I would argue that there were moderate Republicans (Leverett Saltonstall, Jack Javitz) who joined with the Democrats (like Paul Douglas) in passing the Johnson-sponsored Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act. Together, these liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans managed to drown out the reactionary Republicans (Barry Goldwater) and the crazy Southern Democrats (John Stennis, Strom Thurmond--then still nominally a Democrat, Dick Russell, Harry Byrd, Sam Ervin and Herman Tallmadge).

Had the moderate Republicans been unwilling to assist (and having been cover by Everett Dirksen, the Republican Senate leader at the time, though he was himself very conservative), the reactionaries would have prevailed. Thus, their reactionary impulses were stopped.

Ideological purity is not the solution to the Democrats challenge of governance. We have long been a "big tent" sort of party. The challenge is complicated by the fact that the Republicans have already engaged in their own pogrom, forcing out any kind of moderate from their ranks.

Historically, moderates of both parties acted as a braking mechanism to the more extreme elements of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Regrettably, a "moderate wing" no longer exists in the Republican party.

It is not in our best interests to be applying purity, it is in expanding the party. Do I like what so-called Blue Dogs do on some issues? Heavens, no. Should they be run out because I don't like everything they do? Again, heavens no.

Purity doesn't govern. Governance is about compromise. While we may not want to compromise after the last eight years of insanity, we cannot stoop to the conduct we despise. We're better than that, as Americans, not just as Democrats.

Here's some more news: I'm another man in my mid-40s. I have grey hair, too.

This is NOT the sort of "journalism" I expect from Salon. Let Schaller post it on a blog, perhaps, but front page, above-the-fold headine?

Lame.

It would appear that the Editor has become Salon's own version of Joe Lieberman.

...that there are no "editor's choices" on this thread--meaning you have to read the entire thread, rather than find suggested-nuggets of wit, insight or clarity. Thinking that particularly telling with something in excess of fifty webpages of comments.

What? Is no editor reading the responses at this point?

I think that may speak more volumes about this editor than anything mere readers think.

Yet again Salon's Editor misses the point.

Wright's responsibility and task as a pastor is to point out injustice, unfairness and inequality in society. Using hard or harsh words to do so is appropriate for a pastor who is seeking to rouse a recumbent giant from its rest. That self-proclaimed liberals are saying how wrong Dr. Wright is, is simply evidence of how comfortable white, liberal America is with the status quo.

Wisely, the Editor points out that Obama has condemned parts of Dr. Wright's rhetoric. Sadly, condemning Wright is simply damning the messenger. Wright is not wrong...nor is it Obama's mistake to listen to the man's preaching.

Of late, the Editor's commentary has been more screed than analysis; more hack-job than prose, whether on Obama or those who have supported him.

Back Senator Clinton as you wish; but be fair in your critque of Senator Obama. And if you're as liberal as you claim, perhaps you should quit worrying about the message and work to achieve the long-overdue cultural and societal change that would really make his rhetoric outdated.

Don't replicate.

Don't adopt.

Don't bother.

Anyone who's this hung up on whether or not an unborn person's opinion should matter in the equation of conception or not, should NOT parent.

Raise orchids.

Raise pot.

Don't raise a child--by birth or adoption--and save the rest of us from your ineptitude and neuroses for the next quarter-century.

Just, please, DON'T.

a. The system isn't as the writer wants it to be. Therefore, it's inherently unfair...

b. Wilentz accuses the Obama campaign of not wanting to let Michigan and Florida count. Let's recall, the campaigns all agreed to abide by the party rules at that point, and all--except Clinton--pulled their name from the ballot in Michigan. Agreeing to abide by the rules, and then the Clinton campaign complains that the rules haven't changed to suit their needs...

c. The reality is that for too many of us, even the committed liberal and progressive types who should by all intents and purposes be wildly happy about the prospect of Clinton II, the thought of a return to the bitter partisanship of the '90s is at minimum, completely unappealing and exhausting even in the hypothetical.

d. Obama is in the lead, Clinton will need to more than thread the needle of perfection in the next few primaries in order to stay 100+/- delegates down in the count. Even Rendell is saying Pennsylvania will be very tight. Is that downplaying expectations, or building up the classic Clinton-style downplay-expectations-and-claim-a-landslide model?

In the final analysis, Senator Clinton has made a respectable and not-perfect record in the Senate. There she should remain to help enact President Obama's agenda in the coming term.