Chait's rationale is that allowing "centrist" dominance within the party means that the same corporate interests (rather than the interests of constituents) and the same political agenda end up being served regardless of which party is in control, meaning that -- as he put it -- even "a filibuster-proof Democratic majority isn't worth having" because nothing meaningful changes. You don't say.

The reason we cannot institute meaningful changes in policy, e.g. health care reform, is that too many Democratic incumbents serve the interests of corporations rather than the proiorities and values of their constituents. Therefore, as Glenn noted, I think that progressive activists whithin the party should try and challenge corporately-owned incumbents by recruiting candidates who more accurately reflect our values.

In my opinion, incumbents should be made to justify their actions to voters, and if they are unwilling to explain their votes, it should be made clear that they will face primary challenges. But, let's be clear, for that to happen Obama and the party leadership must not offer their blind support to Blue Dogs and threaten members of the Progressive Caucus.

Glenn contends that President Obama has been active in ensuring that corporate interests are served and that the power of factions like the Blue Dogs continue to grow.

When the White House genuinely wants a bill to pass -- rather than paying irrelevant lip service to it -- they know how to apply pressure on the defiant members of Congress:

The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.

"We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again," Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.

Rahm Emanuel, Tom Delay, and the Bush/Cheney White House have left no doubt that where there's a will to influence the actions of Senators and House members in one's own party, there's a way.  But the Obama White House has done nothing in the way of attempting to change the behavior of the supposedly obstructionist Blue Dogs and centrists whom Obama-defenders are eager to blame for the health care standstill.  In fact, they've done the opposite:  Emanuel has repeatedly leapt to their defense and attacked progressives who sought to influence or otherwise put pressure on them to change behavior.   White House threats that "you'll never hear from us again" are issued to defiant progressives only.  Not only are such threats never issued to "centrists" and Blue Dogs who are supposedly impeding the President's health care agenda, but the White House does everything it can to protect those ostensible obstructionists and further entrench them in power.  Isn't all of this fairly strong evidence that the White House knew, accepted and likely even desired from the start that -- despite the President's public assurances to progressives -- the "public option," understandably despised by the insurance industry, would be dropped from bill?

Perhaps, Pelosi is genuine, and she has the votes to ensure a strong public option in the House. I hope so. But, honestly, I do not foresee her defying the President's wishes if he doesn't feel similarly.

If Reid does not want to look bad, he just must want to try something new. Like - like - I know, actually leading for a change. He might have a hard time locating that powder he has been storing since he became Majority Leader but this would be a good time to locate it and actually put it to use. Time to kick a$$ and take names.