<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Democratic Party</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/democratic_party/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 13:20:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Senate Democrats heroically fund TSA</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/senate_democrats_heroically_fund_tsa/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/senate_democrats_heroically_fund_tsa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation Security Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12925982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democrats score the dumbest political victory of 2012]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Tuesday, a <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/228835-senate-moves-forward-with-increased-airline-passenger-fees#.T7vGjswN384.twitter">Senate Appropriations Committee vote</a> effectively highlighted everything that is stupid about politics.</p><p>The Transportation Security Administration, a universally loathed government agency, is facing a shortfall, despite its more than $8 billion budget. Instead of having a debate over what effective airport security might actually look like and how much should reasonably be spent on the honestly rare threat of commercial-air-travel-based terrorism, there was a debate over how best to come up with the money needed for all the radioactive naked picture machines and bomb-sniffing dogs. The Democrats suggested passing on the cost of ineffective, cumbersome and intrusive security theater to citizens, via higher fees on airfares. The Republicans, even more predictably, suggested cutting spending that directly helps poor people to ensure there is enough to spend on stopping imaginary future 9/11s.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/senate_democrats_heroically_fund_tsa/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/senate_democrats_heroically_fund_tsa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Democratic Senate might just survive</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/the_democratic_senate_might_just_survive/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/the_democratic_senate_might_just_survive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 18:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12913727</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Senate map that looked bleak a year ago is now littered with surprise pick-up opportunities]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/its_starting_to_look_over_for_dick_lugar/singleton/">growing likelihood</a> that Richard Lugar will lose next Tuesday’s Indiana Republican Senate primary is the latest in a string of unexpected developments that have bolstered Democrats chances of hanging on to the Senate.</p><p>As <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/its_starting_to_look_over_for_dick_lugar/singleton/">I wrote yesterday</a>, Lugar’s conservative primary challenger, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, lacks the incumbent’s broad cross-partisan appeal and is closely identified with Tea Party-flavored Republicanism. Democrats, meanwhile, are poised to nominate Joe Donnelly, a moderate third-term congressman who defied the odds to hold onto his seat in the GOP tide of 2010. Mourdock would still probably be the favorite over Donnelly in the fall, just because of Indiana’s red tint, but the seat would be in play – something that would never be the case with Lugar as the GOP nominee.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/the_democratic_senate_might_just_survive/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/the_democratic_senate_might_just_survive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dems desert the left</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/dems_desert_the_left/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/dems_desert_the_left/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12910263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why aren't Democratic candidates for Senate promoting liberal causes on their websites?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Victories in two Pennsylvania House districts over two conservative Democrats who voted against healthcare reform gave liberals <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/us/politics/2-house-democrats-defeated-after-opposing-health-law.html">something to cheer about</a> this week. And they’re quite right to focus on primary elections: Nomination contests are really fights over who  will control the political parties. And yet liberals appear to be missing some major opportunities to influence the next round of Democratic senators, just when they have the chance to do so. A look at the websites of the 10 Democratic candidates most likely to become U.S. senators reveals that few of them are interested in several of the issues that have been the hallmark of liberal activism and often frustration during the Obama years: marriage equality, a public option on healthcare, filibuster reform and civil liberties.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/dems_desert_the_left/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/dems_desert_the_left/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>All for none and none for all</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/25/all_for_none_and_none_for_all/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/25/all_for_none_and_none_for_all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12734121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Forty years of culture wars and racial battles wrecked the country and the GOP – but it's not too late to change
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My March 4 post "<a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/04/whats_the_matter_with_white_people/singleton/#comments">What's the matter with white people?</a>" was Salon's top story that week, and it got a lot of comments and online attention. I went on vacation a few days later, but I've wanted to address a few arguments, if belatedly.</p><p>I asked "What's the matter with white people?" because my people are increasingly coming under fire from the right and the left. Republicans have begun to blame not the economy but "dependency" on government and rising rates of single parenthood for the economic troubles of the white working class. On the left, meanwhile, whites are dismissed as the backward base of the increasingly radical GOP, and working class whites, in particular, are derided as racists who won't vote for Democrats because the party is now led by a black man (ignoring the fact that a larger share of working class whites voted for Barack Obama than for Caucasians John Kerry, Al Gore or Bill Clinton.)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/25/all_for_none_and_none_for_all/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/25/all_for_none_and_none_for_all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>262</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The economic story Obama must tell</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/08/the_economic_story_obama_must_tell/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/08/the_economic_story_obama_must_tell/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12599751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We need government investment to restore prosperity. The president needs to explain that in a way that makes sense]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look at it this way: If the Wall Street banking crisis had taken place in 2007 instead of 2008, George W. Bush wouldn't be able to leave home without being jeered. (As it is, he rarely leaves Texas.) Hardly anybody would buy the brand of tycoonomics GOP presidential candidates are selling. People would understand that save-the-millionaires tax cuts and deregulation had dramatically failed. President Obama would get more credit for pulling the economy out of a nose dive.</p><p>Alas, people have short attention spans and a weak understanding of abstract economic issues. You have to tell them a story. The failure of policymakers to do that has been driving progressive MVP Paul Krugman crazy. How can it be, he asks, that governments foreign and domestic are repeating the mistakes of the early 1930s — slashing government spending to reduce budget deficits, putting more people out of work, reducing demand, and inadvertently increasing  deficits? Rinse and repeat.</p><p>Part of it is that the lessons of the Great Depression belong to history, and, as such, are infinitely malleable. Arguments your grandfather would have dismissed — such as Mitt Romney’s plans to assure prosperity by topping off Scrooge McDuck’s bullion tank — are given credence today. Granddad may not have grasped Keynesian economic theory, but he remembered “Hoovervilles” and bread lines. Scrooge McDuck wasn’t a cartoon figure for nothing.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/08/the_economic_story_obama_must_tell/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/08/the_economic_story_obama_must_tell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>99</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t wish for a Newt nomination</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12243641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, Obama would very likely beat him, but it's still not worth even the smallest risk of a President Gingrich]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Republicans are worried sick about Newt Gingrich’s ascendance, while Democrats are tickled pink.</p><p>Yet no responsible Democrat should be pleased at the prospect that Gingrich could get the GOP nomination. The future of America is too important to accept even a small risk of a Gingrich presidency.</p><p>The Republican worry is understandable. “The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handling the election over to Obama,” says former Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlenty, a leading GOP conservative. “I think that’s shared by a lot of folks in the Republican party.”</p><p>Pawlenty’s views are indeed widely shared in Republican circles. “He’s not a conservative – he’s an opportunist,” says pundit Joe Scarborough, a member of the Republican Class of 1994 who came to Washington under Gingrich’s banner. Gingrich doesn’t “have the temperament, intellectual discipline or ego control to be either a successful nominee or president,” says New York Republican Rep. Peter King, who hasn’t endorsed any candidate. “Basically, Newt can’t control himself.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>104</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democrats got over $1 million from Bain</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bain Capital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12196621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even as they attack Romney for his record at Bain, Democrats have received generous contributions from the company]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The record of Bain Capital is already a primary line of attack against Mitt Romney by Democrats, especially because of Romney's <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/17/is-romney-backtracking-on-his-100000-jobs-created-claim/">claim</a> that he created 100,000 jobs during his tenure at the firm.</p><p>Democrats have released <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/democrats-attack-romney-over-bain">ads</a> on Bain, and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said this month of Romney, "He was a corporate-buyout specialist at Bain Capital. He dismantled companies. He cut jobs. He forced companies into bankruptcy and he outsourced jobs and sent jobs overseas."</p><p>Obama campaign strategists are also <a href="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/is-the-bain-capital-story-peaking-too-early.php">promising</a> that the current flare-up over Bain is just a taste of what's to come in the general election, if Romney is the nominee.</p><p>As an investigation by the Hill <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop">found</a>, though, Democratic campaigns have actually received more money from Bain executives than Republicans in recent years. The Washington newspaper <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop">reports</a>:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>48</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A win for progressives on Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel-Palestine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12150461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hardline activists sought to unseat Rep. Donna Edwards over her Mideast views, but failed to raise enough money]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rep. Donna Edwards, a Maryland Democrat who is associated with J Street, which argues for a more progressive U.S. policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict, has staved off a challenge from a fellow Democrat who sought to raise money by running to her right on Mideast issues.</p><p>This week, Glenn Ivey, the former Prince George's County state's attorney, announced he was abandoning plans to challenge Edwards, citing his inability to raise money.</p><p>“[I]t would take a very substantial amount of money to get my message out to voters in two very expensive media markets," Ivey said in a <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/Glenn-Ivey-Donna-Edwards-Maryland-wont-run-Congress-211430-1.html">statement</a>. "A tough economy and a compressed election time-frame have made it tough for my campaign to raise enough funds to move forward."</p><p>Ivey had raised about $150,000 while Edwards had taken in about $230,000, according to the latest available numbers <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/howard/news/ph-ll-cns-ivey-quits-20120111,0,7935705.story">reported</a> by the Baltimore Sun. Part of the fundraising fight centered on the contentious issue of American policy toward Israel.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>138</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should liberals be more thankful for Obama?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10249603</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[He won healthcare and banking reform as well as the super committee standoff. Great. We have to keep pushing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I got to debate Jonathan Chait about his much-discussed New York magazine piece, "<a href="http://nymag.com/news/politics/liberals-jonathan-chait-2011-11/">When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?</a>" on "Hardball" Tuesday night. He's aiming at President Obama's liberal critics, but in fact his article proves that criticism is nothing new. Apparently, we've always been unreasonable, because Chait's survey of Democratic presidents going back to FDR finds that the left has always found a reason to squawk. But he seems to think we're particularly unreasonable when it comes to Obama. With Thanksgiving ahead, I found myself wondering whether liberals should be more grateful to the president.</p><p>First, let's take in the list of Obama's accomplishments as Chait describes them. They're considerable:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>301</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Karl Rove spending millions lying about everyone</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crossroads GPS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elizabeth Warren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Rove]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10224185</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Crossroad GPS launches misleading ads against Elizabeth Warren, Jon Tester and Tim Kaine]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An ad by Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS attacking Montana Sen. Jon Tester was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/crossroads-ad-karl-rove-false-jon-tester_n_1089182.html?ref=homepage">pulled from the air</a> by a cable service because it contains nothing but very blatant and indefensible lies, unlike the usual defensible lies and distortions most political ads make.</p><p>Cablevision's Optimum cable pulled the ad, which claimed that Tester voted against banning the EPA from regulating farm dust. The supposed EPA rule <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/farm-dust-regulation-gop-bill_n_1031215.html?1319575647">was completely imaginary</a> and the vote was about Chinese currency manipulation.</p><p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1HtHY1qvizI" frameborder="0" width="420" height="315"></iframe></p><p>I bet Crossroads is super embarrassed about this awful mistake, right? Of course they are:</p><blockquote><p>Nate Hodson of Crossroads said in defense of the pulled ad, "It was a very small cable system. The four largest broadcast stations in Montana reviewed the facts supporting the ad and will continue airing it."</p>
<p>He said later, "We are communicating with the cable system and expect that the ad will be back up and running on cable soon."</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The myth of the progressive city</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10171928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With mayors like Bloomberg and Emanuel, urban areas have become bastions of privatization and corporatist economics]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you've listened to a political pundit predict any election in the last 50 years, you've been told that there are Republican small towns whose politics are organized around the three G's (guns, God and gays) and there are Democratic cities whose politics are organized around the two L's (labor and economic liberalism). While this binary mythology is insulting for its hackneyed stereotyping and lack of nuance, it has at least half the story right -- in terms of sheer partisanship, many rural areas do tend to go red, and many urban areas do tend to go blue.</p><p>Where this story goes wrong is in its ideological suppositions about the cities -- and specifically, about Democratic cities. Sure, two or three decades ago, there may have been some truth to the notion that the American city is a union-driven bastion of populist progressive economics. But today, while cities may still largely vote Democratic, they are increasingly embracing the economics of corporatism. The result is that urban areas are a driving force behind the widening intra-party rift between the corporatist, pro-privatization Wall Street Democrats and the traditional labor-progressive "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ben Nelson: Please don&#8217;t seek reelection!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Nelson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10160907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In which we help Nebraska's "centrist" senator make a 2012 decision]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_0473f062-6c84-55f4-9171-eab01b7bcd5d.html">According to the Lincoln Journal Star,</a> Senator Ben Nelson has not yet decided whether or not to run for reelection. Consider this my open letter to the distinguished Democrat from Nebraska: Please, please, I beg you, Senator Ben Nelson, do not run for reelection.</p><blockquote><p>"I'll sit down with my family to discuss the future," Nelson said Tuesday during a telephone interview. "They are my sounding board. I value what they say."</p>
<p>Nelson said he will weigh his family's views along with a personal judgment on "whether I believe I have a role to play in dealing with a very divided Congress in a very divided country, whether I could be constructive in finding some solutions, whether I am convinced I can be a positive force for the following six years."</p></blockquote><p>Senator Nelson, you have never been a "positive force" during your time in office thus far, and it seems unlikely that you will become one at any point in the next six years.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Andrew Breitbart can&#8217;t grasp Occupy Wall Street</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anarchism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Breitbart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10125177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The conservative provocateur tries to take down a movement he doesn't understand by quoting a few harmless emails]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew Breitbart has <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/152745/andrew_breitbart%27s_pathetic_attempt_to_smear_occupy_wall_st._">tracked down secret internal Occupy Wall Street emails</a> that prove the entire movement is a leftist conspiracy to destabilize capitalism. There are anarchists involved! And ACORN!</p><p>Breitbart obtained <a href="http://owsmail.dc406.com/">a couple thousand listserv emails</a> from some Occupy Wall Street participants and organizers arguing strategy and planning events, and <a href="http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/10/14/crowdsource-this-social-list-emails-expose-occupywallstreet-conspiracy-to-destablize-global-markets-governments/">he has "crowdsourced"</a> his analysis of these emails because he doesn't really understand any of it.</p><p>Despite his inability to grasp who these people are and what they want, he has determined "the true purpose" of the movement, based on a couple of random things some anarchist organizers wrote to one another:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The progressive debate we need</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/the_progressive_debate_we_need/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/the_progressive_debate_we_need/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10124594</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president isn't offering strong alternatives to the GOP's regressive ideas. OWS could fill the void]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Republicans are debating again tonight. And once again, Americans will hear the standard regressive litany: government is bad, Medicare and Medicaid should be cut, “Obamacare” is killing the economy, undocumented immigrants are taking our jobs, the military should get more money, taxes should be lowered on corporations and the rich, and regulations should be gutted.</p><p>Four years ago the most widely-watched TV debate among Republican aspirants attracted 3.2 million viewers. This year it’s almost twice that number. And for every viewer assume a multiplier effect as he or she shares what’s heard with friends and family.</p><p>Americans are listening more intently this time around because they’re hurting and they want answers. But the answers they’re getting from Republican candidates – tripping over themselves trying to appeal to hard-core regressives – are the wrong ones.</p><p>The correct ones aren’t being aired.</p><p>That’s partly because there’s no primary contest in the Democratic party. So Republicans automatically get loads of free broadcast time to air their regressive nonsense while the Democrats get none.</p><p>But even if the President had equal time, the debate about what to do about the crisis would still be frighteningly narrow.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/the_progressive_debate_we_need/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/the_progressive_debate_we_need/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democrats can&#8217;t occupy Wall Street</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Parties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10106883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Six reasons why Obama\'s party can\'t go populist]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can the Occupy Wall Street movement do for the Democrats what the Tea Party has done for the Republicans? Will a spontaneous grass-roots uprising against the rich neutralize the manipulated “Astroturf” Tea Party movement’s assault on big government, assure a second term for Barack Obama and lead to the new New Deal that progressives have been waiting for?</p><p>Alas, probably not. Ever since Richard Nixon won his reelection victory in 1972 by appealing to many of the discontented populists attracted to George Wallace, the Republican Party, formerly a party of big city boardroom types and small-town Rotarians, has been based at least in its rhetoric on right-wing populism. The Tea Party movement is merely an extreme exaggeration of the mainstream GOP.</p><p>But the Democrats since George McGovern captured the party’s presidential nomination in the same fateful year of 1972 have been the opposite of a left-wing populist party. Thus while right-wing populism reinforces the existing Republican story about America, any genuine left-wing populism would challenge the basic constituencies and values of the McGovern-to-Obama Democrats. There are six reasons in particular why Democrats are unlikely to benefit as much from populism as Republicans.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>194</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dems backing Occupy Wall St. are funded by Wall St.</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10106751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Prominent Democrats applaud Occupy Wall Street while taking huge donations from the finance industry]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot has been made in the last few days of increasing Democratic Party support for Occupy Wall Street. Some within the movement have expressed fears of co-optation. Some on the right have argued that the Dems are blundering by throwing in their lot with a group of putative radicals. And so on.</p><p>The irony is that the same elected Democrats singing the praises of Occupy Wall Street are themselves major recipients of money from … Wall Street!</p><p>Does this mean that the Democratic embrace should be rejected? Not necessarily. Occupy Wall Street could, of course, open up political space for Democrats to address unemployment, income inequality, criminality by banks, the overwhelming influence of corporate money in politics and so on. But it's worth keeping in mind that most if not all of these politicians have been cozy with Wall Street for years; so there are grounds for suspicion.</p><p>Take the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the party organization that collects money for House races around the country. It is now soliciting signatures (along with email addresses for its database) for a <a href="http://www.dccc.org/pages/occupy">petition</a> in support of Occupy Wall Street.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Occupy Wall Street isn&#8217;t the left&#8217;s Tea Party</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/democrats_occupy_wall_street/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/democrats_occupy_wall_street/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10106558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today's corporate-funded Democratic Party will have difficulty embracing the movement's populism]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will the Wall Street Occupiers morph into a movement that has as much impact on the Democratic Party as the Tea Party has had on the GOP? Maybe. But there are reasons for doubting it.</p><p>Tea Partiers have been a mixed blessing for the GOP establishment – a source of new ground troops and energy but also a pain in the assets with regard to attracting independent voters. As Rick Perry and Mitt Romney square off, that pain will become more evident.</p><p>So far the Wall Street Occupiers have helped the Democratic Party. Their inchoate demand that the rich pay their fair share is tailor-made for the Democrats’ new plan for a 5.6 percent tax on millionaires, as well as the President’s push to end the Bush tax cut for people with incomes over $250,000 and to limit deductions at the top.</p><p>And the Occupiers give the President a potential campaign theme. “These days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren’t rewarded and a lot of folks who aren’t doing the right thing are rewarded,” he said at his news conference this week, predicting that the frustration fueling the Occupiers will “express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we’re getting back to some old-fashioned American values.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/democrats_occupy_wall_street/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/democrats_occupy_wall_street/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unions, Democrats and Occupy Wall Street</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What happens when a movement without leaders meets leaders without a movement? We're about to find out]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'm embarrassed to admit my first reaction to Occupy Wall Street was cynicism. Along with some other folks on Twitter when it began Sept. 17, I wondered aloud why it started on a Saturday, when Wall Street was quiet. I couldn't find a list of its goals. Visiting New York a few days later, I walked along Wall Street in the rain trying to find protesters, but though there were barricades all along that dark canyon, and cops everywhere, nobody was protesting; I later saw a few dozen people among tents at Liberty Plaza, but by that time I was running to catch my plane home.</p><p>The next day, the New York Police Department cruelly pepper-sprayed female protesters, and suddenly the movement came alive. Ever since, I've been struck by the good sense the protesters have used in dealing with the police (in contrast with the poor sense of some of the cops): They are not making them the enemy. In fact, as 700 people were being arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday, they were chanting at the cops: "We're fighting for your pensions!" It didn't keep the protesters from getting arrested, but it kept them on the moral and political high ground.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>156</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why white liberals are (really) ditching Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Racism isn\'t responsible for the president\'s drop in popularity. His right-wing policies are]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few weeks ago, I wrote an <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/26/americans_denying_racism/index.html" class="storyLink">essay</a> that got me a much larger truckload of hate mail than usual. The piece concerned the persistent problem of denialism in parts of White America when it comes to race. I lamented how, despite media and political insinuations that whites have become an oppressed group, it is people of color -- and in particular, African Americans -- who remain the real casualties of discrimination:</p><blockquote>
<p>You can see [this racism] in black unemployment rates, which are twice as high as white unemployment rates -- a disparity that persists even when controlling for education levels. You can see it in a 2004 MIT study showing that job-seekers with "white names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews" than job seekers with comparable resumes and "African-American-sounding names." And you can see it in a news media that looks like an all-white country club and a U.S. Senate that includes no black legislators.</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>236</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the two-party duopoly operates</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The behavior of two Colorado politicians shows how superficial the differences between the parties are]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By now, probably everyone reading this is already sick of America's quadrennial political spectacle -- the one in which politicians and media outlets ask us to believe that there remain vast differences between our two political parties. It's like cheaply staged pornography on a red and blue set, with words like "polarization," "socialist" and "extremist" comprising the breathless dialogue in a wholly unconvincing plot.</p><p>Some of this tripe can be momentarily compelling, of course. And as the 2012 election climax draws nearer, many Americans will no doubt submit to the fantasy. But before that happens, it's worth looking a few levels beneath the orgiastic presidential campaign for a last necessary dose of nonfiction, if only to remind us that the parties are often two heads of the same political monster.</p><p>As good a place as any to get such a dose is my home state of Colorado, which this month provided two emblematic examples of how the two party duopoly really operates.</p><p>Exhibit A is our Republican secretary of state, Scott Gessler. Though his job is to enforce campaign finance rules and protect voting rights, he's proudly using his office for exactly the opposite.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

