here's a big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about--and I'm not talking about the Republican Party. It's the gusher of money flowing to Democrats from K Street lobbyists. And it is worrisome that so few progressives want to talk about this openly.

Sure, I'm all for booting the Republicans out of the House and Senate. But, I find it ironic, to say the least, that the polls show that the majority of the people believe that the political system is broken (according to a new CNN poll) and the polls also show the Democrats on the verge of taking over the House yet the Democrats are lining up and feeding at the lobbyist trough even more eagerly than before.

I've pointed out recently how Democrats are cozying up to business. Now, The Hotline reported just last week an item entitled, "K Street Veering Left." Turns out that House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi's "...corporate contributions have spiked compared to 2004. Just in the third quarter of this year, her donors included such GOP-friendly groups as the American Bankers Assoc, the American Hospital Assoc, Credit Suisse, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Mortgage Bankers Assoc, Honeywell Corp, Accenture, Genworth, Lockheed Martin and even the Nat'l Beer Wholesalers."

I'm not posting every day here...sorry...but you should feel free to continue to discuss ideas.

But, today, I just posted something on Huffington Post, which I'll repost here:

If you ever wondered what will happen if there is a change in political power in Washington D.C., there was no better reason to fear the future after watching last night's "debate" on Larry King Live between Lou Dobbs, former Republican-turned-crusader for the middle class, and Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary in the Clinton Administration.
Dobbs was the populist rebelling against abusive corporate power and the off-shoring of jobs, while Reich was the elitist defending the ruling class' so-called "free trade" ideas and minimizing outsourcing of jobs. I kid you not.

I had tuned in to hear a bit about Dobbs' new jeremiad about the assault against the middle class, outlined in his new book, "War on the Middle Class, How the Government, Big Business and Special Interest Groups are Waging war on the American Dream and How to Fight Back." I am uneasy about some of Dobbs' views on immigration. But, his main thesis is that--duh--abusive corporate power is at the heart of the attack on the middle class. In particular, he rails against outsourcing, as he has for a long time on his daily program, arguing that corporations have no allegiance to its workers and are simply searching for the biggest profits. Duh.

Check this out: "Now, there are Democrats and Republicans out there saying, 'What in the world are you talking about?' The fact is that both parties are owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate America and U.S. multinationals. And, if you examine their funding or where they stand with their platforms, where in the United States Congress do you find representation for the middle class today? There is $2.4 billion being spent by corporate America and special interests and social special interests in this country to persuade your lawmakers and mine to vote in whatever way is most amenable to them but not you and me." And later: "Corporate America and special interests own, as I said, absolutely without equivocation the legislative process and the electoral process and we've got to come to terms with that reality."

This is a pure and simple fact. Can you point to any Democrat who is speaking this truth in any political race, a truth that so many voters are articulating in their obvious disgust with a political system that is not coping with the grave diplomatic, economic and environmental crisis gripping our country?

AS many of you know, I have a very clear position about the Israel-Palestine conflict. I posted this at the Huffington Post yesterday:

"A couple of days ago, Joe Lieberman attacked Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont for supposedly not being a strong enough "supporter" of Israel because Lamont's supporters include some people who have been critical of Israel. But, the truth is, Joe, you're no friend of Israel.

Like too many politicians, Jewish or non-Jewish, Lieberman's stance on Israel is as dangerous as the friend of an alcoholic who would slap him on the back and yuck it up at a bar, offering to pay the alcoholic's tab--forget the consequences, as long as it makes him feel good.

A true friend of Israel would not have stood by and remained silent as Israel dropped thousands of cluster bombs in Lebanon, which, according to The New York Times today, left one million unexploded bomblets littered throughout southern Lebanon--small devices the size of a light socket that are killing and injuring innocent civilians. As The Times reports, "When they fail to detonate they cling to the ground, and with their white tails look deceptively like toys, so children are often those who are injured." A true friend of Israel would have taken its country's leaders to the woodshed and said, "Responding to Hezbollah is one thing but turning Lebanon into rubble and embittering an entire new generation towards the existence of your country is madness."

A true friend of Israel would be appalled at Israel's policy that has brought Gaza to the brink of economic collapse and civil war. Because of the economic boycott and severing of funds to the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians are undergoing a severe economic depression and malnutrition, especially among children, is on the rise. A true friend of Israel, and a devout Jew as Lieberman claims to be, would have said, "it is a sin to blame the entire Palestinian people for acts of violence by a handful of terrorists--and shame on us, as Jews, for bulldozing homes of innocent people, killing children in military raids and cutting off medical care, food and water to an entire population."

A true friend of Israel would not try to fan, in a not-so-subtle fashion, the fears of anti-Semitism by trying to tar people who are critical of our country's policy in the Middle East. Criticisms of Israel may be painful to American Jews--but it is high time that any person, Jew on non-Jew, can raise legitimate critiques of our one-sided policy in the Middle East and Israel's policies towards the Palestinians without fearing a McCarthy-like smear.

As a Jew, I speak about Israel out of love and pain, in the same way that I am a deeply patriotic American who is harshly critical of our government and its behavior in Iraq. My father was born in then-Palestine. He fought in the Haganah (the Israeli underground) in the war of independence; my father's cousin, whose name I carry as a middle name, was killed in that war. I lived in Israel for seven years, during which I went through the 1973 war: a cousin of mine was killed in that war, leaving a young widow and two children, and his brother was wounded. My step-grandfather, an old man who was no threat to anyone, was killed by a Palestinian who took an axe to his head while he was sitting quietly on a park bench. Half my family still lives in Israel.

I know Lamont, as a non-Jew, feels that he has to constantly talk about being a strong supporter of Israel. I hope that, once he is elected to the U.S. Senate, he can lead an honest discussion about the future of the Middle East. In the meantime, those of us who are not standing in the cross-hairs of the ugly rhetoric of campaigns have to speak up and say quite clearly that anyone who cares about the future of Israel, and the well-being of all the people in the region, has to reject the Lieberman vision of what it means to support Israel--a vision that only endangers Israel's long-term security and threatens the lives of people throughout the region because it fuels hatred, violence and intolerance.

I've been walking around, saying to anyone who will listen: have people gone stark raving mad when they bow down to Bob Woodward? Here's a guy who wrote two books that praised the Bush Administration's conduct around the Iraq war (oh, yes, he will simply say he was just reporting). And, now, he writes a new book that says, oooppsss, all that was wrong. In fact, what most people were saying all along, and Woodward ignored, is true: the Administration was hell-bent on war, mislead the people and is incompetent. Welcome to the real world, Bob.

Arianna Huffington gets it right in a blog she posted yesterday.

Spread the word. Don't buy Woodward's book. Spend your money instead on Frank Rich's book: "The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina."

I've posted this over at the Huffington Post. The blog posting referred to from "yesterday" can be seen here.

As I pointed out yesterday, corporate lobbyists and some Democrats are already planning their post-November 7th agenda--and that is not good news for the people. Progressives need to act now and form, for lack of a better name, the November 8th Coalition: a group of people and organizations who, in the event the Democrats retake one or both of the houses of Congress, will stand on the steps of the Capitol the day after the election and clearly articulate a progressive agenda--before the lobbyists and inside-the-Beltway Democratic Party hacks get their hands on the policy and message wheel.

The fact is that, if the Democrats take over the Senate and/or the House, it will be precisely because the public will have rejected failed foreign and domestic policies that have been promoted first and foremost by Republicans but also by too many Democrats: pre-emptive war and an aggressive military posture in the world, coupled with so-called "free-market" ideas that have saddled the average American with a worsening standard of living.

The November 8th Coalition needs to clearly state that it is representing the majority of the people when it calls for an agenda that embraces the preservation and enhancement of our shared Commons. As Onthecommons.org explains, the Commons is "the sum of all we inherit together and should pass on, undiminished, to our heirs." In the Commons are both natural assets and commons assets that we share. For example, the air we breathe and the prosperity that an economy gives us.

I'll offer five front-line Commons proposals, not as an all-encompassing list but simply to get your juices flowing:

1. A rapid, safe withdrawal of the U.S. military from Iraq, reconstruction of Iraq and replacement of the U.S. military with a truly international force (essentially, the proposal by Rep. Jim McGovern, H.R. 4232), followed by a serious broader discussion about how to substitute the use of military power and force in our relations with the world in favor of a far more generous reliance on negotiation and economic bridge-building.

2. An end to so-called "free trade" and a commitment to an economy that values the prosperity of communities and workers over the enrichment of a few.

3. Single payer health care (not "universal coverage" which even Republicans support via Health Savings Accounts). Forty-eight million Americans without health care are quite enough casualties on the altar of greed and profit.

4. An alternative energy and pro-environment plan that clearly states that in the next decade we have to adjust our economy and lifestyle so that we can reduce the strain on our planet and slow global warming.

5. We deserve an election system that works, and one that captures the will of the people not by the power of money but by the ideas put forth in the public sphere of political debate.

After you've checked out the Onthecommons.org website, jot down your ideas.