A Dem winning an election is better than the Republican winning almost every time. But among Dems, who is it more important to see win? The fighting progressive or the craven Blue Dog? This is a theme regular readers will have read before from me, but, via Digby, Howie Klein seems to make a similar argument, but gets it a little wrong in my view. Howie writes:

With very few exceptions, the Democrats in the most vulnerable positions are conservatives who have voted most consistently with Boehner and the untrusted GOP minority, Blue Dogs like Bobby Bright (AL), Glenn Nye (VA), Chris Carney (PA), Travis Childers (MS) and Frank Kratovil (MD) and inherently reactionary political cowards with no moral compasses like Tom Perriello (VA), Suzanne Kosmas (FL) and Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ). If Democrats can manage to hang onto the few progressives who refused to play the Republican lite game who are in jeopardy in swing districts-- Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Alan Grayson (FL), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Phil Hare (IL)-- and at the same time, manage to shed some of the dead weight, the House Democratic caucus will be far better off, far more focused on helping ordinary American families and far less susceptible to blackmail from corporate conservatives in its own midst.

The problem is not the dead weight imo. The problem is CATERING to the dead weight. (I wrote about that a few years ago.) That said, for progressives, the fight should be for the one who fought for you. That ain't the Blue Dogs.

Speaking for me only