Normally I'm in the anti-infighting camp. And, I'm really rather fed up hearing Socialists, Naderites, and Greens, attack Democratic leaders - Bill Clinton, Kulongoski, etc - for not being a "real Democrat" (by which they mean, not Socialist/Naderite/Green). It's the far left equivalent of the FOX news "advice" to Democrats - thinly disguised propaganda combined with a serious disassociation with reality.

But even I have a limit. "Democrats for Bush?" If you were for Bush in 2004, you simply were not a Democrat. Period. The only possible way I could image voting for such a turkey is if he was in a blood-red county that would otherwise always - always - vote Republican.

And even then, I'd have to think long and hard about it.

Lieberman-ing the party is the healthiest thing Democrats have done in a long time.

Secondly, I don't think the problem is out-of-state PACs getting involved, it's out-of-state PACs not bothering to gather local information about the race before they do. There are rural candidates living in fear of a glossy independent expenditure made "on their behalf".

Thankfully, Progressive Majority's local representatives do homework on the ground before getting involved in any race. Their mission is to do more than give money - it's to give promising progressive candidates the campaign training and guidance they need to win. I wish more PACs would do the research that PM does before dumping money or anything else into local races.

I can't say strongly enough how much I support "Leiberman-ing." That's what primaries are for! The Democratic voters in a given district or state decide who will best their interests. The Republicans do likewise. Then the two duke it out to see who gets elected. That's how our two-party system works, for better or for worse. Just because you win once doesn't mean you get your party's nomination for life. There is no entitlement here. If you fail to represent your constituents, you should know there's a very real possibility you will be held accountable and voted out of office. I seem to recall one of the founders of this site getting involved in a primary challenge against a less progressive opponent. This is such a no-brainer to me I can't even understand the opposition.

Now, there is a right and a wrong way to run a primary challenge. The national and state parties need to referee and make sure the mud-slinging doesn't get out of control. But I think, contrary to conventional wisdom, primaries are a good thing. A candidate who emerges from a tough (but not overly negative) primary comes to the general election with higher name recognition, a better fundraising network (plus, if they're playing nice, his/her opponents' network or networks), and a better ground organization. On the downside, they have less money, but this is at least partially offset by the increased profile (I also have an idea, below, that may help with the money issue).

Frankly, there are only three downsides to contested primaries that I can see and all three can be easily solved by having strong oversight by state/national parties. First, a neutral body should be set up to screen messaging and make sure it doesn't get dirty. Any candidate who goes too negative will receive a stern and well-publicized reprimand from the state or national party. Second, the contestants must abide by the results. Contestants will be expected to take a "unity pledge" to support the winner. "Liebermans" lose all seniority and committee positions immediately. Third, the party should dictate that each candidate reserve a third of its funds for the general election. The party holds these funds in trust for the eventual winner, whomever that may be.

The trick is keeping the party in an oversight/moderating position and not a meddling position coughIL-06cough. I think Dean at the DNC gets that. I'm pretty sure Emmanuel and Schumer don't, but hopefully they'll come around. Locally, we seem to have folks that could probably handle that responsibility. Of course, if you have candidates who truly have the best interest of the party and their constituents at heart, it's a whole lot easier...

In general, I'm not a fan of targeting incumbents in Democratic primaries. To be sure, I was pretty seriously skeptical of "Lieberman-ing" even Joe Lieberman. Not to rehash that fight, but he had a strong record on labor, environment, and choice. He just sucked on the war.

That said, I think it's also true that if we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything. What's the point of being a Democrat if you're not at least somewhat good on a range of issues? It's not really about just wearing the blue uniform - especially not just in a safe seat. If the district will elect any Democrat, then let's get the best one we can.

Of course, on the flip-side, I remember working for a swing-seat incumbent in Long Beach, California. The guy was terrible on a whole range of issues - choice, environment, three-strikes, Prop 187 (the original anti-immigrant measure), you name it. When I was asked by a volunteer why we were supporting him, the answer was simple: "Because Willie Brown, our Democratic Speaker, says that this guy is vote #41. The critical swing seat." Well, we lost that race in 1994 (partly because RJR dropped $250k in the last two weeks) and the CA leg split 40-40. The seat really was #41. There ensued a chaotic five months that ultimately led to the Democrats losing control for the first time in many decades.

As the great Willie Brown is fond of saying, in politics you only need one skill: counting. And in the legislature, if you can count to a majority, everything else is easy.

If it's a choice between a Democrat and a Republican, I'll take the Democrat every time -- no matter how bad he is on the issues. But if it's a choice between two Democrats, give me the progressive.

I also am no absolutist on "Lieberman-ing"--I think setting up purity standards is a dangerous practice, but there should also be little room in a caucus for a politician who consistantly acts to subvert the message of the whole. I was all in favor of Lieberman-ing Lieberman--because despite what Kari writes, he has in his last term not been a particularly reliable vote for progressive issues. Worse, he often spent a lot of public time peddling anti-Democratic smears on Fox and in the Wall Street Journal. Running him out wasn't so much the exercise of a purity standard as self-defense.

I know only of Tim Sheldon what I read in that article, but from the description there, he seems clearly like a guy who's ready to throw Dems under the train. I don't see any reason not to Lieberman him.

As to national PACs, this is a tough question. It's hard for a state legislative candidate to muster piles of cash to challenge an incumbent, and national PACs are a pretty nice ATM. But if the local candidates/parties aren't coordinating the effort, it does throw candidates back in the old position of having to watch the interest of their donors more than their constituents. The Democratic Party has gotten into trouble with this in the past--working for the narrow interest of PACs to the disservice of a larger, more cohesive agenda.