Here's a good article about what Howard Dean should do in order to prepare the party for the 2006 midterms.

http://alternet.org/story/21601/

The New York Times chose John Tierney to replace William Safire. From what I've read about him, he's no good. Here are two links about him:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503050003#5
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411290010

Looks like we may have a primary battle on the horizon. Personally I think we, the online community, should support the secretary of state and not an anti-choicer. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/national/28abort.html

I'm on my school's debate team and we have a debate next week on social security privatization. I would really appreciate it if anyone had links to websites and sources regarding the issue. I'm taking the position against privatization of course. I would like in particular articles about how Bush's private accounts would not solve the problem and articles taking issue with the fact that there is a crisis to begin with.

Thanks for your help.

Does anyone have a complete list on which state delegation is backing which candidate. I know Texas is for frost and I know FL, Miss, OK, WA, VT and Utah are for Dean. But aside from that have there been any more endorsements?

I've decided to post some "mainstream" media news coverage on the DNC chair race that is pretty fair and balanced and not cable TV. Turn on your speakers, these are audio stuff from NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4275978

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4458089

I would like to clarify a previous diary I wrote"Being moderate is a loser." Many people seem to have misunderstood what I wrote and I would like to explain. What I meant was this: Running centrist/moderate campaigns are loser campaigns. I meant that if we run campaigns like that we will lose, that the moderate strategy is a loser strategy. I did not mean that moderates are losers.
I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I already posted this a comment but I want everyone to see it. Sorry if this pisses you off that I'm posting it again.

What we have now is the Republicans moving to the right. Some Dems moving to the right. We must remember that we are leaving out 50 percent of the country that didn't vote. Why don't they vote? Because they feel they can't make a difference and are disillusioned  with the two party system which they feel is not looking out for them. If we present liberal policies that they can connect to then we can get this large segment of the population voting for us and creaming the Republicans.

 Plus, anyone who thinks that we lose by being liberal has disregarded the past two elections. Al Gore and George Bush had very similar ideas. Tax cuts, free trade, balancing the budget, pro-death penalty, pro-mandatory sentencing. Al gore didn't campaign on any universal healthcare system. He supported the failed war on drugs. He worded with Bill Clinton to cut funding for many social programs.

This year, we had John Kerry. Didn't talk about the envirement. Voted for the Patriot Act. Voted for the war. Pro-defense spending. Didn't run on universal healthcare. He voted for NAFTA and many other free trade agreements. He didn't advocate a pro-choice view enough during the second debate, instead giving the "I'm personally against it" crap. John Kerry was pro "war on terror."

Some people must be ignorant to think that we lost this election and in 2000 by being too liberal. Furthermore, all those senate seats we lost in the south, well all our candidates there were moderate/conservative Democrats. Then we have Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama and Russ Feingold who all shared tons of votes with Bush.