This is an idea off the top of my head. Everyone complains about how "The Democrats" don't represent us adequately, ignoring that WE are "The Democrats" as much as "they" are. But our elected officials do NOT always reflect our views.

But can we train them?

I'm not a fan of recruiting military vets as Democratic candidates, so I look at the Swing State Project's "Band of Brothers" strategy with a very jaundiced eye.

First, the plan smacks of DLCism; the Democratic Leadership Council mistakenly thinks that the key to Democratic victories is to turn the party into "GOP-Lite" ("Great New Taste! Now with 50% less morals!").

Second, it perpetuates the Republican-manufactured notion that Democrats are weak on defense, and will be portrayed by the GOP as an attempt by Democrats to "butch-up" their image via emulating the Republican Party. I can already see Ken Mehlman saying, "Don't be fooled by imitators, vote for the real thing. GOP!"

There are better ways to counter the idiotic idea that the Democratic Party lacks defense credentials; releasing more reports like this one -- authored by House Democrats -- is a good start. Dems need to go on the offensive, attacking the GOP and exposing its hypocrisy, corruption, and ineptitude.

We've all heard the maxim that "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." Personally, I prefer William Faulkner's observation that "the past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."

In 2004, Democrats were unable to successfully defeat a president who, by all measures in politics, should have lost.  Where we should have won by a landslide, we found ourselves the morning of Nov. 3rd dazed, confused, and heartbroken.

It's taken quite a while for me to trust the Democratic Party again. I've seen  much improvement over the past year or so.  But I feel like the Democrats still don't "get it," and that failure to appreciate both the skill of our adversary and our own weakness will result in another stinging defeat in 2006/2008.

Boy oh boy, the media is having a field day with the "growing rift in the Democratic Party" about Iraq.  It's a "growing" rift, you see, which means the GOP (warning! NSFW! link to obnoxious Republican drivel!) is lauding it as yet another sign of the uber-nuanced Dems unable to parse together a coherent stance, even with the President in the 30s.

I understand the media and the dittoheads believing the bullshit about a politically dangerous divide in our party, but we're falling for the ploy too.  What I want to know is why?  Our party is not split on Iraq.  Let's repeat that all together now: Our party is not split on Iraq.  

Via Matt Singer, guest-blogging at Sirotablog, comes two stories from The New Republic: "HOUSE GOP MELTDOWN UPDATE" and "MORE ON THE HOUSE CHAOS."

Essentially, the GOP's moderates are fed-up with their extreme right-wing leaders, have rebelled on a crucial vote, and are now discussing replacing Blunt, Hastert, et al. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have kept House Dems united, which just makes life more difficult for the Republican leadership.

I really wish I could watch the heated exchanges taking place among GOP caucus members; I'd bring popcorn and a soda and make a day of it.

For those Republicans still trying to claim that Tuesday's elections weren't about Bush, the latest AP-Ipsos poll proves that the rejection of GOP candidates was very much about Bush: