From the LA Times:

OLATHE, KAN. — When Sean Tevis decided to run for a seat in the Kansas Legislature, he faced a serious problem: money. Local political advisors warned the campaign novice that he would need a war chest of at least $26,000 to compete against his entrenched Republican rival.

[…]

So Tevis created a droll online cartoon strip to appeal to potential supporters wherever they might be, using stick figures to represent himself, his GOP opponent and others.

More importantly, this is a great lesson for progressives running for office at the local level.

Oh yeah, here’s a snippet of Sean Tavis’ comic strip that’s helped him raise over $90,000 so far:

After the mid-term elections of that year, many progressives hoped that elected Democrats would aggressively push back against Bush-republicans and their conservative allies. However, elected Democrats in Congress proved themselves to be largely ineffective on the big policy issues of the day (see: Iraq war, FISA, Guantanamo prison, republican corruption – i.e., Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, et al.).

To be fair, many elected Democrats did put up a fight, and pushed back against Bush and his conservative allies. Unfortunately, since 2006, some of Bush’s conservative allies have included so-called Blue Dog Democrats, which have allowed Bush & Co. to continue the Iraq war, to perpetuate the republican culture of corruption, and to infringe on civil liberties.

So, what’s a progressive to do against these so-called Blue Dog Democrats? Fight back, of course!

Which is where blogger, activist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald comes in, he writes:

If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course: 1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to — or actively embrace — the right’s agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and 2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative “Blue Dog” contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.

Those goals are the basis of the recent campaign that I helped launch — along with progressive bloggers such as Jane Hamsher and the Blue America PAC — to target selected Democratic members of Congress who have been responsible for some of the worst acts of complicity and capitulation. The campaign we launched, which raised over $350,000 in a very short time largely from dissatisfied progressives, has run multimedia ads criticizing the likes of Blue Dog Rep. Chris Carney and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, despite the fact that neither has a primary challenger and despite the fact that Carney is quite vulnerable in his reelection effort this year.

Some of you may be thinking, but won’t this jeopardize Democratic control of Congress? The short answer is, No!

If you’re interested in a more elaborate answer, you’ll need to see Glenn Greenwald’s explanation:

Many progressives and other Democratic supporters are reflexively opposed to any conduct that might result in the defeat of even a single, relatively inconsequential Democratic member of Congress or the transfer of even a single district to GOP control. No matter how dissatisfied such individuals might be with the Democratic Congress, they are unwilling to do anything different to change what they claim to find so unsatisfactory. Even though uncritically cheering on any and every candidate with a “D” after his or her name has resulted in virtually nothing positive — and much that is negative — many progressives continue, rather bafflingly and stubbornly, to insist that if they just keep doing the same thing (cheering for the election of more and more Democrats), then somehow, someday, something different might occur. But, as the cliché teaches, repeatedly engaging in the same conduct and expecting different results is the very definition of foolishness.

As foolish as it is, this intense aversion to jeopardizing any Democratic incumbents might be considered rational if doing so carried the risk of restoring Republican control of Congress. But there is no such risk, and there will be none for the foreseeable future. No matter what happens, the Democrats, by all accounts, are going to control both houses of Congress after the 2008 election. Their margin in the House, which is currently 31 seats, will, by even the most conservative estimates, increase to at least 50 seats. No advertising campaign or activist group could possibly swing control of Congress to the Republicans this year, and — given the Brezhnev-era-like reelection rates for incumbents in America — it is extremely unlikely that the House will be controlled by anyone other than Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi for years to come.

The critical question, then, is not who will control Congress. The Democrats will. That is a given. The vital question is what they will do with that control — specifically, will they continue to maintain and increase their own power by accommodating the right, or will they be more responsive, accountable and attentive to the political values of their base?

If yo agree that the Democratic party should be more “accountable and attentive” to you, than accommodating to Bush & Co., then please donate $15 or more to Glenn Greenwald’s Blue America campaign.

However, after Edwards dropped his bid for the Democratic nomination, I turned my support for Sen. Obama, though I remained guarded over his caution and the conciliatory nature of his campaign (of course, I realized that during the general election the Democratic candidate would need to pivot and make necessary adjustments; but while the electorate was largely composed of Democratic party voters, I expected some meat — the bloodier the better, silly me).

All that said, I’ve come to appreciate the value of Sen. Obama’s approach, and I especially respect the decision making process that he has exhibited. Here, for example, is another illustration of Sen. Obama’s thinking and decision making approach:

Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that he’s in no rush to pick a vice presidential candidate, telling CNN “everybody needs to settle down” and let the vetting process run its course.

Speaking with CNN’s Candy Crowley on Thursday in Bristow, Virginia, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said it’s not in his best interest — or in the interest of former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton — to make a hasty decision about whom his running mate will be.

“We just completed this arduous process,” Obama said. “It’s only been two days, and I think it’s not just in my interest and Sen. Clinton’s interest, but in the Democratic Party’s interest and the country’s interest to make sure I make this decision well.”

Calling his choice of running mate “the most important decision that I will make before I am president,” the senator from Illinois said he would “be deliberate and systematic about it, because this will be my final counselor when I am making decisions in the White House, and I want to make sure I get it right.”

Sure, that’s a great answer that skirts the question; however, it is an answer that is consistent with the approach to issues that Sen. Obama has exhibited thus far, and it is reassuring — considering the last seven years under Bush’s republican administration.

Now, if his approach to making tough decisions weren’t reason enough to feel reassured and confident about Sen. Obama, he’s gone and officially endorsed Howard Dean’s “50 State Strategy,” which is simply brilliant:

A slew of political factors will determine Obama’s success in turning red states blue. But the Senator, in no small measure, will be aided in his task by reforms that preceded his run for the presidency. For all of the hoopla surrounding the candidates, the 2008 presidential election will be the first truly national test of the viability and prescience of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy.

Four years ago, when Dean was vaulted to the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee — following a failed presidential bid months earlier — he pledged to rewrite the rules concerning where and how Democrats would compete. In the subsequent months, resources and staff were invested into unconventional and even previously untouched locales. The idea was that the party simply couldn’t compete without a margin for error.

[…]

On Thursday, Obama symbolically endorsed the DNC’s efforts, declaring that Dean would remain party chairman heading into the general election.

As Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told The Huffington Post: “I think that we are going to have a larger battlefield in 2008… I think we are going to stretch the Republicans. I don’t think they can take for granted nearly as many states as they have in the past. And I think we are going to add several to the Democratic column this year and so our coalition is going to be broader.”

This is huge, and it can easily translate into major gains for Democratic candidates down the ballot all across our country, marking the beginning of a new realignment. Yes, it’s a long shot, but it’s possible.

Here’s the tricky part, I don’t disagree with his description of the situation, but I completely disagree with his prescription. First, his description of the symptoms:

Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent.

From this, what does Krugman conclude? First, he reasonably suggests that both the Obama and Clinton camps need to come together, but then he goes too far. Here’s Krugman’s recommendation:

What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it. Adding Mrs. Clinton to the ticket — or at least making the offer — might help heal the wounds of an ugly primary fight.

I just don’t see this happening because having Sen. Clinton on the ticket would undermine Sen. Obama’s major themes: Change and consistent opposition to the Iraq war. Now, are there practical reasons to offer Sen. Clinton the VP position? Yes, clearly. The question is, do the practical reason out weight the thematic and substantive reason that don’t make Sen. Clinton a good fit during a change election? And in my mind that question is already settled, and the answer is, No, Sen. Clinton would subtract more than what she would add to the Democratic ticket during this election cycle.

And now, Mr. Dean on faux, er, fox news:

Dean: Chris, the Republicans… for the last 30 years, the Republican (play)book has been to race bait and to use hate and divisiveness. In 2006, the American people said no to that; I think they’re going to say no to that in 2008. It is true that the economy, the war and healthcare are more important to the American people. They are tired of the divisiveness of what the Republicans have done to them. And that’s why the Republicans are in trouble. Deep trouble. Another four years of George Bush is not what we need…

Wallace: Governor, are you suggesting that bringing up Jeremiah Wright is “race-baiting” and hate and divisive?

Dean: Yeah, I am suggesting that kind of stuff. I think when you start bringing up candidates that have nothing to do with the issues…uh when you start bringing up things that have nothing to do with the candidate, nothing to do with the issues, that’s race-baiting. And that’s exactly what it is. Just like Willie Horton was race-baiting so many years ago. I think we’re going to take…we’re going to turn the page on this stuff. I’ll tell you, there’s a lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on issues, but the biggest issue of all is we don’t use this kind of stuff. We never have used this kind of stuff and we’re not going to start now. America is more important than the Republican party and that’s the lesson the voters are about to teach the Republicans.

If this comes to pass, I’d hate to be amongst those that disrespected the family when it was vulnerable:

I’m beginning to think Hillary Clinton might pull this off and wrestle the nomination away from Barack Obama. If she does, a lot of folks — including a huge chunk of the media — will join Bill Richardson (a.k.a. Judas) in the Deep Freeze. If the Clintons get back into the White House, it will be retribution time, like the Corleone family consolidating power in “The Godfather,” where the watchword is, “It’s business, not personal.”

So, who is Fredo in this tragic family epic?