Thank you all so very much. Glen's commenters are absolutely the best at helping me clarify my thoughts and making sure I appreciate all the nuances of an issue.

Casual: I think they use that procedural excuse to hide the truth of your second speculation - they're afraid to stand up for fear of being attacked.

orbitboy: I've been there, believe me. Cynical as I am, though, I am writing another check to John Edwards today for two reasons: I can't publicly stump for him, and in today's money culture, sending money with your rant gets you more attention and respect than just ranting.

Karen M.: I had not noticed that about the MoveOn ad. Great catch. Maybe cause for hope?

Wabanatta 3: Re frequent public forums - Oh, Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, make it so! Even if they only did it in D.C., at least once a year we could chip in for a bus and show up to demand answers.

In the local Democratic Party organizations I belong to, there's been a striking change in recent months -- a quite remarkable willingness to concede that the national party is missing the boat, and an equally remarkable willingness to say so, or to applaud those who are saying so. What's remarkable about these developments is that they violate the usual convention of saying only positive things about our party, and about our candidates.

This isn't so much a loss of faith in the party agenda, as it is a realization of what comes first. We still go to fundraisers, pound on doors, and sit for hours at voter registration tables, and we still talk about labor issues, environmental concerns, national health care, increased support for public education, etc., with much of the fervor of New Dealers or Great Society supporters of the past. What has changed is that the old scars of the Viet Nam war and of Watergate have made even the most skittish and conservative of our rank and file increasingly susceptible to the realization that we are at a very serious moment in the nation's history. The MoveOn ads, for example, didn't produce any outcry at all about propriety, or about getting ahead of public opinion, whereas two years ago they might well have.

This corresponds well to what the polls are telling us, and to a large extent validate what Glenn, Digby, FDL, TPM and DailyKos have been trying to accomplish. Broad alliances do have their influence, and any revolution worthy of the name, if and when it comes, will come as the result of a majority who've been persuaded that it's necessary. If Glenn, et al., with our help, succeed in doing that, I doubt we'll have need of revolutionary armies. The ballot box alone will be quite sufficient. If we fail, guns will be the last thing anyone needs.

So far, I 've given Obama $25 twice, both times for saying something I thought was brave, and then getting kicked in the teeth by the right soon afterwards. Last week, I spent $100 to go to a Hillary fundraiser just for the opportunity to meet Bill Clinton. (Yes, it was worth it.)

At this point, I've yet to make up my mind who I'll support in my state's Primary--I live in Texas, so it doesn't really mattter anyway--but it will be either Edwards, Obama, or Hillary.

Bill H:

To wit: do you honestly think that if a Democrat is elected President he/she will immediately give up said powers that have been collected by this administration?

This obviously doesn't prove what any Democratic president might do, but the original FISA was adamantly supported and signed by President Carter (and strongly supported by members of both political parties at the time).

I think it also depends on which Democrat gets elected. I feel pretty confident that Obama would dramatically curtail Executive Branch abuse of power. Hillary Clinton I'm not as sure about, although I point out that her husband did not run roughshod over FISA. At the very least, it's far from inevitable that a Democratic president would be as power-hungry as Bush-Cheney.

I suppose, however, that I agree in principle that presidential power tends to aggrandize itself over time, notwithstanding temporary periods of limitation by the other branches.

...rocking chair in the basement, while a madman runs the family business upstairs.

-- John O'D

See there was a window where you could see the shadow...

jkalos

I used to think that until I have seen how the Democratic congress is acting. Their actions have convinced me that Nader was in fact right about their being just one party with two components shadowboxing to distract us.

kdawg

What alternative do we have? Would you prefer ATT to fund our candidates and leave us apart from the whole mess?

pmorlan

If the Dems. should vote to provide retroactive immunity to the telecoms I will have no choice but to change my voter affiliation to Independent. I could not in good conscience remain a Democrat.

Netroots express rage, frustration, amazement, puzzlement regarding democratic behavior in congress. We ask how the democrats can show the same weakness needlessly, time and time again. But the netroots may be showing the same "groundhog day" behavior. They (we) have resolved pretty much that the solution to democratic weakness must be "more democrats in '08".

Looking forward, what happens if the probable indeed happens (democratic president and congress) but we continue the same lack of progress in civil liberties and foreign policy. What if we can't get habeas back. What happens if the current wrongs with FISA are not addressed. What happens if torture becomes SOP for american intelligence and military. What happens if corporate rule remains unabated and unchecked. What happens if the vote remains unsecure and open to endless distrust by the people. What happens if corruption maintains.

Will the netroots continue the mantra that we simply need just a few more democrats and then the problems will be solved.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.