And why, especially, did CAF "remove"* an article that shreds Obama's (current [2]) plan [3] to treat elders to a cat food diet [4]?** Let's start with a screen shot:

[5]

(And before moving on, I must say that -- I just have to say that -- I'm totally chuffed when "a moment of moral clarity" can't be found at "the strategy center for the progressive movement," search for it though we might. Too perfect.)

Here, for completeness, is the paragraph that contains the search string "a moment of moral clarity," from the Common Dreams [6] re-post of the original CAF article (also at HuffPo [7]; the original is cited by letsgetitdone at Corrente [8], Kos [9], and FDL [10]).

Ask a Democrat: On Social Security, Which Side Are You On?
This is a moment of moral clarity. Right now there are only two sides in the Social Security debate: the side that says it’s acceptable to cut benefits – in a way that raises taxes for all income except the highest – and the side that says it isn’t.

It’s time to ask our leaders – and ourselves – a simple question: Which side are you on?

Nancy Pelosi says she can convince most Congressional Democrats to “stick with the President” as he pursues his gratuitous and callous plan to cut Social Security benefits as part of a deficit deal – even though Social Security does not contribute to the deficit.

Excuse me: Stick with the President? What about sticking with our seniors and our veterans? What about sticking with our disabled fellow Americans? What What about sticking with the more than 4,000 children on Social Security who lost a parent in the Iraq War?

It would be irresponsible not to speculate, so and but could the underlined words have caused CAF's censors removers to whip out their digital scissors? Questioning or criticizing "the President" -- often, the locution is "our President" -- is, after all, strongly taboo among career "progressive" tribalists [11].

Or could it have been the headline, which would indeed be awkward if posed to, say, "Leader [12]" Pelosi [13]?

So, why did "Our Future" -- whaddaya mean, "our"? -- take the post down? Inquiring minds want to know, but alas, there are no comments at their blog, so none of "us" can ask the question.

NOTE Hat tip, Avedon [14] for the catch. Click the link -- http://blog.ourfuture.org/20121221/ask-a-democrat-on-social-security-whi... [15] -- and you too can get an Error 404 Not Found! Here is the URL to the censored removed article (I had to add carriage returns to make this and the next URL wrap, so take them out if you copy and paste them):

http://blog.ourfuture.org/20121221/
ask-a-democrat-on-social-security-which-side-are-you-on

And here is the URL for the Google search [16]:

https://www.google.com/#hl=en
&tbo=d
&output=search
&sclient=psy-ab
&q=%22%E2%80%9CThis+is+a+moment+of+moral+clarity.
+Right+now+there+are+only+two+sides+in+the+Social+Security%22
&oq=%22%E2%80%9CThis+is+a+moment+of+moral+clarity.
+Right+now+there+are+only+two+sides+in+the+Social+Security%22
&gs_l=hp.3...844.1789.0.2236.3.3.0.0.0.0.100.299.1j2.3.0.les
%3B..0.0...1c.1.cMtBLkTjZLM
&pbx=1
&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.
&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ
&fp=a7e118819f5e1e5b
&bpcl=40096503
&biw=1001
&bih=550

And here is a screen shot of the Google results:

[17]

The 404 is at the very first link.

NOTE * I won't say the word "censor." But feel free to think it!

NOTE * I'm sure that in any internal editorial discussions -- if "editorial" is the word I want for a publication that is, in the end, a party organ -- censorship removal would have been couched in terms of "Not reducing the President's options," "giving the President flexibility," or possibly "wiggle room." But cutting social insurance programs shouldn't be "on the table" at all. The only rational and humane policy is: "NOT ONE PENNY OF CUTS to social insurance programs, and any cost savings returned to beneficiaries as services." After that, we can move on to lowering Social Security eligibility to 60, so more young people can get jobs, and making Social Security age neutral, so young people don't get progressively more screwed out of their retirement.