There is no tipping point. Diebold still controls the election machinery. Your votes in the blue column will never count.

Not everywhere. There’s been a real war going on around the country and the electronic voting machines and Diebold are losing. Actually Diebold spun-off the evm division to be ‘free’ of it.

Ohio now has a Dem governor and SoS.

Florida’s Repub governor is against the evms.

California has a Dem Sos who has tossed ‘em out.

There are some other states where this is happening too. For more information go to http://www.bradblog.com where that is the issue they focus on most highly.

…
… I will vote for “the lesser of evils” both because SOME of their positions are going to be far better than anything the Republicans have to offer…but also because I recall what happened with the Progressive movement when Nader and the Greens failed to win.

I shall vote, especially for the Congressional candidates that really could make up a bloc of individuals that could influence the legislation that eventually makes its way up to the President to sign. The stronger that bloc is, the more likely that a Democratic President will have to work with them. They could even influence the Speakerships…both in body and decision.

But if a Republican gets in we can expect years of vetos, and more of the “66% solution”.

In personally think that there isn’t much of a difference between Clinton, Obama and Edwards on most issues, foreign or domestic. Putting “Strike Brigades” in Kuwait to fight in Iraq doesn’t really mean that “I’ll pull all combat troops out of Iraq”. It’s subterfuge. And what are those 5000 troops there to prevent attacks on diplomats or reconstruction teams gonna be doing if not “combat”?

Progressives will have to keep pushing the candidates and the office holders on these issues. Edwards, in particular, needs it NOW…since he thinks that he has the blind support of progressives. But all three have to be aware that no one should EXPECT our support in the primaries. It has to be earned.

Oh, I think all the candidates know it’s a real dogfight and nobody has it in their pocket.

On differences between the candidates: There are obviously fewer differences in their policy positions and tendencies than there is with any Republican. That’s only natural. Still, the broad plan Edwards puts forward to assist the middle-class and working poor is a more unified vision than the list of things other candidates offer (though there is some overlap). I like Edwards people-first position on all issues. That ought to lead to entertaining debates with the Republican nominee.

On Iraq: I think there is clearly a difference between the candidates, but it is a small one. The main thing is that all of them are saying we should get out, but that Hillary has also said we should maintain troops there. That isn’t so much an issue about foreign policy as it is about Hillary’s ability to stand everywhere on an issue.

On 5,000 troops: I think the idea of having troops out of the big metropolitan centers and out of the public view is quite a lot different than having units in the field for various combat purposes. Even having troops in public training Iraqi soldiers wouldn’t be quite the same as fighting. Personally, I’d prefer to skip the training units and keep our troops as far out of the public view as possible. It seems to have allowed a big reduction in violence when the Brits pulled out and we should do likewise. If we’re lucky the 5,000 will in fact be guarding the embassy and it’s employees and not doing combat. Isn’t that what some military do at all our embassies around the world?

…
But Edwards appears to be not all that different from Hillary, …

To be fair, when he’s out of those forums he does say things quite a bit differently. He retreats from his hawkish stance. …

His stance with Iran is quite a bit more diplomatic and nuanced. But he has also insisted on some preconditions (for example on his Campaign website) that would essentially preclude any negotiations with Iran.

It seems to me Edwards has to realize he can possibly get Iran (under it’s current government) to negotiate and assure that their nuclear reactors are for peaceful purposes. But to do that he can’t insist that Iran recognize Israel and not support Hamas and Hezbollah as PRECONDITIONS.

Edwards has campaigned a lot more about domestic issues. His foreign policy positions mostly, though not only, have been abstract. I think his general position there, as well as with Iraq, has been to maintain options.

I suspect we won’t know how he might deal with Iran until it happens.

But, if his rhetorical position of maintaining options is fundamental to how he sees foreign policy, then you would likely see him doing that in the micro-situation of negotiating with another country, such as Iran, one-on-one.

How that would play out specifically is hard to say. I suspect that if you asked former Secretarys of State how you negotiate with another country they would tell you it varies with the country. There may be some guiding principles, but like every human relationship there has to be an openness to relating to the other as they require and are able to relate.

Based on his 2004 campaign and his hawkish talk, in those rare instances when he’s said anything, you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) expect anything less hard-nosed than a Kennedy or Clinton would do.

Meanwhile, the Big Dawg complicates things a little bit for his wifey:
…

Please, a bit more respect for Hillary. She is a Democratic Senator after all.

I guess the Iowa crowds are a bit more anti-war than perhaps her campaign anticipated. Or, maybe he just slipped, as we all do at times.

Tie them to the Bush — every single one of them. And since a picture is worth a thousand words, let’s bring on the photos . . .

Mitt and Bush

Rudy and Bush
McCain and Bush

Geez, that McCain-Bush picture is embarrassing. Has that man no shame at all. I mean, sniffing Bush’s armpit in public. It’s disgusting.

Seilse at 8 — I was thinking about that last night, actually. The internet organizing issue has really brought an ability to force incremental change to the fore in a way that we could not have done years ago. The Wellstone campaign was one of those watershed moments when a regular guy just catches fire and does well.

With the internet, we can help out more of those regular folks where we can find them — which is exactly one of the reasons that Howie started looking for them. The fact that a bunch of committed folks can band together and maybe get a few really good people elected each cycle still amazes me. But it’s happening.

And I was thinking about what that will mean in terms of overall change in the next ten years — and how ten years seems like a long time from here, but when you look back at it, it’s the blink of an eye, isn’t it?

Christy, I really appreciate your optimism and hope. In politics, that’s quite a feat. Reading this gave me a lift and I’m sure I’m not alone. As a long time observer of archetypal cyclical patterns, these suggest a growing power and influence of progressives, but the conservative movement will also be empowered, especially between 2008-2011. One of the ways I think this conservative/progressive polarity may manifest will be that the Roberts Court will be increasingly at odds with the more progressive leaning of the country in the years ahead (that is, the next decade 2010-2020).

I better quit now. I leave you with this. Any Democrat but the Clintons in ‘08.

A comment from a Wisconsin resident @ dkos today says Russ is torn between his heart and Obama and his head and Clinton. Which will win out I wonder?

If this thing goes ahead on referendum (next March or June?) we have to press the state attorney general to throw the sucker out. Who has the latest on this?
Thanks.