Just saw that Paul Hackett has dropped out of the Ohio race. What is WRONG with the Democratic Party anyway?

Yeah - right. Exactly what is up with the Democratic leadership anyway? Why is it that these people can never stand firm on a principle? I'm thinking of Paul Hackett being forced out of the Senate Race, Diane Feinstein's wavering on the Alito nomination, Lieberman's cuddling up with the Bushies over war policy, etc. When are we going to recognize that these are the people that forced the moderates out of the Democratic party and into the waiting arms of the Republicans? For heaven's sake - the Democrats need the Russ Feingolds, Paul Hacketts and Gavin Newsomes of the world - they put their political futures on the line to stand up for a belief - when was the last time Hillary did that? The Democratic Party has always stood for a wide variety of beliefs and philosophies - that's its strength.

Overall the show wasn't terrible. Most of what I found wrong with the show had to do with Gil Cates usual ideas about what constitutes a good show. For Example:

- As much as I get a kick out of "Pimp", the production number looked like Connie Stevens trying to perform "Theme from Shaft". At least in the 70's they got it right and had Isaac Hayes wearing chain link. This is the new millenia guys - get some choreographers the understand the numbers. (That doesn't mean Debbie Allen either!!!)

- Jon Stewart was a B Plus in my book. He had a few great zingers and quite honestly, it was usually when he was absent for periods of time that the show dragged. I'd say bring him back next year. Instead we got film montage after film montage after film montage. And none of them had anything to do with the "theme" of the evening. If you're doing A Return to Style, you go heavy on the Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant.

- This year's guest "Artist" performing the Original Score competitors (after you do it 20 times in a row, it stops being special).

- As much as I love seeing the old movie stars show up, tossing poor Lauren Bacall out there to flub the script was pretty stupid. Not to mention, making her introduce yet another unrelated film montage.

Finally, for those who like myself were disappointed that Brokeback lost Best Picture; Oscar history shows that every time a Best Picture upset like this occurs (ie. Greatest Show On Earth, Chariots of Fire, Oliver!, etc) they are usually regarded ten years later as huge oversights by the academy. Brokeback can console itself that it's joining a list that includes A Place In the Sun, A Streetcar Named Desire, High Noon, Reds, 2001 A Space Oddysey and so on.

What do I Win?

Feingold/Hackett '08. Has a nice ring to it. At this point Gore even looks like the best candidate possible.

What bothers me most is Obama. After the beautiful speech at the Convention last year and the power of his ideas, to see him assimilated into the Borg that is the current DNC is heartbreaking.

Face it Hillary, Reid, Feinstein, et all. The Republicans are right about you.

I agree it's way too early to be talking about this but . . . while we're on the topic; how about using this opportunity to address real issues. The democratic candidates running this year should be setting the agenda for '08. We should be drawing attention to real issues and offering solutions or ideas as a running platform. We've had 6 years (actually more) of the Neo-cons running on such important stands as "Flag = Good" and "Gay Marraige = Bad".

The person that we should be annointing in 08 should be the person who helps define the message this year. We have a lot of problems that are going to need some big solutions. The people who win this year and in 08 are going to have to bring peace to the middle-east, restore confidence from our allies, rebuild the economy, scale down the deficit, turn back attacks on individual liberties, undo the damage to our courts, champion methods of reducing global warming, and reduce domestic oil dependancy while encouraging newer, cleaner, replenishing sources of energy.

Jumping on the bandwagon for a candidate before they've addressed these issues is self-defeating and makes Progressives sound just like the Kool-Aid drinkers we despair. I would also like to see a woman president in my life-time; as well as an African American; Native American, Gay American, etc. president in my life time. But I don't see that happening if we're too focused on knee-jerk voting reactions. If Hillary, Feinstein or even Condoleeza comes up with valid and reasonable plans to address these problems, then they'll have my attention and my vote.

There is something I'm confused about and maybe someone can clear this up for me. As I jumped in my car this morning I caught part of Diane Reems show on NPR and she was discussing the news with several guests including a congressman from Hawaii who had called in. During the discussion, one of the guests (whose name I didn't catch) mentioned that a) The Joe Wilson Op-Ed piece claimed that his report had been submitted to the VP and they claimed they never saw it; and b) That Wilson was claiming in his Op-Ed to have viewed a forged document which he never saw. He made these points in defense of the administration's declassification of the NIE report.

Okay - am I missing something here? Wasn't the whole purpose of Wilson's trip to view and verify the authenticity of documents that showed Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium? And, didn't Wilson's report go back to the CIA?

Help me out someone!