There's an interesting dynamic presenting itself at dKos lately. I think it may be a feature of where we are in the primary process right now, with a number of candidates still battling on but John Kerry as the probable front-runner. In my opinion, it's really making the line between "attacks" and "legitimate criticism" much harder to find.
In effect we seem to be moving from a period of flux to a period of stability. Something closer to what we're used to in non-Presidential years, with a division between the Official Elected Democrats (and their related think tanks, lobbying groups, 527's, etc...) and normal people following the process. But we've still got a lot of connection to Primary Time, when each of us is a highly politicized person ready to go after
other Democrats.
Let me just say where I stand right now. I really, really like Howard Dean. I think he's the party's best hope for a new, successful political re-alignment. And I think that in the long term, when the Dems DO regain their political strength after this nadir (hah, pun...), it will either be with Dean as nominee or with a nominee using Dean's methods. And that's true even if Kerry wins against Bush this year-- if that happens, the party will hardly be fundamentally changed. BUT, I don't think this is Howard Dean's year. So I'm pretty much resigned to Senator John Kerry being our Democratic nominee.
Now I really, really want to beat George W. Bush. I've been intensely focused on that task, more focused on that than almost anything else, since November of 2000. And so if Kerry's our nominee, then he's the one I support. Wholeheartedly. I've always supported the Democratic party wholeheartedly. But I've also always been willing to criticize the party (any any candidate I support) when it does something obviously strategically stupid, morally repugnant, or ethically unsound. I was mad at Trafficant and Torricelli, for instance. I was angry about the Dems' utter caving on the Iraq war with the stupid idea that saying "we're like the Republicans, but not as good at national security" would be electoral gold. Basically I've always criticized people and organizations that I do fully support.
And I'm going to apply exactly the same standard to John Kerry. He did something incredibly retarded in legitimizing the Federal Marriage Act. He handed the Republicans the issue on a platter. That was not a great piece of strategy, and I feel justified in saying that without people think I'm just engaging in a mean-spirited attack. We've got to be able to criticize our candidates even now, because it's early enough in the cycle that we can have an impact. We don't want to hang around in a Democratic echo chamber until we lose in November and then wonder "what went wrong?" At least that's what I think...