I go to his site to find that still only 90 Democrat Representatives (including Conyers) have signed his letter to Bush on the subject, according to the list on the site.

Which means that 112 Democratic colleagues seem to have a problem with coming out of the closet for the idea that the the President of the United States should be held accountable by the Congress for the way he starts wars!

Who are those 112? With that size of a dissent, a number of them must fall outside the ranks of the Blue Dogs and DLC - are they being lobbied to join in the Conyers' effort on the DSM? Or are pro-Conyers folks allowing them to maintain a dignified silence on the issue in order to avoid electoral fallout with their constituents?

It's hardly a matter of pure historic interest: with things as they are with the Iranian and North Korean nukes, another Bush war is a distinct possibility.

And the message from the 112 House Dems is clearly that they won't be too officious in looking at the jiggery-pokery that Bush uses to get that war started.

I don't find that terribly comforting.

Do you guys know of the NTU?

He seems like a pretty good cannidate, however despite what the Theofascists say his support of "tort reform" removes him from the liberal/progressive category. COWARD!!!!!!!!

Democrats elected to the White House have pretty much either been sitting Presidents or governors.  The exceptions are Kennedy, Cleveland in 1892 (was a governor when elected in 1884, lost for re-election in 1888 despite winning the popular vote) and then back to before the Civil War.

Clinton, Carter, FDR (32), Wilson (12) and Cleveland were elected as governors.  Clinton (96), LBJ (64), Truman (48), FDR (36,40,44) and Wilson (16) were all sitting Presidents.

No Democrat has run for the nomination, lost, and made it on a later try except through the vice president's office/incumbent's death.  The possible exception here is Andrew Jackson who lost in 1824 despite winning the popular vote in an election that featured four "Democratic Republicans" or "National Republicans."  He won a 2 way race in 1828 and was re-elected in 1832.

This is bad news for the losers of the past (Edwards, Clark, Dean).  

Well then, it's a good thing Al Gore didn't lose.

1  A drastic charisma gap in your favour (Kennedy, Clinton).

2   A split Republican vote (Wilson, Clinton).

3   A government crisis (FDR, Carter).

Truman and Johnson never won the presidency as non-incumbents.

Most of them weren't complete dogs, I suppose - except Johnson. Though his many women seemed to get by the fact...

I live in New Jersey, and on the ground this race is not Corzine's to lose, but Corzine's to win only comfortably, if you see my meaning.  Partisan registration is quite comfortably Democratic; the more populous counties generally tilt Democratic.  And that registration is only being solidified, particularly as people from NYC move to New Jersey.  That migration also tilts Democratic, and has had the effect of really moving New Jersey away from its former swing status.

The situation is also not the same as when, say, Whitman won in 1993.  Firstly, Jim McGreevey isn't running, whereas Whitman had an incumbant to batter around.  Corzine is much better liked than Florio was when Whitman ran.  Secondly, partisan registration and the relative power of the Democratic Party in the state has increased; Bergen, the most populous county (and, incidentally, where I'm from) now votes extremely Democratic.  Whereas in 1993 Republicans controlled every elected position in our county and we couldn't even field serious Democratic candidates county-wide, Democrats now control nearly every county office and the Republican Party is in shambles, not conducive to the win in Bergen Forrester is going to need to even lose by a small margin.

Most importantly, Forrester is an empty suit, whereas Whitman almost knocked off an incumbant Senator before her gubenatorial run.  Forrester, as most people remember him, was "not Torricelli".  As soon as Torricelli dropped out and Forrester couldn't run on not being him, he was shellacked at the polls.  His attempts to tar and feather Corzine as a tax-and-spend liberal is going to backfire the moment Forrester's record as mayor is brought to light.  His attempts to tie Corzine to the Democratic machine is going to backfire the moment it's pointed out that Forrester is, for all intents and purposes, part of the Republican machine (though his ballot suit, which destroyed the advantage county lines offered, has probably not pleased party bosses).  And Forrester, naturally, has a significant negative in New Jersey, which is that he's going to be styled a "Bush Republican."  And any attempt by Forrester to stray left to deflect that is going to cause conservatives to stay home, which really equals a larger Corzine margin of victory.

The only real danger Forrester poses is his "30 in 3" property tax relief plan, which doesn't make any financial sense but provides a good soundbyte.  Even a cursory glance of the ridiculousness of the proposal shows that Forrester's hoping to figure it all out once he's in office.  However, as I said, it's a catchy soundbyte, and he's obviously paid attention to Whitman's success at pulling magical tax refunds out of the air without any real idea of how it's going to actually be paid for; Whitman's income tax rebate sent property taxes skyrocketing, so that's merely one avenue of attack outside of the plan's lack of sense for the Democrats.

Let's also not forget that, despite Forrester's considerable personal wealth, he's still dwarfed financially by Corzine's.  Corzine's going to be able to drown out Forrester's negatives in the nation's most expensive media market with positives, with money to spare for GOTV and other forms of advertising.

He's not in for a tight race, and your reiteration of that position seems unnecessarily defeatist.