The biggest snag is that a progressive president looks unlikely right now, but the prospect of President Rudy is so horrific that we’ll have to support the Democratic nominee whoever they are. Better a lame prez than a crazy one.

Why is a progressive president unlikely? Clinton holds an office with the DLC, yes, and can’t be considered a fan of the progressive caucus, say, but Obama and Edwards are both progressive. Both have smart campaigns. Both have good ground games in Iowa. Obama has better poll numbers than Edwards in Dem vs, Dem, but Edwards has betterpoll stats for a Dem vs. Republican matchup.

thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response. don’t know if you will see this comment, as i’m epu’ed by hours, but did want to say “thank you” regardless.

and if you do see this, and want to continue a discussion offline (now or at some future point), please feel free to email me at speakeasy dot net.

peace.

Dems aren’t going for impeachment because it’s not possible- an impeachment bill would never get through the house- and even if it did- it would die an ugly death in the senate…It’s not practical.

An impeachment bill only requires a majority in the House and is not subject to any sort of super-majority blocking.

And it does require a two-thirds vote of those present to pass in the Senate…a steep grade…but one that was even likely in the Senate when Nixon was President and re-elected by a vastly larger majority (and Democrats also only held a bare majority of Senate seats then as well).

The actual impeachment trial and the upcoming elections would make it very difficult for Republicans to deny the “truth”.

Personally I believe that one should do what is called for in the Constitution REGARDLESS of whether the Republican Senators vote infavor. It is UPHOLDING the CONSTITUTION. It is an issue of PERSONAL ethics. If a President or other member of the Executive violates the Constitution they should be impeached.

And I also believe that even if the POLITICS are such that an impeachment isn’t possible in 2007-8 that one should still occur AFTER their terms end removing any “emoluments” of office that these individuals may have as a consequence of their “service” and removing any further opportunity for them to benefit from future office or contracts wiuth the US Government.

Kills off their chance to use their connections as lobbyists.

MarkH @ 252

. . .

I think her “American Dream” program is for JUST HER and not the rest of us.

Mark H, you wouldn’t happen to be a bluegrass/newgrass lovin sohn from Sonoma, CA would ya? *G*

‘fraid not. I’m from WV.

OMG.. this is huge isn’t it?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI…..index.html

Do I understand this correctly, and that Waxman has now basically accused the State Department of committing a felony?

Wow. Shocking. But, it’s not like they’ve ever done *that* before.

Now, about Cheney…

. . .

I think her “American Dream” program is for JUST HER and not the rest of us.

Mark H, you wouldn’t happen to be a bluegrass/newgrass lovin sohn from Sonoma, CA would ya? *G*

Spiritcatcher @ 46

my bet for 2009 at the moment is either a) coup d’etat (erm, “temporal suspension of the bill of rights and constitution”, that is) or b) president Hillary (who would continue the Cheney regime, only with more style and better grammar).

Hillary is not my favorite candidate, but I completely disagree that she would continue the Cheney regime. That is just not logical.

She has already said we must be prepared for “the next war”. What exactly do you think she was talking about if not Iran?

Whoever becomes president, if it happens, will be saddled with a horrible mess. I was never, ever terrified during the Clinton presidency. There were things that were bad, there were things that were good, but you cannot compare the last 7 years to Clinton. You just can’t.

Bill was a decent Liberal Republican / Conservative Southern Dem. He was alright for the times. We had peace, not too many problems clearly in sight and he paid off some debts. Simple, decent.

But, he also put in NAFTA without protections for environment and workers. He also kicked poor people off welfare. He took our military into Kosovo illegally and against the public’s will. It wasn’t all milk and honey.

She was right all along about the “right-wing conspiracy”…she nailed it. We are just beginning to see what she already knew.

“We” Kemosabe? I think most of us here at the lake (wherever we were at the time) saw it when they savaged Bill Clinton in the ’90s and most clearly in Nov. 2000 when Bush & Co. stole their way into power.

It’s been pretty blatant stuff for some time now. Hillary just saw it up close and personal.

But, if she isn’t part of it, then why has she indicated she’ll continue their position in Iraq and via Iran? She has also never said she’ll withdraw completely from Iraq, though she does ask her crowds if THEY are ready to get out.

Hillary was a WalMart board member, has an anti-union advisor in Mark Penn, wrote legislation preventing flag burning (anti freedom of speech), voted for the AUMF for Iraq (which I actually forgive if she trusted the Bush admin intell.), voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to declare part of the Iranian military a terrorist organization and said she wouldn’t actually implement health care reform until her second term.

What’s not to like, eh?

I think her “American Dream” program is for JUST HER and not the rest of us.

. . ..
Bad senators are especially problematic, because it takes at least six years to get rid of them all.

I’d be quite happy to flush them all, including Pelosi.

WAHFUCKINGHOOO ELI!!!

*G*

…Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want it to appear that she somehow engineered her way into the WH by the back door. . . .

I can’t believe a career pol like Mz. Nancy ever HAS those concerns, Ann. Yer projecting some kind of values on a type of our species (politician) that has proven time and time again, they don’t HAVE those values!!!

But what if Hilary and Nancy struck a deal? And struck the deal with ShrubCo, too?

No impeachment.

Nancy gets the nod for VP.

Women Sweep!!!!

And the two of them will be as bad as any ShrubCo as they set about the process to pay the Bushes their oil rights and perpetuate the Big Bro, Big Biz, and War Machine.

I’m LONG past my thenfound fem joy when Geraldine Ferraro was running. I met my wife that summer, and she married me cuz of my support for Ferraro. I was with NPR part time in San Mateo. I KNEW what was going on, I was informed.

Now my wife and I concur, Shilary and Nancy and Diane Feinstein and even Babs Boxer and Shirley Matsui and many others who continue to ride the NOW wave have LONG sold out their soul sisters, and the rest of the nation too.

Don’t be decieved, and don’t fall for the gender trap. They don’t have YOUR best interest at heart. And they have PROVEN it, with their votes, and their representation.

Don’t be fooled! The gender of a politician means NOTHING, other than a means to decieve.

OMG.. this is huge isn’t it?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI…..index.html

Do I understand this correctly, and that Waxman has now basically accused the State Department of committing a felony?

For a moment, my heart soared.

And then I realized the DOJ and the AG’s Office are still fully comprimized.

Bright shiny distractions from the REAL issues at hand.

How do the masses get their republic back? How do we enable a growing middle class with jobs here at home beyond minimum wages?