This is a, to use Stoller's phrase, radical proposal. I'm not a techy type, so I'll leave a lot of that discussion to the many people at TPM who are much better on that issue than I am. What I do know a bit about is government and transparency. The lack of transparency in our government, particularly over the last 8 years is one of, if not the, fundamental reasons that we are where we are today.

A lack of transparency in a democracy leads to increased voter apathy, and policy disasters because there is never a hope that the American public can vet those policies. Transparency is one of the core reasons some political scientists have proffered that democracies aren't as warlike as non-democracies. It is also the central complaint about institutions like the WTO and the World Bank that have decimated populations and the enviroment because of trade/development policies (respectively).

There is an opening in the American consciousness at this moment to try something new. It is critical that we take advantage of this moment in this election, so that we don't just roll back the barriers between our government and the people to pre-Bush levels.

We need to take advantage of this moment to drop a devestatingly large hammer on the barriers that keep information from the American public.

I do believe that Obama just said he'd like to take the first swing.

My results weren't all that surprising, or all that interesting, except for one thing. It turns out I agree with Hillary on quite a lot, but I just don't care. My issue with her isn't that she says the wrong things, or that we have some huge chasm between us politically that means I can't support her (as is true with the entire GOP field). My issue with her is simply that I don't trust her to act on any of those issues with anything approximating conviction.

Last October, when I was discussing this campaign with another strong Democrat, she did not invoke the same vitriol that she does now, and he's asked me more than a few times what changed. Because something did change, I went from being able to support her, even though she wasn't my first choice, to deciding that I wouldn't vote for her, even if she got the nod. Granted, if I lived in a swing state, I probably would have made a slightly different decision in the latter instance, but I don't, and there is no reason I have to check the box for a Democrat I don't agree with, but that still leaves the question open: What changed?

What is it about Hillary that makes some of the most dedicated members of the Democratic party cringe and decide that they won't vote for her no matter what?

It's not what she says on the issues, objectively she sounds fine on them. Not as far left as Edwards, not as open to new ideas as Obama, but let's be honest, she's fine. What she says is basically okay. So why can't I just be a good Democrat and toe the party line with her?

It comes down to two things. I don't trust her to do what she says, and I am flat out resentful that she is in this race. I'm even more resentful that she's the annointed favorite. Don't get me wrong, I have pragmatic reasons as well, I think that she has negative coattails and destroys the Congressional majority, I don't like the idea of the presidency being held by two families for at least two decades, etc. But those are not offensive reasons I can't support her if she gets the nod.

The reason I can't support her is anger. I feel like she's a sub-par candidate in a year where we could elect anyone we wanted merely by nominating them, and given amazing options like Edwards and Obama we are on the verge of throwing that away and giving the nod to a calculating DLCer who can say what we want to hear all she wants, but has never actually delivered on any of it. She's perfectly happy to rob the rest of us of a true liberal progressive candidate as long as it lands her on Pennsylvania Avenue.

It's sad really, and could backfire tremendously, because I'm not the only one, and the luck of geography that doesn't have me in a swing state doesn't apply to a lot of the other Democrats who feel the same way. I'm the vote she shouldn't have to work for. In fact, I'm the vote that should be working for her, and it turns out I'm one she can't win no matter what she says.

This isn't an issue of electability. This isn't the same argument those in the Kerry camp tried to make against Dean, because at the end of the day everyone knew that if Dean got the nod, the party would vote for him. You cannot say the same thing about HRC, and I for one think that should give us all pause.

This is pure insanity.

So, Karl Rove is retiring, I'll do my best to stiffle a tear.

Does anyone know if there is a way to declare an international holiday?

Winners:

Kucinich

Say what you will about the man, he was on a roll. The line about having already dug through the earth to China was pure gold, and he managed to outshine the presumptive favorite of the AFL-CIO crowd: John Edwards. Anything Edwards could do, Kucinich could do better, and funnier, I might add.

Obama

In the interest of full disclosure, this is my candidate, but he came into his own tonight. He went toe-to-toe with Hillary, Dodd and Biden, and came out looking to be the true candidate of change. There was a slight flub with the "President of Canada" remark, where I groaned, but other than that, he was money. He seems to have finally been able to reduce some of his complex and thoughtful meandering into some very powerful sound bites. Additionally, his exchange over Pakistan may very well have turned that little episode into a win for him.

Neutral:

Edwards

I like John a lot, if Obama doesn't get the nod, I hope it goes to him, additionally, I thought he had a pretty good night and I'm tempted to put him in the winners category. There is a small problem with that. Edwards should be the presumptive frontrunner with the AFL-CIO. Despite the fact that this was Obama's turf, this is his crowd. He did very well against Hillary, and his answers were awesome, but he let himself get out shone with his natural audience by Kucinich. That's problematic for him at this juncture, and makes me lean towards tonight being a draw for him.

Clinton

She didn't have to go on the offensive tonight because Dodd and Biden did it for her (running for Vice President much?). Her answers, as always, were polished, knowledgeable to the point, and most importantly cautious. Not a great idea in what seems to be shaping up as a change election. Additionally, she got served by Obama on the question of Pakistan...Twice. Once when he chastised those who authorized the war, and again when he accused her and Dodd of trying to keep important foreign policy decisions away from the American public.

Richardson

He didn't make a lot of gaffes, but he didn't shine either. In fact, when trying to come up with Richardson's big moment in the debate, I'm sort of drawing a blank, which leads me to label him as a draw. Keep in mind, at this stage, a draw for Richardson isn't fatal, but he needs to make some more moves to crack into the top tier. Were it closer to January, and were he not in double digits in Iowa, this would be a loss for him.

Loser(s):

Dodden

They became lap dogs for status quo Washington tonight. They allowed Hillary to avoid making attacks, because they did it for her. Additionally, they were indistinguishable, at a time when then need to start making a brand for themselves, they both wilted into obscurity, and were only noticeable when they were attacking Obama and Edwards. Good if you're running for Clinton's Veep, bad if you're running for President. It's a pity too, because Biden had a shot at one point to score points on Obama (the President/Prime Minister of Canada flub mentioned above) but was so subtle with it most Americans wouldn't have caught it. Bad news when you're in single digits in both national and state polls.

Bean

Boren

Boyd (FL)

Capuano

Cuellar

Edwards

Ellsworth

Gordon

Herseth Sandlin

Kaptur

Klein (FL)

Lampson

Murtha

Obey

Peterson (MN)

Ross

Sestak

Skelton

Smith (WA)

Snyder

Space

Tanner

Yes, I understand that some of these Representatives are in conservative districts and needed to throw their constituents a bone. Nick Lampson, for example, in Tom DeLay's old stomping grounds is surely in a tough spot there.

Jack Murtha, however, is not. He won re-election by over 20% last cycle. There is no justification for him to rubber stamp the lunacy that is this Administration.

Or what of Collin Peterson? He may be in a conservative leaning district, but he bested his last "opponent" (I use the term loosely) by over 40%.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Who are these people, and what are they doing lending anything approximating credibility to what Ana Marie Cox has so aptly named, Dickistan?

Rahm's Amendment failed by 9 votes.

Nice job, Dems. This is yet another stellar example of why your approval rating is hovering in the neighborhood of Bush.