That editorial could just as easily been a news report. That's the way it is twelve days before the election.

i think that all of the democratic candidates would do a better job handeling the war on terrism and would have brought our soliders home from over seas. i think that we should let a democrate lead the country to see how he can fix what bush messed up by not bringing our soliders home

This is one of my complaints with our Democratic leaders.After w said in one of his latest speeches not to blame the repub congress,but to blame him.Not one of our leaders reply!How can you let that slide!The republican congress is complicit in it by allowing him to do whatever he feels like doing.They are all in it together, and the voters in this country need to hear that loud and clear from our party.Don`t assume that the American voter gets the connections!

The party is "NOT" stating the truth about stem cell research in the United States .. The USA is Hundreds of millions of dollars , (GOVERNMENT FUNDS), ahead of "ANY" other country on the planet in spending for this research . This does "NOT" include the BILLIONS being spent by private concerns.. The Democrats make it sound like the "OTHER PARTIES" do not want or agree with stem cell research , and nothing is further from the truth .

The Dems should not even try to speak with respects to securing our nation .. Look at their votes on SECURING THE BOARDERS , look at what Kennedy and clan alone proposed = AMNISTY ! What about taping into phone calls of suspected terrorists ??? The Dems vote was NO WAY ! What about QUESTIONING TERRORISTS ??? Other than getting their NAME >>The Dems say "NO WAY" , What about the missle defence system that was started by Reagan ??? The Dems fought tooth and nail against such a system , untill today when North Korea is now a threat , NOW THE DEMS ARE SAYING THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT MOVING FAST ENOUGH !!! The Democratic Party is for security ??? PLEASE !!!!
What about TAXES ???? I dont know one Democrat running that isnt basicaly saying they will remove the Bushes Tax cuts ..just look at the Govenor of Penn. State >> He was elected into office because he promised a major cut in property taxes >>> Did he get the taxes cut ??? NO WAY !! I AM PAYING MUCH MUCH MORE !!
What about the PLAN-D for prescription drugs ??? Didnt Hillary and Mr. Bill try to get something passed in the 8 years they were in office ?? What did they accomplish in that respect ?? NOTHING !!!! At least some if not MOST of my prescription drugs are now being covered under Bush's plan ..
I could really go on FOREVER >>>

Democrats don't come with "an Agenda". Democrats evaluate proposals before Congress on thier merits - including the pluses and minuses of each idea. Democrats haven't sold your vote to the NRA (not that they don't value gun rights - they just have the freedom to weigh these against say assualt rifles being available to terrorists, et al. And Democrats aren't obligated to the Religious Right or big business or the rich or all the rest. Democrats represent the people. They haven't sold your vote. They don't have an AGENDA.

Geee-zus ! Do you think for one minute , Mr. or Mrs IDEAS , that Banning assAUlt rifles would keep them out of the hands of "TERRORISTS or for that matter ANY CRIMINALS HANDS" ?? Hear's a NEWS FLASH , they dont get them legally anyway , and they don't register them !!!
You also state in your post , " THE DEMOCRATS DONT HAVE AN AGENDA" !!!??? Why then can I click on "DEMOCRATS AGENDA" at the top of this page ??
DO YOU REALLY VOTE ???? SCARY !!!!!

I have some comments to make myself. Madcityman please take note:

1. Please check your spelling before you post any comments.
2. Don't use excessive caps to spell words out.
3. Limit punctuation use to one character (like the period at the end of this sentence). Not?!?!!!!!!?? Get it?

Follow these suggestions and you're on your way to looking like an intelligent poster.

Also madcityman, you're over-complicating the situation. Stop peeing your pants over terrorists and securing the borders because, really, this is an over analyzed situation that's been blown out of proportion by the Republicans and you're buying into it like a typical little American afraid of the non-American world. Why make loud bangs in Afghanistan to take out Osama when we can just have easily hired a CIA operative or something to put out a contract against him. Why are we even in Iraq? As for the Medicare stuff, consider this. Most of our politicians are run by businessmen. They put their business interests in first before you. If you want a party that'd really care about the people, vote for a 3rd party such as the Greens. Democrats are run amuck by businesspeople too, albeit less than the Republicans.

I have a suggestion for the Democratic Party platform: Cut down the number of lobbyists on K Street. They're a huge source of corruption inside Capitol Hill and limit overall campaign financing; public, private, and self contributions. I think running for office should be a measure of your understanding of the law, not by the size of your wallet. Look at Bush. Not much going on inside his head but his pockets sure are bursting with $500 bills.

Overcomplicating the matter Christy ? Have you been asleep for the past decade ? I am a registered independent , however , even the Dem's are boasting that this administration is not doing enough to secure our boarders . Have you missed the twin towers going down with 3000+ people being incinerated ? Have you missed the first bombing of the towers , the Cole bombing , the un-tolled other bombings around the planet by radical muslim extreemists ?
I may "NOT" be the greatest person in the world at spelling , however my talking points are correct , and to the point .
Lets talk a bit about North Korea . The facts show that Clintons efforts to give North Korea what they asked for during his term gave the North the time and material that they needed to complete their mission in building a nuke . Even if Kerry would have won the election , the North Koreans would have still built the weapon . It was just a matter of time , and not "who was elected in the U.S.A. .
As far as Bush not getting the world to go along with us on the war on terror , are you reffering to China or Russia ? They both have their own agenda , it's called money , and their own legal and illegal dealings with Iraq , Iran and North Korea .
Could you have possibly meant the French ? I would not waste the screen space to talk about the French and their dealings on the world stage.
To address the question on why we went into Iraq . With all of the newscasts in the past few years , and all of the arguments being passed back and forth , you really don't know why we went into Iraq ? Could it have been the 17 UN resolutions that Sadam thumbed his nose at through out the years ? Could it have been that every major intelligence agency , including the British , Italian , Russian , Israeli, Saudi ,U.S. , and a host of others , that stated that Sadam did have Weapons of mass distruction.
Could it have been because Sadam tried , on a daily basis , to shoot down coalition aircraft in the UN instituted no fly zones ?
I do agree that both the Republicans and the Dems have to much big business money backing them up . This has to be stopped.
Your point about "understanding the law " ? I don't really know what item or items you are refering to. Are you refering to the item where the Democrats would rather give each enemy combatant a lawyer and trials be held in the U.S.? Are you refering to wiretaps ? Detainee questioning ?

No matter what happens election day, Democrats are in for a wild ride in 2007

By David Sirota

In its widely-circulated August profile of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Time noted, "House Democrats have been more unified in their voting than at any other time in the past quarter-century, with members on average voting the party line 88 percent of the time in 2005." The numbers don't lie. But they do obscure a little-discussed truth: Divisions in the Democratic Party are sure to grow larger, whether the party wins or loses the mid-term elections.

For the better part of 20 years, Democratic divisions have seethed under America's political surface, with only the rare contested presidential primary providing a release valve. Any number of self-defeating pathologies emanating from inside the Democratic Party have worked to raise the temperature: From President Bill Clinton's embrace of corporate-written trade deals that crushed the party's working-class base to congressional Democrats' complicity in the Iraq War and rejection of the growing anti-war movement, Democratic Party elites have gotten used to kicking the party base in the face.

The situation is ready to explode. What the late Paul Wellstone called the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is growing feisty. And progressives are increasingly in a position to flex their muscles thanks to a convergence of factors: the rise of Internet fundraising, the ascendancy of blog and vlog (video blog) media and the crushing economic forces that are radicalizing previously apolitical middle-class constituencies. These developments have exposed the Democratic establishment to the same kind of pressure that conservative grassroots activists have exerted on the Republican Party to great electoral success.

Nowhere was this changing dynamic more on display than in Connecticut's recent Democratic senatorial primary and its aftermath. Businessman Ned Lamont--a first-time statewide candidate--toppled 18-year incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman after running a campaign against Lieberman's support for the Iraq War, Social Security privatization and lobbyist-written trade deals that have decimated the Nutmeg State's manufacturing economy. Lamont was grossly outspent thanks to Lieberman's corporate-funded war chest, but he built a grassroots campaign by tapping into his party's newly energized voters.

In response, a frightened Democratic Party in Washington tried to pretend nothing happened. Like frustrated children covering their ears and yelling "I can't hear you!," Democratic senators welcomed Lieberman back to their caucus after the summer recess--even though Lieberman announced he was abandoning his party to run in the general election against the Democratic nominee. Though many Democratic lawmakers officially endorsed Lamont, many also suggested to reporters they were still hoping for a Lieberman victory in the general election. That Lieberman ran to the media to berate his party, likened his opponent to a terrorist sympathizer and declared his refusal to endorse down-ballot Democrats in other races seemed of little interest to Democrats comfortably insulated in the Senate club.

But theirs is a false sense of comfort. Whether the Democrats win or lose on November 7, the party is in for a wild ride.

If they win

When the hangover from election night clears, a Democratic-controlled Congress will face a giant faultline between its senior members and its rank-and-file. The chairmen of key committees are among the most progressive lawmakers in Congress. Further, these are senior legislators who have been waiting for a chance at the majority for years--not rookies who will take up their gavels with no ideas about what they want to do. And they will be bolstered by the emerging progressive technological and grassroots infrastructure that provided the keys to mid-term victory.

The hotspots will likely arise on the panels that oversee the most ideological issues and have the most progressive chairmen. In the House, that's the Ways and Means Committee (taxes and trade), the Energy and Commerce Committee (health care and energy), the Education and Workforce Committee (education and pensions) and the Judiciary Committee (civil liberties and potentially impeachment), expected to be headed by Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel (N.Y.), John Dingell (Mich.), George Miller (Calif.) and John Conyers (Mich.), respectively. In the Senate, that's the Armed Services Committee (Iraq) and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (all of the above), expected to be chaired by Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.) and Ted Kennedy (Mass.), respectively.

What will happen, for instance, when Chairman Miller pushes through legislation that outlaws the most vicious of Corporate America's pension cutback schemes? Will people like Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)--who has bragged about starting his own K Street Project--lead the opposition? How about when Chairman Levin introduces a resolution demanding an exit strategy from Iraq? Will he face a battle not only with Republicans, but with Democrats backed by neoliberal, pro-war think tanks like the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)? And what about when the Bush administration sends down its next corporate-written trade deal? Will Democrats have the unity to defeat it? The answer is that progressives will certainly have a decent chance of enacting their agenda--but not without bruising fights within the Democratic caucus.

To be sure, important areas of unity exist on consensus issues like raising the minimum wage. And the non-ideological committees will be in a position to make significant, unimpeded progress. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees, respectively headed by Rep. Dave Obey (Wis.) and Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), will have little trouble ripping up President Bush's draconian budgets and forcing him to either accept or veto substantial funding increases to health care and education programs. Similarly, a House Government Reform Committee headed by firebrand Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.) will have the backing of every Democrat who wants to see the Bush administration investigated on a wide variety of non-ideological issues like war profiteering and corruption.

Nonetheless, a Democratic majority will not have the luxury of avoiding the issues that divide it. At a time of stagnating wages and a job outsourcing crisis, continuing to skirt the subject of globalization and international economic policy would likely result in the shortest-lived congressional majority in American history. And besides, a potentially growing faction of Democratic lawmakers will demand action one way or the other. If, for instance, Democratic Senate candidates Jon Tester (Mont.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey (Pa.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Lamont are victorious, they will add to an existing bloc of senators that is already planning to demand reforms to America's trade policy.

In this fluid majority scenario, the progressive movement that exists outside the Democratic Party will be more important than it is now--but only if it serves as a progressive ideological force, and not simply a partisan one. If organizations like Moveon.org, unions and the consumer/environmental/civil rights advocacy groups are willing to prioritize their policy agendas over the Democratic Party insiders' desire simply to win the next election through expediency, the progressive movement will become a kingmaker that lawmakers will rely on for their survival and success. Say goodbye to the era of Democratic lawmakers laughing off the grassroots like they did after the Lamont primary victory, and say hello to Democratic lawmakers pleading for grassroots support.

But, again, getting to that point will require the progressive movement to be comfortable not just going up against Republicans, but going up against lawmakers of both parties who cross its agenda. And if recent trends are any indication, the progressive movement is more than ready to assume this role. The Lieberman primary as well as other lower-tier primaries against Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Al Wynn (D-Md.) indicate that progressives are not about to allow a Democratic majority to become complacent. On the contrary--Democratic legislators could be scrutinized even more closely by progressives.

If they lose

If circular firing squad competitions were an Olympic sport, Democrats' typical post-election behavior would make them gold medal contenders. This is a party that has a lot of practice blaming each other--and in particular, a lot of experience watching the conservative, Big Money wing of the party dishonestly stereotype progressives as the reason for electoral defeat.

After the 2000 election, DLC chief Al From viciously attacked fellow DLCer Al Gore for supposedly being too populist (so much for loyalty). It didn't matter that after Gore's Democratic convention speech--arguably the most populist moment of his candidacy--he surged in the polls. What mattered to the Washington insiders was they could use his 2000 election loss as an excuse to publicly berate progressives.

If Democrats somehow manage to seize a mid-term loss from the jaws of victory in 2006, the DLC will undoubtedly again fabricate a storyline that blames it entirely on progressives. Somehow, we will be expected to believe that even though polls show a strong majority of Americans are angry with the Bush White House and want an exit strategy from Iraq, Democrats will have lost because they didn't outhawk Bush by pushing the war even more aggressively than him. The DLC will issue a glossy report titled something like "Democrats Lost Because They Refused to Embrace the Politics of Genghis Khan" and then publish an accompanying book of essays by the DLC's political "experts" entitled "Embracing Our Inner Genghis: A Blueprint for Democratic Victory in 2008."

But this time around, progressives won't have to take the distortions sitting down. With the party insisting on running its 2006 campaign without embracing the kind of bold economic, health care, anti-corruption and national security stances the public wants, a very compelling case can be made that the party lost the election because it projected weakness and timidity. And unlike in the past, the case will be made in a forceful manner by a strengthened base that has become increasingly influential, thanks to its growing power as a fundraising and grassroots political resource.

All of this will play out not just in the C-SPAN symposiums that the DLC feeds on, but also in Congress, most acutely in the House. There, Pelosi has steadfastly represented the progressive wing of the party, using her platform as minority leader to push her caucus away from K Street's influence and towards a far more populist agenda. At every turn, however, she has been undermined by the likes of Hoyer. When she pushed Democrats to take a serious position on the Iraq War, Hoyer berated her efforts to the Washington Post. When she worked to distance the caucus from corporate lobbyists, Hoyer pitched himself in news stories as the Democrats' chief point of contact for the lobbying community. When she tried to stop the credit card industry-written bankruptcy bill, Hoyer refused to help and instead voted for the abomination. The list goes on.

Hoyer's behavior has been simultaneously ideological and tactical. The antithesis of a conviction politician, he is the quintessential backroom dealer--a lawmaker who in an earlier era would have had a snappy, all-too-friendly nickname among the smoky back room crowd. His political moves have clearly made Big Business happy, and they have also positioned him to make a renewed case for his own promotion after a mid-term election loss. In short, his constant pecking at Pelosi is all about his being able to argue "I told you so" if Democrats lose--and then making a run against her for minority leader with the full backing of the Wall Street wing of the party. In all likelihood, this is the very scenario Hoyer privately dreams of, because if Democrats win the House, he's going to have his hands full with Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) who has already announced his intention to run against Hoyer for Majority Leader.

Pelosi will certainly be on the ropes with a Hoyer challenge and a mid-term election loss. But will the progressive movement mobilize to preserve her status as leader? It's a safe bet that Hoyer, who is a polarizing figure inside the Democratic caucus, will not be allowed to waltz to the top unchallenged. That leaves either a surprise run for leader from one of the senior progressives like Miller or Obey, or more likely, an attempt by professional self-promoter Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). Either way, an unpredictable situation will ensue--one where the ideological poles of the party will each use leadership candidates as vehicles to express their aspirations.

The fighIt goes without saying that a Democratic victory in 2006 would be much better for progressives and the country as a whole. ts and problems that will come with a win are the enviable troubles of political riches, rather than political poverty. But progressives must not be tricked by the usual Democratic Party propaganda that promises a utopia after the election. No matter what the outcome on November 7, a new fight begins on November 8.

Stay the course Poll

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

Let Democracy ROLL.

Governor Dean is our Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of the United States:

(ARTICLE BEGINS)

Celebrating a landslide re-election, Brazil's leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva vowed to fight for social justice while at the same time spurring economic growth.

Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his wife Marisa holds roses during a celebration, after he won a landslide victory in the run-off election against his rival Geraldo Alckmin, on Sao Paulo's Paulista Avenue October 29, 2006. REUTERS/Caetano Barreira (BRAZIL)

"The poor will take precedence," the self-styled defender of the downtrodden told several thousand jubilant supporters after garnering almost 61 percent of the vote and a lead of more than 21 points over former Sao Paulo governor Geraldo Alckmin.

"Education will improve, employment will improve," the charismatic, bearded president, 61, told the crowd from a tribune set up in the city's Paulista avenue.

"The enemy is now the social injustice we must defeat."

Speaking at a news conference immediately after the outcome of the run-off election was announced, he insisted that while remaining committed to a more just distribution of wealth, he would maintain tough fiscal policies. He expressed confidence economic growth would reach five percent, as compared to a disappointing 2.3 percent last year.

Clad in a T-shirt that proclaimed "Victory is Brazil's," Lula, who has survived a series of scandals that tarnished his first term, also vowed to step up the battle against corruption.

Several thousand people, chanting "ole, ole, ola, Lula, Lula" and setting off fireworks cheered the president, a onetime shoeshine boy and a former metal worker with little formal education.

"For us poor people this victory means food on the table and education for our children," said Beatriz Brandao, a 51-year-old seamstress.

Lula's popularity is attributed in part to the government's flagship social program that hands out cash assistance to more than 11 million needy families.

"The people feel things have improved, and that has no rival," said Lula. "And they realize we have just made the first step," he said.

"We will make our second mandate better than the first," he said.

A leftist who has toned down his once-fiery rhetoric and maintained orthodox economic policies, Lula was buoyed by a healthy, if slow-growing, economy, with inflation down, trade at a record high and a large chunk of public debt paid off ahead of time.

Alckmin, 53, an anesthesiologist backed by the business community, had not called for any major policy changes, focusing instead on a series of scandals that led to the resignation of several of Lula's ministers and top PT officials.

Claims of campaign wrongdoing cost Lula the chance of winning re-election in the October 1 first round election, when he fell 1.4 points short of the simple majority needed to avert a runoff against Alckmin.

Two men tied to Lula's leftist Workers Party (PT) were arrested in September as they allegedly sought to buy information they thought could damage Alckmin's campaign, in the latest of several scandals that emerged over the past years.

Lula has denied any prior knowledge of the affairs and turned up the heat in the run-up to Sunday's election, playing on popular concerns his rival would privatize the giant Petrobras energy company and other state assets.

Voters also elected governors in 10 of Brazil's 27 states, where gubernatorial elections were not decided in the October 1 voting.

The next government will be hampered by a fractured parliament. The PT will have 83 deputies in the 513-seat lower house and 11 mandates of 81 Senate seats. Alckmin's Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy (PSDB) will have 66 deputies and 14 senators, with the remaining seats going to other parties.

(END OF ARTICLE)

"The enemy is now the social injustice we must defeat."

A Commitment to a JUST Distribution of Wealth.

A Commitment to Health Care for All the peopleof the United States in the United States.

Jehovah GOD will help WE THE PEOPLE (THE LEFT 70-75%) in the name of JESUS win back the CONGRESS November 7th and the WHITE HOUSE in 2008 the same as GOD has helped the Common People of Brazi. GOD will set the people FREE from GOVERNMENT TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

Extremists of the UPPER Crust ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

The LEFT IS ROLLING.

GOD HAS BLESSED BRAZIL AND GOD WILL BLESS THE UNITED STATES AGAIN WITH NEW GOVERNMENT IN SEVEN DAYS.