I wrote down what I wanted to say beforehand and called. I focused on "how can you endorse John Barrow". The lady I talked to said they have been getting a lot of similar calls and would pass them on to the Senator.

I hope you're right that he will get some kind of a message from this -- I doubt it'll do much immediate good, since as Glenn says he is enmeshed in this system (and realistically I don't expect him not to be), but at least we the people are getting our 2c in.

I’m having trouble getting through on the phone. Is anybody else?

I think this sort of phone call is massively important, especially in the passionate context of no blame yet relentless insistence.

"Politics is the art of the possible." -- Otto von Bismarck (whose namesake dreadnought sunk after dogged attack by destroyers and wooden planes)

The "political realists" will resist entreaties from people like us as just "the fringe". They're Serious Politicians and they Know What Can Be Done. Even if thousands of us call up and demand that they do the right thing, they've put their fingers into the stale Washington, D.C. air, and know how best to proceed.

This state of affairs will persist until we knock enough of the eedjits and cowards down (like we did with Edwards), and get them to look outside of their own "echo chambers" and the coctail parties of the Beltway.

As Glenn has pointed out, the views he puts forth are hardly leftist or minority. Properly presented and defended, they can easily stand on their own.

Where is Dean in all of this? And Obama?!?!? His is the perfect platform to make the issues redound to his favour, and get the message across and past the smoekscreen that the RW is going to throw up.

Does the Democratic leadership have no campaign strategists that have any competence at all?

Cheers,

What a dishonest, misleading post.

The implicit comparison between John Barrow and Al Wynn is ridiculous.

Al Wynn was a conservative hack representing one of the safest Democratic seats in the country - Maryland's 4th District has a PVI of D+30. Whoever won that primary was going to be the next congressperson from that district.

John Barrow is a conservative hack representing a very borderline district. He won re-election last time by less than 1000 votes. Maybe a more liberal candidate would be able to win - the district is supposedly D+2, generally, which suggests that a somewhat less awful Democrat would have a chance.

I very highly doubt, though, that anyone whom people like you and Matt Stoller extol as "progressive" can be elected in this district, much less an African American. Throughout the American South, there is only one Black congressman representing a majority white district. He is Sanford Bishop, also from Georgia. Bishop is certainly better than Barrow, but he's pretty conservative, and is also a Blue Dog.

This is not, most likely, a choice between Barrow and a more attractive Democrat. It's a choice between Barrow and the great likelihood that the seat switches over to the Republicans. If that's what you want, fine - and I, too, find it annoying that the Democratic majority has to depend on lame ass Blue Dogs like Barrow. But that's how the world works. Barrow endorsed Obama back in February, and I don't see why that's a cowardly move - it was not yet clear that he would be the nominee, and a lot of other Dems were a lot more cowardly about it. Hell, a fair number of Blue Dogs still haven't endorsed Obama. Obama wants to make a play in Georgia, and he's not going to get many white votes (which are absolutely necessary to make it competitive) by campaigning against a white incumbent in favor of a black challenger who probably can't even win the general election.

This outrage mongering is tiresome. By all means go after lame Democrats who oppose practically all Democratic policies. But this is silly.

A further point - it seems pretty likely to me that Barrow wins this race regardless (Thomas seems to have little support outside Savannah). If he wins and partially credits that to President Obama campaigning for him, that makes him that much more likely to vote for important pieces of legislation that Obama might propose than he would be if Obama remains neutral.

Barrow's "cynical" endorsement of Obama: February, after the Georgia primary.

Thomas's endorsement of Obama: when was it again, Glenn?

This has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with rewarding loyalty. As "cynical" as a February endorsement may have been, it pales in comparison to the cynicism of waiting till it's over. Thomas--for her OWN political reasons--put it off. Now she's paying for it, which is a shame, but that's politics.

Electoral Votes anyone?

It's not the popular vote that has the final say in Presidential elections.

As for war, does anyone else think now that the Big 4 oil companies have their no bid contracts in place that the troops will finally be moved out of Iraq?

...and into Iran?

Lotta oil left to get.

I agree with most of your points, but in Glenn's defense I would point out that he started off by clearly stating yesterday that his opposition to Barrow was self-contained and not a de-facto plug for Thomas. He also stated that his belief was that individual congressional seats going to Republicans was not such a big loss. I would agree with him that it is worth it to sacrifice a few seats in order to send a message. For too long Democrats have relied on being the only alternative as a way of taking no responsibility for their actions. There has to be some accountability and it can only be found at the ballot box. If every Democratic representative realizes that he or she is individually vulnerable and can't hide behind the "alternative" defense, then we may see some movement.

As for outrage. Its well past time for that.