Personally, from where I sit, I share your pissed-offness at the DLC in practice, even though they may be innocent of this particular offense. Not to mention more than a few liberals, who are too willing to downplay other issues in pursuit of gaining more Dem victories. This year, it's abortion and gay marriage. And some shrink from a humanistic stance on undocumented immigrants, preferring to take the safer path of saying we can't evict them because it'd be too hard and costly, etc. If majority status in one branch of Congress isn't gained, who's headed for the bus wheels next?

I recall that DLC leader Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts as Governor of Arkansas, chose not to grant a stay of execution for a Black convict whose mental capacity was, I think, the equivalent of a 9-year old. Trying to portray himself as tough on crime for his presidential race, it screamed at me as an act that made the convict's life worth nothing more than political expediency. Tough on crime, or tough on a Black criminal who should never have been sentenced to death because, in that case, he was incapable of understanding the gravity of his offense?

Mine may be a minority position within the party because I refuse to shut up on any of these issues. And while I think Bob Casey will be far better than Santorum, I won't put his campaign link on my blogs nor work for his election. If I lived in PA, I might hold my nose and vote for him, but ONLY because he's sending the message that he doesn't plan to lead an anti-abortion effort, so his pro-life stance has a limited impact in practice.

But will it impact the type of future recruits Dems will bring to the voters if Casey is elected? I'm not convinced it will, but I'm very wary.

If elective Dems really are for human rights, downplaying that is simply moral cowardice, not politically expedient. I don't think that means we are extremists nor fanatics to pin their feet to the floor and ask them to act like freaking adults.

I should think that when we face a party that has raided the Treasury repeatedly, lined the pockets of cronies - legally and illegally- gone to war for too many lies to count and promoted atrocities, gone after the poor and gay couples and immigrants, gone after the backbone of Social Security, suspended the civil rights of ALL Americans with their NSA and FISA violations, etc & etc, then voters should be told: "Look, you may disagree on 2 or 3 issues that we stand for, but if you think the opposition with all its crooks & liars & war criminals doesn't make them worse, then take your sorry selves to the polls and vote for the team that's destroying everything that has ever made the US worth fighting for."

In short, it's precisely the time we should be insisting that they take a real hard look at what we stand for, that it's time to understand that sticking up for people's rights is not ever a wrong, but if they're voting for the other side with its sorry record RIGHT NOW, (overlooking its sorry past decades) then the ethics in question are in their own voting actions.

It's both moral and practical to make that case now, because we rarely have granted so many bastards the power they've wielded so consistently bad, which demonstrates convincingly how low they'll go in spite of the public's disdain. If we can't take them on OUR terms NOW, at their weakest in 32 years, we're either fielding too many losers or the US populace has become - again - too unethical to be reached by its moral minority.

And even without the practical case, there remains the profound moral responsibility of standing on the right side of a just civilization, even if we wail in the wilderness longer still. Principle and integrity are not on the table, because there's rarely such a thing as moral expediency. Stealing bread to avoid starvation grants cause for expediency, but not human rights. Not ever human rights.

I think 40% of the country already agrees with my position. That equates to about 120 million citizens. I think a lesser number disagree. But then there's that group in the middle, shifting one way then the other... I think they're more intellectually and morally lazy than outright corrupt. I think they need to be pushed, not enabled. The DLC approach is to meet them where they are instead of leading them to where they should be. And that only feeds very bad habits. What kind of marginal victory can that achieve? What inspiration does that ignite, when we sacrifice hope for another round of empty suited so-called lesser evils?

You got fed bad info. It happens. But the reason for your anger and its quickness are fully understandable, and if others can't see that, they need gallons of Visine.

Trust me, my friend, I an NOT letting the DLC off the hook.

I STILL don't doubt the basics of the story. On the other hand Pelosi, though DLC, is no idiot (except to the extent that she pursues the uncommitted center while ignoring the base). I can see her looking for greater bipartisanship in the sponsor list...which takes up back to the problem of unjustly scrubbing Republican reputation.

I STILL want Black folks to get involved in the primaries. It may be a bit late in some places for 2006 but there's 2008. I STILL want Black folks to recognize how the Conservatives work the primaries more than the elections. The DLC wants Democrats in power but they also want the power positions within the party. Until there's a better alternative, I'm willing to help them in their first goal.

If I lived in PA, I might hold my nose and vote for him, but ONLY because he's sending the message that he doesn't plan to lead an anti-abortion effort, so his pro-life stance has a limited impact in practice.

I live in PA and to vote for Bob Casey I will have to do more than hold my nose. I will also have to overlook the fact that if Casey ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness. Only Rick Santorum could ever make me vote for Bob Casey, Jr. but only once.