LMAO. Too good!

The Dem’s best on-the-ground move was learning from and emulating the 2004 GOP GOTV efforts. Nothin’ like levelling the playing field to make it a match! They did a good job there of not getting suckered twice.

That’s good sh*t.

But I already have kids, thus my seed is contanminating the earth as we speak. In fact, I’ve been training my 3-year old to over-generalize and stereotype in a quest to create a new tribe. I think I’ll call us the Centrites.

Usually, it is a simple fact, you are retarded, but you have reached new levels of retardation. You are almost a vegetable…nay, you are almost a mineral — nothing more than a bulbous fleshy lump emitting wrongness.

Please, kill yourself immediately so your seed can not contaminate and ruin that portion of humanity that has managed to stand erect and use fire and the wheel.

(I’m not sure what you said, but I wanted in on the fun.)

>>

Never have truer words been spoken. Allan, you are ususally wrong due to your penchant for stereotypes and over generalizations. I guess thats what happens when you try to create another tribal group of us against them. I believe in the middle, just not your articulation of it. Your general aim seems to be just another group that deems itself special (rationale) and looks down their nose at others. In this case, its the Democrats but tommorrow it could be the Republicans. Backhanded complements are not complements.

Rick

For several years the dems have been pointing their fingers at the repubs saying “don’t blame me – it’s their fault and we’re powerless to prevent it” (sigh). Now we finally get to find out if they’re full of substance or fluff. Should be interesting.

I am a little optimistic as many new dems reflect a mixture of the best ideas from both parties.

You make is seem that allowing part members to have differing opinions is a sign of weak leadership. Forcing everyone to walk lock step behind the leadership is how you get bad ideas. I think 6 years under Bush would have made that clear.

1) that was one of many plans … there was nothing adopted by all the candidates. Each was free to run on his/her own ideas

2) sure, but they did so with discipline and only where it helped … that’s unusual for the Dems

3) Hey, if the netroots had success, I’m glad they were able to do it without drawing the kind of negative attention they’ve received in the past. But they certainly didn’t get much national attention (like they did with Lamont v. Lieberman), and that’s what I was referring to.

4) The candidates were not all pledged to the plan you mention and were free to expouse a large variety of ideas — there might be A plan but that doesn’t make it THE plan for Democrats. There is no THE plan and that didn’t hurt the party at all.

Anyway, I’m looking at all this on a macro-level not a micro one — how the election played on the national stage and in the national media. The key I think is that good candidates made up for a weak party.

1.) They have ideas. The first 100 hours. I’m sure you must have heard aobut it.

2.) Their leadership was campaining heavily. More so than their Republican counterparts in many cases.

3.) Netroots had an amazing success rate this election. They won several races that the Democratic leadership ignored and several others came amazingly close. Also, they built up the infastructure for 2008 in many areas.

4.) They have a plan for Iraq. It’s 528 pages long.

A plan for Iraq is something IMHO that doesn’t exist for EITHER party. The Republican “We Must Win” plan isn’t a plan. In fact, the Democratic, “Phased withdrawal” is more specific that “Must Win.”

Let’s face it, “phased withdrawal”, at least, implies inquiry and planning on what to do. “Win” is just (surprise) cheerleading