Reply #1: At least this story names the folks in the Democratic Part who are in

[papau]

conflict over this agenda setting for/against economic policy/populism, and "With Iraq still in turmoil" see a fight over foreign policy rather agreement to disagree on the going in, and to agree on getting out ASAP.

Names mentioned are Thomas Frank ("What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America"), David Sirota, of the American Prospect and the Nation, Matthew Yglesias's (of the American Prospect) rebuttal to Sirota along with Ed Kilgore's arguing that economic populism wasn't a "silver bullet" to recapture voters who doubt the party's positions on social and national security issues, and Marshall saying "The problem is that turning up the heat on corporate malefactors works with … upscale Democrats, professionals, the academic class," he said. "It doesn't work for the audience the left thinks will be swayed by it, working middle-class families who aspire to better lives and want to know what Democratic policies will help them achieve it," - all the while Peter Beinart of the New Republic (and loved by the DLC) suggests a more hawkish stance in the war against terrorism.

So is DU soft on anti-terror - is Michael Moore and MoveOn.org taking us in the wrong direction - or Is MoveOn simply fighting against the Democratic Party doing a wholesale embrace of the neoconservative ideology?

Personally I am with Beinart of the Campaign for America's Future who implies this is an unecessary fight that the DLC has started and which the DLC can not win, but which will be both brutal and a help to the GOP.