Nannies aside, I think that what she's getting at is that there is a very small but extremely vocal and often well-publicized subset of the left that will tear you a new one if you show insufficient devotion to The Cause, no matter what your progressive credentials might be otherwise. Take what happens to Joe Lieberman - aside from supporting the war, he's a fairly conventional Democrat. But the true believers hate his guts, even though he rolled over for Al Gore like a cocker spaniel and ditched every single one of his moderate positions. Let's pick some issues out of a hat:

- regarding Katrina: if you point out that beyond the well-documented incompetencies of the Bush administration were layer upon layer of piss-poor planning and corruption at the state and local levels, you're an apologist for BushCo

- regarding sex education: if you note the religious right's aversion to classroom discussions of anything other than locking the genitalia into a steel cage until marriage, but also note the permissive left's aversion to educators discussing the damage screwing around can do to the human spirit, you're a prude for mentioning that Jesus-freak stuff

- regarding abortion: if you note that perhaps the woman who's on her third abortion (or more) has been somewhat less than diligent in her use of contraceptives, you're just this side of a clinic-bomber

- regarding gay rights: if you're fine with the concept of gay marriage and gay adoption and gay military service, but think more will be achieved by persuasion and example than by judicial decree, you're a homophobe

Too damn late for me to go on more, but I think you get the idea.

If you're a liberal - sometimes I am and sometimes I ain't - aren't the goals far too important to get sidetracked by a handful of loudmouths who'd rather yell to make themselves feel important than compromise and maybe win an election here or there?