NP: Mike Keneally, Scambot 1

The dynamic between the pragmatists of the center-left and the ideologues of the far left has been shifting pretty quickly. It's gone from disbelief to anger to some sort of quest for understanding between the two parties. I've know I've linked to a lot of articles from Nate Silver, but I feel like he's stepped up to the plate in a big way by facilitating a pretty substantive discussion between himself and two leading activists from the "kill the bill" camp.

I think the answers to Nate's questions show exactly the points where the "kill the bill" argument separates a bit from reality. What's most relevant here, though, is that the position -- while a bit too dogmatic for my liking -- has been clearly thought out and articulated. This is in direct contrast to the Republican/Tea Party opposition, as Steve Benen does well to point out.

Of course, back in mainstream media world, substantive debate doesn't sell papers or deliver eyeballs, so the inside the Beltway narrative from Dana Milbank forces the fake equivalency that people like him are so fond of to the story and compares the blowback from the far left with the Tea Party movement. If I were charitable, I would say that Milbank was just a day behind the story, when that visceral anger seemed to be peaking. But the Washington Post reporter has a long history of missing the forest for the trees, focusing on the ADD-fueled horse race coverage instead of the slower-moving outlines of the actual story, so I don't think the improvement in the quality of the debate would even register with him.

The bigger question is what good can come out of this sudden, intense debate between factions within the Democrats? I'm not sure if there's time for it to matter for the Senate bill, but during the negotiations between the House and the Senate, a lot of the good points from both sides could very well bubble up into the conversation. Here's hoping.