we will not do that any more."

Will the other side still lie about us? Yes. They'll insist that we're still torturing people, and that we're killing civilians indiscriminately, and that we hate Muslims. But by releasing all of this information, we're demonstrating a change in policy, and taking away one of the nuggets of truth that's been supporting those lies.

People aren't stupid. They know that bin Laden and company have an agenda, and that 90 percent of what they hear is false. But when they learn something that supports some of those lies-- like that the United States tortures prisoners-- they take a moment and reconsider the propaganda that they're hearing, and they wonder if maybe it is true. That's when desperate, poor people are turned into extremists.

Admitting our mistake, prosecuting those responsible, and allowing transparency to guarantee that it won't happen again is the best way to reverse the damage already done.

At least, that's how I understand it-- and I admit that I've described the simple version of it. But you're more than welcome to continue to think that Muslim extremists hate us irrationally, can't be reasoned with, and deserve what they get. It's a lot simpler living in a world of black and white, and I hope that you like it there.

Persecute? I much prefer prosecute.

I'm pretty sure torture has been illegal in this country for a long time. The fact that the Bush Administration called it something different didn't make it legal.

People in the Middle East are smart, and they can see through a lot of the propaganda. They know that when bin Laden and others say that the United States is evil, there's an agenda behind those words.

The problem comes when we validate that propaganda by doing stupid things like torturing people. When we become what Al Qaeda claims we are, moderates and supporters of the United States can't fight the propaganda.

America's power has always been through its example, not through its military. Freedom of speech inspired Chinese students to march, and the example of what is possible inspired democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe. History is a lot more complicated than that, but it's our ideals that make people love and respect us, not hate us.

But when we betray our own principles, it becomes harder and harder to make the case that we're any better than those we're trying to fight against. We can't win people over when the image we project is, "We stand for freedom and justice, except for Muslims, who we'll torture and humiliate." That's the window that the "bad guys" get through, and that's what makes people hate us.

I was talking to a student at Notre Dame the other day about the controversy. According to him, this is how it breaks down:

- The graduating seniors are really excited. They want to see Obama.

• The underclassmen are really excited.
  
• Most of the alumni are really excited.

The only people who are upset are:

- People not in the Notre Dame community.
- A very small minority of older alumni, like the guy from the class of 1950 who wrote a letter to the student newspaper saying that Obama was the anti-Christ.

Now, I'm sure that there's some variation, and some seniors aren't happy. But the friend I was talking to was really angry that the Pat Buchanans of the world were swooping in to try to ruin a really wonderful experience.

I really, really hope that they try to oust Steele after the March 31 special election. And I really, really, REALLY hope that somehow he manages to survive, stay on as chair, and with half the party hating him.

It might be too much to ask for, but if we can have this GOP infighting last for at least another two years, it'll help a lot in 2010. The economy won't be fantastic by then, but all we have to do is present some progress, and then point to Republican bickering and say, "Seriously, you think that they could do a better job?"

To his credit, Chris Bowers at Open Left apologized for leading people to a dead end.

I wasn't following the race closely, but I think you probably diagnosed it perfectly. We talk a lot about the grassroots, but all too often, national bloggers seem to think of the netroots as a top-down entity, in which they help set the direction. Sometimes it makes sense-- there isn't always a developed state or local blogosphere, and someone has to fill the gap. But when local blogs do exist, with community connections, they often aren't promoted by those with the bigger platforms.

That's not always true, and Markos in particular does a good job of linking to local coverage in many races. But sometimes the professional and semi-professional bloggers are guilty of thinking that they can read any district without consulting local sources.

This is a little worrying...

"Tom Harkin's War on Science"

This is the first I've heard about the issue, and tomorrow I think I'm going to try to find out more. And, of course, while I read some blogs on Science Blogs pretty regularly, I've never really followed White Coat Underground.

Nevertheless, it's more than a little troubling. Science is about testing hypotheses and learning from the results, not deciding on a result and then finding a way to make it work. I'd like to think Democrats are better than this.

Yesterday, I had the extraordinary pleasure of seeing Ted Sorenson speak (and meeting him briefly). At one point someone asked a question about Vietnam, and he stressed that at his core, JFK knew that political problems don't have military solutions. It's a lesson too many presidents never learned.

Now, Sorenson also talked a lot about the similarities he sees between President Obama and President Kennedy, and if there's anyone qualified  to make that comparison, it's him. So I'm hoping that Obama is looking for a long-term solution besides the troop build-up. As much as I've disagreed with you before, Jerome, I'm glad this is something you're talking about.

For starters, being a new user and calling everyone here idiots isn't a great way to make friends. I mean, if you want us to listen to what you have to say, there's a certain element of kindness involved. But that's just me.

The bill passed by Congress wasn't a "stimulus bill," even if that's what everyone's been talking about. It was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That's not just a semantic distinction, either. While the focus is on the recovery part-- creating jobs-- there was some significant reinvestment, too. That means increased spending in neglected areas to ensure future, sustained growth, not just a short-term stimulus.

So, that investment in the future includes $8.9 billion for scientific research. It might not employ many people now, it'll create jobs for the future, and it'll improve our standard of living.

The bill also includes $100 million to remove lead paint from public housing. While that puts some people to work, that's not the point. The point is that it's a smart investment because it'll keep poor people from getting sick (who wouldn't be able to pay for it, making everyone's costs go up).

And it includes $100 million for free school lunch programs. A family that uses that isn't going to take the money they saved to buy a car, but they are going to have children who grow up healthier, do better in school, and become productive, competitive workers years from now.

And yeah, it includes $140 million for volcano monitoring. It won't put many people to work now (though someone has to build the equipment, someone has to ship it, someone has to know how to use it), but it will save lives and money in the future. I think that's a good investment, and I've got no problem with doing it now. It'll pay off years from now.

If it was just about stimulating the economy, we'd have a very short-term focus. Every pothole in America would be filled and every at the end of the day, we'd still be stuck with the same problems we have now and we'd have to do the same thing all over again. Stimulating the economy is a short-term goal.

Keeping it going once we've got it moving requires long-term planning.