The Democrats can possibly cement a stable majority only if they take care of three issues:

1) Nominate a liberal progressive candidate. No more DLC centrists (HRH Clinton), no more rank-and-file careerists (Kerry), and no more "my turn" alumni (Biden). Give us someone who galvanizes the base and reaches out to the other side. Give us Edwards, or maybe Barack. (And for ghod's sake, cut loose the damn DLC.)

2) Confront the media. Because as soon as you get into power, the bloodbath will escalate. If you think the progressives have it tough in the press now, just wait until you have power again. Then the liberal press will turn on you too, because that's how they make a living, confronting authority. Not that this is wrong, but it is inevitable. You can't count on a parrot machine like your conservative opponents have, and if you don't prepare for it, you're going to get worn down in 8 years just like Clinton did and we'll be back in this mess.

3) Reach out to the paleocons. I can't believe I'm even saying this, but there is value in the paleocon way of thinking. Genuine conservatives did a lot of good in this country before the plutocons (Reagan/Bush I) and neocons (Bush II) ascended to power. If you build coalitions with them then things can get done again. Sure, you'll differ with them a lot, but they represent American heartland values much more than the neocons, and they actually care about making America great instead of exploiting it. If you reach out to them, you reach out the segment of America that currently feels disenfranchised on all sides.

Even if you do all this, you're still going to have a hard slog before you settle into majority rule. For one thing you're going to have to clean up the conservative mess (again), and that means you'll be unfairly taking the blame for a lot of things. But if you can fix it and do some real coalition building with the cons who genuinely care, then you've got a good chance of moving forward.

I really hope you will.

One thing that could be done, and which would change forever the American political landscape, would be to abolish the Electoral College. As longs it remains giving uneven electoral powers to various demographics we won't be able to overhaul the system along true majority lines.

Too many people benefit from its continuance at the moment, but I would love for a groundswell to put this on the table at last.

It's deposition time for Not Me and Ida Know on the Hill, apparently, as no one seems to be able to remember making the decisions that ruined lives and broke national laws. How exactly does one forget these things? (Purely rhetoric question.)

What a great day it will be when this defense is available to everyone and not just politicians.

"Did you expose the core and cause the reactor to melt down?"

"I don't recall."

"Did you allow smallpox to escape from level four confinement?"

"I don't remember."

"Did you provide arms and funds to foreign terrorists?"

"Dunno. There was a lot going on that day."

Salon seems to be losing focus with each passing day. I know you are trying to provide a variety of voices and experience, but there needs to be better discernment in the selection of these voices.

Look at today's front page. You have an excellent discussion with Elaine Pagels which is complex, deep, and centered on a woman who is clearing unafraid of examing the contradictions and nuances of a fully realised life. Then you have Debra Dickerson, who seems to be someone who looks into a mirror and sees only a two dimensional caricature of life. Her self-absorption and obsession with meaningless triviata has no place next to the substance of the Pagels interview.

There are idiosyncratic voices that are suited to the polyphony of Salon (for example, I think that Keillor fits in fine, though I understand others don't care for him). And then there are people like Dickerson who don't belong. It has nothing to do with her gender or race, but simply with her angry superficiality and general inability to write in a clear and eloquent fashion.

Right now Salon seems to be on a cusp, half devoted to its pioneering "hard reporting" roots and half devoted to sensationalistic blogging. It needs to come down on one side or the other, and which one it chooses will determine whether it prospers as a valuable source of journalism or vanishes into the mire of meaningless opinionism.

At this point I'm ready to welcome anyone who is moving forward. Yeah, he's got a checkered past, and I still don't buy the Libertarian "small gov't" concept, but at least this guy is committed to doing less evil. It's sad that our country has gotten to the point where we're grateful for people becoming even minimally enlightened, but right now I'm glad to embrace any ally against the threat of Dark Ages 2.0.

Also, I award a red star to Jeff_Smith for his well-written post. Somebody has too, since the Editors Choice stars seem to be handed out by random algorithm these days.

I can see the benefit of anonymous posting when people are genuinely fearful of reprisals, though of course it (like everything else) gets abused by the cowardly and disengenious in our society.

I would love if you'd also add the ability to set "ignore posters". There are a few attention junkies who never post anything useful and who spam the letters with their self-amusing drivel. It would be nice to enable to set them to ignore, but I don't expect you'll do that as it means making this much more like a forum.

Anyway, well done on an overall improvement!