There is no more important objective to the progressive cause than establishing complete independence from the craven opportunists that populate the Democratic Party. That’s not to say that Democrats are the same as Republicans – they aren’t – but the reason for the very existence of greasy corporate whores like Harry Reid is to make sure that progressives never – NEVER – threaten to take control of the party from the banking industry, insurance companies, and their allies. We’ve already seen what utter bullshit this “magic number” of 60 Democratic senators is, as well as the whole disgusting hustle of “more and better Democrats.” There is exactly one thing scumbags like Harry Reid understand: stark, naked fear. If we are ever to wrest control of the Democratic Party and the political agenda as a whole from the DLC and the rest of the Corporate Cocksucker brigade, we must make them fear us more than they fear the Republican Party.

That starts with proudly bringing about, and taking credit for, the political extermination of Harry Reid, even if – indeed, especially if – it involves putting a Republican in his place.

In the meantime, I'm curious: how does it feel to be a part of the most widely, intensely, and justifiably loathed group of human beings in the United States (or on the planet Earth, for that matter)? How does it feel to know that Ted Kennedy is vindicated every election day, while the rest of us get together and celebrate the opportunity to piss in your mouth? Drink it in, buddy; hope you get real good and thirsty before next November.

What a goddamn shame! If only this cesspool of human shit had decided to filibuster, it might have enabled us to permanently cleanse them from the American political process once and for all.

Though I have to concede my deep disappointment at Obama's refusal to provide a meaningful repudiation of torture by officials of the United States government, I freely admit that I'm willing to make an exception for his relentless and continuing torture of the herd of dumb animals that call themselves Republicans.

Oh God, this is just too much to believe! That the members of the loyal opposition – you know, our good friends, the humble, modest, god-fearing, pious Republicans – would come out with a line of attack that’s not merely empirically groundless, fantastically hypocritical and egregiously stupid, but is actually offensive: gee, that’s really just more than my gullible mind can embrace.

Let's see what Glenn Greenwald had to say just two days ago about precisely this type of "journalism" from the estimable Salon:

Journalists use anonymity not because they can't get anyone to speak on the record, but because . . . they're too slothful to do the work to find on-the-record sources and they crave the sort of sensationalism that is possible only when someone is allowed to spout inflammatory garbage without having their names attached.

and,

"Sources" demand unjustifiable anonymity for one reason and one reason only: they know that standard-free, reckless journalists will grant it to them. If, instead, their choice were between (a) attaching their names to their opinions or (b) not having their opinions disseminated by the media, many of them would opt for (a) -- and our political discourse would be far, far better off as a result.

Notice that the object of Greenwald's contempt is not the loathsome scumbag that spent its career teabagging George Bush, but the forum that seeks to exploit its anonymous postings for the purpose of sensationalist exposure.

All in all, I'd have to say that Greenwald had it just right; if Salon disappeared and its few decent writers went elsewhere, "our political discourse would be far, far better off as a result."

Please lie down and open your mouth; I have to take a really big shit.

Bullshit.

This is a "partial loss" for Franken in the same sense as when a plaintiff in a libel or personal injury case gets "only" two million of the three million in damages he was asking for in his complaint. Given that the proportion of successful litigants awarded the full amount demanded in a lawsuit probably teeters between, say, zero and one percent, it's rather ludicrous to describe this judgment as a "partial loss" for Franken.

Here's another way to assess the decision, one that has the additional virtue of bearing some resemblance to empirical reality: a total vindication for Franken, made even more apparent by the court's refusal to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal.