Thanks for your response (I just now read it).

I understand you clearly and acknowledge seriously your commitment to this issue. I really only have one thing to add: the critical time for trying to wrest the change we, and so many others, want is at the primary stage at the Congressional level. (I should also add that it's just as important, over time, to work at the state level as well--indeed, that might very well produce success faster)

I don't delude myself that a presidential campaign will bring us the progressive results we want, and probably not for the foreseeable future. However, candidates like Darcy Burner (even though she lost, it was close), running in specific congressional districts that can be identified as worth challenging right now, is a reasonable tack to take.

I enjoyed the conversation.

So, IF the Obama administration turns out, after the next four or even eight years, to be basically business as usual, THEN will it be time to finally reject all of the Republicans AND the Democrats? Or will we once again clutch desperately at the next Dem candidates promising "change" who will be marched out by the corporate-owned big media in the next election cycles?

Apart from the presidential campaign, I see no reason why anyone ought to simply wait to see how it turns out over the next four years. There are congressional elections in two years and now's the time, ala Accountability Now/Act Blue, to identify progressive candidates who can run in districts in which they would have a reasonable chance of winning. There, and at the state level, is where progressives stand the best chance of generating movement.

I had a conversation with a Green Party member who disagreed with me on trying to wrest change through the Democratic Party. I have no special loyalty to that party; I simply think it would be a monumental task to try to create a new party from whole cloth. I reminded him that Christian conservatives, from the bottom up, remade their party in an image that--while repulsive to many of us--better reflected their political interests (though not entirely, of course). They, too, had grown tired of being scorned.

Wait a minute. I agree with Derbig. If something's gone seriously wrong I hope you (or someone with you?) have spoken with your doctor, the ER, someone.

Please don't just let it happen.

A South Texas grand jury has returned multi-count indictments against Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County’s federal detention centers ....

We probably need Ondelette or someone else here (including Glenn) to tell us (or, at least, me) just what the implications of this are.

http://thinkprogress.org/

Wisdom? I don't think so.

but it made me laugh out loud.

Wait a minute ...

Mt sense? IMO. It's what I feel.

You break my heart in the best and worst of times.

That's what a skillful bard does.

Gosh, too bad he couldn't have worked Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima in there, too.

And the guy on the Cream of Wheat box.

Talk about a trifecta.

but then I'd have to spank you.

You'll understand that, while it wasn't addressed to me, this caught my (ever roving) eye.

what the Great Barometer of Thor said.

Gaalll!

Has anybody gone and researched what "progressive" means in American politics? As far as I can tell, it means very little which speaks to our present political problems, and what it does mean, we don't want. There are certainly a lot of things wrong with America, but lack of progress is not one of them. Progress we got, way too much of it for me.

I can tell you what "progressive" means to me (and perhaps many others): decent, reasonable access to healthcare; a living wage; a reasonable and respectful approach to the Constitution and Bill of Rights (and by respectful, I don't mean adoration--rather, a respect for the law); a refusal to torture, render or engage in ridiculously lethal and expensive wars.

I'll stop there.

I think the term "progressive" replaced that of "leftist" because the latter came to be associated with stuff like welfare, out-of-wedlock marriage (issues from the '70s, in other words). Dear ol' Wiki puts it this way: "Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy."

a festival of idiocy

A nice use of language.

Girl Bearing Tricycle says Glenn is posturing to gian some clout in the Obama white house as a progressive he really thinks he matters

I don't know what that means but I believe it underscores your "festival of idiocy" observation.

Our nation has evolved we do need another tired culture war driven by shallow underdeveloped folks like Glenn and his chorus of groupies..

Okay.

Bye.

The festival of idiocy is anyone who doesn't hold your opinion - that's your own festival of idiocy.

I don't agree with this. Besides, I already praised her use of language.

it's irresponsible for Glenn to smear the future with the past and imply or infer that bipartisanship will somehow always lead to Bush-like policies ....

Glenn can speak for himself but, as I recall it, he didn't imply that genuine (or, should I say, theoretical) bipartisanship would lead to Bush-like policies. Rather, the refusal to challenge or prosecute those policies--and the actors in them--would lead us to a future we wouldn't necessarily enjoy living in (again, not Glenn's view, but mine).

These generalizations are more desructive than constructive.

I'm sorry to say that over time these probably will cease to be generalizations and will become, disappointingly, far more specific. In any event, there's nothing wrong with challenging those in power from the outset. Why would a citizen in a democracy/republic do anything less?