It's one thing to have Dan Savage and the liberal intelligentsia mocking you mercilessly, it's wholly another, however, to have nuns writing letters to the editor rhetorically rapping your knuckles for setting a bad example for your children:

As a teacher for the Diocese of Pittsburgh for 14 years, one important lesson I learned was that no matter what I said to the child, whatever the parents said superseded my message. What parents say and how they live sends a message stronger than any teacher's voice no matter what the issue.

As I knocked the DLC this morning, I may as well flip the coin before the day's out. Progressives need to recognize the DLC's essential utility. Our criticism of them is that they criticize us. And in most ways, that's a bad thing. But occasionally, it serves a purpose. It has, for instance, motivated the media to give the DLC a Cloak of Moderation (+5) which, in some contexts, can be good for Democrats wrap themselves in.

Thinking about populism brought to mind something I've been meaning to write up. Hearing the discussions on Frank's book and being fairly plugged into Democratic talk, I get the feeling that most progressives have the impression that the electorate is primarily poor, that there's a massive number of downtrodden, low-income folk who, if we could just get them to start voting for us, would swing all elections our way.

What is Ken Baer talking about? No one's pleased that Medicare makes mistakes and wastes money, but does he really think that Democrats are resisting efforts at "reform" because we want more medical mistakes and less money for the program? Does he really think Medicare, with higher patient satisfaction than private insurance and slower cost growth, is "FUBAR" (if so, why reform it? "Fucked up beyond all repair" kinda precludes, you know, repair)? Does he really think Democrats should be loudly demanding reform at a moment when we can't pass or craft any legislation on the subject?