Truthout:

Naftali Bendavid, a journalist who spent months inside the DCCC operation and at Emanuel's side, reported a heated conversation between Dean, Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) regarding election strategies of the DCCC and the DNC... According to Bendavid, Emanuel said to Dean, "You're nowhere, Howard. Your field plan is not a field plan. That's f*cking bullsh*t ... I know your field plan - it doesn't exist. I've gone around the country with these races. I've seen your people. There is no plan, Howard."

    How Emanuel came to his decisions about which candidates to support against Democratic opponents is known only to Emanuel and his staff. Emanuel declined direct comment on this story. But an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq...

Emanuel, himself a congressman from the neighboring 5th District of Illinois, apparently tried to recruit six different candidates to run against Cegelis... Eventually, Emanuel found a candidate who lived just outside the district, Tammy Duckworth... Duckworth was not a proponent of a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq... Expedited withdrawal from Iraq was a main plank of the Cegelis campaign platform.

It also details the pattern of interference in Florida's 13th District: Jan Schneider vs. Christine Jennings, California's 11th District: Jerry McNerney vs. Steve Filson, Florida's 16th District: David Lutrin vs. Tim Mahoney, all with withdrawal from Iraq the central issue.

The sad truth is that there is no significant difference between the two parties.

I hear Obama and HRC talking about keeping forces there in perpetuity, and I see reports that the military isn't meeting recruitment goals. The war czar has already introduced the concept of reinstituting the draft.

Unless we manage to get a Kucinich or Gravel outsider-type candidate in, that's going to happen.

2+2=4, and the Democrats have a pretty proven track record when it comes to drafts. I have no doubt that the Republicans will do it ASAP, but I don't trust the Dems not to either.

Don't let any apologist for the war run as a Democrat - ever again.

Democrat In Name Only - placeholder for true Democrat.

Party loyalty worked well in the Soviet Union - is that what you had in mind?

End political prostitution now!

Lottery for senator! Lottery for representative!

Few men or women elected in our history--whether executive or legislative, state or national--have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq.

Get us out of Iraq.
Get us out of Iraq.
Get us out of Iraq.
Get us out of Iraq.
Get us out of Iraq.
Get us out of Iraq.
[repeat 1000 times]
Get us out of Iraq.

If you want to be re-elected next year... Get us out of Iraq.

Appealing to, criticizing, pressuring, attacking, etc., Dems to stop funding the war is about as likely to make them do this as is persuing the same approach to make them impeach Bush and/or Cheney. It won't happen, and is a pointless and futile exercize in frustration that will just waste time and effort and get us nowhere--and cause much unnecessary rancor within the party that COULD hurt us in '08--a la '68. And I'm not sure why people persist in believing otherwise.

The ONLY way to end the war as long as BushCo control the White House--just as the ONLY way to impeach BushCo--is by getting enough Repubs to break with BushCo. And the ONLY way to do that is by applying political pressure on them with respect to their reelection prospect in '08 (and perhaps '10).

Go after the weakest Repubs on their stance on the war and the other horrible BushCo policies and make them choose between continuing to stand with BushCo and getting reelected. And as Chris Bowers wrote about recently, there are tons of such Repubs at this point. The more of them that we can get to break with BushCo, the more possible it be for Dems to do what they need to do (because it'll be increasingly politically easy for them to do it without fear of electoral repercussions, however sadly misplaced at present).

Clearly, the "right" way to do this is for Dems to grow a spine and do the right thing. And just as clearly, they are NOT going to do this no matter how much we scream at them. So I say forget about the "right" approach and go for the smart and more promising one, however unsatisfying it might be--attack the Repubs, and make them break with BushCo. And do it in the only way that speaks to them, electorally. Make them sweat bullets in fear that if they continue to stand with BushCo, they will lose their seats (and they know that they will). Forced to choose between unity and survival, I've no doubt that many will break (and many of those who don't will lose their seats, a win-win either way).

I'm not saying that we shouldn't go after the most unprincipled and shameful sellout Dems, such as Baird, or stop criticizing Dems who say all the right things but fail to DO all the right things. We should. No Dem who fails to do their job should escape our criticism--and in some cases much more than criticism, e.g. a primary challenge. But I do believe that the thrust of our attacks should be focused on Repubs, who are clearly politically vulnerable and far more liable to attempts to dislodge them from their present stances. Dems know that they almost certainly will increase their majorities in both houses and likely win the presidency in '08, so they have no real political reason to change. Repubs, though, are going to be fighting for their political lives, and should be far more promising targets for our attacks.