In his front page post, Markos says that James Carville is "whoring" for Blanche Lincoln because he appears in ad raising money for her. I'm not sure how exactly Carville is "whoring" for Lincoln. When Ned Lamont used Markos in an ad, was that "whoring" by Markos? Is Markos implying that Carville is getting paid to appear in the Lincoln ad? Or is the new definition of "whoring" anybody who appears in an ad supporting a candidate Markos doesn't like?
By the way, I support Halter in the primary over Lincoln based on Lincoln's atrocious conduct in the Senate on Health Care and other matters. On the other hand, I see Halter as fairly conservative, and I don't think it will make much of a difference, big-picture-wise, if he wins the primary, especially since the eventual winner, regardless of who it is, faces a big uphill battle in the general election.
But seriously, carelessly throwing around epithets like whoring with respect to behavior to which such epithets clearly don't apply (unless you have facts showing Carville is getting paid), undermines whatever substantive point one is trying to make. I expect better here.
Update [2010-3-23 14:44:20 by pontificator]: longtime Kossack Jay Elias makes an important related point in comments: "I don't care what Markos says about Carville, but I do wish wish wish we'd stop using euphemisms for sex work as insults."