You're an idiot if you hold Hillary Clinton responsible for the actions of her more insufferable supporters.

You're an idiot if you still claim you'd not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general. And you're bad for America if you actually wouldn't.

You're an idiot if you're still recommending anti-Clinton diaries. You're doubly an idiot if you're still writing them.

You're an idiot if you're reinforcing right-wing talking points about Clinton.

And if you're an Obama supporter and you're doing any of that, you're one of his more insufferable supporters. You're backing a guy who's all about hope and unity and moving forward together, and you're undermining his message and his purpose every time you hit 'post'. Good job.

Can't find this anywhere on dKos.

Via FireDogLake, there was a press conference yesterday outside Rahm Emmanuel's office, decrying his support of Tancredo's immigration bill.

Rahm has an immigrant population of 50% in his district. We took out ads in Spanish, Korean and Polish (the three largest immigrant communities in IL-05).

It was your donations through Blue America that paid for the ads in full.

A few days ago, Kevin Drum wrote, re. recent British politics:

Up through the summer, prime minister Gordon Brown was riding high. The Labor Party was polling seven or eight points ahead of the Conservatives, and Labor's prospects looked so bright that Brown was seriously thinking about calling for a snap election this fall.

But then a funny thing happened. Conservative leader David Cameron plucked a brand new issue out of nowhere ... In August he began calling for abolition of the inheritance tax for estates under one million British pounds.... The idea took off, catching Brown and the Labor Party off guard, and within a month the tables had been turned.

I know this is a shock, but even your candidate isn't perfect. And I'm not talking about a philosophical, above-the-fray sorta imperfection: I mean they fail to act, they fail to lead. They fail to take a stand--or, worse, they step up and take the wrong stand. They vote wrong, they hire wrong, they look funny and smell weird.

This is true--and brace yourself for the stunner--of every single candidate. Yes, even the ones not running!

And when this happens, how do we respond? Well, I know how I respond: I write a diary about how other candidates suck  harder. When my candidate stumbles, I investigate your candidate's shortcomings. When my candidate fails to act, I discuss your candidate's unwillingness to lead.

In this diary, Jeffrey Feldman makes a modest request:

Take a few minutes, tonight, and ask yourself what you can do to start focusing DailyKos and the Democratic Party's attention on the problems we face in the election.

Make some notes.  Create a file. Share your thoughts. Find some partners. Exchange emails. Post a diary. Plan a meeting.  Call some friends. Craft a strategy.  Get back on track.

In this diary, bob fertik argues that between 'spending power' and 'bargaining power', Speaker Pelosi has the ability to end the occupation of Iraq.

To prove his point, he pledges a $2300 contribution to Speaker Pelosi or any other Democrat in Congress if they can prove him wrong. Then he also pledges the same amount to Pelosi if she'll prove him right, by ending the war.

Other Kossacks tossed an additional $53,000 in the pot. This seems an effort worth wholeheartedly embracing ... at the very least by Recommending the diary! Please check it out.

A primary goal of terrorism is media coverage--massive, chilling media exposure. Preferably blanketing the news, overwhelming all other coverage, spreading fear like a virus, with ominous sound-effects and professionally-produced blood-drenched graphics.

How is it, then, that among all the denunciations of the BCM, nobody with a bullhorn expresses any outrage when the media gives the terrorists precisely what they want?

The BCM doesn't merely report on terrorist attacks: they trumpet them. They embroider and amplify them. They invest in these attacks a level of competence and consequence that's utterly lacking in the events themselves.

Joe Klein offers a helpful test of left-wing extremism. Happily, we're graded on a curve, as he writes that a "left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes." (My emphasis.)

He offers thirteen criteria, and in honor of our president let's say 50% is a passing grade. You need SIX to win. (Rounding down: soft bigotry of low expectations.)

Are you an extremist?

After the 2004 elections, you couldn't run to the liquor store for another three bottles of scotch without hearing blowhards talk about 'values voters.' And at first, I hoped that this time our talking heads would claim we won because of values voters: we value accountability, competence, fiscal responsibility, military professionalism, education, Social Security, civil rights, privacy, and the rule of law.

But that's not the explanation that makes the most sense--or allows us the best strategic position. America voted for Democrats to restore our system of checks and balances: that is the explanation we must offer, the frame we must reinforce.

If a right-wing pundit claims we won by running 'conservative Democrats', explaining that this isn't true puts us on the defensive. Yes, we all know it's not true, there've been a dozen posts on the leftie blogs explaining exactly this. But for the purposes of TV, responding to this lie with 'Uh-uh, no way, did not!' is a terrible strategy.

Mehlman recently gave a 'non-denial denial' about his entanglement with Abramoff in the matter of Allen Stayman. He claimed he didn't fire Stayman, because he doesn't have the authority but the real question is: did he influence the decision to block Stayman from keeping the job? Did he do so because Abramoff's clients were afraid Stayman would end the oppressive-yet-profitable sweatshop working conditions?

That's not the only question for Mehlman, though. Here are four more, courtesy of Henry Waxman and House Democrats:

1. Did Republican National Committee Chairman Mehlman accept gifts from criminal superlobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was Bush's Director of Political Affairs? Did he disclose them?

Mehlman recently gave a 'non-denial denial' about his entanglement with Abramoff in the matter of Allen Stayman. He claimed he didn't fire Stayman, but the real question is: did he block Stayman from keeping the job? Did he do so because Abramoff's clients were afraid Stayman would end the oppressive-yet-profitable sweatshop working conditions?

That's not the only question for Mehlman, though. Here are four more, courtesy of Henry Waxman and House Democrats:

1. Did Republican National Committee Chairman Mehlman accept gifts from criminal superlobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was Bush's Director of Political Affairs? Did he disclose them?

I'm a life-long Democrat and I never voted for George W. Bush.  I believe in Liberal Values:  I am for limited government, responsible government, national defense, fiscal responsibility, and family values.

My own political hero is Howard Dean. Yeah, the man painted as a wild-eyed leftie rabble-rouser, despite his solid mainstream American values and record. But let's look at another man painted as a wild-eyed leftie: John Kerry. Not my political hero, but yet another strong Democrat who supports responsible government, limited government, national defence, fiscal responsibility, and family values. Oh, and if he's not my political hero, he sure is a war hero ... though I know that doesn't count for much, these days. (He also exposed Oliver North's criminal activity, revealed the Contra link to drug trafficking in the US--which Democrats, at least, oppose--and investigated BCCI for supporting drug dealers and terrorists such as Abu Nidal, in a report that blasted Republicans and Democrats alike--because he cared about the truth, not just political power.)  

Six years into an administration whose ideological extremism and practical incompetence are unparalleled, we might take the House, and probably won't take the Senate. This, at a time when even the blooper-roll of Bush administration missteps--any one of which would've mortally wounded a Democratic administration--is near-endless. There's something very wrong when Democrats require a six-year-long 'perfect storm' of Republican failures to possibly take one house of Congress.

So what's wrong?

Our short-term focus on winning elections instead of a longer-term focus on structural  issues. And when I say 'our,' I mean our: we at DailyKos often chase the shiny new thing, instead of settling down for the plodding everyday action that real change requires.  

Mainstream is a good thing. You want to insult someone, to attack them, you call them 'out of the mainstream.' Labeling the multinational multibillion dollar corporate media 'Mainstream' is a compliment.

'MSM' not only buys us nothing, it costs us something: if ABC is mainstream, if Path to 9/11 is mainstream, then what are we? What are complaints about PT911 and criticisms of Time and the Post and Sinclair Broadcasting?

Fringe. That's what they are. That's what we are, if we keep calling the big corporate media 'MSM.' Fringe and wrong, too.

According to this NYT story,

The White House today dismissed charges by prominent Democrats that President Bush sought to capitalize politically on the Sept. 11 attacks when he addressed the nation on Monday night.

Senators Kennedy and Schumer denounced the speech almost immediately,  Kennedy saying Bush "should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning" to justify his Iraq policy, and Mr. Schumer saying, "You do not commemorate the tragedy of 9/11 by politicizing it."

Idiots.

You can't expect a good harvest if you don't first prepare the soil. The Big Corporate Media is the soil in which our mass political action germinates, sprouts ... then withers and dies. Yes, this soil is a foul toxic stew, but instead of bemoaning the dead crops we need to start tending the field. And if that means getting our hands dirty, well, grab a pitchfork.

The time to beat the next Alito is now--the place is the media. The time to confront the next Goreing of Al is now--the place is the media. The time to fight the BCM's false equivalence, the beltway stenographistas, and the reporting on truth claims instead of truth is now--you know the place.

This is the plan: Every week, we choose the most egregious example of media misrepresentation (taken from mediamatters or similar),  and simply hammer the individual and organization responsible. We fill email boxes and empty fax machines, make phone calls and write diaries. Repeat every week (talk about a target-rich environment!), making our point abundantly clear: parroting right-wing talking points will buy you a massive headache.

I call myself a moderate Democrat, though I've never been entirely sure what that means. So here's my attempt to define 'moderate D'--I'd be interested to hear any additions or corrections.

Are some of the following straw men, that nobody opposes? Are others not 'moderate' at all? With which, as a self-identified moderate D, do you disagree? With which, as a liberal or conservative D, do you agree?

(Note: I'm only in about 80% agreement with my own list.)

In 2000, the Angry Left said George W. Bush was itching to implement 'risky schemes.' But the Responsible Right told me that Al Gore was the risky schemer! Well, almost six years later I think we can all agree there haven't been any poorly planned programs or projects in sight. 'Risky schemes,' indeed! Wild-eyed Angry Left.

After the Lewinsky scandal, the Responsible Right claimed 'morality' was 'the single most important problem' facing the nation. The Angry Left, on the other hand, addressed this critical moral crisis with the slogan 'censure and move on.' As if censuring were an adequate response! Why, nobody in the Responsible Right would ever consider a meek, mild censure, when only impeachment would do! Silly Angry Left.