I concur. We should be saying, "Sure, everyone agrees that we need to dismantle the social safety net, but we need to be more cautious about doing it."

We should say, "Heck, intolerance is as American as apple pie, but let's not write it into the Constitution. That would be too much--but only a little bit too much; we don't want to make trouble."

We should say, "Our policies of unquestioning support for Israel and of kleptocracies in the Middle East are perfect just the way they are, except that we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR." (That'll throw a bone to the ecolefties, eh?) "Well, Okay, ANWR's on the table, but we want something in return. Well, okay, we'll settle for nothing, but only this once..."

"And when we said 'right to choose,' we mostly just meant 'meaningless, eviscerated right.' Everybody knows that women's bodies are vessels to be used at the discretion of a just, decent theocratic state."

"Vouchers?! You bet!! Why, I've got a three-point plan that's much more equitable than my opponent's; just let me tell you about it..."

After all, it's done a great job of getting our guys elected so far. Clearly, only DINOs need applly for our support any longer.

God bless America--we're going to need it.™

Yuval, this gets at what I believe is the heart of the problems that the Democratic party is having. At the top-levels of the party there doesn't seem to be anyone who is willing to clearly articulate and stick with a set of core values. You look at the Republicans, and you can immediately identify the following: lower taxes, less government regulation of everything except abortion, prevent gay marriage.

But what do the democrats stand for? Apparently whatever they think will work in a given electoral cycle. This used to be the party that truly believed in the utility of government, believed in protecting common people from corporate excess, believed in fighting discrimination and bigotry. Being a critic from the left (as in too far left to think that the Democrats will ever really represent my viewpoint) I really wish they would stop trying to be like the Republicans, and figure out what they are about. To me it would be better to accept short-term defeat while they work to change the public discourse, than every four years do more damage to themselves by enforcing the idea that they have no real values.

This is a party that appears to have had it's soul surgically removed. Truthfully there has not been a Democratic president since Carter. Sure Clinton claimed to represent the Dems, but his policies were more in line with traditional (ala Nixon for example) Republicans than Democrats.

I hope that we will see a major shakeup in the party leadership, and finally get some people that are willing to articulate a bold vision for America which is not about responding to the GOP, but is about standing for something all on its own.

Coincidentally, Daniel, this showed up at Kos this morning: 10 ideas for 2008

Of course, the number of people concerned with the electorate's failing ability to rememeber their own home phone number, much less 10 points, keep screaming that those 10 points need to be boiled down into 3-4 bullets.

Oh, and never mind those bastard Green's Ten Key Values. They wouldn't know what the eff they're doing.

Truthfully there has not been a Democratic president since Carter.

Amazing. Politics have shifted so far to the right that Carter is now identified as being on the left.

You may recall that Ted Kennedy launched a spirited challenge in the 1980 primaries to Carter on the grounds he was too conservative. Kennedy would likely have won were it not for a) the "rally-around-the-President" mood in the early primaries due to the Iran hostage scandal and b) the large number of delegates given to Carter by party bosses that were outside those allocated as a result of the primaries.

Of course, once Kennedy realized the alternative to Carter was Reagan he quickly became a staunch supporter, but too late.

Truthfully there has not been a Democratic president since Carter.

Amazing. Politics have shifted so far to the right that Carter is now identified as being on the left.

Both statements are flawed. The first because it suggests that Carter was substantially more true to the core beliefs of the Democratic party than Clinton was. In general, he wasn't, plus I believe this fails to recognize that the party's core shifted to the right after three straight presidential defeats. The second statement wrongly conflates "Democrat" with "the left." While both Rush Limbaugh and I might wish that the two were synonymous, they're certainly not.

Both Carter and Clinton were Southern Democrats -- not Dixiecrats, but nonetheless more conservative than most leftcoast and Northeast Democrats.

Who was the last true liberal president? LBJ? Sure he was progressive in regard to civil rights and the war on poverty, but in other ways he was a typical Dixiecrat. While RFK might have been a great liberal president, he of course tragically never got that chance, and his elder brother was more moderate. Give-'em-Hell-Harry was a populist, but he certainly wasn't a lefty, and other than in regard to civil rights, I don't consider him very liberal either. Perhaps FDR was the last liberal president.

Daniel Maskit, I disagree with you about Clinton, but I think your main point is on the money. There are principles which should unite everyone in our party across the ideological spectrum. We need to make our party stand up not just for liberal principles, but American principles so that the party is one that anyone would feel proud to be part of.

We should start with protecting our children. That sounds like apple pie, but it means no deficits, health care for all children, and opportunity for them to achieve beyond their parents (good education, strong economy). The Democrats should stand for high moral purpose, where we define what that means: truth and responsibility. It means Democrats stand up for everybody, not just people with the most money. We should stand up for personal liberty and freedom from government intrusion, even when it makes us uncomfortable (guns).

It is possible to form a governing majority if you define what binds all Americans together under your own terms. California Democrats and Louisiana Democrats might differ on some social issues, but we can unite around a common agenda.

My point is not that I do not want conservative Dems running in conservative districts. It's a bit subtler. My contention is that the Republican-lite moniker just doesn't work anymore, and LA will be a test of that. I hope they lose, though, not because I want two Rs in the House, but because this overall strategy needs to be totally discredited.

I certainly don't have a problem with voting for the lesser of two evils, but most of us don't live in LA's 7th District, so we're facing a rather different question: should we support the lesser evil financially?

I did give some to Herseth during her special election, and this is just the sort of race where the blog community can have a big impact. But there was a different dynamic then. Democrats had an opportunity to retake several House seats, and there was even an outside chance that, if everything went just right, we could actually make Pelosi speaker. In that context, supporting the occasional DINO made sense.

Not now. One or two more Democrats in the House won't make any difference, either in the election for Speaker or any other vote, especially with "Democrats" like Willie Mount. She's not just anti-choice (and please quit calling these folks "pro-life!" Is she "pro-life" when it comes to the death penalty? The Iraq war? Are the rest of us "anti-life" for thinking that abortions should be legal and therefore safe, so women who have them won't die?) in the typical Dixiecrat sense (abortions for rape/incest victims only); she's so extreme on the issue she wants emergency contraception made illegal! Oh, and by the way, she wants to permanently repeal the estate tax too.

In this race, I'd counsel saving your money and going after the freshman Rethug in two years.