residents of those eleven states have a unique opportunity to apply some vital constituent pressure this week, which just might pay off with huge dividends for our Constitutional system of government on Tuesday, July 8th.

Thank you for reminding us of the other areas where our pressure could do some good. In my own state, Sherrod Brown is on our side of this issue. Voinovich is unlikely to budge, but that doesn't mean that he, and others who are giving support to this abomination, should not also be reminded of their oath of office and the support that oath mandates.

I recognize that dissent in "Comments" is a rare thing but I offer mine. First, it was interesting that in evaluating Democratic success in moving toward the center you conspicuously failed to mention the last time a Democrat actually won the Presidency. That would of course be Bill Clinton on two occasions and his centrist approach was felt by most to be the key. I recognize that for too many 1992, and even 1996, is ancient history; apparently that's the case for you.

Also, on Mr. Obama, there too it appears memories are quite fleeting. Whatever his record in the Senate, from the outset in this presidential cycle, Obama sought to position himself as a centrist. Edwards was on the left and many felt, if only because of her Iraq vote but also because of her husband's success as a centrist, that Hillary was toward the right. Obama talked about unity, unity and unity and, oh yes, change. Blue and red, corporate executives and community organizers -- all would come together under his leadership. My own view at the time (and still my view): hogwash. But most (and perhaps you although I've never read your writing before today) loved it. Edwards withdrew, Hillary moved leftwards, and so did Obama. Now corporate executives were evil, or almost so. Well, surprise surprise. Obama is now tacking back to the center where he always wanted to be. So, you may fault him but let's not re-write history so soon and have him abandoning his roots. Roots? What roots? Many of us are still trying to figure those out.

Perhaps I'll write another time about Olbermann but I stopped watching that narcissist quite some time ago, albeit apparently for quite different reasons than yours for criticizing him.

Presidential candidates usually move towards the center after the primaries, so this is not an indication that they are abnormally soft on principle. McCain is probably moving more than Obama, and some of his positions during the primary campaign were complete reversals of his 2000 positions. The only Democratic presidents since 1969 were Carter and Clinton, who were generally centrist - in fact Clinton was widely known as a waffler, and this did not seem to detract from his popularity.

Look folks, the majority of the country is not going to embrace a philosophy of tax increases, passivism, and taking away the 2nd amendment. Most of you think all that's wonderful, but you're just not in the majority.

2006 wasn't a referendum FOR Democrats, it was a referendum against Republicans, with a little homophobic partisanship (Foley) and racism (macaca) thrown in by the Dems. Don't flatter yourselves. It's what loses you races, unless the opponents give it away. Being arrogant pricks is not a viable election strategy.

Couldn't agree more with this post.

At a more tactical level, a more effective "move to center" would have been for the Obama strategists to take the conservative position of fighting ever-increasing govt. power (fighting FISA on 'conservative' grounds) and seriously considering Hagel for VP. Hagel has been more critical of Bush than many Democrats have, while representing the bright red state of Nebraska. I haven't been able to find recent polling on Hagel, but he won the last election with nearly 83% of vote. But he keeps firing away at Bush like nobody's business, including all but asking for impeachment to proceed.

A much stronger move on Obama's part would have been to come out incredibly strong on FISA and other civil-liberty issues, pick Hagel as VP, and then let Hagel lash the opposition when they came back at Obama @ "weak on terror". Hagel, a vietnam war vet, would be in a good position to just slaughter the chickenhawks.

When in the garden, wear a shirt.

Well, if you insist. ;-}

You're right about the potholes, and it's not just the potholes in Ohio. It's the bridges, and the schools, and....well, the list is very long and getting longer. The right has been very successful in their dismantling, from top to bottom and side to side.

Look folks, the majority of the country is not going to embrace a philosophy of tax increases, passivism, and taking away the 2nd amendment.

As opposed to what, exactly? Massive debt, juvenile aggressiveness and taking away the 4th amendment?

Look folks, the majority of the country is not going to embrace a philosophy of tax increases, passivism, and taking away the 2nd amendment.

Good thing that's not what's being offered by either Senator Obama or the Democratic caucus.

Most of you think all that's wonderful, but you're just not in the majority.

You've been asked before, shooter242. Please talk to us and not your reflection in the mirror!

2006 wasn't a referendum FOR Democrats, it was a referendum against Republicans, with a little homophobic partisanship (Foley) and racism (macaca) thrown in by the Dems.

Accurate. Should tell you something about the Republicans and how unacceptable they've made themselves. And you can hardly blame the Democrats for Foley's tastes in men and Allen's choice of words.

Or do you no longer believe in "personal responsibility"?

Don't flatter yourselves. It's what loses you races, unless the opponents give it away. Being arrogant pricks is not a viable election strategy.

Races are lost for all manner of reasons. Arrogance however is a sin we'll leave for you and the GOP; you rather have the market cornered on it anyway.

i largely agree with you, though i do think olbermann is more guilty of hero worship than you give him credit for (at least from what i've seen so far). but i also think your selling bubba short as the one successful dem nominee of the last 30+ years. yes, he did track center, and obviously the man dissembled. but unlike any dem nominee in my lifetime (and yeah, i'll even even throw '76 carter in there), he was our one candidate who was willing to get as down and dirty as campaigner as the republicans. kerry, dukakis and to some degree gore were all unwilling to do this. i personally thought kerry was our most impressive nominee since clinton, and beyond that, maybe dating back to humphrey. but the maddening part about the "swiftboat" attacks was not only his tardy response, but how toothless the response was. the oft-forgotten element of "swiftboat" is that it gave Kerry a perfect chance to bring into light bush's AWOL/chicken hawk national guard service. i'm guessing if clinton had kerry's resume and the same opportunity had been affored to him, he and carville would've been all over it like white on rice. like'em or not, those guys knew how to fight.

which brings us to obama. i wasn't a fan of his campaign's racial victimhood jazz, but it did show me they were capable of playing dirty, which might not be a bad thing come fall.