There's a great article on truthout.org by a psychiatrist that explains how screwed up and dangerous George W. Bush really is.

Bush overcompensated for his deep feelings of inadequacy by becoming a domineering bully. His decision making is dangerously flawed, as the whole world can now see, and is predictably getting worse as he feels backed into a corner by his bad decisions.

(More on the flip ...)

I am tired of Democratic Presidential candidates who couldn't manage the local ice cream store.  What does a law degree and service as a legislator teach you about effectively running a complex government? Nothing.

And creating a campaign from scratch is just like a startup business on steroids. So we need a candidate with experience running an organization bigger than a Senate staff.

Second - we need a candidate who can perform for the media.  Sadly, today candidates are rated for their acting ability.  They have to seem excited and energetic for the two hundredth presentation of their stump speech. Again, speaking in the Senate doesn't exactly teach you how to package your thoughts into compelling sound bites, as Kerry showed.

To find an effective candidate we have to ask...

The Republican NRCC has dumped over $7.8 million into 30 Congressional races as "independent expenditures".  But the amount per district varies widely: three districts received over $600,000 EACH, while the bottom five districts received less than $40,000 each.

So I've ranked the Congressional Districts by the amount of the NRCC's spend. The amount per district reflects to some degree the importance the Republicans give to that race plus the media costs of campaigning in that district. Details at CQPolitics.com.

How do Democrats frame the Bush Administration's many failures so Democrats can persuade voters that they would do a better job?