I'm of the opinion we've got to plant the flag in swing states to maximize the exposure of our new message (At some point we've got to actually come up with one, right?) but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I for one would like to congratulate Gov. Dean on winning the chair. In a way this is exactly what this party needs at this point and time. While there are many are angry that we lost and just as many demoralized by a loss that could and should've been avoided with the right candidate, Dean is the perfect person to draw upon those negatives and create positives out of them. My only concern is that he will much too quickly pursue a 50 state strategy from the beginning. I think this is what we should build toward but I think it is a grave error to do this from the outset.

More below the fold.

"Democrats said they expected a lively competition for the party's nomination. Possible candidates range from Minneapolis lawyer Mike Ciresi, who ran against Dayton in the 2000 primary, to radio show host Al Franken, who told The Associated Press he would make an announcement on his show Thursday."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11400-2005Feb9.html

Anyone have any thoughts on this?  Mine are below :

That is exactly what I want to hear on Feb. 13th as wake up call from the DNC-led Dean.  If you're not loyal to the party you're not holding office as a Democrat.

Something bold like this would wake some of the other folks up as well.

I know it's a long shot but I for one am sick and tired of the Lieberman's of this party undermining everything we try to do to counter the WH.

The latest primary is well underway with 49 votes in, and, once again, Wesley Clark is leading the pack, although his lead is nowhere near what it was yesterday in NH.

We have to get over 100 votes to move out of Arizona (don't want to have invalid statistics due to low sample size).

So, if you haven't voted today, go and vote now.  Your candidates need you!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/1/142547/0480

Hi Everybody!

I was just putting together this afternoon's horserace when I got a call from Boots' agent.  It seems that Boots' is contemplating hitting the Talk Show circuit, and, while anxiously awaiting a call from Letterman, he, instead, got a call from ultrageek.

In case you are unfamiliar with ultrageeek, he's currently pre-occupied with pursuing the title of "Daily kos' Biggest Ass Clown", and a fine young soldier he is, too... green eyes..big floppy feet...red nose. very sexy.

Anyway, ultrageek expressed his mild surprise that he had become a joke told at the expense of reality that the General has so many loyal followers that frequent kos and would actually vote in the spirit of this horserace, and has asked that his name be withdrawn since he's not able to conduct this poll while pursuing the afore mentioned title.  He said that Clark should be added and two candidates that aren't even running in 2008 should be subtracted rather than look like more of an idiot.

So, in keeping with ultrageeks' phone message, I am updating the contenders for Arizona as follows:

I think as much as people seem to not care about the political opinions of DNC chairs, these opinions may matter long term.

The DNC chair often selects the senators and congressmen based on funding. The question is, should we move the party further to the right or further to the left? Which DNC chair will actually listen to the people?

Howard Dean while perfectly qualified for the job is DNC chair, does not have a great history of opening politics. Howard Dean has always worked with big businesses, he would most likely try to move the party to the mythical center, and attempt to issue out a third way Clinton style solution.

The question I ask all Dean supporters, do you truly believe moving the party to the right can win? How would Dean be any better than Terry McAuliffe?

==
More below the fold

Entire article below the fold!

Anyone know where I can both verify this is true or not true as well as rebutte it?

"Dating as far back as 1862, when Lincoln was at war trying to free the slaves.  Virtually every Democrat in Congress voted against eliminating slavery in the District of Colombia, and from prohibiting it in the territories."

The obvious argument is that in reality the Republican Party was closer to the Democratic Party of today and that most of these Dixiecrats left our party and joined the Republican Party after we passed civil rights legislation.

I'm trying to detemine the vote and if anyone has any other larger points to make i'd love to have them.  If I could find a resource that acutally shows the vote for the ammendment itself as well as how many Republicans voted against the civil rights bill. Also was Jim Crow an actual member of any party?

If you are wondering why this list doesn't have Sen. Clinton, Kerry or Gov. Dean on it is because I believe there is no way they'll run in 2008 especially with the DNC Chair being either Dean or Rosenberg (I'm not buying the Frost support at all.).

This isn't who SHOULD but who people feel will end up being the winner of the primary.

I didn't get much of a response so I'm posting this agian in the hopes some of you will answer the call on this.

Like I said before i simply do not know enough about SS to debate this and I NEED YOUR HELP TO FIGHT!

The details are below the fold!

Thanks to everyone that helped yesterday but I've just recieved his responses to those who submitted responses to my previous diary.

I really, really hope the same group of people will help me on this one as well because as I said I just do not know enough about this subject to change any minds.

FYI - This debate is happening on a message board with thousands of people now paying attention and I've gotten many PM's saying they were supporting SS reform but now they are on the fence.

This is exactly what I was hoping for!!  But I'll continue to need help from you kossacks!!

More below the fold --

PLEASE BOMBARD THIS POLL AND REPOST WHEN THREAD ROLLS OVER!!!

http://www.kirotv.com/surveypopup/news/4036414/detail.html

It's asking if WA should re-vote for Governor.  It's getting freeped beyond belief!!

Please cut and paste this plea and pass it on to as many blogs, message boards as you can!!!

Here are some points sent via email to my coworkers and I'm trying to refute his/her arguments but am unable to do so since i'm not really up on SS other than the basics --
==

Nobody is destroying the concept of Social Security. What the administration is trying to do is destroy the old defined benefit system that was based on actuarial assumptions of life expectancy and government "funded" accounts. Think of it as a change from the old pensions at work to new 401k.

More below the fold!!

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!  This email is all over my work and i'm trying to put out a point-by-point rebuttle!!!

I hope some of you kossacks can help me with this since i'm not exactly a SS expert!

More below the fold!!!

Why on earth isn't every Democrat on TV making the connection publicly that :

More below the fold --

Firstly, I know this is an actual press release.  The part of this that really sticks out is the absentee ballots that were allowed in violation of OH law.  If true then this is it if a court allows this legal challenge.  I believe this is part of Cliff Arbeck's suit if I'm remembering correctly.  Can anyone weigh in on this???

Press release is below the fold -

====

Let me say right off the bat that I truly admire and deeply respect Gov. Dean for what he has done for this party.  In fact, I'd say he did more for the Democratic Party in his time as a Presidential primary candidate than Sen. Kerry has done in the past 12 years.  Without Dean in the primary Kerry would've lost BIG in the general.  Unfortunately that just isn't enough to sacrifice the first real opportunity to remake our party from the bottom up in such a way that we can get back to debating the issues and presenting our solutions to the problems facing America both here at home and abroad.