Far be it from me to disrupt the love-in here between ljwalker and Mr. Anonymous, but Karl Rove has nothing to do with Sen. Obama's popularity.

Also, I worked in the Washington trenches during the nineties, just as y'all did. The only difference is, I seem to think we can do better. No one disputes that we've taken a huge step backward during the Dubya years. But that doesn't mean Clintonism was the be-all, end-all of progressivism. Far from it. Let's not forget "don't ask, don't tell," the health care botch, and welfare reform. You can talk about crazy GOP push-back and you'd be right -- I spent several years fighting it. But that really came into its own at the end of 1994, when a lot of the damage had already been done.

Anon (assuming you're the same anon, which is always an open question -- If not, I apologize. If so, why not just pick a name?), you've disappeared from the campaign finance/ethics reform discussion, as soon as it became readily clear you were misinformed. I guess I can't fault you for this, but it makes everything else you have to say seem somewhat suspect.

Also -- and this seems like it might be a different anon -- ethics reform IS different from campaign finance reform, and Sen. Clinton has been lousy at both. She voted against the Office of Public Integrity pushed by Sens. Feingold and Obama (and, yes, members of the House), thus severely weakening the bill.

Finally, by schister do you mean shyster? Either way, it's a loaded and disreputable term.

"The only ones who could pull it off were the incumbant big dinosaurs in big blue states. Dems who weren't in safe states had NO CHOICE, particularly the junior Senators in statest hat went to Bush."

Even putting aside the fact that the 21 Dem Senators who did vote against AUMF hailed from all across the country, you -- as you did with campaign finance reform ("It's bad for Dems!") -- are making another argument based in political expediency.

That's exactly the mindset that many Obama voters are railing against. When it comes to something as important as going to war, it's well nigh time to put aside what's politically expedient and dwell on what's right.

21 Dem Senators managed to do it, as well as 1 Ind. and 1 Rep. It shouldn't have been that hard for Clinton, coming as she did from the biggest of big blue states.

I believe we're talking about both McCain-Feingold AND the ethics reform bill. In both cases, Sen. Clinton's support was less than stellar. Confusing the two, as nobody is in fact doing, doesn't change matters.

Also, Sen. Clinton may have voted for the final ethics bill. But that's after she went out of her way to weaken it, by voting against an Office of Public Integrity, for example.

Last, and this is the most important point which you keep missing: even if McCain-Feingold hurt Dems more than the GOP, that doesn't make it bad legislation. We need to push money out of politics, period. That's the same reason Feingold was right -- and many Dems were wrong -- to vote against 527 groups such as Move On. And that's also why progressives are sick of leadership that puts narrow political expediency above the public interest.

Well, continuing to argue with anonymous sock-puppeteers is an inherently losing proposition. But, a few things:

First off, please take a cue from Clinton supporters like ljwalker and try to make your points without resorting to goofy, childish name-calling. Starting to call me "Vile One" out of the blue doesn't make you any more persuasive, to anybody.

Second:

"I prove she voted for BOTH bills (like YEA) and now that's not good enough either!!!...

Seriously, I know this is the insider stuff a do-gooder like you hates..."

You're contradicting yourself here. Anyone with as much DC experience as you claim would know the final vote is hardly the full story. In both cases -- McCain-Feingold and the ethics reform bill, Sen. Clinton worked to weaken and water down the legislation (the loophole "real world" discussion, voting down the Office of Public Integrity). This is on the record -- check the links I already provided. And that's not getting into all the '96 fund-raising shenanigans. The point being, on these two issues, Clinton's record is suspect...and worse than Obama's.

Also, you seem to be arguing [a] Clinton is more of a campaign finance/ethics reformer than I could ever understand, (the record doesn't back this up) and [b] campaign finance reform as legislated is a lousy idea. (I disagree.) In any case, these positions would seem to be somewhat irreconcilable.

Finally, we're not talking about Nader here, but since you brought him up: It seems strange to scapegoat the 2% of voters who decided to go third party in 2000 rather than the 40% of people who didn't vote. But if that satisfies your pique for losing that election, so be it. I tend to blame Gore, myself.

That was Nick Sobotka.

The importance of winning in red and purple states is downticket. Obama has coattails in the Heartland, Clinton does not.

That's one reason why he has so many endorsements from red state Democratic leaders.

Also, Cythera, you forgot this:

Latinos 55-45 for Obama.

Can we put the Sergio Bendixen talking point to rest now?

Sorry, if I had $1000 to burn, I'd send it to the Obama campaign.

I dunno. Doesn't seem like the Heartland is cottoning to John McCain at the moment.

I just hope y'all catch that serial killer loose in Baltimore. What's up with the biting?

Mr. Clinton, I voted for you twice. And I know you want to support your wife in this election. But, really, posting such ridiculous screeds as "anonymous" is beneath you.

You should be ashamed of yourself. (Also, it's spelled "Berkeley.")