Hardcore political junkies were riveted by the unfolding John Edwards campaign story about a religious nut, 2 women bloggers and a presidential campaign. The religious nut is Bill Donohoe, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Donohue has asserted his claim to being a but by promoting the following:

O’REILLY IS RIGHT: OLBERMANN IS A “SMEAR MERCHANT”

France doomed to anti-Semitism

According to the latest report from the Barna Group, “American Lifestyles Mix Compassion and Self-Oriented Behavior:”

Compared with political conservatives, liberals are more likely to recycle. But they are also more likely to use sexually explicit material, to have a non-marital sexual encounter, to steal music, to use profanity, to gamble or buy a lottery ticket, to use an illegal drug, to say mean things about others, and to get payback.

Granted i spent 30 seconds to cut ‘n paste these gems from the Catholic League for Religious Civil RIghts. Now, as it happens today, I spent some time looking into a new movie coming out, Amazing Grace. Yep, the movie is named after the song, which makes sense since it is about the true story of William Wilberforce, a member of the English Parliament, who devoted his life to end the slave trade in the British Empire. The movie, despite it’s riveting Black History Month story-line, is being heavily promoted by Christian organizations. Many of which are listed as “partnerships” and so I dutifully checked them out. And each sought ot promote inspirational messages of faith including mention of the movie. Somehow, these Christian organizations like, John Jay Institute or National Council of Churches, didn’t seem focused on 2 women bloggers and “smear merchants.”

Donohue, unfortunately, represents only one wing of hate mongering. His opposite numbers may not have the facade of an organization, but they are thrive in the same scorched earth campaign to attack and smear their pet peeves with the same blind devotion, faith in fact, that they are right and the world must bend to their will. I speak of the few Connecticut blogpshere faithful, spilling hatred towards anyone who doesn’t agree with their brand of religion. In this example, from MyLeftNutmeg, Genghis Conn gets attacked for having the temerity to question where’s the love for Chris Dodd’s presidential aspirations:

Why is everything about Joe? (3.00 / 2)
Seriously, can’t the netroots do anything without it being about Lieberman somehow? The more you obsess over Lieberman, the more power he has over you.
by: genghis conn @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:32:10 AM EST

Joe epitimizes Everything wrong in this country,
Every thing Joe stands for, is what the Dem Party is against. There was no image greater than THE KISS, to project exactly what Joe Lieberman is all about. It is not an obsession over Lieberman to want to limit that power he thinks he now has, sitting in between both parties, playing them off against each other. I cannot wait until November 2008, when more Dem Senators will be chosen, and Joe will be the Nothing he really is.
by: PamB @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:47:50 PM EST

Seriously?
You can’t be the progressive candidate and still beg for Lieberman’s endorsement. It just isn’t going to work. If Dodd is serious about winning netroots support, he has to drop Joe like a bad habit. Now.
by: CGG @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:51:33 PM EST

In every interview
Dodd wastes time talking about Joe, because he refuses to just say “Lieberman is not a central consideration for me, in my campaign or in the Senate.” That attitude is not the stuff presidential campaigns and movement leaders are made of.
Also, as to “why Lieberman” generally, there are a few reasons — many of us are oriented towards reforming the party, and it’s a good shorthand for identifying counter-reform attitudes among Democratic politicians; the campaign for Joe’s Senate seat in 2012 is already on; and because it’s important to a lot of MLN readers.

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:57:55 PM EST

So the impression left is that Dodd must at all costs, attack/ditch/whatever Joe Lieberman or he won’t gain the support of the local political nutmeggers.

Same criteria for Edwards? Clinton? Richardson? So far no evidence of that, yet Clinton gets her version of the Worl Wide Web take down:

Congressman Pascrell Slams Clinton On Iraq “Theater”
by Matt Stoller, Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:54:58 PM EST

This is exactly what we need from members of Congress, and I hope we see more of it. Congressman Pascrell, who didn’t have a great voting record on Iraq, now supports Murtha’s position. He also apologized and is a fire-breather against Iraq.

Most importantly, he’s participating in the debate as it’s happening by pointing out that Hillary Clinton is just engaging in theater by refusing to admit her mistake.

I said a year and a half ago that I made a mistake. I mean, I confessed. But I mean, regardless of whether it was done in good faith, I did not blame George Bush for my mistake, either, although I think he has lied and deceived the American people. I have to be responsible for my own actions. I made the mistake. I apologized to my constituents. They accepted that apology…..
I certainly think a lot of Hillary but I think that this is theater more than anything else. You gotta fess up if you make a mistake.

Clinton took every position possible on Iraq. She argued against preemptive war even as she voted for it, and then was silent on preemption for years until she got pressure from the left. She said that a vote for the war would decrease the chance it would happen. She criticized the competence of Bush while doing nothing to pressure him.

Stoller does go on to credit Clinton on better language on Iran, but the implication that certain positions are unsupportable. Which is to say, not that much different than the positions right wingers use to crowd out differing opinions.

Each of these stories exists because of an overwhelming dedication to curtailing free speech. Donohue spews organized attacks against bloggers who say things he doesn’t agree with. Dodd is pilloried, along with those that ask why, over his rhetoric that doesn’t include a repudiation of Joe Lieberman. Clinton is slammed because she won’t say something less politician-focused-grouped about her votes on Iraq.

It seems as if the lesson here for anyone in the public sphere to limit dialogue to what could only be described as what certain people only want to hear. And if that is the result, that we only get political conversations directed to audiences predisposed to one side or another, then what have we achieved?