Green Job:

Interesting you would choose a skin reference. Here's the facts: the Democratic nominee has not won a majority of the white vote since LBJ in 1964 - then he signed (and enforced) major civil rights legislation...

The fact remains, as anyone with 5 minutes and Google can tell you, that there is a path to the White house that does involve not winning W.V. or K.Y. To focus on the "can't" and not the "can" is not very progressive and makes me wonder why you even regard yourself as one.

Electro:

Too bad your handle is cooler than your comments - but I digress.

I also wonder about your progressive bonafides as well. What progressive cause, beyond keeping abortion legal, was advanced by the Clinton administration? We are standing at a precipice here: the country has gotten bad enough that we have a real chance to change the country for the better (and perhaps semi-permanently) rather than elect another triangulator-in-chief that will just turn off 55% of the country again and open the door to another Shrub after 8 years.

This time we have a chance at a real, lasting Democratic majority. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans are progressive in their views (fair taxes for the middle class, properly maintained social safety nets, a working infrastructure, not imposing our will on other countries). They've just been sold an agenda based on lies and false premises - you want to talk about "identity politics": how many people's lives are really affected by boys kissing?

But we have a chance to elect a POTUS that doesn't mind saying "That line of reasoning is flawed and here is why..." using common language that isn't so bogged down in policy that people zone out in a few minutes. Add this to a criminally incompetent Republican administration who had a virtual rubber stamp for 6 years (bring that up to a pro-life advocate sometime and then ask them why abortion is still legal) and the case practically makes itself.

That is, unless our candidate is a person whom 45% of the country hates and 100% of the country has already made up their mind about. That, my friend, has nothing to do with nobility or anger. Them's the facts!

Bottom line: the "electability" DLC wing of the party has had its say for 16 years. The first 8 gave us a Republican congress and the last 8 have brought us to the brink. Maybe its time we followed the more progressive among us, wear our hearts on our sleeves and see what happens. It could hardly get worse..

What's wrong with Elton Brand? Nothing, if he was picked in the second round.

The #2 pick (overall) comment was a reference to Jordan. You might have heard of him...

A "new kind of politics" might just get some REAL progressive legislation passed. It's kind of getting tedious referring to the Civil Rights legislation (enacted 40 years ago) as the last great progressive accomplishment. That, and keeping abortion legal.

Universal Healthcare. Major energy policy that works toward independence. Active planet stewardship. Infrastructure maintenance AND improvement through access to public transportation. A SS contingency plan. Restoration of habeus corpus... Just off the top of my head..

Any of these would definitely be "new".

...can't come soon enough!

If the presidency is determined by number of believers, I'll take Obama any day.

How's McCain doing on that front anyway? All the mexican-hating homophobes that got Bush elected in 2004 gonna show up this time? They better, because, by your own admission, Obama's already lapped McCain in believers..

If you showed up to vote for a "Defense of Marriage" proposal in 2004, then you're a homophobe.

If you showed up in 2004 to vote for kicking immigrants out of the country and building a huge fence on the Mexican border, than you hate Mexicans.

And they're also one-issue "believer" voters who might just stay at home because McCain's pro-Amnesty, pro gay marriage, and sometimes (depends on the interview) pro-choice.

Wait.... now, he's pro-life again.

Oh, wait... now he's back...

Now if I can just convince my wife to let me invite some co-eds over for a little Wii fun. I'm sure she'll be all for it once I explain about the health benefits...

"Ok...but then to go with that, you have to admit that Al Gore and John Kerry LOST to an incompetent.

So...which is it?"

Telltale sign of a conservative: Every choice is either this or that, when in truth, most situations have more than 2 answers.

Sorry, I don't accept your false choices. We've seen first hand for the last eight years how Bush Co. can run a completely incompetent government but still run an effective political campaign. I'd consider myself incompetent in the gov't runnin' biz myself, doesn't mean I'm incompetent in other jobs.

Apparently no one here has heard of Swiftian satire...

I mean jeez people, the post was titled "A modest proposal"!

"Compassionate Conservative" or "Reformer with Results" kind of stuff?

Seriously, McCain is running to the center a bit too fast for his "base". There's still that die hard 20% approval rating crowd that is the main reason for Bush's victories. His illegal immigrant amnesty and pro-choice, pro-gay marriage stances aren't going to help him much with those voters.

He hasn't got the Social Con base locked up yet, and may never, especially if these are the speeches he's going be giving.

The best part of the speech was where he criticized Obama for thinking "he's entitled to [the presidency]"! Excuse me, but wasn't your party the one predicting a "permanent majority" less than 2 years ago?

...think its over enough not to show at the polls. This is a Clinton protest-vote win...

OK, FOX will probably mention it...