Great job, Matt.

You got this right.  Somehow we have to find a way to call the So Called MSM on all of their falsification.

For example in googling "Anti-War Lamont" I got 3,600+ hits.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne d=us&q=anti-war+lamont

Lamont is not "Anti-War", he is Anti Iraq War" (126 hits).  I am anti-war (Quaker) and believe me Lamont is not.  

For example, Lamont supported the war in Afghanistan.

We need to start asking republicans demanding a Dem  plan for Iraq what the current Republican plan is. The unicorns business was a start, but I think we need to echo Lamont and Feingold by saying "The Bush plan is to remain in Iraq indefinitely--permanent occupation."

in these situation is "Americans don't have any more time to waste"--as a set up for pointing out the crass political gimmick of Republicans trying to sink a discussion with that 'Dems don't have ideas' nonsense.

What the Republicans do with that comment is a bit like the captain of the Titanic saying to a passenger,"Well, OK.  My boat is sinking.  Fine.  But where's your boat?  Don't have one do you?  So stop complaining about this one."  It's so nonsensical, that everybody loses if we waste any time trying to get out of the trap.

The 'don't have time to waste' statement seems to work a bit like saying,"OK...that's not really how this conversation is going to start," and then starting it the correct way.

Anyway...great interview.  I wish there were more interviews made available for us to listen to.  It's really helpful.

As a person who does radio, I think you were terrific, Matt.  My favorite moment was the unicorn line.  But talk about being on message, yessiree.

$250 million being spent every day in Iraq means we don't have that money to spend here.  Do people realize that the airlines do not have a unified terrorist watch list?  We're about to come up on the one year marker on Katrina, but New Orleans is still in shambles.  If you couple that with the debilitated state of our National Guard and military, we're not only in trouble, but we're actually a lot more vulnerable.  

Republicans simply must be held accountable.  

There is an important critique out there of American politics which states there is not much difference in establishment politics. What it leaves is not much difference for voters going to the polls, unless the status quo is becoming untenable, if this happens, and one party is in power, it becomes very easy to say they need to go. If there's only one other choice, they win by default, yet upon winning what happens?

It's fine to say the Democrats need to hold the Reps accountable, however if you go down the list from tax cuts for the wealthiest, Iraq, energy, civil liberties, half the Democrats are culpable as Bush.

If you look at the very mix bag that calls itself Democratic these days, it's very difficult to see any sort of in power agenda that comes forth, outside of a few relatively small changes. Add to that the stranglehold money and lobbyists have over the process, it's even more difficult to envision change.

Some people who have been around politics for awhile might actually have a handle on some fundamental problems to real change in this country and a few might even be listened to when they say if we're really going to be able to move things in this country, just telling people to elect Democrats is terribly insufficient. If you simply are elected on an anti-agenda, you will be very weak in moving anything pro, and as Chris Bowers post below shows, the actual election process as it is practiced today is antithetical to organizing a pro-agenda.

Matt,
I thought your first comments were spot on. However, I agree with John Nichols, although not the way he was phrasing himself. A couple of thoughts:

1) As long as any Democrat continues to support Lieberman, it will appear that Democrats do not have a unified message. Period. As John stated, the cats couldn't even be herded to all vote for the Kerry-Feingold resolution. Getting Lieberman out of the race is much more important than most people realize, for a lot of reasons--and this is only one of those reasons.

2) Nichols was also right in saying that what was so impressive in Lamont's speeches was his constant references to what could be done with $250 million a day were it not being spent on Iraq. Lamont then followed up with talking about using that money for schools and health care. Very effective. Where I disagree with Nichols is in saying that those remarks indicated that Ned had a platform to offer. Ned offered alternatives, and that is really all that's necessary. As shown by Kerry's presidential campaign, most voters have the attention span of flea, so they're not going to go check out program particulars on the web. However, most voters (Repub. and Dem.) agree that education and health care are important, and they're going to listen to the guy or gal who confirms their beliefs. Ned did that.

3) I also agree with Nichols that it is imperative that Dems be seen as the strong opposition party. The majority of us know that Repub. leadership is a disaster, but unless the Dems are willing to say, as Ned did, "I'll stand up to President Bush", what alternative are they offering? Speaking of the word "containment", during the next two years it's going to be critical that we contain Bush. Dems must be willing to show that that's what they intend to do if elected. Accountability is the second part of the equation, but, in both cases, Dems need to appear that they have spines.

4) I disagree with Nichols on the London bombing scare being a negative for Lamont. I think Feingold handled that perfectly on his tv appearance over the weekend. All Dems have to do is say that London is one more example to show that the Repubs haven't been serious about addressing terror, and that Iraq is the major example of how Bushco allowed our resources to be diverted from the serious actions we need to take to make ourselves safer.

This is not good.

"Stephanie Studebaker, Democratic candidate for Ohio's Third Congressional District, and her husband, Samuel Studebaker, were booked into the Montgomery County Jail Sunday morning on charges of domestic violence, according to jail records.
Studebaker, 45, is running against Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville in the November election.

She suspended her campaign activities following Sunday's incident, Will Evans, communications director for the Studebaker campaign, said.

Samuel Studebaker, 39, was booked in at 10:35 a.m., according to jail records. Stephanie Studebaker was booked in at 11:27 a.m.

The couple reside in Washington Twp. with their two children, who were home when Studebaker called 911 just seconds before 9:23 a.m. Sunday to report that her husband had been shoving her.

Stephanie's call followed her father-in-law Jim Studebaker's 9:22 a.m. call to 911 to report that Studebaker had been beating on his son."

Flipping out is not good.  Listeners hear anger, and lose the content.

If all you cared about was getting the message thru to John, that's OK.  

I don't have time to listen to the radio interview (then why do i have time to read and write on this blog I wonder), but I get totally peeved when the "no plan" "no agenda" thing is tossed around.  

I have had my fair share of disagreements with democratic policy and plans, but to ignore the excessive volume of plans that are on the table right now from Democrats and keep this tired rap going is just lazy.  

For professional reasons I have had to study up on the various Democratic plans that are put out there.  I look in detail at what is underneath the bullet points (e.g. 6 for '06 or Real Security, or New Direction"  etc. etc.).

Below each is 8 to 12 discrete policy agendas, most all of which have half a dozen to a dozen legislative components, many offered in legislation with a lot of detail.

One might disagree with the plan, but the dems are  not lacking plans or specifics.  Just people who will pay attention to them.

Worthwhile, perhaps to get the name of your flipee right. It's Mary Katharine, not Katharine. And woe to those who would screw up her fairly odd name, trust me. (and, even odder, no "e" in Katharine)

Nichols thought the Dems did not have A messeage that was getting through. (100 messages is the same as no message at all.)  

Nichols thought that Lamont had a message, but the national Dems do not.  

Iraq sucks as an issue because even if the Dems take control of Congress there is very little they can do.  The Constitution gives the power to the Commander in Chief.  Bush does not have to listen to Congress and there is no way to make him.  No matter what Congress wants Bush will refuse to leave Iraq.  An anti-war Congress would leave the US straddling the barb wire fence.  No matter how much the majority of us dislike the Iraq war, we are stuck until Bush leaves office.  While Americans are concerned about Iraq and think it was a mistake, many see it as a distraction from the issues important in their daily lives- gas prices, health care, wages, etc.

Bush is not up for reelection.  2006 has to be about how to fix Congress.  The Lamont message "Stop wasting money in Iraq, start investing at home" works better because it marginalizes Bush and Iraq.  There are plenty of versions of "Stop wasting money in Iraq____"

--and go after bin Laden and the real terrorists.
--and start investing in energy independence.
--and start investing in health care.
--and start investing in education.
--and start investing in infrastructure at home.

I thought you were great. And I don't think it sounded like you were flipping out.

I would hone your unicorn wish bit - or maybe use Jeff Feldman's neat analogy about the captain of the Titanic.  

I fear though that any metaphor, like the awful doctor and the patient one that Lyden offered eventually fails, so don't depend on any one.  

The good thing about Feldman's metaphor is that it points out that:

<h1>Democrats are not in power.</h1>

George Bush Republicans control the Whitehouse, The Senate, The House, Much of the Courts, and Much of the Media.  Every branch of government is controlled by the people who got us into this mess and who want to keep doing what they're doing.

I wouldn't call it flipping out. Without the heads up I would barely have noticed the tone change. It certainly wasn't distracting or something that awkwardly hovered over the remainder of the program.

While listening to Matt it dawned on me he was doing something we've always criticized Bush and the Republicans for, using the same word or phrase ad nauseum. Whenever there's a major speech I'll see threads on other sites asking the over/under on references to 9/11 or flip flopper, etc.

Maybe accountability has legs. It certainly is a strong word, unlike the incomparably wimpy "Together, we can do better" slogans from the DNC. The word should be tested by the party and used nationally if effective. I could certainly hear the masses repeating it, "hold Bush accountable." That's the key, putting something into the vocabulary, regardless if it has an ounce of weight.

Rove will damn sure nationalize this election. We're kidding ourselves if we think Republicans will run away from Bush and he will be invisible. There will be national commercials featuring Bush as a leader who has prevented further terror strikes. You'll get plenty of cut and run. The Bush approval ratings will go up and the generic congressional polling will narrow. It's still our advantage due to the dynamic of a second term midterm, but if we think we can sit back without a national message and still win big, it's not going to happen, not to the numbers we need.

Why does someone need so-called evidence to understand a vote-against election is significantly limited if the populous doesn't believe the other side has strong leaders or a viable plan? Matt asserts Democrats do have a plan. That's irrelevant. It's not being articulated.

But if you want numbers, I'll give you an ominous one that came out recently, that was all but ignored. Remember that Bill Clinton nugget, that given the choice between "strong and wrong" and "right and weak," voters choose strong and wrong almost every time? In the Washington Post poll from August 3-6, voters were asked which party had stronger leaders. I damn near fell over when I saw the number. Republicans always have the edge, but it had been narrowing. Not this time. It gave Republicans a 52-34 lead, which was 12 points higher than the previous sample in January, when it was 47-41: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol itics/polls/postpoll_080606.htm

My 2 cents: thank you so much for not using the percoset-y radio voice.

I think the terrorist issue is going to continue to  resonate (that sort of vague and ominous Other is too archetypal and rawly emotional to disappear entinrly, no?) It might not be the trump card it was, but I have to agree w. Nichols that a pres. candidate will cont. to need an aggressively sold message on this issue.
 His conflation of pres. and congr. elections, though, seemed vapid and useless.