It’s so very depressing that at a time when leadership is needed –- and when such a little effort would go such a long way -– that we get our current frontrunners. The viable candidates in the Democratic race are so feeble when it comes to defining values and priorities that, while rhetorically rich in anti-Bush indignation, all they can actually propose is a variation on Bush.

What they say:

• Iraq was a mistake and troops should come home – but Bush sure as hell better twist the arms of the Iraqi government until they privatize their oil
• Iraq has brought our moral reputation to new lows around the globe; but I’d be irresponsible not to consider bombing Iran.
• It’s a shame about the Palestinians, but fuck ‘em.
• Bush is using fear to manipulate politics, which is why I say we have to secure every port tomorrow to protect against major terrorist attacks.
• Only a fool would interpret our failure in Iraq as a reason not to project American power around the globe.
• I will increase "defense" spending. (When was it last used for defense?)

Of course, some will argue that these positions have to be taken now that Bush has so masterfully changed the discourse. Defenders of the front runners say that by imitating Bush on these issues it allows Democrats to push forward on positive agendas elsewhere.

Hmmm.

Well consider what none of the front runners are saying:

• I will repeal Bush’s tax cuts.
• I will sign Kyoto (or it’s next incarnation) and use US influence to make other natons sign.
• I will end billions in wasteful defense spending and use some of that money for civilian purposes and the rest to increase soldier pay, benefits and useful training.
• I will dramatically increase federal funding of poor rural and inner-city schools.
• I will replace federally-insured school loans with direct loans and grants.
• I will regulate interest rates on consumer loans/credit cards (did you know that Obama voted to kill an amendment to the sure-to-pass bankruptcy bill that would have capped interest on credit cards at thirty percent? Thirty percent wasn’t enough for Obama!  Nice 'man of the people' there; explains why he got a lot of bank money.)
• My healthcare goal is a single-payer system.
• I will ban automatic weapons
• I will restore habeas corpus
• I will renounce all the new powers Bush has claimed for himself
• I will close Guantanamo upon taking office
• etc.

We’ve got a year and a half to go, and our democratic system has already filtered out anything but the most cosmetic of changes.

USA! USA! USA!

I am not being a smart ass and I am talking about real issues.

Advancing the notion that serious people who care about the issues have a duty NOT to hold elected officials or candidates responsible when they have a "D" after their name is a downright shocking abdication of one's role in the democratic process.

As for your comments about Fox, it sounds like you think Fox is bad because it's anti-Democrat, while I think it's bad because it isn't news.

I thought when you referenced the forum that you were talking about other posters bashing the Dems. You can understand why I was a little surprised. You have my sincere apology.

What else can Bartlett do? "Yes, the people are against us and we push on."

They have to lie, mislead, bullshit everyday to avoid admitting that they are a fraud. The true outrage is that anyone even shows up at the press conferences. The media, if it were comprised of journalists, would long ago have stopped going to WH press conferences and blocked the White House phone number on their fax machines.

Clearly from the message it sounds like she blows her dad off all the time and mom encourages that behavior. That her father is pissed as hell because his daughter isn't available for planned conversations is his right as a parent. And that she would post her dad's message online is beyond the pale -- the ultimate f-you to a parent that says "you will get no respect."

If I were Alec I wouldn't apologize and I'd never talk to her again, unless she comes back to apologize. If she doesn't want a father, then she can live without one until her mom's permissiveness leaves her in deep shit.

By making the debate around non-binding benchmarks, at best, Bush (or whoever is pulling the strings) is doing two good political things for the pro-war lobby:

1) Even the most ineffectual legislation becomes "courageous" for the Dems, which pushes the entire debate well to the right and holds democracy at bay.

2) It increases the chance that liberals will give the ultimate Democratic nominee a Chicago-'68 welcome around convention time, if enough blood is spilled between now and then. (Can you imagine Obama and Clinton still arguing that they have no choice but to fund the war without limits 15 months from now? OUCH for Democrats!)

The people can make no informed decision because 90 percent of the information they receive is useless or contextualized such that listeners/readers need a lot of their own background information to make use of it.

Indeed, the simple option of not having war-making the top priority of the nation is not available with any of the candidates mentioned (none of the frontrunners would cut "defense" to feed a starving baby or educate a starving mind, or even save a dying planet - NONE).

That is not a representative democracy.

It's so depressing that the only candidate for president who doesn't want to push off all responsibility for Iraq on Iraqis is the unelectable Kucinich (who argues for reparations).

How does Bush -- or Clinton and Obama for that matter -- expect Iraq to start delivering on "benchmarks" when the nation has lost over a century in infrastructure and civilization, thanks to method used by the United States to remove its former puppet.