Democrats have lost many elections because they have supported voting rights for blacks. Maybe it is time we return to the old-Democratic, old-South tradition of Jim Crow. It was a time when Democrats could really win big, right?

Francis Holland makes many interesting points. It is important, from what I hear from many minority bloggers, to discuss racial issues within the progressive movement. Hillary is a viable candidate whose victory in November 2008, if we can pull it off, would be historic and would give us a very adequate, though from what I see, not excellent President. Discussing the role of religion within the Progressive movement is important (as Michael and my favorite Brooklyn Progressive, Chris Owens, argues). Daily Kos has done wonderful and historic things, but it also has problems that warrent discussion. Liza and I certainly have criticized Markos and his blog at times. All of these are things Francis Holland could bring to our blog.

Unfortunately he clothes these very interesting and viable discussions in a wingnut-style attack on John Edwards (note: on dKos Al Gore was his main target for repeating right wing smears against), a call for a religious litmus test for our politicians (an unConstitutional and highly disturbing suggestion for those of us who are not Christian and a suggestion that would exclude such great Presidents as Washington and Jefferson), and a vendetta against Markos and dKos that goes beyond reasoned discussion into the real, once again, of right wing smears. Some of his claims regarding atheism on dKos (a HUGE community) are largely false or at least are cherry picking to a degree that they are about as misleading as a Chalabi intelligence report. Furthermore he has publically misused Liza's name and the name of this blog, misrepresenting us, and he has used private emails to him publicly.

I have reached out to Mr. Holland suggesting ways he could contribute his view to this community without violating common descency. To date he is failing to take these suggestions and continues to violate common descency. I am hoping he will refine his blogging style to present his case in a manner that is more reasonable and that has less in common with a Fox Propoganda commentator.

I also would hope that Hillary's campaign disavow what Holland is saying and doing because quite simply it reflects poorly on her. When Holland arrived here I was against Hillary in the primaries but primed to fight hard for her should she win the primary. My enthusiasm for fighting for her in the general election is reduced when I consider the possibility that Holland's attacks on the most successful thing to come along for Democrats in decades (Daily Kos, despite its problems) and his advocacy of an unConstitutional religious litmus test for politicians are policies of Hillary's campaign.