MM seemed to have good fun getting banned at OpenLeft, writing a blog to misrepresent the reasons for it. (I noted that he could have written Chris or Matt first before posting about it - they do have posted email addresses).

Chris Bowers wrote a response to this, where it became obvious that the ban came not because of a snippy comment about discarding allies, but because of MM providing a bad troll rating (a feature over there where you designate a comment as pure crap - in this case a poster's annoyance about FISA and continuing our torture policy).

Aside from the little tempest in a teapot, there are some more important points.

First, the purpose of OpenLeft and many other blogs is not to uphold First Amendment rights to free speech in whatever fashion. Some may choose open feedback, others do not (Andrew Sullivan is one who doesn't allow any user comment). But a feminist and pro-gay site like Shakesville is unlikely to tolerate "free speech" that denigrates women, and it's not obvious why a progressive site would continue to tolerate speech that denigrates Progressives.

Matt and Chris and the others are not just bloggers - they are activists. They actively participate in democracy by pushing the causes and candidates they think best represent their views, what they call being Progressive, and tied into the "net roots" movement. They campaign and do fund-raising and publicize and come up with new tricks like personal Google Ads, or another one is that your New York vote for Obama could go through a local organization to register as "Progressive for Obama", not just "Generic for Obama".

As Chris made clear yesterday, their purpose is not just to build up the number of seats of people that call themselves "Progressives" - it's to build up a significant enough base to actually get Progressive legislation passed. The Better Democrats initiative was in part to counter the Blue Dogs, who may be Democrats but they certainly don't further Progressive causes to any significant degree - to a large extent they hinder them.

The people at OpenLeft have campaigned for Obama, and one is high up in Obama's transition team. At the same time, they have been clear for well over a year the places where they see Obama as not matching up with a Progressive agenda. This is not mean-spirited or supporting Hillary (they have big differences there as well) - it is simply observing and analyzing reality and describing what they see. The recent appointments, not campaigning for Jim Martin in Georgia, the Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gates appointments, comments by Hildebrand, pushing the Wall Street bailout, throwing the auto unions under the bus, having Rick Warren deliver the invocation -  these are not moves that bring joy to Progressives, whatever the excuses. There has been some approval for the Energy selection and a couple of others, but with all the work these guys have done for the party over the last few years, it's not surprising that it feels like only a few crumbs tossed their way, especially with the overt offerings to supposed middle-of-the-road conservatives (if Warren even fits that bill).

It's ironic that MM chose to portray the "throwing away allies" line as the reason for him/her getting banned. If anything, the OpenLeft folks have worked hard at building allies. I'm nowhere as Progressive as they are (it's no secret I supported Hillary and I'm likely quite a bit more hawkish on defense than most at OpenLeft), but I appreciate their clarity and reasonableness on issues, and their hard work in promoting the party nationwide.  That they've put their time and money where their mouths are, not just running a blog for chit-chat but one for activism makes me think they should be allies of anyone who's trying to build up the party.

While I don't represent OpenLeft, perhaps if they seem a little less than inclusive to some contrary opinions it's likely that they've seen big-mouth opinions come and go, and they're more interested in the dialogue that leads us back to a share of the power. Call it censorship or illiberalism or whatever you like - it's their Party too and you can cry if you want to.

Update: I've posted about this several times recently, but there for some odd reason there's seems to be little concern about Gates proclaiming that as many as 70,000 troops will stay in Iraq (re-labeled as "support" and "security" troops) later than 2011, while another 20,000 "combat" troops (meaning more "support troops as well?) are slated for Afghanistan in what Gates claims could be a long-term "ideological fight" with terruh. Combine this with Obama recently noting he'd like to close Gitmo within his first 2 years in office...huh? Two years? So much for being in a hurry about change. I wonder when water boarding will stop.

Update 2: And aside from his DoJ position to support of Chiquita execs using torture in the 3rd world & pushing the Mark Rich pardon, Eric Holder has support for Gitmo as legal as another chit against him. Is this the best we can do?