I think it's worth remembering that -- sometimes -- it takes two to meet in the middle.

Yeah, so long as the middle isn't in the right-wing's living room. Democrats can't seem to figure that out. In fact, I don't think Democrats remember what block their own house is on anymore.

The continuing discovery of secret programs like this - and the lack of clarity about how the data is used - makes one wonder: does the Bush administration believe there are legal limits by which it is bound, and if so, what and where are they?

As the job market gets worse, women might have double trouble as the good-ol'-boy network tightens the vice at the top of the workforce to protect their own. After all, these guys don't exactly have to worry about a crackdown from some government agency enforcing hiring and promotion practices - at least not under the current morally and financially bankrupt administration.

Manjoo, Walsh, and their defenders seem to miss a really obvious point:

Given the wide agreement that multiple types of disenfranchisement took place (not all of which was documented), the burden of proof is on showing that this was a legal election - not that it was stolen.

How degraded has our democracy become when "liberals" are arguing: "well sure, lots of votes didn't get counted, but you got to be crazy to think that, all added, they made the difference."

W..T..F..?

I was at YearlyKos and think it was a great thing. What I see here disturbs me.

The criticism of the "bloggers" here leaves nearly no room for them to move (note - I'd prefer use of more accurate terms such as "people," "voters," "citizens," "activists," "organizers"). Some say they are too in bed with the Democrats; others say they are the zany left of the party. As an attendee, I can assure you neither accurately describes those who were there. Both were there - and everyone in between. The only thing in common with attendees is that they are gravely concerned with the direction of the nation and the lack of a genuine, national progressive voice. In short, they are people attempting to exercise their freedom of speech and political participation.

But because they do not fit into an existing category (not sure what it would be since they are at the same time too left and too right), they are marginalized. How unfortunate.

I say congratulations to all who went to the conference, participated in the conference and organized the conference. At least they're acting on their political interests. If such engagement in free speech and political assembly is so easily dismissed, exactly what kind of democratic revival will fit the critic’s bill? Or do these critics, happy to wait for the “perfect” populist movement, prefer another decade of vacillating politicians deaf to anyone other than beltway insiders?

First, we lost elections with Kerry and Gore - avowed centrists. Second, despite a tiny fraction of the nation signing on to the right-wing agenda from 1994 forward (if you go with polling), that's how the GOP took over the nation - by playing to their base.

Yes, Clinton was a right-leaning Democrat; but he ran as a liberal, only to ignore the base while in office (and then ran as a liberal again in 1996). How easily we forget.

If there's any lesson in the last few years of losing elections, it's that the Democratic Party has no base anymore - exactly the people who get their neighbors excited about voting - and register those neighbors to vote.

You make an excellent point. Clinton indeed pandered to non-liberal interests in transparent ways. I would still maintain that, broadly speaking, the man running for office was not the man that held the office; but you are right to point out that his campaign was not strictly liberal.

From the start of the war, it was pretty clear that the best we could hope for is a new and improved Hussein (improved insofar as he would be pro-US, just like the original Saddam before he went astray).

Any notion that we would get someone better than Hussein (beyond proximity to US agendas) was pure fantasy. What's disturbing about O'Reilly's statements is that there isn't even any irony about this broadening realization.

"The average family income of those on minimum wage is $45,580, according to the Employment Policies Institute.

If this is true, it is a useless stat as it includes teenage children of millionaires working at the car wash or other minimum wage gigs. A more useful figure would be what someone working full time at $5.15 an hour earns in one year, before taxes and with no vacation: $10,712. That same person would still only get $15,080/yr before taxes and without vacation if the minimum wage went up to $7.25 - hardly a bonanza for the poor. (Just filling your gas tank once every two weeks would take away $1,040 of that poor sap's annual income.)

I agree, probably not too many work those jobs. But if you look at the stat, it says "the average family income of those on minimum wage is $45,580" - which means that any teenager who lives at home and has a minimum wage job is pulling his parents' income into the average - hence the $48K. That's why I recommended using the annual income of an individual earning the minimum wage.