Interesting program on CSPAN last night in which Alan Greenspan named Bill Clinton one of the best Republican presidents of recent years. Half joking, but half serious as well. Relevant, I suggest, in that there is indeed a powerful 'moderate' wing in the Democratic party that fits comfortably in the classical ideology of either party. Furthermore, that moderate orientation is shared by the overwhelming majority of the controlling power players not only among the elected officials but in the party hierarchy itself--the new democrats of the 80's-90's.

The moveon event, it turns out, was important and useful way beyond its intended function. It reveals the growing rift between a new liberal movement and the old power. The broad democratic congressional participation in the moveon condemnation (turning on their own) has been useful as an exercise in self-identification in the party. i.e. Who are the democrats, and what do they want to be. I understand from posts over at FDL that membership and money have been flowing to MoveOn at yearly highs ever since the ad was published. I very much hope that MoveOn will attempt other, very high-visibility ads of the type purchased in the NYT. It will be tricky, but I hope MoveOn can in some way respond forcefully to players of Feinstein's type.

Finally, I wonder if a 'big tent' can ever be too big. While there should be absolutely no limit to the diversity of that party (or any party) regarding race, religious belief, gender, age, sexual orientation, geographic origin, and so forth, there should be some discipline--some consistency--regarding political and ideological orientation. In other words, the democratic party should be open to absolutely all comers, except republicans. Not because republicans are evil or bad, but because they already have a party, and it's over there, on the other side of the aisle.

I agree. Using Glen's two-party system ("The Beltway Party" and "Pathetic Outsider Party"), Hillary is at the core of the Beltway Party, ensconced with many close friends and colleagues (democrat and republican--but that distinction really doesn't matter).

I noted that Hillary was one of the first to cry out on Ahmadinajad's requested visit to ground zero. That is in no way a democratic position. That is Bush's position.

The last thing we need is a president from the Beltway Party, but I agree with you that her chances look good right now.

"but today I'm in a foul mood..."

Too much single malt last night Bill?

If I'm not mistaken, Hoyer has some of the strongest K-street ties of any democrat. In '06, he was reported to be salivating about he prospects of really big corporate money coming to the Dems, for a change, as a result of regaining the majority. I have no doubt that corporate money will begin (or perhaps has begun) to swing that way. Yet another obstacle.

OK.

It never occurred to me that by becoming enmeshed in a political blog that I would end up drastically increasing my consumption of blueberries. But here was this guy, talking about them in all sorts of contexts and in such a way that all of a sudden I stopped walking past them in the damn supermarket and began acquiring them and taking them home as something bebop said about these damn blueberries would come to mind. So then I'm sitting in the mornings eating my cereal with blueberries sprinkled on them and reading political commentary which is also sprinkled with bebop's commentary about blueberries sometimes. Pickles too, but blueberries quite frequently. In season I suppose.

And then I start thinking about how wild blueberries are so different from farm-raised corporate blueberries because they grow in uncontrolled ways without fertilizer or pesticides and thus are smaller but also more variable in size, color and flavor due to the variable spots in which they grow on the rocky hillsides and thin acidic soils of new england. Only available in season, I suppose.

And I realize that these are clearly democratic blueberries. They are "blue".

Unlike the farm-raised corporate blueberries which are carefully packaged and of remarkably uniform size, color and flavor and may come from your state or my state or from some other nation on this flat earth, and have no season whatsoever as it is always fall somewhere else and the labor costs are always more acceptable if not highly advantageous in that same somewhere else. These uniformly-sized large corporate blueberries sold in uniformly sized square one-pint containers are clearly republican blueberries. They are red blueberries.

And so the conservatives are absolutely correct that the law of unintended consequences is truly with us always, for it is god's way of informing us that we live in systems so complex we cannot view all their parts nor understand them nor can we predict how a simple act of reading a political blog in the morning may effect daily personal dietary intake of blueberries and how we perceive that.

"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Only a fool idealogue, or his supplicant tools, would fail to see who's behind the wall now.

"However, all are lumped together as "ragheads" by racist American trash."

This is the first time I've ever heard the New York State Legislature referred to as racist trash, but by god it fits.