I’m not a Clinton fan by any stretch but let’s at least limit blaming him to things that he actually did.

and good old Rahm was there too – he sure has thrived within the Democratic Party since then?

and PeterK – indeed JH often has very cogent analyses – and what she is doing is having some effect, of course, but where has anyone addressed my assertion that the corporatization of the (D) Party is the cause of this left splintering that troubles you so much, and also has a lot to do with their electoral weakness since the 1980’s?

how can “progressives … mount an effective opposition to NAFTA” when it was pushed through by the Leader of the Democratic Party – and they are largely in the thrall of that leader?

anyway, this debate won’t get resolved today, so I’m tempted to say, until next time, ok?

But her analysis goes way beyond that. What she’s getting at is why progressive measures have failed so miserably, in general, over the past years. And what she’s actually DOING is to show a way to give the progressives some real clout, starting with health care. And that won’t be the end of it, IMHO.

And passing something watered down in the name of “something” is just going to be another way of saying real reform is dealyed for another generation.

please check out that Moyers doc I linked to above – quite informative on this pattern.

also, try late nights at the lake – and phrase what you are doing as gently as you can, and you may get some better engagement.

- and SD @ 92 – both terms are just kind of pure invective, and the whole roach thing reeks of eliminationism of the sort Dave Niewert writes about at:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com