About
The Albany Project seeks to return New York State Government to its rightful owners - the people.

Getting Started at the Albany Project

New York Blogwire



This belongs to you. Take it back...

We Need Better Democrats

by: BingChester

Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:14:29 PM EDT


Watching Pedro Espada tell the state that his actions were in the name of "reform" could make anyone queasy.  Reading through TAP today shows just how hard we progressives are taking this move.  Our Democratic caucus empowered a corrupt, power-hungry criminal to become our Majority Leader after the same individual threw the state into crisis and almost bankrupted New York City and multiple counties.  Yes, this is a disconcerting situation.  Even worse is that 2010 is an election of uptomost importance.  The Senate that is elected in 2010 will set the playing field for re-districting.  We all know how important that will be in the continuing effort to reform the Senate.  Does anyone think an Espada led caucus will really make the reforms we need?

That's why it's time for better Democrats.  And it's time that this blog do something about it.

BingChester :: We Need Better Democrats
For some months I've felt that The Albany Project needs to do more to bring better Democrats to Albany.  It's not enough for us to just post here and point to the problems of our state.  We need to act as a progressive conduit supporting like-minded, reform based candidates.  We need to challenge status quo Democrats in entrenched seats.  We need to stand up for our values.

With all the anger that we're feeling after the Democratic sell-out of our principles, there's no better time than now to organize.  If we pooled our collective knowledge and resources, we could form an entity that stands for reform, recruits better candidates that support our values, and empowers those candidates to challenge entrenched interests in our state.  

What's I'm suggesting is the mix of a political action committee, an internal caucus, and a fundraising apparatus.

Specifically, we would do the following:

1) Identify politicians that need primary challengers- There are some obvious targets that come to mind here, including multiple individuals from the NYC delegation.  Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate clearly need to go.  I would argue that any Democrat that opposes marriage equality also needs the boot.  Regardless, we would set the parameters for "bad" Democrats and identify them.  If this was solely a better Democrats campaign, then we would need to focus on seats where primaries are basically the general election, while letting the state campaign target seats likely to flip, like Senator Padavan or other swing districts.

2) Identify criteria that a candidate must support to gain our support- We would need to set the standards for better Democrats.  I think a few issues are highly obvious; campaign finance, rules reform, and fair re-districting.  As I said early, I would also support marriage equality on that list.  Essentially we'd be setting the progressive agenda and supporting candidates that support it in full.

3) Recruit candidates that support our agenda- New York is a big state, and we have a plethora of people to chose from in terms of political candidacy.  Other elected officials, business, union, and civic leaders, and even standard private citizens could all become better Democrats.  Variables such as the nature of the district and the incumbent would need to be taken into consideration, but we'd be able to find and recruit candidates who support our values and who are willing and ready to challenge the status quo.

4) Empower our candidates- We can't literally run these campaigns, but we can certainly empower them.  We'd offer social networking and blog support, a financial base, and a grassroots support structure to get these campaigns off the ground.  We'd be offering seed support, in a sense, to entice candidates that might not normally run to do so.  This is about lowering the threshold to where a primary challenge is less cumbersome to progressive challengers than it normally would be.

I consider this a meta topic in many ways, so I open this subject up to the community.  We can't do this alone.  Only through our collective action can this succeed.  I'm certainly not a campaign expert (I've only formally worked on two campaigns).  But I'm willing to contribute time and effort to this campaign.  How about you?  

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

What do you suggest (4.00 / 1)
What is the next step?  Who is going to do it?

I disagree that "we" can't run the campaigns and do this ourselves.  We can't do it writing about it on TAP, but I know the regulars here can tap (sorry) into the talent to do this.  

We just need to find about 20 good candidates and raise about $25 million,  easy.  


DSCC (4.00 / 1)
It just dawned on me that Espada is probably the head of the DSCC.  sweet

[ Parent ]
Good luck finding them (4.00 / 1)
The process of going through even the lowest levels of local politics is so disgusting that getting decent people to a level where they can run for the Assembly or Senate is nearly impossible.

Don't Need Local Politicians (4.00 / 1)
I think there are plenty of people who serve in state legislatures without having held prior office. (Heck, Al Franken just got into the US Senate.) Chris Lee was a businessman before he got elected to the US House (NY-26). Gillibrand also held no prior elected office before winning her House seat.

If folks can win a US House seat without prior elected office, then it shouldn't be a requirement for the state Assembly or Senate. Though I haven't done the research, I'd bet there are several examples already. (And given the state of local politics in some places, it may be better to get outsiders.)


[ Parent ]
Case in point (4.00 / 1)
SD-15 where a local lawyer ran for the seat against Maltese...the local Democratic party endorsed Maltese...Maltese won by 300 votes or so. Had they not endorsed Maltese, Maltese would have lost his seat two years ago.

They left the seat open for Joe Addabbo, so they refused to endorse anyone else.  


[ Parent ]
The facts on that race (4.00 / 1)
The "local lawyer" is a guy named Albert Baldeo, and he had some serious problems the year before (2005) when running for City Council.  He has a lot going for him, but also has some issues.

The Democratic Party did NOT endorse Maltese; that is an absolute fabrication (I don't know where you heard it from, but it ain't so).  They refused to endorse Baldeo, partly because there was a longstanding understanding (if not an actual agreement) between the parties in Queens that certain people were "off limits," one of them being Maltese (who was then the leader of the Republicans in Queens).

At least one "regular" Democratic club did give Baldeo a lot of help -- and afterward they regretted it, not because of problems with the county leadership, but because of problems with Baldeo.

Maltese actually won by almost 900 votes (17,940-17,046).  That was still a large surprise, and due in large part to it having been a disastrous year for Republicans in general.

Addabbo was rumored to be considering a run in 2006, because Mayor Bloomberg was going to help him if Maltese didn't come through with some major funding for school construction that year.  The school construction funding did happen (how much Maltese had to do with it I have no idea), and Bloomberg backed away.

Once again, the local Democratic party did NOT endorse Maltese.


[ Parent ]
Yes they did (4.00 / 1)
I was at a local Democratic club, SW Queens Democratic Club meeting in October 2006 in Howard Beach where they endorsed Maltese for reelection. They didn't even withold an endorsement, they flat out endorsed Maltese.  

[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure (4.00 / 1)
I live in Anthony Semenerio's district and am pretty involved in the local Democratic scene...they pretty much already settled on the candidates for the seat before he even resigned...so if, say, my neighbor decided to run, s/he couldn't get the time of day from the party.  

[ Parent ]
We need to meet in person (4.00 / 1)
This kind of thing requires that some talks not be public.  It also requires that we meet each other, and talk strategy in real-time, not one blogpost at a time.

I recommend a meeting in late September.  By then, any local primaries will be over (meaning most races will be decided), the weather should still be good enough to travel, and we can begin to see what shape next year's elections might be taking.

As much as I hate to suggest this, but somewhere in Albany may be the best place to meet.  The city was chosen as the state capital precisely because it's the easiest, overall, for people to get to.

Any thoughts?


Absolutely! (4.00 / 1)
That's what I was hoping to hear.  I'd love to set up a meeting with likeminded TAP people about this.

[ Parent ]
Let's make it happen. What's next? How do we proceed? (4.00 / 1)


About time (4.00 / 1)
I was posting that back in the fall and was consistently shot down by many other in this site.

I'm glad others are getting on board.


How bad do you they have to be? (4.00 / 1)
I agree that Democrats should embrace marriage equality.

I agree that they should not use their office in a corrupt fashion that seemingly enriches themselves.

I agree that they should not beat up or attempt to slash their girlfriends/wives.

I agree that they should not be duplicitous and ally themselves with Republicans for their own personal gain.

And you can probably change "I agree" to "we all agree".

But what else?

Do they have to support clean money/clean elections?

Oppose gerrymandered districts?

Vote to eliminate earmarks/member items?

Show leadership in whichever House they serve-- for legislative, budgetary, and power sharing reform?

Do they need to have a history of transparency with respect to their meetings with lobbyists, earmarked funds, and votes?

Do they need to support a living minimum wage?

What votes do should be used as a litmus test on labor, environment, choice, health, and other issues?

I don't disagree with your sentiment in theory. Quite the opposite-- I applaud it and wish to see it enacted.

But in practice, I suspect we'll have precious few (perhaps no) returning Democrats in either House.

Maybe that's not a bad thing...

Who stands out in the Legislature as an example of a "Good Democrat"?


I don't think all of that is necessary (4.00 / 3)
My definition of "Good Democrat" is simple:

1) Good - not corrupt, not beholden

2) Democrat - believes that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a worthy pursuit.

The rest we can argue about for eternity.  I prefer to stick to the basics.

If I had to name a legislator who stands out on this, I'd have to go with Liz Krueger.  At least I hope she's good.


[ Parent ]
Not well enough defined (4.00 / 1)
I think every single member of the legislature-- D and R-- will claim that they fit both of your criteria.

If you-- if Bing, if we-- want to make this work, then we need much more hold-their-feet-to-the-fire ways of judging them.

But in defining that list that I think we will encounter the problem that most legislatures find: assembling a coalition and getting it to agree on anything requires more compromise than any one claims they can stomach.


[ Parent ]
I'll write more on this in a minute (0.00 / 0)
but I don't think the point is what legislators claim they are - but rather what voters see them as being.

I think at this point it's pretty clear to most voters that their legislators are generally liars about #1, and especially when it comes to being beholden to their leadership.


[ Parent ]
How about starting a PAC? (4.00 / 1)


What sort of "better?" (4.00 / 1)
I think it's important that we differentiate between "better" in terms of being more progressive, and "better" in terms of not being a corrupt lowlife. If we target Democrats who oppose marriage equality, for example, are we going to target Senator Aubertine, who represents a conservative district?

Frankly, while I'd hope the non-corrupt-lowlife Democrats (i.e. the ones committed to reform) are also progressive on other issues, I think the real opening right now is not in advancing a progressive social agenda as much as in cleaning up Albany. If we're all about seizing the moment, let's focus on finding good solid reformers who will improve the Democratic caucus, not on finding 32 votes for marriage equality.


[ Parent ]
We should concentrate on deep blue districts (4.00 / 3)
where the primary is the only election that matters.  I would say most of the rot is is NYC.

[ Parent ]
Fundamentally Disagree (4.00 / 1)
(Not about the rot, but the strategy).

By my count, there were four Democratic primaries for the State Senate last year, and three "near-primaries."  Each could have impacted the coup, or the overall conference dynamic.

1.  Squadron v. Connor.  We lost our best parliamentarian and institutional historian.  We do have a vote for reform, but also a vote for Bloomberg on Mayoral Control.  I like Squadron, but the Conference missed Marty.

2.  Espada v. Gonzalez. Gonzalez has since taken a guilty plea on federal charges, so there were no great choices here, but when County betrayed Gonzalez (thanks, Mikey) we got what we got.

3.  Parker v. Felder/Stewart.  The DSCC, WFP and others invested heavily in Parker, with the full knowledge  Felder would have likely caucused with the GOP from the beginning of this term.  Parker has his problems, but as Gatemouth observed on R8NY, he is a consistently loyal Democratic vote.

4.  Ianello v. Mesi.  Pigeon and Golisano backed Mesi over Ianello in a classic WNY blood feud.  Mesi ended up getting a job working for the Democratic Majority, but resigned a couple of weeks ago during the coup fallout. Ianello might not have defeated Ranzenhofer last November (guess we will find out in 2010), but had Mesi won, Pigeon would directly control a vote, Mesi likely would have been part of the coup, and we would still be deadlocked at 31-31.

NEAR PRIMARIES

5.  Monserrate v. Sabini (this falls into the almost category because Sabini actually left for a gubernatorial appointment once he was abandoned by County).  We lost a consistent progressive and Democratic vote for . . .

6.  Addabbo v. Baldeo. Baldeo stayed in the race far too long, but getting out preserved resources and paved the way to victory over Maltese.  Would the outcome have been different if resources had to be invested in a primary?

7.  Foley v. Dahroug.  Dahroug was a two-time loser.  Getting out helped Foley win big.  Enough said.

My basic point is this - rather than this group investing time, energy and tons of cash in primaries, is it not better to expand the majority so the fringe elements become less relevant?  Recruit good candidates, help them raise money to get the DSCC support they need for November, and let's get the voters turned out for our candidates.

Let me put it another way, through the lens of the three amigos.  Beating Kruger is close to impossible.  Beating Espada may take a couple of million bucks.  Defeating Diaz will require at least $500-750K and running against the Bronx County and Boro President's father is not exactly an easy thing to do.

Instead of spending 3 to 5 million bucks against the amigos, why not use that money and energy for Gennaro, against Hannon, and against DeFrancisco, Griffo, and Ranzenhofer?

Let's circle the wagons, instead of doing what we usually do - form the circle firing squad.


[ Parent ]
if I had any trust in the leadership or their direction (4.00 / 1)
I might agree with circling the wagons and joining up to build a stronger Democratic party.

Unfortunately, I lack that trust - in the Senate Democratic leadership, for the DSCC, and frankly for the New York State Democratic Committee.  So far as I can tell, all of those folks are thinking too hard about power to notice any of the details, not to mention that there's basically no sign that they're a competent band to follow.

It's time to start over, not time to fall in.  The circular firing squad already exists - within the Democratic membership of the Senate.  How'd it get there?  Because we let it rot for years, and even once we came around to thinking about a majority, we focused on the numbers and not the people.   Even an extra five Democrats might not be enough to move on from those splits, and if it proved enough I expect this team would settle right into being the new Joe Bruno.

I recognize that it's a damn difficult task to change it - but the approach you propose is simply not acceptable after the trainwreck of the last few weeks.  Your strategy, I fear, will just propagate the poison deeper into the Democratic party.


[ Parent ]
Some differences of opinion (4.00 / 1)
Not disagreeing with your race-by-race analysis, but with your conclusion.

Demographics being what they are, it's pretty clear that Democrats are going to control the state senate for some time to come.  I know, we still have to get out there and win those elections, and they won't come easy, but we will win because we're going to be out there.

In the mean time, we should look at what kind of Democratic majority we're going to have.  One of Barack Obama's (and Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's) problems is that many Democrats in Congress are blue-dogs -- or worse.  When Al Franken took his seat, many MSM outlets were crowing that Dems had a filibuster-proof "super-majority;" that's simply not true.  I don't mean the illnesses that are keeping Sens. Byrd and Kennedy away, I mean the Nelson twins, Specter and others (Dianne Feinstein even!) who will sometimes vote against the party.

The same can be said of the state senate.  Currently, we need Republican votes to pass marriage equality, tenants' rights -- even real reform for the upstate economic woes.  A couple of extra Dems in the senate isn't going to be enough, unless we can replace some of the Dems we have.

What's more, too many incumbent Dems (and Repubs, for that matter) are used to sitting on their behinds, not only in Albany, but also in their districts, where they don't even bother attempting to do the other half of their job -- constituent services.  If we want to keep a Democratic majority over time, we need Dems in office who understand that half of the job as well.

So I favor challenging those Democrats, as well as Republicans, who don't measure up to the standards of progressive action, reform, and constituent services that should be our baseline for support.


[ Parent ]
Hmmm. (4.00 / 1)
That's what the people over at Daily Kos decided to do in 2006 after Rahm Emmanuel and Markos reached an understanding that it was more important to have more Democrats first, and "better" Democrats second.

They stopped the Republicans, which was terrific, but they still can't pass meaningful environmental legislation or single-payer health care, so results have been mixed.


[ Parent ]
Not just Kos (4.00 / 1)
The DNC had the same approach; first get Dems elected, then get "good" Dems elected.  The problem, of course, is that once someone is ensconced in office, it's very difficult to unseat that person.

The problem on the other side is that in many House districts a progressive person cannot get elected.  That's how people like Heath Shuler and Joe Donnelly got into office.

Here in New York, there are some senate districts like that (Darrel Aubertine being the prime example).  But there are several senate districts where we can do better -- and should.


[ Parent ]
You all make but good points (0.00 / 0)
But with the stakes so high for 2010 (redistricting), I respectfully suggest a numeric increase of the majority should be the first, second, and third strategic goals.

Remember, Aubertine may well be in Congress, and there are no guarantees Democrats will hold the seat without him.  Any other incumbent losses could well leave us at parity or in the minority again post-2010.

To the extent financial and activist resources can be used to preserve and extend the majority, we will place the party on the right path.  Diluting those efforts with a call to finance or organize primaries could undercut the overall mission.  In this economy, and with the budgetary and fiscal stakes so high, we should think twice, thrice, or more before we push our own incumbents aside.

That said - everyone has a right to run, and if anyone here wants to run, more power to them.  I am not advocating against primaries per se, I actually think they are a very good thing - but folks should see the whole board, and understand the stakes.  We can have a progressive majority, but frankly, not until AFTER redistricting.


[ Parent ]
Point noted... (4.00 / 1)
but that's a big of a double-edged sword.  If we don't strive for better Senators, they'll just draw the districts to suit their tastes, and just continue the cycle.  Nobody wins in that scenario, even if it means a "Democratic" majority.

While having more Dems is certainly well-intentioned, having more better Dems needs to be the goal, since 2010 is so crucial.


[ Parent ]
P.S. (4.00 / 1)
gah, "bit", not "big".

Also, here's another reason why more should not be considered ultimately above better, because even if this is legit, this just looks horrible, not to mention poorly timed: http://www.thealbanyproject.co...


[ Parent ]
sorry, Lead Dog (0.00 / 0)
but your advice strikes me as leaden.  If we want to ensure that the Democrats continue to suck out at the record-breaking pace they've been setting, your proposal strikes me as precisely how to do it.  

I worry about redistricting too - but I don't trust these Democrats to do any better a job of it than the Assembly Democrats or their predecessors in the Senate.

We need to make sure that the party and the Senate have to deal with serious calls for change in this election cycle, not postpone it until the poison has had time to set in permanently.

I may change my mind if they get their act together and move forward rapidly on substantial reform, but I don't really see that in the forecast.  I wish it, I hope for it - but I don't expect it.  In general, I try to act based on my expectations.


[ Parent ]
Also... (0.00 / 0)
If the Democratic Party "leadership" sees a concerted, organized effort to bring in real reformers, then maybe -- just maybe -- they'll get off their butts and start pushing for the changes we've been talking about.  Party machines always adjust to reality, or they don't survive.

In the 1960s Barry Goldwater understood that the national Republican Party could only thrive if it stopped being "Democrat-lite."  It took a generation for that idea to take hold, and another generation for it to succeed fully, but it worked -- for a while.

Conversely, the Democrats need to learn that we can only thrive if we stop being "Republican-lite," as Howard Dean has said for several years.  One of the major problems we have in Congress right now is that neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid had an agenda in 2006(Pelosi's "drain the swamp" for the 110th Congress went out the window with H.R.2), and they still don't.  That's a major reason (though not the only one) why they're making very little progress in DC.

But when it becomes obvious that there are serious challenges from progressive, reform candidates within the Democratic Party, and several of them appear poised to win, the party machine will adjust to welcome them in.  In my county (Queens), the party machine is considered to be one of the most formidable around, but they always accept election winners unless those winners prove, after winning the election, to be completely out the window (no names here; there are several in recent years).

Add your own legitimate nervousness about redistricting, and you'll see the party leadership get behind several reform candidates next year, rather than risk losing their majority.  Now is the best time to act.


[ Parent ]
Good Points (0.00 / 0)
But like Gatemouth, who was sharply critical of the Espada election, and moves to dump Sabini and Connor, I reiterate the basic question of resources.

We are in a horrible economy.  Is there really enough political fundraising available for primary challenges AND general elections?

Remember, in 2008 we "lost" three general elections (McElroy, Gennaro and Dollinger) by a total of 7,732 votes.  Had we won those races, it's likely the "three amigos" would never have formed, much less ever been a factor in the conference.  But we simply didn't have sufficient resources - even "with" Golisano - to properly fund those campaigns.

Further, three Republicans who went unchallenged could remain targets for the future.  Marty Golden "beat" Blank by 2,237 "votes," and Liebell and Bonacic each "lost" to Blank by 1,434 and 4,954 "votes" respectively.

So moving forward, were I asked by a generic progressive donor about where to put their money, for me it's Gennaro v. Padavan long before it's against a Dem incumbent.  It may actually be "easy" to take out an older, "long in the tooth" Dem, but with limited resources it's smarter for us to focus on growing the Majority.


[ Parent ]
Tapping resources (0.00 / 0)
My current City Council member, Eric Gioia, initially won in 2001 partly by knocking on doors nobody else bothered with.  Similarly, there are a lot of people who would like to get involved, with time and/or money, if they felt there was someone worth supporting.

That's where the resources come from.

I know that's easier said than done, but it's not impossible, particularly if you have someone who has spent time cultivating new people.  In addition, if there is an organization behind you issuing press releases that capitalize on the recent insanity in Albany, it can generate even more support.

I think your doubts are well-founded, and should be taken seriously -- but only in so far as it teaches us what we're up against.


[ Parent ]
How Active Were Progressives In Primaries? (0.00 / 0)
I can't comment on the individual match-ups since I obviously didn't follow them closely (or at all, actually).

But I wonder how active progressives were in finding alternatives to those presently in office in the last round. If there wasn't much involvement, then it's not surprising that some challengers didn't offer much of an alternative. With the current debacle, it may be easier to find more candidates who support real reform.

Also, there may not be a need to run that many progressive candidates. One option would be to tell incumbents to commit to a specific reform agenda, or else they will be primaried--though maybe some of them cannot be trusted to keep their commitments.

Finally, I question whether beating someone like Espada would take "a couple of million bucks." When he is almost single handedly responsible for turning the state legislature into a laughingstock after changing sides not once but twice, perhaps there are enough people paying attention to turn him out at a far lower price.

But I'll gladly accept comments on these speculations to those who are more knowledgeable about NY politics (which I suspect are most posters on this site).


[ Parent ]
My take (0.00 / 0)
on The Albany Project, was that it was for reformers, both Democrats and Republicans alike, to work together to reshape Albany. Little did I know, that it was just a shill station for Democrats. (dont get me wrong, some of you Dems are OK, but there are a few on here that are on the kool aid)

Espada is your Democratic leader. Your Democratic leaders put him there. If you are not in support of this, then you need to speak out.

If I were a Dem I would be outraged, and be screaming at my local leaders, and it wouldnt be with niceties either. Hell, when the Republicans joint forces with these two idiots, I called and wrote my leaders, and told them this wasnt going to work out.

My prediction now is that, Espada is going to get hung out to dry, because he is a crook.

The infighting of the democrats is their primary weakness. Case in point, Hillary who?


You obviously don't read this blog (4.00 / 1)
If you are not in support of this, then you need to speak out.

Because if you did, you see that THIS is exactly what we have been doing.  


[ Parent ]
The Albany Project

Please take my Blog Reader Project survey.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


NY blogs

Politics

Adirondack Almanack
Buffalo Geek
Buffalo Pundit
Capitol Confidential
Daily Gotham
Daily Politics
DMI Blog
DragonFlyEye
Empire Page
Empire Zone
Gothamist
Gotham Gazette
Group News Blog
Jason Gooljar
Left of the Hudson
Living In Dryden
Lost In The Ozone
McHugh Watch
Nassau GOP Watch
Planet Albany
Politicker NY
Politics on the Hudson
Reform NY
Rochester Turning
Room 8
Simply Left Behind
Take19
The Community Alliance

Think Tanks

Brennan Center for Justice
Citizens Budget Commission
Citizens Union
Drum Major Institute
Fiscal Policy Institute
New Democracy Project
Progressive States

Organizations

Citizen Action
Citizens for Better Government in New York
Common Cause
New York Citizens for Clean Elections
Progressive States Network
>
National Blogs

Politics

AmericaBlog
Crooks and Liars
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
Firedoglake
MyDD
Political Cortex
Senate Guru
Skippy
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
The Right's Field

LBAN Network

Agonist
All Spin Zone
AlterNet
AMERICAblog
American Street
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
BartCop
Big Head DC
Blogging of the Pres
BlogACTIVE
Bluegrass Report
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass. Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Bob Geiger
Booman
BRAD Blog
Brendan Calling
Buckeye State Blog
Burnt Orange Report
Calitics
Capitol Annex
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Cliff Schecter
Comments from Left Field
Confined Space
Corrente
Cotton Mouth
Crooks and Liars
culture kitchen
Cursor
Daily Gotham
Daily Kos
David Corn
Democrats.com
Dem Bloggers
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribus Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
Greatscat!
Green Mountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
Keystone Politics
Kick!
KnoxViews
Las Vegas Gleaner
Latino Pundit
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
Mahablog
Majikthise
Make Them Accountable
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
Minnesota Campaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
MyDD
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Corpse
News Dissector
Newshoggers
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
OpenLeft
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
People's Rep. of Seabrook
PinkDome
Politics1
Political Animal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rox Populi
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
Tapped
Taylor Marsh
Tattered Coat
Texas Kaos
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Reaction
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Turn Maine Blue
Uppity Wisconsin
Wampum
War and Piece
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless

blog radio

Get the albany project in your inbox! Just enter your email address

Delivered by FeedBurner

____________________


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox