The Democratic Party represents the people?! That's news to me.

The People represent the Democratic Party. Does that make sense.

Once real actors take the place of the storyboarders, it'll look much better. We got to see it at a Dem convention in Eugene a year ago and it really raised the roof. I'd wondered why it was not heard from again.

I think it's great, but needs a tiny bit of editing to tighten it into something very powerful

An ad like that is against everything the Repigs stand for.

scares me. this would be presented by the same networks that are presenting the news? Seems like the same over-produced pablum that is the cause of everyone believing that Hillary Clinton is "our" front runner. too over-produced. Sorry my party is floating trial baloons to see how they play. I want a candidate. A candidate that speaks their mind and thoughts rather than soundbites that sound REALLY good. I'm ashamed.

Gordon Huser
Minneapolis Minnesota

Open thread...
The Air Force Times reported that Idaho's foot-tapper is still able to to act as a spoiler - this time toward the veterans. Craig placed a "Hold" on a veterans benefit bill that would fund improvements to the treatment programs for veterans with traumatic brain injuries. The bills have been waiting for passage since July. He might still be "giving" to us by his holding onto his position - but his congressional actions sure aren't "giving" to our veterans.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/military_veteransbills_071114w/

Story Highlights (from CNN)
House passes Iraq bill demanding troops out by December '08

*NEW: Bill offers less funds for Iraq, Afghanistan than Bush requested
*NEW: $50 billion bill requires troop withdrawal from Iraq by December 15, 2008
*Bill bans government from using waterboarding interrogation technique
*White House says bill is "political posturing" and likely to be vetoed

The 218-203 vote was largely along party lines.

Fifteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the bill while four Republicans voted in favor of it.

Obviously false advertising....

I would like to ask Mr. Klugman if the Democrats funded Blackwater and if he plans to make a cartoon about it called "Burning 'We the People'" How the Democrats are complicit in destroying the republic.

This spot gives me chills. I think it is a stirring anthem to what our Democratic party SHOULD represent!

That's the most I've seen the Democrats talk about the envirinment in any substantive way since 2000. The hunter standing in the woods saying that forests need to be protected is classic. I'm fully expecting this scene to be edited out. That is the Democratic party I've come to know.

Crennaman @ 14:

I found it very helpful to read the blog entry Klugman posted on BlueOregon.com earlier today. Quoting:

"...what you are about to watch is not a vision of the party as it is but rather as it
one day might be if each of us knew what to sing when applying the most
rudimentary chord of our uniquely American freedom: We The People. And while I must admit that it is odd to propose a new brand identity campaign for a party that seems
to be careening away from its constituents, that is precisely my point: like turning into a
skid, we must not pull away from our party but turn directly into it, all of us, at the same
time, and recover our control before it is too late."

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Here's the link to the rest, along with a high res version of the spot along with some great print examples.

http://www.wethepeople.tv/

Exactly. WE either take active control of the party or we're stuck with the long slow process of building an effective third party. It's faster grabbing the reins.

And to others who look for a Messiah to lead us out of the wilderness, I can only say let us be that Messiah. Maybe you be the heart, someone else the brain and others the hands. WE can waste a lifetime waiting for one, or invest many lifetimes creating miracles. It's our party, and the hired help keep forgetting that.

Rudy , Rudy , Rudy the first brave thing you ever did was never changing your first name, we can only imagine the torment and ridicule you suffered from, because of your name and freakish appearance . Is this were your fixation with authority and servitude come from, putting yourself above all others , wielding power like a vindictive child , getting back at " bad people " , but now you want to control the whole playground, with your war on bullies . Now, even though your sleazy connection to Bernard Kerik , a straight mob connected gangster with more charges than failed Dennis Miller Shows , and thats a sh it load , is your best friend and BUSINESS PARTNER , you have the gall to us your interested in our security .

Have some self - respect drop out of the presidential race , you're an embarrassment to the United States , RudY .

(Sorry, put this in the wrong thread)

The text of the supplemental that pased the House today is not yet available. However, here is the version that the Rules Committee posted (PDF):

http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr4156txt.pdf

This text of the supplemental bill clarifies that the relevant TORTURE PROHIBITION portion of the AFM is "Army Field Manual FM2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations." Here is the text of this portion of the new AFM:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf

If anyone wants to find the relevant portion in this huge document, please post what they find.

Great concept. I like the message a lot. I realize it's just a storyboard but hopefully when it does get produced, and I think it should, please be mindful of the stereotyping that is in the storyboard... re-watch and you'll see most everyone is typecast by age and race. Lets expand that image but keep the message. Great work.

As a former dem/liberal who is now an independant voter (but still votes dem mostly), I think that ad could be great but needs some tweaking.
I dont think that energy independance is homeland security. I WANT to feel safe from terrorism, whether you believe its out there or not. You need to tell us how you will protect the american people.
I do like talk about energy independance.

I dont believe the democrats are going to being any new industries, jobs or higher wages for people. That part is b/s. No political party does that really.

I do love the ending about peace, peace, peace. that is great.

Nancy Nye @ 19:

This spot gives me chills. I think it is a stirring anthem to what our Democratic party SHOULD represent!

I agree. I wrote Adam and told him how much I appreciate his work. Frankly, I'm more optimistic about the Democratic presidential candidates than I am about Democratic leaders in Congress. They are weak, they don't know how or they are unwilling to filibuster. They continue to put forward measures and haven't counted the votes. They seem very naive and unprofessional to me. It's going to take a long time to make significant changes in the political culture. Here's hoping first that we survive Bush, the negative impacts he's had on every facet of our lives, that he can be restrained from bombing Iran, and that someone has the courage to prosecute him and his henchmen.

This ad highlights talking points to make them seem even more empty. Action speaks louder than words. People just standing around saying some words, dressed in the costumes of different professions and different ethnicities? Where is the action? Where is the progression? None...but I guess fitting because it sounds just like our current Democratic majority.

One of the things that makes the spot so compelling is that Adam Klugman actually tells a story, not just a checklist of "issues." I think it really works, and packs more of an emotional punch than a lot of spots you see. Plus, great visual drumbeat at the end.

I strongly encourage people to read Adam's background piece "Raising an Anthem for a New Generation of Democrats", which we posted at Blue Oregon here.

Good luck, Adam!

Beau Jangles @ 35:

Powerful ad. I hope it's seen alot. I hope the Dems actually grow a spine in 2009.

It is powerful - a muscular, confident, no-apologies message will resonate, I think, with undecided voters.

There are a few rough edges. The line, "The Democratic Party. We. The. People." is delivered with a wee touch of bombastic superhero.

But overall, thumbs up for ambition and execution.

Proclamations Calling For Pelosi To Be Removed As Speaker

Stanley Rosenthal @ 40:

I agree with Remove Speaker that Rep. Pelosi should be recalled for failing to defend the Constitution.

Thank you. Please encourage your friends, bloggers and others in the DNC or GOP to link to, discuss, and share their views of this C&L comment (Status update on effort to remove Pelosi as Speaker). Even if someone in the GOP disagrees with an effort to remove Pelosi, it's good to hear their reasons.

If you're looking for something you can do right now -- this morning, today -- while you're sitting at your computer surfing the internet, here's an idea that can take a few seconds: Visit some of these blogs discussing Kucinich and the Cheney impeachment effort, and remind them of the Status of the Effort to Remove Pelosi. Hit some random blogs, and let them know you appreciate their coverage of the Kucinich impeachment resolution, and that there is an effort underway to remove the Speaker. Thanks.

Remove Speaker @ 34 "Kucinich led the effort to get Congress to vote on an Cheney impeachment resolution."

Which effort would have failed for lack of votes if not withdrawn.

"It appears enough of the DNC Members of the House do not blindly support Pelosi's position that impeachment is off the table."

That's incorrect. There are a handful of Reps who believe it should go forward to a vote in the absence of enough votes.

"[It is wrong] to assume Pelosi loyalists would be automatically take the Speakers position."

You misunderstood. The problem isn't that "Pelosi loyalists" would become Speaker. The problem is that, WITHOUT A DOUBT, Steny Hoyer would be the next Speaker. That's trading a Progressive for a DLCer -- NOT an accomplishment, but actually would be a step backward.

"The House elects a New Speaker by popular vote,"

A popular vote is a vote of the population. The House elects the Speaker via caucus elections at the start of the Congress. The next such election will be in 2009. If Speaker Pelosi loses, then Speaker Hoyer will become a reality. And if you don't know that Hoyer ALREADY has that power, you are just uninformed.

Warm, fuzzy and emotionally evocative. And altogether crap. I'm so tired of pols using PR in the place of substance and honesty. It's what I dislike about Clinton, and, when they're not taking the advise of their handlers, what I like about Edwards and Obama. And what I thought I liked about McCain and, way back when, Dole -- when they're not running for president. Every other repub is a media tool.

Stanley, there aren't enough votes in favor. You come up with 30 more votes, the House part can be accomplished. Then the 40 missing votes in the Senate will confront you. And you wouldn't be able to scapegoat the Speaker for that.

What I find so marvelous is how little actual pragmatism there is in such efforts. It's mainly an effort to scapegoat someone for counting the votes.

BTW: The Alamo still exists. Today it's San Antonio's best tourist attaction.

And if we truly defend the Constitution (even though we may fail in some battles in this war), it will still exist.

Paul -
> ... scapegoat the Speaker ...

Straw man.

Stanley Rosenthal @ 51:

Paul -
> ... scapegoat the Speaker ...

Straw man.

You think Pelosi is complicit, is that what you mean by that?

What minds will that change?

My friend Paul -
> What minds will that change?

"Open" minds.

Stanley Rosenthal @ 57:

My friend Paul -
> What minds will that change?

"Open" minds.

I mean, are you talking about the public, or the politicians?

> Really! So you think she’s conspiring to block impeachment in order to serve Bushco interests?

Of course! And if I'm wrong about that and she's serving the Democratic party's interest, she's wrong about that too. Her oath is to "defend *THE CONSTITUTION* from enemies, foreign and domestic", and not any party. When she plays party over country (just like Bush does), she's playing into Bushco's hands.

Paul -
> I mean, are you talking about the public, or the politicians?

Not "or", "and".

For me the ad formulates what progressives are FOR in a way that contrasts well with what the Repugs have been giving us. I think it would be most effective paired with some powerful messaging about what the war on Iraq has really produced in terms of human suffering, diminished American prestige and undermined liberties at home. Oh, and putting in deep debt forever...

Stanley Rosenthal @ 62:

Paul, just because the Republican'ts misused impeachment (as spoken about in the Constitution) doesn't mean that the Constitution has failed.

The Constitution has not failed, I didn't say that. I said that impeachment has NEVER worked, and would never work, because it turns out that political parties cannot be trusted to vote their oaths.

You trying to twist my words, or is your monaural view of the Constitution keeping you equating that to the impeachment power? The Constitution has statute law to protect it these days. If the justice system was working Bushco would have to resign like Nixon did. If the media system was working, the same. But neither or working -- so you blame that on Speaker Pelosi.

For the sake of your simple idea that impeachment = the Constitution, you are doubting the most progressive Speaker in US history. And thinking of that as an accomplishment.

Stanley Rosenthal @ 68:

Paul -
> ... impeachment has NEVER worked, ...

Garbage. Nixon was forced out because of the threat of it.

No, he was forced out as a result of the nightly news covering Watergate, and the political fallout from that, along with the Pentagon Papers, and the activated public due to the draft, and the smoking gun tapes.

In this case, impeachment has already been proven a million times over. None of that is covered in the press. No Walter Chronkite being the loyal press, except in smaller medias like these. No draft. Very little public activation, except that already most people know Bush has committed huge crimes, or else there are no crimes because an atom bomb ends it all in a moment -- which is their argument.

An impeachment bill takes all of an afternoon to pass. The media would not cover the speeches, they would cover an afternoon partisan effort, with spin, and if that effort reaches the Senate, it will disappear into THEIR committees, and the evidence those committees find will disappear just as committee revelations so far have been swallowed up.

Conyer's contempt bill has been delayed until December at the DLC request. It contains more than eight hundred pages of documentation of the US Attorneys firing felonies. Just how much of that public record have you heard on the nightly news?

Silence, coast to coast. Worse in the interior. The fixed media system, the lack of a draft, the vote-fraud which has turned off a lot of people, the locked-down justice system, and you want to stake it all on a canary in the mine that no one will ever hear.

I support the Speaker, and her strategy, which I know to be honorable and courageous. You support a pull-my-finger trick which backfires.

Lordy. Paul in L.A. is worse about wordiness than even I am.

So... "there's more than one way to skin a cat".

There. Saved ya 50 comments.

But you are both debating around the real issue:

The Dems are deliberately postponing all of this (and other important issues) until after the nomination.

So that prompts questions (to me) like:

Is that wise, in that it would detract from the candidates and their issues? Or does it just benefit one candidate above the others? Of course, it's been good for Dennis NOT to have impeachment go forward. Makes him look like he's fighting the good fight, but I highly doubt it's a Kucinich Konspirasy!

Personally, I wish you were required to be out of the Senate or House when you run for president. Otherwise there is too much B.S. and freeloading on the taxpayer dime. Free SS security, skipping votes, showboating on the floor for the cameras. Blech. I think that would help with a lot of problems. Yet another plus in my book for Edwards.

Hey, GNA! Let's continue this in another open-thread (for the open-minded)!

BTW

Just because you can't win at something doesn't mean you don't try to do what's right. Not trying has the same outcome as losing, except it's spineless.

See also:

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

and

"Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!"

We the people, and I do believe.

Now all I need is a political party to believe in.

Stanley Rosenthal @ 70:

Trust me Paul. If Nixon wasn't gonna be impeached, he wouldn't have resigned.

Bush isn't being impeached either, so he won't resign. The reason Bush isn't being impeached is that the Republicans will not vote for his conviction. And there are enough DINOs that caucus with them on that to make the difference.

NOTHING you have said, about the Alamo or whatever has changed that vote count one bit. And won't. So there is no comparison to Nixon, because Bush has it rigged so he won't be impeached. But not by controlling Nancy Pelosi, aka your scapegoat. He has it rigged BY THEIR VOTES.

You're blaming her, for him. And that's just horseshit. And since you apparently have no trust in good people or no past knowledge of this person in order to trust her, you have no reason to revise your paranoid analysis. By not counting the votes you have convinced yourself that the path forward is to savage the first Progressive Speaker, the first woman Speaker in U.S. history -- a person who has fought Bushco from the start. A person who is not corrupt, has never been accused of a crime, who is a grandmother and a happy Catholic, and beyond that an excellent politician with nerves of steel.

I love her, unabashedly, and so does most of the caucus. So go ahead and jerk off over removing her -- ain't going to happen.

Daily Reading pt 1...

Another Brazen Bush White House Lie That is Barely a Blip on the Screen of the Mainstream Media: "But earlier this month Damon Poeter wrote for an online marketing trade publication, ChannelWeb Network: "When Congress asked about 5 million executive branch e-mails that went missing, a White House lawyer pointed the finger at an outside IT contractor. "The only problem? No such IT contractor exists, according to sources close to the investigation of a possible violation of the Federal Records and Presidential Records acts.""
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/11/13/BL2007111300956_pf.html

Sidney Blumenthal Pens Last Column on the Necessity of Right Wingers Promoting Bush as an "Infallible Leader." Sid, Whom BuzzFlash Has Come to Know and Appreciate, is Joining the Clinton Campaign as a Senior Advisor. He Served as Hillary's Chief Communications and Media Strategist Prior to and During the Impeachment Years. Best of Luck to Sid.
- http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/11/15/2008_election/index_n...

War Wounds; Trillion Plus Dollars Presidential Treasure Chest - http://www.bethink.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=679
"War is not an option. This war at $20,000 plus per family of four is literally and morally bankrupting us. Perhaps we all need to take a deep breath and set out each day to do what it will take to stop this obscenity. Please read this powerful, heartfelt, reasoned voice of peace and forward it to your senator and congresspersons with the words not one more penny spent in my name for this war!"
"Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
~ Thomas Edison [Scientist, Inventor]

Only Tom Tomorrow can take the incomprehensible Republican mindset and explain it in less than 20 seconds - http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/11/12/tomo/

Ann Coulter is Named the BuzzFlash Media Putz of the Week, As Nominated by BuzzFlash Reader Claire of Maine: Coulter's only core beliefs relate to the accumulation of wealth by engaging in "shock" celebrity punditry. - http://mediaputz.com/07/11/putz1115.html
I love all the right wingnut morons that buy her BS and supply her with the means to continue her coke habit (not the soft drink)

Dick Cheney's Sadistic Passion for Shooting Tame Animals - http://www.alternet.org/story/67663/
Last month in a caravan of 15 sport utility vehicles and an ambulance,Cheney made his way to Clove Valley Rod & Gun Club for a day of controlled bloodletting.Canned hunting isn't funny.Birds raised for canned hunts at gun clubs and in state "recreational" areas are grown in packed pens -- think factory farmed chickens -- and fitted with goggles so they won't peck each other to death from the crowding.When released for put and take hunters like Cheney, pen raised birds can barely walk or fly,or see, thanks to the goggles.
Ah...the 'manly' 'hunters' of the GOP...whew...psychotic doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the kill everything Republican party..

Daily Reading pt 2...

Kucinich launches initiative to protect the Constitution from 'ongoing assaults' - http://www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/11/dennis-kucinich-launches-initi...

Don't believe media hype: Bring it on! Top Democrats in dead-heat for key 2008 Iowa race - http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gdUcHOXeoHdYiSflQXSZtYhMLw0g

Daily Kos Founder to Join Newsweek, but he's not quitting his day job. - http://mashable.com/2007/11/13/daily-kos-founder-to-join-newsweek/

Sympathy for the Drivel; The writers strike is making us 'stupider'. - http://www.motherjones.com/riff_blog/archives/2007/11/6174_sympathy_for_...

God-for-profit, megachurch jesus pimp update: Embattled Oral Roberts University president Richard Roberts, facing accusations he misspent university funds to support a lavish lifestyle, has received a vote of no confidence by the tenured faculty at the evangelical university. Bright college years! - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_on_re_us/oral_roberts_scandal;_yl...

It's understandable that on their own, Georgians are praying for rain. They need rain badly. And praying on your own is true freedom of religion, one of our precious freedoms. But when Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (yes, a Republican) stepped up to a podium outside the state Capitol and led a solemn crowd of several hundred people in a prayer for rain, this is why we have separation of church and state. - http://news.aol.com/story/_a/georgia-governor-prays-for-rain/20071113092...
Exhibit A: Why not to move to Georiga....where no action is taken, just left to random chance...

whoops, sorry, i just posted as "delete me" instead of myself. i wasn't able to post earlier, so did a test comment, under the assumption it would be deleted by the mods.

Sorry, Mods.

Paul in LA @ 48:

In rebutting the list of supposedly pro-secession quotes in the Reagan thread below, I found this Jefferson quote, which is apt to what has happened to us at last:

No earthly consideration could induce my consent to contract such a debt as England has by her wars for commerce, to reduce our citizens by taxes to such wretchedness, as that laboring sixteen of the twenty-four hours, they are still unable to afford themselves bread, or barely to earn as much oatmeal or potatoes as will keep soul and body together. And all this to feed the avidity of a few millionary merchants and to keep up one thousand ships of war for the protection of their commercial speculations." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:29

Good quote, Paul. If my memory serves me well, wasn't Thomas Jefferson one of the first Democrats?

Peaceful Protesters - Women and Children shot by Israeli military:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu8cugE8axs

Censorship in the media:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWjYHP91gA

> Trust me Paul. If Nixon wasn’t gonna be impeached, he wouldn’t have resigned.
Told you, did he?

> Damn the torpedoes.
He led the fleet into the bay they were attacking, not out to sea.

I like the idea of a "family wage".

I'm amazed at all the negativity in these comments. It displays a defeatist attitude which I can't be a part of regardless of my somber blog name which I use as a reminder of our military that returns unnoticed in flag draped coffins. If I can't believe that "we the people" can move forward in the 2008 elections, then there is no hope. I refuse to give up hope at this point in time. I'm willing to wait until the November 2008 elections, if we can survive the coward-in-chief and his vice-coward-in-chief for another 431 days.

On Fringes And Swayed: When "Radicals" Rule The Roost

Some VIDEOS I made recently:

Clinton's Planted College Student Tells All
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=9ca46984-1503-43c...

FBI Claims Blackwater Shootings Were "Unjustified"
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=22dd6c2c-19df-482...

Immigration Issue For 2008 Heats Up
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=627b1be7-ff04-4cb...

This comment is making excuses to do nothing. It's using faulty logic, and refusing to consider the links provided at 34.

Paul in LA @ 43:

Remove Speaker @ 34 "Kucinich led the effort to get Congress to vote on an Cheney impeachment resolution." Which effort would have failed for lack of votes if not withdrawn.

Doesn't matter. The resolution is in the Judiciary Committee. Doesn't matter "how" it got there. There's one roadblock: Pelosi.

Paul in LA @ 43:

"It appears enough of the DNC Members of the House do not blindly support Pelosi's position that impeachment is off the table."

That's incorrect. There are a handful of Reps who believe it should go forward to a vote in the absence of enough votes.

OK, so you are making the point -- there is support for impeachment, but Pelosi is in the way. Doesn't matter of the opposition is from the DNC or GOP. There were enough votes to defy Pelosi. Which GOP Members are going to vote "for" Pelosi if the DNC challenges her? Doesn't appear to be any.

Paul in LA @ 43:

"[It is wrong] to assume Pelosi loyalists would be automatically take the Speakers position."

You misunderstood. The problem isn't that "Pelosi loyalists" would become Speaker. The problem is that, WITHOUT A DOUBT, Steny Hoyer would be the next Speaker. That's trading a Progressive for a DLCer -- NOT an accomplishment, but actually would be a step backward.

Baloney. Hoyer isn't necessarily going to get enough votes from the GOP (and DNC who oppose Pelosi). YOu're missing the point: The GOP would be able to vote -- with the DNC -- to find a new Speaker. The GOP may not support Hoyer.

Yet, by mentioning Hoyer, you're admitting that Pelosi might be removed. Would it not make sense, if Pelosi was removed, that this challenge to her -- for whatever reason -- would not also challenge Hoyer? You make no allowance for that.

Paul in LA @ 43:

"The House elects a New Speaker by popular vote,"

A popular vote is a vote of the population. The House elects the Speaker via caucus elections at the start of the Congress. The next such election will be in 2009. If Speaker Pelosi loses, then Speaker Hoyer will become a reality. And if you don't know that Hoyer ALREADY has that power, you are just uninformed.

No. The House -- as a body -- elects the New Speaker. You fail to understand that once teh Speaker is removed, the GOP and DNC Members who oppose Pelosi can create a new faction. It's no just up to the DNC who becomes the New SPeaker.

You are not correct: Elections are for Speakers when the office is vacated. re-read this, which shows you're not correct.

Enough about impeachment. The time has come to cut-and-run from the Republic. Secession needs to be on the table in every state. We need to dis-unite these "United States" and dismantle the national military industrial complex and the standing Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Only with a continent full of Switzerlands can we make the world a safer place and restore some modicum of self-rule to citizens.

About the commercial. Too bad only one Democratic candidate actually stands for all those syrupy sweet things referred to there. And that candidate has already been so thoroughly marginalized that he might as well pack it in and start working hard to get Ohio to secede.

The Democratic Party "stands" for the wealthy and imperialist intervention. It couldn't be further from "The People" (whoever the hell they are) than their brown-shirt compatriots across the aisle.

In short, the ad is like every other ad - fantasy.

Coffins draped in flags @ 89 "Good quote, Paul. If my memory serves me well, wasn't Thomas Jefferson one of the first Democrats?"

Actually, he was a Democratic Republican, though that was really not a party as we think of them now. The first 'modern-like' party was the Whigs with their absurd stunts getting genocidist and coward William Henry Harrison elected.

The Democratic party itself had to climb out of the muck of defending slavery before it could become the party of FDR.

Oh, and on the 'office being vacated' -- that's not going to happen. My comments refer to the effects of your campaign against her (and GSM Sheehan's run, provided she doesn't quit early next year as I expect her to), which might succeed in putting Hoyer into the Speaker's chair (in 2009), but which will not remove her per se.

You think you can remove her -- and I know that's bullshit. Don't expect me to carry your luggage.

i've been in the advertising game a long time (it stopped being a profession a long time ago, sadly).

i've been a democrat about as long. i find klugman's communication to be a wonderful convention piece, but if the objective is to ENLARGE the numbers of democratic voters, this DOES NOTHING.

it does a very good job of speaking to ourselves -- again, fine for a convention, but that's about all.

when will imagemakers start crafting messages that make the disenfranchised angry enough to realize they are the ones who could change america overnight if they simply went out and voted??????????

it is time to stop the slick madison avenue approach with the united nations cast. it is time to have real people talk about ISSUES...

...like how much it sucks to not have health insurance...

...or how they're worried their children will have to die or be psychologically or physically maimed for the rest of their lives due to a trumped-up war...

...how oil corporations have had three years of HISTORIC profits while high gas prices make it even harder for the people on "main street" to afford life's basic necessities...

...how the tab for the trumped-up war continues to build, but there isn't enough money to create jobs at home fixing our roads, schools and infrastructure...

...how for the past six years, this entire country has been lied to again and again by the most arrogant, conniving, deceptive administration in history...one that's so toxic and evil, president clinton's lies about 'not inhaling' or 'not having sex with that woman' are truly considered BUSH LEAGUE...

...how this administration single-handedly frittered away the worldwide post 9/11 goodwill toward america...to the point that this president makes more enemies than friends every time he opens his mouth...making him the best thing to happen to terrorism since the pipe bomb?

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WHEN WILL THE AD "PROS" AND CONNECTED PEOPLE LIKE KLUGMAN say something like THAT?

THEN -- AND ONLY THEN -- WILL VOTER TURNOUT GET ABOVE 50% AGAIN...and we will have an america that more resembles all of us (and not just the 55-year-old wealthy white guys.)

i applaud klugman for his obvious passion and enthusiasm. but more blue state "KUMBAYA" ain't gonna cut it.

if a majority of women and people of color or non-traditional sexual orientation voted, we would NEVER have an iraq on our hands. we would NEVER ignore our senior citizens, veterans, farmers, children and college students.

"WE THE PEOPLE" need to communicate how sick we are of the status quo, and it needs to do it using no uncertain terms -- not some stump speech delivered by "regular people" over a tear-jerking orchestral piece of music.

WE ("leftwing nutjobs") HAVE TO STOP BEING SO STUPID AND WIMPY. if gore had won his home state, the supreme court wouldn't have chosen the president in the first place. if gore hadn't tried so hard to distance himself from clinton in 2000, he could've won in florida, tennessee and god know where else, causing this exact moment not to be happening right now. if clinton would've said 'my sex life isn't your business' from the git-go, he would've had the best 2nd term since FDR. if kerry wouldn't have let himself get bitchslapped repeatedly by the swiftboaters, he could've gotten his überintellectual, lefty ass in the white house, stiff chin and all. THAT IS THE HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SINCE 1996.

my fellow americans, when it comes to politics, the english rock band WHO had it all wrong: we WILL get fooled again. and again and again...until we go for the jugular against the real axis of evil -- the cheney-bush-rove-rumsfeld gang and all their faux-christian brothers and sisters.

if you're still reading at this point, please let ME make a tv campaign with just a fraction of mr. klugman's many resources.

The Democrats don't speak for me. They will never again get money from me. Kucinich or Feingold are worthy politicians. Can anyone name another? I can't for the life of me think of one. Oh, Nader. That's it.

Some who blindly support Pelosi -- in saying her removal is impossible, or that there will be no GOP support for her removal -- fail to comprehend caucuses.

1. Caucuses: New DNC-GOP Coalition

Once the Speaker is formally challenged -- by a caucus of DNC and GOP Members -- the outcome of that caucus is unknown until it happens. Those who are for or against a specific leader can engage in "horse trading". This means DNC Members, in exchange for getting a new speaker, and support from the GOP, may agree to someone who the GOP likes; in exchange, the DNC "gets" GOP support to remove the Speaker.

Same thing happened with the AG, but in the Senate: In exchange for the Senate getting someone they liked, and was agreeable to Schumer; the DNC didn't reject the President's nomination; in exchagne, the AG promised to work with the Senate to enforce the law, and the Senate backed off o ntheir demand for documents.

It's not nice, not pretty, and people give up things> the point is that the same give-and-take is possible in the House; and with the Speaker Removal decision. Outcomes are surprising; and the deals have yet to be made.

Key point on caucuses: A majority in a causus is not the same as a majority in a particular party. Although the DNC may have a majority of the seats, they do not have a majority position on the issue of Pelosi, impeachment, or investigations: The "new majority" -- one that includes the GOP in opposing Pelosi, for whatever reason -- is not the same as the Majority which elected Pelosi as Speaker.

What's changed since January 2007, when Pelosi was elected speaker unanimously, is the public pressure has woken up the DNC members of Congress, and reminded them that they cannot march lockstep with the Speaker. That is a splinter within the DNC Majority; and that DNC faction, within the DNC, can combine forces with the GOP and remove-elect a new Speaker. Whether they do remains to be seen; but it cannot be taken "off the table" that this is not possible. Rather, with enough people discussing this issue, there is every chance the public will realize: "If we are going to enforce this Constitution against the President and VP with an impeachment investigation -- which the majority of the public wants to do -- we have to set aside our agreements of November 2006, and January 2007, and revoke our support for Pelosi.

This DNC leadership revoked their promises of November 2006. There is nothing binding the public to continue supporting this Speaker until 2008. She and the DNC leadership have betrayed us. Rather, the way forward is to remove the Speaker, then open teh door for an impeachment investigation of the President and Vice President. Inaction by the Speaker means she is part of the problem: Either she changes her position, or she changes her Office. There are enough public citizens with enough time and outrage to stir up the debate, open the issue, and demand -- on the GOP side of Congress -- to work with the DNC to remove her.

That's the problem this DNC leadershp has: What happens when the GOP Base and public voters who support the GOP open their eyes, and see there is a chance to unseat the DNC Speaker? It doesn't matter the reason. If they sense a chance, then Pelosi has more than an internal threat from the DNC; she has to content with the GOP opposition that is courting the DNC to remove her, and then, in exchange, that GOP promises to do what the Speaker refuses: Open the door to an ivnestigation of the President and Vice President.

2. GOP Input to New Speaker

It is a false statement to suggest that the GOP will have "no vote" on the new Speaker. Again, the DNC -- in exchange for getting GOP support to open an ivestigation -- could choose to support someone that the GOP will support. There is potentially a new coalation that will break ranks with the DNC leadership; and one that will break ranks with the "we will not allow impeachment". For example, it just happened with the Kuciich resolution. There is a new majority in the House which defied the Speaker. Doesn't matter the excuses they've publicly given; the fact is -- that resolution was forwarded. End of Story.

Now we open a new chapter: What is to be done to ensure there is an impeachment investigation?

3 Going Forward

It is meaningless to talk about the raeasons the GOP and DNC had to support the impeachment resolution. That vote is over. The next phase is whether the Speaker -- for whatever reason -- is opposed by a majority in the House, compromised of both the GOP and the DNC.

Paul in LA @ 108:

Remove Speaker @ 103 "Baloney. Hoyer isn't necessarily going to get enough votes from the GOP (and DNC who oppose Pelosi)."

The GOP has NO votes for Speaker, unless they have all of them.

Wrong. You fail to understand caucuses. The DNC and GOP have the power to create a new caucus. See above. The GOP does have input/votes for the new Speaker. When Pelosi was elected, the GOP did have an input--they refused to support her. "Refusing to support" is different than "having no vote" or "having no input." All the Members of the House -- every one of them, all 535 Members of the House -- vote on the Speaker. All of them. From all parties: Independent, DNC, GOP, or others.

You fail to note that the GOP -- then in Jan 2007 -- decided, as a block, to oppose Pelosi. Perhaps someone can explain why the GOP -- that opposes Pelosi in Jan -- will suddenly reverse itself and come to her defense? No answer.

The key is this: The DNC membership that defied Pelosi on the impeachment resolution can combine forces with the GOP to create a majority block that does the following [a] demands the Speakers removal; [b] opens the door to an impeachment investigation; [c] gives the GOP input to the new Speaker.

If, as expected, the Senate -- with enough public pressure -- chooses to convict both Cheney and Bush; then the GOP will have wanted to have input to that Presidential replacement: the Speaker. For anyoen to argue, "Oh, we can't remove bush, beccause Cheney will become President" fails to accept the fundamental conclusion: They are admitting there is a real posibility there is evidence, despite the GOP block in the Senate, that teh Senate might remove the President. In the back of their minds, someone believes the GOP Senate might break ranks with the President, just as the DNC in the House have broken ranks with the Speaker.

The only option the GOP and DNC leadership have -- and why there is a problem now -- is to delay. That's the very rason to take this debate -- over whether to have a removal of the Speaker or not-- out of the Congress, and get the public and states openly talkkng about it. It will force the issue into the open: What is the real problem getting in the way of the Congress challenging the President? The answer is: Nothing, but illusions.

DNC Breaking Ranks With Pelosi On Impeachment

The DNC just voted to forward this resolution on Cheney. Doesn't matter their reasons. That defies the Speaker's position that the issue would never be mentioned. She failed. She was unable to stop the DNC opposition to her. The resolution was forwarded. This wasn't supposed to happen. It did.

Paul in LA @ 108:

As for "DNC who oppose Pelosi," there are none (she was unanimously elected as Speaker, AFTER she had made it clear that impeachment was off the table).

Wrong. The DNC House Members aren't stuck with their Jan 2007 decision. They've chosen to defy her on impeachment. That's a change. If the DNC Members sense the real risk of a prosecution for failing to defend the Constituion, they might be inspired to do the right thing: Support impeachment. Pelosi's position is, "Impeachment is off the table," yet the DNC Members -- all of whom voted to support Pelosi -- have, in part, broken ranks.

Some of the DNC -- that have changed their position relative to teh speaker -- and some of the GOP -- who want to make an excuse to impeachment, but won't openly accept they need to do something -- could vote for someone else.

Majority of the House: INcludes the DNC Opposition to Pelosi and GOP

Pelosi is not in the majority. She's in the small faction that opposes impeachment. There is a new faction: one that has put impeachment on the table. that faction includes the GOP and DNC who have defied Pelosi. It doesn't matter what their reasons are. They are no longer with her.

That faction is not beholden to Hoyer. Things have changed since January 2007. A caucus can have some horse trading; and based on the performance of Members of Congress since January 2007, the GOP and DNC may jointly agree that someone else -- other than Hoyer -- is best qualified to lead this faction which has defied Pelosi. Again, we're only at this juncture because of the expected removal of Pelosi; can't argue that the esame group will rubber stamp something, yet the Congress has reversed course on the impeachment issue. They aren't going to reverse course narrowly. The entire dynamics have changed since January 2007.

Hoyer isn't guranteed a position, especially if the DNC -- who want impeachment and to remove Pelosi -- agree with the GOP to someone the GOP likes. That isn't going to be Hoyer.

Paul in LA @ 108:

PILA: "You misunderstood. The problem isn't that "Pelosi loyalists" would become Speaker. The problem is that, WITHOUT A DOUBT, Steny Hoyer would be the next Speaker."

Wrong for the second time. The GOP-DNC majority -- that would for the new caucus in removing the Speaker -- is not beholden to vote for Hoyer. There is a reasonable basis to doubt your assertion. Nothing is written in stone. it is up to the majority of the House -- including the GOP -- to decide who they will support.

Here's the key question: If the GOP agrees to open the door to impeachment, will the GOP and DNC agree that the GOP will have some input into the new speaker? The answer is: Quite possibly yes, meaning: The GOP, in exchange for "allowing" the DNC to do their job -- that the DNC is in the way of right now -- will get something in return.

Paul in LA @ 108: And that is a fact.

Wrong again, it is not a fact. it is your speculative opinion. However, a GOP-DNC caucus -- that removes Pelosi -- is not beholden to any agreement in 2007. You fail to understand the caucuses. You apparenly believe the non-sense the GOP gave, "We're supporting this resolution because we want to embarrass the GOP." Non-sense, they want to do the right thing: Open a debate, and force the DNC leadership to do what the GOP refused to do -- defend the Constitution.

The only roadlbock to an impeachment investigation is the Speaker. The GOP and DNC -- that agree to remove her -- will likely form a new caucus, if they want. But they will most likely have to if the public demands the removal and a floor vote. The DNC-GOP caucus can agree to "new rules" which will open the door; provide excuses; and blame the other party. The net result: There is no gurantee that Hoyer will or will not be involved. It's irrelevant what is said to say "this cannot hpapen" when -- by your own response -- you are making argummenting that make no sense: Meaning, there's more likely to be more support for the action, than had you said nothing. Even the assertion (excuse-for-inaction) of "Stoyer will become the next Speker" is only possible if the Speaker has been removed; but you refuse to accept this premise as being possible. How can Hoyer "become" Speaker, unless you've accepted that the GOP-DNC can credibly remove her"? Your argument-defense-excuse requires a premise that is at odds with your assertion and defies reason.

Non-Sense Excuses For Inaction Collapsed In Re Impeachment Resolution

Policies based on non-sense -- such as excuses to not remove the Speaker -- will not survive. Whether the Speaker does or doesn't survive the political challenge is a Separate issue. We've seen surprises with challenges in CT and Lieberman. That's a separate issue. The same thing happened with the impeachment effort: The excuses to do nothing are not compelling. Action is required, just as removal of Pelosi as Speaker is the answer to get impeachment on the table, and these charges investigated.

The issue is the uncertainty: The goal here is to force the Congress to respond; and not waste time thinking their above challenge. This can be done before the election. All assertions to the contrary are frivolous excuses to pretend change is not possible. Small problem: Change has arrived, and the dsicussion on removing Pelosi as Speaker continues until either she opens the door to an impeachment investigation; or she's removed as Speaker; or she loses the election; or Bush and Cheney are out of office. Until then, the public still has options to assert power, and check this reckless Congress that refuses to assert its oath. Anyone believing nonsense of, "Oh, there's going to be a backlash" need to point to a specific group that is going to change their position. That group doesn't exist:

- The DNC Membership, that opposes the GOP, aren't going to suddenly support the GOP if the DNC stands up;

- The GOP Membership, taht siilarly opposes teh DNC, aren't going to start "supproting" the GOP more. Rather, the only backlash -- with DNC leadership -- is the GOP defections from the GOP to the DNC.

There. Is. No. Other. Group. That. Can. Support. A. Backlash. It doesn't exist.

The key is simple: We the People have options to assert power, and wake up the DNC-Congress to their legal duties. That includes a credible challenge to the Speaker to openly discuss her removal, making way for an impeachment investigation. Who the new Speaker is; and whether the President/VP are convicted/removed are separate questions. But to argue, "The next Speaker will block the impeachment" ignores the GOP-DNC decision to remove Pelosi. The GOP may make an excuse of "We want to embarrass the DNC," but that's meaningless so long as the GOP is in opposition to the DNC. That factional conflict can be exploited to force the GOP to work with the DNC to remove the Speaker, and vice versa. Inaction is a grounds to prosecute those Members of Congress.