to provide late-term abortions for just any reason (or none at all, as some of the fevered posters like to claim), given that he was one of only three people in the entire country doing this and it's fairly delicate work to have an uninjured woman and fetus that may be viewed afterward. FWIW, here's what I understand to be his clinic's basic requirements:

Admission Criteria

In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter's syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.

There were plenty of women who needed his help and had referrals from their own practitioners, so if it makes anyone feel better to imagine a bunch of trivial, vain sluts who decided to abort in order to get their figures back before swimsuit season, go right ahead-- I seriously doubt Tiller would have had time for that kind of nonsense even if it really existed, which there's no evidence it does.

The two main arguments I've heard from fellow progressives against HRC:

1. She's too centrist, too moderate, too hawkish, not pulling hard enough to the left.

2. She's too polarizing and will worsen the bitter divide between left and right in Washington.

Does anyone else see a problem with pairing up these two arguments?

No, because we need to separate her public image from her... beliefs, policies, governing principles, whatever. She's polarizing because she's an easy, almost Pavlovian, target for the right. While I don't think they'll pull their fragmented coalition together quickly enough to beat her next November, especially given their weak field, they'll damned well paper over their differences to dog her presidency in their natural role as the rabid opposition. And they definitely won't be in disarray by 2012. Also, there are some very legitimate concerns about HRC's effect on downticket races, because she energizes the right so much; again, even if she can win the electoral college, it's very possible that control of Congress will change hands again in 2010.

And she is centrist, cautious, militaristic, secretive, noncommittal, and triangulating, which means that for progressives, all the sound & fury, the polarization, would produce almost no policy reward. It would be one thing for a Feingold to suffer the slings and arrows of the RWNM, if he could make some real headway on the issues, but with Clinton we'd likely get all the political misery coupled with only slightly less conservative policy. Matthew Yglesias is the one who long ago pointed out that a moderate with the image of a liberal is the worst of possible worlds, and he's right, especially in a cycle that should be one of liberal renewal.

The thing I find most interesting about Hillary is that the rank & file, lower-info voters of both parties apparently see her as a sort of RFK liberal, because that's the image the right has invented, and more politically aware types of both parties tend to consider her the most conservative Dem in the race. This means that the a) GOP masses loathe her and will be enraged if she wins; b) their leaders will be pleased because they can raise money and fire the base up without having their apple cart upset by bold changes on her part; c) the Dem masses will still consider her liberal, but will blame her lack of progressive governance on the mean old Republicans' attacks; d) progressive Dems will have to bottle up their frustration and defend her against the right, knowing that party-building will probably have to start all over again once she's out of office.

What is the next attack to be: Oh Hillary, no dear it's that time of the month!

You can complain about foolish, disloyal women voters all you want, but at least we are cognizant of the fact that at age sixty, Hillary Clinton is almost certainly well past any "time of the month" issues.

Ok...now I'm confused. Now you are against Hillary Clinton because she follows "every poll and consultant" and trims her positions accordingly.

BUT, that is EXACTLY (as it appears to me) what BILL did while HE was President.

So WHAT exactly is the difference, other than their sex?

IMNSHO, the difference is that we can't afford a leadership vacuum, given the Bush-era decline of this country. Bill was an excellent manager and a compelling personality, but while he could usually deflect GOP attacks aimed at him as an individual (or outlast the clown show), he did nothing to strengthen the Democratic party, ideology, or brand past his own tenure. I wouldn't vote for him if he was able to run this cycle, either. Hillary's just an excellent manager (by most accounts, anyway), and to be perfectly blunt, the presidency ain't just a managerial job. The bottom line is that the Clinton brand of political warfare allows the generals to survive relatively unscathed, but it's hardly casualty-free and it gives up a whole lot of territory to the enemy. We need decisive victories over the right, not just skillful maneuvering.