I like this type of feature in Salon. The only problem is finding some poor sucker who is willing to lose to Glenn Greenwald's merciless logic.

"Can't we just continue to support traitors?" or maybe "We like to lose, why change now?" or even "KKKarl Rove would like us to support the blue dogs, and David Broder likes his quail, so it is totally bipartisan and shit."

What does it matter what some abstract "base" feels? People who value the American Republic, the Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law will speak out against any politician who votes with this or any other autocratic (fascist?) administration. And I will not contribute another dime to the DNC or vote for any democrat who has not stood up for my rights in Congress. That includes my own senators Schumer and Clinton. I will support candidates who I think will fight for the Republic and strengthen democracy. I am a member of the left group American Freedom Campaign (americanfreedomcampaign.org), but I stand with Bob Barr and the conservative members of the American Freedom Agenda (americanfreedomagenda.org) who are fighting for the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law in this country. It doesn't matter what some columnist thinks the base of a party feels. It does matter what candidates we contribute to and support for public office.

I don't know the answer to these questions, but nor, with all due respect, does Glenn Greenwald. The case for a backward-looking campaign to punish Democrats generally or specifically for their sins in the Bush era makes little sense five months before it mercifully ends. Let's win big in November, keep the Big Tent up, see what the blessed new year brings, and remember that no one in particular can authoritatively speak for "base" or "swing" voters other than, well, voters.

Uh, really? I would think the answers to "these sorts of questions" would be fairly obvious. The case for accountability is hardly the sort of vague, hard-to-pin-down, everything-is-subjective non-issue that Kilgore seems to think.

Let's just keep the focus on a few of those "How Are You a Democrat At All?" moments for the time being. Like...FISA.

If you keep FISA in mind, suddenly "defining the targets" isn't so tough. Personally, it sounds more like Kilgore just feels squeamish--the thought of ousting a Dem for abandoning the ideals of the loyal opposition makes him feel all funny inside. The real problem then becomes that Obama is one of the defectors, someone who supported a filibuster previously but jumped ship at an opportune moment.

So the whining about how Dems really vote together the vast majority of the time really makes no sense when you also notice how quickly they roll over when the Republicans need them to. Or are those votes where Republicans march in lockstep--but Dems lose 10-12 votes to the other side--some kind of error that we must live with forever, because such is the nature of the Democratic party?

And most of these counterpoints are pretty damn weak. So Dems are more popular than Republicans in Congress? Jeeze, talk about finding a silver lining. Let's not brag about that huge single-digit percentage difference, shall we? Because it's actually goddamn pathetic.

"The case for a backward-looking campaign to punish Democrats generally or specifically for their sins in the Bush era makes little sense five months before it mercifully ends. Let's win big in November, keep the Big Tent up, see what the blessed new year brings...."

And then what Ed? As Greenwald and several others have pointed out in the past, this argument can be reduced to the following:

1) Wait until we elect a new Democratic president.

2) Wait until we increase our congressional majority in the midterm election.

3) Wait until we re-elect our Democratic president.

4) Wait until we increase our congressional majority in the midterm elections.

5) Return to step 1 and repeat.

Meanwhile, Rome continues to burn. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and innocent civilians in Third World countries continue to die at the sharp point of American foreign policy.

The Democratic Party, as it is currently managed, is the number one problem facing anyone who cares about the substantive systemic reform of our political institutions. Indeed, its primary function as the center-leftwing of the American Big Business Party is to put the brakes on such reform.

The platitudes ed recites reminds me of watching the Washington Generals play the Harlem Globe Trotters. It is very entertaining but at the end of the day the white businessmen who backed the entertainment won the game. they walked away with the proceeds of the contest.

Let me point out a simple fact for Ed to consider. You are the LAST major "democracy" with a troop presence in Iraq. Your precious democracy, one that you are exporting at the point of a gun and despite overwhelming polls to the contrary, still has a major presence in Iraq. Despite a change of party in congress, nothing has happened despite historical low polls. My tax dollars are going for I war I never wanted, and never approved of despite having lost friends on 9/11.

It gets better. Some "geniuses" have figured out that you a-holes have a pr problem about global warming. So they had a pr public speaking tour about global warming on vieo links featuring a hack from the Rand Corporation, a Randiac. He was there to tell us we didn't have to worry about global warming until 2020. He knew this because he had a degree in economics and worked on the president's council on economics. Wow, it was so funny as to be sad. This is what my once great country is reduced to.

The point is he was proud to be a-partison. But the game isn't about Democrat or Republican. By the time the political donations are counted there is only the party of big business. The two party system is a sham to help consider the real people running the show. The big businessmen with their think tank buddies.

One last point. How often are political parties mentioned in our constitution? None! The current stranglehold the repubs and Democrats currently enjoy is completely extra-constitutional. The precious two-party system everyone "enjoys" happened in the early 19th century. It was about winning elections, not about grass-roots public representation.

I respectfully suggest that maybe some "Blue-Dogs" should be shown the door and maybe another party should be considered that represented "real-people"'s concerns.