When I say "people" here, I don't mean it to mean Kossacks or anything loaded. I mean people.

It strikes me that navel-gazing analyses that pick apart regular people who are legitimately feeling out their own ability to play a role in politics (people like Markos and his peers), is destined to kill every grassroots, populist movement in its crib.

Ask yourself: is there any imperfect movement that could rise up that wouldn’t be torn down by armchair pundits and “center left realists?” Examples: Nader voters, anti-IMF/WTO activists, Dean supporters, MoveOn, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, DailyKos, etc. etc. These are examples of organized, informed people who are fighting under values most progressives share; yet they are attacked because their political calculations aren’t perceived as perfect.

But there will never be a perfect movement because - surprise - we aren't all perfectly identical in our priorities, actions or abilities. And if we kill off every seedling before it grows because it's not a rose that smells equally sweet to everyone, we'll have nothing left but a barren landscape that won’t be much of an alternative to the shiny objects established institutions use to sidetrack the nation.

...that there will be less coverage down the road on how this fizzles out than there is right now on the arrests?

The Senate doesn't represent the public on the war, as Salon shows, but lack of representation goes into many others.

Polls show the public would pay more in taxes to improve public schools, but even under Clinton with both houses of Congress under Democratic control, an effort to substantially increase school funding failed.

Polls show a majority of Americans - by wide margins - favor some form of a single-payer healthcare system, but such a program is anathema to all but maybe 3 or 4 senators (sure, close to a majority courageously support "universal" healthcare - yet to be defined).

But what's most revealing is what the public doesn't ask for that the Senate manages to do with ease.

The war is one example (no one voted in 2000 on the hopes of war with Iraq). But how about the bankruptcy bill, which sailed through with the support of the Democratic leader in the Senate. Where were the protests demanding this legislation (outside corporate boardrooms)? What group of voters flocked to the polls to ensure a Senate that would pass this?

Or what about bipartisan votes for Medicare drug coverage, which was designed to benefit drug companies - did you attend the march on Washington in support of Pfizer? Did you sign the petition asking that Merck get more of the nation's pie?

Or what about the estate tax repeal, which is a "movement" consisting mainly of 18 super rich families and the "think tanks" they influence. True, rollback/repeal hasn't come to pass yet, but it could happen this week with some Democratic support. At least 18 families have representation in the US Senate.

It seems the people don't get what they are looking for, but if they're lucky they might approve of what the Senate was going to do in any event.

The law is clear in this case. What the Supreme Court did was not a blessing, it was routine (or should be). Had they ruled the other way, bedrock legal principles would be gone.

While the High Court has become constitutionally challenged lately, that's no excuse for we progressives to lower the bar.

Thank you Bruce for calling her an idiot. You might have also turned the question on her and asked: "what credibility do you have to talk about the news? Or Wolf Blitzer? Or any other model/actor who worked their way up reading a teleprompter?"

Seems to me mighty strange that news delivery folks with no credentials of their own can get away sidelining the views of anyone else on society and politics - especially artists, who wouldn't be masters of their trade if they didn't know something about the human condition.

I agree that the GOP's plan for America is to help its donors suck the nation dry until it is a withered husk. But it's not clear to me what the Democrats would do to improve the lives of the non-rich, other than tinker around the edges of the GOP agenda.

Pointing out how corrupt and non-democratic the Republican Party is like shooting fish in a barrel. Since the Democrats are the only party with which progressives might still hold some sway, I suggest we start directing our outrages and our energy there.

A poster suggested that the law was unclear on this point. While true that this particular issue had not been adjudicated (does such reassignment constitute retaliation), the legal standards for judging this question are pretty clear. Laws against whistle-blower retaliation would be meaningless if practices like those of the employer in this case were permitted under those laws.

Democrats have said that the war is a mess and a new direction is needed (of course they don't have any idea what that direction should be, but for the purposes of the debate I propose in this news cycle, it doesn't matter).

Because Democrats have not demanded "victory at any cost," unlike their GOP counterparts, the Democrats are able to ask the President and members of the congressional GOP: "Hey folks, could you explain now what victory will look like in a few months such that you can carry out General Casey's plan and still remain true to your stated priorities?