Having a base to push back isn't a necessarily condition on electability - having a platform that transcends the attacks takes care of that. You're argument reduces to a dislike for the man's platform. Fine, we can agree that he isn't the most progressive of the candidates. But - unlike Edwards - Obama has a good chance of actually enacting some of the planks on his platform. His presidency would constitute progress, even if it isn't Progressive.

"The construction trades get more concerned because wages have traditionally been pretty good. But even here, immigration opens up supervisory and business opportunities."

Meta, you're talking nonsense here. Or like someone who has drunk too heavily from the invisible hand/free-market kool-aid. Have you ever even been on a job site let alone worked in the trades?

I also work as a carpenter. I also don't resent illegals coming to America looking for work. The point was that many Republicans (i.e., the base) DO resent the downward pressure on wages/rates that an overabundance of labor in a market, particularly illegal labor, creates. Their frustration is exactly yours - "eking out a living, trying to get ahead."

Republicans  feel - perhaps justifiably - that their would be less 'eking' if there wasn't so much cheap labor around.

"Immigrants spin off opportunities, even as they compete with present workers. It is a net gain for the economy..."

This I don't understand. An overabundance of labor drives down wages - simple Econ 101. As to the ancillary benefits for members of society outisde that over-populated labor pool, perhaps you are correct: a trickle up theory wherein too much labor creates 'spin-offs' might benefit consumers and employers, but at the expense of the workers.

As to your claim that "the economic history of the 20th century shows an upward flow in income, education, and skills as immigrants have families and generations follow generations" I would strongly disagree. The economic history of labor in the 20th  is the rise of unions as a counterweight to the oppressive working conditions imposed by the Robber Barons, followed by their decline under Reagan.

Finally, the claim that (illegal) immigrants work hard, which I agree with, contributes nothing to the points being debated.

But this misses a crucial point: the Democratic party, which ostensibly is the party of the middle class, ought to be just as concerned about labor law enforcement and tight immigration controls as Republicans. And our party is just as liable to split on this issue as the GOP, with social justice progressives and union/pro-labor rights advocates coming down on opposite sides.

No, this sentiment has been brewing for a long time. The Republican base is comprised primarily of people who work - in the old-fashioned sense of that word - for a living, and they have seen their wages, working conditions and opportunities decline directly as a result of cheap illegal labor. I live in an upscale 'white' community, and even here, laborers' wages are adversely affected by so much cheap labor.

Also, the majority of Republican folks I know who are opposed to the amnesty program are not racist - they are concerned about protecting their standard of living. On the flip side, porgressives who advocate for amnesty are typically - it seems to me - white collar folks completely divorced from the realities of trying to pay the bills, let alone get ahead, working for wages in the trades.

"Clinton is a hawk.  She believes in the occupation and she doesn't want to withdraw all our troops from Iraq because she thinks they are protecting what she sees as vital national security interest."

She is clearly on the side of corporate power, statism, American empire, etc. etc. Sounds like a Republican to me. Where was she on Alito, Roberts, Abrahmoff, funding THE WAR ... Where is she on campaign finance reform, ethics, unions, bankruptcy, immigration, funding THE WAR ....

She's a cold hearted bitch, ideologically the same as Bill without the charm and grace. Remember, her interest in reforming health care is that it benefits corporations, not that the system is dysfunctional. Her primary worry about the impending housing-market/foreclosure debacle is its effect on Wall Street, not the people left homeless. Take out the big 'D' by her name, and that she is (silently) pro-choice (ala Romney, Guiliani?), and what's left? Progressives should be shunning her.

Jerome, you should really think about taking your animosity towards Matt somewhere else. Private chat room, perhaps.

This just deliberately, and condescendingly, misses the point.

Slightly off thread, but...all this explaining/justifying/criticizing seems to be the direct result of Chait's critical analysis of the netroots. And in some of the comments from recent posts I've detected what can only be described as an authoritarian strain of progressive reasoning (akin to an advocacy for 'lockstep' conformity in the sole service of outcomes), an aspect of the netroots which Chait identified, but which I was previously unaware of.

Hmmm.... Gives me an idea for a book titled (ala Markos's oxymoronic 'Libertarian Dems') 'Authoritarian Progressives'.

BTW, so the snarky point doesn't reduce to mere cynicism, my own thoughts are that IMPOSING top-down types of solutions to problems existing within the progressive community is inconsistent with (my version of) progressivism. More specifically, imposing any requirements on so-called 'leaders' ('you can represent us if' followed by a long list of prohibitions) is self-defeating because it perpetuates traditional leader (active)/follower (passive) role assignments.

That being said, there is a tension in any political 'movement' which doesn't quite adhere to the principles being advocated. Progressive principles are (ideally) an end in themselves; the movement is a means to attaining the political enactment of those principles. How far can progressive principles be tweaked in the service of the movement?

Skeptic06 said: "Who, exactly, within the interest group (political process geekdom) served by MyDD is being segregated out? And how is this being done?"

Good point. Especially in conjunction with "All community blogs are pickup games (except for the owners): you show up, you play."

The popularity of this site resulted from an organic process. The MyDD owners are certainly under no obligation to do anything different simply to cater to an under-represented demographic (tho they may choose to do so). The idea that they must seems (to me) to derive from a traditional leader/follower institutional analysis which PRESUMES that Mydd, DKos, Atrios, (etc.) are our de facto leaders. This is just ridiculous. If MyDD began pandering, I (for one) would stop reading.

But the recurrent expression of this sort of thinking gives insight (and some support) to what Chait was getting on about.

Singer wrote: "George W. Bush, through his veto, is sending a statement to Iraqis, Americans and the rest of the world that he intends for the United States to remain in Iraq indefinitely."

I disagree. He is sending a message to his corporate sponsors and the American people: the will of the people be damned, we'll do what we want.

Chait said: "The netroots' dream is of a liberal army of grassroots activists, pundits, policy wonks, and politicians all marching more or less in lockstep."

I think this can be dismissed as an another instance of status quo types feeling correctly threatened by the collective intelligence which the nettroots emobodies. Sure, we have our Instpundits and Redstates (who can be, as Lieberman said, 'vitipuratively toxic'). But really, the netroots are comprised of people who EXPRESS THEIR BELIEFS irregardless of what the privileged Washington crowd  happens to be saying.

Personally, I think all the so-called liberals - in addition to the corporatist/statist who wear their allegiance on their sleaves - who criticize the netroots are in fact fearful of real participatory democracy. They have been seduced by the classist, establishment line that democracy only works if you have a ruling class.

As evidence, I reference the major, agenda setting blogs, who consistently (sometimes exclusively)  post articles which merely  CORRECTS THE RECORD from lies and distortions to a representation based in fact. I believe that what the educated elites, who think they are entitled to 'set the agenda', really fear is an educated electorate.

But the attackers came from Saudi Arabia. The 'war on Afghanistan' only became part of the 'war on terror' because Bin Laden was supposedly located there. The Afghani government agreed to help the US in capturing Osama, on a single condition: that the US provide direct evidence that OBL was behind the attacks.

The upshot, US and Afghani police COULD have apprehended OBL IF the US had been a willing partner. We refused, apparently favoring the 'annhialate nations' (Rumsfeld's words the day after 9/11) option. The products of excercising the military option in Afghanistan? Hundreds of thousands of Afghani civilian casualties and refugees, and OBL remains free.

Classic: Matt writes a post supporting a candidate's position; commenter admonishes that anyone endorsing that position is 'unelectable'.

The idea seems to be that we progressives can only support candidates who have passed through the 'establishment's' electability filters.

Fine. But isn't the name of this site My DIRECT Democracy?