This is total nonsense.  What this is about is the two very different voting blocks in the democratic party.  Or as i have heard on TV the starbucks versus dunkin donuts voters (or working class or Reagan democracts).  Reagan democracts dont read the Nation and dont give a shit about that crowds political views and to this day the starbucks voters just dont understand this.

A great number of dems think the Clinton's are Icons and the real question is why dont dems like you give them the respect they deserve???

Let me tell you this because i find you post really condensening.  The starbucks crowd candidates, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Bradely, and Kerry always get clocked.  The dunkin donuts candidates (LHB, Carter, Clinton, and Gore) have either won or won the popular vote in the GE.

Middle americans dont share the political beliefs of publications like the Nation and that is why the Nation's candidates always fing lose.

But i have a question.  Does the 2008 eleciton look like 1960 or 1968?  Because to me it is starting to look alot like 1968 and a second McGovern election.  A liberal anti-war candidate running against a moderate (OK only the press thinks McCain is moderate) libertain republican while the county has troops overseas.  Think about that.

david

I agree with some of what you said, but Hillary is not Bill, no matter how much Obama supporters want to fuse the two. I just happen to believe that Obama is even more likely than Hillary to be like Bill, i.e., a triangulating, DLC-inspired centrist politician. I'll simply repeat what I said last night.

I was a hardcore Edwards supporter. My support for Hillary is extremely tepid, but I will say this. Neither candidate is particularly good from a progressive standpoint on foreign policy. In fact, I agree with Jeremy Scahill who said (in testimony before the winter soldier hearings) that the role of people who want to end the war in Iraq is not to drink the kool-aid of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, as neither candidate have any intention of ending the occupation in Iraq. He also said he thinks it's a good thing that Clinton is still in the race so that both candidates can be pressured to really end the war.

And then we get to economic matters, where it turns out that Obama is actually to the right of Hillary on issues such as health care reform and whether to end or to mend NCLB (he wants to mend it, which is probably one of the reasons he won Teddy Kennedy's endorsement). Hillary at least tries to pander to my vote with her stand on these and other issues. Apparently Obama is too high-minded for that. And while some people apparently love all his talk of bipartisanship, that kind of rhetoric makes me gnash my teeth.

And despite all this talk about how Obama's campaign is financed by a broad-based campaign finance structure with one million donors rather than a club of $2,300 check writers, Obama has plenty of $2,300 check writers; in fact that's where the bulk his money comes from, even though he's got lots of contributors as well, thanks to his (and his merchandise's) popularity among younger and AA voters. But Obama was vetted by Wall Street early on and found to be a perfectly acceptable vehicle for its predatory interests. That's where he got much of his early money, and with it, his media attention, and that's why he always stood a better shot at this nomination than true progressives such as Edwards. Spend some time reading up on his troika of economic advisers (chief economist for the DLC Austan Goolsbee, Jeffrey Liebman, and David Cutler), and you'll understand why Wall Street finds him so appealing. You can read all about his contributors and the loophole that allows him to say that he's not taking lobbyist money when he's raking in the dough from lobbyist firms here:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.p hp?option=com_content&task=view& id=548&Itemid=34

The progressives who at least acknowledge Obama's flaws always point out to me that it's a binary choice. I understand that, but I've never been so dismayed by my fellow progressives in my whole life. For instance, if you are going to apply binary logic to your choice of candidates, then you had better not trash Hillary for allowing her husband's administration to pass welfare "reform"  because Obama, in his book The Audacity of Hope, cites his approval of that same welfare reform. And yet I read progressives attacking her on that issue again and again (including in the Nation magazine).

Moreover, I agree that Hillary's vote against banning cluster bombs was awful, but the unfortunate fact is that she's been playing defense with her pro-Israel constituency (who opposed the ban because of heat Israel was then receiving for using cluster bombs in the Lebanon war) ever since she made the mistake of hugging Yassir Arafat's wife many years ago. Now it looks like it's Barack's turn to backpeddle with this constituency, as can be seen by the fact that he quietly threw Zbigniew Brzezinski under the bus a few weeks ago because of Brzezinski's defense of Jimmy Carter's book on apartheid and Israel, which was sympathetic toward the plight of the Palestinian people.

In a meeting with Cleveland Jewish community leaders on Feb. 24, Obama stated that he does not share Brzezinski's views with respect to Israel. Moreover, Obama said, "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ statements/395/

I know fully well that Hillary is not an unvarnished pillar of progressive values, but her Senate record is more progressive than most people think, and by many accounts more progressive than Obama's. And that's why I really can't understand the level of hatred spewed at Hillary and her supporters on Daily Kos. It's out of control. I know that some commenters here are also out of control in their hostility towards Obama, but that's at least in part due to the Daily Kos commenters who feel it necessary to come on this site to spew their anti-Hillary bile, I guess because Big Orange has grown less fun without Hillary supporters to kick around any more.

Both sides need to realize that there are sincere progressives on the other side.

It's clear that "decent" in that post means "progressive". It's also clear that one of the candidates in this race is more progressive than the other, which is why no one should be surprised when the "progressive blogosphere" supports that one over the other.

Take some deep breaths and stop taking everything so personally.

Prickly?  If there is any misunderstanding, I don't judge anyone based upon whom they support.  Half my friends are voting for Hillary and we get along just fine.

So... she hurried along a flawed and dangerous bill so she could visit Bill at the hospital after his stroke (not heart attck)?  That is a new one.