This is bit experimental, prompted I suppose by Josh's musings on birtherism, let's see how it goes.

If we were to identify the extreme conspiracy theorists of the Bush era, the 9/11 Truthers would surely come out on top. They were a large enough group to be noticed, arguably sufficient in number to be influential, and they presented some pretty outlandish things based on allegedly sound evidence.

Or more to the point, absent a complete public record of what happened on 9/11, these were people who were utterly committed to fill in the gaps and construct a narrative that would end up destroying a government.

The Birthers seem to be cut from the same cloth - and this is notwithstanding the fact some of the same people, like Philip Berg, are on both crazy trains. The point is the Birthers, like the Truthers, see a gap in the official record and are filling it in in such a way that it could end up destroying a presidency.

I am not wanting to draw parallels in terms of the gravity of the conspiracies or the merits of the accusations, my point is to juxtapose the methods of the two groups. Which is, as I said, to fill in perceived gaps in the official record in a way to maximize political advantage. I do fully accept that there are also true believers out there, who aren't looking at this quite as intensely through a political lens, but the movements have been and are being driven by political objectives as well, and explains why they develop momentum even absent decent evidence of anything.

And here's the rub - how often were Democratic politicians, even those far from the mainstream (Kucinich, McKinney), ever drawn into embracing the Truthers? The nearest I recall anyone getting was Howard Dean - and this is a mighty, mighty stretch - when in talking about the 9/11 Commission he made a typically accurate point that government secrecy fed conspiracy theorists. Can't remember anyone else getting remotely close to even alluding to the Truthers the way Dean did once or twice when he was trying to illustrate another more important issue.

Was there ever a major Democratic politician compelled to defend Truther allegations? Ever a major Democratic politician needing to distance himself/herself from Truthers or comments he/she made in support of Trutherism?

It is still early days with Birtherism, but is it fair to say the movement is already closer to mainstream Republicanism than Trutherism was ever to even fringe Democrats?

Just speculating a little further, imagine the Democratic Party had gotten remotely close to the Truthers... can't imagine that could ever have turned out well, and yet it remains to be seen if the GOP can put daylight between itself and Birtherism.