Good for Paul, but really, how much of that money that he's raking in is coming from Republicans? If it was more than 25% i'd be surprised.

The more I hear abbout Pelosi, the more I respect her and the better I like her

Pelosi's not just rewarding those freshmen it's also smart politics. She knows as freshmen they're going to be targets in '08 and making them "somebodies" will help them ward off the bad guys
in that first reelection race which is the toughest.

Here we go....Barack Obama talked with Colin Powell twice so now there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans again. Might as well stay on the sidelines and absorb with grim satisfaction another four years of unmitigated disaster.

I think we can all agree that Colin Powell did this country a gross disservice by allowing his rep and credibility in DC insider circles -- and globally -- to be used to sell Bush/Cheney's warmongering lies.

And Powell's original brand of more cautious internationalism covering for often cynical big business realpolitik -- I wasn't a big fan of that either.

But I really don't see the harm in this. If Obama can engage Powell on Obama's terms, frankly that is exactly the kind of association and credibility that could significantly help Obama overcome his biggest hurdle: the beltway conventional wisdom that post-9/11 he simply doesn't yet have the foreign policy gravitas to ascend to the Oval Office. It needn't be a Faustian bargain. To many DC elites, Fred Thompson's speaking voice is a qualification for the Presidency; they are so obsessed with how political appearences might play out that they will their impact into reality. In their view, Obama meeting with Powell not only looks serious, it is the part of the approved means by which a new contender proves he is sober and serious.

According to this view, Colin Powell is the still the wise, centrist counselor whose advice was ignored and loyality terribly exploited by the neocons. Obama needn't surrender his own judgement or independence to benefit from what is, in reality, a very limited association.

What if Powell thought most GOP candidates to be reckless phonies and decided to endorse Obama. Knowing everything else you know about Obama, would you turn that down even if I helped to elect him President?

But substantively and superficially, I wouldn't go beyond Powell to pick the brains of other executive branch architects of probably the most disasterous foreign policy in US History. Powell and Larry Wilkerson is about as far as I'd go.

I guess my problem is with using the likes of Powell as an adviser; if Powell endorses Obama fine. It seems to me that is quite a difference. I want the direction of America to change; after the 2006 elections, the report card on the Democrats is mixed at best; this follows at least four years where "dismal" is the best I can give them. You have a lot more confidence in the Dems than I do.

This one is only a few days old and is already a favorite: Via New York Times:

"When Americans elected a Democratic Congress last November, they were voting to end politics as usual and special interest legislation. On the vital issues of energy independence and global warming they are not only in danger of getting more of the same but also, unless Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders step forward, winding up in worse shape than they were under the Republicans.

Exhibit A is a regressive bill drafted by John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat. For starters, the bill would override the recent Supreme Court decision giving the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, a decision that even President Bush has reluctantly embraced. It would also effectively block efforts by California and 11 other states to regulate and reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles at a time when the states are far ahead of the federal government in dealing with climate change."

I guess some of us growing disillusioned or unhappy with the Dems performance might say in the same tone that you employ: here we go. here come the comments that make allowances for everything the Dems do by telling us how bad Bush is. My feeling is that at best that will lead to an electoral victory for the Dems (although I do not believe that is the best way to that end) but changing Bush's America...no.

You could look it up, Bill Keller calling someone "unusually disingenuous and superficial" is the textbook definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

Snark aside it shows just how little Keller knows about politics. It doesn't take a whole lot of common sense (another quality Keller apparantly lacks) to know that the way our system is currently set up congressional leadership is predicated on fundraising prowess and the clout that goes with it. Being a policy wonk with enough experience makes you capable of chairing certain committees that are in your area of expertise but not really the hard work of herding cats to get bills passed in the full House. Of course just raising tons of money doesn't make you a good Speaker either, it's only part of the equation. But so far it's obvious Pelosi has the skills necessary to hold the Dem majority together and get legislation passed.

I find your take highly unhelpful. Here is why:

The Dems have very narrow majorities in both Houses of Congress. There are, of coarse, a number of centrist and even conservative Dems, this limits the ability of progressive Dems to accomplish a great deal...

I have the bizarre notion that when they're agin you they are the enemy whatever they choose to call themselves.

Maybe for a bit of counterpoint there is rising hope (by some of us) that Bob Kerrey will run again for the Senate in Nebraska. Bob Kerrey can make everybody angry at some time or other but he is one fellow who isn't bought and paid for.

Could use lots of those folks I think but many fewer Democratic impersonators IMO.

Best, Terry

I disagree. I think bashing Dems that deserve bashing is an essential ingredient in creating a progressive movement which is more important to me than electing Bush-lite candidates and I think in the end critical for actually changing the direction this country is headed. I do not know if Obama fits that description; Hillary certainly drives me to the point where I lean against voting for her (certainly if she were running against Ron Paul I would vote Republican for the first time in my life. His non-interventionist foreign policy, coupled with his description and understanding of the origins of our conflict in the Middle East make him very attractive. I do not think any Democrat has verbalized a criticism of our Middle East policy over say 30-54 years that is as on point as his. He sure leaves a tremendous amount to be desired domestically.) Clinton's foreign policy is a disaster waiting to occur. You bring up LBJ. Would you vote for him again? Maybe you weren't there, but let me remind you that Vietnam was hell; yes I am happy about Medicare and some of the other programs; but our 50,000 dead (to say nothing of our wounded and the dead and wounded Vietnamese certainly in the hundreds of thousands) from his stupid, immoral, intolerable, despicable policy would never outweigh those admittedly desirable domestic achievements. If that is what the progressive movement and you offer, I am happy to be unhelpful.

Another thing I like about Obama is he doesn't pander. Whether he's talking to grandmas from the projects or car company CEOs he listens, and then tells them that fixing their complaints aren't going to fix all their problems. He then tells them what he thinks they need to do to help themselves and then he offers them the carrot of what he'll do as president to help them accomplish those goals. You want out of the projects or you want out from underneath your legacy costs in building your cars he offers a quid pro quo that in the long run is not only good for you but good for the nation.

If you're looking to elect "many fewer Democratic impersonators" you'd better look past Kerrey.

Bob Kerrey ain't no Republican stooge by a long shot. The Medal of Honor winner almost singlehandedly shot down the flag burning amendment years ago. Even Republicans weren't up to taking him on in that instance while other Democrats were ducking and running for cover.

If you want to look you will find lots to hate about Bob Kerrey but being a lockstep robot in the Republican tradition for sure isn't one of them.

I even like McCain when he isn't kissing ass of the chickenhawk fundies and making a damn fool of himself in Baghdad.

I voted for Kerry because he was attacked by the Swift Boaters. Couldn't find a good reason otherwise.

Possible you wouldn't understand? Guess so.

Best, Terry