As an attendee to the Las Vegas debate, what struck me most from the debate was not what was said but what was not said.  When introduced, Howard Dean had the biggest applause, over that of the introduction of the candidates.  People recognize the effort he has put into transforming the party, from a good ole boy network to an honest to god grassroots organization.

I understand that the old guard of the Party in Nevada in favor of Hillary, I was dismayed by the booing of the candidates, but encouraged by the booing of the commentators when they tried to insert their right wing spin.

From this came the thought that left bloggers make up an interest group.  We have common goals, just as corporations, churches, unions, and business have goals and support their candidates.  Unfortunately, the blogosphere has pretty much conceded using its advocacy position in the interest of avoiding an internal flame war.  I would argue that the blogosphere would be wise to establish some ground issues or points that a candidate needs to answer (correctly, I hope) for our support of candidates.   Yes, a litmus test of sorts, one that recognizes that we have an agenda and interests we want.  We are submerging our own interests in interest of not showing a conflict in primary season.  But if the wrong person is selected, will we not be harmed anyway?   What do I want to ask a candidate? Look below the fold.

cross posted at DailyKos

I could use some help in defining a wedge issue (or theme).  I'm going to be giving a speech to a political club I belong to that has Dems (damm few)  and Repubs (all shades).  I use these speeches to see what talking points seem to work. Where do I get their attention and what puts them asleep or in `not listening' mode

I'm not looking for Democratic talking points, I'm in a conservative area, Repubs outnumber Dems.  The tactic I have been working to develop is to make the conservatives doubt their Dear Leader.  

Lately I've come (stumbled is more like it) upon the theme of "this ain't Eisenhower's Republican Party" anymore (or something to that effect).  

Using this as a spring board, I need some examples of what conservative values espoused by Eisenhower Republicans just don't hold water (or directly contradict) today's Neo-con world.  Using some themes like this I seem to be getting a response from the moderate conservatives in the audience.  I'm trying to cobble together a cohesive package that I can shop to candidates to chew over.  I want to create something that will win in November, part of that will be making doubters within their own party.

My long term goal here is to develop a cohesive narrative of the Republican Party change has made Bush supporters cultists, but we need to build to that point, this is the start. I have to build the dissatisfaction first.

In what could be a very positive development for Democrats in Nevada, State Assembly leader Richard Perkins has just announced his decision not to seek the Democratic Nomination for Governor.  

His decision leaves two Democrats in the race, Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, who has made her formal announcement, and Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, who is expected to make his announcement soon.  

Titus, a popular State Senator from the Las Vegas area, has been appearing at almost any function since before last May, making no secret that she wanted to run for Governor.  She has been working the rural areas extensively since shortly after the last special legislative session when she made her formal announcement.  Titus has the grassroots support needed to be a successful candidate.  She is trying to follow the mold of the popular former Governor and Senator Richard Bryan.

more below the fold