In politics one of the big tensions is between viability, and loyalty. Viability is acting in a way that is in accord with public expectations, and loyalty is acting to support one's friends and allies. Sometimes the public wants a scalp - and the public isn't always right or wrong when it does. Often the creaky joints of politics require supporting an action or legislation that falls in a gray zone. One of the hard choice moments comes when the public is howling for blood, and loyalty demands standing by a friend. This is not a decision that can be made on autopilot - protecting corruption, despite long ties of friendship, is almost always wrong - where as tossing someone over on manufactured charge, particularly one which is baseless or exagerated - is almost always disloyal.

Dan Gerstein is disloyal.

Gerstein however, breaks one of the hard rules of choices between viability and loyalty, by demanding that Democrats "punish", in a broad sweep, "liberal bloggers". He might as well say that Democrats should "punish" unions because of their demands on trade, or punish African Americans because of their demands on civil rights. Gerstein is acting in his best interest, tryig to use infighting to advance himself, rather than than acting for the good of an opposition party that has just barely gotten to the point where it can effectively push back against a still out of control President.

The test for this is simple: who benefits by Gerstein's call? People like Joe Lieberman who betrayed the party, and continue to do so. People like Donahoe of Heritage Foundation front organization "The Catholic League for Civil Rights", which seems to spend its time demanding that others be evicted from the public discourse and uttering slurs against people of other creeds and non-European ancestory. These are not the people who are the long term future of the Democratic Party, or of America. Gerstein, by throwing his lot in with the forces of intolerance and disloyalty makes a very good case that the person who needs to be "out" is Gerstein, and not the liberal bloggers he obviously has such an irrational hatred for.

The internet sphere of politics has been at the forefront of shifting the debate, bringing in talent and establishing the base of discontent with the reactionary regime, the Republican leadership and the conservative era. It has been the place where people have come to discover that America now longs to be a progressive, not conservative, nation. It is, and was, the place where the public disaffection for Iraq was born and grew - both in its public and private forms. It was, and is, the source for the funds that the Democratic Party and progressive organizations will need to fight media battles.

Bloggers are the artillery of this system. It is their power to pelt the opposition mercilessly, rattling down the facade of faux-reasonableness which rabid dogs like Donahoe require to commit their atrocities against decency. Gerstein, by attacking an arm of the party that is part of the winning coalition, and whose efforts are directly behind several signature victories in the fall elections, shows that he is not a Democrat, but a Liebermaniac, and people in the party should ask whether Lieberman has been a loyal player, or whether he is the new Zellout of the party.

Then ask themselves whether Gerstein's definitions of loyalty and maturity match their own.