The rise of a "wacko-left" to compete with the well-established "wacko-right" might not be a bad thing. These groups operate on the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi: "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." It worked for the cabul determined to impeach President Clinton.
I would only add the words of that great political strategist Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler": "You've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run..." The Clinton-haters didn't know when to fold and walk away, so they got beat in the 1998 midterm elections because they over-reached on impeachment and were out of touch with the American people.
At this stage, I wonder if the Bush-haters, those who call for his impeachment over "the smoking gun" of the Downing Street memo and for overall Iraq war deception, are over-reaching. Hate is a useful emotion to raise money and energize opposition in politics, but IMHO, hate rarely wins elections. Swing voters are more interested in what a candidate is for, rather than what he or she is against.
Many people define themselves politically by what they are AGAINST. Nothing wrong with that. But to govern effectively, a political coalition has to define what it is FOR. The problem with the Democratic Party today is that it is deeply divided over what it is for. That division was symbolized by John Kerry's difficulty in articulating a viable position on the Iraq war.
Michael Kinsley writes: "Listening to extreme views on your own side is soothing even if you would never express them and may not even believe them yourself."