You're mad because none of the Democrats are moderate? You just made Hillary cry.

I think Hillary's very moderate... when the polls tell her to take that position.

Yea pretty much, but no, fucking up the health care system does not make you moderate.

You didn't see Sicko, so you're clearly not aware that Hillary 1994 is NOT Hillary 2008.

So now we are relying on Professor Dr. Michael Moore for our information about health care?

I'm assuming, from the tenor of this thread, that I'm probably going to get creamed for this, but I'll go ahead and be the one to step up to the bat....

I don't think the Democrats should try to find moderates to put into the White House. Nor, for that matter, do I think Joe Lieberman is a moderate.

I think the Democrats should stop trying to court middle-of-the-road Republicans who might be willing to toe our side of the line for an election or two if we kiss their ass enough. I think the Democrats should begin tapping the great untapped reservoir at the Left. People who aren't voting because they're fed up with the system, and think there's no difference between the two parties, or who are wasting their votes on third-party candidates who don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

I think the Democrats should run someone brave enough to say that it is a matter of national shame that we live in a country where the government tells us that the poverty line is $10,488 if you're single, $20,444 for a family of four; that it is a scandal that we are the only prosperous, first-world nation not to have a national health care system; that we have a government that doesn't support labor unions; that we tax the poor and the middle-class and offer breaks, incentives, and loopholes to the wealthy; that our public school system is a matter of national humiliation-- we, who used to have one of the finest public school systems anywhere; that we proportionally offer fewer grants and fewer scholarships to undergraduate and graduate students than any other first-world country. That we sell our legislation to the bid of polluting industries, at the expense not just of "the environment" (a vague phrase if ever there was one), but of our clean drinking water, our beaches, our parks, our air, and the grass and trees in our back yards.

I think we should run someone who agrees that it this war we're fighting is a joke, made to protect nobody's interests but those who profit off of it. That it is doubly insulting to all of us to be engaged in such a war when we have no health care for the sick, no housing for the homeless, and the national minimum wage has only been raised $1.40 in the past 17 years, while the purchasing power of the dollar has dropped by over 30%. That our infrastructure is old and outdated and crumbling, but we waste billions on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, and a pointless war that does nothing but kill and maim American boys and girls in service of a civil conflict we'll never be able to solve, that has little to do with us anymore. We don't even take proper care of the poor kids who sign up to fight this stupid thing: their hospitals can't treat them properly, their benefits are late, they have to wade through mountains of paperwork and endless bureaucracy-- and this is how we treat our heroes?!

I want to run someone who will point these things out, and then say that he or she wants to fix them. Not just as a campaign promise, but for real: someone who has thought about it, and wants to pass reform legislation the likes of which hasn't been seen since the New Deal. I want someone who is unafraid to say that they are progressive. That, yes, there are industries they want to curtail, but there are industries they want to help flourish. There are financial practices they want to restrict, but there are others they want to help grow. That we might all have to tighten our financial belts to help pay for this, but the tightening is going to start at the top for two simple reasons: first, that's where the money is, and second, if you received, it's only fair that you give back, too. That they want to equalize taxes to really be what they are: a way to pool our resources for all America. That we're going to pass legislation to preserve natural resources, and fund science properly, so that we can use the power of American innovation to get ourselves unhooked from our dependence on foreign oil, and our use of plutonium and uranium.

I want someone to say that this country is about a fair shake. The rich don't get to buy the government, and the government doesn't get to ignore the poor. This country should be about giving everyone a shot to make it big: if you're rich, we'll give you a chance to get richer; if you're poor, we'll give you a leg up, to try and make to the next level, too. If you work, you deserve to get something for it. And this country's got more working poor than anywhere else in the First World. It's not right that two people with four kids ought to need to work three to five jobs between them to get everybody fed, housed, clothed, and ready for education. Study, work, earn: that should be a person's story in this country. And the government ought to be there to help you, not ignore you at best or put the boot on your neck at worst. And the government is not there to make your doctor reveal your medical records, or your librarian reveal what you like to read, or your phone company reveal who you like to chat with. Not without a fair warrant from a judge, challengeable in open court.

Government should be word of hope, not a word of contempt. It should be something that fosters trust and community, not something that profits itself and ignores those who need it most.

The Democrats won't run anyone like that, of course. These days, really wanting a fair shake for everyone is just wild-eyed radicalism.

Which I guess makes me the resident wild-eyed radical.

I agree they should court them.

Only because I want to see easy republican victories.

I'm curious how you see easy republican victories in the future....as long as the evangelical right has a stronghold over the Republican party.

Most indicators are pretty clear and consistent......the country is turning more left than right.

I would like to submit a concurring opinion, as they say in the Supreme Court. I agree with Ustwo (I'm shocked my own self), insofar as the Democrats do not need to tap into some sort of unused reservoir of liberal voters. However, he's completely wrong about the consequences of high liberal participation in the elections. Democratic participation is WAAAAAY up this year as everyone who could possibly identify themselves as liberal is both excited about our candidates and desperate to do anything to obliterate the GOP and their voters from every legislative body and executive office in the country. And, I'm delighted to say, the Democrats look poised to do well on that front. Basically, that well is dry - everyone's voting already.

That said, I agree that the Democrats will do best by growing a backbone and a pair and letting the country know that we will do our best in the future as a liberal, progressive society, not a conservative one (e.g., the Bush years - game, set, match).


...And yeah, the more we excise the Lieberman set from Congress, the better off the country will be.

There's a long time between now and Nov. If the Dems and the left have proved anything to me over the past 6-10 years it's that they can figure a way to lose regardless of the odds that favor them.

Touche.