by any means, but doesn't it only take one determined Senator to filibuster?

I like Dodd's persistence on this issue, but things have not played out as he promised they would from what I can tell.

I don't like her moving to the right, but realistically Obama has done the same in positioning himself to run.  He's fortunate that he was not in the Senate at the time of the Iraq vote.  

I have a lot of respect for how hard Hillary has worked in the Senate, and she is a very good communicator.  I love to watch her in Senate hearings.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those... moments will be lost in time... like... tears..in rain"

Heh, that sound like sentiments any Republican you know would be capable of?

I can tell you that this is every bit as true of many Obama supporters.

That doesn't really win votes for your candidate, it only shows that many Clinton supporters argue like 5 year olds.

I still think it would be a lot better to drop this childish stuff and work together to change our country.

We are f-ing furious at our Republican government, and, if we are me, we want Bush and Cheney impeached (only not in that order).  Okay.

and you all tear him apart at this website.

when she starts doing her job and showing up for important votes like the ones she's missing today.

She made it back to DC to vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment though.  

Is worthless capitulator more to your liking?

No.

and in the pockets of lobbyists.  And couldn't even find the time to go and vote on an important like this.  Fuck her.

I just find it appalling that a Democratic presidential nominee could have voted for K-L.  She should be called out on that vote every day and at every turn.

she voted "not present" for Mukasey, too!  

as an advocate of reading comprehension, i'll include a bit more, and highlight key points you appear to have overlooked:

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist."  In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark.  Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough...

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will...

Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up.  Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully.  I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.  

means finding those areas on which we already are in agreement, and moving forward on them.

as a (perhaps) extreme example, consider how the wingnut militia types must feel right now about the senate's capitulation on warrantless wiretapping and telco immunity. many of them are so far gone they don't trust bush either - but possibly for opposite reasons (he's an agent of ZOG, or whatever). so they're likely just as outraged as we are.  if we were to work with them on that single issue, that would be finding common ground with people who otherwise have almost nothing in common with us.

compromise means accepting something somewhere in between what you want and another party does.  let's say no immunity, but government covering damages from litigation in this case.

and you're right that typically some form of compromise is the only way you get something done in our system.  you've been voting against funding the war, say, but do vote on one funding bill because it has binding timelines. you get at least some of what you want instead of holding out for everything and losing.

my problem with the clinton-penn-mcauliffe strategy is that they typically start with a position already halfway to the other side, and negotiate from there.  and all the while the GOP keeps moving the goalposts farther and farther to the right.

obama's method is to start with a common ground approach and get done things the vast majority of the electorate wants. next, try to persuade as many people as possible to your ideas, so that you start from a stronger position.  only then do you get to the nitty-gritty art of the deal stuff.

i believe the latter is the superior strategy in getting more of what we want, and getting more accomplished at the same time.

Half the battle is just showing up?

If you're a no-show, you surely can't make a difference.  Maybe a strong stand by a Presidential candidate would have convinced a Senate superdelegate to vote for the amendment...