Being a life long Democrat, I want the party to go back to what it was in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, back when they were for the working people. What I do not want to see them do is return to the 80's and 90's when they started giving away everything the extreme Liberal left Wing could think of. I do not want them to give away our benifits to  illegal's or those who did not earn the benifits. It did not take long till our citizens had a hard time getting benifits because there were too many free loaders taking the benifits from those who worked for them.

I want the National Partry to come back to every community in the country and help us build our party back up and give our candidates support. Here in the 5th District the National Party as well as the VA Democratic Party fell short of supporting our candidate. Our candidate had great people working on his staff, but they could have had a little better guidance getting the message out. The Party left us out of there main stream highly effective campaigning, basiclly telling us to learn our own way.

When I get these thank you notes from some groups it makes me sick since the election is over and they tell me they gave money to Hillary Clinton and by passed our candidate it makes me sick. Hillary was never in trouble and had a war chest of money. There were other candidates who were not in trouble but they gave them money also. Our candidate who was working his ass off never got anything. Why? Because early on it was considered a loser, so why put money into it. Well without money and guidance it will be a loser. It makes me sick how the State and National as well as the district left some candidates hanging out in the wind, because they made up their minds early.

You asked where do we go next? I think it is in getting organized and never decide ahead of time who is a winner or a loser. If the Heads of this party need something for an eye opener just look at the word "Macaca" and the victory it produced.

NEVER WRITE ANY CANDIDATE OFF. IT'S NOT OVER TILL TILL IT'S OVER.

There's no question that the national Democrats now need to deliver.  I think they have a real opportunity to create a long-term 10 to 15 year realignment--provided that they govern from the center.

In order to be successful the Democrats need to steer clear of social issues in the near-term.  The emphasis should be on economic and national security issues. 

If ordinary people are optimistic about the future and have economic opportunities, the divisive wedge issues seem to lose their potency.  When there's instability, that's when people start looking for scapegoats (e.g. targetting immigrants, gays, Godless heathens, or any other minority group); that's when wedge issues can be used as hammers to destroy the bond of rational self-governance.

As far as specifics go, I think the Democrats have chosen well with the 100 hours plan. 
1. Lobbying reform.  Which I hope is done with a serious mindset--and not just a way of taking a knee cap to the opposition party.
2. Instituting the remaining 9/11 Commission report recommendations.
3. Raising the minimum wage, cutting federal student loan interest, renegotiating the prescription drug deal.
4. Federally funding stem-cell research.
5. Re-Instituting "Pay as you Go" fiscal policy.

A couple items not on the list, but that I hope are looked at:

1. Adopting Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Oregon) simplified tax code and "flatter tax" plan.  This would save the bureacracy and tax payers billions of dollars, make government more transparent, and save taxpayers a great deal of time.  This will be politically difficult to execute because the accounting lobby is likely to fight the reform tooth and nail.  Also, some legislators are unlikely to want to cede some of the power that they currently have (e.g. the complicated tax code is used as a fundraising tool from campaign contributors who receive preferential treatment and tax breaks in the code).  The American people as a whole would be the beneficiaries of such a move.
2. A serious debate on Iraq.  I have no doubt that this is coming, and I suspect the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group's conclusions will serve as a useful starting point.

When I was 19 I was into the don't ask don't tell issue - and did my own activism on that.  I still believe that gays should be allowed in the military (and no, I'm not if you must know ;-).  I was in the Navy and did what any naieve 19 yo could do to change national policy.  I thought I was right, and in hindsite I still think I was right. 

That said, some 10 years later, I realize that these wedge issues have really created an atmosphere that have made it harder to get the core issues addressed.

I'm willing to accept a less than "what I consider perfect" government if it is at least functional.  I think it is time to throw in the white towel on some wedge issues.  Yes, I don't agree with the christian right, but that said these issues aren't worth getting are government stuck in the mud over. 

I live in central Florida.  Very conservative here - solid red.  Our candidates tend to run on the national platform - ie pro choice, pro gay marriage, and so forth.  Very noble but we get slaughtered at the polls - Every single time.  I've stomped around for the last two Democrats here.  I've watch them go down the same path.  And, even in this election year when there is momentum against Republicans, we go down in flames.  I mean really - 48% of the people in the district south-east of me voted for Foley (page molester) instead of the Democrat.  That should tell you something.

We need to win in the south.  If Democrats go back to their roots, they can win.  I'm not saying you must change your mind on things, but for the good of our country we need to decide what matters the most so that we can move forward.

I, too, have always felt uneasy around the more radical left of the Democratic party.  My more conservative leanings (I definitely have a problem with abortion because no one can explain to me scientifically why an unborn child is NOT a baby) put me on the outside of a party which has demanded a certain orthodoxy and tends to dismiss or even defame people who happen to have a  well-considered and honest alternative point of view. 

It's a hopeful sign to see the Democrats supporting people like Webb and Casey in Pennsylvania, which tells me that there may be room again in the party for those who may be a little more conservative than the liberal lefties.  If the Dems hope to retain these folks they need to welcome them into the fold and acknowledge the validity of their positions.  Just as I do not like the Republicans micro-managing relationships I don't appreciate it from the Dems either.  I may want the Repubs out of my bedroom, but I would thank the Dems very much for not interfering with my parent/child relationships, either. 

To me, fairness includes not favoring one group over another in an effort to jury rig a level playing field.  The rules have to be same for everyone or else there's no sense of fairness left.  I'm waiting to see if the Democratic national leadership can adjust to this new reality, because if they don't we will be fighting these battles and perhaps losing two years from now.

I could never explain scientifically why an unborn is not a baby, but I use the rule of can science/medicine (as my guide) keep a child alive before a certain time in the womb.

Till the day that we as a society can take the unborn child and nurture it out of the womb then that is the time to stop abortions. Right now that time is around 4 1/2 months.

We as a society have no right to expect any woman to go thru the pain of an unwanted pregnancy, because we believe a certain way. I totally believe we are playing GOD when we tell some one else how to live as we believe. We need to offer better choices/solutions then abortion.

At this time, since I can not think of a better solution, I take the stance of the National Party. Teach. Teach. Teach.
Understanding. Right to choice till a certain trimester.

I understand the complexity of the issue, which is why I'm posting to a Democratic blog and supporting a pro-choice candidate, but the argument always boils down to where you establish the line, which I don't find to be as self-evident as others do, and it's a very prickly question.  It's not about belief, it's about weighing competing interests.  I know all about the pain of childbirth -- had three kids naturally without one of them under 8 pounds and two of them unexpected, to say the least.  Yep, it's painful.  However, I also know damn well what I've seen on sonograms and felt inside of me, and I don't find it as simple as declaring that before 4 and a half months of gestation the child is fair game.  Moreover, my experience has been that the "choice" is not always all that free. 

In my line of work I've encountered women who've been badgered and harassed by their boyfriends and husbands to have abortions because the guys don't want the responsibility for child support.  I've had to defend men who've refused to pay child support because "we had a deal,  I said I'd pay for the abortion", or who've been stepping out on their girlfriends or wives and don't want the baby from their little side salad to expose their cheating.  I've also encountered social workers who've pushed the idea on young pregnant women because THEY think it's best for the girl not to carry the baby to term.  They usually remind the young women over and over that they don't have to tell the people closest to them in their lives, their parents, about their problem.  Not EVERY parent of a pregnant teen is an abuser, but you wouldn't know that to talk to some of these well-meaning but overbearing workers.  Compulsion is not only on one side of this street.

Whichever way you cut it we're playing God.  We're deciding on the value of one human life as against the value of the right to privacy and the right to decide whether or not to go through procreation.  But let's not pretend that it's a simple matter of repressive Godjockeys versus freedom loving choicers.  It's just not that simple an issue.

People are going to have a solid oppinion one way or the other.  They are probably not going to vote for a candidate with the opposite oppinion.  That's why they call it a wedge issue ;-)

In this case, give the power back to states to decide.  Why should you dictate to the south this law - and on the reverse side of the coin - why should the south dictate to the north-east this law?  I can understand both positions - but explain why this should not be decided by the states individually.  What works for Virginia may not work for Alabama...get the picture?

This is one of those problems we face when the federal government legislates what should be a state issue.  If this were not decided by the Supreme court, the federal government could proceed with more important matters and each state can decide individually on this.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned wouldn't it become a law decided by the states (assuming the feds don't meddle)?

When is a child a child, not what does one do with the a--holes of the world who interfer with a woman's right to choice. When talking about the a--holes and their reasons for the abortion is a completely different story.

In these cases a woman needs a place to go to for direction and guidance from these types of people. Anyone who wants the states to enter into making decisions on a womans body because of some other outside influence is just as much an a--hole as the person who wants a woman to get an abortion because of child support or other laws on the books. All the reasons you are talking about of outside influence do not belong in making laws about abortion. Anyone who makes laws to prevent abortions for the reason of outside infleunce over a womans choice should have to support the baby instead of the mother or even the father.

You think pro-lifers are fascist "a-holes" who don't respect a woman's right.  Many pro-lifers believe that pro-choice folks are "baby killers" - and would argue on the side of the rights of the unborn.

This is why this issue is a divisive and dangerous wedge for our nation.  This is why states should have the right to determine if they support the woman's right or the unborn's rights.  Then the federal government can hopefully get some work done.

Nobody (recently) has argued why this is an issue the federal government to solve.  Explain to me why one group of people (say in Alabama) should force their views down the throats of another group (say in NY)?

The Democratic Party has surged forward to fill the leadership gap in the US Congress. Our 50 State strategy has been a success, and we should continue. It is especially gratifying that Virginia voted for Jim Webb, and turned the Senate majority Democratic Blue!

I think that we should now focus on applying a similar strategy to our state legislature. The do-nothing Republican Legislature of Virginia is in desperate need of reform, and it's time for Democrats to take on a larger role. RK can continue to be instrumental in spearheading change in this area.

One of the challenges that we face is the lack of public awareness about politics in the Commonwealth. Kenton Ngo at 750 Volts is right on the money when he says that we need to shine a bright light on the activities in Richmond. Most Virginians don't know what our legislative issues are, or who represents us in Richmond.

By enhancing the Democratic base at the State level, we will make a difference in our quality of life in Virginia, and also contribute to the long-range strength of Democratic leadership for our nation.

People are stepping up to the plate already to challenge Wat Abbitt in our area. Can you get some one to step up to the plate in your area. After doing so, get the web site up on Jan.2, 2007 to raise money for them. Start early and get the encumbant out fighting early. The more they are out their, the more the public can learn about them. Right now they say we are doing a job for you, so vote for us. Well no one knows what that job is cause they hide it from viewing.

We need a group in Richmond reporting on who is or who is not doing the job.