This is somethign I wrote over at mydd.com. Let me just say that for a short while I flirted with the idea of changing candidates. Like many, I can be influenced by the media, and I was possibly leaning to Clinton after the last several weeks becoming disenchanted with Obama.

Now, however, I am firmly returning to my support of Edwards. Here's why: If progressives/liberals want to start creating strategies that will defeat triangulation, that means we must step out on to the plank to support progressive/liberal values. By doing so, win or lose, we get a seat at the table. By having a seat at the table we start to shift the balance leftward. We can't do that if we simply give into to impulse.

(more below)

I wanted to wait for permission to reprint these thoughts from Dem37 over at mydd.com, but he hasn't responded.

http://mydd.com/...

I can't vouche for everything said here. It's,however, important for people to have the story of fundraising this presidential primary cycle.

Let me start with one point regarding Edwards-- many play either wanting him to be a saint, and in which case perfection, or, if not a saint, then they act  as if he acts without principles at all. This mindset more than anything summarizes the problem with the discussion of positions, character and ideas in the party. I can't explain it as well as the following. I left much of it unedited so that the full impact could be understood.

More Below

Comparison of Clinton Plan to Other Candidates

http://openleft.com/...

Money quote: "It appears that both Clinton and Obama would keep 40,000 troops in Iraq for a while if they become President, plus between 6,000 and 20,000 advisors and an always unspecified numbers of private contractors. She plans to hold significant number of troops"

This appears to go until 2012. However, there is this:

http://www.openleft.com/...

Money quote: "The United States would maintain a significant military presence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region, probably including a continuous Navy and Air Force presence as well as Special Operations Forces and ground forces. Precise numbers and posture of the forces would depend on conditions at the time in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, as well as other demands on U.S. forces globally."

As a million polls come out. I think we should keep perspective.

I am not sure what I think about the reliance on polling data without any reference to trying to determine voting behavior. Mystery pollster has a collumn up that I think is useful for us to consider.
Right now, on the front page of mydd, there is a poll that's been posted that, well, as Jonathan Singer points  out that "while these numbers might be good gauges of the general sentiments of these states, I'm not certain how good of gauges they are of the sentiments of those who are actually going to play a large role in selecting the next Democratic nominee."

http://www.mydd.com/...

(NOTE: I've noticed that some times links do not work. If that's the case, here with any of my links, please let me know, and I will repost.)

I think I will get banned for asking this question over at mydd.com, but at this point, I would rather  find out honest impressions, if this somehow gets through: What's happening with Mydd?

I was just given a warning for rating a comment a zero. The comment in question said nothing more than that the diarist was engaged in a conspiracy theory for arguing that Clinton's support by Murdock was a bad thing. In other words, it said nothing more than call the diarist a conspiracy nut. In the old days, this would have been called a tinfoiled hat theorist, and its used as a slur. It's not argument. It's like saying you are crazy. Or you are nutty. I don't understand a rating system that allows comments like this and provocations l ike this.

Nevermind for a second, that ironically, I meant to hit 1, but why exactly is the response of calling someone a conspiracy theorist considered anything other than provocation?

So is this site worth coming to, and if so, why for those of us who remember the good old days when the blog was a bit more substantive, is it still a good place to come to learn things?

more below

As of this moment, I'm not sure, but I maybe banned from mydd because there seems to a concerted effort to talk about copyright law in what I considered by some pretty simplistic political, but not legal terms.

I'm posting this here in case people are interested in the subject of copyright law. I'm not going to go through the entire history but suffice to say there is a modern trend of wanting to treat copyright law as purely the instrument of big corporations. I want to bring up something that is rarely talked about in liberal circles: copyright law as a way to protect the interest of labor.

More below

In another diary, over at mydd, there is a dustup about whether Obama is like Lieberman, but I think this is a question that really isn't getting at what is on all of our minds: Can we trust you?

I don't mean can we trust you like we trust a family member or a friend. We know you are politicians. We know you are ambitious. What we mean is can we trust you to do a few things that have been talked about, but have, nevertheless, been lacking in national Democratic presidential primary and general election discourse and in general governance for a few decades now.

So, I have decided to have a bit of hubris by acting as a filter for some of my conservative, moderate and liberal friends offline who are typically tired of me talking politics, don't give a shit, or occasionally give me a polite nod pretending to listen. When they do talk, they all tend to say some very general things that may be of use to you.
more below the fold

I am up early this morning, and I continue to see a ton of diaries about the subject of President Bush. Bush this. Bush that.  This maybe controversial, but it needs to be said: Bush is losing relevancy, and will become irrelevant in the next two years.

more below

I grew up on the North Carolina-Virginia border. Where I lived we had two schools, one private for the white kids who didn't want to be around blacks after Jim Crow failed under the courts, and one school that was public with everyone else. I lived in the South until the late 90s. Variously having lived in multiple parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Texas and having visited places like TN and GA.

I want to get into this debate about what strategy the Democratic Party should consider taking as someone who has lived down South, and understands the contours of the debate. I think I understand this better than some who may not be from the region in question, but also because I have lived in California and New York. I know many of these regions.

So, I just read an article that is further repudiation of Rove's strategy of getting out the religious right voter base as a means of winning elections.

The article, by the NY Times, is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09relig.html?ref=politics

What is especially interesting to the left is that it should once and for all prove that this block of voter is not absolutely crucial to winning elections. Obama deservedly got in trouble prior to this election by creating the false frame that any Democrat who is for secularism is somehow against religion-- in part, I suspect because of fear over the power of the religios right. This should decrease any such anxiety.

Right now on the recommend list, there is a diary about the outting of a gay Republican who is well known for his anti-gay policies.

Most of the people on the poll are for it for what I can assume are various reasons. Let me discuss my reasoning as to why I say "Yes" to outting a gay Republican who hypocritically votes to violate my right to be an equal citizen in the US.
more below

I am begining to feel more confident about Democratic voter turnout. I still think we have a few election cycles to go before we will rival the Republican's GOTV, but I do see signs that there are those with power who are starting to get the "it" of elections is not only messaging, good candidates and strategy, but also getting out the vote. As often has been stated- the only poll that matters is the election day results. This is what Kos refers to as the Republican ability to close the deal where we have been coming up short.

Putting aside all the allegations of voters fraud or suppression, one of the chief problems the Democrats and progressives have faced has been turnout. We had a good turn out in 2004, but still it can be better. I think this attitude of "it can be better" personally should become the Party's mantra for addressing all of its internal issues. Rather than protecting territory or just putting down the Party, this attitude is about always seeming to improve conditions. This kind of change requires experimentation.

more below

I think most people will agree that youtube is a wonderful invention that is changing the way we do politics much like the blogsphere. Of course, this makes sense since we live in an age dominated not by the written word, but visuals. From ads to magazine photo spreads to television to film to podcasts to video games, liberal or conservative, we are at all times surrounded by visual language. In fact, I would argue that it is that visual language which offers a way to create symbolizes which can nationalize the election in individual campaigns across the country.

more below

I am guessing I am the thousandth diary on this, but I want to get into the debate about conspiracy theories. Personally, I think that people are too quick to take real concerns about trusting Bush and conflate them with theories such as 09/11 was caused by Bush. The later is a conspiracy theory, but the former is not. There are reasons we don't trust Bush that all your fear over terror can not deny.

I am the kind of guy who likes to separate things out, and understand them in their own context. So, I will try to do a bit of that here.

I consider myself left of center politically, but being gay and also generally concerned with human rights issues I am amazed by what I see as often a general silence in America by progressives on human rights abuse of gays abroad. I see very little discussion in the left leaning political blogsphere of this issue. And, yet, these issues havea  weight on gay rights in America too- as the recent US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence shows, we do, at least in dicta, think of what the rest of the world is doing in its policies and legal analysis.

I am sure there are a lot of people who will say that this issue is being covered (if so- where?) or that it's not an important issue (if not, then why is Dafur important? All human rights abuses should be considered important).

I especially think now is a good time to discuss this given, the UN is considering giving consultancy status to gay rights groups for the first time ever.

In discussions about what are Democratic values or the politics of principles differentiation, there is often a lack of a simple sound bite to the arguments. I believe the core value shared by all Americans can be reflect in one phrase: "We are the Party of Hope, they are the party of fear"

So, I am at home, and I've just realized my script that I've been working on is still on my computer at the office. Yes, I am a starving filmmaker w/ a law degree, and yes, I do need a sugar daddy- but that's another diary. I am also procrastinating on writing a review of a documentary about gay Republicans. And, then I happen upon this diary (sorry for incorrect formatting):

http://www.dailykos.com/...

It's a great diary- no, seriously. Just, because to me it's so funny. We are in the middle of a war, we are dealing with the dark lord that is Bush, we are dealing with an energy crisis, and then there is this diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/...

It's great- stop laughing, no, seriously.

I came up with this idea for a pO-im on reading the diary. It's good. No- (hey, stop groaning) seriously.

You can read it below

I was one of those people who supported Paul Hackett's run for Senate in Ohio. I am not from the state. Therefore, this may seem odd that I would even care to have a horse in the race. However, let's start off by dispelling some myths. I didn't support Hackett because I thought he was or was not progressive. I didn't support him because of his policies. I didn't even support him because he was an Iraqi vet. I supported him because he was a new idea. One, which as an outsider to politics, I think the Democratic Party needs desperately to find. When I came to this blog in late 2004, what interested me was that Kos stated what I felt privately: The Democratic Party had lost its way. It's not about triangulation, being on the left, left of center or moderate. Indeed, I have repeatedly said openly that I am in fact a moderate. But, this isn't for me about moderation, conservativism, or being liberal. It's about having two strong political parties because one powerful party controlling everything always leads to disaster.

More below about my thoughts (for what they are worth)