If they are going to continue to do these things I wish they'd have a narrower, deeper discussion.  I'd love to hear them talk for an hour or two just about Iraq.  I know Richardson has his one point plan and all, but how the hell do you move all those troops, while feeding and protecting them, in just a few months?  What would the residual forces that Clinton and Obama have hinted at actually do and how many would there be?  Does Edwards even talk about Iraq anymore?  I'm sure he does, but I haven't seen a lot of coverage.  Or they could do one on the economy or just health care or, hell, at this point I would love to hear them talk at length about the Constitutional issues (balance of powers, habeas, unitary executive theory, impeachment).  

And I do think at some point they need to start weeding out some participants.  Mike Gravel is amusing and may have good things to say on some issues, although not a lot IMO, but he is not going to be the next President of the United States (neither is Dennis Kucinich) and who I really want to hear from and better understand are the folks who might be.  

In particular, Sen. Dodd has come across as a very powerful champion of our causes, and every time I've seen him I've been incredibly impressed.  To me, he seems more and more like the most presidential one.  It's a shame he's an old white dude.  He's going to be a great secretary of state or something like that.  I want to see a lot more of this man in public service.

Obama and Edwards are also just great.  Either one would be a great president.  I hope they get together, combine their operations, and flip a coin for who gets pres and vice pres.  Together, they are much stronger then Clinton

Clinton is good.  However, I remember in my history class at high school George Washington declining to become king because he thought running, um, washington as a dynasty would be bad.  It seems like Mr. Washington's wisdom is lost on Mrs. Clinton (and most of the american population).  She's not bad, but given that there are some hundreds of millions of people in the country, we could maybe find someone who wouldn't cause 24 years of dynasty.

Only Bill Richardson seems to be not great, among the top two tiers.

1. check out Bryron York on CSPAN's morning show, when they put the video up on their site, it's a  riot, especially the kool-aid callers defending Hannity and Brit Hume.  

2. ABC/Wapo poll has McCain tied for 4th in Iowa -- OUCH!  I can't see him raising more than $2 million this quarter.  He shouldn't even be raising that, but fat cats have been known to throw away good money.

3. The Matt Bai thing is a weird.  He was a panel member last year.  And he didn't come off well, either.  Also, some time prior to that convention, he wrote a piece that was considered unduly negative for the Sunday magazine.  Makes one think of the "with friends like you.." line.  Makes one wonder why the fourm's organizers selected Bai (they might as well invited Kit Seelye).  Makes one wonder why someone as purportedly as intelligent as McJoan would allow someone - anyone - to overrun and run down an intended "Presidential Forum."

4.  I don't think it's enough to simply drop conclusions, without any underlying reasons.  I Imagine if someone said Jeralyn had a "pedestrian" apperance on Geraldo's old show, she would be right in asking, "what makes you say that?"

And instead of the Monster Movie moustache twirling ad SAYING what a douche Felonious Q. Republican is, have a "lowlight" reel of the scumbag getting hoisted on his/her own petard. (BONUS: S/he looks like even more of a cheeseball complaining about negative advertising.)

Make sure the voters know where they can access them online, OR make it available to them on portable media (like DVDs) to hand out to people who aren't Inner Netz friendly -- disseminate that from local offices.

The Dem braintrust fixates on coming up with gazillion dollar consultant-derived hooey that grassroots are supposed to mindlessly repeat -- "Tuhgether, America can do better!" -- as if a phrase will magically enthrall (stoopid) voters' hearts and minds. This is geared to catching the attention of a potential viewer being in front of the teevee or radio, then persuading them in a flashy moment. The means of conveyance is neither effective nor cost efficient and the content is usually dumb.

One reason the process needs to collect and spend massive amts of money is for paid lowest common denominator messaging that most people prefer to tune out -- with good reason! -- but for which there are few alternatives to find out about their choices in an election (eg, easily accessed smarter engagement.) MSM stinks and stump speeches have that flavorless, chewed over sound.

This is more interesting, less insulting, and gives people a better sense of the candidates. Overall, it gives a better impression of the party and accumulates respect.* Even "negative" moments with fundamental disagreement are more engaging that idiot, exaggerated negative campaigning that plays like a bad parody of itself.

Sadly, there's an unthinkable downside to this. A handful of perpetually losing consultants who pull out the same hoary methods yet miraculously live to lose again might be phased out and replaced with effective strategists.

For all the nice words Hillary had for the "grass roots," I wonder if she would have appeared at this "grass roots" audience and tired to make nice if Obama wa$n't rai$ing $o much ca$h online.

hillary went to watch obama continue imploding, not because he's raising so much cash. she's doing quite nicely in that regard herself, thank you very much. also, perhaps to again size him up as a potential running mate.

frankly, had she not shown up, the only people that would have known would be the 100 or so people at the convention, and maybe, the few thousand who actually pay any attention to the netroots.