Neither are they spineless, incompetent, stupid or any of the other epithets hurled their way. What they are is conservative, and, with a sizeable liberal base and a history of FDR and the New Deal, and LBJ and the Great Society, they face a daunting challenge, one that could prove difficult for almost anyone. That challenge is how to keep liberals voting for them while remaining true to their Warfare State principles. It happens every two years just before election time. Democratic candidates are trotted out and run the horror-show film showing the evils of Republicans and all the terrible things that will happen if we don't stop them. And of course, most of what they say is true, so it's an easy sell. What they don't say, of course is that, if elected, Democrats will do precisely nothing to impede Republican initiatives or the ever-rightward drift of politics in America.

Now we find ourselves between elections and all those liberals who last November thrilled to the prospect of a Democratic congressional majority are apoplectic because their heroes are once again proving that they differ very little from their Republican betters (i.e. better in the sense of more politically effective). It's a highwire act - balancing the reality of their politics with the appearance of providing a real alternative to radical conservatism. I don't envy them the task.

The reason is that football, like other professional sports in the US functions under a collective bargaining agreement between labor and management. That allows management, via the Commissioner's office, to control players' behavior off the field/court/ice. They do that because they know that fan loyalty to individual players and teams depends on their not being perceived as thugs, drug users, etc. Lose the fans because of behavior like that and you kill the golden goose, and no one wants that. So labor and management agree; they both have a huge stake in the perception of the participants as clean. Lawyers, doctors, CPAs, etc. do the same thing through licensing requirements for much the same reason.

No, I don't expect the Dems to "dramatically reverse" Republican achievements, but I'd like to see them do something, anything. But I keep looking and they do nothing. This is not a recent phenomenon; every year, every election, I look carefully and listen to Democratic apologists and I see no action, just excuses. You hide behind the Dem's "scarce majority." Before last November, Dems whined that they didn't have a majority. During Clinton's first two years, their problem was that they only had 55 Senators - not enough to invoke cloture. It's always something with these folks. The time is just never quite right to do any damn thing that might actually benefit someone other than their Wall Street paymasters.

Dems were elected to stop the war and they have done nothing that even hints at that. But why pay attention to the big fish? They can't even land a little one. Increased CAFE standards? Nope. Allow Medicare to bargain with drug companies to reduce drug costs for seniors? No chance. How about repealing the ban on "partial birth" abortion that was so disgracefully upheld by the SC this term? Not that either. Tell me. What is it you vote for when you vote Democratic? I was a Dem for over 30 years and I just don't see it.

Friend, I encourage you to stop listening to what Dems say and start seeing what they do. When you do that, maybe you'll realize what they're really all about, i.e. raising more and more money so they can win elections. Winning elections only makes a difference to most of us if it means some sort of policy changes. Will a Dem president be better than Bush? He/she could hardly be worse, but if that's all you want, then welcome to the world of the status quo. But if you want more, stop voting for and giving money to people who don't represent you or your values. That's the only way politics in this country will change for the better.

I spent about 40 hours/week for two years trying to make the Green Party a viable third party. Do you have any idea of how the Dems and Reps have stacked the deck against third parties? I suggest you involve yourself in third party politics and see for yourself. Third parties started by extremely wealthy individuals can make a splash until the individual drops from view (Ross Perot), but grassroots third parties have no chance. They spend all their time, energy and money just trying to get ballot access.

You noted earlier that several Dem candidates talked about public funding of election campaigns. It's a good idea. Of course it would be a better idea if they did something about it while in office, but they won't. I promise you, those are just words to make you think they share your values. Make book on it - if any of those people get elected president, they'll forget public funding of elections before they take the oath of office. After all, the Dems lead the Reps in fundraising and if they win, why would they want to mess with a "good thing?"

If you want to change the Dems, stop voting for them and make sure they know it. As others have said on this thread, as long as Dems take liberal votes for granted, they'll continue to ignore our issues, and why wouldn't they?

And what do you perceive we get when we unite behind Dem candidates. A better president than Bush? I should hope so, but that sets the bar pretty low don't you think? What specific legislation do you think the Dems would pass if they win the presidency and retain majorities in both houses of Congress? Please list some specific things you think they'd do and save it. Go back to it in, say, 2010 just before the midterm elections and see how they did.