Dems need to learn to be firm and forceful when stating party beliefs. They sound like wimps...and therefore poor leaders ... when they try to moderate their stands.

Instead of changing their views, they need to update their arguments.

Please learn from President Bush. When he is on message, he absolutely leaves no room for republicans to second guess him. Of course it drives someone like me crazy ('please recognize there's a gray area!' I scream), but every time he stands firm, he weakens any second guessing and reinforces (or advances!) his side's views.

Sorry friend, you're wrong on this one. If you don't believe me, just look at the last 13 or so years. When Bill Clinton became president in 1992, Dems had 57 US Senators, a large majority in the US House and 31 of 50 governorships were in Dem hands. Now all of that has changed dramatically. Thirteen years of New Dem triangulation hasn't worked. How much more power do Dems need to lose before they realize that abandoning their base is a bad strategy? As I said before, it didn't even work for Clinton; he needed Ross Perot's help to beat George I. New Dem Al Gore couldn't beat W and numerous heavy hitters in the Dem Party laid that loss squarely at Gore's feet.

The 5 + years of W as president have handed Dems about as many red-meat issues as anyone could hope for - greed, mendacity, corruption, incompetence, fiscal madness, a pointless foreign war. And what have Dems made out of them? More losses at every level of government.

If the Dems want to get back in the winner's circle, they need to stand for something again. When they did, they won. There is a vast reservoir of political will that opposes what the Rs are doing. To tap that reservoir the Dems have to energize their base. To do that, they have to OPPOSE Republican policies and actions instead of rolling over. They have to stop being Republican Lite.

I affraid that ya'll don't get it. Hillary is taking these positions because there is no other way to get elected (if she can be elected at all, more on that later). It's called triangulation, running to the center, etc. It's is extrodinarily frustrating that a substantial portion of the left wing of the Democratic party just doesn't get it -- for good or for ill, most of America is not as liberal as we are. I consider myself a bomb-throwing, liberal Democrat. Hell, some of my friends say I'm to the left of Fidel Castro. But most of America, especially that segment of swing voters that decide elections, is way more conservative than I am. And especially on social issues. To win elections, we must run to the center. And that brings us to the million dollar question: Can Hillary win.

Personally, I think the answer in no, she can't. I think we should nominate a more conservative, middle of the road Democrat who has the potential to win at least a hand full of States in the South (e.g. John Edwards, Mark Warner, maybe Evan Bayh, etc.). Would I rather Hillary be President than these guys? With the exception of John Edwards, sure. Hell, I'd like Charlie Rangle, Llody Doggett, Nancy Pelosi, John Lewis, Jim Hightower, Tom Harkin, or Barbara Boxer to be president, too, but that's not going to happen.

You wonder why Democrats aren't true to their old ideals. There is a reason why they aren't and Hillary and Bill Clinton exemplify it. The fact is that New Dems actively oppose those old values. It's not that they're just bad politicians or can't figure out how to effectively oppose the Rs. Read my lips: Dems actively oppose the old Dem coalition of labor, African-Americans and white liberals.

Believe me; I've seen it up close. Here in Houston, a fine progressive Democrat named Ada Edwards ran for City Council. She is African-American, progressive and a long-time consumer advocate on the radio with the consequent name-recognition. The national Democratic Party actively opposed her and promoted the candidacy of a largely-unknown conservative businessman. The local Green Party supported Edwards and we were able to win, but note: the national Dems oppose progressive voices and candidates.

Bill Clinton did the same thing on the national level in his runs for the White House. Remember Sister Souljah? Remember his playing golf at a segregated country club a matter of weeks before the 1992 election? Remember 100,000 new police officers on the streets? Wlefare "reform?" etc., etc.

I suspect the reason for their abondonment of FDR/LBJ Democratic constituencies is that the Dems now raise as much money nation-wide as the Reps and they answer to the paymasters, which pretty much obviates progressive politics. And the calculation is that progressives have nowhere else to turn.

Bill Clinton won the presidency twice, but only because of Ross Perot. The New Dem strategy has in reality never worked. In 2000 particularly, George Bush was an almost ludicrously bad candidate, but New Dem Al Gore couldn't beat him.

Hillary Clinton would be a bad candidate any time. She invariably comes across as arrogant and condescending. My prediction is that she'll never win the nomination much less the presidency. (Molly Ivins recently wrote that she would not vote for her.) But apart from Clinton's personal shortcomings as a political candidate, the strategy of running away from your base in the unions, liberals, blacks, etc. is a loser. Unfortunately for all of us, the Dems are stuck with it which means R presidents for a long time.

It appears that not one Democrat, not even the illustrious Hillary Clinton, can launch an effective political campaign against the conservative block by simply standing on their own two feet and being true to the ideals of what a Democrat used to symbolize. It's too bad that Sen. Clinton or any other Democratic hopeful doesn't have the balls to stand for what is right rather than trying to appeal to what has worked for the conservative block.

Liberals are people just like conservatives and it is highly possible that if someone stands up and just simply states an agenda that is based in the ideals of what this country was founded on, then maybe the Democrats might find a cross over candidate.

I am a life long Democrat and I have been confused and dismayed by the lack off direction that appears to reflect the policies of the almost non-existant Democratic Political Machine. My heart literally weeps for the fumbling and the just outright disconnect that the Democratic Leadership extols. The best that we have been able to come up with are candidates that are highly out of touch with its base. And that's how the conservative block has beaten us at the polls; they are intimately aware of how to talk to their constituency and how to appeal to the issues that appear, on the surface, to garner votes. The Democrats on the other hand spend their time trying to out talk the other side, out talk a group of men and women who are expert in inciting emotions, albeit negative ones, merely to win at a game, that isn't really a game.

The great people that have led our country to greatness have been uniters. Where are the Democratic uniters who have a real vision for our future?