"But the truth is, Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war — if they are willing to use the power given them by the Constitution to block the supplemental funding bill unless it includes a deadline for bringing the troops home."

Forget the "unless..." part. Play hardball and stop funding the war. George Bush is like a junky. You don't help people end their addiction to drugs by giving them money and asking them to spend it in rehab. They will only buy more drugs. The only way to stop Bush's war addiction is to stop giving him money. I thought we gave him $120 billion in June. Tell him to use that money to bring the troops home and end the war. Let him know there will be no more money for war. Let the people know that this is the only way to stop Bush.

I have been "listening" mostly to get a general idea of the collective inclinations of common dreamers. I am surprised at the lack of interest in Ron Paul. Ohter than one instance, I have not heard anyone talking about him. On the existential questions facing our nation, he seems to have alot more in common with CDers than not. Forgive my generalization, but why is he so unattractive to you? Does he scare people becuase he is an (R) and therefore untrustworthy? I am trying hard to get past labels here. I have read quite a bit from and about him and on the most important issues, I do not find him the least bit worrisome. The Democrats through their inaction have spoken volumes. Can they be trusted?

The problem with Huffington's analysis is the same as the problem with the Damn-the-Dems chorus that regularly chimes in here. It's the very notion of "the Democrats".

The reason Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Carl Levin and Henry Waxman and the rest of the Congressional Democratic "leadership" can't end the war is that they don't control "the Democrats". Nobody does. The "Democratic Party" is a weak organization, with little power to discipline politicians who may have been elected as "Democrats", having won the Democratic primaries in their districts, but who have no legal obligation to obey marching orders from Pelosi, Reid, or anybody. Many of them either don't want to end the war or don't want to do it by cutting off funds. Steny Hoyer is a good example, and he was forced on Pelosi as No. 2 in the House, above her first choice of the anti-Iraq War Murtha.

Huffington is right that there are enough "Democrats" in Congress to defund the war. But not enough to fund only withdrawal, set a deadline, or do anything over the president's veto. When the liberal leadership says they don't have the votes to force an end to the war by defunding it, they mean that the Republicans will get a funding bill through with enough Democratic votes from the more conservative wing of the party, and the liberals don't have the ability to prevent the "blue dogs" from going that way.

We need to stop viewing "the Democrats" as a cohesive monolithic entity and recognize that the two-party system is nothing but a formal process created by our electoral structure. The way to move forward is not to just "keep supporting the Democrats" as the Damn-the-Dems chorus likes to caricature it, but keep working to change the Democrats from what and who they are now into a different set of folks with a different agenda. We need to organize as progressives, run progressive candidates to challenge blue dogs in the primaries, and vote the preferable candidate, which is usually the Democrat, at general election time, but not let off the pressure in between elections, either.

Organize, mobilize, vote, but vote to win, not throw away votes on meaningless protests that should instead be made out in the open, in the streets and in the media.

Time for the Dems to play hardball. Are you kidding or what? Or is it a joke?

I'm glad that I'm not the only one with an aversion to huff and puff post. Their offices I once stood outside of in tres chic nyc soho. Which may be representative of where their true allegiance lies. Celebrities, movie stars, the idle rich, the disposable income crowd. People requiring closets full of the finest imported shoes and such. I'm sure they are well meaning people but their collective outlook is blinded by the light.

I agree with all the posts, I would like to add that I object to the ethnocentric "hammering home the message that it's the president's obstinacy that is jeopardizing the well-being of OUR troops and the safety of OUR country."

I think most of us here take objection to what is being done to "people" everywhere in general. The war is against human beings everywhere, in particular the poor. the government we have now is operating independently of people here, that's true, but also of our brothers and sisters world wide, and on a horrifying scale. I think that's what eats at us.

We can't wait another year with this fool and his disastrous policies for the U.S. Billions for an unnecessary war for oil and thousands of young Americans killed & maimed. So why hasn't he and Cheney been impeached? The Pentagon protecting him you say, oh! "Bush: The Demise of America."

Arianna may be right. Or not. What it's "time for the Democrats" to do, is whatever wins the hearts and minds of American voters enough to assure a Democratic president and heavily Democratic Congress in 2008.
The war cannot possibly "end" without this voter support and governmental authority vested in something other than Republican hands.

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and YOUR next pick are going to decide the constitutionality of everything going forward for a long time, including "war" issues.

"The war cannot possibly "end" without this voter support and governmental authority vested in something other than Republican hands."

This delusion that Democrats are gonna save the world is the biggest lie floating around. All the Democratic candidates pretty much support this war and the next. The Republicans will basically pass the torch to the Democrats and we will be stuck in this exact quagmire 5 years down the road. Dont fool yourself.

Time for the Dems to play hardball?!! You just don't get it, do you?

They ARE playing hardball. In fact BOTH of the U.S. political parties are playing hardball -- in the usual style of the "greatest democracy on earth", that is.

Wake up and try to understand. Tweedle Dum's opponent is not Tweedle Dee. The real struggle, both at home and abroad, is against what is now decried as "radical populism" or what was, once upon a time, described as "government of the people, by the people, for the people." In opposing that notion and its advocates, both foreign and domestic, the parties and their common sponsorship are playing the game with all of the vigor and all of the means at their disposal.

As the old Scottish saying explains it, "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and, in the current U.S. version of "democracy", that sure as hell ain't the "people" that Lincoln is usually understood to have been referring to. In fact, corporate "personhood" is now the only type that really matters at all in the U.S. "freedom and democracy" context, including, of course, its exportable-by-force-of-arms variety.

The Democrats will roll over and approve the funding as they always do. They are as complicit in the illegal occupation as the Republicans. Essentially both groups are factions of the same party. Steny Hoyer is entirely supported and funded by AIPAC, so he is a total coward.

Future forecast:

Look for them Dems to keep rolling over; open the wallet as wide as they possibly can so Dumya and his minions can empty it at the taxpayers expense; and do nothing to help this country.

Arianna has forfeited her "voice of moral authority" since she refused to press Pelosi about impeachment. That was a distinctively undemocratic use of her journalistic powers of access to Pelosi. Huffington knows that the vast majority of Americans want an impeachment process--damn the votes--in order to hold this criminal administration accountable. Huffington's refusal to bring up impeachment during her interview with Pelosi demonstrates the enabling wing of the "left." As long as those with access to politicians continue to not ask the tough questions, we have no voice. Huffington owes the left an apology, and it wouldn't hurt if she took a remedial course in the Constitution.

The year 2007 may go down in history as the point in time when the American people changed their minds and hearts about the wisdom of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush-Cheney administration and their associates.

The tide has turned. The optimism about good outcomes is gone.

Will Congress, our military, government officials and other honorable Americans act on this?

Americans have changed their minds and hearts because of the increasing understanding about:

- Corruption within US-funded and Iraqi activities

- Deception by many players in the run-up to the invasion and throughout the occupation

- Blood for oil - one of the major reasons for the invasion and occupation

- War profiterring by friends of the Bush-Cheney adminstration and anyone who could belly up to the federal treasury hog trough

- Mercenaries and the outsourcing of front-line combat military activities

- Billions of dollars wasted that could have been spent on much more worthwhile endeavors

- Thousands of US troops killed and severely injured for life

- Half a million Iraqi civilian deaths and untold serious injuries, including women and children

Those, of course, are not the entire list. But Americans are learning more and realizing the levels of the problems.

The year 2007 may turn out to be like the year 1970, when Americans realized the same things about the war in Vietnam.

Food for thought in the article ...

"Americans felt turning points on Vietnam, Iraq wars in '70, '07"

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31984

Richm: What do YOU suggest?

Very long since "time for the Dems to play hardball." Problem is, their hand has to be forced as much as the President's hand and those of the other Republicans. The Democratic "leadership" is similarly debased; the party as a whole IS, and has long been, the status quo establishment:

"By now Hillary Clinton has made clear her intention to run for President of the United States as a Neo-Dumblican, a.k.a. an Old Repugnocrat. And why not? After all, Clinton served on the board of directors of Wal-mart, and currently receives the financial support of Wal-mart executives. She interned with Republican office holders, and as a lawyer advocated against the progressive low-income community organization ACORN in the interest of big money. Her health care proposals are very pleasing to the rapacious pharmaceutical industry. And she evidently intends to wage war on as much of the world as possible for the rest of her career. A Neo-Dumblican indeed, this Old Repugnocrat." ...

Continued: http://apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/neo-damnedlican-old-rethugnocrat/

The Dems will once again tuck their tails between their legs and whimper off to the sidelines. A few days ago, my Democratic house representative after several month of waiting, finally explained to me why he was against impeachment, and his simpering response confirmed my reasons for abandoning this hopelessly spineless, inept and disinterested party. The gist of his message: Bush rules, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Democrats, in the words of SpongeBob SquarePants:

Down, down, down, to the bottom of the sea...

Is Bush beefing up the coffers for a planned invasion of Iran? If the Dems suspect or know this to be true, they have an opportunity to refuse funding on these grounds. Bush has had a way to pin the success or failure of the war on the Dems ever since he began to surge. After all, General Betrayus has declared that we are making "progress" in Iraq (i.e., we are now winning), so if the Dems refused to fund the war and things go to hell there (which they would have anyway), the Dems get blamed. Bush has got the Dems just where he wants them, and he also knows the general public is gullible enough to buy it.

Huffington is a hack

What are the Dems going to do. If they end it now--its Bush's war start to finish in the annals of history. If they wait and a dem is president, then it is their war and Bush can say: well if I had stayed in charge I would have ended it the right way.

Bush's best friend are the democrats.

Way past time. Dream on, Arianna. The best and still only way to end hostlities is to IMPEACH Cheney and Bush. Even if proceedings don't end conclusively at least the idea will possibly embolden any legislators that may still have a conscience to act accordingly. Iknow, I know - I'm dreaming too. But I could be wrong.

[quote]Hammo October 26th, 2007 12:30 pm -- The year 2007 may go down in history as the point in time when the American people changed their minds and hearts about the wisdom of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush-Cheney administration and their associates.[/quote]

That would be nice. Interesting to note, however, that "[h]alf a million Iraqi civilian deaths and untold serious injuries, including women and children" comes last on the list of suggested reasons for that projected awakening of the American people. That, in itself, speaks volumes about U.S. popular priorities, I think, and may even suggest one major reason for the degradation of "freedom and democracy" at home.

__
To RichM: Thanks for the nod and the kind words.

__
To dmia: At this very late stage, I doubt that anything short of a second American Revoloution offers much hope. And, from where I sit, the likelihood of that happening looks remote to say the least. Perhaps you could import a few "illegal aliens" from Tiennamen Square where they stand in front of tanks, or from Russia where they stand on top of them to defy authority.

Honestly, i'm waiting for rank and file Democrats to storm the exit doors and knock down a couple walls along the way.

green and growing...

kucinich

This is madness.

It was "time" for the Democrats to take decisive action in the wake of the stolen election in 2000. It was "time" for them during any number of toxic nominations. It was "time" when the Constitution-shredding USAPATRIOT Act was voted on, and the Iraq war resolution. It was "time" at every step of the way when funding this crime came up for a vote. And this is nowhere near a complete list.

And yet, what is the very first reaction here? The notion that Democrats deserve rewards for their complicity so that one glorious day in the future they may be courageous enough to be decent.

That day will never happen, of course, since winning in a vacuum precludes taking a stand, ever. After all, taking a stand is departing from the winning strategy.

Nope, carry on with politics sans meaning, and dream, dream, dream.

It's madness.

Does Huffington have any credibility? Wasn't she married to a rabid anti gay Republican who turned out to be gayer than Larry Craig? Don't tell me she didn't know he was gay but married him anyway to advance her profile and bank accounts.

And wasn't she a rabid Republican herself? We're supposed to believe that she's now sane, a 'progressive' voice of reason. Her fraudulent interview of Pelosi is proof that she's nothing but a tool of the establishment. Her blog is a gossip website not much better than Drudge Report.

This talking point of Democrats having to 'get a spine' is as dishonest and infuriating. Democrats HAVE a spine, it takes a lot of it actually to facilitate Bush's crimes and pretend to be against them at the same time.

To expect the Democrats to reverse the direction of the country is dead wrong. They, along with the Republicans, work hand in hand, and hand in pocket with corporate America, and have formed a new party called the Uncle Buck Party. And the only hardball this party plays is when they are playing against the American middle class.
Hoa binh

if every person that was against the war went on strike (No work, no buying anything) until the troops came home, i don't think we'd have to wait too long.

congress won't do anything, but if we shut down our economy i guarantee the badministration will take notice

After all this angst -

To the Barricades - especially tomorrow.

We will all have the chance to rest our weary fingers and stand up and be counted among those brave enough to confront the oligarchy in control of our country and the war.

Plaese attend a 'Stop the War' gathering near you.

In the Congressional Budget Office letter to the Senate on Sept 30, 2002 about the estimate for the war in Iraq:
- Cost to deploy forces to the Persian Gulf $9B-$13B
- Prosecuting the war $6B-$9B/month
- Occupation following combat operations $1B-$4B/month
- Cost to return forces from the Gulf $5B-$7B

How could they be so wrong?

Like it's not as if we are fighting a well-trained, well-equipped state military that has the same scientific and technical resources as the US. We are "fighting" goat-herders with badly-made repro-Uzis and access to fertilizer and diesel fuel. No, the "war" is artificially maintained to profit the elites. There is no "war" per se, other than persistent irritation by freedom fighters in Iraq. Bring the troops home now.

RichM-

Your description of the two-party system is a caricature.

Corporate power pervades and dominates American life, and yes, that includes politics on both sides.

But the Democratic side is also more heavily influenced by the enlightened self-interest of the middle and working class masses. Corporate power has been a relatively heavy influence in Democratic politics in the past few decades, but it can still be sidelined by a resurgent popular mobilization.

The Ds and Rs are distinct groups of people with sharply divergent values and philosophies. The political professionals on each side are more ideologically divergent than the general population.

However, the corporate media has a stranglehold on the eyes and ears of the nation, in spite of the internet and every species of alternative media. This greatly limits the ability of Democratic politicians to move in a progressive direction.

You write, "You cannot escape from corporate control of life, when there are only 2 parties, & both are controlled by the same corporate elites." But the problem is not the number of parties, and the "corporate elites" are not a monolithic bloc whose "control" over anything is immune to attack. If ever "it will be possible to build a broad-based movement aimed at taking power away from the big business elite," then the most effective way to do that, in terms of electoral politics, will be through the Democratic side of the two-party system, because the latter is not a conspiracy for control but rather an artifact of our electoral process, which is more or less dictated by our Constitution.

To Arvy and RichM: Outstanding posts.

To seriousprofessor: You are absolutely right. The Dems have had numerous "times" to stand up for what is right and good and they haven't.

There are now, of course, those advocating in these pages to give them MORE time to do what is right and good.
Since they will never be "...courageous enough to be decent" we should now look for those who are decent enough to be courageous.

Cindy Sheehan for Congress!

mrE 2:48 pm:
(No work, no buying anything), no driving cars except minimally, limit use of electricity, turn off the tv.

They have us plugged in, the revolution will arrive when we no longer give them the ability to operate.

Protesting is one thing to be sure, but do we lack the collective faith to deny this renegade government the ability to operate because everyday we are working jobs that have been over time standardized and subsidize the system that we resent?

Until the time comes when we lose our jobs and are confronted by that state of being, I think maybe not.

Dear Arianna, I think your post is well intentioned but you are assuming that Democrats are a"Loyal Opposition" .As Molly used to say"you gotta dance with the one that brung ya" without public financing of campaigns,we can kiss our "republic" goodbye.Democracy? whassdat ?How about public financing,free airtime for candidates,and one person one vote?Abolish the antique electoral college(as Hillary promised to do)and hold referendoms on important issues as a Parlimentary system has?You think Democrats will get a backbone before the election? It sure doesn't look like it ,but we can pray.Lets hope the God/Goddess that hears our prayers is the same one that told the decider to invade Iraq,and that he/she has had a change of heart!
Peace in and out.

It takes guts to be in the public eye and take abuse when standing up for progressives. Thank you Arianna

[quote]RichM October 26th, 2007 2:36 pm -- The 2 parties, then, are really partners and collaborators. They are not "opponents." Neither represents "we, the people" at all, though the D's sometimes pretend to do that, while the R's don't even bother to pretend.

As long as we accept a system that functions like this, there is no possible solution to the crisis. You cannot escape from corporate control of life, when there are only 2 parties, & both are controlled by the same corporate elites.[/quote]

That's it in a nutshell as I see it. I would add only that I think Nader2000 does make one valid and important point in noting that the corporate media has a stranglehold on the eyes and ears of the nation, or at least a very large segment of it. They are certainly a large contributor to the overall problem at present.

I disagree very strongly, however, with Nader2000's suggested corollary that "the most effective way to do that [build a broad-based movement], in terms of electoral politics, will be through the Democratic side of the two-party system, because the latter is not a conspiracy for control but rather an artifact of our electoral process, which is more or less dictated by our Constitution."

I fail to see how one of the collaborating parties is any more (or less) an artifact of the electoral process than the other, let alone one that is constitutionally dictated. But, to whatever extent either or both are, the underlying problem would seem obvious and, as RichM suggests, the symptoms are not going to go away until that underlying problem is addressed.

To "keep working to change the Democrats from what and who they are now into a different set of folks with a different agenda" is to arrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

It's a waste of time and idiotic. The Democratic Party is corrupt to its core and has been in the pockets of Republicans for decades.

What Sheehan is doing is the only way out. Democrats need to be challenged in elections by real progressives and exposed for what they are: Republicans in sheep's clothing.

Hassan,

Most CD'ers have trouble with Ron Paul because he is a "libertarian".

We are for individual liberties to the extent they don't exclude responsibilities. However, the "libertarian" movement in the US believes in complete, unfettered capitalism and capitalist wealth accumulation.

They believe in the abolition of all government regulation over business affairs - safety, labor, environmental - everything.

They believe in the abolition of all government benefit progreams - progressive income taxes, inheritance taxes, health and welfare and social security programs, or unemployment benefits. In other words, everything that counteract the extreme concentration of wealth and power and concomitant disempowerment of workers, that naturally results from lazzez-faire markets.

They are opposed to anything public or commonly-owned - public schools - public transit, public parks or public spaces of any kind.

In other words, Libertarians advocate a extreme version of the system that has been tried before, from the 1840's to the 1920's, resulting in misery and suffering that is well chronicled by people from Charles Dickens to Upton Sinclair and John Steinbeck.

The history of the US since Ronald Reagan has been one of gradually putting in place much of the Libertarian philosophy, it's ideas have been so impregnated in the US mind that the very word "social" or "society" invokes fear and contempt in the US mind, and the concept of "freedom" has been reduced to strictly a peculiar economic sort - freedom is reduced to freedom to buy things and to sell our labor - competing with our co-workers who should be our comrades in a race to the bottom. The results are as predicted. We are seeing impoverishment of everyone except the the top 20% wealthiest. We are also facing environmental catastrophe for which the libertarian philosophy offers nothing to ameleorate it.

I forgive you for thinking I am engaging in hyperbole, but I have heard "libertarians advocate every one of the above things.

We welcome Ron Paul's antiwar and anti-US imperialist views, but the rest of his philosophy is repugnant.

Did I just feed a troll?

PJD

I don't know if you just fed a troll, but that's the way I see libertarianism, too. Too Ayn Randish for my conscience to bear. If individuals had as much freedom from social control as some libertarians seem to propose, well, sooner or later, a GW Bush would arise in their midst with a destructiveness beyond all hope of reining in. That's because there are always those capitalists without conscience or concern for others. Society MUST check these individuals or be destroyed by them.

Arvy-

Re: "I fail to see how one of the collaborating parties is any more (or less) an artifact of the electoral process than the other, let alone one that is constitutionally dictated."

The two-party system is an artifact of the electoral process. What is dictated in the constitution is that each state gets two Senators and a number of House members in proportion to population. It would be impossible to convert that to a pure proportional representation system by any formula without rewriting the Constitution and renegotiating the balance of power between urban & rural, and every other constituent group in the nation, which is pretty impossible. So we have Congressmen elected in winner-take-all elections from single-member districts and Senators elected in winner-take-all elections from larger districts (states). That's not going to change.

Winner-take-all elections, particularly in a large regionally diverse but not strongly divided nation like the US, make a two-party system inevitable because a third party cannot rise to the level of strength needed to win even one seat in Congress, let alone the presidency. If you had three parties, splitting the vote into thirds, one of the parties would slip and dissolve, because most issues shape up as Yes/No questions and one party allies with the people on one side, the other allies with the other.

This is only a crude sketch of the dynamics, but the fact is we have had "Democrats" and "Republicans" since before the Civil War, and many attempts to organize third parties since then have come and gone, risen and failed, always for the same reason: they can't get to winning, and one of the two parties that do have access to power always coopts any constituency that grows strong enough to have some actual influence on election outcomes.

For progressives, the route to power via elections goes through the Democratic primaries and nominating process and by becoming an organized constituency that can deliver votes on election day, as well as apply pressure between elections.

Third parties and independents (Nader) are selling snake oil.

RichM-

If you believe America is run by some huge conspiracy involving
"CFR, the Business Roundtable, the Bilderbergers, the rightwing thinktanks like AEI," there is not much I can say to convince you otherwise. I see a system that is much more open and amenable to influence from new players who organize effectively.

I do agree with you that the 1996 telecom act was one of Clinton/Gore's worst betrayals of the public interest to corporate power. However, it is very hard for any politician to oppose the interests of the people who control the eyes and ears of the public, when the latter are very well organized with respect to their own business interests. The Left and the public interest community were also asleep at the time. I know because I tried to raise the issue, and was met with a cynical fatalism that denied anything dramatic was happening and pooh-poohed the idea that new technology such as the internet could have a revolutionary impact if it were kept free from corporate control.

PJD

There's been a lot of discussion about (god I hate this expression) "trolls" lately. If the post is intelligent, why not be willing to discuss it? I enjoyed reading your reply, I thought it was well thought out and supports many of the conclusions I'd come to on my own about libertarianism. So, I learned from it.

I've read quite a few of the posters here go off and involve themselves on sites that represent the other point of view. And I've admired some of their observations when they've posted here, so, is that fair?

When there's stupidity, it's not too difficult to find the flaw in the rational.

Why on earth would anyone expect the Democrats to oppose this war? Since the Huffington Post is a Democrat suck-up site, it helps to try to spread the myth that the Democrats really oppose this war and are just too cowardly to stand up and say so. Thus this sort of BS about how now is the time.

The problem is really that the Democrats are paid and funded by the very same people who are making money from this war. Defense industry and oil industry contributions to the Democrats have spiked since mid-2006 when it became obvious the Republicans would lose control of Congress.

Remember that Reid and Pelosi clearly and directly promised that there would be no cuts to war funding immediately after the last election. Google up any of those 'meet the new leaders' interviews from the days after the 2006 election and you can clearly see this.

So, what you've really been seeing for the last year is Reid and Pelosi very strongly and firmly delivering on this promise. They aren't weak. They are strongly doing exactly what they promised they'd do. So why on earth would anyone think that now is the time that they'll do something different?

With liars like the Democrats, always watch their actions and ignore their words. And their actions have been to fully fund this war at every possible opportunity. The rest is all smoke and mirrors and phony political theater to try to con fools into thinking they really oppose the war. Thus we see the 'non-binding' resolutions and Reid deliberately using tactics that require 60 to 67 votes to succeed and ignoring tactics that might succeed with just 41 votes.

The key thing to realize is this. The Democratic Party is not a democracy. It does not operate from a bottom-up fashion. It instead is a top-down organization where all decisions are made at the top. And the top of the Democratic Party is clearly and strongly committed to supporting and continuing this war. When none of the top Democratic candidates would promise to have all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013, they could not have said this more clearly.

Calling on the Democrats to end the war is a waste of time and breath. What we need are new representatives who aren't a part of this lying and corrupt party.

gyptian October 26th, 2007 12:08 pm

"The war cannot possibly "end" without this voter support and governmental authority vested in something other than Republican hands."

This delusion that Democrats are gonna save the world is the biggest lie floating around. All the Democratic candidates pretty much support this war and the next. ...
#
Arvy October 26th, 2007 12:14 pm

Time for the Dems to play hardball?!! You just don't get it, do you?"

right on both counts. the constant call for the democrats to save us on here is becoming silly to the point of ludicrous. the wimpocrats don't want to end the way! we have to have a 3rd party!

@Nader2000:

While proportional represention might be considered an improvement by some, that issue seems more of a straw man than a response to any of the suggestions made here. Was someone recommending that or some other such electoral change requiring constitutional amendments to eliminate what is now almost exclusively corporate representation, proportional or otherwise?

You say that "[w]inner-take-all elections, particularly in a large regionally diverse but not strongly divided nation like the US, make a two-party system inevitable because a third party cannot rise ...[etc.]" Hmmm. Interesting assessment, but rather puzzling to this feeble brain. Other regionally diverse democracies appear to have found ways to accomodate multi-party systems without being too strongly divided(?) in the process. To the contrary, some of them seem to have achieved a reasonably good semblance of "checks and balances" thereby, with which their citizenry, in general, seems quite content.

Admittedly mere ignorant foreigners can't be expected to understand the uniqueness of the U.S. version of the "greatest democracy on earth" and its limitations on multiplicity. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I do either.

Democrats & Hardball Arrrgh har har har.

Pigs will fly.

A must-see clip (1 hour) of Naomi Wolf discussing America's fall into fascism:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/177.html

These are the steps out of a free society she has identified:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (if real, hype it)

2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law

Wolf's conclusion? Impeachment of Bush and Cheney is not enough. Prosecuting (and jailing) them for crimes committed is the only rational solution.

Share this video widely.

A better article would be 'now is the time for American citizens to play hardball with the Democrats.' Its time to stop accepting their lies and their phony excuses.

Come to Denver in August 2008. Make it clear to the Democrats by the presence of millions of American citizens surrounding their convention that we the people of the United States are tired of this and insist that it ends now.

Send every single Democrat that doesn't support an immediate cut-off of war money into retirement. Let the leaders of the Democratic Party look out on the wasteland of seeing all their candidates losing elections in one year.

Send Nancy Pelosi off to retirement and put Cindy Sheehan into her seat in the Congress. And find about 450 more Cindy Sheehan's out there to put into the seats of our Congress.

Its time for the American people to play hardball with the Democrats. Its time to teach the Democrats the lesson that they are there to serve the people of this country, and that when they don't they lose the privilege of representing us. Play hardball with the Democrats in the only terms any politician understands. Send them into defeat in their next election.

One of the problems with the Democrats is the way they view 'coalitions'. The Democrat view of a coalition with progressives is one where the Progressives vote for pro-war, pro-corporate candidates who have a (D) after their name. Then, once in power the pro-war, pro-corporate (D)'s don't ever support anything that progressives support. And they maintain the political system that attempts to place the only choice between competing pro-war, pro-corporate Democrats and Republicans.

All of this relates to the above conversation on proportional representation and campaign finance reform. What to me has always seemed like a fair deal from progressives to the Democrats would be that we'd support the Democrat candidates in exchange for the Democrats using that electoral success to pass a series of changes in American electoral laws exactly like these. Proportional representation for elections. Campaign finance laws that limit the power of big money. Media laws that insist on items like the fairness doctrine and making airtime available to all candidates for free as a condition of their license to get the public airwaves.

The telling point about the Democrats is that they are completely unwilling to do this. Quick, tell me what campaign finance reforms have the Democrats been fighting for since taking control of Congress? None would be the correct answer. All the Dems wanted was for this money to flow to them instead of to the Rethugs. The Dems are as equally uninterested in a free and fair system of elections and the Republicans.

I thought this was the deal that the Greens and the antiwar movement should have insisted on before agreeing to support the Kerry campaign in 2004 or the Dems Congressional campaigns in 2006. Give us something concrete that helps to remove the unfairness of the American political system. If they won't do that, it makes no sense to support any Democrat because even if they win we'll still be the in the same monopolistic, lessor-of-two-evils system in the next elections.

The fact that the Democrats are unwilling to make any compromise on any issue with progressives to form a coalition is telling. The Dems idea of a coalition is that they follow their pro-war, pro-corporate policies and nominate pro-war, pro-corporate candidates and us progressives support them getting nothing in return. And completely off the table and beyond any consideration is the notion of the Democrats doing anything that would make our system of government anything close to fair and free and responsive to the citizens.

Since the Dems refuse to form any real coalition with progressives, the only choice left to progressives is for us to build our own party and run our own candidates.

However much we hate it, it seems the Dems have us over a barrel unless we get a Gore/Nader, Gore/Gravel, Gore/Kucinich, Gore/RFK Jr., Gore/Redford, Gore/Sanders, or something else with Gore in it.