For all the talk of a Solid South with Republicans dominating, nothing comes close to the level of victory that Democrats have achieved in New England.
Irrespective of whether creating majority-minority districts is good for minority voting rights and the country, it does give Dems something the Republicans don't have in the North: a statutory firewall. The Dems are essentially guaranteed a couple of seats in each Southern state--now that the voters in the Northeast have started voting in a partisan way, we might well start seeing a solid wall of blue in that region.
I think we're assuming a lot when we think Hillary should have had coattails or gotten a blue wave going in NY etc. Still this statement here sums up the problem with her candidacy:
at the end of the day, despite all the money raised and all the campaigns she did events for, her name on the ticket in New York state helped no one but herself.
If she runs, it will be about her, about Oprah-esque navel-gazing and not about policy. This is the absolute wrong time to conduct a candidacy on the basis of personality--bad for the country, bad for our values. I thkink she has a bet than 50-50 chance of winning, but she will need to work overtime to make the campaign about something other than press titillation about her "unique" story angle. Worse, I'm convinced she actually would like that state of affairs.
Geez, you guys need to cut the crap with the "we've got long memories" stuff, the making snap decisions because Democrat so-and-so is less than up to snuff on some meta stuff. Yeah, this stuff from Spitzer falls somewhere between timid and craven--because of that you're going to declare some future campaign "flushed?" Get a grip.
Patience, Grasshopper...in 2008, whether it's a rematch with Shaheen or being roadkill to the Lynch juggernaut, he's going down. In 2010, Judd Gregg will suddenly decide to retire, and--Jiminy Jillickers!--Dems in NH now have a bench! There will half a dozen serious candidates to step in.
I have close personal connections to NH-01, I spent my teen years there and my family still lives there. I thought nominating Carol Shea Porter was a missed opportunity, avote for the heart over the head. Well, let's hear it for the heart! I'm glad I was wrong.
*increase the size of the House of Representatives so that under-represented citizens (who just happen to be our base) receive the representation they deserve.
*DC statehood. I believe Tom Davis isn't being cynical in his compromise (one seat for DC, one for Utah) but it's not enough.
*establish national guidelines for redistricting, preferably along "non partisan" guidelines so more competitive districts materialize.
when we get all three branches, we need to expend some political capital on a hit:
*impeach Scalia. Never been done? So what, the last six years have been an object lesson in the art of the possible. I'm sure there's plenty of conflict of interest stuff if someone dug through his garbage.
The Hillary partisans are going to make a run to oust Dean as chairman whether we win 10 new seats or 100 new seats. This makes sense when you see the Clinton footsoldiers who are going to fall on their swords to make this happen (and they will pay a price) wind up in a hypothetical Clinton cabinet.
This has very little to do with strategy--Harold Ickes or whichever lesser Hillary sock puppet they stick in there will continue Dean's 50 state strategy, but gravely declaim that, "we're different because we know about managing budgets." It's just about making another cog to limit choices in the 2008 primaries, and they're fearful Dean would be a neutral arbiter.
The lead is about getting Johnson to take her ads off the air. That's a terrible thing to even call for because it makes the candidate look weak, like he's worried about the message having an effect. The message needs to be solely about how the lies and cowardice are out of the Republican playbook.
Wow that's a great ad. Dishonest, misleading, and cowardly, but a fantastic ad.
The only way to combat these attack ads is to, well, turn your boat into the enemy and attack. Call it on it's dishonesty, the misleading claims, the basic cowardice. You don't combat it by changing the subject to how many kids are on CHIPs or trying to me-too the thing or appealing to some imaginary referees that "it's not fair mommy!"
Apart from the obvious villains--Bush and Cheney--no single person bears more responsibility for the Iraq mess than Colin Powell. He provided key cover for the loonies to move forward--if he'd ever had the guts to say what was in his heart or threaten to resign over the thing it never would have happened because it never would have been authorized. So I don't have a lot of respect--let alone sympathy--for Powell now.
Not to belabor the point too much, but the "seat at the table" doesn't belong to you or Markos or Jane Hamsher etc. The point is that netroots efforts, at their best, are about making officeholders and party officials listen to voters and to shine a light on all of their activities in ways that wouldn't have been possible even ten years ago.
To be clear--this isn't a cut on you, you're out there fighting to make this happen. It's a cut on the clowns in Congress who think of you and Markos and so on as interest group chieftains instead of activists and idealists little different than millions of others, and a warning to the same that using "the blogosphere" as a Luddite whipping boy as some (like that asshole the Moose) tend to do is dumb in the extreme, because all they're doing is insulting voters and that's the biggest no-no there is.