Counter-attack.

Make a list of highly-placed Republicans that "must" be abandoned because of their backwardness and intolerance.  Or simply because of their criminal behavior.

Where do we start the list?  Well, since Libby's been indicted, I would say we should start with Karl Rove.

Any candidate who apologizes is not fit to be president. That's just how it is. Say you were wrong if you really believe so, but apologies are for cringing lambs looking for gold stars from teacher.

Remember the scene in Finding Nemo when the big shark sniffs the eensy drop of blood? Every apology is a drip of blood to the shark pack. Republican sharks aren't even trying to be polite like the ones in the movie were.

You need to apologize for comparing the Holy Spirit to spooge, but not for sending 3,000 Americans to die for a lie.

We (Democrats) Apologize, We Admit MIstakes, We Move on... We Lead

Bush Administration: WMD, Stay the Course, We Need More Troops... We're still there

Lets Move on and Win this thing...

P.S. I would like to apologize for capitalizing I...

You said it.

When is the last time we heard a Republican apologize for anything that didn't involve a congressional pervert?

When is Romney going to apologize for having jumping in the race speech at the museum that honors a known anti-semite?

I totally agree.  Stop allowing them to put our people on the defensive.

"No Democrat ever attacks the right wing back"

Uh, in just the past two days Obama kicked Aussie PM and Bush Stooge Howard right in the teeth when Howard said that al-Queda was praying for an Obama victory.

I want some balls in whomever our pick is.  I am sick of apologizing, too.  People want something "real" this time around.  People are sick of the mealy-mouthed pussy bullshit.  And, hey, if ever there were a candidate (s) who should be able to weather not apologizing, it should be someone from a repressed minority like Obama or Hillary.  I'd tell them to shove their apology up their ass.  IIRC, this nation has NEVER EVER "apologized" for slavery.  So fuck their apologies.

However, something tells me because of his life experiences of late, and how much he has learned since 2000, that Al Gore may indeed be the ONLY person with enough balls to stand up to the rightwing noise machine properly.  We may need Gore for the strength that Bowers speaks of.

  Democrats never, ever learn, do they?

  I'm beginning to wonder if it's deliberate. Like Chris said -- how dense does a political figure have to be to believe that "apologizing" for a remark will make the opposition quiet down and go away?

  We're going to need Al Gore to step in. He might be the only high-level Democrat on the planet besides Howard Dean who gets this.

YES!

You're attacked for baseless charge -

1) Refute it

2) Counterattack STRONGLY

No apologies, no wishy washy, just smack em back hard!

Wishy Washy...

Typical of Democrats...and especially of Obama...if anyone had any doubts that he was all talk and no balls...well you just got vindicated.

He simply does not have the stuff to stand up to the right wing smear machine. He just doesn't. He's out there crying like a baby asking for daddy to forgive him for his potty mouth.

Give me a break. He's obviously not ready for primetime. At least Edwards half-assedly stood up to Donohue--that can't be said for Weenie Obama.

Your rant is right on generally, except for one thing: Obama wasn't caving to any sorts of calls to apologize, although the headline certainly frames it that way. If you read the full story, he was being honest in an interview that very afternoon in Iowa, and saying that within a few seconds after he used the word "wasted," he regretted that particular word although not the point he was making.

And judging on Obama in general, that is probably what happenned. The guy is generally someone who wants to be strong and hard-hitting, but unifying, and probably thought to himself that he might have gone too far. So regardless of whether one agrees with him on that point, this pretty clearly isn't consultant driven-- its Obama driven and honest, and frankly what many find refreshing about him even if it does get spun around.

You think that Dems look weak when they apologize and critize Republicans when they don't...

As you said, it's not the individual smear or smearer that needs the attention, it's the entire media structure of the right-wing. It's AMAZING to me; it's like it's "party like it's 1999" time for the media. They've learned nothing in the last years, and they're right back to wondering about Al Gore's "earth tones."

Obama should have said something like, "Eh, that wasn't a great word to use. No one dies in vain. But the people who should apologize are the people who put our soldiers in an unwinnable situation based on lies. Let's hear some apologies about things that really matter around here, not distracting stuff like this. Let's have a politics of meaning, not a politics of misleading ... " I'm starting to get in a rhythm here, but I'll stop now.

Give it a break.  He was apologising to the families and friends of 3000+ dead US servicepeople not the Republican smear machine, and I don't blame him, I would have too.  His use of the world 'wasted' was an honest mistake which articulated something many of us believe in our hearts.  And his apologies are sincere.

Honestly, would you tell the relative of a dead US soldier that you thought there life had been wasted?  Would you?  And if you did, as a natural slip in conversation, wouldn't you immediately say a simple and sincere sorry, maybe even twice?  Some things, Chris, just aren't political.

Madrassa smear, Australian palaeontology, fine; you're boy came home in a box for no reason, nyet.

How many times have I read a blogger demanding that Clinton APOLOGIZE for her "war vote". Dems get apology demands from both sides.

I forgot about that "War Vote" Demand...  Thank you

I was a strong Edwards supporter until the day Edwards spent waffling over that fascist thug's attack on Melissa and Amanda.  I felt better about him when he refused to fire them, but Amanda's "resignation" chills me again.  I see that Nazi Bill is back at it now, having smelled blood, calling for Melissa's "resignation", too.  If she "resigns", Edwards can forget my caucusing for him here in Iowa, the way I did back in 2004.

And if Obama doesn't grow a backbone, and soon, he can forget any support but my vote come fall of '08.  

What we need is candidates who don't just stand up and publicly, loudly, and repeatedly identify these right-wing thugs for the racist goons that they are, but who'll also denounce the Lap Dog Media for gobbling up the right-wing's vomit as if it were honey.

We here in the trenches have been putting up with this sort of behavior from our political leaders long enough.

  People need to realize than most of this country is still patriotic. The vast majority will never look at our soldiers sacrifice as "wasted". Obama screwed up. Badly. And yes, he should apologize. He was wrong and he knew it.

   I'm willing to forgive Obama for this as long as he doesn't immediately curl up into DC-consultant mode and start equivocating and walking on eggshells with his rhetoric. He's a wonderfully inspiring speaker, and what he brings to the table is too valuable for it to be watered down.

   So I might suggest that all he has to do is substitute the phrase "wasted lives" for "destroyed lives", and he makes the same point, perhaps even more powerfully, but without being un-PC about it...

I just wrote a whole long diary about this, Chris, and I would invite you to read it.

These apologies are not necessary in themselves. However, it's beneath a candidate to respond to people like Donoho. Instead of playing into the con and saying that he was "disgusted" by Amanda's post which made a joke using the metaphor of the Holy Spirit as a nut-load, Edwards, and the bloggers, should have said, IT WAS A JOKE. All Christians who have never told a dirty joke, step up to the mike. Otherwise SYFPH.

Again, on strict religious grounds, any priest or minister could have been brought forward to say that profane speech and dirty jokes have their place in life, and are not really sinful behavior. They might also have said that those who claim to speak for the Lord or the Church without permission, and who speak in error, are skating on far thinner ice than Amanda.

That would be it. Edwards comes out and says, there's a time and a place for everything, even a dirty joke. Nobody was attacked, least of all the Holy Spirit.

As far as Obama's remark was concerned, it looks like he's going to ride it out OK, because a lot of people think the soldiers' lives WERE wasted. In some ways I think it's OK to let Malkin and Co. flog that one. They're not reading it right.

The historical context is the most important thing here. Obama is driving the context, and this is why: voters are re-examining the Kennedy Rules.

The Kennedy Rules say that a Republican candidate doesn't have to be pure or even good, as long as he looks out for your money. But A Democratic candidate has to be a sweet angel.

These Kennedy Rules replaced a previous edition of Kennedy Rules that said that a Kennedy would lead America to the Promised Land.

They expired when Teddy Kennedy drove off a bridge. Don't get me wrong. I love Sen. Kennedy. He's been wonderful, but he did make a terrible mistake. Anybody could have made such a mistake, but the fact that he made it in that particular way meant not only that Ronald Reagan became President, but that the way voters judged the parties changed.

Now another change is offered to the voters. I think all the people who commented in that "What do Obama Supporters Want To Accomplish" thread, the literally hundreds of bloggers this past week who have attacked Obama based on a supposed lack of experience or concrete proposals - all these people are either obtuse or disingenuous. Because we all know perfectly well that if white papers won elections, Bush would still be clearing brush or whatever.

It is absolutely crystal clear that Obama represents an opportunity to establish a new relationship with voters. The reaction he is getting clearly blows past all concerns about white papers or Party ID or "apologies".

There is a part of the normal analytic work of this site that involves state parties, policy analysis, and a whole lot of geek stuff. And then there is the matter of symbolism and images. Which is more important in the election of an American President? You're not interviewing Obama for a fucking job, whatever you think. And the people who are (obtusely or disingenuously) hassling him about specifics of programs that cannot possible mean anything real at this point - they are simply continuing their momentum from the elections like good little physical objects. They were trained to attack, and they don't seem to be able to stop. So much for Party loyalty.

The truth of the matter is that people like Malkin and Donoho are able to slip their little nagging and annoying attacks in because Democrats are attacking each other. They sholdn't attack each other. It's perfectly OK to ask Obama a question about an issue. But that doesn't mean that every new Obama supporter - and we're all new - has the inside dope on Obama's positions. Anyway, it's more than clear that these attacks are intended to slow Obama's momentum. If all you want is a policy position, e mail the Obama website instead of presenting a divided front to Republican operatives. Why don't YOU tell us what YOUR Godlike candidate thinks, and then just note politely that Obama as not gone into detail. Effective as anything you're doing with your "Oh, God, he doesn't know what he's going to do!!"  bullshit, and a whole lot more Party-friendly.

Responding to Donoho type attacks requires some understanding of culture, history, religion, and so on. There are things that turn out to be beyond the powers of election geeks to figure out. We do have a division of labor in most businesses in this country. How strange. In order to respond to Donoho's attack, you should consider its religious significance (it was in error).

As for Obama, I don't really feel comfortable anymore detailing his real strengths. I'm a little dismayed at the way putative Democrats think it's OK to just have at him from all angles instead of at least recognizing what a marvelous resource he is for the Party, all the way around.

That turns out to be one of the downsides of the whole Kos-My DD strategy. You turned the peanut gallery into a bunch of Colosseum plebs screaming for blood. It seemed necessary, it did work. It looks like overkill now, it didn't in October. But now what is needed is to reprogram people to follow the Eleventh Commandment. Is that so hard?

Obama's real strengths would be quite obvious to people who weren't leaning against him for a variety of reasons. That's OK, though. It's all good. I don't think he's gonna get derailed by one of these meaningless little Donnoho things.

I have to admit, though, that John Edwards didn't come out of this looking as good as coming in. It was obvious as soon as he said he was disgusted that Amanda would be gone. It also showed me, speaking as a Christian, that Edwards isn't much of an expert on religion.

None of this would stop me from voting for him or talking up his strengths. I could criticize him harshly if I wanted to. But I don't want to. Same for Mrs. Clinton.

If the Democratic candidates and their supporters supported each other - and if you can't get Party ID at that level forget the stat, really - we wouldn't be having this problem. We don't seem to be able to stand prosperity, people - again.

I'm not worried, though. Speaking in terms not of preferences but predictions, I predict that neither Edwards nor Mrs. Clinton will be very successful at getting votes in the primaries. Nothing, really, can be done about that. The reason is the New Kennedy Rules. Because we have a New Kennedy. Not really a Kennedy, but someone like that, someone the American people can identify with like they haven't since Teddy drove off the bridge. He had been the third one, still anointed. It was assumed he would be President. He had funked it in 1976 but in 1980 he was going to restore Camelot.

The disappointment from that, and from Kennedy's incredible TV appearance afterward, marked a turning point in American politics. Now we have another potential turning point.

This is a bit off topic, but I think it's easy to blame the apologies on personal causes, i.e. the character of our candidates, instead of on structural causes, i.e. the power of the Right to manipulate the media and crank up a scandal.  

If more of us got involved as we did when we defended Edwards' bloggers, we might some day be able to deflect some of the Right's heat away from our candidates.

That's why it would be nice to see more campaigns like the one by BlogPac last week.  Ideally, we would encourage our side to do the right things and and hit the media with a lot of emails and letters in protest of the Right's smear du jour.  It would be great to have some joint projects between BlogPac and MediaMatters, just to name one possible scenario.

Please post this at Kos too.  Good points.

Apologized for anything?

Hint:  Everybody hates her and she gets nothing but shit from blogs for not apologizing.

Stop shaking your head muttering "uh uh that's different" to yourself and think about it for a second.

I would like to pimp my long comment above. I forget to change the comment titles.

As for this comment title:

You have two or three levels at which the election is being contested. For the lower levels - state houses, Congress - you need rapid response because there can be separation between the national candidate narrative and the local or state guy.

As regards the national narrative - the Presidential candidate - everybody is still feeling the pain of Kerry's swiftboating. If you go back over the details - the fact that the swiftboating occurred after the big military show at the Dem convention, and at a time when convention dates caused a big hole in Kerry's financing - it all makes enough sense. The root cause was the calendar causing an imbalance of available money.

But you don't really understand what happened without the context. Under the Kennedy Rules (definition in my long post above), a republican doesn't have to be honest, just successful economically; but a Democrat has to be honest to the core, and voters found ways to doubt Kerry. Kerry's unnatural way of responding to questions about his faith had as much effect as the swiftboating, which really just stopped his momentum with veterans cold. It was during the debates that Kerry "won" that he lost. Election geeks don't seem to have figured that out yet.

Clinton fits awkwardly into this analysis because he was a minority President who won the country over only after several years as President. There was also an event in the first year of his Presidency. That was the year that disppointed Republicans really started to construct the VRWNM, the Mighty Wurlitzer.

Now, Kos has caused a sort of VLWNM to be constructed. But he knows that it can't be used to construct a narrative - only to destroy one. National leadership, however you might like to have a comptroller style President, in reality borders on the religious. If you go back through Presidential history, they're always trying to analyze it rationalistically, but they always have to ignore a ton of emo activity. People give Johnson credit for the Great Society programs, but  LBJ himself would admit that it was the spirit of dead Jack that fueled the whole thing.

I understand what counterattacking is, and why you do it. And since that sort of instinct is something that Democrats learned pretty recently, it might seem the heighth of foolishness not to simply perfect the techniques that won the last election.

The only case in which that would be FALSE is if there were a much better outcome available that an emphasis on counterattack might cause us to miss.  And my contention is that everybody's perceptions, under Bush, got pulled way over to the right (please don't say anything about windows, that's not right). Pumping up people to be aggressive and getting them into attack mode was a good way of reviving their progressive instincts, getting them to think really lefty, instead of hedging toward the center all the time (which we often call triangulating, but that's really not a good description).

However, once you have freed yourself from the mindset that just can't believe the Dems can win (or get anything done if they do win) - and don't forget how common that was just a couple of years ago - once you kick free, why would you continue to be tense, to attack and attack. Let's be honest about something. Three or four years ago I was thinking about pouring gasoline on myself to break the Republican hypnosis. We were DESPERATE a few years ago. It didn't seem that anything would work, so we could try anything. Most people were still slaving away under the "9/11 changed everything" mindset.

In many ways we have to really thank Bush and Cheney for being stupid pols who just wanted to run a wag-the-dog little war and pay off their contractor buddies. Imagine how things could be! Suppose they HAD tried to do their jobs well instead of turning into Baron Harkonnen. Suppose they had won the frigging war! Would we, or would we not be up shit creek if Iraq had been pacified? A helluva lot of Democratic voters would not have complained if the price of gas really had gone down.

Up to the point of obvious and irreversible DEFEAT in the Iraq War, the political situation was frozen. Now spring is coming and the ice floes are moving faster and faster. People are still processing the defeat - which includes years of not calling it that.

But so here comes this candidate who can tap into the narrative-changing forces that drive history for a century or so at a time. The other candidates can never be anything but not-Bush. I think any Democrat can win, but I don't think any other Democrat can change the narrative, establish a bond of love with the American people.

This candidate could fail for any number of reasons. It's possible that his heart is not pure, that there is something in his past we don't see that would cause us not to trust him. It could all vanish like the dew.

If that happens, then you'll be back where you were a couple of months ago - where all the candidates are these closely calculated known quantities, almost the perfect experimental animals the geeks need. A few months ago I not only accepted that, I preferred it. I'd rather have government by committee than the personality cult. I'd rather vote for a platform than a candidate.

But all that has to go by the board when you have chance to re-establish the social contract under an exceptional and - I can say it - God-given leader.

A lot of you guys are leary of Obama's Christianity. If I wanted to be mean I would say, yeah, Edwards' Christianity or Hillary's Christianity are much better. But I understand the reaction. You don't want to beat Fundamentalism and then get up the next morning and its there again dressed in blue instead of red. For a lot of people Republicanism IS fundie-ism. A lot of people would like to hear a candidate come out swinging in favor of the Separation of church and state. Not that I think Obama will end up supporting faith-based payoffs.

Kos was right about the war being the ONE horse to ride in November. This emphasis did something a lot of things do in the blogosphere, it went too far. Now we have people writing things about how you have to be a troll to want to emphasize economic issues.

The problem with "the economy" is that it has to have a symbol in order to penetrate as an issue. The War was symbolized by deaths and bombings, by the nightly bad news. But the economy could acquire a symbol. It could be stocks crashing or companies going under - or people losing their homes through foreclosure.  We don't know where the dam will break because we aren't really in control of our economic policy and haven't been for years.

So it is entirely logical for Obama or anyone else to simply study what's happening without giving everybody a book report every Monday. It's about trust. Obama has the best educational qualifications. He's spent more time in the trenches with ordinary people. Culturally, he's a wild card that apparently cannot be wrong-footed, as long as he continues to demonstrate love and affection for ordinary people.

I'm beginning to think the people understand the personality cult better than I used to.

We have a President who has been willing to set one group of Americans against another. Who has been willing to to set branches of government against each other. Who has done everything possible to weaken people's faith in the institutions of government.

And at that point faith not only comes into government but is indispensable. Accountability with regard to money should be easy - if it's not, it's a sign that the government is dishonest!  But over and above all that there has to be a deep seated and practically religious faith that the government is for the benefit of the people. And the people establish and maintain this faith through the President, in a mediatized democracy. The President, one person, guarantees the reality of what people see on television, and also its benign nature. When people stop trusting the President, great change can occur.

Blame the Donahues and the Abe Foxes of this world.  I wish I could just click a botton and they'd disappear.  But they are here to stay.  Everybody wants to feel like a victim.  The catholics, the ADL,  the Christians...soon even the Klan will be demanding apologies.  As you said, the shyt needs to stop.  People need to man-up inssstead of wimping out every time someone says something you dont like.

Well, we can whine about this forever, but the best defense is a good offense and maybe we should go after a few scalps also, starting with the one sitting on top of the Irish fathead.  These two ladies have shown the way, now Donohue should follow their lead and resign from the Catholic League.  Isn't he man enough to accept his mistakes, maybe not as big a person as these two ladies are????  And we should howl about it until he does.  It's only fair, and my bet is he isn't man enough to do it.  How do we start and how do we continue to get this into the MSM????   As a Catholic and someone who has studied to be a priest for a number of years, I am embarrassed by his vulgar and bigoted talk.  He is nowhere near what Christ called his disciples to.   In fact his rants about Martin Luther King and Hollywood liberals were just plain obscene.  He has to go too!  My bet is there are a lot of moderate Catholics (especially amongst the clergy) who are trying to negotiate the dictates of the Church in this pluralistic society who would long to see him off the stage.  

Hallelujah, world without end, amen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudso n/rightwing-attack-puts-bl_b_41171.html

No Republican, Conservative, Neo-Con, or Bush Apologist deserves an apology for anything until (1) they apologize for lying to America to start the war in Iraq, (2) they step out of the way of the Democratic Party forcing Bush to leave Iraq, and (3) they join a public call for Bush and Cheney to resign while supporting impeachment of both should they fail to resign.  

Unrealistic, yes, but it is the Republi-cons who should be apologizing to America day in and day out.  

"It is an endless, non-stop stream of attacks against Kerry, Pelosi, Obama, Edwards and any other Democrat in the spotlight."

Mr. Bowers,
How do you feel about the non-stop stream of attacks against Hillary Clinton, by the Republicans and by many Dem bloggers right here on mydd.com, as well as on dailykos and by Arianna Huffington and others.  

Are you bothered by the attacks on Hillary Clinton?  Or do such attacks remain undefended by you because the victim is Hillary?

Don't fall all over yourself to answer.

TRex at Firedoglake said the same thing last June when he wrote: http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/22/la te-nite-fdl-press-the-eject-and-give-me- the-tape/

"......Listen to me, Democrats!  Never defend.  Never explain.  Attack, attack, attack!  When a right-winger accuses you of something, back up, reframe, ignore the charges, just ATTACK.  How hard can this be?  Ann Coulter doesn't waste her time defending herself against our accusations.  Neither does Rush Limbaugh.  They launch their attacks and the terms of the debate are set from there, and once again, as liberals, we are bringing knives to a gun fight.

To whit:

A Republican says, "All you liberals are cut-and-run traitors!  You don't support the troops!"

Instead of frantically beginning to tap dance and show that you're not a traitor and that you do support the troops, you fire back, "Why are you Republicans such cowards?  Your leaders are all draft-dodgers who've never fired a shot at anything but a bunch of canned quails and old lawyers.  You're using the troops as human shields against the midterm elections!  Do you like seeing our brave men and women in uniform slaughtered and killed?  Or are you just too much of a coward to face the consequences of your failed policies in Iraq?  Which is it?  Do you just hate the soldiers or do you hate your constituents?"

There.  You have just put the burden of proof on the Repugnican that he/she isn't a coward and that they don't hate the troops.  Then you set up a false dichotomy that they can't answer without looking like a fool.

Or say you're lucky enough to have squared off against Ann Coulter.  (I dream of four minutes of live TV with Ann Coulter!) She says, "Liberals hate science!  Liberals suck terrorist dicks!  Liberals eat babies!  SQUAAAAAAAACK!!  SCREEECH!!  AWK!! AWK!!"

You say, "Ann, why are you such a fascist?"

She, of course, will say, "I'M not a fascist!  LIBERALS ARE FASCISTS!"  (Which is exactly what she would say, trust me.)

You calmly respond, "But Ann, you advocate everything the Nazis did; internment camps, physical intimidation, silencing of media outlets, and murder. Everything the Nazi Party said about the Jews, you have said about liberals.  You even look sort of like some kind of Aryan Dominatrix.  You're like a Brownshirt pin-up girl."

And then sit back and watch as she goes nuclear. Now, the onus is on her to prove she's not a fascist, which is exactly what she can't do.  (Cos she is.)  You don't respond to charges by Ann Coulter.  You attack.  You treat her with all the respect and courtesy that she would treat you.

It doesn't really even matter if your accusations are true, just whether or not they're truthy.  (We can play that game too.)  It helps, of course, if what you're saying is true, but it's not a requirement. Study the work of Karl Rove sometime.

Republicans are cowards.  They're soft.  They grew up sleeping on huge billowy piles of other people's money, tucked in by their immigrant nannies, while Mumsy and Daddy were off at the The Club getting stoned on whiskey sours and arrogance.  They won't have the stomach for this fight.  But if we continue to equivocate, back-pedal, and sputter in frustration at the outrageousness of their assertions, we will remain the party of Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Alan Colmes, and all the other Whiny Little Bitch liberals.

Is this clear?  Any liberal pundits or Democratic strategists reading this, you hear me?  

NEVER defend.

NEVER explain.

ATTACK!  ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTAAAAACK!!!!

We have a reputation as a bunch of weak-kneed cowards because we keep trying to answer the charges against us and failing, because the charges simply aren't true.  You can't defend yourself against baseless accusations.  "Why don't liberals support the troops?" is a question like, "When did you stop beating your wife?"  Unanswerable, because it issues from a set of false precepts, and any attempt to answer it is going to be like, as my brother says, "boxing a turd".  And that's the number one lesson that we can take from the right wingers.  They don't waste their time answering our charges.  Don't dignify their charges with an answer.  It's time to seize the narrative, by force.  Stop trying to justify yourself to those people.  Treat them with contempt and disgust.  Flick their accusations aside and then go for the jugular.

"Reverend Dobson, you're afraid of homosexuals because of your own secret homosexual tendencies, aren't you?"

"Ms Malkin, would it be fair to say that you hate immigrants because you yourself are an `anchor baby' of immigrant parents?"

"Mr. Hinderaker, this discussion of the DHS is interesting, but what I really want to know is why your kids aren't fighting in Iraq and supporting the troops in a meaningful way?"

See how easy it is, kids?  The fact of the matter is that the people we are fighting are hurting our country and others.  Their ignorance and arrogance is costing us our democracy and our lives, not to mention the lives of thousands of innocent people in other nations.  We do not have to answer to them.  We only have to call them to account.  Stop defending yourself.  The only real defense against this crowd is a good offense.

Now, go get em.

At this moment in time, there isn't a stronger voice than that of Hillary Clinton, who is now polling at over 60% in national Democratic polls. Unless you haven't been paying attention, there is also no Dem candidate who bashes and trashes and confronts Bush and the Repubs more than Hillary does.  In another blog discussion, someone suggested that Clinton should have run to the defense of Edwards last week when the Marcotte story broke.

Hillary Clinton owes the netroots community nothing.  Stop trashing her 24/7, and she might join your fight against the rightwing conspiracy that she was correct in identifying all those years ago.  John Edwards will not make it.  Obama has a chance of maintaining second place and smarter people than all of us predict he will be Hillary's choice for V.P.,if he wants it.  

That is your power nucleus - Clinton and Obama. And when Hillary is 70 years of age, in 2016, she will hand the reins to Obama.  Hillary is the path and while you may run one straw poll after another to try and prove this is not so, it is the reality.  Some people say the Hillary/Barack combination is a fantasy; others call it the stuff of novels. But those who cannot move past their own purist expectations, will never stop it.  A woman and a black man are about to recreate American history for the good of everyone.  You can get behind it or sit back analyzing your straw polls while bitching about Hillary's war vote apology not suiting your demands and writing one sad story after another about those nasty Repubicans who won't leave your chosen candidate alone.