As noted before, one of the biggest betrayals was by presumed progressive Udall (CfS-CO) (that's Coloradans for Salazar).  As he makes a mad dash to the center-right, Udall abandons all principle--thus suggesting that he lacked it in the first place.

This war was a watershed issue for many of us in the 2004 Presidential primary.  We rejected Kerry's lame-ass excuse that he wouldn't have voted for the AUMF if he had had correct info.  The war remains a watershed issue for many progressives in Colorado, and I won't forget Udall's betrayal when it comes time to vote (or not) for Senator in 2008.  I continue to think Sirota's right--we need to actually clean house WITHIN the Democratic Party before we can block things like the blank check, much less enact even part of a progressive agenda.

Before we head down the Howard Dean/Ned Lamont road to victory, is it possible for us to take a step back and recognize that there is a distinction between the Joe Lieberman Democrats and those who are either running in competitive or "red state" jurisdictions?  Does anyone really think that red state general election voters in AR, FL, VA, CO or NV, who will matter if we are to elect a Dem President and keep at least one chamber, won't be susceptible to GOP line that defunding the troops is a bad idea?  

Ellison? I'm very disappointed. He's campaigned on a progressive populist peace platform. I can't believe he'd sign on to that.

I'm going to contact him.

"Democratic presidential candidates will debate on Fox when Republican candidates debate on Air America."  

Was there anyone? Pardon my ignorance, I have no idea how many members the CBC has.

Hmm.I've never liked Shelley Berkley's support for getting rid of the inheritance tax, but at least when I criticize her, I spell her name correctly.

Unfortunately, as we expand our base beyond the states that have been consistently Democratic in the past 4 presidential elections or so, we'll have to take out some other incumbents as well--or at the least request that they stop voting against us on every major issue.  

Hmmm, so the fact that most CBC members voted against the Iraq resolution, voted for hard deadline and will vote against the supplemental isn't what's important.

The fact that they represent voters who support Dems w/85% of the vote or more typically and therefore want to have more than one debate is irrelevant if they allow Fox to sponsor?  Have all the Dem candidates decided that they won't solicit Fox to cover their events or are we saying the next Dem prez shouldn't use the most direct channel to talk to convservative voters?

I was thinking less of the CBC members (admittedly, the point of this post) than other DINOs like Ben Nelson.