I don't know why he insists on using "draft" to describe the bill:  Universal National Service Act of 2006.  It is indeed a shell bill, but far wider in scope than a simple draft.  Concept is worth at least debating.

I'll vote the for candidate(s) that tell me what the world should look like in 2020 and beyond; how they intend to get us there; and ask us to help.  Haven't seen any those yet.  

. .with an eye towards the future

The future is an abstract concept to the current leadership.  Too busy slamming - and running - on "bad Republicans".  I'll take a close look at a candidate who plans a world for my grandchildren, but I ignore those whose solutions are "not Republican".

Clinton understood the concept well.  IMHO it's one of the reasons he won both times.

Hoyer's contributors via Open Secrets.org.

That's funny - good one.  If you're serious, you've been hanging out in D.C. too much.  :-)

I wholeheartedly agree with your decision to reinforce the mandates of the United Nations Security Council:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

      1. Notes that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the Government of Iraq and, having regard to the letters annexed to this resolution, reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force as set forth in resolution 1546 (2004) and decides to extend the mandate of the multinational force as set forth in that resolution until 31 December 2006;

      2. Decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or no later than 15 June 2006, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq; [UNSCR 1637 [pdf]

Noted that the review of the mandate is scheduled for next month, and Iraqi public opinion seems to favor your approach.  Might be helpful to publicize that fact every now and again.

Op-Ed in IRNA, 13 Apr 06, by Iranian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations Mohammad-Javad Zarif::

"We have never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations. Although chemical weapons have been used against us, we have never used them in retaliation -- as UN reports have made clear. We have not invaded another country in 250 years."

The administration constantly points to the power of the religious leaders in Iran.  Okey doke:

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons." [IRNA, 10 Aug 05]

Somewhere in that policy mix the party had better start talking about restoration of labor rights, living wages, and healthcare.  And in some manner build fairness into the tax code.  Absent some "new" plan, everything I've read indicates SS may be "fixed" by simply raising the cap, no?

For once in 26 years I'd like to hear more voices than John Edwards talking about disparity and class division.  "Entitlements" are skewed heavily to the top 5%, with absolutely no net gain for the rest of us.  This new "plan" sounds dangerously close to conservativism.

All we got from that is yellow snow.

WTF?  I'm long past wondering why the democrats act/react the way they do to the questionable (at best) actions of the administration.  Oh well, at least they're consistent.  "Needs time and/or study".  Or in this case, (apologies to Lennon) give freaks a chance.

Any domestic or foreign policy statement by anyone other than the current administration.  Oh yeah, and not reading "Bush" in any headline on any "progressive" blog for the next freaking week.  

Yes, absolutely.  Big difference in attitude and accuracy between here and dkos.  Debate is here, noise is there.

I think the people here learned from this one that sometimes laying seige is better than "Crashing the Gate".  Remember that it's safer "inside", but much freer outside the walls.  Blogs didn't even became loud enough to be heard until after the '04 election.  That was less than a year and half ago.

Looked at another way, you've got 41% of voting dems in IL 6.  Organized and connected, I'd say that's a group to be reckoned with.

General elections, like primaries, are for voting for the best candidate in the race.  Period.

There was this from Pew Research:

Americans Taking Abramoff, Alito and Domestic Spying in Stride
Democrats Hold Huge Issue Advantage
Released: January 11, 2006

Bush's approval rating has not changed since December (38% approve/54% disapprove).

Link is to the summary findings, quote from para. 5.  Gotta say I trust their research more than CNN, et. al.

My anger comes from the fact that one day after the one billion dollar election in November, candidates began to (carefully and quietly) send out feelers for the next one.  In a supreme act of the tail wagging the dog, some "progressive" blogs even put forth polls on who would run for President four years hence in the first quarter of last year.

First, I will make my choice of the best candidate in a primary election for any office.  I don't need, and in fact abhor, any party's endorsement of a candidate prior to those primaries. The fact that "leadership" chooses to limit my choice speaks volumes about their perception of the electorate.

Secondly, between rigging the choices, and constant campaigns, it's no wonder the electorate is sick and tired of being sick and tired.  Class is the least of it.  Noted above, there is no democracy to be found in the structure of today's party politics.  

Finally, I think the battle for power has engendered fear of loss in the powerful.  Fine.  Just go play in your own yard in D.C.  The rest of us are informed and educated enough to make our own damn decisions without your help.