basic rule, if anyone uses any of his constructions like "Clintonistas" or "Hellery" or "Billary" then they are a right wing troll. oops, almost every BHO supporter likes to toss those one out ...

More people need to read this diary.  Personally, I think it should be on the rec list.  If you agree, then recommend.  

I have.

Have you?

One problem I can not put aside is that Hillary Clinton's campaign has been based on the same sort of nasty and smear-based divisiveness that the Republicans have patented over the past few decades.  

With Hillary, it is an endless litany of what "I" will do if elected president.  Obama is the first candidate since JFK to talk about what "We" can do if he is elected. I'm tired of an endless string of "the Deciders" at the helm.

She continues to triangulate by adopting right-wing positions similar to McCain's.  With all the good he did, Bill Clinton's one lasting legacy was to move the Democratic party to the right and marginalize the progressive left virtually into oblivion.

Hillary's grossly ill-considered and inappropriate triangulations have already nullified at least four major Democratic attack lines.  To wit:

1) The DNC is in the middle of crafting a major ad campaign for the general election with McCain's "100-year-occupation" at the core.  In 2006, Hillary gave an interview where she praised McCain for pledging to keep troops in Iraq, and likened it to the American presence in some of our former World War II enemies.  They can scrap THAT line of attack if Hillary gets the nomination.

2) The entire political and economic community, from one end of the spectrum to the other, was laughing hysterically at McCain for his moronic and poorly-thought-out "gas tax holiday" idea.  Instead of using this as a devastating opportunity to paint McCain as an economically illiterate panderer, Hillary immediately jumped on the idiotic idea and tried to claim it for herself, bailing McCain out.

3) No sooner did McCain start singing songs about "Bomb, bomb, bomb.  Bomb, bomb Iran" than Hillary had to out-macho him with talk about nuking Iran.  It would be kind of hard for Hillary to attack McCain as a reckless and dangerous nuclear loose cannon after that.

4) Hillary's peculiar refusal to fully explain or repudiate her 2002 vote for the invasion of Iraq (and her vote supporting the Kyl-Lieberman resolution that may pave the way for an invasion of Iran), coupled with previous years of bellicose speeches about Saddam and his WMDs fatally weakens her ability to go after McCain on the crucial issue of the Iraq war.

5) In her attempts to portray Obama as an inadequate candidate for president, she has time and again portrayed herself and John McCain as both equally qualified to be president and commander-in-chief.  Instead of dissecting the presumptive Republican nominee's qualifications, she has validated him while swiftboating her fellow Democrat.

6) Hillary has the same compulsion that Dubya suffers from to "embellish" her story with lies that serve little purpose - and where the truth would do no damage.  Whether it is her role in Bosnia or Ireland, or her lies about why she has said and done some of the more controversial things on her campaign, she has no moral high ground to denounce the dishonesty of the Republicans.  Her latest lie, that her reference to RFK's assassination was sparked by the fact that she was worried about Teddy Kennedy's tragic illness is impeached by the fact that she has used the same argument several times before, dating back to March.

I'm not sure that the grassroots of the Democratic party should permit their leadership in the DLC and the Blue Dog faction yet another chance to continue turning the party into Republican Lite.  At some point, we have to stop voting for the (barely) lesser of two evils and demand that the party leadership finally listen to the majority it purports to represent.  As long as Republicrats like the DLC and Blue Dogs can depend on the left to vote for any Democrat, regardless of suitability, the party won't improve.

At some point, we should heed the wise words of John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States, who warned:

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

A vote for somebody who does not represent your views (even if the other candidate is much worse) is a corruption of the principle of representative democracy.  Its about time we stopped our addiction to it - whatever the cost of withdrawal.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has gone nearly far enough in supporting issues with a good two-thirds majority in the party, like true single-payer universal health care and an end to the occupation of Iraq as soon as we can safely extract our troops and close down our bases and the Green Zone.  But, while I know Hillary lacks the inner core of beliefs to fight for anything that might cost her political capital (like her husband), at least Obama had the courage to take a stand against the invasion when it was overwhelmingly popular.  This gives me some hope that Obama might turn out to be a diamond in the rough.  Hillary, for all her vaunted "experience" can't even manage her campaign finances, campaign strategy, or campaign staff competently and effectively.  What makes anybody think she will do any better managing the country's finances and policies?

It is true that a McCain presidency would be terrible for an already dysfunctional democracy, but I firmly believe that a Clinton presidency would not have either the will or the ability to change course as radically as is needed.