Just want you to know that I read most of your postings, without commenting, and find you to be an outstanding writer.  I mostly enjoy that you tackle topics not addressed by other progressive bloggers.  Your writing is smart and compelling.  Thanks for your contribution to our movement.

I like Josh's suggestion.  We should start a Coleman-like effort to raise money.  Why not start an effort to say...

$1/day for every day until Hannity either goes through waterboarding or just admits it is torture.

Or just flat donations up front

We can call it the:

Prove you're not a coward Hannity fund.  OR

Prove you're a patriot Hannity.

Show it every night on Olberman's show, and that it was started by the grassroots.  Marriage of blogging and mainstream media.

I've been calling for Tom for the past few days.  I've called for 7 campaigns in my activism and here are some of the differences I'm seeing:

- very low awareness of the election (not surprising, but different than other elections)

• very low commitment to any candidate.  
  
• no mention to me of support for any candidate other than tom.  i realize they are less likely to tell me, but it is unusual not to have 1 mention of another candidate during calls
  
• people who do talk about tom are enthusiastic about support him

i thought sara and mike were going to be clearly in the lead at this point, and that isn't what i'm hearing.  definitely motivating me to keep on calling.  join in if you are interested to elect a progressive to office.

I agree 100%.  

I agree - you can't, and shouldn't, force anyone to refer to any type of personal relationship with your chosen terms.  Those words should be left up to the people in the relationship.

Glad you support that use.  Until we're given equal rights, we'll just appropriate the term that most couples use for our own purpose - equal rights.

Thanks for your support in doing what we see fit for us - that's really all we want!

Terrific, strategic thinking.  I am game for this.  Would love to help out in some way.  Keep us/me posted.

And I agree with you - he does look at it and rightfully separates church and state.  I did tear up when he said "gay" at the convention and last Tuesday night.  That alone is a huge symbol.

I actually hope nothing happens federally before 2012.  If he wins a second term, perhaps.  Frankly, this issue will resolve itself in 10-15 years.  That's when older people will be less of the population and younger people will be my fine age of 40.  

And gay rights activists (of which I count myself a member) have had a much shorter fight than women and people of color.  We've made good progress.  I'd be happy if they recognized my Canadian marriage here!

Obama is for equal rights.  I didn't say he wasn't.

However, when you look at gay rights specifically, he doesn't support gay marriage, and his quote to this effect, sadly, was used to drum up support for Prop 8.  

He does want to repeal don't ask/don't tell, he does support civil unions, but he doesn't support marriage equality.  The positions he's taken are safe in 2008.  Not that I want Kucinich as President, but in 2004 he was for gay marriage, when it was risky.  That is someone who is progressive related to gay rights.  Obama will be ok, but not a leader in this area.  

Find me something that tells me otherwise and I'm all ears.

Before I answer your question, let's look at some of your key points:

"little or no coattails" - depends on how that is defined.  20+ seats in the House is very good, especially in context of a 30 seat win in 2006.  

"propositions in CA and FL" - Obama isn't a progressive when it comes to gay rights, and these anti-gay laws reflect his lack of leadership on the issue, so indeed their passage rode his coattails in that regard.

"no incumbent governors lost" - on the surface that seems telling, but let's take a look.  Which states didn't Repubs lose?  Red states Utah, Indiana, and North Dakota, of which Obama won only won, IN by 1%.  Vermont is the 4th, I believe, which was unusual as the Dems didn't have a candidate, from what I have seen.  Hard to base a "no coattails" argument on this data set.

If you're really a conservative, then you likely want fiscal responsibility, right?  You know that spending increased significantly under Reagan, Bush I and II, while taxes decreased, giving us this nice debt to finance.  Democrats may need to raise taxes on the wealthiest, as part of the overall economic plan, but at least they will use them to offset any spending increases.  And read the front page post about Robert Reich and spending - it will make sense why the gov't does need to spend more.

So to answer your question, if you're a fiscal conservative (which the Dems have been much more so for the last 30 years than the Republicans) and social progressive, then you're in the right party.  However, in my opinion, if you're not socially progressive, then you're in a tough spot because socially you belong with the Repubs, and fiscally with the Dems, though the Republicans would like us to think otherwise.  I realize it's not entirely this black and white, but I'm trying to simplify a bit here.

It's tough for me to make room for social conservatives in my Dem party.  Social progress is at the root of our identity and if we're not aligned on most or all of those values, then we're not aligned.

Curious to learn more about your perspectives...

Tunney is, at best, a good mouthpiece.  He has little depth in his policies and has pushed no meaningful change in the ward/city.  He has been a Daley rubberstamp, the entire reason he won to begin with.  Yes he's gay, but he's also just one more white man to send to Congress.

I haven't reviewed enough of the other possibilities to have formed a clear opinion of who else should go.  I'll do that and post in the future.  

I am however clear that Tunney would not be the type of progressive leader we need in Washington.  No how.  No way.  No Tunney.  

Well, can't say that I like the idea of Rahm being a top advisor to Obama, but I'm not surprised.  Can any of us really be thrilled that the person who pushed through the bailout and caved on FISA retroactive immunity will be this close to our new leader?

That said, we have an opportunity to put a very progressive person in Rahm's soon to be vacant House seat.  His district is heavily gay and well-educated/white/social progressives in Chicago.  Not sure how the process works to replace (governor appointee?), but there are plenty of good progressives to choose from.  In my opinion, it would be hard to do worse than Emmanuel.

that John McCain and she are both ready to be President on Day 1 due to their experience, and BO is not, you cannot put this person on your ticket.

When Bill Clinton doesn't know how to get out of the spotlight, you can't have him connected to your administration.

When all is said and done, most HRC supporters will swing Barrack's way.  This polling isn't that unusual - that people say they won't support the nominee.  Watch what happens once emotions simmer down.

and the problem is that the other part of the electorate - the over 60% that is not registered Democrat - overwhelmingly can't stand Hillary.

Get over it.

She lost.  Clinton is the past.  Obama is the future.  He needs to choose someone who is a break from the past and can help create a new future.  Hillary is just not that person.

Hillary wants power.  In our current system, an Independent wouldn't have the power structures in place to that she would want.

As for comments that she is a true Democrat, if that is an accurate statement, then we will see her dropping out very soon so that the party can heal.  

The nomination will be over before any committee meetings occur.  Superdelegates will close the deal for Obama very quickly now.