It looks like the Edwards contingent has already posted similar information but I procede anyway.

Try all this on for size:

   "...The choice we must make is as important as it is clear.

   It is a choice between looking back and looking forward.

   A choice between the way we've always done it and the way we could do it if we dared.

   A choice between corporate power and the power of democracy.

   Between a corrupt and corroded system and a government that works for us again.

   It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle.

   It is the establishment elites versus the American people..."

Barack Obama in '08.

There, I've typed it.

Being one who would rather see Montana Governor Brian Schwetizer or Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold in the White House (neither of which are going to happen in 2008), I have settled on Illinois Senator Barack Obama as my choice.

Here's why:

So Joe Lieberman's on-the-ground 'troops'--nicknamed Lieberkidz--surrounded a bus containing Ned Lamont and, for a time, refused to let anyone depart the bus.

(http://tinyurl.com/yjeeyv)

   <"...They started out at the street, holding signs and chanting, a clot of 25 to 30 thick-necked Young Republican types.  Then they moved up the driveway to the Senior Center and blocked the bus. They formed a noisy, chanting mob around the bus door and blocked anyone from getting out.  Eventually Ned and some others managed to push out through the crowd, but the noise only increased and the LieberYouth pressed tighter, chanting so that the news cameras and microphones couldn't pick up a word Ned was saying. It was an ugly and intense little scene. The few seniors who had come outside were rushed back in by the Percival Smith staff. I did manage to ask one bright-eyed little senior lady what she thought of all this, but she just pointed at her temple and twirled her finger in the universal sign for "crazy" and then she was whisked away by a staffer...">

I just finished reading Ron Suskind's latest book  "The One Percent Doctrine" http://tinyurl.com/y6hsnl

I would call it a must-read for those wanting some inside glimpses on many of the Bush Administration players and the background on a number of events and decisions. I'm going to break my notes and thoughts into different posts this week: today is Suskind and Bush, tomorrow will be Suskind and Cheney, followed by Suskind and Tenet and concluding with Suskind and Miscellaneous. Each post will focus on material in Suskind's book about that individual.

Also, as disgusted with the behavior and actions perpetuated by the Bush-aholics as much as anyone, the book did remind me of the hundreds of decisions government officials have to make every week---life and death ones. It also vividly brought to life that there is a deadly enemy whose threats are real and that there are numerous CIA/FBI workers and others who have dedicated their lives--100-hour-plus workweeks--in trying to keep America and American safe. They are to be commended.

Russ Feingold has done it again. First, he absolutely nails it with his performance on the June 25th edition of "Meet The Press," speaking extemporaneously and vividly about the beliefs and values of the Democratic Party like no other Democrat has done on national television for some time.

Well, he did it again this weekend. Appearing Sunday on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Feingold succinctly slams traitorous Joe Lieberman but, more importantly, makes the point and reiterates that invading Iraq and fighting Al-Qaeda's terrorism have no commonality.

Here are some excerpts from Joe Lieberman's September 3, 1998 speech in the U.S. Senate about Bill Clinton's personal failings. I make no attempt to defend Clinton--what he did was wrong and not acknowleging such for so long was wrong. I'll follow with my concern and part of the crux of the argument against the retention of Joe Lieberman as U.S. Senator--that Lieberman has failed to address, let alone condemn, the moral failings of George Bush.

Hillary Clinton...should be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee OR predicated on the Democrats gaining the majority in the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton...should focus on emulating Ted Kennedy, the most effective U.S. Senator in many decades?

Well, in a recent Jeffrey Goldberg-written New Yorker article headlined "Central Casting -The Democrats think about who can win in the midterms ­and in 2008," anecdotal evidence is presented that doesn't bode well for the Democratic Party if Hillary is the 2008 presidential nominee. Here are some cut-n-pastes:

   Hillary Clinton is a sensitive subject for (Claire) McCaskill. After the governor's race two years ago, many Missouri Democrats assumed that in 2008 McCaskill would make another run against Matt Blunt, the Republican who defeated her. But she has told people in Missouri and in Washington that a ticket led by Clinton would be fatal for many Democrats on the ballot, and that a Clinton candidacy would rule out her chance to win the governorship. "The Democratic Party has to look at candidates who can be competitive in all fifty states," she said...

Toss the lofty rhetoric in the rubbish--check that--recycling bin. Or at the very least, employ the correct language to connect with the appropriate audience. To get those so-called disaffected Democrats back to the fold, dispose of 32-paragraph 'soundbites,' discard sound and sight of ANY and ALL statistics and flowcharts, deep six the PowerPoint presentations...

Go for the visceral, reach for the head, but more importantly, the heart. Offer transparent either/or propositions that paint a vivid philosophical difference. Very simplistically, here is how ANY and ALL Democrats should campaign.

   * should our government benefit the politicians in it and their friends or work for you?