But this isn't helping much:

Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?ei=5088&en=f9d310d7895a8fea&ex=1352178000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1194526833-qBdbuDTNC0usCSRa4LBnQg

thanks will keep an eye out for book

You mention valid points about democrats in other parts of the country, having lived in both northern Colorado and in Eugene, Oregon for most of the 80's and also having traveled extensively out west via old highways and biways, I know from first hand experience the different hats a politician of blue persuasion must wear.

And in regards to NY, many seem to think that we're some glorious or dangerous considering ones pov, liberal bastion. Well that might be true to some extent in NYC but looking at Spitzer's problems in Albany in regards to Bruno and the upstate republicans and then our own Senator pre-Schumer, the wonderful Alphonse, did I mention Pataki??

Well, NYS is not so liberal.

If the race in 2008 is really to be as tight as people think with Rudy the presumptive GOP candidate, we can expect the Republican Electoral Fraud Brigades to be out in force to ensure that their side wins -- they're not about preventing fraud, so much as they're about winning/stealing elections. I bet if it's anything short of a landslide against Rudy, they'll contest it, just to cynically manipulate the system. They might even contest a landslide against Giuliani. Elections throw everything up in the air, and with public sentiment so heavily against them, the only way they can win is to screw up the vote, any way they can.

"Given the blind venom that the conservatives and republicans went after Bill I think IMHO that it is easily conceivable that Hillary will have an even larger target painted on her."

I think the reason they might be more successful with Hillary is that many people found Bill likable on a personal level, whereas Hillary is less charismatic (how's that for an understatement). And let's face it, there's also the gender thing for the Republicans to use. Although they'll really have their work cut out for them to top the viciousness with which they opposed Bill. (Of course, they gave it the old college try with Gore and Kerry, which shows that no one is immune.)

"And as a progressive I find her repugnant on so many different levels, sad to say she and Schumer represent my state but not me."

Clinton might be a better senator if she wasn't always positioning herself to be president, although it's hard to imagine her standing on principle about anything. Other than that, I don't understand why Schumer and Clinton are so cautious - their Senate seats are so safe that they really could afford to take some risks. The only two reasons I can figure for why we don't have more progressive Senators is (1) Long Island and (2) upstate New York. BTW, why the fuck doesn't Naussau county get rid of Pete King (R)?

but you did say one thing I have to respond to

""they have fought for thirty years to get where they are today."

that is true and what the democrats have failed to do is to unify like their opponents and fight at all, they have capitulated in fear of being seen as weak and ultimately that has shown them to be weak because they have no unifying principles that they as a group stand up for.

again my humble opinion, otherwise I think you raise valid points."

The thing about the Democrats is that since we only hold the congress at present - and since Democrats notoriously lack the party discipline that the Republicans have developed (BTW, that party discipline was something that developed over time: the Republicans have much more party discipline now than in the 1970's)- the Democrats aren't a monolithic entity. We have Democrats in conservative parts of the country who are in our caucus but can't be relied on the deliver the votes we need (I'm not sure, however, we would be holding those seats if we had run more liberal candidates in those districts). It is truly infuriating when candidates like Hillary and Schumer, who don't have to answer to a red-state electorate take such wrong-headed positions. Maybe they need a good primary challenge like Lieberman had in Connecticut (although hopefully with different results).

Of course, having a Democratic president would help some too, since we wouldn't have to worry about the veto as much, so we wouldn't need supermajorities to get anything done.

There's a good book that I recommend to anyone - Rick Perlsteins' "Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus." I think that book provides a good blueprint for how political revolutions start.

If I were a zillionaire I would buy up ClearChannel and put your post on billboards encircling Washington. I'd like to make a recording of it and broadcast it through loudspeakers up and down the Mall, so that those faint-hearted fools we elected would be forced to listen, for once.

After all, that worked out so well last time!

Its not a question of things not turning around. Had the Dems tried and failed, there would be reason to hope. The fact that the Dems caved to Bush on everything makes me ask, 'whats the point?'

What is important and heartbreaking to see is that the Dem losses are caused by Dems. I don't really believe these politicians are stupid so I can only come to the conclusion that they are as compromised as the Repubs. The only difference is that the Repubs stand together to get what they want, whereas the Dems need only to have 1 or 2 break with the party to get what the Repubs want. And since it happens over and over, I've concluded the Dem game plan in congress is to let a few members fold, while the rest pay lip service to civil liberties. The powers that be get what they want and the majority of Dems get to act like they have our interests at heart.

Right now I'd be happy just to see this admin swept away. At this point I'll only be voting against candidates I personally don't like.