I would agree that these are all important points that we should keep in mind in this kind of political discussion. My personal political position years ago was 'independent' (as registeresd), and with the rise of increasingly aggressive right-wing approaches, over the past 40 years, I've wanted very much to see a Democrat leadership (in any branch) that would also respond aggressively to to the right. Bill Clinton's style was very interesting because it engaged fully in the deal-making process across the aisle, even if this had mixed results on all sides. That said, he dealt with Republicans (some of which are still in office) who were focused on stopping everything Democrats supported. After that presidency there were no aggressive challenges to the right wing, nothing that took on the uncompromising authoritarianism of the right. The pluralist democracy that would value alternating forms of leadership and balance in political discourses died in the late 1980s and has gotten worse. Whereas many Democrats were happy with Obama, he did not take on the authoriatarians in a direct, aggressive manner. This was costly, as was the nomination of Hilary.

Anyhow - tl:dr - I like 'Dark Brandon's' aggressive dialogue and think Democrats should be much more vocal about their concerns about the right AND left, rather than act like the limp dicks of the past, even if it means stooping to the low level of the meanness of the right (and there are meannies on the left, but not mean enough). My greatest concern is with authoritarianism, though at times this is called fascism.