Letter writers here from the South are emotional about the suggestion that they might be ignored politically. As someone who has lived in the West and Northeast, I am aggravated that it is accepted political wisdom that the Democrats cannot win a presidential election unless the candidate is a Southerner.

I hear Southerners nursing their wounds and egos, but what about those of us from everywhere else who want to work to raise up an outstanding candidate for the presidency that we know well from our local wards and precincts, but who is then doomed to fall on the sword of Southern provincialism?

Bill Maher had a joke about this that captured my anger well: Why is it that the South refuses to vote for a candidate who can’t pronounce all four Es in the word “shit”?

In my earlier post, I wanted to abraid the tendency of some Southern posters who seemed to be wallowing in victim identity by basking in some provincial political grievance myself. Victimhood as political identity has probably been a characteristic of Southern politics since the Civil War. I’ve observed that universally in life, it is the people who perceive themselves to be the most powerless and victimized that wind up doing the most damage, arising from a blinkered lack of awareness about the effects of the power they do have.

The truth is that in recent history the conservative South has wielded inordinate influence in the Democratic party and over the direction of the nation’s politics. But the question of where the South stands now (still a very Republican place), and how that relates to advancing Progressive policies, values and ideas, leads to the thesis of this article as one possible solution.

I believe that Dean’s 50-state strategy is truly the best strategy here, and support continuing efforts to raise up the Democrats in the South. And I agree that Southern voters are not served by drifting away from Progressive values and running Republican-lite candidates for statewide offices in the region. Give Americans everywhere two parties that have the courage of their convictions and see where the voters land. I truly believe that the Democratic Party better represents the solutions to the economic and educational challenges that face the South. But Christian social identity trumps all in many places still in the South. In the meantime, if we have to piece together a progressive coalition that doesn’t include the elements of a currently right-wing identified South, then so be it.

As someone who would like to see the penal system in this country reformed, I'm excited to see a political rainmaker who's going to get visceral exposure to its shortcomings. Maybe he will go to work for Progressive reform. How about giving ex-felons the right to vote in all 50 states, Jack?

Or drug law reform? Or more money for drug diversion programs for teenagers? More money to help ex-cons reintegrate? etc., etc.

"Magic," "charisma," "rock star"...Whatever happened to the old enlightenment notion that we should make our decisions based on sound reasoning, rational thought, evidence, facts and perhaps good ideas? Is picking the president now entirely a process that takes place in the gut and by interpreting our visceral emotions?

I'll take Clark, thank you very much.

Salon makes arbitrary editorial choices when author Levey and several of the letter writers all reference the Walt/Mearsheimer paper, but Salon chooses not to link to it (assuming it is available on the web). Yet we do get links to criticism of that research.

I've never read their work, but I have read much of the criticism of it (some here on Salon). The criticism doesn't make me particularly interested in reading it, but the suspicion that editorial choices are being made to suppress the free expression of ideas does make me curious. Suppressing ideas tends to make them more powerful, not less.

I'd also lend my voice to those who are wondering why Salon hasn't done an article on the dustup over Jimmy Carter's book.

Salon's role in society is to facilitate discussion on the big issues of the day, not ignore it or squelch it. Right?

And 2007 is starting with the president and his men pushing for a "surge" (read escalation) in Iraq. He hasn't hit political bottom yet.

It will be interesting and unprecedented to see what political place he gets himself into, especially with Washington consensus decreeing that impeachment is off the table.

I'm feeling optimistic about seeing more congressional gains for the Dems in '08, but it's tempered by the question of how the left blogosphere, online progressive news outlets (like Salon), liberal radio, op-ed writers, TV personalities and others will defend the new Democratic Congress from the full-throttle smear machine of the right.

We're good at calling them on their bullshit, but more acclimated to eating our own than defending our own.

Ok, so you pass a minority "bill of rights," and then the next time the Repubs are in the majority, they rescind it, modify it. etc., to get back to absolute power.

It's foolish to think we can go back to "way it ought to be."

And lets give credit where credit is due to John Edwards for dubbing the policy of sending more troops into Iraq "the McCain doctrine." May that frame stick all through the election cycle.

With a big vision and smart political fighting skills, Edwards looks good, but the Dems actually have an embarrassment of riches with good candidates and potential candidates lining up for the 2008 primaries. Barrack Obama, Wes Clark, Al Gore--the Dems bench is deep with talent, experience, vision and willingness to fight in various combinations. If one of them can get past the Hillary juggernaut, this will be an election where the candidate may actually represent progressive/liberal values for a change.