I don't place nearly the same importance as you do on authority or pigeonhole political labels. Cockburn's opinion isn't sacrosanct because he wears the scarlet "L" on his forehead.

Okay, put it this way: A long-time writer for "the Nation" and the editor of "Counterpunch" carries a bit more intellectual authority in his opinions on the Left than, say, Keith Olbermann does. But hey, whatever.

Listen to what you're saying: Dissent in the ranks on the left means that there's no diversity? You've gotten way out in front of your headlights in your desperation to score a point.

No, that's not what I said in any way (where did you even GET that? Sometimes I think you do this on purpose). There IS no real dissent or diversity of thought in the ranks of the Left, which is why things like Cockburn's article or Lieberman's experience stand out so sharply, and exactly why I bring them up.

You haven't actually made any such point, you've only asserted it, over and over and over and over; but if it comforts you to think otherwise, add that to your long list of delusions. But even if you had, how would it excuse the Right's heavy reliance on fearmongering? You keep trying the tired old argument that for every nasty thing Rightists do, surely somehwere somebody on the Left must be doing something equally nasty; and it falls as flat now as it always does. (Cue Yeti and "b-b-buut Mommy, he did it first!")

Ah. The last refuge. "Even if you're right, it doesn't mean anything."

My original statement:

You look at most major issues where we are constantly declared to be doomed, and almost all of them have the Left behind it. Climate change. Economic disaster. End of the oil supplies. Death of species. Destruction of the Constitution. Loss of the environment. You can go on with this list as long as I can.

Should have added "imminent theocracy/right-wing dictatorship in America." That's always a big favorite.

The climate change issue alone would prove this for any rational observer. Heck, Al Gore has pretty much built his current career on terrifying people about climactic doom. Sure there's fearmongering on the Right, but it isn't the monopoly you implied, or anything close. Other than fear of terrorism, what else have you really got on the Right? Gay marriage destroying the fabric of civilization? Fluorides in the water?

Why can't you just gracefully concede a point once in a while?

What's really bothering you these days, I think, is that as America begins to uncramp from eight years of hyperpartisanship, you're afraid that hyperpartisans will lose relevancy and their place in the spotlight...that you're about to become a dinosaur. You'll really miss the bitter partisanship when it's gone, won't you?

Yeah, like so many other things in politics lately, partisanship apparently suddenly began in January of 2001. "Hyper" is a judgment call. Be interested to know where politics during Reagan and Clinton's administrations, just to name two, fall on that meter.

What you call "partisanship" could also be called--dare I say--"dissent." While liberals seem to be pretty happy about how things are going right now, I don't consider the potential collapse of all but one point of view in political leadership to be a good thing.