Salon seems to be thick with DLC supporters lately.

Your rant about poor Joe Lieberman the Pious are, well, arbitrary and not reality based.

Issues with Lieberman include his nearly feudal loyalty to George Bush, even to the point of running to Bush’s side when Republicans are deserting him (such as on the Dubai ports deal). His vote on the bankruptcy law, his response to Feingold’s censure motion, his attacks on other Dems like Howard Dean (Spider hole of denial), his hypocrisy on criticizing the president (Lambasting critics for risking Bush’s credibility a few years after joining the Clinton impeachment witch hunt). That’s only a random sampling of his work from memory. I’m sure if I’d gotten on Google and reviewed his record I could have put together a far more outrageous list.

Basically, anytime the Dems try to conduct themselves like an effective opposition party he props up the president or undermines his fellow Democrats.

Get real indeed.

“GOPsters who pose as the fundamentalist left, greenies etc”

More likely GOPsters who pose as moderate centrists or worse (Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman ) to sink the Democrats into political disarray.

“Only if you don't value winning elections as victory. Virtually every junior senate seat we have won in 15 years has been DLC, certainly in red and purple states and many blue as well.”

And check out the story about Progressive Majority over at The Nation. PM is working to rapidly create a deep bench of avowed Progressives in swing districts across the country and in two years, are already winning house seats. A dollar donated to Progressive Majority will yield candidates that will create change much more effectively than a million dollars donated to the DLC identity crisis.

You blog like an angry drunk. How's the hangover this morning? Joe Lieberman represents Conn, not just the Jewish community. And the Jews I know are aghast at his conduct. The Jewish community is not monolithic, ya know.

Progressives should count truth in journalism as one of their values. However, the incredible success of Fox news and the conservative media “echo chamber” in fronting lies to the public and turning them into “common knowledge” (with attendant political success) does put my interests as a Progressive in conflict with my values. Would (n’t) it be great to create our own reality distorting echo chamber with which to win?

What if Salon and everybody else picked up Truthout’s story and magnified it to the point where it cast a further bitter pall in the public mind over the White House?

Some might say (as they say on Fox News) that the White House has enough misfortune that we don’t need to pile on, but from having watched what was done to Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Cleland, et al., our opponents have never given an inch, have never let up.

Many years ago I read a book by Arnold Smookler called “The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution,” the central thesis of which was that once one of the tribes chooses the way of power, the choices of all the other tribes are constrained by that choice. The Conservative movement has reached for and taken a new kind of power to destroy their political opponents and control the debate. Are our choices constrained to either becoming permanent losers or becoming more like our opponents?

Sorry Kickstarts, but that kind of neo-Che Guevara thinking that if we allow (or encourage) the government to become more alien and repressive the people will finally wake up doesn’t work. It’s going to take a half-century to get back what we lost in the 2000 election.

You used to to hear it a lot from progressive Nader supporters in 2000 trying to dismiss warnings about the worse-case scenario if George Bush won. ‘Once the people finally see what right-wing government looks like, they’ll throw it over in a massive show of outrage’—not. In fact, in 2004 it was a usually progressive constituency—married women—that swung in favor of GW's reelection.

Nerdnam articulates a hugely significant observation about Lieberman’s performance vs. Lamont when compared to his previous debate vs. Cheney. Walter described Lieberman as a hard-fighting seasoned political veteran pulling out all the stops to win. I'd like to have a guy like that on my side. Where the hell was this guy in 2000?

I didn’t see the Lamont debate but if Shapiro's and Nerdnam's descriptions are accurate, my sense of betrayal, outrage, frustration and disappointment toward Lieberman—and toward Al Gore the enabler and the DLC cabal that “stovepiped” him into the VP spot in 2000—only grows. And I will open my wallet again for Ned Lamont.

to the efforts of Horowitz and others to incite popular violence against individual working journalists (who tell the truth), and to increase the efficacy and likelihood of any such violence by publishing home addresses of putative victims.

Let’s call these people simply and accurately what they are: fascists. Fascism lifts up authoritarian leaders who are carried along on a movement of popular violence against journalists, the legitimate opposition, protesters, pacifists, outsiders and minority groups. And let’s not forget that fascism has always, always been against the left.

This surging new strain of American fascism is so obvious, so clear and easily identified by its classic behavior, that it frightens me that so many people don’t see it for what it is,..that there isn’t a groundswell of revulsion against behavior that is so alien and un-American, that we fought WWII to defeat.

I'd feel better if the news organizations got their backs up, if editors and publishers expressed outrage at this treatment and declared that they weren't going to back away from doing their jobs. But I haven't heard such a loud clarion call of commitment from the journalistic community, and it worries me that the journalists will again capitulate to fascist bullying.