We now understand the enemy better and have explored the possible responses immediately at hand. Torture has been banned, invasion is behind us, and the enemy better understood. It's been an ugly experience, but considering the worst case scenarios for ALL concerned, there are much worse things possible.

"The enemy" has never been coherently identified, never mind described.

Torture is ongoing.

The invasion was never the problem; the occupation is ongoing and quite frankly a disaster at every level.

And, to repeat, "the enemy" is neither identified nor understood.

Today is every bit as ugly as it was back in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006. There will always be "worse things possible"; the question is whether or not those things are in fact being deliberately invited by the choices we make. Clearly, you prefer the devil's company to standing with the angels.

Don't bother trying to defend yourself anymore, shooter. You have no excuses left.

I'd call what McCain did much worse than "absurd."

He took an issue that was reaching a flashpoint, used his hard-earned (to say the least) and unique credibility on the matter to command effective ownership of it... and then promptly ushered in one of the most shameful actions an American Congress has ever committed.

Your criticisms of disappointing behavior by the Democrats are most worthy. As Lambert, my estimable fellow fellow at Corrente, often makes the point, one of our highest callings -- maybe the highest -- is to make Democrats feel the heat when they sell out the Constitution, much like the GOP base puts the screws to its party leaders to give them the theocratic and xenophobic red meat they crave. (Our bases have rather different basic interests, eh?)

But if we think there's a special circle in Hell for so-called progressives who cave in to and enable the GOP's authoritarian madness, there must be one, too - and at least as hot -- for the self-appointed consciences of the Republican Party who seize rare opportunities for moral authority... only to reenact the Lucy-with-the-football trick.

McCain's support for the Military Commissions Act is one of the few betrayals comparable to Colin Powell's eating his objections and selling the war to the American public and media, and to well-meaning (it seems), handwringing Arlen Specter's bottomless cup of capitulation.

If Pelosi, Harmon, and Rockefeller are complicit in waterboarding of suspects, that doesn't make them "cowards," it makes them war criminals. As people are suggesting right now over at Hullabaloo, perhaps this is the true reason why "impeachment is off the table."

People are working towards replacing bad Dems with good ones, by supporting primary challenges to DINOs. Fine, but I suggest another good tactic: threatening complicit Dems, whether on torture of FISA violations, with eventual investigation and criminal prosecution. (I mean, how does one attack any criminal conspiracy? By squeezing the little guys until they give up the guys farther up the chain.) I don't hold any hope that this will happen before the election, but look at the question of impeachment: it has no support in the media or political elite, but by now large minorities to majorities of the population support impeachment. Even though it probably won't happen, this change in public sentiment is entirely the work of the DFHs in the blogosphere.

So why can't we start beating the drum for appointing a special prosecutor to investigate complicit legislators, whether they be Republicans or Democrats? It would put politicians on notice that they have to start abandoning the Neocons, posthaste. If injected into the Presidential race, it might force candidates to distinguish themselves more. And it would increase the possibility of such prosecutions actually happening, because the few moderate Republicans left--not to mention the Paul fans--might be convinced that this would not be just partisan payback. (Oh, it would be payback, make no mistake, but it would be richly-deserved bipartisan payback.)

So what about it? Does the complicity of the Democratic leadership not rise to the criminal level?

Check out Anonymous's multiple posts (please, A, pick a nom de blog and stick around.)

Someone who has been there and actually dealt with high-fallutin Democratic politicians on the quest for something better than we have may see things more clearly than those who haven't, but having been there, having seen how things political really work, coming up with Solutions is hard. It's especially hard if all you want to do is replace the personnel with "better" Dems. Thankfully, Anonymous is way past that.

Glenn and I spar sometimes because I see our political problems as institutionally based -- and I will question every farking one of them before I'm done, not just the Big Media -- while Glenn and many others see the issue as primarily a matter of individuals and personalities in charge.

Here's my riposte: Howard Dean.

Even though he is in my view a Rockefeller Republican (Nelson R) he was the Best Dem on the campaign trail c. 2004, and everyone knew it. He was right on the issues. Most Dems candidates are still playing catch up. Many are still terrified of his honesty, his passion, and his absolute belief in what American can and should be.

I worked my tail off for him in the Presidential campaign, and kept right on working through the various tear-downs by the media and the other candidates. Right up to the point at which he withdrew.

And then when the focus shifted to the DNC, Howard said, "You know, this institution is the oldest political party in the nation -- in the whole world. It's in shit shape, but you know what, we can remake this institution from the ground up, and we will, if I'm the chair of the DNC."

So I went back to work getting him the DNC chairmanship, and behold!

Yeah, well, the Party still sucks, doesn't it?

If you're just an observer, the suckage factor is profound. The Democratic Party really does seem to be misbegotten. Certainly much of its hierarchy is deeply corrupt, morally vacant, and politically tone deaf. But then if you're at the grassroots, it's a very different picture. Some the brightest most passionate and most morally centered and honest people you'd ever want to deal with infuse the party's base -- which is one reason why so many at the top loathe and despise their own base. The contrast between those who are working at the ground level and those who swan around at the top could not be more acute.

What's going on at the base of the Party is due to Howard Dean and his leadership in remaking the Party itself, yet even though he is the chair of the Party, he's been told to fuck off by the Party's "Leadership," to shut up, to stay off the teevee, stay out of print, and let the "electeds" handle things. We see what a good job they are doing. And in doing that job, they are bringing immense discredit to the institution -- the Democratic Party -- itself. I'm looking at you, Rahm Emanuel. I'm looking at you Chuck Schumer. I'm looking at you, Nancy, you Harry, you Jay, and Jane and Silvestre, and on and on. Howard Dean isn't tainted by this ugly business, but the Party he chairs sure is.

So far, the grass roots have not been able to take over the Party; fossils and derilicts and closet Republicans still rule the roost.

And my question is, is this a "personality" issue or is it institutional? And I say it is institutional. We put a terrific personality and leader into the chairmanship of the Party, and The Party's dukes and duchesses tried to shut him up and shut his programs down. The Institution itself went after him with hammer and tong for interfering with their sinecure. For shaming them all. And the Institution has been very effective in keeping him out of the public eye, off the radar as it were. What's being built at the base of the Party aparatus may as well be on another planet. Can that base eventually blossom and take over the Party from the fossils and derilicts? Well, sure, generations from now, but by then, will there even be a Democratic Party left?

I bring up Howard Dean's example to try to show that the political conundrum we face is not solvable by individuals and personality. The institutions themselves have to be reformed or replaced -- which is what the Old Line Progressives realized and did back in the day. The institutions resist, naturally. We see that tension and struggle now (well, we would if anyone paid any attention to it) in the contrast between the "radical left-wing base" (hah hah hah hah) of the Party and the "moderate, centerist" electeds who Lead it. (Again, hahahahahah).

So it's fine to condemn and denounce Jay Rockefeller and poor little Jane Harman and all the rest of them for their complicity and failures. Hang them all and replace them with Somebody Better, if you can find anyone. (What was his name? Lamont? The one who was going to oust Holy Joe from the Senate? Whatever happened to him? Did he even run a campaign in the General? I don't recall. Seems to me he went on vacation, and Surprise, Suprise, Holy Joe is still in the Senate, and he's a Fucking Committee Chair protecting his Darling in the White House each and every day. Yep. Getting "Better Democrats" works pretty darned well, doesn't it? Am I bitter much? Oh, man, don't even start. But I digress.)

But you're going to have to keep on hanging Dems over and over and over again if you don't do anything about the institutions they serve. Unless you have real reform and/or replacement of institutions, nothing's going to change.

If you want to know HOW to do it, look at what the Progressives did starting a little over a century ago.