American Jews have a proud history of supporting progressive causes in our country. We disproportionally live in highly populated states with large numbers of Electoral votes; disproportionally vote; and are the most loyal white ethnic constituency in the Democratic Party.

Perhaps some people think it would be a good idea to alienate us from the Democratic Party through repetition the old-fashioned anti-Semitic trope of dual loyalty. I can only imagine who those people might be.

I still don’t understand what was being said in the video. Still laughed a lot.

I think there was a link to the laugh-struck Icelandic interviewer who said it was during an early ’70’s program called “Boemarang” that discussed socially awkward issues like aging, sex, family problems, relationships. That program was about medical mishaps. The woman had a botched spinal operation, while the guy with the high-pitched voice had a screwed up tonsils operation.

The announcer, even after he started cracking up kept asking risque questions…like about how these things affected their sex lives. The guy cut into the womans comments with…”and it makes it hard to do the sweet talk”. The Announcer broke up again!

And then the Announcer tried to rescue himself by asking for questions. And the guy in the back says that he had the same problem as the guy with the high voice…except that he says this in a very deep, booming voice. And the announcer starts up again! And then the Very somber crowd strts telling the announcer “What’s so funny! Don’t be so insulting!”

Yeah..he goy fired…in fact the whole staff of the program got fired! The announcer says he thinks it was some sort of “conspiracy”.

my comment about the lamont campaign was about how to get people involved. you don’t like the lamont campaign? then find something else for people to do! so far, all i’ve seen you advocate is towing the party line – when our party is fatally flawed.

i never voted for nader (even though i live in a “save” state)… but it is people like you who make me want to. jeesh.

It does sound like the top presidential candidates run the party, to judge from this.

Granted, I’m glad that they’re backing Dean and the DNC in reining in the rogue states, but it’s sad that they’re the kingmakers in this situation.

Well, I think that the lower level candidates DID lead the way…and it’ll be pretty hard for Florida to not toe the line…after all, none of the major papers or TV stations will be getting any advertising $$$.

selise @ 145

there is no effort to paint the democrats as anything. the effort is to try to understand what is true and to tell the truth…. as a first step to righting what is wrong.

i refuse to play the kabuki game.

selise, excuse me, but look at comment 150 directly above. The Republicans would be happy to pay for this kind of crap. For all we know, they are.

Yeah…I recall when the Federal Campaign reports came out it turned out that Conservative Neo-Cons were some of the biggest contributors to Nader’s campaigns. Wonder why?

And funny how that guy mentioned concentration camps. I recall that the schisms in the Austrian left wing parties led to a total failure to cooperate in the 1936 elections, some boycotted and others attacked the more “moderate” stances of some parties who were trying to work with some middle-parties to prevent them from sliding over to the Nazis.

Ultimately the left, which were pretty strong in the previous elections lost their influence in the Parliament, and the Nazis played king-maker. The German Nazis were marching through the streets a year later arresting all those soc*i*lists and Mar*ists. Most never had to vote again.

So, no, I wouldn’t actually count that as a ringing success. This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’ve got to balance ends and means if you want to genuinely make a difference. You would argue, I think, that beating Lieberman in the primary sent a message to elected Democrats in other states and helped to move the country towards the realization that we’ve got to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. I would argue that it decreased the leverage of the Party leadership and contributed to exactly the kind of weakness that Jane is complaining about. In fact I believe both are true. And so now the question is, over a several year period, which of these results predominates? The answer isn’t clear-cut, but my point is that if we’ve got to think about these reality-based implications ahead of time.

Hugh @ 107

If Reid and Pelosi can’t stand up to Bush and the Blue Dogs, they should resign. I want them to fight. If they win, great. If they lose, then they should pick themselves up and fight it all over again. If Blue Dogs want to replace them then fight that too. But I am sick of complacency. I want them to fight: win, lose, or draw. I want them to keep doing that for me, the 70% who agree with me, and
the country.

BTW I don’t completely buy the idea that they are just weak. The FISA votes didn’t just happen. They were designed with a certain end view in mind. This was to give Democrats a bill that they could vote for which would lose and a bill that they could vote against which would pass anyway. The May supplemental was similar. Pass a Democratic version that gets vetoed. Then pass the Republican version without a fight.

Two things that stick in my craw: 1) Simple majority is all that is necessary to pass House Bills, we have it already, and, 2) The House appropriates, simple majority, again! So WTF???
8~(

Actually a TRULY SOLID Minority can bottle up things in the Senate with the filibuster rule. How many bills have been blocked by that intransigent MINORITY of Republicans who INSIST that the Democrats COMPROMISE with them.

The Democrats have to draw together and make this change…Bush should get no further Extraordinary Spending Resolutions on the war in Iraq…not the $50 billion he’s suddenly asked for ON TOP OF the $200 billion Supplemental that isn’t in the regular Pentagon Budget.

If the PUGS don’t agree to a FIXED and RAPID timeline for withdrawing from Iraq…then no Supplementals. It’s quite simple, really.

Phoenix Woman @ 118

It does sound like the top presidential candidates run the party, to judge from this.

Granted, I’m glad that they’re backing Dean and the DNC in reining in the rogue states, but it’s sad that they’re the kingmakers in this situation.

Do you understand why we can’t all just have our primaries on the same date? I understand why many years ago, with no telly, this would be the situation, but why now?

Because you’d have a bunch of candidates with no clear majority and a situation where there would be deals made in “smoke-filled rooms”. The primaries are supposed to “weed out” candidates with only regional or limited staying power.

But a lot of it is also advertising dollars…States want their share. And all these small states want “their say”.

But by linking together a system where there were only three or four primary dates, with a requisite number of small states from diverse regions early on…then a split between large states later (again from a variety of geographic and economic zones) you’s have enough value for all the states to have some sort of say…either in the initial weaning out (or allowing an outsider to come in)…while the big states would still count. In addition the budgets wouldn’t be so drained with vast amounts poured into just Iowa or New Hampshire.