No, he should definitely cross post at "we know what's best" Dkos. Heat be damned.

How is it overreach for any group of party members to target bad Democrats for primary campaigns?

It's not. The concern is that there are many movements targeting Democrats for general campaigns. This bullet point in particular I thought was apt: "Liberal use of threats: Defy us and you 'will pay!'." The problem with such threats is, what do you do when your favorite candidate doesn't "obey" you? Do you then vote for a significantly worse candidate?

There's definitely nothing wrong with complaining when our favorite candidate disappoints us, or in acting to try to keep him from disappointing us. However, much as in Iraq, we need to plan ahead. Don't make threats that you either don't intend on following through on or will regret following through on. (Although I started off responding to you, destor, none of this refers to behavior I've witnessed from you.)

Destor,

Do you even grasp the difference between a primary contest and a general election?. Your Lieberman example was a primary challenge. Obama is the nominee. The primary season is when you challenge candidates. The election is when you support the nominee in order to defeat the Republican nominee.

This week the netroots going after Obama sent a signal to the media that it was now safe to define him as being untrustworthy, and that there would be no backlash from his perceived base, because it had begun the assault, and therefore would not be in a position to complain about the media defining Senator Obama as someone who could not be trusted.

The Netroots laid the foundation for what the Media is now running with. Check out the editorial in today's NY Times.

The Netroots have made it safe for all others to define Obama as untrustworthy, and not worth taking a chance on. Where that will hurt the most is in the swing centrist states where he was just starting to introduce himself to the voters. Thanks to the Netroots already giving the MSM media the green light to profile Obama as a fraud, those voters will now be far less likely to even consider taking a chance on Obama.

The damage has been done, and the Netroots crowd fired the first salvo that knocked the Obama campaign down for the count.

Senator McCain appreciates all that the Netroots did for him this week.

Lieberman is an exception. He's not a conservative Democrat, he's a turncoat.

Remember, folks - it's about taking the gains when and where we get them and then consolidating in order to move forward from that point. Did Eisenhower call a halt on June 7th, 1944 because all of Nazi-held Europe did not surrender when the first troops hit the beach? I think not.

No, but he didn't shoot any of his troops in the back, either.

Some on the left remind me of the old saw about perfect being the enemy of good. The only consolation, as I've said, is that the right is far, far worse.

The perfect is also the enemy of the mediocre, the lesser of two evils, and the bad. So what?

Well, in this case "the good" are such cowards it's hard to avoid, I mean the whole "wah, wah, wah, it's an election" stuff is just so pathetic. John McCain doesn't stand a chance.

And man, Krugman was right, some Obama supporters are every bit as bad as the worst Hillaryis44.org posters. (by the way, that site is still railing against Obama)

So why did you "second Tena's Greenwald suggestion" that Glenn could fuck himself with a rusty chainsaw? Sounds pretty angry to me.

In the meantime, I'll take Glenn Greenwald's thinking over yours and Tena's ANY DAY.

Oh kitty bunny, you're so right! I hear so many comments that don't seem to remember what strategic planning is and aren't willing to allow their candidate the luxury of same because they'd rather be "right" than win an election now and then. Hence the dems have had only one two term president since FDR. I like strategists. I think they make good presidents. But hey, it probably won't make much difference to the country and the world if force it down their throats McCain is the next pres. Who cares? It's all a game. Right?

Personally, I agree, in the abstract, that this is "practicing democracy." But I'd prefer a more involved approach than simply screaming that the barbarians are at the gate. Take his fundraising initiative and start a 4th Amendment foundation, or something, and try "partnering" with Obama instead of simply criticizing. If he wants to continue playing a leading role in the debate, then he needs to pull his head out, look at the political reality, what FISA is trying to address, and move the conversation forward. That would give all the outrage a positive direction and encourage the dialog that Obama seems willing to have.

More than practicing Democracy, however, they're carping. Whining. Grousing. Complaining. Endlessly, endlessly.

I think everyone's had an opportunity to express an opinion on Obama's FISA position, for instance. And yet, the ranting goes on, and on, and on and on...

Do we really need another post entitled "Why I'm Angry at Barack Obama Over His FISA Cave"?

It just feeds negativity and drives out enthusiasm for our candidate. We're in the midst of a very, very critical election season. And contrary to what many on the far left believe, Obama does not have this one in the bag. Express your opinion. Have your say. Once. Then get over it and get back to work. We really can't afford to lose this one.

I don't think the original post says that disagreement is a bad thing. I certainly disagree with Obama on FISA and a number of other issues actually.

If you re-read, you'll see that his point is that people on the left are starting to sound like people on the far right have sounded for years.

I am far to the left of most everyone in this country and - being a realist - I don't expect that stamping my feet or whining about that fact will change it. Nor do I expect my politicians to fall on their swords and lose an election just to confirm my view of the world.

Instead, I believe in working to change the mindset, so that politicians can operate more freely.

I also believe that even the best leader will sometimes disagree with my positions. If I wanted anything else, I should be running myself.

So the complainers need to act and not just howl at the moon. It ain't going anywhere and reality ain't changing.

It isn't that it would hurt so much if they disagreed. It's that they're doing it so loudly that they've taken the wind out of the sales of hundreds of thousands of others who were just riding the winds. They're stealing the energy of this campaign. They may still be willing to vote for Obama, but they've influenced swarms of others who won't. If they just wanted to feel differently, they could have done it quietly and writen a letter to Obama. But they've made a big splash of it and their influence has done harm if the goal is other than McCain.

Hey! I hear they're having a party over at DailyKos! You should go check it out!

"You're either for us or against us."

Yet, that seems to be the attitude of many Obama supporters on this board. Either you're with Obama on FISA or you're against him (and thus for McCain). It's the exact same rationale.

You people seem completely unable to understand that it's possible to criticize someone without wanting them to lose.

As Tena has pointed out, Greenwald doesn't vote. He only criticizes others for the way they cast theirs.

Greenwads. I like it.

Someone there was excoriated for pointing out that "perfect is the enemy of good." Not by Glenn himself, but one of the little parrots marching in lockstep toward that great Pyrrhic victory in the sky. Used to be a good place for conversation, but the Clinton-Obama yelling has been replaced by Obama/FISA yelling. I won't be renewing my subscription.

I've developed a certain amount of contempt for all dogmatic extremists--those people who proudly and actively define themselves by their stubbornly held opinions, and who believe that self-definition is an indication of character. Fluidity and open-mindedness are virtues in my book. Intransigence is a sign of brain death.

Come on.

It would be pandering for Obama to change his position now, but what was it when he changed his position originally?

Look, I don't expect him to change it now, because, yes, the MSM would be all over him if he did. But I can't help but notice how they gave him a pass on his original flipflop.

Flipflopping is only a problem when the media doesn't like what you've done. Toughness against the right is insane; toughness agains the left is admirable. What a world we live in.

Maybe, just maybe, Obama can be defended as doing what's politically necessary. But it still sucks.

I think what you can't do is know Obama's mind or reasoning in this. Everyone insists they know what he's thinking and why he's doing this. In truth, he's the only one who does.

No one says they would prefer John McCain, and frankly the people who say we have to rally around Obama and give him zero criticism because of the big, bad John McCain are just like the cowards who said we had to rally around Bush after 9/11 because of the big-bad Osama bin laden.

You're trying (and failing) to use fear as a bludgeon to silence people who you think disagree with you and it's pathetic. If you're only willing to stand up for what you believe when the going is easy, then the fact is you're not really willing to stand up for what you believe in at all.

And by the way FISA IS NOT A CENTRIST POSITION. No one's vote is going to change over FISA, and there is zero grass roots passion on the other side of this issue. Voting for FISA won't gain Obama a single vote, but what it will do is maintain a good relationship with the rest of the democratic leadership, which is apparently in bed with the telecom companies.

If you're so terrified of big bad John McCain that you can't stand to hear any criticism of Obama, well, I'm sorry, but it's not my fault you're such a coward.