If Ned Lamont and Bob Casey (two candidates supported by some of the bloggers that best represent the Netroots) are what you mean by “steering dramatically to the left” then you’ve identified yourself as being out there somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

And Howard Dean’s campaign brought huge infusions of new cash donation activism from small donors.

Howard Deans 50-state strategy has ensured that Republican resources are spread thin across the country as they are being forced to compete in places they have never competed in before at a time when Republican donations are languishing and Democratic donations are surging. Under the DC insider regime that you seem wistful about, the party probably wouldn’t have even fielded a candidate against someone like Richard Pombo, who is running behind in current polls against the candidate (Jerry McNerney) that Dean and friends recruited and now support.

Howard Dean and the Netroots represent the vital corrective power of democracy when the powers that be lose their bearings, their morals and their minds.

PS: If you’d like to support McNerney with a donation while lending fundraising muscle to the Netroots, go to:

http://www.actblue.com/page/netrootscandidates?refcode=MyDDAugust

I would not cede Jewish voters, or even the most Zionist supporters, to the Lieberman camp.

Though I'm not surprised that Al would look at the pro-Lebannon-war campaign that was waged here at Salon and throughout the American media and conclude that identity politics are at work in the Jewish community regarding Israel. I have seen reports that some Lieberman supporters have accused Jews who vote against him of being "disloyal Jews," and everybody else of anti-Semitism. We can't be so PC that we don't acknowledge the "race" card when it is being played. Give credit to American Jews that they're not going to be bullied by that kind of thing. It's racist to credit yourself for not being suseptible to being bullied by accusations of anti-Semitism, and then to think that most Jews would fall in line after being accused of "disloyalty" or "self-hate."

For any who do care about Israel, it's becoming obvious that Neoconservatism is as liable to drive Israel into a ditch (militarily, economically, morally, politically, etc) as it already has done to America.

Lieberman himself has been as blinkered in his support of Israel as in his support of the Democrats when you review his history (Conason's article shows but one example here, and I listed some others in a previous post). Lieberman's first impulse is always to rally around President Bush (as with the Dubai Ports deal), consequences elsewhere be damned. So for all Americans who would affirm a good relationship with Israel, a vote for Lamont is a vote for a coherently supportive policy toward Israel and for the efficacy of American foreign policy in the Middle East and throughout the world (the power of which has always been to the advantage of Israel, until the current administration squandered our power).

The people that won't be able to hear are those who believe that more war and more warmongering are the awnser to all of our problems. Unfortunately a fetish for war seems to be a core, unassailable impulse of both the Neoconservatives and the Zionists, which is probably why the two make common cause, even though enlisting Israel in the Neocons "War of Civilizations" is a really bad deal for Israel.

Lieberman has:

* Claimed to be “the real Democrat” in the race, and then bolted the party when he lost the primary

* Run a nasty primary and now general election campaign using Republican talking points and bashing Democrats

* Impugned the character of the people who oppose him instead of addressing their issues.

* Failed to hold Bush accountable for the disastrous war in Iraq

* Failed to hold Bush accountable for undermining the Constitution

* Failed to hold Bush accountable for breaking the law

* Attacked fellow Democrats or jammed up the works whenever the party has tried to act as an opposition party against Bush and the Neoconservatives

* Supported the Bush administration’s draconian overreach in the Terri Schiavo case

* Undermined Social Security in favor of “reform”

* Supported bankruptcy reform that will hurt millions of people at the expense of big business

* Supported the worst Supreme Court candidates (Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito)

* Refused to listen to or respond to letters or comments expressing concern from out-of-CT citizens while appealing for money from out-of-state supporters

* Helped Republicans run down President Clinton in the 1990s

* Emboldened Neoconservatives in their support of Israel’s war in Lebanon, which has disastrously undermined Israel’s security (“With friends like these…”)

* Supported the Dubai Port Deal which would have put a state-owned company of a state that boycotts Israel in charge of all of the ports on the East Coast of the US.

* Consorted with racists and anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan

Those posting on here in support of Lieberman are fifth columnists, same as Joe. Go rally your own troops, instead of trying to undermine ours.

When Joe Lieberman launches his Get-Out-the-Vote effort on election day it’s going to adversely affect the Democrats chances of winning the three house races in that state, because a startling 75 percent of Republicans in CT support Lieberman; ergo, Lieberman will be getting out the Republican vote.

Democrats, consequently, need to redouble their support of Lamont’s campaign. Control of both the Senate and the House hang in the balance.

I wish we had politicians in this country as direct and powerfully well-spoken as Yossi Sarid. He brilliantly sums up the significance of America's fall from power and influence in global politics under George Bush.

Taken together with Daniel Levy's editorial in Haaretz from last week "Ending the Neocon Nightmare" (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746312.html), and I'm thinking of adding Haaretz to my favorite places menu.