>We have seen an analysis of this on the dutch TV (Yes that is how closely we look at your politics and trying to analyze it... ).

Just like the existence of Kremlinologists was an implicit confession of the importance of their subject.

Now a rhetorical question: which country has one of those guys as an equivalent of a foreign affairs minister?

> It was recognized that the democrats could not oppose to the current administration too much. First of all, they also recognize that a quick withdrawl only hurts more. Anything that has been accomplished will be throwed in the bin and essentially it would mean a defeat a'la vietnam.
>
>Second the democrats are a bunch of people with widely different viewpoint. The party is not that coherent.
>
>Third. They have a politic agenda and the main goal is the presidential election this year. Anything that could potentially hurt the victory is carefully avoided.
>
>What america needs is a strong man/women that can unite the democrats (like bill clinton could), but this won't happen in congress like now. We'll have to wait and see what happens in november

And let's not forget that D and R are characters from the same alphabet. They may be paid by different corporations (GW2B by pharmaceuticals, HRC by HMOs :)... but did you hear any D candidate saying "dismantle K street project", "get Halliburton, KBR and Carlyle on the carpet", "level the playing field and change taxes so that outsourcing isn't so profitable", "let's give tax breaks to corporations WHEN they hire more people, not before and not blanket, and TAX them double when they close shop here and reopen abroad", "shut down the police state now, and if it's still in place when we come to power, we promise we will not use it for our own gains but will tear it apart"...

I think not even Edwards said any of that. Coke and Pepsi really are both just brown sugar waters with doubtful content.