Interesting that there's been no mention of Stephen Colbert,whose performances are by far the funniest in over a generation, or of Seinfeld, and little mention of Jon Stewart (lack of women cited is another discussion). These men are in their forties, but (Colbert and Stewart) just getting better and better. They are both clearly happy men who use their sincere and discomforting political anger as their artistic medium, and seem to enjoy relying on their live audiences. One difference from some of the other comedians discussed is that these two are unusually smart, quick-quippers with a firm philosophical grounding, and their comedy is more wit than schtick (ditto for Rob Corddry and a couple of other Daily performers). Could it be that the trend of critical audiences is actually becoming more intellectually demanding, even though the paying ones still pony up for slapstick?

(Stewart and Colbert have also chosen, or even invented, performance settings that serve them very, very well, and chosen excellent writers. I haven't seen either of their movie performances, but Stewart's book was a big disappointment.)

Why do the strategy choices seem to be either get tough, or get out? Couldn't the Democrats benefit from a "get smart" (okay, bad phrase) or a "wise up" strategy? That would allow them to fully exploit the mindless, lazy boorishness of the Bush administration, while crafting a 21st century policy based on truly intelligent gathering and use of intelligence. Of course the drawback here is that it would take hard work, and plenty of collaboration and humility to establish the foundations for such an effort. But it would also lend credibility to the builders' get-tough stance, should that become unavoidable. It should also help to re-build some respect for us with other nations. I'm not talking about becoming mired in UN-type dances of diplomacy, but an internal model that makes intelligence a top priority. As I recall, the intelligence agencies didn't even have decent computers, much less enough translators.

It would also take a lot of patience, but we DO have those 33 months to buckle down to it.

Speaking of Mark Warner, this article from the Weekly Standard, on his campaign, should be required reading for Democrats:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/716psthq.asp

Don't Democrats define ourselves, above all, as the party that values cultural diversity? Not the Rs' glib "big tent," but the thrill of discovering someone whose path through, and whose take on, life have been very different from your own? If we are liberally educated, don't we appreciate paradox and irony? If you were from a rural area, bright and eager for challenge, excitement, community, but limited in your opportunities, might you not have found yourself drawn to racing? Why should rural voters, NASCAR or not, trust people who default to such mindless stereotypes as described in some of these letters?

Every election is about who is most trusted - or, lately, who is least distrusted. Trust is visceral. Mark Warner earned it when he sponsored a racing car without trying to hobnob at the event. Kerry and Gore did not deserve it, Kerry partly because he was unperceptive enough to have trusted Bush on Iraq, but also because he was so condescending (eg, comment at one debate about "the only people here who look like they make over $200K are on this stage.") If we're going to have one of the passengers take over for the pilot, however bad that pilot is, we need to trust him or her because, logically, an inept transition could make things even worse.

The Democrats will win when a candidate who walks their talk, who doesn't set off warning bells for undecided voters, and who's fairly telegenic appears and demonstrates his or her integrity over time. Let's hope the DLC doesn't crush him/her first.

...for saying clearly and calmly what so many have been feeling for too long now. Mr. Bush's offenses are in excess of those of Nixon and Clinton and Andrew Johnson, all put together. However painful it will be, however terrifying the thought of a President Cheney, it is our duty to history, past and future, to bring America back to normal. Now.

What a relief, after reading the NYT Magazine's cover story on Mark Warner yesterday (a shill piece for Hillary, at Warner's expense) to read the previous posts, which are much more realistic about her viability as a candidate. She has been described elsewhere as "Bill Clinton without the charm," and it's critical to remember how very much the unquantifiable charm (or trust) factor has to do with winning. Nominating her would truly be a gift to the Republican Party. Money isn't everything - look at Dean's loss to Kerry in Iowa. Democrats should not allow the current situation to panic them into foregone conclusions.

I haven't read "Crashing," but Rosenberg's comments seem to point up how critical the personal element will be for the next Democratic candidate. Not simply charisma, in the conventional sense, but a candidate whose personal integrity and moral sense can draw the confidence and trust of voters all along the party spectrum, beyond the coin tosses of the consultants and the litmus tests of interest grouops. It may be that Warner or Schweitzer will evolve into that kind of candidate - but at the moment I can't even think of a good example from the past.