And yet, when the rubber hits the road and it's time to actually cast the vote in November, when have any of the above urged a vote for anyone other than the candidate with the "D" after the name? Seriously, name some of the specific non-Dem candidates that the aforementioned groups of folks have chosen to support over their Democratic opponents. Are there any? At all? 'Cause if there aren't--if there's truly no possibility that Democratic nominees may lose actual progressive votes at the ballot box to third-party progressive challengers--then the alleged progressive "rejection" of the "centrist-generated argument" is meaningless. Laughable. Democratic candidates don't care how much we bitch and moan about 'em, if they still have our votes in the bag in November. In fact, if anything, our bitching and moaning works to their benefit (as Rahm Emanuel describes in this post's anecdote)... provided they can still count on our votes in November. Which they can. Which they *always* can.

Prior to Accountability Now and the work of the "netroots," Greenwald, Hamsher, et. al., what you've written here would be true. But this is not a static process. It can be, and is being, challenged. You might find it laughable but I don't. As for Emanuel, I couldn't care less what he thinks. He's playing by the rules that were alive and well in the '80s and '90s but, with an actively engaged public (and I emphasize here actively), might very well prove less-effective over time.

I understand your position that "our bitching and moaning works to their benefit," but I'm not advocating bitching and moaning. I'm saying that effective participation doesn't end on November 4, only to reappear two years later. It that's the "strategy," then, sure, it would be laughable.

But targeting those representatives (and eventually senators) who are clinging to their seats, through advertisement (among other things) that demonstrate their perfidy, and seeking out genuine progressives (and they exist) who might successfully challenge them, is a legitimate and, I'd argue, ultimately effective means to keep continual pressure on those who'd otherwise shove us aside with long-standing contempt. This can work but only if you actually do it.

Are you advocating ever voting against a Democrat in November? Ever?

Certainly. If I lived in Vermont, I'd vote for Bernie Sanders. If you expect me to be an apologist for a two-party system, you're talking to the wrong guy. What I will say, to repeat, is that the two-party system isn't as static as I suspect you think it might be. Recall, if you will, that the GOP was nothing like its present iteration 30 years ago. The religious element actually performed grass-roots work in an effort --succesfully, it goes without saying-- to dominate that party. While the results of their efforts are less-than-pleasing to me, I acknowledge the success of their labors.

So then, in this brave new world of the netroots ....

I'm not arguing with you for argument's sake. I'm saying that the status quo can be challenged if you desire to do so. I don't say it's easy. I don't say it's without complication. I do ask you, however, why you're here expressing your opinion and, I assume, your frustration with that status quo? I'll say it again--nowhere is it written that we have to stand idly by and let these things unfold without challenge. There'll be a vote in two years when the entire House and a third of the Senate is up for re-election. I'm not the only one who's aware of this.

Interesting link. The Army’s Media Relations Chief, Col. Cathy Abbott, told the AP that the Army did not violate its policy "that prohibits the cropping or editing of a photo to misrepresent the facts or change the circumstances of an event." The altered photo of Dunwoody, released on Thursday night, depicted the general in front of a super-imposed American flag backdrop, with significant airbrushing done on Dunwoody herself. Her rank, which is displayed on the front of the soldier’s tunic, is not visible. Abbott, however, says the Army isn’t "misrepresenting her [Dunwoody]" since "the image is still clearly Gen. Dunwoody." The original photo, according to the AP, features the general at a desk with a bookshelf and credenza behind her.

Nope, no misrepresentation "of the facts or change [of] circumstances of the event" here.

As for this: Lord Bingham said Lord Goldsmith had given Mr Blair "no hard evidence" that Iraq had defied UN resolutions "in a manner justifying resort to force".

I really think colonial America did win that revolution. After all, what better metric of success than to see your former masters imitating your behavior?

I forgot to answer this: can you name even one single non-Dem progressive candidate who has been supported by the above folks against a centrist (or worse) Democratic officeholder in a general election? Just one?

To the best of my knowledge, Act Blue works through the Democratic Party. Unlike your implication, I don't believe that renders their efforts somehow illegitimate. I said I'm not an apologist for the two-party system. I'm not. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to work within that framework. The amount of money and effort required to launch a nation-wide third party (assuming one is thinking of a group other than the Greens) is formidable. I see no reason to concede Democratic territory to the likes of Emanuel just because he, and those like him, happen to control the reins right now.

Democrats? Once I saw a bigfoot.

I'm still waiting for those organic bandaids.

I think I was in a fight last night/early a.m., but I'm not sure.

GoodCelery! knows. But then again, he's one of the Druidic old ones (and this I know because my Irish mother's maiden name was Hooligan).

one of them is not to see this line again:

"meet the new boss; same as the old boss" and all its variations.

but I think GBT stands for Genetically Bodified Tood.

It's the only thing that makes sense.