The only way we're going to end the war before 2009 is if Democrats stop funding it.  Bush can't veto not-funding a war, and we only need 50% to do this.

It means that, if you write off enough states as unwinnable, then to win you need to win every state you do choose to compete in.

Win every state you compete in = "run the table"

The Kerry campaign did something pretty close to this by the end.  By the last week, it was pretty clear that they had to hold every Gore state (I think they held Wisconsin by some ridiculously small margin), except for maybe one or two tiny states, and win Ohio.  That was their only real path to victory.

Let's remember that the infamous Dean Scream happened AFTER the Iowa caucus vote.  So the point is true that, going into the Iowa Caucus, Dean had the most money, the biggest online organizaiton, and quite possibly the most high-profile endorsements, and he still lost.

My impression was that this loss came from a combination of factors (including other candiates, and the RWCM, targeting him), not the least of which was his own campaign being wildly disorganized.  Still, this does prove the point that the most money and largest organization are not in and of themselves sufficient to win.

My own 2 cents is that, after placing third in Iowa, Dean was done no matter what.  A large part of his argument was "I have all of these volunteers and money that that's going to mean more votes," and once Iowa showed he couldn't deliver a lot of the rationale for his candidacy (for people who weren't hard-core supporters) went away.

Very good point.  A progressive friend of mine who lived in NH until 2 years ago considered Shaheed someone he could barely stomach voting for.

I'm always amazed about how much blogs such as this one and Kos spend half their time rending garments and gnashing teeth about out of touch elected Democrats who betray their party, then jump up and down with excitement about putting more of these people in Congress. (See Kerry, Bob.)

Remember the Isle of St. Helena?  That's in the middle of nowhere (way out in the Atlantic Ocean) where they put Emperor Napoleon I of France after he'd lost at Waterloo, to ensure that he could no no more damage.

I vote we make it the new residence of Bob Shrum, James Carville, and the rest of those parasitic DC consultants.

Ask her why don't Democrats attempt to stop the war via funding, where they need a simple majority, rather than go for bills where they need a 2/3 majority (because they'll be vetoed.).

Two.

Though I'm more of a leaner at the moment.  Since my state votes late, I'll probably just look at who's standing and decide then.

Well, there's his website www.jamieforcongress.com for starters.

Jamie is a very credible candidate.  He's a state representative, as are 3 of the other candiates (the 4th is a widow who never held elected office.)  One advantage Jamie has is that he's the only candidate from the southern half of the district, and he's also being tacitly supported by the governor.

I've donated money and time to Jamie Eldridge.  (I live in Massachusetts, but not in that district.)

Here's an anecdote about Jamie:  when he was first elected (in 2002), the speaker of the MA House was a right-wing, socially conservative "democrat," who had a great deal of power and was widely feared.  One legislator (progressive African-American Byron Rushing) ran against him.  The speaker won with about 85-90% of the Dem. vote, but Jamie was among the minority of Democrats who did the right thing.

This is exactly what we need in Washington:  a Democrat who is willing to tell the leadership to stuff it when they're doing something wrong/stupid.

Speaking personally, each year a progressively larger fraction of my political donations has gone into Democratic Primaries.  My current project is getting progressive Jamie Eldridge elected to congress in the MA-05 special election.

Crap.  I don't want to be &*@# 55 years old by the time we get good government!

Every bit helps.  I think he was saying that a long, slow burn is better than one all-or-nothing throw. (Either is better than nothing, or course.)

Crap like this makes me increasingly lean toward supporting mandatory term limits.  For every Feingold we'd lose, we'll prevent a dozen otherwise good people from becoming part of the problem.

My wife and I both maxed out to Obama last quarter.  We weren't 100% sure that he was the best candidate (and at the moment I'm having second thoughts and might ultimately go with Edwards), but with the intense media focus on the candidates and how much $ they raise as a threshold of viability it made sense to give money when we were 90% certain, rather than wait until we were 100.0% certain and have the money we give be half as effective.

Look at how much press Obama got when he outraised Hillary.  Had that not happened, it's entirely possible that the media would treat this whole race as a Clinton coronation.  In the eyes of the media, him outraising Hillary made the Dem. nomination contest and genuine, and interesting, race.

Yeah.  $2300 a couple of months ago.