Don't forget all the judicial nominees that the Democratic caucus successfully blocked. Imagine how awful things would be if Dems didn't hold firm on those.

The Senate frustratingly blocks change in both directions.

Oh, link:

http://slatecard.com/

There was David All's SlateCard, but that got taken offline because they're building a new version, which really means "we don't have the resources to keep it up right now".

They should do something with Twitter, since it's going to save their party and all:

http://twitpay.me/

Same issue in Alaska. In 2004, Alaska's turnout was 313K. Only 212K votes have been counted so far in 2008. Begich, losing by 4K, still has a good chance to pull it off.

A few thoughts:

1) For accessing the contact information for Congress, I highly recommend the Sunlight Labs API:

http://services.sunlightlabs.com/api/

I even built a Ruby wrapper around it:

http://sunlight.rubyforge.org

It would be awesome if we had a similar API for state elected officials as well as media outlets.

2) Instead of creating new blogs/microblogs into this platform and syndicating them out, I'd look to integrate the existing blogosphere into this platform. What this exactly means is discussed next...

3) Include an activism-aware feedreader. Like Google Reader, but directly integrate activism options into each post. Design the feedreader with activism in mind.

4) Existing blogs can create their own area on the platform for activism. Currently, if a blog wants to do activism, they need to rely on vendor tools that campaigns/organizations usually use. Instead, they should be able to freely use the platform tools provided to everyone, with specific features that facilitate group activism for their readership.

5) Implement Open Web Standards on the platform, and strongly encourage the rest of the netroots to follow. OpenID, OAuth, and OpenSocial, and similar technologies can be used to create a truly open (and useful) platform, instead of the vendor dependent, data-siloed activism ecosystem we have today.

It all comes down to the simple point that the Senate Republicans' only (legitimate) legislative tool will be the Filibuster. In 2009, the Republicans will be completely out of power, much like Democrats in 2005. The rules in Washington in 2009 will be vastly different from the rules of today.

The filibuster is the only tool the American people and the Washington media will view as valid. Tom Coburn being batshit crazy isn't a legitimate technique for a party completely in the minority. Coburn's antics are acceptable now to the Republican leadership because he's essentially vetoing bills and saving Bush some face.

Republicans will filibuster the progressive change we want to see happen, and getting more Democratic butts in those seats in Congress (both in the Senate and the House) is our main offense against the filibuster.

MyDD and Kos are right. Wait for 2010 for the ideological war, not now. We haven't even had the chance to pass the legislation we truly want to.

With 10% of the precincts not yet counted, it's save to say that the turnout has crushed that of 1988.

Full-text of Dean's post-New Hampshire 2004 speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/politi cs/campaign/text-dean.html?ex=1203570000 &en=957e744cd4192133&ei=5070

LOL. Yes, because Democracy for America "turning on" Howard Dean makes so much sense it's a wonder they didn't do it in 2004.

When did DFA or MoveOn ever demonize the superdelegates? They're simply asking that the unpledged delegates don't overturn the winner of pledged delegate count.

Also, Dean's quote of "Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party." is completely vague. I actually interpret it to mean the exact opposite of "they can vote for the loser if they want". I take it to mean "in the best interests of the Party, superdelegates should affirm the winner of the pledged delegates count".

A petition, to be successful, can only be about one thing. This one is about unpledged delegates voting for the winner of the pledged delegates race.

So no, they don't say anything about MI and FL, and they should probably follow up with a petition to Dean and the DNC to come up with a fair solution to it.

Seriously, this is the most inane thing I've ever read on MyDD. And I've read a lot of what Jerome writes, so that's saying something...

Of course, it's easy to selectively paste text from each org's emails, so let's look at the actual meat of each petition. From DFA:

After every Democrat in every state has had a chance to vote, super-delegates must confirm the winner of the popularly allocated delegates.

Then, MoveOn:

The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice.

See? It's actually very clear. Neither org is "anti-superdelegate". They simply say "Super-delegates should uphold the winner after the primaries are over". So yes, that means Ted Kennedy should vote for Clinton if she has more pledged delegates at the end, and Bill Clinton should vote for Obama if he winds up with more pledged delegates. It's really that simple.

Are we really hating on MoveOn and DFA now? Really?!?!

Hate to say I told you so...

And next week the same will be true for our party. It's a simple observation, and one the Netroots should take heed when trying to affect the next presidential cycle (which we hopefully won't have to do until 2013).

Oops, meant to say 58/41 for Bush in 2004, as 60/41 would be impossible. ;-)

Some quick analysis from this CNN results page:

530K voted in the Democratic Primary compared to 443K for the Republicans. So SC voters went 54/46 Democratic in a state that went 60/41 for Bush in 2004. More South Carolinians voted for Obama than for McCain and Huckabee combined. Distant runner up Hillary Clinton nearly had as many votes as GOP winner John McCain.

The GOP is the party of old geezers as well, as over a third of GOP voters was over 60 but only a quarter of Democratic voters were in the same age group. Things look good for November.