In 2002, before Howard Dean was making a name for himself, I wrote to Hillary Clinton practically begging her to run for president in 2004.

At the time, I believed she would be the strongest candidate to run against Bush-Cheney. But she was being politically craven and would not run in 2004, thinking that she'd have an easier time in 2008 after four more years of Bush. I never bought the arguments that she owed something to New Yorkers, as she was a transplant, for chrissakes. I saw it as just plain old self-centered shrewdness, totally lacking in altruism and empathy.

I will do what I can to deny her sense of entitlement, as well, including withholding my vote should it come to that. I pray it doesn't.

often being told to vote for the lesser of two evils for the sake of party loyalty.

The revolutionary spirit is dead. Progressives these days believe in the status quo--the two-party system.

And we are willing hostages.

I will vote for progressive Dems, not Repug-lites. And if anybody has a problem with that, then take a number, get in line, and suck my...thumb.

     To "the democratic establishment" we voters are not even people with hopes and dreams, but we are instead moronic suckers to be fleeced with bait and switch just like the moronic fundy voters are treated by the repugs.

    At least the fundies have an honest excuse- they are morons.

     Case in point- neither clinton or obama gave a shit about healthcare until after Edwards and Kucinich made headway with the issue. Then, they issued plans that could have been written by for-profit healthcare lobbyists.

    obama might be a stealthy progressive mole running as A corporatist whore who plans to become progressive after inaugeration day, but his voting record doesn't exactly paint him as a progressive. At best, obama is a sometimes unreliable corporate whore. As if that is high praise.

    As an Oakland, CA native who is proud to have the ONLY congressperson brave and smart enough to vote against giving baby bush a blank check after 9/11 (Barbara Lee) representing me, I am horrified with the only choices that the corporations will allow us.

    As for billary, the fact that she recently endorsed mcbush over obama should tell anyone with a mere 2 brain cells to rub together all you need to know about her.

    For me, I've had it with 24 years of dem candidates who will either lose, or suck corporate dick if they win.  

    Perhaps it's time for progressives to sit this one out, and guarantee stunning losses for "the democratic establishment" when everything is aligned in dem favor for a landslide victory.

    Sure, billary or hilbama will cause slightly less damage to the USA than mcbush will.

    Why the hell is that a compelling reason to vote for a dem candidate only slightly less willing to destroy the USA than mcbush is?

    I voted for Perot twice, and because I did, I still get to say "I told you so you fucking moron".

    billary, hillbama, and mcbush voters will never have that luxury.

    I see no reason to wait until 2009.

    I told you so!

farcical that we are hearing this argument in support of Obama, as centrist a demcorat as we are likely to find.  This is the guy that wants to add nearly 100,000 troops to the military, wants nothing more than some incremental change on health care-right direction I grant, but nothing very powerful, has no major policies that I can see that will reform our military-industrial complex, and seems quite comfortable with a goal of maybe rolling back the bush tax cuts but leaving the reagan tax cuts and all the loopholes in place.

If its really about progressive, liberal, left politics-the kind that actually work for the vast bulk of the population-well, that train has left the yard, if it was really here in the first place.  What we have left is mostly a squabble about campaign tactics.

It's one of those states the Dems can't afford to lose in 2008!

she helps herself at their expense.

funny enough, this was the topic of my last podcast of The Jefferson Hour.  It was pretty informative and addressed why he felt that he had to do what he did.

Of course, then it was first and second in electorial votes for POTUS and VP, and not by party, that was also a factor in differing philosophies.

But yea, it is ironic, but still not a bad quote to try to go by, imo.

Facts and reality are precisely why there is not half of the netroots that sides with a campaign chaired by Terry McAuliffe and run by Mark Penn.

Nor is there half of the netroots that would endorse the Clinton 3AM ad, or the McCain comparisons, or their "insult 40 states" strategy.

(Ask Speaker Pelosi what she thinks of the above.)

That's just not an argument that holds water. Part of supporting a candidate means that you have to stand by them when they are divisive and dismissive. Senator Clinton has been divisive and dismissive.

She's mocked voters.

"the heavens will open and we'll get unified"

I am for unity and am happy that Barack Obama has gone out, time and again, and competed for every voter and every vote in every last state and run a tough but overwhelmingly positive campaign. That's what all of us want to see in a candidate. Positive and tough.

Senator Clinton has not done that. As her path to the nomination through pledged delegates has gotten impossible she has only ratcheted up the hardball and divisive attacks.

Of course I am for "honest dialogue and resolving of differences" but what kind of honest dialogue and resolving of differences is possible with a campaign that on the one hand uses John McCain to slam Barack Obama and on the other hand snidely and hypocritically "offers him the VP slot" while they are so far behind in the delegate count that they certainly can't catch up and are now talking about acceptable margins?

That's not honest. That's not going to resolve this.

I will always try to be respectful and debate. I am most respectful of Clinton's actual voters, I meet many, many of them every day. I don't need to be told that they exist and I certainly don't write them off in the least. Like I said these are neighbors and friends and people I've canvassed.

But I'm also confident that my argument above will be bourne out by history. One side in this primary will go down as having run a disgraceful campaign.

There is no current path to the nomination for Senator Clinton that does not tear this party apart.

She needed to win Super Tuesday on February 5th, and barring that, she need to win the delegate count since Super Tuesday.

She's done neither. So currently she is simply tearing our front runner down in a race to the bottom.

I have zero respect for that.