Yes, we should just shut up like good little boys.

Just to add this from Alterman:

1) Bush “haters” talk about policy not personality.
2) Bush “haters’ support the country and its soldiers in wars they believe to be misguided
3) Bush “haters” do not accuse the president of drug-running and murder
4) Bush “haters” do not accept millions from billionaires to publish their paranoid fantasies in magazines like The American Spectator, and helping to drive unstable people to suicide, only to try to exploit even this tragic act for gain, with even more lurid paranoid fantasies about murder, safe houses and moved bodies.
5) Bush “haters” do not control any media properties remotely as powerful and influential as the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Murdoch empire, the Moonie network, their own cable network, world-famous internet gossip sites, weekly and bi-weekly magazines, dozens of multi-million dollar “think” tanks, various publishing houses, etc.
6) Bush “haters” are quite removed from the Democratic establishment.
7) Bush “haters” back up their arguments with references and, frequently, footnotes, all of which can be checked for accuracy.
8) Bush “haters” are addressing themselves to a president who ran, dishonestly, as moderate and still managed to lose the election, only to gain the presidency with the support of Republican-appointed judges.
9) Bush “haters” are addressing themselves to a president whose dishonesty has led to the death of thousands of people in a counterproductive war, the looting of the treasury, and the trashing of the environment, for starters.

Now look at the Clinton-haters.

1) One of them, the one who advised David Brock to make stuff up for the Spectator in order to see what would stick, is Solicitor General. 2) Another is House Majority Leader 3) Another is the former House Majority Leader. 4) Another is the former Speaker of the House. 5) Just about all of these refused to vote for a resolution in support of U.S. troops risking their lives for freedom and democracy in Kosovo, when given a chance. 6) Another is the former Republican-appointed special prosecutor, who controlled an unlimited amount of funds as well as the loving sympathy of the Washington journalistic establishment. 7) Another is a radio hate-monger who just got out of rehab, to the delight of 15 million-20 million others. 8) A significant number of the rest of them have their own shows on cable, care of the So-Called Liberal Media. 9) A bunch of others control the editorial page of the most important business publication in the world. 10) Virtually all of their arguments were driven by either paranoid fantasies, planted lies, or at best, personal actions that had no bearing on the well-being of the country. 11) A few of them—including the one who sought to raise money by accusing the president of murder—blamed the attacks of 9/11 on Americans. 12) Clinton-haters abused the constitutional system to shut down the government and later, impeach the president. 13) Clinton-haters were addressing themselves to a president who was honestly elected, and by the way, boasted a 68 percent approval rating on the day he was impeached.

Hardly the point, John. But rather that there are more constructive ways to criticize, especially if one wants to win. Having George Soros talk about giving away his fortune if it would get rid of Bush, and calling it a matter of "life or death" is a bit over the top, shall we say, and unconstructive, for sure.

If you think that that the point is to silence the critics, then you miss both my point and Kristoff's.

Part of the difference, however, is that the Bush haters, so-called, are more mainstream (such as in the New Republic or the aforementioned George Soros. Even when I thought Clinton should be removed, I was no fan of the American Spectator nor of the "Clinton is running drugs" crowd.

And read some of this stuff, and you will see that really isn't just about policy.

One last comment: one can argue that the "Bush hatred" is justified, one can argue that it isn't as bad as what was directed at Clinton and so forth.

However, can you argue that Bush hatred will propel the Democrats to the White House? I would argue that it will not.

It's amazing to hear - on the one hand - that democrats are a bunch of limp wristed wimps who can't punch their way out of a wet paper bag and then to hear in the next sentence that we're being too mean.

You guys rock.

BTW, if you think that I arguing that the Dems are being "too mean" then you are missing my point and Kristoff's..

Indeed, my point isn't partisan. Since I think that the anger isn't going to work for the Dems in the long-run I should be arguing for them to keep it up. I honeslty think that the "Bush hatred" bit may make a lot of liberals feel good, but that it will not lead to the White House.

And as to "propelling the democrats to election", no it won't. But I don't think it's going to do any harm, either. It does seem to be Bush's campaign theme - i.e. Democrats are just angry meanies.

But it's amazing that what is happening is that the Republicans are spending all this money and time throwing mud at the democrats and not running on anything good. Just the evil democrats.

That's because the one issue they thought the election would be about - i.e. the war and national security - is imploding as we speak. And the economy - for all the good it's done for my 401K - hasn't affected the middle class and jobs. That could change - hope it does - but the war is an albatross around this administration's neck, and it's only going to get worse. At this point, I don't think there is any way out of it. Every avenue available is bad, bad, bad.

I'm sure I'll be lambasted for actually taking political advantage of this fact, but hey, I didn't want the war in the first place, and tough nuggies if it isn't working out. It's their baby.

So, call us negative, call us angry, but at least we're mobilizing and we have passion. And although Rage won't win with the faux centrists, it does energize the base.

And I think that is what is absolutely terrorifying to Rove.

I love "John/JC/JohnC" or whatever the troll is calling himself today.

It is people like him cheering every time a U.S. soldier dies that are making the Democratic party lose more and more elections.

He is doing my job for me.

Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

It would seem that Kristoff is a bit behind the times in forecasting that there is risk if "Core Democratic voters are becoming so angry that some are hoping for bad economic figures and bad Iraq news just to hurt President Bush". Too late, it has already happened. That risk became reality sometime during the Florida fiasco, gained momentum when Dems tried to block every attempt at economic stimulus, and spread like a California forest fire during the war. Too late.