[ohio_eric]

The clean sweep is all over but the shouting. Webb has won in Virginia. Nice to see George Allen who was once called a young Ronald Reagan is now dead weight politically. Maybe him and Santorum can run off and get married.

[Durero]

Originally Posted by ohio_eric

Maybe him and Santorum can run off and get married.

[The Dark Wolf]

My joy is complete.

[7 Dying Trees]

Very very pleasing

[nitelightboy]

Yep, now our allies don't have to worry about us delcaring war on them and bombing the crap out of them for no reason. At least we have enough Democrats in power to keep Bush in line.

[Drew]

It ain't over till the fat lady sings, as they say, but sounds to me like she's warming up in the wings.

I'm still a little apprehensive - if the Dems have the House AND the Senate, on one hand we can shut down the worst of Bush's agenda, but on the other it's sort of a "New Democrat" coalition, and it's not as firmly unified behind any particular principle as might be ideal - we have pro war Dems, anti-war Dems, mildly socially conservative Dems, arch-liberal Dems... There's a lot of room for potential fracturing. I'd feel a lot better if we didn't have a 1-vote lead in the senate, because BushCo HAVE to be aware that all they have to do is convince one Democrat to vote against the party to shut down anything we might try to do.

The house is pretty safe, but unless the Democrats really embrace a bipartisan outlook and convince the Senate GOP of this, then it's going to be fairly easy for Bush to fuck with them and exploit party divisions. We need to produce an unified front ASAP, and convince the Senate GOP that we're more willing to work with them to promote America's interests than Bush is willing to compromise, otherwise we're going to come off as unorganized and obstructionist come '08.

[The Dark Wolf]

I personally don't think people will care so much that the Dems, in this situation, would potentially be obstructionist.

While people seem to want a clear direction in Iraq, and they want some sort of financial leadership in government, and a departure from the corruption and villany of the GOP, other than that, this election was less a "mandate" for Democrats as a referendum on BushCo policies. I think people, apart from the main points I illustrated, WANT the Dems to be obstructionist as far as Bush and Friends are concerned. It's why they won. To be a check on the GOP arrogance, corruption, and hubris. Even if much doesn't get accomplished (I don't expect it will, but one never knows) people will generally be satsified just to see Bush have his agenda blocked for once, instead of a rubber-stamp Congress handing him the Vaseline.

[Drew]

But the risk, Bob, is that the Dems have made it clear that they don't just want to stop Bush - they want to accomplish a progressive agenda, too. If they suceed in shutting down the worst of Bush's excesses, but also fail across the board in their "Hundred Hours" campaign, then they'll be a significantly easier target come '08.

And, while we're on the subject, let me just toss this out there - I'm not sure what the Dems presidential odds are in '08. Honestly, at this point in time we don't have a good candidate, Hillary is too hated (though, according to a great article in this month's Atlantic, she's won over the Senate), and Obama is too new, and neither really has a platform just yet. And, let's be realistic, the fact that Allen lost by as little as he did tells us that the odds of a black man or a white woman winning the presidency with even a strong, fleshed-out agenda are certainly stacked. I think the best course of action for the Democrats is to build a stronger lead in Congress for '08, and demonstrate that they're willing to work with, if not Bush, then the GOP, and accept the fact that there's a good chance we may have a moderate GOP president come '08.

Sure, it's far too early to call, but that's my gut feeling here. We can shut down Bush, but only if we show we're willing to work with the GOP elsewhere.

[The Dark Wolf]

Originally Posted by Drew

Sure, it's far too early to call, but that's my gut feeling here. We can shut down Bush, but only if we show we're willing to work with the GOP elsewhere.

Ah, D! I've been saying this exact same thing the last few days. Great minds think alike.

Isolate Bush, but work with the GOP. There's many, many GOP politicians who are sick of being dominated by Bush and Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, and all that divisive bullshit. They want to set their own standard, and many feel Bush has really betrayed the Reagan legacy (who did quite well working with a Dem Congress, might I add. Reagan also got along rather well with Democrats.)

That's the way to build a strong platform. After all, Bush will just veto anything they come up with. But if they can isolate him, and get other GOP Congressmen aboard, who might be interested in showing what THEY TOO can accomplish... shit, it's a winning strategy.

Block Bush, but extend the olive branch to Congressional Republicans.

Besides, Drew... if the Dems can accomplish (or at least be seen to really, really be trying (then Bush appears obstructionist)) the 3 goals I listed, which I feel are probably the 3 main Democrat ideas Americans want to see implemented, well, by recent standards, they would be considered extremely "progressive!"

[Drew]

I missed your three points, Bob - are they in a different thread?

I'm not going to write off a Democratic president just yet, Bob. I think, if Hillary were to bow out gracefully (as she's too popular within the party not to cause a major rift) this term, then Richardson or Biden could launch reasonably plausible bids, especially the former if North Korea becomes a major concern. However, of the two, I'd focus on getting a lock on Congress and showing you're capable of working WITH the GOP to mutual advantage, than throwing all your eggs in the '08 Presidential Election basket.