I do wish this would happen from the leadership, and I don't consider it nattering nabob of negativism speech, nor conspiracy theory, nor pessimism.  We need to invest $$$$ into setting up legal challenges to manifest voting problems before the vote.  If you don't think this could be a problem in, oh, say, Ohio, then look at the mess from the primary the other day.  I have told the Ohio dem party that I won't give $$$ until I see something put in place.  

It is pragmatic and important.

I didn't get your other post, and I get this one even less. So what's changed other than asking the question because basically what you outline is mostly what I have been reading on a lot of blogs. Admittedly, I don't read them all, but the points you outlined are what has been occuring for the most part anyway.

I think criticism of Dems is fine if it isn't a personal attack, doesn't replicate a typical Rep attack, and its before Labor Day.  Labor Day, the traditional start to the "political season" or when non-political junkies (also known as normal people) start to follow politics more closely, is when all intraparty attacks should stop.

Also, attacking a Dem on the left is not a bad thing.  For one, a Republican in this era can't use that flank ("how dare my opponent be opposed to gay marriage. . .er, wait"), and it makes the Dem seem more moderate to independents.  It also has the added benefit of pulling Dems to the left, because no one likes being attacked.

The Republicans, I think, do an excellent job of this.  All are held to a standard or they catch hell, but only BEFORE the primary.  Occasionally, this leads to bad results (Simon beats Riordan in 2002), but for the most part, it allowed Rep office holders to have it both ways.  Dubya is a master of this.

To a degree, I do share the sentiment that criticism may hurt Democrats in the polls, which ultimately, hurts the goals of we who desire change.

However, that same point can be used to argue that this is the best time to criticize.  At any other time, Democrats can safely ignore any criticism they receive from the grass/netroots, because there are no consequences.  When election time comes around, ignoring your base becomes much riskier in case they decide to actually hold you accountable for what you do.  Having your job on the line can be quite motivating.

Do you see the theocratic right giving the Republicans a pass right now because they're facing a tough election in November?  No, they're pissed that they haven't done enough with their Christianist agenda.  Look how Republicans in congress are scrambling to fall in line and get to work on their social wedge issues.

Of course, the difference is that Republicans have the majority right now, and the presidency.  That leaves Democrats somewhat powerless when it comes to answering a lot of criticisms.  If Democrats do actually regain the majority sometime in the future, I suspect we'll be pleasantly surprised and left with quite a lot less to be critical of.

I need to agree with this post, it really broke down every section of criticism well.  I certainly agree that Democrats shouldn't just agree with Republicans to "take it off the table."  This just blurs the lines between the parties, and discourages turnout of independent voters.  I like the direction we're going, and by keeping on this path, the Democrats won't have too much to be criticized for.

Good post.  But remember, it's fair to replicate Republican criticisms of Hillary, because the Republicans are just telling the truth about her.

I think this is an excellent way to approach things.  I like to think of it as positive energy v negative energy.  

Criticism is good when it is productive.  A lot of the discussion and criticism about past electoral strategy and policy ideas has been really good for the party.  I have found it enjoyable and eye opening.  I don't think carping on long past issues or personally denegrating leadership or certain members does us any good.

The idea that we should join the Three Wise Monkeys from Labor Day to Election Day when it comes to Dem MCs is nauseating.

No one has adduced any evidence that anything that we humble denizens of the blog might write could affect the result one iota.

Anyone suggesting a period of self-censorship should at least show some evidence, don't you think?

(We are supposed to be the reality-based element in US politics, after all!)

My guess is that there isn't any. And that the purpose of this exercise has nothing to do with risks to a Dem win in November, and everything to do with Dem alphabet soup seeking to impose some control over us free spirits in the lefty sphere.

What if Mollohan is indicted at the beginning of October, say? Do we do like our righty counterparts would do, and ignore it?

Of course, if that's the way Chris and the guys want the blog to be run, that's their right.

Just so long as we're clear.

I agree, especially about the leadership comment. It's the only place I think we should pull back from what we've already been doing. Pelosi has gotten a lot of flack recently and she's obviously made some attempt at a) courting the blogosphere, and b) putting on a show for the cameras.

Both of these are things we've been complaining that she hasn't done. Next time we want to criticize her for her failures to do these things, we should try going about it in another way: "Remember that time you told off the administration for being two oil-men and giving us $3 gas? That was great; pick another issue and do it again!"

I think this can be just as effective a way of pushing our leaders in the right direction without taking up an adversarial role.

This is similar to the "you can't criticise the president during a time of war" argument and just as bogus.  Then the same assholes get reelected and nothing changes.

We can quit criticizing the Democratic Party, when the level of Rhetoric (or campaign strategies or whatever passes for a Democratic message) reaches a level above merely waiting for the GOPers to self destruct.  Just why, oh why, can't they achieve something as simple as pinning the corruption problems in DC and elsewhere on the GOP instead of the 50-50 load that seems to occupy the public's mind? Where are the really pointed questions in the hearings? When do the Democrats quit doing things like essentially grabbing their ankles over the Alitos of our world? In other words, the best defense is a good offense.  The criticism is a cattle prod, not a knife.