There was a discussion earlier today at Firedoglake about Dr. Westen's book, when both he and Jim Himes (D, candidate for Shays' seat) were present to take questions in the comment thread.

The topic of gender and masculinity came up there, too, and the need for something gender neutral to connote personal strength. My comment there landed in EPU-land, but it's still early here...

Instead of a neutral "hormonal" moment to replace one that is linked to testosterone or estrogen, it would make sense to use something that is more like a gut-check, but that brings up other images that we'd just as soon leave alone.

Instead, I think that a "True Grit" moment says all of that, and could as easily be applied to either a man or a woman; plus, it evokes the essence of what used to be important about being an American, and of course, there's the association with the movie, that doesn't hurt either.

The GOP does not merit a monopoly on the values of John Wayne. I don't recall him ever leaving anyone in the lurch, after all. Just consider the potency of that phrase if one tried to apply it against Bush. That is the kind of contrast that should have been well-drawn by either Gore or Kerry, both of whom-- despite their faults as candidates-- have exhibited more grit in their political lives than he has.

[I still yearn for Gore again this time, but am also pleased by what I read about both Dodd and Edwards.]

Some writers have expressed their disgust with the entire Democratic Party. Nonsense! It isn't the Party that's the problem; it's certain Democrats, particularly certain Democrats who are in leadership positions.

"The Democrats" is not some homogeneous unified mass. It's individuals. Some are better, some are worse. As activists and voters, it's up to us to replace the bad ones.

Luckily, there's an election coming up next year. Now is the time to start pushing for better Democrats at the local/state level. You can get involved in Party politics. You can start attending Party meetings. You can start working in the Party. And you can have a voice in deciding who will run.

Voting is good, but it's not enough. How many times have you personally complained about choosing the lesser of two evils? To get better choices, you need to be involved in choosing who gets to run, and that means getting into Party politics.

Don't be a defeatist. As Alice Walker observed, "The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any."

Democracy is not a spectator sport. You can play, too. It's time to get off the bench.

All Westen -- or anyone else analyzing the Democratic strategy -- can focus on is the response to the Republican strategy. Hey, here's an idea; get a strategy that isn't related to the opposition.

The democrats have nothing new to offer in the way of policy priorities. They get "branded" by the competition only because they've been very good at being consistent about their legacy biases.

Here's a policy to promote: a right to privacy amendment. It is antithetical to everything their opponents stand for, without the baggage of being a response to their opponents' policies. And it puts their opponents in the unenviable position of having to argue against it.

Just once I'd like to see a Democrat stand up and say "the American people have a natural right to their personal sovereignty, and I intend to make sure they get it."

I'm not holding my breath.

I get tired of that old and incorrect account of Senator Kerry not fight back, played over and over again- like that was the real reason we lost the last election. It is a convient scapegoat for those who don't want to, or care to really know or check out the truth. Of course it is easier to blame him than it is the party for the mistake of the timing of the convention and the fact that Kerry didn't have enough money he was able to access at that time the Swift Boat Vet appeared again in August- better funded and with additional help from the media and our own party who stood by and did nothing to support or help defend Senator Kerry during this time. Mr. Kerry came within 60,000 votes of being president (some say without the fraud, disenfranchisment,voting machine manipulation, he actually won that race). But, in actuallity he came damn close. Almost a majority of Americans liked and trusted him to do right by this country in Iraq and at home. Kerry lost because of the Iraq War - people do not "change horses in mid-stream". Senator Kerry spoke about the right course for Iraq in 2004, he spoke about what would happen without a new course and he detailed the best way to fight terrorism. Wars just aren't won with might, it takes intelligence and the ability to change direction or chart a new course when you realize you are wrong about something.

As for Senator Webb,he may appear tough, but approachable- I doubt it. In fact, it is that over emphasis on toughness that worries me. It takes more than a show of being tough to run this country. Webb comes on as a tough guy alright, so does President Bush. This particular kind of toughness isn't necessarily what we need in 2008. We didn't need it in 2004 either. Give me someone with class, intelligence,strength, compassion and an ability to listen to ordinary people and others who offer differing points of views rather than just stick to their guns because that is the tough guy thing to do. Frankly, it matters little if a candidate is moderate, progressive or conservative, we need real leadership in this country, something we haven't had for a long time. No more, napers who let others run the show and look good for the camera, no more poll watchers,and no more tough guys who don't know how to be anything else.