You seem not to get that people are really angry and scared.

They're angry because of the war - the waste of lives and resources - families torn apart by death, injuries, PTSD and neglect by our government.  For what, for war and oil profiteering.

They're scared because of the economic conditions in this country and the attack on the middle class.

My daughter is 40 years old and a contract worker for a large corporation.  The director of her division told the contract workers that they could apply for jobs in the company.  But when she checked it out, it turns out that the jobs go first to active employees of the company, next to employees of the parent company, next to outsiders, and LAST to contract workers.

We have a generation and more of people who have not been able to develop careers or trades because of what is going on with people who have "power."

You really think they're going to be turned off by a fighting spirit?  That's what we've all been waiting for.

If we don't get someone who is going to fight for us now, what do you think the next step is?

In 1990, at the age of 51, I lost my job for the first time in my life.  I wasn't alone - our entire department was let go to be recreated with only 1/3 the people.  We were let go during a technology change, so that none of us were adequately trained for new jobs.  The younger employees managed to get jobs, although not as quickly as might be expected.  Those of us in our fifties were lost causes.

When Bill Clinton ran for President and started talking free trade, I had an uneasy feeling. Learning that he was associated with an organization called the Democratic Leadership Council, I wrote a letter to them expressing my misgivings.  The response I got back was not what I expected from a Democratic organization.

While Clinton's intelligence and competence blunted the downside of his political views, it was very clear to me that he was not a progressive.  Hillary Clinton is not a progressive, either.

Edwards is the only person on the Democratic primary slate that takes positions that seem healthy for our society and the only person that I think will follow through on his commitment.  And he's the only person with those view who can be elected.

If we cannot nominate Edwards and bring in a whole slew of new faces in the Senate and House of Representatives, then I think it is time for a new party.  I know that's not what people want to hear,  but from the nonsense that has gone on post 2006 election, it is clear that the insiders in Washington care not a whit about what the people who actually vote for them want.

It's true that a party that is created on one issue cannot make it over the long haul, but this time a third party would not be on one issue but on an entire ideology.  If we don't let the insiders know that we are not going to be their patsies anymore, nothing will ever change.

No doubt that people are starting to get a bit ticked off when executives earn such immense paychecks, especially when a lot of Americans are struggling to make ends meet.

That's part of it.  But there's also the fact a number of top execs have been incompetent, some corrupt, and still they get the big paycheck.

One rationale for the immense compensation to execs is that they're responsible for the company doing well.  But when something goes wrong, their immediate reply is that they didn't know "this" or weren't aware of "that".  When someone is being paid some ungodly amount, you expect some accountability.

the 40 million additional workers who will lose their jobs to overseas outsourcing?

Let's be honest: The only people that are going to remember this agreement are David Sirota and Lou Dobbs.

you have to be transformed.  That's what I think we're seeing with John Edwards.

I have a different take on Joe Anthony.  As I read his narrative, I got the feeling of someone whose frustration - both with the amount of work that he was handling and with Obama's staff - that the money issue became a symbol of his frustration and an easy way to deal to with myriad issues that complicated the relationship between Anthony and Obama's staff.

Anthony may have handled himself naively, but he was an Obama supporter who worked hard on the site.  It just seems foolish for Obama's staffers not to pick up on this and deal with it more adroitly.

This is not about legalities, but relationships.

I also donated $50 plus a tip.

I don't see Hillary getting the love that Bill gets.  So I'm not sure that it's transferrable.

This is what kills me about all this inter(or is it intra)-partisan stuff.  My candidate, my candidate is the greatest, yours expletive deleted.

The fact is that all of these candidates are human beings, and all are politicians.  No one's perfect.

Why is it that we're just waiting for Obama to show his promise, but it can't possibly by that Edwards has evolved over time?  Double standards, much?

And you can't accuse Edwards of copying that from someone else.

I believe he's already changed his position.  TPM has a post up that all the Dem leadership have now opposed it.  Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, and Hoyer are all against.

Now we have to see if the rank and file fall in line.

From Steve Gilliard

is that the police response sounds planned and organized.  This wasn't the reaction of a few police "gone wild."  From the trampling of the crowd by the horse-mounted cops to the mind-control tactics at the jail, all of that sounded organized.

We've gone back in time folks.

where a charactergets hit repeatedly while stuck in one place

duh!

Actually the whack-a-mole image is wrong.  What I'm thinking of is one of the Bugs Bunny era cartoons gets hit repeatedly while stuck in one place - i.e., takes a beating.  Whack-a-mole would be Garret's hopeful image.