You are clueless.  Why can't you run a liberal.  It's about getting the message out.  If the Dems really were the party of the working people, they'd kick ass a lot of the time.  When you have DLC corpr-crats, people know a phony when they see it.  Before last November, who would have thought that you could have both Montana Senators be Democrats?  Populism can win.

When last I checked, it is the duty of every senator to uphold the Constitution...it's part of their job. It's not a matter of liberal or conservative. Just because the Republicans have lost sight of this, why should the Democrats? We're supposed to be the sane party. This vote is not dilation and extraction abortion or gay marriage...this vote was a line in the sand setting apart those who believe in the mission of our country, and those who would sell it up the river to despotism. Even purely from a political stance, I don't understand why Mikulski, Klobuchar, and Feinstein would so blithely sell out what they had previously been working so hard to bring to fruition: the exposé of the Bush regime's corruption. With this vote, they have effectively said, "Well, I guess Bush does have a point after all. Let's buy into it." Meanwhile, Barbara Boxer and Ben Cardin voted the right way, and we can be sure how Paul Wellstone would have voted...so clearly it's not merely a matter of their state of origin.

And you are mistaken about the Republicans and Democrats running ideologically "pure" candidates in typically unfavorable states. New York seems to me a pretty liberal state, but for 18 years in the not-too-distant past they were represented in the Senate by staunch conservative Al D'Amato. Likewise, Virginia was represented by Chuck Robb--who even had the chutzpah to vote against DOMA back when it was heresy to do so--and North Carolina by John Edwards. These may be the exceptions rather than the rules, but they are prominent exceptions indeed.

Andrew himself keeps it until 2010, if the voters decline to move him up to Federal office. His term's not up.

If it opens, it should be safe. At least one of the other Democrats who ran in the primary in 2006 seemed perfectly acceptable, too, so while the bench is small in Oklahoma generally, we've got back-up in that state senate district.

The thing to remember was that Brad Carson was able to outspend his opponent by around 1 million, and led his opponent in the polls.  Something people aren't considering is the fact that in 2004 we lost 5 senate seats and didn't gain any.  (If I recall correctly)  The situation for Democrats was very toxic.  Now, the situation is different and Democrats may be able to hold the lead through a presidential election in Oklahoma.  

1 race we can compare in 2002 and 2006.  2002 was even more toxic for Democrats statistically... But here. Governor Henry.  
2002
Henry: 448,143: 43%
Largent: 441,277: 43%
Richardson: 146,206: 14%
2006
Henry: 616,135: 66.5%
Istook: 310,327: 33.5%

Or we can compare congressional races from 2004 and 2006 or all 3 years.  I'll do that in another reply just to keep these seperated.  

Yes, Larry Kissell makes me proud!  I've donated to his campaign multiple times and will continue to do so whenever possible.  He is definitely the kind of candidate North Carolina needs!