John Kerry as well...kind of surprised to see him up there.

I'm very disppointed to see Claire McCaskill there. If her state is more progressive, what is holding her back?

Very interesting. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

Fascinating, BooMan.  Thanks.

Suppose you scrub your ethical skin until it shines, but inside there is no music, then what? Kabir

Great list, Booman. One minor quibble: I'm from Keith Ellison's district, I volunteered on his campaign and talked to people who initially encouraged him to run. And I've never heard anything about Rahm recruiting him.

From what I've heard and seen, Keith's support came from Minnesota progressives who rallied around him in an effort to keep the old MN Democratic hacks from nominating one of their good old boys........like Mike Erlandson, former chief aide to Cong.Martin Sabo and former chair of the MN Democratic party--which is known as the DFL (Democratic Farm-Labor).

Erlandson expected to be annointed as the next heir-apparent to the seat after his boss Cong. Sabo announced he wouldn't run for another term. Erlandson was shocked when he--the former state chair of the party-- didn't get the endorsement. So he ran against Keith in the primary---where he lost big-time.

Over the last five years, Minnesota progressives have re-energized what had been a tired, limp hack-riddled DFL.

I don't think Rahm had anything to do with it. Besides Keith is way too liberal for Rahm.

"Progressive"- It's just another weasel word     

"Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history,sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal,by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal". That's basically it,plain and simple.The problem is,that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers,the original Progressives,were a bunch of Bolsheviks,compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today.

While some of us here know that modern-day liberalism was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism,and conservatism, most people do not. If they did and truly understood this history they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals",and The Democratic Party in particular,into the socialists they might want them to be.

A "progressive" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the "anti-democratic" turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe "more democracy" or "real democracy", without evaluating for a minute whether the ""turn" is really an aberration. In economics, a "progressive" is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, "progressives" are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is "too little" and not too much "free enterprise" which is the problem. They also both share with Nazis, their predisposition to conspiracies. It is secret societies, international bankers, "Jews", who pull the strings and undermine the New Jerusalem. We need a capitalism based on good intentions says the, one based on a strengthening of the "individual" claims the next, and one purged of racial corruption declares the last. Fixing capitalism is the highest and in fact the only slogan of all of the above, and this in the most trivial and unhistorical way possible. Those are the last and the only words of this brand of "radical" criticism which is actually a radical support for the society as it exists... if only that society could be "allowed" to achieve its "true" nature.

All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what.

A progressive is someone who believes in the system.

I looked at the list with unhealthy interest to see if the guy I went to high school lo these 45 years was on it. Fortunately not (for the worst).  He's been a house member from my district since 1976, elected on the strength of his name being similar to the out-going popular Democrat. Gets pork for our district, and has had a couple of buildings named after him, but votes straight liberal line.  Otherwise, he's be a crook like all the rest.

Knut

Looking at the worst list, I have one word for you: primary.

10 Least Progressive Democrats in the Senate (excluding Freshmen)

1. Nelson, Ben D Nebraska
   
2. Lieberman, Joe D Connecticut
   
3. Carper, Tom D Delawar

A) Lieberdouche is an "I" not a "D"
B) Nelson is in a Red District.
C) Carper is in a PVI +6 DEM district - ERGO

Carper is the number one worst Dem in the Senate.  

the CHICKEN POT PIE is GONNA GETCHA!

I love Bernie Sanders but he's not a Dem.