Explain it to us. PLEASE. How does the party as a whole pay a price when a few of their incumbents lose each election cycle? They care because they might lose their majority - their power? They lose the power to do what? The power to enact laws for "the people?" The power to hold lawlessness accountable? WHAT?

-- adnoto

Each and every incumbent learns a lesson by a loss of any and every other incumbent.

Right now in the heath insurance battle the Democratic Party wants the health insurance industry to win. But Hamsher and all have pushed the so called Progressive wing of the Democratic Party to make pledges that meaningful public option will be the only way that health insurance legislation will get passed. Who knows how many of those progressives really care one way or the other beyond holding their seats. Trust is not the issue. Results are the issue. If good results are obtained by growing that block of the Democratic party then that will be the Democratic Party. Your glued on, blind cynicism disallows to see what is right in front of your nose.

These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent.--Jonathan Chait

I realize that you basically highlighted both of these comments from Chait, Glenn, but I just had to draw them closer together in order to show the full impact and the full scale 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 scoundrel that Chait is. Not only does he not apologize he talks down to those who have been doing all of the work. He even tries to insult them by pretending to clue them in. What a piece of [....].

liberals need to understand who to blame and how to fix it.--Jonathan Chait

Who has integrity in the field of journalism or political commentary? I'm not sure I can name one. As soon as I think I have found one, I am inevitably disappointed.

-- Steve Klein

I can see by your comments what your trouble has been.

You've been:

♫Lookin' for love in all the wrong places♫

Enhance interrogation

-- typicalboss

If you're going to make up a bunch of bull could you at least show the smallest bit of intellectual honesty and forthrightness by calling Torture what it really is, 'Torture'. I mean if you're going to pretend be all tough and shit by posting your tough guy rhetoric via a comment thread from your computer, at least have the guts to use real words for the actions that you are attempting to describe. Coward.

You aren't doing much for your own credibilty.

-- Steve Klein

In who's opinion? I don't try to gain credibility with people as bag-of-hammers brick thick as you have shown yourself to be in your comments. There's no hope of gaining credibility with rocks.

Any program that would ask Greenwald tough questions would be worthwhile.

That is just not true. And you had the least bit of sense you would understand that. When Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and chose not to be their "trained monkey" but instead chose to call them out for 'hurting America' with their crapass program, Crossfire shortly there after went off the air. Crossfire, like so many other MSM shitfests are dangerous at worst and a waste of time at the least.

Democracy Now is not going to ask tough questions of Mr. Greenwald. They are on the same side of the debate.

What the hell is your fetish about "sides" in every issue when it's obvious that sometimes one side is nothing but lies? Do you believe in "Death Panels"? There doesn't always need to be a gawddamned game played when someone is trying to inform. The point of the program wasn't to have a so called debate. The point of the program was to give someone with knowledge on the issue, Glenn Greenwald in this case, an avenue to inform interested people on the issue. It's not always about you, Steve Klein, and your hunger for idiotic scream fests such as what you'll see on O'Reilly.

PS:

Pedinska was referring to Joe Klein's corrupted name, Jokeline.

Has Mr. Greenwald made himself available for interview by any adversarial reporter, "political commentator" or journalist? Do you know?

-- Steve Klein

He invites them all of the time to his Salon Radio broadcasts. Chuck Todd (who also doesn't qualify as a journalist in the honest sense of the defintion) took Glenn up on his invitation. Chuck Todd didn't do well at all.

Greenwald appeared on C-Span as a guest in debate with the oderous Dave Rivkin. Greenwald methodically let Rivkin hang himself. Several times.

If you're asking if Greenwald is afraid of the clownactors that call themselves journalists you're wrong. Just as you were stupidly and monstrously wrong to put O'Reilly and credible into the same sentence.

Ask Glenn. Maybe he'll give you more information. But as for your comment that I replied to previously: I wouldn't expect insults to "impress" you since stupid enough to follow Bill O'Reilly and consider him to be credible? How do you think teabaggers become teabaggers. It teh stoopid. Otherwise O' Reilly wouldn't have a show if it weren't for teh stoopids such as yourself.

"What say you"? What a pitiful freak you are to be quoting that cartoon character's idiotic sounding refrains. That's what "you" says.

Would Glenn Greenwald be willing to be interviewed by a [Bill O'Reilly] hard-hitting, no nonsense (sic) journalist (sic) or does he prefer soft-ball questions from sympathetic reporters?

-- Steve Klein

You've just revealed yourself to be one of the stupidest rubes to have ever insulted the threads of this comment board.