I'm not sure you can conclude what you did about Walz's amazement in this article. It is plausible, but I read his "amazement" merely to be that Rahm had read the letter, not his interpretation of it.

to drive us liberals wild again, thereby proving that the election victory was an illusion, while real Democrats can remain shadow actors in a kabuki play. If the country goes further down the drain because of their farcical bi-partisanship, they will continue to be held in disrepute.

not principals. Meh.

Given their natural lack of independence, the democrats in the house can continue to look for leadership from him even though he will be in the white house. They have, after all, followed the lead of the Bush white house.

Glenn,

I take it then that the tea leaves are telling you Lieberman will keep is chairmanship. Bummer.

I tend to vote for Democrats, mostly because they are not Republicans. That doesn't mean that I like them all that much, just more than I like Republicans.

I'm not sure you can conclude what you did about Walz's amazement in this article. It is plausible, but I read his "amazement" merely to be that Rahm had read the letter, not his interpretation of it.

That's all I meant by Walz's being impressed with Emanuel's "political acumen" - that he had read the letter and remembered. I added a phrase to clarify that.

Glenn,

I appreciate the passion and precision of your arguments, and I generally agree with your conclusions, but I disagree with you here.

This government already has one party prone to knee-jerk reactions and ideological conformity. We don't need another.

As long as this country remains stuck in a two party system, either party will have to mindful of swinging too far left or right. While it would be nice if all democrats felt the same way about all issues that I do, I think that is unreasonable.

I realize you are not asking for conformity on all issues rather a collection of issues that you see as most important (and I agree.) But I would rather have the slow progress that comes when elected representatives think for themselves and think of their constituencies instead of hewing closely to the planks of their parties' platforms.

The sense that this election was a mandate for liberal ideas is, I think, misguided. I can argue just as reasonably, that the true mandate for this election was a vote for change from the current environment of partisan politics.

From a practical standpoint, Obama still has one more election to win, and running to his base will no more help him win that election than the Palin selection helped the GOP this year.

Wonder if he scans Salon.

Also wonder if we ought to start the Rahm dead pool (for his tenure, not his life).

I'll take ten months.

Anyone else?

Walz mentioned the letter to the editor to Emanuel on the floor and was stunned by his response.

“You mean the one about how you should caucus with the Republicans?” Emanuel shot back. “That’s a good letter. Makes you look bipartisan.”

To this day, Walz is still amazed. “He had read the letter.”

There are three ways in which this is offensive: 1) Emanuel and Walz both stood with the Republicans and against the Constitution. 2) Emanuel clearly feels happier being in a politically-acceptable position than a morally-consistent one. 3) The mainstream "serious" journalist writing the piece takes points 1 and 2 and portrays them as strengths by ignoring any meaningful analysis of the topic at hand. From the journalist's perspective, the FISA bill could just as easily been an argument over what to have for lunch.

Fascinating catch, Mr. Greenwald.

Can you imagine what Lieberman will do if they pull his ancient hands from the levers of Homeland Insecurity? You know how those male elephants run mad in the mating season in the jungle? The call it 'must': the male elephant runs through villages trampling everything and everyone in their path. That will be Lieberman - trumpeting scandals from both sides of his trunk as he runs.

...i am holding out hope that he will be an effective chief of staff for a president obama who will not permit this kind of demopublican mentality.

and pigs could fly in an obama administration. i'm holding out hope for that, too.

Obama based his campaign on bipartisanship, coming together. What you seem to be saying is that you want him to govern by ideology, your ideology, which is much better than the Republican ideology. As a Democrat, how did you like having that approach used by the Republicans over the last eight years? Did it work for them?

I completely agree with you that we have much better ideas. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that disagree. Let's take what we can get, in small pieces, as the populace gradually comes to realize the benefits of a forward based agenda

I would rather have the slow progress that comes when elected representatives think for themselves and think of their constituencies instead of hewing closely to the planks of their parties' platforms.

Did you actually read Glenn Greenwald's post?

I am continually struck by how often people's takeaway is exactly 180° the opposite of what was written.

AJB writes, "I tend to vote for Democrats, mostly because they are not Republicans. That doesn't mean that I like them all that much, just more than I like Republicans."

I couldn't disagree with this sentiment more fervently as the implication is that you're voting for the lesser of two evils. Clinton disappointed me in his second term, but I guess I suffered a bit of forgetfulness since I voted for the demos the next two times for Pres. Since they didn't win I continued to forget. If Obama disappoints in the areas of civil liberties and restoring the Constitution, it will be the last time I vote for either major paraty as they're beginning to appear more and more alike to me. I know some people think that's "throwing the vote away", but I can't help hoping that if EVERYBODY who was sick and tired of the two parties blending into one, we could actually have our vote make a difference.

Hopeful, but guarded....