Think the Bush Administration is done trying open new fronts in using scare tactics in the service of war profiteering?  Think again.

In yet another display of mindboggling display of fearmongering coupled with greed, the Bush Administration is now now telling Europe that it needs to buy American missile defense systems--or else.  From the Los Angeles Times:

Among the memes this election cycle that are so patently stupid that they makee me want to beat my head against a wall is the idea put forth by the Clinton campaign that "Obama isn't vetted."  Here's just one example of Hillary Clinton herself pushing this idea:

"I’ve been tested. I’ve been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, ‘Well why didn’t we think of that?’ or ‘What, my goodness, what does that mean?’" she said. "I am going to be able to go up against any Republican who they nominate."

One of the cardinal rules of politics is that a candidate must frame themselves positively before their opponent has a chance to do so.  The corollary to that rule is that one should attempt to paint a negative picture of one's opponent before they have the opportunity to cast themselves in a positive light.

These rules are particularly applicable in the general election battle against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.  The conventional wisdom is that the Republican Party currently has an advantage because they are largely unified behind a candidate, while the Democratic Party is still in a bitter fight to determine its own nominee.  McCain, the thinking goes, is in a position to concentrate on the general election and begin framing the debate, while Democrats are still stuck fighting the primary.

I know the Presidential candidate wars are fun and all--and certainly lots of us are looking forward to watching the election returns come in from the Potomac Primary this evening.

But as we focus on the fight for who will headline the Democratic Party this year, let's not forget about the many other heroic Democrats downballot who are fighting against tough odds to take over Republican seats this year.  As the FISA fight reminds us, much of the promises made by Hillary and Obama will be for naught without increased majorities to work with in Congress.

One such netroots hero is on the other side of the country from the Beltway that all the pundits are watching tonight: Charlie Brown, who is fighting to wrest CA-04 in northeast California from Republican control.

Am I a cult member?  Jake Tapper seems to think so.  The Guardian seems to think so.  Many commenters here seem to think so.

One must, of course, admit that there has been more than a whiff of the euphoria of fervent aspiration among Obama supporters.  It is certainly a phenomenon, a movement that has rarely been paralleled in American politics.  Obama's message, his speeches, his policy platforms, and his personal charisma have been deeply inspiring to millions across America.  But is there more to it than that?  Is it about Obama--or is it about something else entirely?

We're all here because politics is in our blood.  Like an addiction, it consumes our spare time, our lunch breaks, our hours stolen from other productive work, our leisure, our weekends, everything.  DailyKos and other venues in the progressive blogosphere are a fix for us: a way to escape the mindless blather and corporate narratives of the traditional media, to learn new things, and to remind ourselves that in a sea of insanity there is a happy place where people really do still care about progressive values and the common good.

But today of all days is a day to leave that happy place and serve that addiction in other ways.  We are living a momentous time in American history: a nearly national primary on both sides of the aisle in a wide-open presidential race with no clear heir apparent and often divisive ideological distinctions in both parties in both substance and style.  This will be an election year to be remembered.  Today, of all days, if you have a horse in this race or a dog in this fight, is a day to get off the blogs and volunteer for GOTV.

Among the silliest memes coming from progressive opponents of the Obama campaign is the notion that because Obama preaches a message of inclusivity that welcomes independents and Republicans into the fold, he is somehow a Third Way Centrist looking to provide group hugs to the Republican Party.

It is no wonder that many find the prospect of reaching out to Republicans distasteful: after all, the country has endured 7 years of Republican policies under George Bush that have wrecked our economy, bankrupted the nation, sent thousands of brave men and women to die in a reckless war, alienated our friends while emboldening our enemies, lost an entire American city, and generally sold out our children's future.  And that doesn't even get into the ignominies suffered by all Americans under the conservative, neoliberal policies of the previous 20 years before Bush at the nadir of progressivism in America.

It's almost an eerie feeling watching George W. Bush stand up to give the State of the Union address tonight.  With all the attention that has been devoted to the historic primary campaigns in both Parties and the reality-show atmosphere that has accompanied them, it has been almost too easy to forget that a man named George W. Bush still holds the Executive seat in the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Too easy to forget that Dick Cheney, standing behind the Bush's lectern with the crooked smile and sinister avuncular presence of a grand puppetmaster, still wields power from his undisclosed bunker when not presiding as the head of the Senate.

Of the many curious statements that have been made in defense of the use of smears and dirty tricks by Democrats against other Democrats, none is stranger than the idea that we "need a candidate who will do what it takes to win."  The oft-seen converse of this statement is that a Democrat who cannot withstand an assault of Rovian tactics during the primary election, does not deserve to be a candidate in the general.

Both of these statements boil down to a single mantra that has gained a lot of traction among those willing to do absolutely anything and everything to beat Republicans regardless of the cost.  That mantra is "Win, Then Govern."  Whatever it takes.

By now many here have seen the multiple accounts here and here alleging outright cheating by Clinton operatives at Nevada caucuses in Clark County.

By now many have also seen that the Clinton campaign told at least some of its volunteers in a written document that "It's not illegal unless they tell you so."

There are many in the blogosphere who are so terrified by the prospect of four more years of Republican rule in the White House that they would be willing to put just about anyone with a "D" by their name into the Oval Office.

For these people, the logical formulae used to make their judgments about candidates go something like this:

1. If "R" = "in office", then "D" (who can beat "R") = Good.  This is the the "More Democrats" formula.

2. If "Bad D" = "in office" AND "Bad D" is not threatened by "R", then "Better D" = Good.  This is the "Better Democrats" formula.

[UPDATE: here's a link to yet another person alleging that Obama supporters were being excluded from the caucus by Hillary partisans in the role of election officials:

[UPDATE 2: Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe has now made the accusation in the Atlantic, with over 200 separate allegations of irregularities at caucus sites.  See also this diary by LV Pol Girl, and these diaries by hekebolos and by RunnerAAA].

[UPDATE: By "Howard Dean", understand that I mean not just the man himself, but his supporters and ideology.  Whether Dean himself stays as head under a new administration or not, the point remains the same regarding his adherents and his ideology.]

Lost in the dialectic that oftens takes place here and throughout the progressive blogosphere between the "my candidate is the saviour of planet earth" and the "can't we all just get along?" camps, is the fact that both camps fundamentally misjudge why this Democratic primary is so important.

This primary is neither about the individual candidates nor about unifying behind a single Democrat to defeat the Republicans in November.  Instead, this battle--in its own way not dissimilar to the conflict being waged in the Republican party--is a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.  It is similar to the battle that was waged in 2004 between Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt (and, to a lesser extent, John Kerry).

I refuse to go down without fighting.  I refuse.  It's going to get tough from here--and this is where we determine who gets going.  I refuse not to get going.

I refuse to get sucked into rejoicing at the overwhelming Democratic turnout, in which all the Republican votes combined could not match those of Hillary and Obama alone.  A lot can happen in 10 months.

I want to thank Chris Dodd and the entire Dodd campaign tonight.  The final showing in the caucuses was disappointing to say the least, but there hasn't been a candidate in the race who has shown stronger leadership, more spine, and more actual opposition to Republican and Cheney Administration legislation during the course of this campaign.

The Dodd campaign has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of tonight.  The Dodd campaign was perhaps the closest campaign to espousing the values and tactics we ask for here on DailyKos: Senator Dodd hired Tim Tagaris, a longtime netroots star.  He pulled out all the stops to prevent Harry Reid from capitulating on FISA and on telecom amnesty.  And he campaigned courageously and tirelessly to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, ignoring the pabulum and platitudes--even the populist ones--that were the hallmarks of the top three Democrats in the field.

Like many progressives across the blogosphere, I've been torn on which candidate to support for the Democratic primary.  It's been a very difficult decision, not in small part because we have some extremely good candidates this year, and it pains me to think that any of them will be forced to actually lose this election.  Honestly, I wish they could all win to one degree or another, as each one represents a piece of the Democratic/progressive puzzle.

First, John Edwards is a wonderful candidate with an outstanding message, and the strongest, most outspoken progressive populist we have.  Richardson is a very successful governor with great executive experience.  Dodd has a special place in my heart for his strident defense of the Constitution--I just wish he would get more media traction.  Biden has run a very human, funny campaign, and his foreign policy platforms are actually my favorite of all the candidates.  I love Kucinich's unabashed stances on holding the Bush/Cheney regime accountable.  Gravel's "mix it up and do something different" theme is important in the overall debate.  Even Clinton, whom I have savaged in my past writings, has a great voting record and the sort of fierce discipline on the campaign trail it takes to succeed as a candidate and CiC.

In an open thread today, kos intelligently and reasonably encouraged Democrats to force Bush to follow through on his threat to veto all the bills we ostensibly want to pass in support of the American people.

You know all those vetoes that Bush is threatening (60 or 70 at this point)? Well, make him veto. Every single time.

It'll make it much easier to create contrasts with Republicans.

"You want to end the war? Health care for the children of working families? A government that doesn't torture or spy on you? All that other good stuff that Bush keeps vetoing? Well you know what to do."

Instead, Democrats cave to the GOP at the mere threat of a veto, hence becoming complicit in all the warmed over crap Congress is dishing to the American people. People don't know that Republicans are obstructing the Democratic agenda. They just now that Congress has failed to deliver on the promises of the 2006 campaign season.