I'd give MoveOn at least $500,000 to see what they could come up with next.

Keep it coming, MoveOn. You're almost there. Show everybody the "crazy old aunt in the closet" the Democrats have been hiding. She's the face of the screwballs and weirdos the Republicans want to etch into the minds of mainstream, main street, America right up to the election. Make the Democrats look like a bunch of nut case losers.

By the way, Fool, how much is the RNC paying you to write this crap on Salon?

I wish I could have marshaled my thoughts as eloquently as you did when you wrote:

"But the frailness of the Left was not exemplified by some Senate Democrats voting to denounce the MoveOn ad. The frailness of the Left can be seen in the junior-high school rhetoric of MoveOn, and by CodePink activists running around screaming like escapees of a psychiatric hospital, and by the puerile Michael Moore. I'm old enough to remember a time then the Left had genuine grownups offering substantive argument. Hand grenades, stunts and temper tantrums do not a winning movement make. Bush's war has been a failure, but how much more of a failure has the anti-war movement been? MoveOn supporters should take a good hard look in the mirror." -- Barbara Kaplan

It did not escape me that you called me "stupid".

Here is why I express disdain about the MoveOn detractors.

We are in a fight. We are in a fight with people who fight dirty and want to harm us, by taking away our rights, destroying our democracy, and waging an immoral war that cost possibly 1,000,000 Iraqis (and certainly thousands of Americans, mostly kids) their lives -- a horrible atrocity.

This is not just an intellectual dispute. This is a power struggle. And the other side does not fight by Marquess of Queensbury rules. Our side, however, mostly does, which is why we're getting our asses kicked.

Here's an analogy: It's like the Republicans started a fight, they have been pushing us around, throwing sand in our eyes, biting, and sucker punching. MoveOn says enough is enough and finally gives them back a little taste of their own medicine -- and then people like you join in a general condemnation of MoveOn! It doesn't make sense and it's not fair in the sense that it is unjust. It's usually wrong to punch someone -- BUT NOT IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Here's where the analogy breaks down. Since Petraeus did in fact betray us, MoveOn didn't even break the Marquess of Queensbury rules. They are only the messenger. Stop taking shots at the messenger, Joan.

With all due respect to Joan, if the flap over the MoveOn.org ad was a waste of time, then why did Obama "owe it to the country" to vote on a meaningless Congressional resolution about it? As a member of the media myself, I constantly find myself appalled by the saturation coverage of this kind of bullshit. It's driven by technology, news cycles, the pervasive excess in contemporary American society, and, frankly, a lack of perspective on the part of people covering D.C., which I've been guilty of myself.

I was in London recently and found myself in a conversation with a former consultant on global politics and finance. He told me that Iraq was a sideshow, in his words, "a patch of sand with some oil in it" and the U.S. was ignoring the real priorities: the new superpower status of China and Russia.

He's right. I happen to feel comfortable with Barack Obama's decision on that vote, because I think it's an example of someone trying not to buy into the politics of triviality that's driven by saturation media. We can't afford this kind of distraction. It's time to really move on.

Susan Zakin

Unfortunately, Gen. Petraeus was caught in the middle of a bitter political struggle over Iraq. Petraeus has the obligation to testify before Congress on Iraq and speak his mind objectively. MoveOn decided to demonize Patraeus and by inference the military by using a loaded term such as "betrayal" in a stupid attempt to derail meaningful debate on Iraq. Now the arch-liberals are going berserk because some of the Dems are opposed to vitriol instead of serious debate on Iraq.

The Dems know that the American people know the difference between the performance of the military versus that of the politicians.

Aw, sorry. Can't make it. I have to floss.

General Strike! Tuesday, November 6, 2007!

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/0081720

Pass it on!

Joan Walsh writes, "Every time I think the Democrats have a lock on the White House in 2008, they do something that reminds me how frail they are..."

But the frailness of the Left was not exemplified by some Senate Democrats voting to denounce the MoveOn ad. The frailness of the Left can be seen in the junior-high school rhetoric of MoveOn, and by CodePink activists running around screaming like escapees of a psychiatric hospital, and by the puerile Michael Moore. I'm old enough to remember a time then the Left had genuine grownups offering substantive argument. Hand grenades, stunts and temper tantrums do not a winning movement make. Bush's war has been a failure, but how much more of a failure has the anti-war movement been? MoveOn supporters should take a good hard look in the mirror.

"Younger Democrats ought to have an easier time making the case that it's the Democrats who care about the troops, who want them to have . . ."

Really???? Then why are they still funding the Iraq Occupation? No, Dems (of all ages) don't care about the troops any more than do Republicans. In my opinion Dems are using the soldiers and the war as a political football, just like Republicans do. Only their tactical rhetoric is different. Their strategic goals are the same; get into office, stay in office, exploit the office for personal gain.

This doesn't of course, apply to EVERY Democrat but then, it doesn't apply to every Republican either. Just to most of them (on both sides of the aisle).