She had the power to take an action to protect Joe's son.
Joe Colgan had none.
She didn't do that and hind-sight hasn't justified her not doing that.

Although she does not stand singly guilty nor bear more responsbility than the rest for Democratic passivity regarding this historic American embarrassment, as one of the group of 100 most powerful Americans she excercised the power we gave her but in doing so took a tragically consequential opposite action;

doing so from an unwise and fear-driven political perspective that has come back to haunt her, that has contributed to killing Joe's son and placing thousands more unnecessarily in harm's way.

No, she is not the solitary cause of those deaths. But she is not absolved just because she's up for re-election and slick logicians appeal to a purpose that in reality is not higher nor more noble. Her current attitude and the verbal bone she tossed when Kerry was standing behind her does not merit understanding, let alone forgiveness.

This is not about renomination or defeating Republicans so we can take back the government and eventually some day bring home the troops. We'll do that with or without Maria Cantwell. But if she is not part of it, it won't be because a small minority publicly disputed her own public position.

That sit-in is about the most basic and essential reasons why someone is voted into a position of speaking for the rest of us.

Those sitting-in today were not trying to un-nominate a senator nor advocate for another candidate.

This isn't about that and those who think it is are too shallow and need more civics and less political science classes.

Most of the readers/posters here who DON'T have skin in the game, and we know who they are ...

the college graduates and not-graduates who read-and-write-a-lot, drink loud and liberally but ain't  never-been-there-never-done-that,

the fighting demo keyboard political know-it-alls
with nothing momentous or of value to persuade those few of us not to hold her accountable;

not to hold a cowardly political party's feet to the fire and send Maria and Democratic leadership   a message that they're getting no pass.

Here I come again with points I've already made but points that seem to go way over the heads of people who couldn't or didn't struggle with the 60's and 70's, as late teens or in their early 20's and coping with a very real sucking into a maelstrom of killing,

who never had to use every venue possible to wake up an electorate and bring down liars.

Point One
Maria is going to win her primary easily.

But if someone like Paul Hackett were challenging her for the nomination, all you tip-toers would be standing on shaky crystal pedestals trying to get the rest of us to shut the hell up.

Point 2
If ever in the history of this country there was an opportune time to run against a repuglican candidate - incumbent or otherwise - in the entire U.S.A., 2006 is the year.

If a Democratic Pary cannot whip the majority of the Republican candidates around the country despite gerrymandering and any other swift-bloat tactics, then our party leadership is woefully inadequate and under-qualified. Too many people out there have not only pointed out Republican success tactics, but the flaws and ways to beat those tactics.

Republicans are so incredibly disadvantaged this year.

Our Demo leaders are so cowardly disingenuous in their shameful caution that seems to offer timidity as a strategy in a way that sets up Democratic dissenters as the potential and probable blame objects and fall guys should the long-time losing Demo leaders' dainty, cautious don't-rock-the-boat strategy fail again.

McGavick is no republican charismatic powerhouse who could ride roughshod over Maria due to some sort of sheer intelligence, skill, personality and leadership advantage. If he and his party succeed in building that lie, then it's our own damn fault for letting them get away with lying. Go read the state repug site. They're trying it already and Pelz made the right response.

She's got McGavick hands down right now.

In her first campaign she beat an incumbent for God's sake in a republican year and it really doesn't matter that the margin was thin. What makes anyone think she's so weak or vulnerable as an incumbent that "wise" democrats need to dumb up and shut up and quit expecting senatorial leadership?

She won it in a year when Republicans were kicking lots of Democratic asses all over the country. Gorton was a tough opponent back then but McGavick now?

... an uninspiring stereotypical corporate technocrat - the kind whose lack of leadership style and inability to inspire demonstrate themselves every time he's opened his mouth this year.

This is the time and this is the moment to run for election against a weak party full of weak candidates who have too much to defend and apologize for and too little to justify a vote for them.

Ir is not a time for democrats to act as if it is our party that has to overcome 5 1/2 years of mistakes.

You cannot take back any country that has been stolen from you by asking the Republicans,

"You guys wouldn't mind if we had a crack at governing for a while ... would you?"

That's what your strategies say more loudly than any verbal logic intended to tone down criticism of a candidate.

Trust us, we're noisy but we'll vote the right way.

But she owes this moment of accountability. and if we cannot hold a politician accountable about this kind of issue then we are not truly living in a civic reality. We are living in a world of spin and deception.

Her vote and position on this war have entitled her to the learning experience she's getting right now and the understanding that she is not untouchable;

that in another future venue, she'll experience a greater need for up-front honesty that recognizes the military contributions and sacrifices of a middle class who voted for her ... expecting that she'd represent more little guys and less big assholes.